PDA

View Full Version : Slim, Borris, Gal, Little Help Please



Chubrock
03-27-2007, 09:09 PM
Buddy of mine is a ExPhys Major and believes that through his 3yrs of school he has gained all the knowledge in the universe. He has recently gone on a binge about how Pre Workout Meals can be disadvantageous to a bodybuilder and that eating 2hrs before a meal can actually hurt the results one could see. I asked him for some type of proof and this is what he sent me:

http://www.discountanabolics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=396&highlight=cortisol+control+respond


Any of ya'll care to help me sort through this crap so I can try to reason with him a bit.

Alex.V
03-27-2007, 10:54 PM
That post makes me slightly ill.

Built
03-27-2007, 11:33 PM
I cited stuff (http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=282)about this a while back.

Here are the references you can read:
22. The Top 10 Post Workout Nutrition Myths, Dave Barr, http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=659666

23. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Aug;281(2):E197-206. Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise. Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77550, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11440894&dopt=Abstract

Good luck getting him to listen ...

Clifford Gillmore
03-27-2007, 11:36 PM
I read everything, and I just got a blood nose.










<- Simple.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-28-2007, 12:21 AM
Are you serious?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

Chubrock
03-28-2007, 09:57 AM
Haha trust me guys (and gals), it makes my eyes bleed too. I just try to reason with this kid, but he thinks he's grabbed the world by the tail so to speak. I may just hit him with a plate.

Alex.V
03-28-2007, 10:28 AM
The thing about that article is that it's just bad science. The facts are sound, but the conclusions are just off base. There's no other way to put it. It's just... intellectually bankrupt.

Mik
03-28-2007, 01:46 PM
It's just... intellectually bankrupt.

That is beautiful!

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-28-2007, 02:12 PM
The thing about that article is that it's just bad science. The facts are sound, but the conclusions are just off base. There's no other way to put it. It's just... intellectually bankrupt.I'll have to use that one sometime. :thumbup:

Chubrock
03-28-2007, 07:59 PM
The thing about that article is that it's just bad science. The facts are sound, but the conclusions are just off base. There's no other way to put it. It's just... intellectually bankrupt.



Belial, if you don't mind, would you mind pointing out a couple of examples of what you're referring to? I'll be honest, a lot of all that makes about as much sense to me as German. Ask me how to put together a Balance Sheet or Statement of Cash Flows and I'm good, but this, this is a different story entirely.

McIrish
03-28-2007, 08:26 PM
It's just... intellectually bankrupt.

Alright, I gotta ask... have you read the book "The Phantom Tollbooth"? I read it when I was about 8-10 (somewhere in there) and one line has stuck with me for the past 15-odd years.

If memory serves, the Humbug directs the following at the Spelling Bee : "A slavish concern for the spelling of words is the sign of a bankrupt intellect."

I just had to ask if someone was (gasp) making an allusion to one of my favorite childhood reads...

ddegroff
03-28-2007, 08:43 PM
ExPhys Major

I'm in the same major, and I find that link you posted somewhat off.

I had a meeting yesterday about Cortisol (perfect timing). I don't think you can limit the reasoning of a preworkout meal to just effect Cortisol. I don't have any links for you, tho.

IHaveToCrushYou
03-29-2007, 12:14 AM
Ask me how to put together a Balance Sheet or Statement of Cash Flows and I'm good, but this, this is a different story entirely.

Love that accounting mumbo jumbo!

Chubrock
03-29-2007, 06:33 AM
Love that accounting mumbo jumbo!

More like a love/hate relationship. I tend to pick up on it pretty easily, and don't mind doing it. I've always been good with numbers too, so that helps.


This stuff however, destroys my brain. I have a very limited knowledge on the inner workings of the human body, so I was hoping some of our more knowledgable members could help me break this down.

Alex.V
03-29-2007, 08:01 AM
I'm in the same major, and I find that link you posted somewhat off.

I had a meeting yesterday about Cortisol (perfect timing). I don't think you can limit the reasoning of a preworkout meal to just effect Cortisol. I don't have any links for you, tho.


Exactly what he said.

This is the fundamental flaw in a lot of supplement research, not to mention the majority of crap articles out there on the internet (like the one referenced). If the human body was a grouping of isolated systems, you could, say, focus a drug on a single mechanism and expect it to work. Same applies to supplements. Look at Sesamin, for instance (I believe this is the one. I may be thinking about another compound here, but just bear with me). This is a compound that inhibits the action of an enzyme responsible for fat formation (essentially. I think the enzyme it inhibits is one responsible for triglyceride formation, not the deposit of lipids in adipose cells). So one would think that inhibiting this enzyme will slow fat formation.

However, in order for this to work, you're making several assumptions:

1) This enzyme's activity is the rate limiting step in fat formation. Any complex enzymatic pathway is a series of enzyme actions, and one of them is always the slowest. Think assembly line for cars. Pretend every single step is done by machines. One machine welds the frame, one machine, welds on the doors, another inserts windshields, etc. However, say that inserting the engine takes the longest (probable), and that the crankshaft needs to be linked to the transmission by a human. This would likely be the rate limiting step. So if you decreased the number of humans on the line, the entire assembly line would slow down. However, say you decreased the speed of the machines welding on the door handles. Yes, this is an essential step in car creation, but certainly not the slowest. In fact, the machine could do its work far faster, but at the end of the day that would be pointless, because people can only assemble drivetrains so quickly. So slowing this machine down on an absolute level, or even taking away half of them, wouldn't do much at all. They're running at a reduced speed ANYWAY, and if you took some away and slowed the others down, they could STILL run fast enough to overwhelm the poor guy with a heavy torque wrench and a bunch of smashed thumbs.

This long winded example is basically my way of pointing out that identifying part of a system, and identifying a way to either help or hurt that one part, can have absolutely zero effect on the whole.

2) The body won't find a way to compensate. As soon as you slow down the action of one enzyme, or inhibit one pathway, another one picks up the slack. The body is wonderful at maintaining the status quo. There are literally hundreds of systems in the body that, at least in part, work together just to regulate temperature.

3) The lab work translates into humans. Theories tested in the lab rarely become practical OTC supplements. An isolated compound, just because it's effective when injected into rats, may do jack **** when put in pill form and sold OTC at a dose 1/100th of that tested.


Anyway. That concludes my rant. Hopefully it explains a little of my general skepticism.

In this PARTICULAR case, a similar assumption is being made with cortisol. A few actions of the hormone are isolated, and the author goes out of his way to detail these actions and discuss how their effects could be moderated, and even used in ways that are beneficial. However, he fails to adequately prove that, even IF all his arguments are true, the potential benefits of not eating pre-workout outweigh the benefits of simply having ample glucose in your body.

