[quote]BiP wrote:
[quote]Roygion wrote:
There are many broad factors (age, training, diet, and genetic responses) far more important than the assumed precision of peri-workout nutrition in determining results in a given individual.
Providing one gets enough extra protein (and some extra calories) to support training and muscle protein synthesis, I’m not convinced that any one supplement/product is superior to another, including the simple options described above.
[/quote]
While I agree that the factors you mentioned are INCREDIBLY important, probably more than anything else, based on my own (limited and biased) experience I would say that good peri-workout nutrition will make a difference in an individual’s progress. That is not to say that Person A with chocolate milk will necessarily do worse than Person B with ANACONDA. However, person A will definitely do better with either chocolate milk or ANACONDA than that same person without anything, and I, personally, believe, that person A will do better with ANACONDA (or a similar product!) than with chocolate milk.
We are not, however, talking about a make-or-break-progress situation here. Given the right kind of overall nutrition and training, better peri-workout nutrition will simply give an extra edge. More importantly, from what I’ve noticed, it’s biggest advantage is in allowing one to train harder while recovering quicker. I believe this is it’s greatest strength.[/quote]
Hi, BIP:
I would be very careful about using the word ‘definitely,’ even as I believe (hope?) your first proposition is correct. There are also studies where the supplements used did nothing beyond not using them. Nobody likes those (null) studies, and they are usually ridiculed if noticed at all, but they matter too.
I think the hoped for ‘edge’ is smaller than many would hope, especially when considering all the other major factors that really do matter more. BUT I myself use peri-nutrition. In my personal experience, I have had better workouts taking BCAA pre-workout and during w/o. Then, I take whey protein with milk post w/o. Does any of that really matter? We all like to believe it does. Though, probably it matters less than I hope. But the cost of doing this is not great and there is evidence that it helps, so I do it too. Plus, I need some extra protein anyway so I take it peri-protocol. If I perform ‘better’ or believe I look ‘better’ is that my personal bias or something real that’s happening? I’m not sure. What I am sure is that if I get even better parents for this on my next ‘rebirth’ plus all the time to train, eat well, and sleep–I’ll go with that!
Another thing to consider when trying to isolate a variable that matters, is how many things did a trainee change simultaneously? If the training protocol changed together with supplementation, then you have a confounding variable, and all bets are off as to causation. As many programs are packaged with specific supplements, it is very difficult to tell what variable mattered, if any. For example, that I feel great and am stronger these days may be entirely due to the change in training (much greater frequency and volumes but no grinding).
Another thing I’ve wondered recently is this. Add up the calories and protein absorbed from peri-nutrition. Do you really think the final bodycomp results would be different if those exact calories and protein were taken in at some other part of the day–but not peri-workout?! Now, I have not seen much testing there, but I’m going with the null hypothesis (‘null’ is very unexciting and unmarketable, though).