Please provide a reference for your statement if you have one
I'll have to look for it again. I don't remember exactly what I was searching for when I came across it. It was on intra-workout though, which will have the same effect immediately post workout. In the mean time you can disprove what I've said as you said you would.
I already know in obese/diabetics carbs increase cortisol, so please don't post those studies as relevant.
And for the record the presence of cortisol does not automatically equal protein breakdown will occur. The connection between cortisol and muscle loss is usually due to having chronically elevated levels of cortisol and not acute elevations. Remember cortisol follows a diurnal variation and is NEEDED by our body.
Yes, it does. Cortisol will not selectively just break down fat. It's still breaking down muscle as it's elevated, it just doesn't outpace MPS under the right circumstances; and if it does, continued MPS could make up for it after levels decrease again. Cortisol is only NEEDED by our body to regulate blood sugar levels by breaking down fat and protein/amino acids into glucose. That's why when a healthy person ingests carbs it lowers cortisol...
Again..? Seems you have some sort of vendetta against me. Have I wronged you before?
I just don't like when someone is wrong and tries to pretend like they were right the whole time through semantics. You forgot already? I called you out on saying to someone they can't overtrain unless consistently training 90%+ 1rm...which is 100% false. It doesn't matter if it takes longer, it can still happen.
So what I said was that refilling glycogen faster would not lead to a faster rate in muscle resynthesis and from what I have reviewed this is true. If you have something that shows a dietary induced insulin spike post workout leading to a faster rate in muscle resynthesis, then please share.
By muscle resynthesis do you mean muscle glycogen resynthesis or muscle protein sythesis? So by "refilling glycogen faster" you just mean liver glycogen?
Lets give you the benift of the doubt here. Even if simple carbs did make a difference over complex carbs, how much of a difference would it actually make with regard to ones body composition? Would it even be a relevant noticable difference?
You wouldn't want an extra advantage regardless of how small? That's of course if your goal is building muscle as fast as possible, or natural and near your genetic limit so you need all you can to build any more muscle. If your goal is pure fat loss, then post workout carbs aren't as important.
n=1 is not relevant when discussing the effects of something on mass populations
It's not nearly an n=1. You should already know of the "if it fits your macros" movement and the shredded people that use/advocate it. I only eat simple carbs post workout, and they eat simple carbs when ever they want.
You might find this interesting
"The original findings of Hartman et al. (2007) showed that gains in LBM were greatest in milk drinkers versus soy or carbohydrate drinkers; however...then by converting to a standardized score based on nutritional group means and standard deviations, we could compare gains in LBM based on testosterone response without the ‘bias’ of the nutritional intervention....cut-off levels of +3 and -3 were used since they distinguished the same proportion of the sample (i.e., top and bottom *16%)."
They're comparing the data from a study that showed milk had the greatest LBM gains vs soy or carbs(protein+carbs vs protein vs carbs, the exact type of study you were asking for, of course with a protein variance), and then they're taking out the nutritional aspect? Then going further and taking out 68% of the test subjects? No, I don't find "studies" where they manipulate data to this degree that interesting.
They find that while cortisol does have an association with catabolism
You're just now finding this out?
they revel that an increase in cortisol is also correlated with an increases in type II muscle CSA and with an overall increase in lbm, although they do not identify a mechasim so there is only so much to say about the cortisol connection but it does beg to question your suggestion that cortisol is evil
Again, no. They don't identify a mechanism because there isn't one. With enough manipulation of data you can make anything look like anything. Not to mention the GH graphs are near identical to the cortisol graphs, yet they came to the conclusion that they did? At least they admit "data points in the correlation analyses were generally dispersed", that the correlations were weak, and "phrased simply, subjects at the top *16% in terms of resistance exercise phenotypic responses were no different from those at the bottom *16% in terms of the acute response of testosterone, GH, IGF-1 and cortisol". It's a poor study to pick to prove your point.