In this case, the author is basically grasping at straws trying to generate something original. Unfortunately for most of these guys, the majority of good advice and good training is common sense, so it's impossible to maintain any aura of mystique as any kind of guru. (Note, this is why "steroid gurus" often give stupid advice that has no scientific backing... simply saying "Test is best, and one brand of EQ is as good as another" may be correct, but makes for less interesting reading.) However, take some obscure and questionable science, apply it to a system that's poorly understood by the layperson, make sure you isolate the system from all others in the body while ignoring the entire volume of research that proves your hypothesis is ridiculous to begin with, and then proceed to quote a few selective studies that seem to back your point, and BOOM, you've got a revolutionary article. People will be in awe.

I have nothing further to say.

I ****ing hate people.

And yes, I have read the phantom tollbooth, though I don't recall that expression from it. While I would love to claim to be the author of such a descriptive phrase, I'm pretty sure it's a common, if somewhat currently underused, expression.

Chubrock
03-29-2007, 09:00 AM
Haha damn Belial. Wasn't expecting such a longwinded response, but I appreciate it. I feel a good bit more comfortable now, especially with the analogy you used. Sometimes you gotta put things in simple form, especially for people like me who often just see the black and white of things. Dunno if I'll be able to convince this guy of anything, but at this point, I'm not too concerned about it. I'm not really sure he'd listen to me anyhow. He's under the assumption that just because this guy is a Dr. and works for a supplement company, that he is above scrutiny. Once again man, I appreciate the response.

Isaac Wilkins
03-29-2007, 03:14 PM
I'm not really sure he'd listen to me anyhow. He's under the assumption that just because this guy is a Dr. and works for a supplement company, that he is above scrutiny. Once again man, I appreciate the response.

Interesting thread. I'll hit it up tomorrow.

What I've highlighted above indicates that the doctor should be under extreme scrutiny, not above it. He's getting paid by a supplement company.

Remember, a lot of studies, by legit universities/professionals, are unfortunately colored by the source of the grant paying for the study. When it's just a Dr.'s opinion while being paid by a supplement company...

Chubrock
03-29-2007, 05:44 PM
Interesting thread. I'll hit it up tomorrow.

What I've highlighted above indicates that the doctor should be under extreme scrutiny, not above it. He's getting paid by a supplement company.

Remember, a lot of studies, by legit universities/professionals, are unfortunately colored by the source of the grant paying for the study. When it's just a Dr.'s opinion while being paid by a supplement company...



Look forward to it Isaac. I sent him Belial's reply and this is what he had to say:

"Well im not sure what he was trying to say... he didn't refute anything stated, all he did was a make generalizations and only talked about cortisol, none of the other issues. Let him debate the endocrinology (hormones), the diverted blood flow, etc, the issues at hand, not talk stories of steroid gurus or systems in isolation, which is really what eating pre-workout is all about, not taking the whole body into account and only assuming anabolism anabolism anabolism is the way to go. You talked of me needing references but this guy has none and doesn't really make any points other than supposedly the article talking of cortisol in isolation.

Honestly to me it seemed like he didn't know how to refute what was said so he branched out with talk of other stuff unrelated to the topic at hand (steroids, sesamin), I mean come on. "

Alex.V
03-29-2007, 07:36 PM
Fair enough. It's funny how there's some sort of assumption that I was in any way directly addressing the issue. I was giving an example as to the illogical methods used; Chubrock, this was not meant as a rebuttal. Fact is, if somebody puts forward this sort of argument, the burden of proof is still on HIM to create a compelling argument. I saw nothing in that post to indicate that this was anything other than bad science. However, since the person you sent it to could not comprehend that the sesamin example was indeed quite relevant, I'll address this one.

His first point about exercise on a full stomach is valid, however it is far more valid for aerobic exercise than anaerobic exercise, and is ignoring that pre-workout meals do not have to be mountains of food. During any sort of anaerobic activity, there are VERY FEW immediate demands on the bloodstream; by definition there is little need for oxygen exchange during a 20-30 second set. During the recovery period in between, there is ample time to re-oxygenate the muscle cells. This is not something that even needs citation, this is simply the nature of anaerobic activity. Lactic acid clearance MAY indeed be slowed by a full stomach.

But again, the argument for a pre-workout meal is the argument that you need SOME calories pre-workout, a 200-300 calorie shake 45 minutes before exercise is plenty, and this is hardly enough to seriously impact bloodflow elsewhere. I don't think ANYBODY is arguing that you should eat a gigantic plate of pasta before a workout.

This next point: "Well, I'll sure give you the fact that you may have an increased ability to throw around more weight -- but again, this too is limited. There will always be an upper limit to how much you can lift. You will still only be able to go so heavy before you risk a rupture, annihilate a joint, or risk required lengthy periods of absence from the gym, thereby halting progress anyway." is worthless. Of course you can get injured. You can ALWAYS get injured. The point is that you can, indeed, prolong your workout. I also see no mention of the fact that fatigue (which can be indeed induced by hypoglycemia) can also very easily lead to injury. This goes back to my example.. this is a classic case of arguing past a point, not against a point.

Then he gets to his cortisol argument. Of which there is very little substance. He does cite some contradictions regarding cortisol, and the majority of them are quite true. Again, this goes back to my example... the facts are indeed correct. However, there are SO DAMN MANY ASSUMPTIONS that he makes. I mean, he picks and chooses which systems he wishes to comment on.

Yes, Cortisol is an anti-inflammatory. Wonderful. Is this any reason whatsoever to encourage the hormone's release? Hell no. There are dozens of pathways that cortisol has an impact on, some catabolic, some indirectly anti-catabolic. Do you have any clinical evidence to indicate that you can IN ANY WAY favor either particular kind of action? Didn't think so.

Ok, wait, cortisol release is encouraged by protein. But protein intake pre-workout can help maintain nitrogen balance in the hours following a workout. So wait, what's more important? Is there any evidence to back either one? Not seeing it.

So, ok, wait, having blood flow directed to your gut gives you less blood in your muscles. Lactic acid clearance is slowed, oxygenation is decreased... so how long before a workout should you stop eating? Wait, you mean that your GI tract is still digesting food 12 hours after the average meal? So how long should I wait after a big meal? A medium meal? A high fat meal? A meal of cottage cheese? Are there any guidelines that I can be given that are remotely useful?

In fact, that last question is the crux of my argument. There is NO INFORMATION in this article that is remotely useful. He makes mention of a few pathways. I could debate the science, I do have the biochemistry background, but there's no point in debating factual information. Again, the information is correct, it is the completeness of said information that is lacking, as well as any context... and the conclusions that are spurious. I would LOVE for this to be part of a thesis. Forget defending it. It would be laughed down. There are plenty of assertions made, and he hints at there being some sort of practical application to this careful deliniation of a few properties of a single hormone, but there isn't a single shred of evidence, empirical or otherwise, that this argument holds any water whatsoever.

