USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
USPlabsReperson should be on to Chief Chef Bob for populating interest addressing on here tell me, what you think.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
Never drink Whey alone (unless you have a casein allergy) ESPECIALLY after a workout or in the Mornings (or anytime you are supplementing protein powder for food) and NEVER drink only Casien before bed combine it with Whey...
It shouldn't be a debate....Protein is the single most important substance for muscle building, recovery and immunity, we should listen to the science..
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
Noone will disagree in this day that is the proper protocol am always taking both plus feeling better digestion in the combination.
mr.cooper69
Legend
- Awards
- 0
There will be a Coop's corner on this in the near future when I have the time. I'll link back to this thread for further reading.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
cooper's corner...drugs or prostitution?
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
coop has cleaned up the corner. We will now have some view from the before and after shots
T-Bone
Banned
- Awards
- 3
Is it really that important?. How much of a miniscule difference is it going to make, when considering a persons diet as a whole?.
RecompMan
Well-known member
- Awards
- 2
Picture doesn't work
T-Bone
Banned
- Awards
- 3
It's not a picture, its a link to download a pdf file.
RecompMan
Well-known member
- Awards
- 2
Ahh iPhone won't grab it fml
mr.cooper69
Legend
- Awards
- 0
How many shakes do you have a day? If it's 2-4 shakes (supplying 50-100g of dietary protein), the difference is considerable.
If you're having 1 shake a day, you won't notice changes overnight...but let's say you have 1 shake a day, 365 days a year. That's over 6,500 grams of protein that could have been from a superior source
The Solution
Legend
- Awards
- 5
Thats why i mix whey with yogurt
Best of both worlds for protein sludge/pudding.Dont be hating i add greek yogurt in most of my recipes. Way ahead of you there son
Alan Aragon dropped the hammer on this about 3-4 years ago.
T-Bone
Banned
- Awards
- 3
I don't often supplement with protein. When I do I have 1 to 2 protein drinks a day. Normally, I'll eat something else within 30-45 minutes after the protein drink though. I never use it replace a meal, it's always in addition to a meal. Sometimes as a "dessert" to combat boredom of lower carb eating. For instance, after working out, I'll come home have a protein drink, relax a bit on the computer, take a shower and then have some eggs or steak. As far as superior, how much difference is that going to make in the grand scheme of things?. Maybe things like this are more important to say professional bodybuilders, or other competitive athletes but I'm just trying to stay healthy as I age. So I just may have a different perspective as to what is considerable and what is negligible.
mr.cooper69
Legend
- Awards
- 0
It's not about whether or not you use it for a meal replacement. Regardless of when you consume it (or with what), it's contributing to your daily protein intake
Philosophy
Member
- Awards
- 1
I can't understand why Whey is being crucified, I have used natural HWPI for the past year and my results have been nothing short of impressive. I must admit though my training and nutrition have been on point 95% of the time.
Perhaps science proves a blend is optimal, it just doesn't seem as though the difference will be noticeable especially when considering one's diet.
Perhaps science proves a blend is optimal, it just doesn't seem as though the difference will be noticeable especially when considering one's diet.
T-Bone
Banned
- Awards
- 3
That is what I guess I'm confused about. How much of a difference is it really going to make?. I mean as long as you meet your protein requirements with food and some protein supplementation...They type of protein you eat shouldn't make any negligible difference in "results". I'd be more concerned with the amount.
mr.cooper69
Legend
- Awards
- 0
Whey rocks, no one is crucifying it. It's just crazy that every muscle mag boasts about absorption speeds when the study in OP demonstrates that it has zero relevance to anabolism.
RecompMan
Well-known member
- Awards
- 2
That due to it all going to same spot portal circulation into amino acid pool and we use what we need???
mr.cooper69
Legend
- Awards
- 0
I can't understand this post lol
RecompMan
Well-known member
- Awards
- 2
I tend to do that haha.
Blended or not doesn't all protein go into the amino acid pool. And the body use what is necessary which is why it doesn't matter if its blended protein or not?
mr.cooper69
Legend
- Awards
- 0
Now we're getting into "coop's corner" material, but no, it's not so simple. There is a ceiling to protein synthesis, as is there a threshold for significant levels of gluconeogenesis.
The Solution
Legend
- Awards
- 5
Which many do not understand, and some people still abide by that stupid ass muscle and fitness i must throw down a shake and eat a meal 45-60 minutes later when in reality that has no proper benefits to MPS or allowing protein levels to reach their refractory stages at all. Hence Layne's MPS Research regarding less meals and BCAA useage.
Some people just dont get it and think every 2-3 hours is a must when in reality there is no benefit towards protein synthesis due to the constant overlap of food .
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
Do not worry EBF I understand just fine
plus now know how it vexing to me some time
3clipseGT
On my grind
- Awards
- 4
So then you would just make your meals larger in order to hit macros and utilize BCAAs between those meals? How many meals? 3-4?
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
Greek yogurt is enhanced with MPI...Thats why i mix whey with yogurt
Dont be hating i add greek yogurt in most of my recipes. Way ahead of you there son
Alan Aragon dropped the hammer on this about 3-4 years ago.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
You also have to consider nutritional timing and absorption rates around exercise. I much rather slam some protein soon after my last set to get the wheels turning quickly than chew on a chicken breast and wait 20-30 minutes or so for absorption..
slam OxyElite Protein or blend of choice (signal the anabolic processes and prep your body for the next meal)
1-1.5 hours later hit up a nice balanced meal
if you are doing it correctly, your pre workout meal is meticulously planned to fuel the workout....
that my friends is a great set up, match and post match game plan for your goals..
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
What are you thinking Arnold Schwarzenegger those bros were slamming back on the day tell me, what you think.
