Carbs not Required post workout

[anoopbal]

The recent study shows that carbs are not required in post workout protein shake:

Carbs Not Required for Your Workout Protein Shake

 

[FL3X MAGNUM]

I'm sure it's an interesting read....but I can't bring myself to open it and read. Long live my carbs.

 

[Whacked]

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 ShakeBEGINNER | December 19 2010

The belief that carbs are required in your post workout protein shake is so established that the debate has been more about whether to take high gi or low gi carbs, if waxy maize is better than dextrose. and so on. But this recent study shows that carbs may not be required in the first place.


Why carbs were needed in your protein shake?
Protein break down: Protein breakdown is increased after workouts. Carbs increase insulin levels and can blunt protein breakdown after your workouts. This is the major reason why carbs are added with protein shakes.

Protein Synthesis: Carbs can increase insulin levsl and slightly increase protein synthesis.

Glycogen: Restore glycogen in the muscle. Unless you are doing a lot of high reps, glycogen is not really depleted with weight training.

What was the study design?
9 recreationally active subjects were randomly assigned to a Protein only group and a protein + carbs group.
Participants performed 2 trials seperated by 7 days of 4 sets of leg extenions ( 8-12) for failure after an overnight fast.
The protein group consumed 25 gms of whey protein while the protein+carbs group consumed the protein with 50 gms of malto dextrin
What were the results of the study?
As predicted, the glucose and insulin levels was significantly greater for the protein +carbs group
But, guess what, there was no difference in protein synthesis or protein breakdown between the protein only group and the protein plus carbs group.
Are there other studies to support?
30 gms vs 90 gms: Another recent study looked if 90 gms of carbs +amino acids can decrease protein breakdown compared to 30gms+amino acids after resistance training. But they didn’t find any significant difference between the groups.

Though study lacked a group with only protein to see if there is any difference if only protein was ingested, the results are consistent with this study.

Practical Applications
There is no reason to add carbs in your post wrokout shake to decrease protein breakdown or increase protein synthesis.
The protein itself in the shake is enough to increase insulin levels and decrease protein breakdown to the maximum extent

 

[MAxximal]

I use Glutamine

 

[bdcc]

Carbs aren't 'required' post workout. Glycogen levels are shown to replenish in study groups who drank just water.

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?

The insulin spike can used to blunt cortisol and improve the cortisol:testosterone ratio.

If I was solely trying to lose fat then I would go with a high dose of glutamine and glycine.

 

[ZiR RED]

Glutamine ..oi vey.

The studies done with glutamine that have yielded positive results in skeletal muscle have generally incorporated an IV drip and more often than not were in burn or accident victims.

In the studies where glutamine was ingested orally, the increase in muscle mass was SMOOTh muscle (i.e.: intestinal).

Further, there is a lack of well set up studies that show glutmine aids in recovery or muscle growth.

As to the study, I would be interested to see levels of protein synthesis and degradation up to 24 hours following resistance training.
Secondly, for those consuming carbohydrates, simple nutrient partitioning theories state that the best time to consume CHO is post workout. Glycogen is partially depleted (4 x 8 leg extensions is not a very demanding lower body workout), glycogen synthase is increased, and Glut-4 proteins are translocated to the surface of the muscle cell. Together, this creates an ideal environment for optimal glucose disposal into the muscle cell.

Br

 

[MAxximal]

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.

 

[bdcc]

Glutamine increases glycogen synthesis and replenishes glutamine levels which is a strong indicator for overtraining.

In low carb scenarios it works well.

 

[bdcc]

Admittedly this topic has been covered so many times lol.

 

[EasyEJL]

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?

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.

The insulin spike can used to blunt cortisol and improve the cortisol:testosterone ratio.

and blunt gh release too.

 

[bdcc]

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.

 

[Rodja]

The recent study shows that carbs are not required in post workout protein shake:

Carbs Not Required for Your Workout Protein Shake

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).

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.

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.

 

[MAxximal]

Glutamine increases glycogen synthesis and replenishes glutamine levels which is a strong indicator for overtraining.