Yes, cortisol has important roles in the body. It does reduce inflammation. It does inhibit TNF receptors. Of COURSE it has protective effects. That is part of the hormone's purpose.

But can you pick and choose these effects over the catabolic ones? I see nothing to remotely suggest this is possible. Even if you could, would this have a significant impact on body composition? Again, I see no evidence that it would. And if it DID, would this effect be greater than the positive effects of maintaining a positive (or at least, slightly less negative) nitrogen balance during a workout, and the positive effects of extending training duration and quality by staving off hypoglycemia?

... still not seeing it.

If there is evidence, I would LOVE to see it. Even a quick sentence that outlines some guidelines that would be of use to the average trainee; some sort of reason for this article to be given a second thought.

So please, if this guy could provide one, I'm all ears. Seriously. I will gladly admit when I'm wrong. I somehow doubt that is the case this time.

Chubrock
03-29-2007, 07:46 PM
Alex (I'm Andrew btw), I don't want you to think that I used your statement as a rebuttal to an arguement. I've just been talking with him and told him that you knew worlds more about this than I do, so I sent him your original post and told him this is what you had said after reading the article.

I'll see if he can come up with any kind of hard evidence, though when I prompted him for some a couple of days ago, he said that he didn't have any but that I could surely get it all from the author of that article.

KingJustin
03-29-2007, 07:52 PM
Who the hell is this guy?

I don't like anyone opposed to pre-workout nutrition.

Alex.V
03-29-2007, 08:00 PM
Hey, no problem man. It just rubbed me the wrong way that he would claim I was dancing around the science. It doesn't take a degree in biochemistry (which I do have, btw) to recognize a bad argument. In this case, a bad argument is one that is not adequately supported by the facts. As I outlined above, the problem is not in the author's understanding of a few of cortisol's actions, but rather in how he ties them together with no consideration of other factors to draw a rather silly conclusion. Actually, I take it back. He doesn't draw much of a conclusion at all.

The sesamin example was simply meant to illustrate the dangers of ignoring the big picture, and there are some very, very good scientists who do this all too frequently. In the field I work in (drug development, pharma/biotech venture capital) you see this all the time... excellent idea on the drawing board and initial preclinical studies, and worthless in humans. Worthless, because there are one or two compounds, or systems, or feedback loops (or three or four, or five hundred) that the developers didn't take into account.

Chubrock
03-29-2007, 08:11 PM
Justin- A guy up at ECU. I know him fairly well, but only reason we got into it about this is because he has convinced Jimmie to follow all this crap.


Alex- I hear ya man. Just wanted to straighten that out. Are you up at RTP? I know you had graduated from Duke and were working in that field, but didn't know if you had left the state or not.

Alex.V
03-29-2007, 08:15 PM
Andrew- Yep, working in RTP. I somehow can't seem to get the hell out of North Carolina. Not a bad place to be for biotech, though.

Chubrock
03-29-2007, 08:23 PM
Sometimes wish I had gone into that field, but I've always been good with numbers and the Accounting field tends to play to my strengths. This is getting way off topic, but where do you work out up there? I'll be taking an internship with John Hancock Financial and will be up in Raleigh at least 3 days a week. Wouldn't mind hitting up a session with you if we could ever swing it.


As far as being on topic, he seems to be dancing around some of the points. If he replys with anything worthwhile, I'll post it up here so you can see.

Alex.V
03-29-2007, 09:45 PM
I work out at Duke's student gym (Durham)... I work part time as a personal trainer there, so I get free membership. :) I'd definitely be down for a workout.

the doc
03-29-2007, 10:05 PM
alex you wouldn't happen to be working for or with the Aurora Funds - the big venture group in durham?

while it looks like there is much to read and learn here I'll have to wait... I'm going through endocrine right now and definitely want to tie in these cortisol arguements with our current unit

Alex.V
03-30-2007, 10:51 AM
alex you wouldn't happen to be working for or with the Aurora Funds - the big venture group in durham?


Nope. I work with a private CRO. The ventures component of the company is actually its big moneymaker, though.

PoutineEh
03-31-2007, 05:15 PM
Hey Belial, I have a few questions.
I declared bio-medical engineering as my major but I am not sure on what concentration I want to do.
I can do a biochemical undergrad and get a masters in biotechnology or biomaterials. I can also do a biomechanical undergrad and get a masters in biomechanics or rehabilition engineering and ergonomics.

I am a nearing the end of my sophomore year and am just finishing up most of my general classes, and I am unsure in what direction to go. Can you maybe tell me a little bit about why you chose biochemical and how you found out. I am pretty good at chemistry, but the chemistry classes I have taken so far were pretty boring. Was this the same for you, or did you just always have a love for chemistry? How do you recommend seeing which field is right for me? Internships, lab work, talking to professors etc...?

Isaac Wilkins
03-31-2007, 05:18 PM
I'm coming into this late, and A-Money already laid down a lot of what I'd say.

For starters, the hunger pang crap at the beginning is just re-****ing-tarded. Exercise to reduce hunger pangs? Yeah, Weight Watchers has been using that for years. Who cares? I'm not sure why being not hungry post-workout makes that a better time to eat. So that one doesn't overeat? Whatever.

Don't even get me started on my "post-workout nutrition" rant. I've done it a few times here on WBB, but Alex touched on why: Gastric Emptying/Transit Time. Most foods take so long to get through the digestive system and into the blood where they can BEGIN to be utilized that it makes the "magical 45 minute post-workout window" largely crap. Your best hope to get that cranking is going to be high GI carbs (glucose at 6% solution or less) and whey isolates before you work out. Even then it isn't going to do much but keep your glycogen levels, blood sugar, and nitrogen balance up. All good things, but for the average gym rat it's not going to be as important. With performance athletes it is.

This is why I chuckle when I see a fat **** on a bench sipping Gatorade during his five-minute rest periods between sets of 135x10.

Competing blood flow between working muscles and digestion? Sure. When was the last time you went to a buffet BEFORE training and then had a good workout? Yeah, not good. When was the last time your heart rate and breathing became so labored that you couldn't work out efficiently because of your 300 calorie shake? Exactly.

I always figured that being able to throw more weight around was a good thing? Maybe that's the strength athlete in me, but I'm pretty sure it'll make you big, too. You know what else will make you big, when combined with heavier weights? Adaquete protein and full glycogen.

PoutineEh
03-31-2007, 07:08 PM
I'm coming into this late, and A-Money already laid down a lot of what I'd say.

For starters, the hunger pang crap at the beginning is just re-****ing-tarded. Exercise to reduce hunger pangs? Yeah, Weight Watchers has been using that for years. Who cares? I'm not sure why being not hungry post-workout makes that a better time to eat. So that one doesn't overeat? Whatever.