The Solution
Legend
- Awards
- 5
So what about food overlap from the pre-workout meal (Which will still be digesting) or the intra-workout BCAA beverage that is instnatly in your bloodstream, why would you need to slam a protein shake right after your workout, that makes 0 sense since protein synthesis is elevated for 24 hours post-workout and even if you dont eat for 20-30 minutes the amount of timing wont make much of a difference due to amino's being present from both scenarios above. Just getting discussion going.
http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5
When speaking of nutrition for improving body composition or training performance, it's crucial to realize there's an underlying hierarchy of importance. At the top of the hierarchy is total amount of the macronutrients by the end of the day. Distantly below that is the precise timing of those nutrients. With very few exceptions, athletes and active individuals eat multiple times per day. Thus, the majority of their day is spent in the postprandial (fed) rather than a post-absorptive (fasted) state. The vast majority of nutrient timing studies have been done on overnight-fasted subjects put through glycogen depletion protocols, which obviously limits the applicability of the outcomes. Pre-exercise (and/or during-exercise) nutrient intake often has a lingering carry-over effect into the post-exercise period. Throughout the day, there's a constant overlap of meal digestion & nutrient absorption. For this reason, the effectiveness of nutrient timing does not require a high degree of precision.
The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing
The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
NOTE: Please do not misinterpret the above to mean that timing is irrelevant. On the contrary, it's very relevant. Timing just happens to have MUCH LESS impact on results than hitting your macro totals for the day. This doesn't diminish the fact that people need to individualize their meal timing so that it maximizes their training performance (& does not hinder it). The latter manipulations vary widely, because people have different training protocols, goals, and tolerances. For example, some people experience their best training performance in an immediately fed state, while others do best in a semi-fasted or fasted state. Endurance athletes who neglect carbohydrate timing will not optimize their training capacity. Strength/power athletes with minimal endurance demands have much less of a concern for this. There's no way to 'universalize' a nutrient timing prescription that applies to everyone & all types of athletes. But to reiterate, macro totals for the day overshadow timing in terms of importance, especially for bodybuilding. If macro totals for the day are not hit, the most precisely neurotic timing of meals is all for sh!t.
I also suggest you read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985 This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 Evidence supports that meal frequency has nothing to do with energy in the subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656 Yet again, no difference in energy in the subjects compared to 2 meals/d to 6 meals/d.
And if you want to do some more detailed digging, you can read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998 Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.LinksInfluence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656 Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.LinksCompared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311 Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. LinksAcute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998 Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.LinksInfluence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656 Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.LinksCompared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeterhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21. Epub 2007 Dec 6. LinksAcute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70. LinksMeal frequency and energy balance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828 Forumn Nutr. 2003;56:126-8.LinksHighlighting the positive impact of increasing feeding frequency on metabolism and weight management.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9504318/url] Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Feb;22(2):105-12.LinksEvidence that eating frequency is inversely related to body weight status in male, but not female, non-obese adults reporting valid dietary intakes.[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 May;28(5):653-60. LinksDecreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950[/ur] Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071-7. LinksRegular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean women. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17228037 Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Jan;15(1):100-6. LinksAssociation of eating frequency with body fatness in pre- and postmenopausal women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455 Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):16-24. LinksComment in:Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):3-4.Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578205 Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1151-9.LinksAcute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males.
he postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulin levels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer.
So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results.
To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204
More from earlier in the thread:
Here's what you're not seeming to grasp: the "windows" for taking advantage of nutrient timing are not little peepholes. They're more like bay windows of a mansion. You're ignoring just how long the anabolic effects are of a typical mixed meal. Depending on the size of a meal, it takes a good 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and it takes a good 3-6 hours (or more) for everythng to drop back down to baseline.
You're also ignoring the fact that the anabolic effects of a meal are maxed out at much lower levels than typical meals drive insulin & amino acids up to. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
Primarily I like to state that the above could in fact be truth to a segment of the population and can be techniques utilized in eating and training but with that said there is a ton of speculation in the above copy and paste along with some sound science.
It would take days and days to debate and address on the speculative nature of the information, This would make for a GREAT Round table discussion.
just quickly...
1. pre workout meal doesn't mean right before exercise but 2-4 hours depending on the content of the meal.
2. Who said I was slamming BCAAs and no one in your studies
3. You copy and paste this same thread every where some questions now how YOU eat and train. I find it difficult when people speak in absolutes especially with science and individuality.
4. Are you claiming that we can wait 24 hours before eating and end result is the same??? Sure if we base it off acute studies and we can go ahead and quote your same research to make my point about speculation.
It also should be noted that measures of MPS assessed following an acute bout of resistance exercise do not always occur in parallel with chronic upregulation of causative myogenic signals [66] and are not necessarily predictive of long-term hypertrophic responses to regimented resistance training [67]. Moreover, the post-exercise rise in MPS in untrained subjects is not recapitulated in the trained state [68], further confounding practical relevance. Thus, the utility of acute studies is limited to providing clues and generating hypotheses regarding hypertrophic adaptations; any attempt to extrapolate findings from such data to changes in lean body mass is speculative, at best.
5. the first study primarily focuses on the role of insulin and carbohydrates which I agree with but, from the same study, the evidence is not clear on post workout.
