Experts? Settle This Argument

Diet and Nutrition
21

IF you workout twice a day or more then it is very wise to have the post workout drink. In fact I really notice I am more recovered the next day even if only working out once a day.

But it is not ESSENTIAL.

No matter what you do, your body will replenish energy reserves, no matter what. It is first priority. OF course it might scavenge from other muscles if you are not eating. But if you eat anything then it will replenish. If you have bodyfat it will do it from that.

Basically you can make any approach work as long as you take everything into account ie if not having PWO shake then don’t expect to recover as fast nor train as hard as soon. But that is OK, if you run yourself into the ground with no food, no PWO, your poundages and volume and intensity will drop over the days but then KABOOM!

you can really up the food/PWO shakes the next week. It takes about 2 weeks for your body to catch on that you are working out and need to adapt, so maybe that is a good idea to starve it a bit for 2 weeks then hit it with less volume, more food for 2 weeks.

You need to look at EVERYTHING you are doing. You can make any approach work but you can also stuff up any approach / advice if you are doing everything else wrong.

22

[quote]allNatural wrote:
I had this argument.

Me:
You need to eat immediately after working out(and during/gatorade) and consisting of high glycemic carbs and protein (skim milk and sugary cereal/white toast and jelly are examples of cheap sources). This raises your insulin sensitivity for when you need it.

You need to eat low glycemic carbs the rest of the time that you DO eat carbs (which should be rarely, mainly breakfast. ex. oatmeal, sweet potatoes, fruits etc). NOT Eating after 8pm isn’t recommended because you need to spread your calories as evenly over your time as possible, but you do need to avoid all carbs in the evening (exept vegetables).

Eat wild salmon. Eat turkey and chicken breasts. Eat brocolli. Lift heavy (build muscle for higher resting metabolism), take long easy walks and/or high intensity interval sprints but don’t jog (wastes muscle). These are guaranteed tips. Good luck.

HIM:
Beware: Gold’s Gym Science Alert.

Not eating an hour after a workout stimulates the release of HGH. This is a proven fact in multiple sources of scientific literature. Some supplements accentuate this effect but I won’t bother to get into that.

Eating after 8 p.m. is a bad idea if you are in fact trying to maintain or lose weight. At this point your metabolism is very slow. If you are looking to gain that may be a different story but your post was vague.

P.S. My professional credentials are second to none if anyone on this board. I’ve trained pro athletes in fitness and conditioning programs etc. not to mentioned coordinating care with MD’s whose primary practice is nutrition. My advice is to not take Muscle Mag based advice and pursue someone with credentials if you are so inclined.

I think my position is what I learned from T-Nation so I don’t know if anybody will disagree with me here, but are there any experts who know about this?
[/quote]

It sounds to me like you have the right ideas. Unfortunately, you only know what you’ve been told. You take what you read here at face value. This is dangerous.

Spend some time reading the science behind the recommendations you read here. Then, the arguments you have would go as follows:

You: In x-study, it concluded y-point. Are you familiar with that study? Is there any reason to doubt that study?

Him: Uh…

You see, very few self-called experts actually read scientific articles. Like you, they take what they hear at face value. If you can actually cite things, you will bury the opposition.

Anyhow, you really have no business getting into arguments over these topics unless you can support your points with citations to scentific articles. Simply saying: “I read on a site that sells post-workout recovery drinks that I should drink post-workout recovery drinks” makes you look like a mindless assclown.

Go poke around Medline, or just do a search on Google, limiting your results to .edu domains. Once you have the knowledge, you will be an informed consumer. Moreover, you’ll be able to win any argument.

Always do your own research if you want to win an argument!

23

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
IF you workout twice a day or more then it is very wise to have the post workout drink…

But it is not ESSENTIAL.

No matter what you do, your body will replenish energy reserves, no matter what. It is first priority. OF course it might scavenge from other muscles if you are not eating. But if you eat anything then it will replenish. If you have bodyfat it will do it from that.

Basically you can make any approach work as long as you take everything into account ie if not having PWO shake then don’t expect to recover as fast nor train as hard as soon. But that is OK, if you run yourself into the ground with no food, no PWO, your poundages and volume and intensity will drop over the days but then KABOOM!

you can really up the food/PWO shakes the next week. It takes about 2 weeks for your body to catch on that you are working out and need to adapt, so maybe that is a good idea to starve it a bit for 2 weeks then hit it with less volume, more food for 2 weeks.
[/quote]

Please cite scentific articles or other scholarly sources to support your argument.

24

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
allNatural wrote:
And like the other guy said about there being flaws in my argument…ok. Doesn’t mean much without pointing them out…

Ok…

allNatural wrote:
You need to eat immediately after working out(and during/gatorade) and consisting of high glycemic carbs and protein (skim milk and sugary cereal/white toast and jelly are examples of cheap sources). This raises your insulin sensitivity for when you need it.

You don’t “need” to drink anything during your workout. And really- sugary cereal? When is that ever a good idea?

You need to eat low glycemic carbs the rest of the time that you DO eat carbs (which should be rarely, mainly breakfast. ex. oatmeal, sweet potatoes, fruits etc). NOT Eating after 8pm isn’t recommended because you need to spread your calories as evenly over your time as possible, but you do need to avoid all carbs in the evening (exept vegetables).