Don't even get me started on my "post-workout nutrition" rant. I've done it a few times here on WBB, but Alex touched on why: Gastric Emptying/Transit Time. Most foods take so long to get through the digestive system and into the blood where they can BEGIN to be utilized that it makes the "magical 45 minute post-workout window" largely crap. Your best hope to get that cranking is going to be high GI carbs (glucose at 6% solution or less) and whey isolates before you work out. Even then it isn't going to do much but keep your glycogen levels, blood sugar, and nitrogen balance up. All good things, but for the average gym rat it's not going to be as important. With performance athletes it is.

This is why I chuckle when I see a fat **** on a bench sipping Gatorade during his five-minute rest periods between sets of 135x10.

Competing blood flow between working muscles and digestion? Sure. When was the last time you went to a buffet BEFORE training and then had a good workout? Yeah, not good. When was the last time your heart rate and breathing became so labored that you couldn't work out efficiently because of your 300 calorie shake? Exactly.

I always figured that being able to throw more weight around was a good thing? Maybe that's the strength athlete in me, but I'm pretty sure it'll make you big, too. You know what else will make you big, when combined with heavier weights? Adaquete protein and full glycogen.

that hurts! hahah
whats wrong w/ sipping on a homemade gatorade? i just do it to keep me going. helps in the energy department...
in the summer while i train, im going to make a shake of ~150g malt/dex mix and ~50g of protein and add enough water to dilute it to about 10%. ill drink a 1/4 about 15 mins before i train, 1/4 during, and then the rest right when i finish. anything wrong w/ this?

Chubrock
03-31-2007, 10:46 PM
Well Alex, I was debating whether or not to post up what he returned to me, but I figured what the heck. Doesn't appear as though they really teach reading comprehension in this EXSS pathway. Not sure you'd even feel like replying to some of this ****.


"Hmmm, well ive read it and he seems to still not really be able to counter every point raised. The points he does make though I will counter.

1) Ok, so you don't have to eat a 'mountain of food' as this guys states, fine. Either way, digestion requires blood flow... let me repeat that DIGESTION REQUIRES blood flow which is shunted away from the musculature. Either way this is disadvantageous.

2) ANY TIME you eat a macronutrient (fat, protein, carb) you raise insulin levels to shuttle the nutrients away. Insulin opposes the actions of the COUNTER-REGULATORY hormones which are MEANT TO BE SECRETED DURING EXERCISE. They are the 'Fight or Flight' hormones that your body secreted during stress... exercise is a stress! Insulin is the 'rest and digest' hormone. With insulin secretion after macro ingestion you will be in a PARASYMPATHETIC state of nervous system stimulation which DECREASES heart rate (BAD during exercise), CONSTRICTS coronary vessels (BAD during exercise), CONSTRICTS tissues in the lungs (BAD during exercise. Going into the workout with an empty stomach allows a SYMPATHETIC response in which is meant to prepare you for acute stress or physical activity. You get an INCREASE in heart rate and strength of heart contraction (GOOD), INCREASED blood supply to the heart and active muscles, release of muscle and liver glycogen, improved rate of gas exchange between the lungs and blood, and increased mental activity and quickness of response. Again, exercise is a STRESS, therefore you need to be able to support this type of performance, not be digesting a meal.

And for the cortisol stuff, I have nothing to add, the guy admitted Dr. Houser was all correct. Then the guy seems to toot his own horn mentioning his degree and saying how this info would be laughed down, now that is hilarious! Dr. Houser not only is a MD, but holds a Masters in service health administration. Plus, if you were to advocate eating anything before exercise to the doctorate teachers in my exercise physiology classes, you would get a chuckle out of the teachers because that is something that is taught in EXSS 1000. I can pull out my class texts and highlight all the parts in it showing macro ingestion before exercise is not worth it. I myself am only 3 EXSS classes away from my BS in exercise physiology, I know this stuff, I am almost done with my degree. So we can both toot our horns but the fact of the matter is he isn't taught exercise sport science classes for his degree, or taught nutrition classes for his degree. But guess what, I am, and so are doctors!

If you would like to email or talk to Dr. Houser himself andro I can arrange that. I am not interested in arguing with some guy thats degree means nothing in the realm of exercise sports science. He is taught nothing about training or nutrition. He will no matter what say he is correct because you can already tell from the tone of his retorts that he has a superiority complex, that he is always right. I myself use to believe macro ingestion before and during exercise was great, but I learned different from my EXSS classes as well as from the doctor I intern with, Dr. Houser. I can give you my exercise physiology teachers email addresses and you will get the same response from them as well. You can choose what you wish to do, if you aren't convinced by now then I don't know what else I can say."

PoutineEh
03-31-2007, 10:58 PM
you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-31-2007, 11:00 PM
Other people with "MDs" and PhDs have shown studies countering your friend's little rant there. And as for superiority complexes, it sounds like your friend has one as well (and Belial generally is right most of the time, lol). My first nutrition class in my first year of college as I journey my way to a PhD in nutrition science and human physiology seems to go against your friend's rant with about 100 citations to boot. And that was just a basic nutrition book.

He is 3 classes away from a Bachelors? That's the bottom of the food chain when it comes to college level degrees. Big fuggin' whoop. I know people with big scary degrees as well with contradicting information. There's nothing wrong with working out empty if you had breakfast first or something...as those nutrients carry over into the hours that you then work out at. The timing of nutrients is not as important as some make it out to be though...the anabolic window...or like Belial calls it...a barn door (I believe it was Belial).

Alex.V
03-31-2007, 11:50 PM
I would love to talk to the good doctor. Because honestly, this guy's an idiot. lol. I have no idea where to begin. So I won't.

Alex.V
04-01-2007, 12:03 AM
let me repeat that DIGESTION REQUIRES blood flow which is shunted away from the musculature. Either way this is disadvantageous.

Good generalization. Way to ignore all the details. Which, incidentally, the devil is, indeed, in.



2) ANY TIME you eat a macronutrient (fat, protein, carb) you raise insulin levels to shuttle the nutrients away. Insulin opposes the actions of the COUNTER-REGULATORY hormones which are MEANT TO BE SECRETED DURING EXERCISE. They are the 'Fight or Flight' hormones that your body secreted during stress... exercise is a stress! Insulin is the 'rest and digest' hormone. With insulin secretion after macro ingestion you will be in a PARASYMPATHETIC state of nervous system stimulation which DECREASES heart rate (BAD during exercise), CONSTRICTS coronary vessels (BAD during exercise), CONSTRICTS tissues in the lungs (BAD during exercise. Going into the workout with an empty stomach allows a SYMPATHETIC response in which is meant to prepare you for acute stress or physical activity. You get an INCREASE in heart rate and strength of heart contraction (GOOD), INCREASED blood supply to the heart and active muscles, release of muscle and liver glycogen, improved rate of gas exchange between the lungs and blood, and increased mental activity and quickness of response. Again, exercise is a STRESS, therefore you need to be able to support this type of performance, not be digesting a meal.