Several studies have investigated whether an “anabolic window” exists in the immediate post-exercise period with respect to protein synthesis. For maximizing MPS, the evidence supports the superiority of post-exercise free amino acids and/or protein (in various permutations with or without carbohydrate) compared to solely carbohydrate or non-caloric placebo [50,51,54-59]. However, despite the common recommendation to consume protein as soon as possible post-exercise [60,61], evidence-based support for this practice is currently lacking. Levenhagen et al. [62] demonstrated a clear benefit to consuming nutrients as soon as possible after exercise as opposed to delaying consumption. Employing a within-subject design,10 volunteers (5 men, 5 women) consumed an oral supplement containing 10 g protein, 8 g carbohydrate and 3 g fat either immediately following or three hours post-exercise. Protein synthesis of the legs and whole body was increased threefold when the supplement was ingested immediately after exercise, as compared to just 12% when consumption was delayed. A limitation of the study was that training involved moderate intensity, long duration aerobic exercise. Thus, the increased fractional synthetic rate was likely due to greater mitochondrial and/or sarcoplasmic protein fractions, as opposed to synthesis of contractile elements [36]. In contrast to the timing effects shown by Levenhagen et al. [62], previous work by Rasmussen et al. [56] showed no significant difference in leg net amino acid balance between 6 g essential amino acids (EAA) co-ingested with 35 g carbohydrate taken 1 hour versus 3 hours post-exercise. Compounding the unreliability of the post-exercise ‘window’ is the finding by Tipton et al. [63] that immediate pre-exercise ingestion of the same EAA-carbohydrate solution resulted in a significantly greater and more sustained MPS response compared to the immediate post-exercise ingestion, although the validity of these findings have been disputed based on flawed methodology [36]. Notably, Fujita et al [64] saw opposite results using a similar design, except the EAA-carbohydrate was ingested 1 hour prior to exercise compared to ingestion immediately pre-exercise in Tipton et al. [63]. Adding yet more incongruity to the evidence, Tipton et al. [65] found no significant difference in net MPS between the ingestion of 20 g whey immediately pre- versus the same solution consumed 1 hour post-exercise. Collectively, the available data lack any consistent indication of an ideal post-exercise timing scheme for maximizing MPS.
It also should be noted that measures of MPS assessed following an acute bout of resistance exercise do not always occur in parallel with chronic upregulation of causative myogenic signals [66] and are not necessarily predictive of long-term hypertrophic responses to regimented resistance training [67]. Moreover, the post-exercise rise in MPS in untrained subjects is not recapitulated in the trained state [68], further confounding practical relevance. Thus, the utility of acute studies is limited to providing clues and generating hypotheses regarding hypertrophic adaptations; any attempt to extrapolate findings from such data to changes in lean body mass is speculative, at best.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
D-bol
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
I can quote your own post drive the point that timing is important...
excuse my language but no Sht hitting nutrition goals is more important than timing. Who is claiming that if i eat protein post workout, I can eat a whopper for breakfast....
The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing
The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
NOTE: Please do not misinterpret the above to mean that timing is irrelevant. On the contrary, it's very relevant. Timing just happens to have MUCH LESS impact on results than hitting your macro totals for the day. This doesn't diminish the fact that people need to individualize their meal timing so that it maximizes their training performance (& does not hinder it). The latter manipulations vary widely, because people have different training protocols, goals, and tolerances. For example, some people experience their best training performance in an immediately fed state, while others do best in a semi-fasted or fasted state. Endurance athletes who neglect carbohydrate timing will not optimize their training capacity. Strength/power athletes with minimal endurance demands have much less of a concern for this. There's no way to 'universalize' a nutrient timing prescription that applies to everyone & all types of athletes. But to reiterate, macro totals for the day overshadow timing in terms of importance, especially for bodybuilding. If macro totals for the day are not hit, the most precisely neurotic timing of meals is all for sh!t.
I also suggest you read:
excuse my language but no Sht hitting nutrition goals is more important than timing. Who is claiming that if i eat protein post workout, I can eat a whopper for breakfast....
The Primary Laws of Nutrient Timing
The First Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
The Second Law of Nutrient Timing is: hitting your daily macronutrient targets is FAR more important than nutrient timing.
NOTE: Please do not misinterpret the above to mean that timing is irrelevant. On the contrary, it's very relevant. Timing just happens to have MUCH LESS impact on results than hitting your macro totals for the day. This doesn't diminish the fact that people need to individualize their meal timing so that it maximizes their training performance (& does not hinder it). The latter manipulations vary widely, because people have different training protocols, goals, and tolerances. For example, some people experience their best training performance in an immediately fed state, while others do best in a semi-fasted or fasted state. Endurance athletes who neglect carbohydrate timing will not optimize their training capacity. Strength/power athletes with minimal endurance demands have much less of a concern for this. There's no way to 'universalize' a nutrient timing prescription that applies to everyone & all types of athletes. But to reiterate, macro totals for the day overshadow timing in terms of importance, especially for bodybuilding. If macro totals for the day are not hit, the most precisely neurotic timing of meals is all for sh!t.
I also suggest you read:
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
i don't have the full text but was this in exercised healthy individuals?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985 This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985 This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
most of the studies are on obesity and without exercise. how is that relevant to us?
One is one post menopause womwn...some men on here act that way but no relevance again....
One is one post menopause womwn...some men on here act that way but no relevance again....
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
oh lordy..
In contrast, protein ingestion stimulated rates of myofibrillar protein synthesis above fasting rates by 0.016 ± 0.002%/h and the response was enhanced 24 h after resistance exercise, but only in the 90FAIL and 30FAIL conditions, by 0.038 ± 0.012 and 0.041 ± 0.010, respectively. Phosphorylation of protein kinase B on Ser473 was greater than FED at EX-FED only in 90FAIL
In contrast, protein ingestion stimulated rates of myofibrillar protein synthesis above fasting rates by 0.016 ± 0.002%/h and the response was enhanced 24 h after resistance exercise, but only in the 90FAIL and 30FAIL conditions, by 0.038 ± 0.012 and 0.041 ± 0.010, respectively. Phosphorylation of protein kinase B on Ser473 was greater than FED at EX-FED only in 90FAIL
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
Trying to understand so you think those that bodybuilding back then were more to using then today or more why the guys today are much to generally speak bigger now, what you think?
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
I don't know. Probably stems from more knowledge..
The Solution
Legend
- Awards
- 5
Or this to boot:
Regarding the importance of postW carbs (outside of the endurance context), here are the "big 3" studies thus far that challenge the idea that postW carbs will do anything beyond a sufficient protein dose for the goal of muscle anabolism (note that the main limitation of these studies is that they are acute rather than chronic/long-term):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609259
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21131864
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351781
More in-depth discussion of the relative importance of postW carbs is here: http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5
Performance would come from pre-workout carbs, you dont get enhanced performance from taking something POST-workout or AFTER your workout to impact the session you just performed.
Think about what your saying.
