MEADOWS periworkout Supplement/nutrition protocol

kissdadookie said:
When have I stated there's a magical window? You're really extrapolating much more than what I've been extremely blunt about in very simple terms.
Click to expand...

The entire premise of "peri-nutrition" is based on a fixed, short time period....some define it more post...some include intra...some include pre...whatever....But is a short, fixed time period...the same as the "Anabolic Window". A fixed, short time period.

Why do I frequently bring up that carbs study? Because there's a lot of questionable posts on carbs peri-workout (you can call it pre and intra workout, it's not a new concept, I never claimed it to be, but peri-workout as a naming convention is more efficient then saying pre and intra workout as it is implied), mainly there's still notions being shared on boards that it could somehow magically make you fatter, blunt adaptation, or heck, mainly the main current trend of people wanting to be in fat burning mode 24/7 practically (I obviously spend way too much time on forums, these are things I've noticed, you may not have as it really depends on how much time you bother with reading forum posts). So I offer it as more or less of a "Hey, maybe what you are assuming might not be the entire picture? Take a look at this interesting tidbit."
Click to expand...

I know...but the point we are making is that in defending or promoting those concepts, you ignore that which has the greatest effect of all...and thats overall diet over a long term period.

You appear to have a beef with the NAMING of what is essentially preworkout/intraworkout nutrition, meals, whatever. I'm not claiming that it's a new thing Meadows came up with. It is however easier to remember and say than pre and intra workout nutrition, meals XYZ, etc. When someone hears or reads peri workout nutrition, it paints a clear picture of what is being talked about. If you can handle food around training time, go for it, I've done it before, my body just doesn't agree with it especially so early/first thing in the morning. To me it's preference.
Click to expand...

Sure its easier...its taking the details out.

As for me insinuating people who disagree are all just stuck in reading research papers, not quite. I point out the people whom take research papers (often a few select ones whilst ignoring other studies) as gospel because again, depending on how much time you waste reading forum posts, the trends typically appears as so: Person that goes strictly by what they read in studies and then using that as the basis of almost all their posts ----> People whom read the stuff and take it in as 110% fact without bothering to see if it makes any sense or if there's any possibly valid opposing views to it. When I had my stint in hypnosis (not clinical, entertainer), the first thing I learned when I dabbled in it was that people inherently just follow whatever the person that appears to be the authority figure says. That also happens to be what I witness going on with forums. What I'm clearly (perhaps not so clearly seeing how it appears that you have misinterpreted much of what I have been saying) trying to say/present is that hey, if you're poo pooing nutrition around workout time without having given it a go, maybe give it a go. Nothing much to lose and possibly will get some benefit out of it. That's with the rest of your set up (workout as well as overall nutrition) being in check (this is implied, I find it silly that one has to go out of their way to point this out, especially with so many stickies and what not on the basics floating around).

Also, when have I ever stated or laid claims to there being some magical window? Only thing in regards to any sort of window I have mentioned is that it's possible the nutrients you consume around workout time may possibly be utilized in beneficial ways which is likely not to eff up you body comp goals, and I mention this/point out the study mainly for the benefit of those whom strictly stay away from such practices in fear of getting fat from it or what not (again, with proper overall nutrition being in check in the first place, it is implied). NOTE: Just realized this ending paragraph is a repeat of my opening paragraph, I found that amusing so I'm keeping it in :P
Click to expand...

And the entire premise is flawed (the body utilizes them in beneficial ways....being stored as fat, messing up your goals) because it entirely ignores the overall diet which has a much great effect on everything that was just mentioned. THAT is what we are trying to say...you are looking are the micro while ignoring the macro...in more ways than one.
 
Admin said:
And the entire premise is flawed (the body utilizes them in beneficial ways....being stored as fat, messing up your goals) because it entirely ignores the overall diet which has a much great effect on everything that was just mentioned. THAT is what we are trying to say...you are looking are the micro while ignoring the macro...in more ways than one.
Click to expand...