Good information, stupid conclusion. Excellent work relaying the basics of certain simple metabolic pathways. Congratulations. You can teach high school biology. Now, if you ever plan on applying this in vivo, maybe we can talk. So far, good points = 0.



And for the cortisol stuff, I have nothing to add, the guy admitted Dr. Houser was all correct.


Yes, in his successful regurgitation of certain facts. Not in his conclusions. again, points = 0.


Dr. Houser not only is a MD, but holds a Masters in service health administration.

Congratulations. So not only has he gone to four years of medical school (of which there is very little training in nutrition unless it becomes your specialty), but he also has his MSHA! A masters in service health administration is training for management in the health care field. What exactly this proves about nutrition knowledge, I'm not sure. It WILL prepare you for running a non-profit food bank, though. Still zero on the points, killer.



Plus, if you were to advocate eating anything before exercise to the doctorate teachers in my exercise physiology classes, you would get a chuckle out of the teachers because that is something that is taught in EXSS 1000.

I'm sure the first thing they'd ask is eating WHAT. As I said before, and Isaac so eloquently phrased, it's all about degree. No, nobody says eat a big meal. Very few professors in exercise physiology would recommend exercising in a starved state, methinks. Not seeing a valid point yet.



I myself am only 3 EXSS classes away from my BS in exercise physiology, I know this stuff, I am almost done with my degree.

Congratulations. You're three classes away from a bachelors degree. lol.


So we can both toot our horns but the fact of the matter is he isn't taught exercise sport science classes for his degree, or taught nutrition classes for his degree.

You don't know what classes I've taken, buddy. All you know is one of my majors. Not my whole course list. Good assumptions, though.


But guess what, I am, and so are doctors!

No. Doctors are NOT taught exercise sport science as any matter of course. Nor are they taught much about specificity of macronutrient timing as it relates to exercise.



If you would like to email or talk to Dr. Houser himself andro I can arrange that.

Please do, this is painful.


I am not interested in arguing with some guy thats degree means nothing in the realm of exercise sports science.

This is the point where I realized the level of individual that was replying. I mean, is this serious?

If you were to tell any sports science authority that biochemistry means nothing to them, they would probably look at you with a mixture of amusement and surprise. I guess the actual workings of the enzymes in your body have no bearing whatsoever on sports science. You must be correct.

Meathead.



He is taught nothing about training or nutrition.

Again. Good assumption. Again, way off.



that he is always right.

At least you got one thing right.



I know he's not reading this. But that was fun.

Seriously, dude, this guy's a moron. Don't bother, Andrew. I honestly think his professors would cringe at the **** he's writing. He takes a few classes and thinks he's an authority. I would put my education up against his any day, but in this case it's not needed. Remember those three phases of knowledge I put down in another post? Yeah, he's at that stage where you know just enough to think you know everything.

Maybe a few years from now he'll look back and realize what a pompous dick he sounded like, and honestly how ridiculous his comments were. Any monkey can copy and paste from a textbook. That doesn't mean the guy has any real knowledge.

Alex.V
04-01-2007, 12:13 AM
I mean, seriously, if this guy thinks that biochemistry (at its most basic, it's the study of the metabolic processes of the body) has no bearing whatsoever on a discussion of the metabolic processes of the body, then I'm really at a loss.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-01-2007, 01:06 AM
:clap:

Hey Chub, does your buddy even work out?

Chubrock
04-01-2007, 07:25 AM
Man I love ya'll guys.

Alex, yea I'm not really going to bother anymore. Really the only reason I got started in on this was because a good friend of mine follows this guys advice a lot because they're roommates. I figured I'd at least give it a shot at trying to show this guy why he's wrong, but we see how far that got haha.


Scarz- Funny you should mention that. I make that same comment to Jimmie (my friend, his roommate) everytime I talk to them. He does in fact lift but you would think with all this knowledge and experience that he'd be huge, or strong. Tis not the case, by a long shot.




NOW, the next question. Would anybody like me to email the doctor that he worships and ask him about all this stuff? Alex? Isaac? Either of you interested in having some fun with the "good" doctor's responses?

Isaac Wilkins
04-01-2007, 08:05 AM
Man I love ya'll guys.

Alex, yea I'm not really going to bother anymore. Really the only reason I got started in on this was because a good friend of mine follows this guys advice a lot because they're roommates. I figured I'd at least give it a shot at trying to show this guy why he's wrong, but we see how far that got haha.


Scarz- Funny you should mention that. I make that same comment to Jimmie (my friend, his roommate) everytime I talk to them. He does in fact lift but you would think with all this knowledge and experience that he'd be huge, or strong. Tis not the case, by a long shot.




NOW, the next question. Would anybody like me to email the doctor that he worships and ask him about all this stuff? Alex? Isaac? Either of you interested in having some fun with the "good" doctor's responses?


I'm sure we'd both be happy to talk to him. Realistically, I'm also reasonably sure the the "good doctor" is a well educated and somewhat reasonable man. However, other than an article that we don't particularly agree with, his theories are being filtered through the mouth of an uneducated, aggressive little kid. That always works out poorly.

Chubrock
04-01-2007, 08:14 AM
I agree. I'll probably jet this guy an email and see what he has to say. It'll have to wait until later on today, but when I get a chance I'll try and get him to send me some more information.

Alex.V
04-01-2007, 08:55 AM
I'm sure we'd both be happy to talk to him. Realistically, I'm also reasonably sure the the "good doctor" is a well educated and somewhat reasonable man. However, other than an article that we don't particularly agree with, his theories are being filtered through the mouth of an uneducated, aggressive little kid. That always works out poorly.


I agree. I'm sure he'd welcome some debate, and the chance to defend his OWN arguments, which he'd probably appreciate.

the doc
04-01-2007, 09:45 AM
as far as the sympathetic vs parasympathetic nerve domination - i think the article does make some good points. However, one problem is that the author seems to see it in black/white when, as with all endocrine and neuroendocrine influence, it better understood in terms of shades of grey. Yes eating will tend to enhance vagal outflow (parasympathetic) and decrease sympathetic outflow... but one cannot compare the influence of eating a generous meal of steak and potatoes (with sour cream and butter of course) to sipping on a dilute drink with a little glucose and aminos.

that being said, a bit of personal experience... I almost always feel a decrease in athletic performance following a medium to large meal. Also, I notice almost no enhancement by sipping a dilute BCAA/whey hydrosylate/glucose drink during a workout.
Go figure...

the doc
04-01-2007, 09:54 AM
as long as we're talking about endocrine... let's talk hGH. Now it has been well established that strenuous exercise increases GH release in both postworkout and in the first few sleep cycles. Furthermore, it has been well established that insulin inhibits GH release. The benefits in of GH have been well established as well - ex. increased mobilization of fatty acids, connective tissue repair, and preservation of lean body mass.
What I dont understand is how the whole paradigm of glucose (a highly insulinogenic material) intake has dominated workout programs. Now I would agree that someone who participates in endurance sports such as triatheletes, runners (long distance), etc would find it helpful to take glucose in as they expend energy. Who here thinks that a typical weight trainging workout totally depletes muscle & liver glycogen? Is that blunting of GH production costing drug free trainees the benefits of GH for the hype of glycogen replenishment?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-01-2007, 01:57 PM
This is all very interesting stuff, guys. :read:

PowerManDL
04-01-2007, 02:15 PM
You know, as much as I'm loathe to use this argument:

Has this kid ever actually lifted weights?

