Carbs not Required post workout

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys



  2. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  4. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  8. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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.

    Have you heard about power analysis?

    Here is the definition for it: Power analysis can be used to calculate the minimum sample size required to accept the outcome of a statistical test with a particular level of confidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. 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 (n), 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.

    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.

  10. 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
    •   
       


  11. Quote Originally Posted by cmc View Post
    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'm not going to tear this apart too much although I disagree with almost all of it. But glycogen is the main substrate used during weight training If your doing any more than say 5 reps. Phospho-creatine can sustain the energy output for a few seconds, but then glycogen becomes the main source. I mean anyone who has tried to workout carb depleted can attest that low glycogen stores equals a sh*t workout.

    Either way the argument we have is whether the use of cho immediately following exercise is beneficial, or if protein alone is enough.

    I've been searching on and off and cannot find any other studies looking at this issue. The only support I can find for the use of carbs are when they are combined with protein. The other support comes from endurance based trials, which don't compare well to this population. There are studies showing that resistance training improves glucose uptake and tolerance, which may allow for faster glycogen repletion, but if your only lifting a muscle group once per week then it wouldn't matter.

    I'm curious if there is a relationship between glycogen content and protein synthesis. Meaning does glycogen synthesis take priority over protein synthesis or visa versa, or is there no relation.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Movin_weight View Post
    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 (n), 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.
    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.

    Power analysis is HOW you find a sample size for a study. This is the basics of study design. You don't go pick up a random large number. This is because MINIMUM number of people you need depend on the alpha level, study design and the effect size you are looking for.

    They did a power analysis for their effect size and alpha level and 13 participants for a cross over design is what needed. A cross over design is a within subjects design which needs much less subjects than a between subjects design.

    There are other constraints like financial and ethical concerns when you do sample size calculations. These studies are really expensive and you have to pick the minimum number of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Movin_weight View Post
    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.
    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.

    The volume is less which I mentioned in my first post and is a valid point. But I don't know if it will make a difference since insulin went up almost 40% more and still nothing.

    Can all the people who are so concerned about the sample size and volume, find me the PERFECT study which conclusively proved to you that carbs post workout showed greater increase in muscle?

  13. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  14. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View 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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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".

  15. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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".
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  16. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys


  18. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    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.

    The external validity of this study is this: after an acute bout of leg extensions in untrained subjects, carbohydrates do not enhance protein syntehsis any more than protein alone. Thats it.

    You cannot extrapolate the results to anything greater than that without making infferential leaps of faith. Hence, why at the end of any discussion, the researchers will say " we found xxxx, however, more research is needed to see if xxxx will result in xxxxx"

    Br

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    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.
    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.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by anoopbal View Post
    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.
    Therein lies the great caveat about science.

    The hypothesis proposed by researchers are very narrow and direct. In the case of the aforementioned study, it was a few biochemical processes that are involved in protein synthesis right after resistance training.

    We forget a few things wrt to hypertrophy.
    1. Protein synthesis is an ongoing process, not just an hour or two pwo.
    2. The synthesis of new myofibrils only makes up a part of hypertrophy, thus,
    3. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy - the merging of satellite cells and the hormones inolved in signalling this (IGF, MGF, etc.) - must also be taken into account attempting to talk about post workout CHO and hypertophy.

    Br

  21. Quote Originally Posted by MAxximal View Post
    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.

    However, if the study in the thread starter's post is correct, this study you show would serve only to increase sales of glutamine, as they didn't compare either groups to a "NO CARB post w/o" group.

    Know what i mean? That would mean glutamine has NO effect.