I think where communications has broken down here is that I didn't actually ignore the macro, I basically implied it being in place thus talking about the micro. ;)

I dunno, there's just so many sticky threads discussing the macros you speak of, I just find it kind of redundant and nonsensical to have to specifically discuss it and point it out before being able to discuss the fine tuning bits/micro. Perhaps I'm wrong and the broad stroke concepts still needs to be hammered in regardless of how many countless sticky threads all over different forums discussing them.
 
kissdadookie said:
I think where communications has broken down here is that I didn't actually ignore the macro, I basically implied it being in place thus talking about the micro. ;)

I dunno, there's just so many sticky threads discussing the macros you speak of, I just find it kind of redundant and nonsensical to have to specifically discuss it and point it out before being able to discuss the fine tuning bits/micro. Perhaps I'm wrong and the broad stroke concepts still needs to be hammered in regardless of how many countless sticky threads all over different forums discussing them.
Click to expand...


You can discuss the micro all you like but when people state a nutritional concept based on a short fixed time period is the best, without a single mention of the overall diet and its greater effects, I find it odd when you get attacked for it.

Its like fine tuning your car and arguing over the best motor oil while putting water in the gas tank.
 
Admin said:
You can discuss the micro all you like but when people state a nutritional concept based on a short fixed time period is the best, without a single mention of the overall diet and its greater effects, I find it odd when you get attacked for it.

Its like fine tuning your car and arguing over the best motor oil while putting water in the gas tank.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get your point, especially if people still don't grasp the big picture regardless of how many sticky threads there are on basics of nutrition.
 
kissdadookie said:
I think where communications has broken down here is that I didn't actually ignore the macro, I basically implied it being in place thus talking about the micro. ;)

.
Click to expand...

....but again, being in place is completely different for each individual....therefore the effects of that fixed time period will be different...see what I'm getting at?
 
Admin said:
....but again, being in place is completely different for each individual....therefore the effects of that fixed time period will be different...see what I'm getting at?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Typically I tell people that if they work out in the afternoon or what not, had a few good meals in them already, peri-nutrition importance is kind of diminished/not necessary depending on what and when they had as their last meal, type of session, etc.

Guess I should have been very specific in hindsight :P
 
...and depending on their individual metabolism...which could be based on many factors...age, glucose sensitivity, body composition, etc...
 
Jiigzz said:
You're missing the point of why people advocate for carbs intra. Simply go into breezys log and stick around for a while and you will note why
Click to expand...

i think you've missed the boat here: there is largely no point in consuming carbs intra-w/o.

kissdadookie said:
Based on what? Have you read the full text? If you're just going by the abstract, I don't see how your opinion here matters because if anything, the abstract suggests that intra carbs are very effective and has no negative impact on lipolysis. So at worse, it doesn't do anything, but there's only benefits to be had rather than any negatives which you have been advocating it has.

Also, who the heck suggests taking 15 grams of carbs over the course of 2 hours? That's pointless. You still need a good amount of it for it to do anything of note. I'm taking in 38 grams of carbs + 15 grams of protein pre, another 38 grams of carbs + 15 grams of protein pre, then 20 grams of protein post. I essentially do splits/2-a-days which most people would do in two separate sessions but I just choose to combine them together into one big session. I do this because I honestly have little else to do in the morning and just enjoy it to tell you the truth. I've tried various protocols. Fasted, just aminos, aminos + some carbs, what I'm doing now however allows me to put in the volume and the frequency I use. It's very noticeable. This is from practical application of these things, rather than a bunch of strangers online debating things that they only grasp on paper and theoretically rather than actually trying things in practice.
Click to expand...

yes, i have a pdf of the study you cited and never read. again, i only throw in the carbs when i'll be at the gym for 2+ hours with most of the time spent on the basketball court running full court games.
 
Okay so I know the big debate is carbs intra-workout, but I guess while we're talking about intra-workout....are BCAAs/EAAs introworkout beneficial for recovery?
 
kevinhy said:
I disagree. I'm one who is extremely OCD about everything I do, and also the manner in which i track my personal results - via hydrostatic submersion, weight, and regular pictures for comparison. I took some of my daily carb allotment from my usual enormous post workout meal, and added them into my BCAA during my workout, and according to the dunk tank I had extremely favorable changes in my body composition after a 2 month period. Would that have happened regardless if all the carbs were consumed post workout as usual? Impossible to say, but the reduction in soreness and ability to push even harder even if it were simply due to higher BG levels allowed me to gain considerable lean mass.

That being said, every single session I do is war with my body. I go into the squat rack and it isnt over until I'm seeing stars, my legs are quivering, and some of those aminos/carbs are creeping up the back of my throat. Its easy to be a naysayer when you've never tried everything and your whole logic is firmly rooted in the science lab, but you dont grow muscle crunching numbers and lifting calculators. Again I refer to DC training and it flying in the face of scientific reasoning in terms of adequate volume, yet it blatantly works if you bust your ass.
Click to expand...