I mean, most of what he's saying can be "disproven" by just going to the gym.

Yeah theory is all well and good, but when most of it is blind drawing of conclusions (such as this guy's doing), there comes a point where you have to let empiricism guide you.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-01-2007, 02:21 PM
Has this kid ever actually lifted weights?
Scarz- Funny you should mention that. I make that same comment to Jimmie (my friend, his roommate) everytime I talk to them. He does in fact lift but you would think with all this knowledge and experience that he'd be huge, or strong. Tis not the case, by a long shot.....

Alex.V
04-01-2007, 03:56 PM
Who here thinks that a typical weight trainging workout totally depletes muscle & liver glycogen? Is that blunting of GH production costing drug free trainees the benefits of GH for the hype of glycogen replenishment?

My argument would be that the GH boost is so transient as to be all but insignificant in the long run. (kinda like when people argue that the testosterone boost from squats is significant. It ain't.)

A typical workout doesn't even marginally dip into liver/glycogen stores... even the comparatively paltry 100 grams of glycogen in the average human liver is enough to power four to five hours of lifting.

However, this is assuming the average person is eating consistently throughout the day.

For myself, eating maintenance calories and having very few stores, by the time I get to my workout my blood sugar IS quite low, and my performance would be abysmal without some sort of pre-workout carbohydrate. I know this is the case for the majority of people I train, even high performance athletes who DO watch their diet.

Your point about the author putting things in black and white are very well taken, and again show how a few facts can be distorted in the extreme, and the conclusions drawn from them can be tremendously off-base.

Con
04-01-2007, 04:01 PM
Ive read through the posts over and over again, what is the conclusion that is being drawn? Carb replenishment isnt all its cracked up to be?

Im lost..

PowerManDL
04-01-2007, 04:27 PM
(kinda like when people argue that the testosterone boost from squats is significant. It ain't.)

Don't try telling that to the kiddies up in the Training section. Or on BB.com.


A typical workout doesn't even marginally dip into liver/glycogen stores... even the comparatively paltry 100 grams of glycogen in the average human liver is enough to power four to five hours of lifting.

Ya, considering that there's something like 12-16g/kg of glycogen at full capacity, it takes somewhere in the ballpark of 12-20 sets lasting 45-60 seconds, per bodypart, to achieve anything close to a full depletion effect.

I'd consider the carb thing to be more essential for people involved in any excessive endurance-type training, which would work towards glycogen depletion.

For strength stuff, when eating hypocaloric, focusing most of your carb intake around training (and preferably before) can give a nice energy boost, but that's because the diet has depleted stores, not the training. For those eating above maintenance, I'm not so sure that the enhanced carb intake is that big a deal, above and beyond just getting in easy calories. The GI tract will already be chock-full of nutrients (unless you're training first thing in the AM), and that should ensure pretty "full" muscles and stable blood sugar.

I mean I don't notice much difference from dextrose + whey post-wo than I do milk + steak, all things considered. As far as I'm concerned, the simple and practical aspects of this far outweigh any theoretical biochemical-wanking. Ie, I want protein and carbs to support training. If it blunts cortisol or GH or whatever, so be it. Which of the two options will get you a better workout and ensure you've got the calories/macronutrients you need to support it?

Alex.V
04-01-2007, 06:44 PM
If it blunts cortisol or GH or whatever, so be it. Which of the two options will get you a better workout and ensure you've got the calories/macronutrients you need to support it?


But! But! That 45 minutes post-workout is all that matters! I am clearly far more concerned with short term levels of cortisol and hgh (and short term impeded blood flow due to some food in my small intestine) than I am with overall long term quality of exercise and intelligent routine/diet design!

I mean, really now. Haven't you been reading the all the latest research???


PS- milk and steak PWO FTW.

Chubrock
04-01-2007, 07:13 PM
PS- milk and steak PWO FTW.


So is that how I get as big as you, milk and steak pwo???

BTW, his response to everything was that he stood behind his teachers, books and Dr. Houser. At that point, I didn't bother responding. I emailed Dr. Houser and will let ya'll know what he says, if I ever get a response.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-01-2007, 07:15 PM
What friggin' books is he reading?

Chubrock
04-01-2007, 07:18 PM
Haha he says that all his EXSS books support the claims.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-01-2007, 07:22 PM
Well he's almost got a Bachelors. He KNOWS this stuff. :rolleyes:

Chubrock
04-01-2007, 07:23 PM
Evidently like the back of his hand.

PowerManDL
04-01-2007, 07:29 PM
You should remind him briefly of the purpose of the scientific method.

It's not to tell you what can't happen. It's to describe what you observe to happen. If the problem were what he's describing, then nobody would be getting big.

When the model contradicts the observation, you change the model. You don't continue arguing like a ****** and hiding behind appeals to authority or unfounded assumptions, while ignoring the empirical evidence.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that his ExPhys curriculum doesn't include a course on research methodology.

the doc
04-01-2007, 07:59 PM
My argument would be that the GH boost is so transient as to be all but insignificant in the long run. (kinda like when people argue that the testosterone boost from squats is significant. It ain't.)



ahh but you see this is like comparing apples and oranges. Steroid hormones are slow acting - they attentuate gene expression through steroid binding proteins in the nucleus. They must diffuse through a lipid bilayer, bind to a protein receptor, then travel to the nucleus, bind to the DNA, activate translations, and then have the new RNA move out to the ribosomes to make new proteins - a slow process. As such they require sustained elevated levels to cause any significant effect. Thus i would agree that the transient increase in testosterone from squats is probably not that significant - though it cant hurt. Consider a shot of test susp or an oral dose of glucocorticoids - one does not develop hugeness or a moonface in hours from a single dose but rather one must get several shots or many oral doses predinisone to see these effects.