In low carb scenarios it works well.

YESSSS!!!!!

 

[EasyEJL]

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.

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.

I've never found a study showing that carbs + protein is better than protein alone after workouts other than fasted first thing in the morning workouts.

 

[MAxximal]

Whey and casein are the Best post-workout shake?

http://esnl.tamu.edu/Publications/JSCR-20-3-643-653-06.pdf

 

[bdcc]

I use it to take advantage of the anabolic nature of insulin at the time when I am most insulin sensitive.

I can say wholeheartedly that I am leaner doing this than consuming my carb ration in smaller amounts of carbs throughout the day.

 

[bdcc]

Whey and casein are the Best post-workout shake?

http://esnl.tamu.edu/Publications/JSCR-20-3-643-653-06.pdf

Interesting study.

 

[bdcc]

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.

 

[Movin_weight]

The original article posted is garbage, and basically someone summing upmtwo studies they dont understand. 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.

So basically in regards to post workout carbs it's going to depend on your training. If your doing 5x5 workouts with long rest periods, your not using up alot of glycogen, and won't need to pound them with your shake. High volume high rep workouts, you burn up glycogen rapidly and will want to replace it pwo. However, i agree with easyej that you don't need mass quantities of carbs, just 20g or 30g to provide enough substrate til urnnext meal. It's not a free formall pwo, u still will get fat.

As for glutamine, it's an awesome compound that can be converted to glucose and be used for energy, or stored as glycogen. It also helps with them clearing of toxic nitrogen
During periods of high protein breakdown (pwo). Definitely a great addition after an intense training session.

 

[Movin_weight]

But then again the research we have mostly pertains to athletes trying to maximize performance on a daily basis,'and cannot be directly related to bodybuilding,'where body comp is the main goal.

 

[Rodja]

Surprised this hasn't been added, too: there is a huge difference in eating for performance and eating for aesthetics. If you're training 2x/day for a sport, then you'll need a lot of carbs after training (simple and complex).

 

[MAxximal]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045172

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16896166

 

[EasyEJL]

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.

did you read the study?

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.

so a) cyclists not weight lifters b) was only measured at 0,2 + 4 hours post exercise.

Yes thats valuable if you are doing endurance sports, and may have more than one session a day (where you need to replenish glycogen before the next event). Meaningless from a bodybuilding perspective where you don't likely in 90 minutes of lifting hit 50% of V02max for more than a couple minutes total. Your glycogen reserves are rather large, and a normal lifting session doesn't clip 25% off the total.

 

[bdcc]

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.

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.

 

[EasyEJL]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[bdcc]

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." -

 

[EasyEJL]

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." -

Or i'm being verbally battered by my 6 year old over christmas presents to the point where I can't think.

Still though, like I said, if it works for you then keep doing it. But theres no scientific evidence to point towards that working that way for the majority of people.

 

[Rodja]

Whey and casein are the Best post-workout shake?

http://esnl.tamu.edu/Publications/JSCR-20-3-643-653-06.pdf

Nothing new there.

 

[Jasen]

i love weight gainers post workout

 

[anoopbal]

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).

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.

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.

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.

And just so that people know glycogen do not build muscle unless it does something to protein synthesis or protein breakdown.

Only thing I can see problematic is they only did 4 sets of 12. In real world most people, do a lot more sets for legs. There was a study which showed 9 sets of 12 depleted 36 % of muscle glycogen.

 

[Rodja]

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.

 

[anoopbal]

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.

 

[Rodja]

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.

 

[anoopbal]

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.

 

[Rodja]

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.

 

[anoopbal]

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.

 

[Rodja]

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.

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.

 

[anoopbal]

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.

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.

 

[Movin_weight]

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.

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.

 

[cmc]

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

 

[Movin_weight]

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.

 

[anoopbal]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Rodja]

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.

 

[anoopbal]

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.

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".

 

[Rodja]

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.

 

[anoopbal]

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.

 

[Rodja]

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.

 

[ZiR RED]

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

 

[anoopbal]

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.

 

[ZiR RED]

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