Agreed here. The main issue with a lot of studies is that they very often are done in people performing leg extensions to failure or something to that effect. We can take a few n=1's and find that we, even if subjectively, see more favourable results than dosing carbs at any other time. I for one (again completely subjective) have seen the best results of my life by only consuming carbs peri-workout. However it works ALSO because this approach best suits my favoured food choices and meal composition.

Admin said:
You have this presumption that people's minds are closed simply because they question the validity of a "one size fits all" recommendation when it comes to nutrition...when its actually quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

A lot of people's minds are closed to new ideas. They are very often restricted by "but what does the science say" forgetting that a lot of the nutrition world regarding bodybuilding is not well understood. Take this for example, for a long period of time the post anabolic window was noted as being something like 30 minutes; evidence was rooted in science and basic physiology, however it ignored what happened after the 30 minutes. We now know that the anabolic processes are open much longer.
Until recently, it was thought (and I too believed) that the body was only able to utilise about 1.8-2g/kg of LBM of protein. This too was found through isotype marking and other protein measurement systems/ However there are now reviews and studies that show that this may not quite be correct, especially in periods of energy restriction. While the evidence is there to support lower protein intakes, it seems that the protein requirement changes dependant on training and total energy intake.
Could it be possible that we do not yet fully understand how peri-workout carbohydrates show favourable changes in body comp? Are we basing our ideas of science which is not applicable to our situations? I love science and its interpretation, however I now refuse to be restricted by its findings but rather use it to understand how processes work.

Admin said:
Who do you think you are talking to? Do you honestly think the people who question this haven't tried something like this or trained people for years that haven't tried something like this?

Do you think this is some sort of new revolutionary nutritional concept?

I don't think anyone in this thread stated it won't work...they question the fact that its probably a band aid that is fixing a larger problem...and if you fix the larger problem then this notion of magically timed carbs will go away.

I could take two individuals and feed them 50g of dextrose with 5g of creatine and one person will fly through their workout, pumped, energy, focus, etc.... while the other crashes and sits on the toilet with the runs....and you are going to tell me their is some sort of universal magically timed carb that works for everyone?

I just love when individuals such as yourself lecture others for looking at things objectively while ignoring the overall picture.
Click to expand...

Agreed that personal preference will trump any cookie cutter diet.

Admin said:
And there are those who will bloat up and crash with any large amounts of carbs....either based on age, metabolism, etc...

I know individuals that if you try and concentrate the majority of their carbs around a 3-4 hour period, they simply will crash.

There just isn't some one sized fits all nutritional protocol that will work for everyone...and the more you try to break it down into 1-2 hour increments, the more you lose the big picture...imo.


And when was there an age old no carb preworkout? Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Agreed again. Everyone tolerates foods differently. But its not about it being magical, but rather allowing people to realise that holes do exist in studies. We can use the data to extrapolate new ideas rather than being restricted by it.
 
One thing Meadows doesn't mention, and it's the main reason he and his guys get anything out of these intra drinks, is that they are using exogenous insulin along with them. I always get a laugh when these national level/IFBB guys who are hormoned to the hills and back attribute their increased recovery to some magical carb drink taken during their workout.

I've played around with intra nutrition in the past and IMO natty guys aren't going to see any benefit from it beyond what they'd get from allocating those same calories and macros towards a bowl of cereal and milk a few hours before they train. I'm sure some 160 lb message board hero will tell me I'm wrong and that I probably don't train hard enough though.
 
Big Papi said:
i think you've missed the boat here: there is largely no point in consuming carbs intra-w/o.



yes, i have a pdf of the study you cited and never read. again, i only throw in the carbs when i'll be at the gym for 2+ hours with most of the time spent on the basketball court running full court games.
Click to expand...

Can you share the methodology and other juicy tidbits? I have been curious about it :D
 
Jiigzz said:
Agreed here. The main issue with a lot of studies is that they very often are done in people performing leg extensions to failure or something to that effect. We can take a few n=1's and find that we, even if subjectively, see more favourable results than dosing carbs at any other time. I for one (again completely subjective) have seen the best results of my life by only consuming carbs peri-workout. However it works ALSO because this approach best suits my favoured food choices and meal composition.
Click to expand...

....and age, body composition, metabolic factors, etc....which seem to be ignored by those who recommend this.