However, GH is a peptide hormone and thus like all peptide hormones acts through G-protein or tyrosine kinase coupled receptors at the cell membrane. This cell signalling mechanism produces effects rather rapidly - a few peptides binding at the cell surface causes a thousand fold increase in signalling inside the cell. Most if not all peptide hormones are rapidly degraded (within hours) and thus transient increases ARE significant. Consider insulin - one of the most well known and understood peptide hormones. One takes a shot of insulin and will literally feel the effects within minutes. The increase in plasma insulin levels is relatively short much like we are assuming the GH plasma levels but no one would say the effects are not significant.

So the question i am trying to answer is does this increase in GH have significant positive effects on lipolysis and tissue recovery for a drug free trainee on a hypocaloric diet?

a quick search revealed many recent articles which have measured plasma GH after resistance activities. Right now my libraries website is not up, and Ohiolink does not subscribe to them (an ohio educational consortium). The abstracts dont give the actual values for plasma GH but do describe them as "significant". I have to meet a group in the morning to discuss GI pathologies but i will look further into this topic when i have more time

Alex.V
04-01-2007, 09:55 PM
Mark, the argument was not in terms of rate of hormone action. You're the one comparing apples and oranges. :) Significant in the instant is not significant in the long run.

Insulin is so significant as an ergogenic aid because its action results in an immediate, dramatic, and directly (almost exclusively) beneficial result for the strength athlete: immediate nutrient partitioning on a staggering level throughout the body. GHs effects are more far reaching, and subtle in the short run. An immediate 15% increase in nutrient uptake can do wonders for preparing an athlete for his next workout, while a short term increase in hgh levels may not have any noticeable effect whatsoever.

When in doubt, break things down into a simple trial using dosages far more dramatic than you'd ever see in a naturally occuring system. Take your given individual, and immediately post workout either inject 3ius of HGH or 30ius of insulin. Observe this athlete over two weeks of workouts. I can guarantee you you will notice a significant change in the body composition, body weight, overall strength level, and possibly likelihood of viability (if he's not careful with his food intake) in the event of insulin dosing. With the HGH... not so much. I doubt you'd notice any change whatsoever.

Of course with the HGH, over time, there will be noticeable effects. You know what it does in the body as well as I do, so I'd definitely argue that after six months of continued usage there could be some dramatic effects indeed. But this is after six months of supraphysiological dosing at a constant, measured, controlled level. I find it highly unlikely that the transient and inconsistent changes in GH levels are significant enough in the long run to have a noticeable impact on athletic performance. Again, in this case it's the similar argument that I'm making with testosterone. Yes, they are certainly different hormones with different signalling pathways and mechanisms of action, but the same generalization holds true: It's very unlikely (in my opinion) that any short-term increase in the level of either of these hormones, at least to the extent that can be induced naturally, will have any significant long-term effect on an athlete.

I mean, I am the first to say not-nice things about people who say things like "GH doesn't do anything unless you take it for 4 months". It does something literally within seconds of injecting it, it's just that the effects are so subtle that it takes months to notice. But in this case, I just don't necessarily believe that the increase will do much. I dunno, I guess it does depend on the data. How significant (as a percentage of the total amount of HGH created each day by the average human) is, say, the maximum attainable post-workout boost?

***edit***- added this:
Statistical significance is not the same as systemic significance. A transient increase of 200% that lasts half an hour is statistically very significant, but only amounts to, what, a 6-7% increase when averaged out over the course of the entire day. Compare this to the minimum used by athletes to have any noticeable impact on performance (2-4 iu's injected a day, or from what I recall, roughly 200-250% of a normal person's daily production, and this is in addition to whatever the body is producing on its own)

So is a 6-7% (still just an example figure, I know) increase in the level of ONE of the hormones associated with recovery and performance worth the extra thought and planning? And that's assuming that there isn't some as-of-yet-unknown compensatory mechanism associated with training in a stressed or starved state that would either negate this gain, or even result in more negatives.

This is why I stopped worrying about this stuff. There are simply too many unknowns for me.

So, um, it's your job to solve them. Skip your GI crap (haha) tomorrow and look this up. Now you got me interested too.

PowerManDL
04-02-2007, 04:47 AM
How significant (as a percentage of the total amount of HGH created each day by the average human) is, say, the maximum attainable post-workout boost?

Not very much from what I recall, and it's compounded by the fact that other things like not eating, pain, and sleeping cause similar GH spikes.

In other words, whatever gains you see from a workout you'd expect to see from those things as well.


So is a 6-7% (still just an example figure, I know) increase in the level of ONE of the hormones associated with recovery and performance worth the extra thought and planning? And that's assuming that there isn't some as-of-yet-unknown compensatory mechanism associated with training in a stressed or starved state that would either negate this gain, or even result in more negatives.

That's the problem with a lot of the "GH-maximizing" protocols. They often miss out on the big picture (progressive overload and eating a lot) in order to maximize this GH response.

Look at Poliquin's GBC program, or the stuff Lyle incorporates into UD2.0 (which admittedly isn't there for GH response as it is for glycogen depletion, as the lactate production seems to correlate w/ a GH spike). Not many are going to grow off that sort of training, at least compared to what they would from a more strength-focused regimen.

As far as I'm concerned, we know what works. Lift heavy stuff, try to lift heavier stuff over time, and eat a lot of food. Any application of science should simply work as a descriptor at this point; it's not going to yield any new magical functions of training or diet.

What's the point of compromising all the things you do know work, in order to maximize something which research could be possibly maybe interpreted to say works?

Isaac Wilkins
04-02-2007, 06:38 AM
Ya, considering that there's something like 12-16g/kg of glycogen at full capacity, it takes somewhere in the ballpark of 12-20 sets lasting 45-60 seconds, per bodypart, to achieve anything close to a full depletion effect.

I'd consider the carb thing to be more essential for people involved in any excessive endurance-type training, which would work towards glycogen depletion.

For strength stuff, when eating hypocaloric, focusing most of your carb intake around training (and preferably before) can give a nice energy boost, but that's because the diet has depleted stores, not the training. For those eating above maintenance, I'm not so sure that the enhanced carb intake is that big a deal, above and beyond just getting in easy calories. The GI tract will already be chock-full of nutrients (unless you're training first thing in the AM), and that should ensure pretty "full" muscles and stable blood sugar.

I mean I don't notice much difference from dextrose + whey post-wo than I do milk + steak, all things considered. As far as I'm concerned, the simple and practical aspects of this far outweigh any theoretical biochemical-wanking. Ie, I want protein and carbs to support training. If it blunts cortisol or GH or whatever, so be it. Which of the two options will get you a better workout and ensure you've got the calories/macronutrients you need to support it?


This is exactly what I was speaking of in regards to the fatty sipping Gatorade during his rest periods in my previous post.

Most people quite simply do not work hard enough during their strength training to deplete glycogen to the point where they need the Gatorade to get through it.