  22. It seems to me that the researchers made a hypothesis, and stopped when they got the results they wanted (tailored the study to their hypothesis). Any other researcher would do a study, and if proved correct, examine all factors that could have skewed the results, such as only doing 2 sessions w/ 2 participants. And, as far as the number of sessions/number of participants, more of both would be much better. I think about it this way. If you had 2 participants over 2 sessions, and none showed improvement, I guess you could just stop there, right!?! Any good researcher would then investigate genetic abnormalities/metabolic disorders/body type/caloric expendatures/etc. Now, if you increased it to 20 participants and/or 24 sessions, there would be MUCH LESS room for those types of errors (200/60 would be spectacular, as more of each would allow a dietary macro/physical fitness baseline for the participants to be assessed, so as to be able to accurately monitor their progression. However, if you're only concerned with proving a pre-conceived notion correct, I guess you could go ahead and stop now. I understand that my example is over-simplified by about 20,000,000,000 times, but hopefully I made my point. Just my opinion!
  23. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Movin_weight View Post
    I'm not going to tear this apart too much although I disagree with almost all of it. But glycogen is the main substrate used during weight training If your doing any more than say 5 reps. Phospho-creatine can sustain the energy output for a few seconds, but then glycogen becomes the main source. I mean anyone who has tried to workout carb depleted can attest that low glycogen stores equals a sh*t workout.

    Either way the argument we have is whether the use of cho immediately following exercise is beneficial, or if protein alone is enough.

    I've been searching on and off and cannot find any other studies looking at this issue. The only support I can find for the use of carbs are when they are combined with protein. The other support comes from endurance based trials, which don't compare well to this population. There are studies showing that resistance training improves glucose uptake and tolerance, which may allow for faster glycogen repletion, but if your only lifting a muscle group once per week then it wouldn't matter.

    I'm curious if there is a relationship between glycogen content and protein synthesis. Meaning does glycogen synthesis take priority over protein synthesis or visa versa, or is there no relation.
    If you do find something, let me know. Even on what support of carbs combined with protein vs protein alone, did you find anything that was resistance trained athetes and not done with fasted morning workouts?
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  24. i believe carbs+protein are a good post-wo meal, i dont believe some special shake is needed tho, no need for whey+dextrose blah blah blah for weight traning, a good meal of chicken, rice, veggies ect will work just as well. I dont believe ronnie or jay have post-wo shakes lol, not a good example but still, the overall diet is much more important then whatever special drink you have after a workout.

  25. i love carbs after circuit training and cardio. stops the shakes. if it was weights i was doing i'd normally just have a protein shake then a meal. CV i'll do carbs. But after both shakes i'll have a balanced meal like an hour later.

    Guess everyone is different and different things work for others.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by MAxximal View Post
    Whey and casein are the Best post-workout shake?

    http://esnl.tamu.edu/Publications/JS...643-653-06.pdf
    Not going to read through it right now but it might be the same one. I did read that subjects in a study using a blend rather than whey alone were able to eat a meal sooner after the shake. Thought that was interesting. Any idea why? Seems somewhat contradictory to casein being slow although I'm sure there is another machanism involved that doesn't come to mind.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Chub View Post
    i love carbs after circuit training and cardio. stops the shakes. if it was weights i was doing i'd normally just have a protein shake then a meal. CV i'll do carbs. But after both shakes i'll have a balanced meal like an hour later.

    Guess everyone is different and different things work for others.
    If I don't drink some Body Mortar or Gatorade during circuit training I get shaky as hell.
  28. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by ccnAbolic View Post
    Not going to read through it right now but it might be the same one. I did read that subjects in a study using a blend rather than whey alone were able to eat a meal sooner after the shake. Thought that was interesting. Any idea why? Seems somewhat contradictory to casein being slow although I'm sure there is another machanism involved that doesn't come to mind.
    Theres actually a number of studies out there that show the faster ingestion the protein is that although serum levels of aminos go up, and short term nitrogen retention seems to go up that longer term protein oxidation also goes up. While in the reverse the slower digesting proteins tend to lower long term protein oxidation. At this point I won't use BCAAs if I'm not sure i'll have a solid meal with protein within the hour.
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  29. layne norton suggests 20g carbs with amino acids to maximize the protein synthesis response, not sure if that matters post-wo

  30. holy crap!!! Finally someone else that uses glutamine PWO. I have been using 20g glutamine very first thing when i get home. Then 15min later, i drink a shake consisting of 40/20/20 (whey/casein/egg). Been working great for recomp.

    Quote Originally Posted by MAxximal View Post
    I use Glutamine
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. post workout carbs
    By hli1022 in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-20-2011, 11:20 PM
  2. carbs post workout
    By liftallday123 in forum Supplements
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-28-2010, 01:28 AM
  3. Post workout carbs??
    By AMTorres in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-22-2009, 11:07 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 12:52 PM
Log in
Log in