Hence why Aceto is huge on pre-workout carbs,
If you take carsb pre-workout you would utilize them as fuel
If you dont take any carbs pre-workout are you really going to enhance performance (think fasted training or a P+F Meal)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206056/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12432174
And a good article:
http://www.simplyshredded.com/top-10-post-workout-nutrition-myths-dave-barr-2.html
If you find any conflicts, let me know. And keep in mind what I said in the original post of this thread: "outside of the endurance context"
Doing 60 sets of high reps & low rest = endurance work. But even then, unless you're going to hit those same muscle groups again within an insufficient timeframe to re-up glycogen stores (i.e., within the same day), then the objective of focusing on hitting your total carb target for the day (as opposed to immediately postworkout) still stands.
Inhibiting protein breakdown, eh? If you actually read the links in the OP, you'd see this (MPS = muscle protein synthesis, MPB = muscle protein breakdown, CHO = carbohydrate):
"The concurrent ingestion of 50 g of CHO with 25 g of protein did not stimulate mixed MPS or inhibit MPB more than 25 g of protein alone either at rest or after resistance exercise. [...] Our data suggest that insulin is not additive or synergistic to rates of MPS or MPB when CHO is coingested with a dose of protein that maximally stimulates rates of MPS." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351781
Similar acute anabolic response dosing thresholds have been seen with egg protein & beef. However, this dosing ceiling is higher in older subjects (40-ish g as opposed to 20-25 g).
http://fitnfly.com/learn-about-food/nutrition-facts
Insulin sensitivity will be optimized until optimal glycogen status is re-established, whether it be postworkout or the next day
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/234671-intra-workout-carbohydrates-2.html#post4135330
Good thread for you here on good information for intra-workout carbs too (as a general outsider look)
In the end if it fits your calories/macros for the day if you want to use simple carbs intra/post workout its personal preference, but mostly all research will show you its not necessary for those with pre-existing meals that are overlapping or intra-workout BCAA thats are still showing present aminos in the system given the post-workout period where protein syntehsis is elevated for 24+ hours and food is still digesting. For those cutting it may be a lot harder (Satiety) wise to sacrafice intra-wrokout or postworkout simple carbs and a focus on denser caloric food choices also those with greater micronutrients.
If you hit your calories sure it will work to aid your goal, but it comes down to preference and what you feel is optimal.
Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, even Stuart Phillips, known for being super-conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit."[/b]
^There's my quote, which I recently modified to include the mentioning of benefit from consuming 3.0 g/kg in this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645387
Wonderpug is correct that this large amount was compared with suboptimal intake. However, I don't see the strong argument against going as high as 3.0 g/kg. If anyone wants to present one, then great; I just don't think it presents any safety risks (or other detriments) that warrant any particular caution. Additionally, 3.0 is close enough to 2.7 g/kg, which has been demonstrated to be effective (I'll get to that).
Now, Let's take a look at where I got the 2.3-2.7 kg figures.
Mettler et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027) compared 1.0 g/kg with 2.3 g/kg in lean athletic subjects in an energy deficit, and the latter outperformed the former for guarding against LBM loss. However - and this is the big point - 2.3 g/kg was still insufficient for completely preserving LBM. Notably, the subjects trained an average of 334 minutes per week (resistance training + cardio). They lost less LBM consuming 2.3 g/kg than the group consuming 1.0g/kg. Keep in mind that it's not like the subjects were starving; they consumed slightly more than 2000 kcal throughout the trial.
Along these lines, Maestu et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017) saw better LBM preservation than Mettler et al did, and intakes ranged 2.3-2.6 g/kg.
Next up, we have Hoffman et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23035701), who sought to examine the effect of phosphatidic acid (PA) supplementation, but also ended up comparing different protein intakes, 2.1 g/kg in the control & 2.6 g/kg in the treatment group. The latter outperformed the former, and my hunch is that it could have been due to the higher protein intake rather than the PA specifically. It's notable that these results were seen in caloric maintenance conditions.
Willoughby et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988909) examined the effect of a protein & amino acid supplement & ended up observing the treatment group with an intake of ~2.7 g/kg outperform the control group, whose intake was ~2.2 g/kg. Notably, this occurred under caloric surplus conditions.
All research has its limitations, and the aforementioned can be criticized for having the typical shortcomings of a small subject number &/or short duration.
A paper by Phillips & Van Loon (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425) mentions the following: "To optimize the ratio of fat-to-lean tissue mass loss during hypoenergetic periods, athletes are advised to [...] increase their protein intake to ~20–30% of their energy intake or ~1.8–2.7 g/kg/day." I'm not saying that the recommendations of some of the top protein researchers should be taken as gospel, but it's worth noting that their recommendations indeed exceed ~0.8 g/lb for certain scenarios. It's not just something I personally made up because I'm a bro who likes BBing.
I thus stand by the points I made in "The Quote" - the latest version of which I'll simply reiterate here:
_________________________________________
Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, one of the most prolific protein researchers Stuart Phillips, known for being conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. In a more recent paper, Phillips even pushes the upper end to 3.0 g/kg.
As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit. You also have to consider the limitations of the research. Just because a certain amount of protein can prevent negative nitrogen balance does not mean this is an accurate reflection of muscle preservation (let alone an indicator of optimal intake for gain). N-bal is notorious for overestimating muscle protein status. There's even research showing positive N-balance concurrent with LBM loss. Lol, there's research showing a prevention of negative N-balance during endstage starvation as a survival defense response.
Another confounder is that protein needs in the literature are expressed in terms of total body mass. This is sort of a necessary evil when discussing the literature, which does not express protein needs as g/kg LBM. So, when mentioning that protein needs are lower for eucaloric & hypercalorc conditions as opposed to hypocaloric conditions in lean/athletic subjects, this is in reference to *proportional* differences. ABSOLUTE needs can be quite similar among those with the same LBM. Also keep in mind that the optimal protein requirements of folks on ergogenic supplements like creatine (or AAS) have simply not been investigated, much less systematically investigated for the purpose of establishing dose-response relationships. There in all likelihood is a higher ceiling of protein dosing effectiveness in these individuals, as well as a lower threshold of protein dosing for muscle retention. Assuming that the effective protein dosage ceiling is the same in natties & enhanced athletes is foolish. Protein requirements for off-season & pre-contest bodybuilders (& other athletes) under varying degrees of deficit & surplus is still open to investigation, particularly in the context of rigorous, periodized training programs.
