T Nation

Carbs PWO Article...

Ive read the following article:

I noticed particularly these paragraph:

’ In summary, it is not necessary to jack blood glucose and insulin levels through the roof in order to replenish glycogen and gain muscle. Skeletal muscle is able to uptake glucose whenever it needs it. In addition, skeletal muscle is primed to uptake glucose after exercise. By maintaining your insulin levels you can gain lean mass while keeping fat gains to a minimum’ .

’ No matter what your (workout) schedule is I do not recommend consuming dextrose, maltodextrin, or other high glycemic carbs post workout. Skeletal muscle has the ability to uptake glucose post-workout without “spiking” your insulin levels. Weight training increases GLUT-4 translocation in skeletal muscle, allowing the muscle to uptake glucose more efficiently '.

Studies do show that increasing insulin levels post workout does enhance protein synthesis, but I do not feel one needs to jack insulin levels through the roof with dextrose.

If you are/have endo tendencies, or are over a certain % bf (say 15%), would it be best to consume hi g.i carbs PWO, Lo g.i carbs PWO, or even (as I think Poliquin suggests) no carbs PWO and go for high Pro only?

Or, in the grand scheme of things, does it matter that much?

I think most science points to high GI carbs being the best method to enhance protein synthesis, however, it may lead to more fat gain than would occur with a protein-only PWO shake. BUT! Look at the double-dose Surge experiment!

My take on PWO nutrition is: go with your goals. If you are worried about fat %, cut down on the carbs. If you want to maximize muscle mass accrual, go with a high GI carb-based PWO shake.

I think the whole PWO window is overated, and have to agree that muscles will take glucose very well at other times.

I think PWO has been slightly over rated by companies for reasons being PROFIT.

the pre workout study is bullshit, if they compared it to eating a balanced breakfast and then a PWO shake vs fasted it would of been a different story.

I also think that jacking insulin disrupts hormone metabolism, like barry sears said. Eicasanoid synthesis gets knocked off. IE all that hard earned EPA DHA destroyed.

I am by no means genetically gifted with BF levels and I have found that taking a dose of Surge during and after my workout has helped me immensely in terms of body composition, I have not put on any fat whatsoever I have only gained LBM.
I agree though if you are trying to get lean as a priority taking a double scoop of protein during/after training is surely better…

Saying this I would like to see what someone like John Berardi who is very in favor of workout, insulin spiking workout drinks has to say about Derek “Beast” Charlebois theories on workout nutrition…


Interesting question/discussion you started, Bulla. (grin)

I’m very much an advocate of PWO nutrition, even though in some cases I’m not able to include a PWO drink like Surge in a person’s diet.

A little bit of history that will give you some insight into things. John Berardi helped design (or did design) Surge. He’s young and had to work very, very hard for the LBM he’s acquired. I guess you could say he fell into the hard-gainer category. For him, using Surge provided a great ROI (Return on Investment).

But not everyone’s a hard gainer. Is PWO really nutrition necessary for those who are trying to reduce body fat and scale weight? Chris Shugart answered that question with the Velocity Diet and the Double Dose Surge project. The proper use of Surge (even on a low-carb diet) facilitates recovery, limits the loss of LBM while on a diet.

Where does an individual benefit from MAX reglycogenation? Marathon runners do. They are so carb/glycogen depleted that they do need to take advantage of that “window of opportunity” to restore glycogen stores.

Whether you use Surge or not … whether you do anything in the way of a PWO drink, be it Gatorade and whey or chocolate milk or Surge, a person’s diet can be designed to benefit from PWO nutrition. Who benefits the most? A person who tends to run low on carbs and calories during the day and who consumes the majority of their carbs peri-workout (meaning in and around workout; pre, during and post). The benefits are less soreness, better recovery, increased protein synthesis. Does it need to be MAX insulin spiking? Nope, not at all. I would argue PRECISION insulin spikeing with a MEASURED amount of PWO carbs. Of course, I could even argue against that for the individual who is a hard gainer.