A lot of people's minds are closed to new ideas. They are very often restricted by "but what does the science say" forgetting that a lot of the nutrition world regarding bodybuilding is not well understood. Take this for example, for a long period of time the post anabolic window was noted as being something like 30 minutes; evidence was rooted in science and basic physiology, however it ignored what happened after the 30 minutes. We now know that the anabolic processes are open much longer.
Until recently, it was thought (and I too believed) that the body was only able to utilise about 1.8-2g/kg of LBM of protein. This too was found through isotype marking and other protein measurement systems/ However there are now reviews and studies that show that this may not quite be correct, especially in periods of energy restriction. While the evidence is there to support lower protein intakes, it seems that the protein requirement changes dependant on training and total energy intake.
Could it be possible that we do not yet fully understand how peri-workout carbohydrates show favourable changes in body comp? Are we basing our ideas of science which is not applicable to our situations? I love science and its interpretation, however I now refuse to be restricted by its findings but rather use it to understand how processes work.
Click to expand...

And you will find that those who understand how those processes work are the ones that generally will be against a one sized fits all...."you should consume carbs during a workout" approach because pro X that shoots 10iu's of slin says so.

There are people in this thread that simply didn't understand you didn't need insulin to initiate glycogen synthesis during exercise...yet we are the close minded ones?






Agreed again. Everyone tolerates foods differently. But its not about it being magical, but rather allowing people to realise that holes do exist in studies. We can use the data to extrapolate new ideas rather than being restricted by it.
Click to expand...

Its not tolerates...its metabolizes. And it has a major effect on food choices and overall diet....

New ideas? You do realize the studies posted are the RESPONSE to those that parroted the need for carbs in large amounts? You are basically stating that those who show pause to a system that has been pushed on people for 25yrs are the ones that are NOT open? Hell I had this debate 10 yrs with Alan Aragon about the overuse of carbs and their importance...but I enver said you need NO carbs.
 
Admin said:
Who do you think you are talking to? Do you honestly think the people who question this haven't tried something like this or trained people for years that haven't tried something like this?

Do you think this is some sort of new revolutionary nutritional concept?

I don't think anyone in this thread stated it won't work...they question the fact that its probably a band aid that is fixing a larger problem...and if you fix the larger problem then this notion of magically timed carbs will go away.

I could take two individuals and feed them 50g of dextrose with 5g of creatine and one person will fly through their workout, pumped, energy, focus, etc.... while the other crashes and sits on the toilet with the runs....and you are going to tell me their is some sort of universal magically timed carb that works for everyone?

I just love when individuals such as yourself lecture others for looking at things objectively while ignoring the overall picture.
Click to expand...

I knew you would find this thread….
 
Big Papi said:
i think you've missed the boat here: there is largely no point in consuming carbs intra-w/o.

yes, i have a pdf of the study you cited and never read. again, i only throw in the carbs when i'll be at the gym for 2+ hours with most of the time spent on the basketball court running full court games.
Click to expand...

Based on what? Your studies on leg extensions to failure?

OutOfStep said:
One thing Meadows doesn't mention, and it's the main reason he and his guys get anything out of these intra drinks, is that they are using exogenous insulin along with them. I always get a laugh when these national level/IFBB guys who are hormoned to the hills and back attribute their increased recovery to some magical carb drink taken during their workout.

I've played around with intra nutrition in the past and IMO natty guys aren't going to see any benefit from it beyond what they'd get from allocating those same calories and macros towards a bowl of cereal and milk a few hours before they train. I'm sure some 160 lb message board hero will tell me I'm wrong and that I probably don't train hard enough though.
Click to expand...

Eh? Talking in absolutes here. I don't pin slin yet have seen improvements following this protocol. I'm also 190lbs, not 160lbs. Keep your insults to yourself.

Also tell that to Breezy. One of the most accomplished Nattys I have ever encountered who follows Meadows.

Follow these two links in order: Breezys before: Invalid Link Removed
And after (pic near the end of thread): Invalid Link Removed

Now obviously his results are not just because of intra workout. Making that assumption is leaps and bounds and if you follow his thread you will see that he strongly advocates for the peri-workout stuff.
 
Jiigzz said:
You use carbohydrates to attenuate breakdown, not synthesis. Thats where the CHO+PRO debate comes in.

