anoopbal
Member
- Awards
- 0
The recent study shows that carbs are not required in post workout protein shake:
Carbs Not Required for Your Workout Protein Shake
Carbs Not Required for Your Workout Protein Shake
Carbs Not Required for Your Workout Protein ShakeBEGINNER | December 19 2010The recent study shows that carbs are not required in post workout protein shake:
Carbs Not Required for Your Workout Protein Shake
What nutrients are there in carbs? particularly what tends to get used postworkout, maltodextrin or dextrose. I'll give you a hint - none. nothing but excess calories. Which isn't all bad, but is only important as part of your overall diet, the timing is meaningless.I like to look at it the other way. If you are building muscle, why would you not take advantage of your workout by loading up on nutrients post workout?
and blunt gh release too.The insulin spike can used to blunt cortisol and improve the cortisol:testosterone ratio.
2 trials of leg extensions on "recreationally active" participants is hardly an applicable sample size. The study was also not calorically controlled, which makes a huge difference (duh).The recent study shows that carbs are not required in post workout protein shake:
Carbs Not Required for Your Workout Protein Shake
This study would have been applicable if most people only used carbs post-training. EVERYONE knows to take protein after training and it is best to do so in conjunction with carbs.Supplementing with glutamine enhances muscle glycogen synthesis.
by Paul Cribb, B.H.Sci HMS
Muscle glycogen is the storage form carbohydrate and the primary fuel of intense exercise. For bodybuilders, glycogen-full muscles mean a greater work capacity, faster recovery and muscle growth. Many bodybuilders restrict their carbohydrate intake in an effort to remain lean, this can create low muscle glycogen levels that limit recovery and the ability to train intensely. This study demonstrated that taking glutamine straight after training stimulates glycogen synthesis in muscles and appears just as effective at restoring glycogen levels as a high-dose of carbohydrates.
The participants in this study completed three glycogen-depleting weight training sessions. After each session they received one of three different drinks (by a systemic rotation), a carbohydrate solution (61-grams), a glutamine solution (8-grams), or a combination of both. The muscle biopsy results revealed that 8 grams of glutamine was as effective as 61-grams of glucose for restoring muscle glycogen levels, while the combination of glucose and glutamine restored whole body glycogen levels more effectively than either supplement taken separately.
These findings are fantastic for competitive bodybuilders, wrestlers, and other athletes that may restrict carbohydrate intake yet require high muscle glycogen levels for optimal performance. These results also have important implications for those that follow a low-carb diet. Taking an 8-gram serving of glutamine after exercise will restore muscle glycogen levels as effectively as a high dose of glucose. This means bodybuilders and other athletes can replenish vital muscle glycogen levels with minimal amounts of carbohydrates! Pre-contest bodybuilders can use glutamine in their carb loading phase to enhance muscle glycogen accumulation.
Bodybuilders and other strength athletes should aim for rapid replenishment of muscle glycogen stores straight after exercise. By adding glutamine to your post-workout meals you will enhance the replenishment of vital muscle glycogen and whole body energy stores.
This research demonstrates more important benefits of glutamine supplementation for athletes. Glutamine remains one of the most underrated, research-proven performance enhancing supplements an athlete can use.
J.Appl.Physiol.86;6:1770-1777, 1999.
YESSSS!!!!!Glutamine increases glycogen synthesis and replenishes glutamine levels which is a strong indicator for overtraining.
In low carb scenarios it works well.
because its about total daily calories, please show me somewhere where its been proven to be advantageous to take in high amounts of carbs any time? I'd rather have my total calories spread though the day more evenly than slam an extra 200 cals in fairly useless sugars right post workout and then have to clip those calories out of my solid food meal I have an hour later.Why wouldn't you take a high amount of carbs/calories post workout if you can afford it? It is the only time of the day I can take that much sugar without falling asleep afterwards.
You can get nutrients post workout if you went with fresh fruit juices (which I have done). I wouldn't drink a vast amount of grape juice at any other time of the day for the reason above.
Interesting study.Whey and casein are the Best post-workout shake?
http://esnl.tamu.edu/Publications/JSCR-20-3-643-653-06.pdf
did you read the study?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3132449
"The results suggest that delaying the ingestion of a carbohydrate supplement post-exercise will result in a reduced rate of muscle glycogen storage."