Bottom line, one size does not fit all. I would agree with what is said in the article for some people, and I would argue against what is said in the article for others.

Good post, Bulla!!! (grin)

If anyone heard a strange noise of metal grinding on metal, dont worry, thats just me opening a can of worms…!!!

Thanks for the replys so far - it kind of leads me to my next question:

If we assumed someone at high-ish bodyfat, or someone who wants to purposely AVOID a high insulin spike for the reasons above, decides to have a PRO only shake PWO.
1 - The body presumably prioritises energy needs first, so wont it just turn the PRO into Glycogen anyway to satisfy its need?
2 - If you decided to go lo CHO (Hi G.I or Low G.I)in your PWO shake, Is the body ‘clever’ enough to know to only use the CHO for glycogen replenishment then, and leave the PRO for muscle repair?

For Info, I can gain weight easily, and have a tendency for fat gain, so replys are eagerly awaited.

I’ll duck again now… ; )

I have a take on this based on some interesting research into the effect of carbs (CHO) on military training. In certain military units, the use of PWO carbs from physical and mental stress is becoming accepted practice (finally) because it enhances what I call “performance capital” (PC).

Wouldn’t be military if there weren’t an acronym. PC is the combination of physiological, cognitive and emotional resources required to get a particular unit’s job done. In many cases, this job involves not just physical but also high attentional and high cognitive load tasks. And they have to do it again and again.

Basically, they need to recover strength AND smarts very quickly. And what we see is that intense training DOES lead to cognitive, immune system and physical performance degradation.

Our studies pretty clearly demonstrate that post-stress CHO is good. Very good. I can go into more detail if anyone cares. But the kind of carbs matter (we use maltodextrin since 12% solution of d-glucose broke the double-blind - guys we’re puking) - especially since the human liver doesn’t know what to do with high levels of fructose . See study below:

Mechanism proposed for fructose syrup-obesity link

By Stephen Daniells

16/03/2007 - Scientists studying the effects of ingesting fructose syrup have reported a possible mechanism that may explain the alleged link between rising obesity and sweetened beverages.

The study could increase pressure on formulators to remove the ingredient from their products, with the use of high fructose corn syrup specifically accused of playing a major role in the rising obesity epidemic.

Researchers from the University of Barcelona report that, according to their rat study, liquid fructose changes the metabolism of fat in the liver by impacting a specific nuclear receptor called PPAR-alpha, leading to a reduction in the liver’s ability to degrade the sweetener.

“Because PPAR-alpha activity is lower in human than in rodent liver, fructose ingestion in humans should cause even worse effects, which would partly explain the link between increased consumption of fructose and widening epidemics of obesity and metabolic syndrome,” wrote the authors in the journal Hepatology.

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a condition characterised by central obesity, hypertension, and disturbed glucose and insulin metabolism. The syndrome has been linked to increased risks of both type-2 diabetes and CVD.

Fifteen per cent of adult Europeans are estimated to be affected by MetS, while the US statistic is estimated to be a whopping 32 per cent.

According to figures published by the World Health Organisation (WHO), in the year 2015 some 2.3 bn adults will be overweight and more than 700 million will suffer from obesity, a pathology that is increasingly being seen in children.

The researchers, led by Dr Juan Carlos Laguna, investigated the effects of feeding lab rats a fructose- or glucose-sweetened liquid (10 per cent), and found that the animals drinking the fructose-sweetened liquid altered how the liver metabolised the syrup and, according to the authors, represented a calorie overload to which the body’s metabolism was unable to adapt.

Laguna and co-workers report that the fructose increased fat synthesis in the liver and also acted on the PPAR-alpha receptor to reduce the degradation of the fructose. PPAR-alpha is said to control fatty acid oxidation.

“The most novel finding,” said Laguna, “is that this molecular mechanism is related to an impairment in the leptin signal. Leptin is a hormone that plays a key role in the body’s energy control; among its peripheral actions, it accelerates fat oxidation in the liver and reduces its synthesis.”