Repletion of glycogen is important I bodybuilding.. ever seen someone flat on stage do well? They often deplete tlso they can supercompensate
Click to expand...

bodybuilding is not a glycogen demanding activity...
 
USPlabsRep said:
bodybuilding is not a glycogen demanding activity...
Click to expand...

Never said it was...

Ever competed on stage flat? Bodybuilding is posing on a stage if I am not mistaken? Muscle glycogen is important, no?
 
USPlabsRep said:
bodybuilding is not a glycogen demanding activity...
Click to expand...

I think this really depends on the training. If it's short and sweet, yeah, I agree. If you subscribe to the Mountain Dog training style (not saying that is strictly his, I just can't think of another reference to use off the top of my head and his training style seems to be relatively well understood by most in terms of what it involves), I think the pre and intra nutrition is of benefit. Post not so much since you're essentially in a pretty well nourished state, so a nice relaxing meal 2 hours post and what not would perfectly suffice.
 
Jiigzz said:
Never said it was...

Ever competed on stage flat? Bodybuilding is posing on a stage if I am not mistaken? Muscle glycogen is important, no?
Click to expand...

Which has very little to do with 60 minutes in the gym during normal feeding patterns.
 
kissdadookie said:
I think this really depends on the training. If it's short and sweet, yeah, I agree. If you subscribe to the Mountain Dog training style (not saying that is strictly his, I just can't think of another reference to use off the top of my head and his training style seems to be relatively well understood by most in terms of what it involves), I think the pre and intra nutrition is of benefit. Post not so much since you're essentially in a pretty well nourished state, so a nice relaxing meal 2 hours post and what not would perfectly suffice.
Click to expand...

If you train that long, you are training more for conditioning than actual muscle growth. To reach the point of depletion to where metabolic processes begin to change, you would have to train for very long....long time.

You are talking about a condition in which it takes days to achieve through normal dieting.

If that were the case, I could reach ketosis in 2 hours under normal feeding conditions.
 
Admin said:
If you train that long, you are training more for conditioning than actual muscle growth. To reach the point of depletion to where metabolic processes begin to change, you would have to train for very long....long time.

You are talking about a condition in which it takes days to achieve through normal dieting.

If that were the case, I could reach ketosis in 2 hours under normal feeding conditions.
Click to expand...

Wasn't actually talking about depleting glycogen. Was talking about it in very simple terms of it would help fuel the second leg of the workout.

I've essentially cut out much of my preworkout stims down to just caffeine pills essentially at this point as I have found that I can get through it with just a little bit of stims to wake me up in the morning whilst the carbs (mainly, there's also protein, but it's most likely the carbs that are providing energy here) keeps the energy up for the workout.

I don't think that it's mainly conditioning either, because I've grown quite a bit increasing the volume and frequency to the point I have it now. This is of course dependent on what one is doing for that span of time, I can definitely see how someone could spend that much time and turning it into a conditioning session.

Also, making it specifically clear so that there is no confusion: I'm stating things that have worked for me. Others may go try it out, I'm not saying it is a one size fit all. If you try it and it doesn't prove to be fit for you, do something else that is more suitable for you.
 
kissdadookie said:
Wasn't actually talking about depleting glycogen. Was talking about it in very simple terms of it would help fuel the second leg of the workout.

I've essentially cut out much of my preworkout stims down to just caffeine pills essentially at this point as I have found that I can get through it with just a little bit of stims to wake me up in the morning whilst the carbs (mainly, there's also protein, but it's most likely the carbs that are providing energy here) keeps the energy up for the workout.

I don't think that it's mainly conditioning either, because I've grown quite a bit increasing the volume and frequency to the point I have it now.
Click to expand...

To the point to where it would cause such loss of glycogen, then it would be conditioning. You aren't reaching that...and thats ok. The energy you need for the second leg had very little to do with muscle glycogen.
 
Admin said:
Which has very little to do with 60 minutes in the gym during normal feeding patterns.
Click to expand...

My original post was about competitive bodybuilding, not the training aspect :D

Admin said:
If you train that long, you are training more for conditioning than actual muscle growth. To reach the point of depletion to where metabolic processes begin to change, you would have to train for very long....long time.

You are talking about a condition in which it takes days to achieve through normal dieting.