You also have to realize that the figures that get spit up in study outcomes are expressed as means (averages). This means that a mixed bag of responses occurred, some substantially higher or lower than the reported mean value. If you really want to rigidly latch on to some mean value and believe that it unquestionably applies to you, then you're making quite the leap of faith.
Eric Helms of 3dmj:
Hey folks! So I've been in New Zealand since August 2012, a year prior to that I started an extensive lit review on protein. Primarily on hypocaloric, resistance training individuals, who are not obese, with resistance training experience. There's ~8-9 total studies out there so far that look at these conditions (depending on inclusion criteria) and 6 if we're talking studies that report LBM and bodyfat (some just give bodyweight and NBAL, etc.).
First part of my masters (which I submit this week literally) was this systematic review. Alan was actually one of the few I trusted to give it a look over in it's very initial stages, and now it's in the final stages of review at IJSNEM, it's been through 2 rounds of revisions, updates etc., and will be in press soon. The review is as systematic and non-narrative as you can get considering the limited data available and I was able to present recommendations relative to LBM vs weight which is important. A huge issue with available data is not only the methodology of nitrogen balance as Alan pointed out but also that 90% of the studies looking at protein intake give us intakes as g/unit of TOTAL bodyweight and were done on overweight and obese populations. This drives the perception of the "right" amount of protein down as the optimal intake is likely relative to LBM.
So the review is enlightening, puts a bit more structure and hard evidence to the discussion, when it comes out on pubmed you can believe I'll be spamming it via social media
Let me start with the good stuff about my study:
Double Blinded (diet plans were modified with supplement powder that researchers and participants were not aware of the content of)
So, my biases won't effect the results, we can be very sure of the compliance of the participants, individual effects can be analyzed and discussed (mean changes can mask individual results), and small effects won't be "no effect" and results won't be inappropriately labeled in a binary way (two flaws of p values). These statistical aspects are critical when discerning small changes that may matter over time. And finally, we have data on a number of relevant variables
Next, let me point out the the downsides/limitations:
MRI, DEXA, hydrostatic weighing and ultra sound ALL fell through due to broken equipment, the inability to fix equipment, equipment not arriving, and having a grant turned down. The realities of research hit hard. So that left with me with only anthropometry to measure changes in fat mass and lean mass. Even though some of the best anthropometrists (ISAK level 4) are here at AUT, you just can't get a reliable measure of LBM from it. You can get a reliable measure of bodyweight change and skinfold (fat mass) change though, highly reliable in fact, but not muscle or LBM.
The final limitation is the length. Crossovers need wash outs at least twice the length of the intervention, of course the interventions are separate so they take twice as long as parallel group designs. So although the time length intervention was only 2 weeks on each diet, that was the most I could manage as I was getting ethics approval from Sep-Oct, recruiting from October all the way through June, and collecting data from Feburary to July, and my Masters thesis is due...well...now pretty much lol.
I specifically analyzed the data with carb sources as a covariate to make sure this was not related to the large amount maltodextrin powder that comprised the 1.6g/kg groups carb intake (the 2.8g/kg group had protein powder), and the fact that not only total mood disturbance, but also specifically fatigue (which is unrelated to satiety or hunger) increased indicates this was not just due to proteins satiating effect.
When people report stress it typically precedes or accompanies measurable physiological changes. Had the study been longer small differences in LBM changes would have become more and more detectable, if this had been a 2 month vs 2 week study would they have showed greater LBM loss in the lower protein group which might have caused the stress? Or, if we had a reliable measure of LBM would that have discerned these hard to measure changes?
But what we can say is that in the context of a 40% caloric deficit, the 2.8g/kg protein, low fat diet was less stressful, less fatiguing, caused less diet stress and is therefore likely more sustainable. That said, I think probably an approach where you use a 20-30% deficit would be even better, this would allow you to not have such a low fat intake and might improve performance measures.
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/
http://www.machinemuscle.com/interview-with-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon/
"The general thrust is that people mistakenly think that there’s a strict limit to how much protein you can have per meal without anything beyond it being wasted. That’s wrong because the body is really good at utilizing nearly all the protein you throw at it, regardless of dose. The rate of entry and progression through the digestive tract is a tightly regulated process. A small amount of protein will take a few hours to be processed, while a Thanksgiving-sized portion of protein can take all day. Either way, it gets absorbed & put to use according to the homeostatic demands of the body at the time. It’s not like any amount beyond, say, 30 grams magically leaks out of your sweet arse. Those who are a touch more sophisticated will point to research showing that acute (short-term) muscle protein synthesis (MPS) plateaus at a dose of about 25-30 grams – although a recent study showed that it was closer to 40 grams in older subjects. So, the hypothesis is that more of these acute spikes in MPS through the day will translate to more muscle growth in the long-term. Well, it hasn’t worked that way with the majority of long-term studies. There are still more questions than answers in this area, like many areas of nutrition for sports & fitness.
"Layne’s protocol’s theoretical basis is sound, at least on paper. It aims to strike a balance between avoiding the refractory nature of MPS under conditions of constantly elevated circulating amino acids, while still maximizing the number of nutrient-mediated anabolic ‘spikes’ through the day. This protocol might be appropriate for someone trying to pull the final strings to edge out the competition on a bodybuilding stage. However, I’m skeptical that this strategy would benefit those already consuming a high protein intake (which is already rich in BCAAs). For most non-competitors, I don’t see the realistic long-term sustainability of this routine.