Rats drinking the fructose-containing beverage were found to have an excess of leptin in blood, which, said the authors, could be related to the degradation of fatty acids in the liver. Leptin resistance is said to affect a transcription factor (Stat-3) that plays a role in the signalling pathway of leptin in the liver and the hypothalamus in the brain.

No significant differences in weight between the rats drinking liquids with glucose or fructose were found, said Laguna, “possibly because this was a short-term experiment and there was no time to detect such changes.”

Work is reported to be on-going with the study of the difference in response to fructose syrup between sexes, the study of the molecular mechanisms of leptin resistance in the liver in rat models, and, further into the future, pilot studies of a fructose-rich diet in humans to find possible markers of metabolic alterations in blood cells.

“The fructose in fruit has nothing to do with this study,” stressed Laguna. “Fruit is healthy and its consumption is strongly recommended. Our study focuses on liquid fructose intake as an addition to the ordinary diet.”

Campaigners against the high fructose corn syrup ingredient point to other science showing that the body processes the syrup differently than other sugars due to the fructose content, leading to greater fat storage.

However, industry associations and trade bodies, such as the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), have repeatedly claimed there is no scientific evidence to suggest that HFCS is uniquely responsible for people becoming obese.

Source: Hepatology
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 778 - 788
“Impairment of hepatic Stat-3 activation and reduction of PPAR-alpha activity in fructose-fed rats”
Authors: N. Roglans, L. Vil?, M. Farr?, M. Alegret, R.M. S?nchez, M. V?zquez-Carrera, J.C. Laguna

This is a great thread guys. Lotsa different opinions on all this. What if Dr. Berardi is right, and then so is someone like Dr. DiPasquale (who promotes mostly fat + protein). What if they are all right, and everyone is so different that some people work well with protein + carbs; some with protein + fat; and some with only protein?

Or, what if there are things yet undiscovered that end up promoting fat only post workout? Or, how about this scenario… what if we have been told over and over again that our bodies need carbs postworkout, that we believe it so whole heartedly that our bodies change to accomidate for that?

Not to sound like a mystic or a lunatic, but realize that some people do believe in god, and take the bible as truth… I’m simply stating possibilities, which is no crazier than actually BELIEVING in something like the bible. But it seems to me that anything is possible.

Sorry to bring religion into this but I had to defend myself for some of the seemingly crazy things I am saying.

If we assumed someone at high-ish bodyfat, or someone who wants to purposely AVOID a high insulin spike for the reasons above, decides to have a PRO only shake PWO.
1 - The body presumably prioritises energy needs first, so wont it just turn the PRO into Glycogen anyway to satisfy its need?
2 - If you decided to go lo CHO (Hi G.I or Low G.I)in your PWO shake, Is the body ‘clever’ enough to know to only use the CHO for glycogen replenishment then, and leave the PRO for muscle repair?

Bulla, I’m with you on wanting to avoid insulin spikes for those wanting to reduce their body fat percentage … except for that one meal following a person’s workout. Why? If you have protein only, you’re maximizing fat loss, yes, but you’re creating a less than optimal environment for maintaining LBM (Lean Body Mass). Protein and carbohydrates work hand in hand following your workout. It’s not just that carbs refill muscle glycogen, allowing you to have stronger workouts (and potentially adding/replacing small amounts of LBM). Carbs elicit an insulin response (something you do want PWO) because insulin is responsible for shuttling amino acids to the muscles.

Wanting to lose weight and wanting to lose body fat are entirely different ball games. The latter requires precision and discipline. Carbs in the PWO meal aren’t important to the person who wants to lose weight. They are very much a part of the equation for the person who wants to lose fat and improve their body composition (the ratio of lean to fat). The person who wants to improve body composition is wanting to lose as little LBM as possible while losing as much FM (Fat Mass) as possible.

Good post, juicescholar! Thanks for posting that study.

I go by poliquins recommendation for gaining…2 PWO shakes…1 an hour later. I use 80g’s dextrose in the first and 80g’s maltodextrin in the 2nd…20-30g’s protein in both.