If that were the case, I could reach ketosis in 2 hours under normal feeding conditions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Its not for glycogen replenishment, but for enhanced recovery (I do notice a vast improvement here given I train full body 4 times per week)
 
OutOfStep said:
One thing Meadows doesn't mention, and it's the main reason he and his guys get anything out of these intra drinks, is that they are using exogenous insulin along with them. I always get a laugh when these national level/IFBB guys who are hormoned to the hills and back attribute their increased recovery to some magical carb drink taken during their workout.
Click to expand...

While this is an easy assumption to make as slin use by top level national competitors is not a secret, its not correct to assume that it is the only reason that John's protocol works for him.
 
kevinhy said:
Lots of keyboard science in here. The real world application of such a protocol has not been studied accurately, therefore one can only surmise the pros/cons of such a system.

I will be the first to say that IF you train hard, IF you have the guts to put your all into each workout then you should try it. I used to get stuck in this analysis by paralysis mindset and avoid things without 100% scientific backing, and I've got news for you....THERES A WORLD OUTSIDE OF PUBMED! Do you know how much ive grown since I started following people like John Meadows and Dante Trudel vs. the layne nortons of the world? More in one year than the previous 5 years of being a nerd put together! That isnt to discredit Layne by any means, he puts out a lot of information, but hes also one of the people propagating the "well its not science it doesnt matter", even though the science is never 100% in regards to anything due to variables involved.

If you're stuck thinking "well transient gh release" ..."theyre all on 3g of steroids".... "well insulin is BAD" then you probably dont train hard enough and should find a new hobby. Insulin is good if its managing appropriately, the entire system of peri workout nutrition ALSO involves dropping carbs at other times of the day in favor of protein/fat meals. It isnt for everyone, but if youre the kind of person who digs deep each and every workout you will only benefit from it.
Click to expand...

kevinhy said:
Its more so directed at the guys who obsess over these little details instead of taking in the big picture. People would rather micromanage their supplement stacks instead of going in and putting down some hard work in the gym and topping it off with a solid diet. Those are typically the people who say "well carbs are going to blunt the transient GH release of my resistance training (the effect of which is debatable) so i cant have that!"

If you have questions just understanding the concept thats all good and welcomed around here
Click to expand...

Jiigzz said:
This to a T.

Hardly any of the nutrition/ training protocols I follow have ANY scientific validity, yet the IIFYM's people of the world seek to discredit it with the "timing isn't important but overall daily macros is". For each person, the importance of timing will differ yet it is still important to some degree. I started following Breezy's journey + snag's journey a long time ago and even if their protocols are not based on absolute science, the results speak volumes for why these things do in fact matter.

Previously I used science as an end all be all, but now I use it as a base for understanding how things work in the body then branch out and explore other protocols.
Click to expand...

kevinhy said:
Thats the key! I'm not saying science is stupid (and I'm SURE you arent either), but bodybuilding just hasnt be studied enough to fully understand it. The studies that we have now have a lot of limitations behind them, and if anything they make me question common principles more so than they do towards explaining them. Science is amazing, technology is amazing, but there is a point in this lifestyle where you simply need to try certain things and see how it does for you.

I bet all of the science guys would read the outline for DC training, quote Brad Schoenfelds work on hypertrophy (which is amazing by the way), and then go "Well theres not enough volume...this cant work!" All the while those of us who said "you know, this sounds interesting I'll give it a shot" had amazing gains all the way through it. Sure, brad has done research into discovering an average amount of volume & intensity towards achieving maximum hypertrophy, but it isnt an end all be all as evidenced by some lower volume approaches like DC and Yates methodologies. The problem is some people may respond insane to these styles, yet they refuse to give them a shot because it flies in the face of the research.
Click to expand...

kevinhy said:
I'm just trying to open peoples minds up

Have you tried it?
Click to expand...
I have it works incredibly...

As for the other posts I quoted, I did so because these are some of the best posts I've read on this forum to date. And I have in the past along with snagencyV2.0 and others tried to steer people to look at the total equation here.

With science you can observe statistically significant trends. The statistical significance may or may not translate to real world practice. It's the overall balance that is important.

Obsessing over little trivial significant trends does not translate to muscle earned or fat shed. The work translates to results, tried and true methods translates to results. Whether a protein fraction elicits a .000063% better MPS rate than another is in the real world better left to be argued about by scientists and just take some damn protein.

It goes back to a thread posted about hiring an unfit trainer or coach. Would i? Absolutely not, you can read as many studies and books that you want but without the practical knowledge and being able to do it yourself it just makes you a scientist. Someone that is so immersed in the data that they don't have the time to actually go and try what they argue about.