As far as the gh debate, I quite simply don't see it as being a big deal. Growth hormone is an awesomely powerful hormone. It promotes favorable body composition and helps keep joints healthy (in addition to a variety of other factors). However, once adulthood is reached it's really not used in huge quantities in the body. As Alex indicated, I really don't feel that transient increases in gh secretion, even compounded over years of successful training, are going to be more anabolic or promote better body composition than years of overfeeding/targeted and exercise partitioned nutrient intake and heavy weight training.

Chubrock
04-02-2007, 07:16 AM
Man, this thread is getting good.

greekboy80
04-02-2007, 08:43 AM
So, I 've been reading and following, can someone sum this up for me...is it good to have the PWO shake of Dex and Whey or not?

Would it be better for certin people, ie. Cutters over Bulkers....etc.

What about full body splits over body parts splits...Length of time working out matter?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-02-2007, 02:30 PM
Some of those questions don't even pertain to this thread and have been answered in other threads.

the doc
04-02-2007, 05:45 PM
wow! a little research shows afforded the following ultra-cool study (although the abstract does not do it justice)

I have the whole paper but i dont know how to post the pdf (there may be some copyright issues)

I'll have to talk to the admin

Abstract Objective: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the influence of nutritive
interventions on acute hormonal responses to a single bout of resistance exercise in untrained young
men. Specifically, the aim was to determine whether the acute hormonal milieu conducive to
enhancing skeletal muscle hypertrophic adaptation to resistance training could be created. The
potential role of cortisol in inhibiting training-induced muscle growth is of particular interest, as is
whether exercise-induced cortisol release can be attenuated by nutritive interventions.
Methods: After a 4-h fast, 32 subjects performed a single bout of resistance exercise (60 min),
during which they consumed a 6% carbohydrate (CHO) solution, a 6-g essential amino acid (EAA)
mixture, a combined CHO  EAA supplement, or a placebo beverage. Blood samples were
collected every 15 min throughout the exercise bout, immediately after exercise, and 15 and 30 min
after exercise for analysis of total testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone, insulin, and glucose.
Results: No significant change in glucose or insulin was observed for placebo. CHO and CHO  EAA
ingestion resulted in significantly (P  0.001) increased glucose and insulin concentrations above
baseline, whereas EAA resulted in significant postexercise increases (P  0.05) in insulin only. Placebo
exhibited a significant increase in cortisol within 30 min (P  0.01), with a peak increase of 105% (P
 0.001) immediately after exercise, and cortisol remained 54% above baseline at 30 min after exercise
(P  0.05). Conversely, the treatment groups displayed no significant change in cortisol during the
exercise bout, with CHO and CHO  EAA finishing 27% (P  0.01) and 23% (P  0.05), respectively,
below baseline at 30 min after exercise. No between-group differences in exercise-induced growth
hormone or testosterone concentrations after nutritive intervention were present.
Conclusion: These data indicate that CHO and/or EAA ingestion during a single bout of resistance
exercise suppresses the exercise-induced cortisol response, in addition to stimulating insulin release.
We conclude that the exercise-induced hormonal profile can be influenced by nutritive interventions
toward a profile more favorable for anabolism.

the doc
04-02-2007, 05:45 PM
this is a relatively new paper (2006). I'll try and post more about it later

PoutineEh
04-02-2007, 05:47 PM
this thread is turning into a good source of info
i vote sticky!:p

Beast
04-02-2007, 05:49 PM
No between-group differences in exercise-induced growth hormone or testosterone concentrations after nutritive intervention were present.
That is interesting.

greekboy80
04-03-2007, 07:25 AM
Some of those questions don't even pertain to this thread and have been answered in other threads.

All of these quetion are pertaining to the subject matter, I am asking, is the post workout nutrition of dex,malto, and whey ness.? I was saying, is it better to have the Carb/whey shakes in these situations. Cutting over bulking, full body splits over body part splits? Or length of time working out...Is it ness. to have the carbs post work out or not?


Is it good to have the PWO shake of Dex and Whey or not?

Would it be better for certin people, ie. Cutters over Bulkers....etc.

What about full body splits over body parts splits...Length of time working out matter?

Alex.V
04-03-2007, 07:28 AM
All of these quetion are pertaining to the subject matter, I am asking, is the post workout nutrition of dex,malto, and whey ness.? I was saying, is it better to have the Carb/whey shakes in these situations. Cutting over bulking, full body splits over body part splits? Or length of time working out...Is it ness. to have the carbs post work out or not?


That's, indirectly, what is being discussed. If you'd like a summary and customized description tailored for your level of comprehension on your desk by tomorrow, please let me know.

greekboy80
04-03-2007, 08:06 AM
That's, indirectly, what is being discussed. If you'd like a summary and customized description tailored for your level of comprehension on your desk by tomorrow, please let me know.

:nod:

Nah, but its kind of confusing to me and some others. I just wanted to know if I should keep the shake or not...Its kind of hard to desipher(sp?) for some.

But I guess what your trying to say is that this is what the topic is about and that right now were not really sure, and that there is conflicting research...

I'll keep reading and following, maybe we can come to some sort of conclusion.

Alex.V
04-03-2007, 08:45 AM
But I guess what your trying to say is that this is what the topic is about and that right now were not really sure, and that there is conflicting research...
.

Exactly, man. :) There will always be conflicting research.

And that's kind of what this comes down to, for me. I'd say keep your shake until you see some serious, solid proof that you should do otherwise.

Chubrock
04-03-2007, 10:56 AM
That's, indirectly, what is being discussed. If you'd like a summary and customized description tailored for your level of comprehension on your desk by tomorrow, please let me know.

So yea, can you have that description to me by 10:30 tomorrow morning? Great.

greekboy80
04-03-2007, 12:09 PM
Exactly, man. :) There will always be conflicting research.

And that's kind of what this comes down to, for me. I'd say keep your shake until you see some serious, solid proof that you should do otherwise.

That's what I figured. I'm def. having better results this year while cutting with the Dex/Whey shakes than not having them last year and the year before, with respects to muscle preservation.

I'll keep em'.

I appreciate your replys....

Chubrock
04-06-2007, 07:20 AM
Just so ya'll know, the doctor never got back with me.

Alex.V
04-06-2007, 07:21 AM
That's ok, I never got you your briefing either. I'm no good with deadlines.

Chubrock
04-06-2007, 07:25 AM
We never worked out an Easter Break training session either. Must be a Duke thing haha.

Alex.V
04-06-2007, 08:20 AM
lol. Yeah, I have no easter break, and I'm switching apartments this weekend so it's been a logistical nightmare anyway.

So unless you want to help me move....

Chubrock
04-06-2007, 08:22 AM
lol. Yeah, I have no easter break, and I'm switching apartments this weekend so it's been a logistical nightmare anyway.

So unless you want to help me move....


Haha you'd probably end up having me move all the furniture while you ate your triple cheeseburger and flirted with the girls next door.