As for the other end of the spectrum (2-3 meals per day), this is obviously more realistic for regular people. This works out well, since the importance of muscle retention during dieting varies according to the population. The more overfat & deconditioned someone is, the greater the proportional & net loss of fat vs. muscle is when dieting. Further along the progression, the leaner & more conditioned someone is, the more muscle they stand to lose as they continue to diet. So, can low meal frequency work for competitors? Yes, it can. Is it optimal? Well, that’s a question that so far doesn’t have a definitive, science-based answer, and it might never have one. For advanced athletes in a dieting situation, the objective is to retain as much muscle as possible while losing fat, since muscle loss at this point is a more urgent threat than it is for guys coming straight off the couch. Nitpicking for advanced athletes, I‘d speculate that anything below 3 meals (technically, 3 protein feedings) per day is not optimal, regardless of program phase.
Admittedly, the scientific basis for this is less solidly grounded than the protein recommendations. The rest of the desired results would be taken care of by the remainder of the diet. This brings me to the most important point, which is that nutrient timing is far less important than hitting the targeted macronutrient totals for the day. I would go as far as to say that attempting to precisely time nutrients is largely an exercise in jerking off hypotheses compared to hitting daily totals. -
http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html
Regarding the importance of postW carbs (outside of the endurance context), here are the "big 3" studies thus far that challenge the idea that postW carbs will do anything beyond a sufficient protein dose for the goal of muscle anabolism (note that the main limitation of these studies is that they are acute rather than chronic/long-term):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609259
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21131864
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351781
More in-depth discussion of the relative importance of postW carbs is here: http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5
Performance would come from pre-workout carbs, you dont get enhanced performance from taking something POST-workout or AFTER your workout to impact the session you just performed.
Think about what your saying.
Hence why Aceto is huge on pre-workout carbs,
If you take carsb pre-workout you would utilize them as fuel
If you dont take any carbs pre-workout are you really going to enhance performance (think fasted training or a P+F Meal)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206056/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12432174
And a good article:
http://www.simplyshredded.com/top-10-post-workout-nutrition-myths-dave-barr-2.html
If you find any conflicts, let me know. And keep in mind what I said in the original post of this thread: "outside of the endurance context"
Doing 60 sets of high reps & low rest = endurance work. But even then, unless you're going to hit those same muscle groups again within an insufficient timeframe to re-up glycogen stores (i.e., within the same day), then the objective of focusing on hitting your total carb target for the day (as opposed to immediately postworkout) still stands.
Inhibiting protein breakdown, eh? If you actually read the links in the OP, you'd see this (MPS = muscle protein synthesis, MPB = muscle protein breakdown, CHO = carbohydrate):
"The concurrent ingestion of 50 g of CHO with 25 g of protein did not stimulate mixed MPS or inhibit MPB more than 25 g of protein alone either at rest or after resistance exercise. [...] Our data suggest that insulin is not additive or synergistic to rates of MPS or MPB when CHO is coingested with a dose of protein that maximally stimulates rates of MPS." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351781
Similar acute anabolic response dosing thresholds have been seen with egg protein & beef. However, this dosing ceiling is higher in older subjects (40-ish g as opposed to 20-25 g).
http://fitnfly.com/learn-about-food/nutrition-facts
Insulin sensitivity will be optimized until optimal glycogen status is re-established, whether it be postworkout or the next day
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplements/234671-intra-workout-carbohydrates-2.html#post4135330
Good thread for you here on good information for intra-workout carbs too (as a general outsider look)
In the end if it fits your calories/macros for the day if you want to use simple carbs intra/post workout its personal preference, but mostly all research will show you its not necessary for those with pre-existing meals that are overlapping or intra-workout BCAA thats are still showing present aminos in the system given the post-workout period where protein syntehsis is elevated for 24+ hours and food is still digesting. For those cutting it may be a lot harder (Satiety) wise to sacrafice intra-wrokout or postworkout simple carbs and a focus on denser caloric food choices also those with greater micronutrients.
If you hit your calories sure it will work to aid your goal, but it comes down to preference and what you feel is optimal.
Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, even Stuart Phillips, known for being super-conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit."[/b]
^There's my quote, which I recently modified to include the mentioning of benefit from consuming 3.0 g/kg in this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645387
Wonderpug is correct that this large amount was compared with suboptimal intake. However, I don't see the strong argument against going as high as 3.0 g/kg. If anyone wants to present one, then great; I just don't think it presents any safety risks (or other detriments) that warrant any particular caution. Additionally, 3.0 is close enough to 2.7 g/kg, which has been demonstrated to be effective (I'll get to that).
Now, Let's take a look at where I got the 2.3-2.7 kg figures.
Mettler et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027) compared 1.0 g/kg with 2.3 g/kg in lean athletic subjects in an energy deficit, and the latter outperformed the former for guarding against LBM loss. However - and this is the big point - 2.3 g/kg was still insufficient for completely preserving LBM. Notably, the subjects trained an average of 334 minutes per week (resistance training + cardio). They lost less LBM consuming 2.3 g/kg than the group consuming 1.0g/kg. Keep in mind that it's not like the subjects were starving; they consumed slightly more than 2000 kcal throughout the trial.
Along these lines, Maestu et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017) saw better LBM preservation than Mettler et al did, and intakes ranged 2.3-2.6 g/kg.
Next up, we have Hoffman et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23035701), who sought to examine the effect of phosphatidic acid (PA) supplementation, but also ended up comparing different protein intakes, 2.1 g/kg in the control & 2.6 g/kg in the treatment group. The latter outperformed the former, and my hunch is that it could have been due to the higher protein intake rather than the PA specifically. It's notable that these results were seen in caloric maintenance conditions.
Willoughby et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988909) examined the effect of a protein & amino acid supplement & ended up observing the treatment group with an intake of ~2.7 g/kg outperform the control group, whose intake was ~2.2 g/kg. Notably, this occurred under caloric surplus conditions.
All research has its limitations, and the aforementioned can be criticized for having the typical shortcomings of a small subject number &/or short duration.