When I first started lifting weights it had absolutely nothing to do with studies. It was putting in the time and eating, that's it. Working my ass off until I puked and eating until I wanted to puke. I'm sure there's a study that says that doesn't work. I'm sure there are many studies that say John Meadows routines aren't optimal or that DC doesn't work, well, in argument with those studies the results and physiques created by my hard work and the hard work of everyone else putting in the work says something else entirely.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Just like CSCS coaches that are training elite athletes, pro's and Olympians. Use the studies and science as one of many tools available to us to see possible advantages and keep lifting weights and exercising. If you want results workout and eat. Don't live and die by new emerging studies, let the scientists science ;), and lift and eat lol

I am in no way taking shots at anyone. These are just general comments.
 
Jiigzz said:
Agreed. Its not for glycogen replenishment, but for enhanced recovery (I do notice a vast improvement here given I train full body 4 times per week)
Click to expand...

Then by all means continue doing it!!! ;)
 
Spaniard said:
I have it works incredibly...

As for the other posts I quoted, I did so because these are some of the best posts I've read on this forum to date. And I have in the past along with snagencyV2.0 and others tried to steer people to look at the total equation here.

With science you can observe statistically significant trends. These statistically significant trends may or may not translate to real world practice. It's the overall balance that is important.

Obsessing over little trivial significant trends does not translate to muscle earned or fat shed. The work translates to results, tried and true methods translates to results. Whether a protein fraction elicits a .000063% better MPS rate than another is in the real world better left to be argued about by scientists and just take some damn protein.

It goes back to a thread posted about hiring an unfit trainer or coach. Would i? Absolutely not, you can read as many studies and books that you want but without the practical knowledge and being able to do it yourself it just makes you a scientist. Someone that is so immersed in the data that they don't have the time to actually go and try what they argue about.

When I first started lifting weights it had absolutely nothing to do with studies. It was putting in the time and eating, that's it. Working my ass off until I puked and eating until I wanted to puke. I'm sure there's a study that says that doesn't work. I'm sure there are many studies that say John Meadows routines aren't optimal or that DC doesn't work, well, in argument with those studies the results and physiques created by my hard work and the hard work of everyone else putting in the work says something else entirely.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Just like CSCS coaches that are training elite athletes, pro's and Olympians. Use the studies and science as one of many tools available to us to see possible advantages and keep lifting weights and exercising. If you want results workout and eat. Don't live and die by new emerging studies, let the scientists science ;), and lift and eat lol

I am in no way taking shots at anyone. These are just general comments.
Click to expand...


On phone, did not read...too long. :lol:
 
Big Papi said:
no, just send me a bottle of x-gels and plcar and i'll agree with whatever you want me to agree with :laugh:
Click to expand...

;)

Haha, varying opinions is what makes forum life great.
 
Jiigzz said:
Eh? Talking in absolutes here. I don't pin slin yet have seen improvements following this protocol. I'm also 190lbs, not 160lbs. Keep your insults to yourself.

Also tell that to Breezy. One of the most accomplished Nattys I have ever encountered who follows Meadows.

Follow these two links in order: Breezys before: Invalid Link Removed
And after (pic near the end of thread): Invalid Link Removed

Now obviously his results are not just because of intra workout. Making that assumption is leaps and bounds and if you follow his thread you will see that he strongly advocates for the peri-workout stuff.
Click to expand...

Absolutes? Ahh...no. I never used the terms always or never. Maybe you missed the "IMO" part of my post. I've been training and working in the field of nutrition long enough to have formed my own opinion on the topic. I'm just sharing my opinion same as everyone else in this thread. Training logs? Lmfao I hope you're joking buddy. I'd be embarrassed to call myself a professional if online training logs was how I drew my conclusions about sports nutrition methodologies.

Look, if parading around the gym with your jug of antifreeze gives you the warm and fuzzies, then have at it. I just don't presonaly see the utility in spending $100 a month on hbcd and hydrolyzed casein when a bowl of Captain Crunch and milk will do the same thing for a lot less money and taste better to boot.
 
$60 seems spendy for sure but two things. That is the retail pricel and prime often has a 30% off coupon so that makes it $42 which may not be horrible for someone looking to use a product like this. Before passing judgement on price I would like to see the product label to know exactly how many grams of EAAs, HCCD, and other ingredients it contains. 500g of bulk EAAs from TN is $27. I'm waiting for the actual product label to determine the totals in the 30 serving container.
 