This was comparing an identical carbohydrate solution taken immediately post workout to two hours post workout.
so a) cyclists not weight lifters b) was only measured at 0,2 + 4 hours post exercise.Twelve male cyclists exercised continuously for 70 min on a cycle ergometer at 68% VO2max, interrupted by six 2-min intervals at 88% VO2max, on two separate occasions. A 25% carbohydrate solution (2 g/kg body wt) was ingested immediately postexercise (P-EX) or 2 h postexercise (2P-EX). Muscle biopsies were taken from the vastus lateralis at 0, 2, and 4 h postexercise.
But for bodybuilding, it is equal. This is a bodybuilding site, not a cyclist site by the following morning, your glycogen reserves are at or near 100% whether you have immediate carbs or not.Of course I read the study.
My point is that there are benefits to timing of carbohydrate ingestion and it isn't necessarily equal to 'spreading them throughout the day' as you suggested. The laws of thermodynamics stand but there is no denying the hormonal influence.
There isn't any scientific backing for that 150g at that time making any positive difference to body comp or lean mass amount, but if it seems to be working for you then stick to it.Once again, if I am trying to build muscle and I can afford to ingest that much sugar for a highly anabolic insulin spike without putting on fat then I will do that. At the moment I can ingest 150g of carbs dextrose/maltodextrin usually without my bodyfat going up, if my bodyfat isn't going up I am going to consume as much as I can post workout.
Or i'm being verbally battered by my 6 year old over christmas presents to the point where I can't think.I must be communicating badly?
Regarding glycogen replenishment in bodybuilding. I wrote this in post #5- "Carbs aren't 'required' post workout. Glycogen levels are shown to replenish in study groups who drank just water."
Regarding time of day comment. In post #11- "Why wouldn't you take a high amount of carbs/calories post workout if you can afford it? It is the only time of the day I can take that much sugar without falling asleep afterwards." -
Nothing new there.Whey and casein are the Best post-workout shake?
http://esnl.tamu.edu/Publications/JSCR-20-3-643-653-06.pdf
If it doesn't show the benefits on beginners, I don't expect to see anything in trained. Trained athletes are shown to have much less damage than beginners.2 trials of leg extensions on "recreationally active" participants is hardly an applicable sample size. The study was also not calorically controlled, which makes a huge difference (duh).
I have bolded my answer in your post. Resistance training is different from endurance training. I don't see to much glycogen getting depleted unless you are doing lot of volume and high rep sets.The point of post workout carbs is for the resynthesis of glycogen, not to blunt protein degradation. Several studies have shown the benefit of adding protein To pwo carbs following endurance training leads to faster recovery of glycogen and reduced protein degradation than carbs alone.
There was no mention of a calorically controlled diet. Arguing that a short-term study is better than a long-term study is just asinine. That's a basic research principle: the larger n is (whether it be trials and/or participants), the higher the reliability.If it doesn't show the benefits on beginners, I don't expect to see anything in trained. Trained athletes are shown to have much less damage than beginners.
The study just like any other protein study is obviously calorie controlled. these acute studies are much better than long term studies where we got no clue what they ate during a 12 week period unless you give them food packets. And they all came after an over night fast too.
Those things are pretty much the basics when you do a protein study. Phillips is one of the top researchers in this field if you are unaware. From the study:There was no mention of a calorically controlled diet. Arguing that a short-term study is better than a long-term study is just asinine. That's a basic research principle: the larger n is (whether it be trials and/or participants), the higher the reliability.
n could be either trials or subjects. Ideally, the number is high for both of them because it leaves less chance for the numbers to occur due to random variability. Like I said, if you honestly buy that 2 sessions of leg extensions really means anything, then you're just foolish.Those things are pretty much the basics when you do a protein study. Phillips is one of the top researchers in this field if you are unaware. From the study:
"Participants were asked to refrain from heavy leg exercise for 72 h prior to each of the trials, and to refrain from alcohol, caffeine, and other drugs for 24 h prior to each of the trials. Participants kept a food record for the day before their first trial and were asked to replicate the diet and approximate eating times before the second trial. Participants were only permitted to consume water during the 10h before each trial, and they were asked to obtain a full night of sleep on the evenings before each trial."
And what has long term study got to do with the sample size n?
And read it again what I wrote: I meant you cannot completely control someones diet in long term study unless you are feeding them food packets or lock them up in a building which is usually a problem with body composition studies.
I honestly don't think you understand the study. what do you really mean by trials here?n could be either trials or subjects. Ideally, the number is high for both of them because it leaves less chance for the numbers to occur due to random variability. Like I said, if you honestly buy that 2 sessions of leg extensions really means anything, then you're just foolish.
Wow, you've just displayed that you have zero idea what you're talking about when it comes to research. It is a fundamental principle that the larger n is for a given study, the greater the statistical power becomes along with a smaller confidence interval.I honestly don't think you understand the study. what do you really mean by trials here?