A paper by Phillips & Van Loon (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425) mentions the following: "To optimize the ratio of fat-to-lean tissue mass loss during hypoenergetic periods, athletes are advised to [...] increase their protein intake to ~20–30% of their energy intake or ~1.8–2.7 g/kg/day." I'm not saying that the recommendations of some of the top protein researchers should be taken as gospel, but it's worth noting that their recommendations indeed exceed ~0.8 g/lb for certain scenarios. It's not just something I personally made up because I'm a bro who likes BBing.
I thus stand by the points I made in "The Quote" - the latest version of which I'll simply reiterate here:
_________________________________________
Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, one of the most prolific protein researchers Stuart Phillips, known for being conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. In a more recent paper, Phillips even pushes the upper end to 3.0 g/kg.
As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit. You also have to consider the limitations of the research. Just because a certain amount of protein can prevent negative nitrogen balance does not mean this is an accurate reflection of muscle preservation (let alone an indicator of optimal intake for gain). N-bal is notorious for overestimating muscle protein status. There's even research showing positive N-balance concurrent with LBM loss. Lol, there's research showing a prevention of negative N-balance during endstage starvation as a survival defense response.
Another confounder is that protein needs in the literature are expressed in terms of total body mass. This is sort of a necessary evil when discussing the literature, which does not express protein needs as g/kg LBM. So, when mentioning that protein needs are lower for eucaloric & hypercalorc conditions as opposed to hypocaloric conditions in lean/athletic subjects, this is in reference to *proportional* differences. ABSOLUTE needs can be quite similar among those with the same LBM. Also keep in mind that the optimal protein requirements of folks on ergogenic supplements like creatine (or AAS) have simply not been investigated, much less systematically investigated for the purpose of establishing dose-response relationships. There in all likelihood is a higher ceiling of protein dosing effectiveness in these individuals, as well as a lower threshold of protein dosing for muscle retention. Assuming that the effective protein dosage ceiling is the same in natties & enhanced athletes is foolish. Protein requirements for off-season & pre-contest bodybuilders (& other athletes) under varying degrees of deficit & surplus is still open to investigation, particularly in the context of rigorous, periodized training programs.
You also have to realize that the figures that get spit up in study outcomes are expressed as means (averages). This means that a mixed bag of responses occurred, some substantially higher or lower than the reported mean value. If you really want to rigidly latch on to some mean value and believe that it unquestionably applies to you, then you're making quite the leap of faith.
Which is exactly my take home point, you dont need for 99% of us an immediate protein shake right after you finish a workout or your last set of bicep curls most of us will not be going instantly catabolic and need protein ASAP
Eric Helms of 3dmj:
Hey folks! So I've been in New Zealand since August 2012, a year prior to that I started an extensive lit review on protein. Primarily on hypocaloric, resistance training individuals, who are not obese, with resistance training experience. There's ~8-9 total studies out there so far that look at these conditions (depending on inclusion criteria) and 6 if we're talking studies that report LBM and bodyfat (some just give bodyweight and NBAL, etc.).
First part of my masters (which I submit this week literally) was this systematic review. Alan was actually one of the few I trusted to give it a look over in it's very initial stages, and now it's in the final stages of review at IJSNEM, it's been through 2 rounds of revisions, updates etc., and will be in press soon. The review is as systematic and non-narrative as you can get considering the limited data available and I was able to present recommendations relative to LBM vs weight which is important. A huge issue with available data is not only the methodology of nitrogen balance as Alan pointed out but also that 90% of the studies looking at protein intake give us intakes as g/unit of TOTAL bodyweight and were done on overweight and obese populations. This drives the perception of the "right" amount of protein down as the optimal intake is likely relative to LBM.
So the review is enlightening, puts a bit more structure and hard evidence to the discussion, when it comes out on pubmed you can believe I'll be spamming it via social media
Let me start with the good stuff about my study:
Double Blinded (diet plans were modified with supplement powder that researchers and participants were not aware of the content of)
So, my biases won't effect the results, we can be very sure of the compliance of the participants, individual effects can be analyzed and discussed (mean changes can mask individual results), and small effects won't be "no effect" and results won't be inappropriately labeled in a binary way (two flaws of p values). These statistical aspects are critical when discerning small changes that may matter over time. And finally, we have data on a number of relevant variables
Next, let me point out the the downsides/limitations:
MRI, DEXA, hydrostatic weighing and ultra sound ALL fell through due to broken equipment, the inability to fix equipment, equipment not arriving, and having a grant turned down. The realities of research hit hard. So that left with me with only anthropometry to measure changes in fat mass and lean mass. Even though some of the best anthropometrists (ISAK level 4) are here at AUT, you just can't get a reliable measure of LBM from it. You can get a reliable measure of bodyweight change and skinfold (fat mass) change though, highly reliable in fact, but not muscle or LBM.
The final limitation is the length. Crossovers need wash outs at least twice the length of the intervention, of course the interventions are separate so they take twice as long as parallel group designs. So although the time length intervention was only 2 weeks on each diet, that was the most I could manage as I was getting ethics approval from Sep-Oct, recruiting from October all the way through June, and collecting data from Feburary to July, and my Masters thesis is due...well...now pretty much lol.
I specifically analyzed the data with carb sources as a covariate to make sure this was not related to the large amount maltodextrin powder that comprised the 1.6g/kg groups carb intake (the 2.8g/kg group had protein powder), and the fact that not only total mood disturbance, but also specifically fatigue (which is unrelated to satiety or hunger) increased indicates this was not just due to proteins satiating effect.
When people report stress it typically precedes or accompanies measurable physiological changes. Had the study been longer small differences in LBM changes would have become more and more detectable, if this had been a 2 month vs 2 week study would they have showed greater LBM loss in the lower protein group which might have caused the stress? Or, if we had a reliable measure of LBM would that have discerned these hard to measure changes?
But what we can say is that in the context of a 40% caloric deficit, the 2.8g/kg protein, low fat diet was less stressful, less fatiguing, caused less diet stress and is therefore likely more sustainable. That said, I think probably an approach where you use a 20-30% deficit would be even better, this would allow you to not have such a low fat intake and might improve performance measures.