OutOfStep said:
Look, if parading around the gym with your jug of antifreeze gives you the warm and fuzzies, then have at it. I just don't presonaly see the utility in spending $100 a month on hbcd and hydrolyzed casein when a bowl of Captain Crunch and milk will do the same thing for a lot less money and taste better to boot.
Click to expand...

You apparently lack the ability to read...


I also like to add to the people who add "anything works a that much drug and slin use" you people are the definition of ignorant. Keep tryin to cut people down for being better than you. Thousands of people are gas'd up at our gyms and look like sh!t. I Know about 4 at my gym on growth and 1gr test a week and kinda look like thy work out. Stop being so close minded and actually look at the sample at work here.

I also find it comical almost everyone in this thread that's posted about using a meadows peri workout regimen notices improvement while those who HAVENT. says it sucks...

The top intra hater Thesoultion hated on it forever but after getting some JM intra says he's recovery is much improved.
 
I love John, I have written articles for his paid site, but I'm not paying $2 a serving.

He has said that it will not contain pepto pro, so it's not going to be like plazma in that regard (which is really what makes plazma expensive).
 
Last edited:
Royd The Noyd said:
I love John, I have written articles for his paid site, but I'm not paying $2 a serving. He has said that it will not contain pepto pro, so it's not going to be like plazma in that regard (which is really what makes plazma expensive).
Click to expand...

That's too bad.

Our juice bar at my gym is selling hydro-Casien, Not peptapro, and it's $20 for 30 servings at 15gr/scoop. It's peaked my interest
 
Distilled Water said:
That's too bad.

Our juice bar at my gym is selling hydro-Casien, Not peptapro, and it's $20 for 30 servings at 15gr/scoop. It's peaked my interest
Click to expand...

There is a big difference in solubility between PeptoPro and the "standard" hydrolyzed casein I have tried. I don't know how much this would equate to absorption within the body though?

PeptoPro is about $30 for 1 pound, which is 15 servings at about 25g of protein per serving (~375g Protein). I don't understand when some people baulk at the price of PeptoPro but have no problem paying nearly the same amount of money for far fewer grams of BCAA's. (as with many of the BCAA/Amino products. This is just my observation. I'm sure some will say PeptoPro is of no additional benefit however, as mentioned if I can get 375g of 80+% Di/Tri peptides or considerably fewer total grams of BCAAs (as with some BCAA products, not all of course) for nearly the same money, I guess I personally feel the PeptoPro might be a better choice.

As noted the Prime product will not contain PeptoPro but EAAs as well as other aminos.
 
FireRescue said:
There is a big difference in solubility between PeptoPro and the "standard" hydrolyzed casein I have tried. I don't know how much this would equate to absorption within the body though? PeptoPro is about $30 for 1 pound, which is 15 servings at about 25g of protein per serving (~375g Protein). I don't understand when some people baulk at the price of PeptoPro but have no problem paying nearly the same amount of money for far fewer grams of BCAA's. (as with many of the BCAA/Amino products. As noted the Prime product will not contain PeptoPro but EAAs as well as other aminos.
Click to expand...

This has always made me chuckle as well. You can get EAA for less than PP but gotta hustle. I was cutting bulk EAA with AminoD. Made taste outstanding and AminoD was buy 2 get 1. Was like $50? Taste/after taste really shins w AminoD. Kiddos to Purus Labs
 
"but after getting some JM intra says he's recovery is much improved"

That has nothing to do with John's Product, Prime Nutrition which is what you stated Above in the Quotes
I have never used the product nor has probably anyone on here.

I use a far different supplement than his Intra-MD product because i get it for free that is no where near what he will be putting out formula wise.
I do not follow his pre-workout nutrition because i train fasted.
 
The Solution said:
"but after getting some JM intra says he's recovery is much improved" That has nothing to do with John's Product, Prime Nutrition which is what you stated Above in the Quotes I have never used the product nor has probably anyone on here. I use a far different supplement than his Intra-MD product because i get it for free that is no where near what he will be putting out formula wise. I do not follow his pre-workout nutrition because i train fasted.
Click to expand...

So when you said you used HBCD (the main ingredient at the base of intra carb discussion) you lied? I'm very confused
 
I don't think very many people have used the Prime intra product that carries the MD name except for maybe a few beta testers. The pre-sale on the product starts Monday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top