This study is cross over design. you do one sets of measurements and the next time after a washout period you do the other one.Within subjects designs like these eliminate problems with genetics and motivation factors since you are using the same subjects.
The sample size is determined by a power analysis before the study (which they did). You need just enough sample to see if you can find a significant difference. You can make any difference statistically significant, if you have a high enough sample size. So more doesn't mean good.
First, nobody ever brought up the thing about n. You wrote two trials of leg extensions is not enough and you need more trials. still trying to understand what you mean there.Wow, you've just displayed that you have zero idea what you're talking about when it comes to research. It is a fundamental principle that the larger n is for a given study, the greater the statistical power becomes along with a smaller confidence interval.
If you can't understand why n should be large, then you should stop making making broad conclusions on a given study. Understanding n is covered on the first day of any decent experimental design class, which I gather you have never taken.
This is where you said that it. Not only is this wrong (the higher n is, the greater chance your results will be accurate and no due to random chance), but it shows a lack of understanding of scientific research.I honestly don't think you understand the study. what do you really mean by trials here?
This study is cross over design. you do one sets of measurements and the next time after a washout period you do the other one.Within subjects designs like these eliminate problems with genetics and motivation factors since you are using the same subjects.
The sample size is determined by a power analysis before the study (which they did). You need just enough sample to see if you can find a significant difference. You can make any difference statistically significant, if you have a high enough sample size. So more doesn't mean good.
Like I said, n can represent either number of subjects or, in this case, number of trials. 2 trials doesn't mean a damn thing, especially on a isolation exercise such as a leg extension. Your position regarding sample size makes absolutely no sense. You WANT as large of a sample group of subjects as possible, but it is often not plausible.First, nobody ever brought up the thing about n. You wrote two trials of leg extensions is not enough and you need more trials. still trying to understand what you mean there.
Second, where did i say more n do not mean more statistical power. Read my post again.
You can make even a 5 lb difference in strength statistically significant if you have a large sample size. So the goal of a study is not find the LARGEST sample size, but just enough to have it significant to prove that there is a meaningful difference.
And no reason start being condescending in your posts.
Rea-read my post again. It means the greater the n, greater statistical power. That doesn't mean you go for the highest number of n as possible. that's why you do a power analysis. To find the least number of sample to make your difference statistically significant.This is where you said that it. Not only is this wrong (the higher n is, the greater chance your results will be accurate and no due to random chance), but it shows a lack of understanding of scientific research.
Can you elaborate the "two trials means a damn thing" and "1000's of trials done" things.Like I said, n can represent either number of subjects or, in this case, number of trials. 2 trials doesn't mean a damn thing, especially on a isolation exercise such as a leg extension. Your position regarding sample size makes absolutely no sense. You WANT as large of a sample group of subjects as possible, but it is often not plausible.
For example: if you have a test group of 10 and 4 show an improvement, then that is an impressive statistic; however, if you expand the sample size to 100 and only 13 show improvement, then it is not nearly as effective or as high of a ratio. Why else do you think there are 1000's of trials done on medications? You want to weed out the data and find out if you can reject the null hypothesis or if the p-value is too high to reject the null hypothesis.
Restoring muscle glycogen is important only when doing endurance events. Normal eating will restore glycogen for regular weight workouts. If you need to carbo-load before a bodybuilding contest, for example, to look as cut as possible you would then carbo-load. But this is not a recommended practice for normal weight workouts.
One of the belief is that carbo loading or glycogen loading increases your power or maximum aerobic output. The amount of glycogen in your muscles does nothing for strength, power or V02 max. it simply enables you to continue longer at your maximum aerobic pace. Far from increasing power, for short events (less than 2 hours), glycogen loading is a definite liability. 1. There is insufficient exercise to use the extra glycogen. 2. More important, doubling your glycogen store will increase your water and glycogen weight by 4-5lbs which will reduce your performance for shorter workouts. Extra glycogen will also create tightness and stiffness of muscles. -Colgan Institute
I do understand the definition. You got to know a bit more about hypothesis testing and statistical significance to understand further beyond the usual "more sample size". For the 4th time, nobody ever said power will not go up with more n.Your not understanding the definition of statistical power, and reading the definition on wikipedia doesn't do your argument justice. Statistical power is basically how much you can rely on a statistical test to support or reject the hypothesis. It is related to sample size, and the larger the sample size , the more statistical power you have. You don't want to have the minimum sample size needed to Accept an outcome, you want the largest sample size possible to maximize validity.