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/
http://www.machinemuscle.com/interview-with-nutrition-expert-alan-aragon/
"The general thrust is that people mistakenly think that there’s a strict limit to how much protein you can have per meal without anything beyond it being wasted. That’s wrong because the body is really good at utilizing nearly all the protein you throw at it, regardless of dose. The rate of entry and progression through the digestive tract is a tightly regulated process. A small amount of protein will take a few hours to be processed, while a Thanksgiving-sized portion of protein can take all day. Either way, it gets absorbed & put to use according to the homeostatic demands of the body at the time. It’s not like any amount beyond, say, 30 grams magically leaks out of your sweet arse. Those who are a touch more sophisticated will point to research showing that acute (short-term) muscle protein synthesis (MPS) plateaus at a dose of about 25-30 grams – although a recent study showed that it was closer to 40 grams in older subjects. So, the hypothesis is that more of these acute spikes in MPS through the day will translate to more muscle growth in the long-term. Well, it hasn’t worked that way with the majority of long-term studies. There are still more questions than answers in this area, like many areas of nutrition for sports & fitness.
"Layne’s protocol’s theoretical basis is sound, at least on paper. It aims to strike a balance between avoiding the refractory nature of MPS under conditions of constantly elevated circulating amino acids, while still maximizing the number of nutrient-mediated anabolic ‘spikes’ through the day. This protocol might be appropriate for someone trying to pull the final strings to edge out the competition on a bodybuilding stage. However, I’m skeptical that this strategy would benefit those already consuming a high protein intake (which is already rich in BCAAs). For most non-competitors, I don’t see the realistic long-term sustainability of this routine.
As for the other end of the spectrum (2-3 meals per day), this is obviously more realistic for regular people. This works out well, since the importance of muscle retention during dieting varies according to the population. The more overfat & deconditioned someone is, the greater the proportional & net loss of fat vs. muscle is when dieting. Further along the progression, the leaner & more conditioned someone is, the more muscle they stand to lose as they continue to diet. So, can low meal frequency work for competitors? Yes, it can. Is it optimal? Well, that’s a question that so far doesn’t have a definitive, science-based answer, and it might never have one. For advanced athletes in a dieting situation, the objective is to retain as much muscle as possible while losing fat, since muscle loss at this point is a more urgent threat than it is for guys coming straight off the couch. Nitpicking for advanced athletes, I‘d speculate that anything below 3 meals (technically, 3 protein feedings) per day is not optimal, regardless of program phase.
Admittedly, the scientific basis for this is less solidly grounded than the protein recommendations. The rest of the desired results would be taken care of by the remainder of the diet. This brings me to the most important point, which is that nutrient timing is far less important than hitting the targeted macronutrient totals for the day. I would go as far as to say that attempting to precisely time nutrients is largely an exercise in jerking off hypotheses compared to hitting daily totals. -
http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/critique-of-issn-position-stand-on-meal.html
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
nattydisaster
PESCIENCE.com
- Awards
- 3
But what if your results could have been even greater than impressive?
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
It is true for the person who is also not per se the professional and have to draw the line somewhere if a budget you are trying to stay this is economical.
Optimal way have I found is to take the two in a blend, why not?
It is the better option giving you much advantage to the hard work you are putting into training and some small things when added up will make a great difference not just on the workout scheme but in life generally.
The Solution
Legend
- Awards
- 5
90% of the post had to deal with your protein intake, timing, and relevance to the entire scenario (from Alan's and Erics perspective) I could also link Lyle McDonald and his work from bodyrecomposition and his thoughts as well. martin I did towards the bottom and his popular top 10 fasting myths article found here:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html
It goes to show even with a smaller meal frequency optimal results can still be found even if someone is not slamming a protein shake after their last set of bro curls and running to the locker room.
Since you were slamming me about post-workout carbs, and intra-workout BCAA's. Are these things really that necessary if one has an adequate pre-workout meal? Those in contest prep may not be able to get post-workout carbs, so is that saying that is not optimal? absolutely not. Some people who run Keto even in an offseason or for a gaining phase are perfectly fine without carbs. While carbs are not a mandatory macronutrient yes they have plenty of benefits. And me personally find that not having them makes my performance suffer/lack, but some thrive off protein and fat. Again this is where nutrition, training, and diet cannot be as black and white as some people think it is. There is always new things, new strategies, different sources and meal plans to get people to achieve their goals. Just because someone eats 3 x a day or 6x a day but yet some individuals get better results utilizing different aspects, (intra-workout carbs, different amounts of protein per meal) etc does not mean one way is better than the other.
This information was just food for thought and fuel for the fire. Either way its always interesting to see what works for others, and what others may be able to learn from and implement it themsleves to see how it treats them. From massive refeeds, cheat meals, TKD's, CKD's, Carb cycling etc.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
- Awards
- 2
right on....
Philosophy
Member
- Awards
- 1
I highly doubt it would've made such a dramatic difference, considering I mainly take it post workout with added leucine. Also for the most part I train fasted in the afternoon and consume ~1,500 calories post workout which includes the shake, eggs, chicken, kangaroo meat, cottage cheese, etc. Thus my diet already contains various sources of protein.
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
- Awards
- 3
Holy copy and paste...
Touey
Well-known member
- Awards
- 0
I have never tried kangaroo meat what is that have a taste similar to?
Philosophy
Member
- Awards
- 1
The taste is very similar to other meats, say chicken. However the texture is different as it is rubbery and very chewy. There are kangaroo patties also that my mum purchases which are very easy to eat, very lean and have a sweetish meaty flavour.
kbayne
Legend
- Awards
- 3
I remember reading from Layne Norton talking about taking in Leucine/BCAA in between meals. I believe he was simply stating by doing this it would allow you to not have to get in as much protein per meal throughout the day.
http://spotmebro.com/layne-norton-phd-on-protein-how-much-and-how-often/
http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/uploads/Norton-J-Ag-Food-Ind-Hi-Tech-2008.pdf
Similar threads
-
Maximizing Muscle Growth with Protein Pulse Feeding: The Role of Whey, Casein & Blended Protein Supplements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-