There was another study in the article which compared 30 gms and 90 gms of carbs + amino acids post workout which showed no difference whci further strengthens this study.This is the only study I've been able to locate looking at this matter. one study involving 13 recreational subjects performing considerably less volume than most on this website, is not enough to make the claim that post workout carbs aren't needed after weight training. But it does spark interesting debates, and opens the door formmore research,'so it's still a good post.
2 trials, which in this instance refers to the 2 sessions of leg extensions, means NOTHING. Honestly, what the hell can you really gather from a study where there are 2 freaking trials? Any decent study will last at least 8 weeks with a preferred length of 12. The more trials you haven, then the more data you'll gather regarding a particular topic. Using this study for evidence regarding the efficacy of carbs is like applying a fishbowl to the ocean.Can you elaborate the "two trials means a damn thing" and "1000's of trials done" things.
I hope you understand that it is SINGLE study and by "trial" means the 2 separate groups for carbs and carbs +protein.
Ever heard of acute studies? You prove your hypothesis with an acute study and then if favourable go on to a long term study. That is how research works. Long term studies are expensive and you have to have strong basis for doing it than just anecdotal evidence.2 trials, which in this instance refers to the 2 sessions of leg extensions, means NOTHING. Honestly, what the hell can you really gather from a study where there are 2 freaking trials? Any decent study will last at least 8 weeks with a preferred length of 12. The more trials you haven, then the more data you'll gather regarding a particular topic. Using this study for evidence regarding the efficacy of carbs is like applying a fishbowl to the ocean.
Nope. Medical studies involve 4 phase trials. It only goes to Phase 1 if the hypothesis/mechanisms is proved in an vitro acute study and/or animal studies. Once it is favourbale it goes into phase 1.Regarding medical studies, there are 1000's, if not 10's of 1000's, of trials done to gather conclusive data about the efficacy of the drug. The greater the population is represented in the data, the greater the chance it can be applied.
Honestly, does 13 people doing 2 trials of leg extensions mean anything? No. It is a step, albeit a baby one, in the right direction, but nothing of merit can be extrapolated from this data.
The way you're defending this sounds like you're the one that did it yourself. Look, it's a poor study design with very limited application. Their is no merit from this study that can be applied to strength, aesthetic, or endurance sports.Ever heard of acute studies? You prove your hypothesis with an acute study and then if favourable go on to a long term study. That is how research works. Long term studies are expensive and you have to have strong basis for doing it than just anecdotal evidence.
Leg extensions is the perfect exercise for studies like this. It's an isolation exercise and can target the muscle and have less problems with skill levels.
Nope. Medical studies involve 4 phase trials. It only goes to Phase 1 if the hypothesis/mechanisms is proved in an vitro acute study and/or animal studies. Once it is favourbale it goes into phase 1.
And please do not go back to his more the better. There is more to sample size than "more is better".
Can you show the study with the best design and applicablity that you talk about that you found showing that carbs are useful after your workouts?The way you're defending this sounds like you're the one that did it yourself. Look, it's a poor study design with very limited application. Their is no merit from this study that can be applied to strength, aesthetic, or endurance sports.
Check out all of the work done by Tipton and Ivy. It;s not exactly ground breaking information that carbs+protein make for the best post-training meal.Can you show the study with the best design and applicablity that you talk about that you found showing that carbs are useful after your workouts?
And you don't understand this fieid hence. Phillips is one of the top exercise researchers who has been doing these type of studies. They know a bit of study design and sample size.
It does not further strengthen the study we are talking about. It may help to support the authors point, but it does not strengthen the study.There was another study in the article which compared 30 gms and 90 gms of carbs + amino acids post workout which showed no difference whci further strengthens this study.
There are lot of studies done by Tipton and Ivy. Can you point me to the SPECIFIC ones in question pls.Check out all of the work done by Tipton and Ivy. It;s not exactly ground breaking information that carbs+protein make for the best post-training meal.
Therein lies the great caveat about science.There are lot of studies done by Tipton and Ivy. Can you point me to the SPECIFIC ones in question pls.
It is different having a hypothesis and way different proving that hypothesis. I haven't come across any which tested specifically the hypothesis of requirement of carbs. I will wait for your references.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Carbs Pre-Workout while cutting? | Weight Loss | 15 | ||
ProSynthesis-17 w/ Carbs? | Supplements | 22 | ||
Fat, Carbs, and Maintenance | Nutrition / Health | 7 | ||
Post lift carbs | Nutrition / Health | 38 | ||
Why so many carbs required during CKD carb-up? | Weight Loss | 20 |