You don’t have to always eat low GI carbs. Especially if you’re trying to gain mass. And you certainly don’t have to eat them “rarely”. These general statements seem more appropraite for a cutting phase. The whole avoid carbs in the evening is overrated too. You hear it everywhere but without much to back it up, at least in my opinion. Although this is the best time for those low GI carbs and some fiber. Case in point- what if you workout in the evening- are you going to avoid your PWO just because it’s late? It really doesn’t matter what time of day you eat what, as long as what you eat and the amount of it supports your goals. It’s ok to disagree with me here.

Eat wild salmon. Eat turkey and chicken breasts. Eat brocolli. Lift heavy (build muscle for higher resting metabolism), take long easy walks and/or high intensity interval sprints but don’t jog (wastes muscle). These are guaranteed tips. Good luck.

Is beef the devil? There are also about 100 other vegetables besides brocolli. Yes it’s one of the best, but you should really expand your horizons.

Like I said- you’d win out if we were voting. But some of your statements were a little over generalized.[/quote]

I was giving specific advice for a specific person on another forum and was just giving examples of such foods. But I understand where you’re coming from.

25

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
IF you workout twice a day or more then it is very wise to have the post workout drink…

But it is not ESSENTIAL.

No matter what you do, your body will replenish energy reserves, no matter what. It is first priority. OF course it might scavenge from other muscles if you are not eating. But if you eat anything then it will replenish. If you have bodyfat it will do it from that.

Basically you can make any approach work as long as you take everything into account ie if not having PWO shake then don’t expect to recover as fast nor train as hard as soon. But that is OK, if you run yourself into the ground with no food, no PWO, your poundages and volume and intensity will drop over the days but then KABOOM!

you can really up the food/PWO shakes the next week. It takes about 2 weeks for your body to catch on that you are working out and need to adapt, so maybe that is a good idea to starve it a bit for 2 weeks then hit it with less volume, more food for 2 weeks.

Please cite scentific articles or other scholarly sources to support your argument. [/quote]

You don’t need a scientific article to prove that a specific PWO meal is “necessary.” There have been days I’ve skipped my Surge and hell probably didn’t eat anything for hours PWO and I’m still alive today. In fact I’m breathing right now. Listen…

26

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
IF you workout twice a day or more then it is very wise to have the post workout drink…

But it is not ESSENTIAL.

No matter what you do, your body will replenish energy reserves, no matter what. It is first priority. OF course it might scavenge from other muscles if you are not eating. But if you eat anything then it will replenish. If you have bodyfat it will do it from that.

Basically you can make any approach work as long as you take everything into account ie if not having PWO shake then don’t expect to recover as fast nor train as hard as soon. But that is OK, if you run yourself into the ground with no food, no PWO, your poundages and volume and intensity will drop over the days but then KABOOM!

you can really up the food/PWO shakes the next week. It takes about 2 weeks for your body to catch on that you are working out and need to adapt, so maybe that is a good idea to starve it a bit for 2 weeks then hit it with less volume, more food for 2 weeks.

Please cite scentific articles or other scholarly sources to support your argument.

You don’t need a scientific article to prove that a specific PWO meal is “necessary.” There have been days I’ve skipped my Surge and hell probably didn’t eat anything for hours PWO and I’m still alive today. In fact I’m breathing right now. Listen…[/quote]

Some people think they need scientific studies to take a crap.

27

If you want to get “scientific” on this issue, there’s really only one thing you can do.

EXPERIMENT!

What might work well for one person, might not work well for another. There are some people who respond really well to eating LOTS of carbs even when cutting, and there are others who start packin on the lard when they see, or even think about carbs.

So lets see, how do you figure out how you respond to carbs?

Keep a journal! Track your progress.

Don’t only keep track of calories, keep track of everything. Did you work out? what’d you do? did you eat? when and what and how much? Did you spend a few hours on the couch, or did you spend a few hours sexin up some vixens?

Obviously there are a lot of different things that go into how you store and maintain body fat. Sad to say though is that despite all of the scientific studies and theories, the one thing I’ve noticed to make the biggest impact is to slightly reduce the calories and spread them out over 6-8 meals per day.

Now I’m not saying that eating 2200 kcals of poptarts a day is a good way to lose fat, but if you are SENSIBLE and eat a quality diet, this will help get you on your way. Don’t do anything crazy, drop kcals by 200/day or so a week until you start making the type of progress you want. I prefer to keep my protein intake around 1.5 g/lb of lean mass.

For some, you can start to shed fat at 3200 kcals, for others, it might be as low as 1800. Obviously it matters a LOT about your activity level. So get off your ass go do something physical.

28

neither of these are worth a crap unless the big rocks are in place first.

29

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Please cite scentific articles or other scholarly sources to support your argument. [/quote]

The difference between science and religion is science relies on evidence, not assertions or faith. When it comes to my religion, I feel fine taking things on faith. I do not use the same approach to my training.

Too many people here are willing to take things on faith. Save your faith for church, synagogue, mosque, etc. Otherwise, ask for evidence.

30

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
eengrms76 wrote:
Please cite scentific articles or other scholarly sources to support your argument.

The difference between science and religion is science relies on evidence, not assertions or faith. When it comes to my religion, I feel fine taking things on faith. I do not use the same approach to my training.

Too many people here are willing to take things on faith. Save your faith for church, synagogue, mosque, etc. Otherwise, ask for evidence.[/quote]

Three things-

  1. Quote me accurately if you are going to quote me. I didn’t say what you quoted above- you did.

  2. There is a big difference between religion (which I happen to not believe in whatsoever) and common sense.

  3. Not everything requires extensive research. Surely you have better things to do with your time.

31

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Three things-

  1. Quote me accurately if you are going to quote me. I didn’t say what you quoted above- you did.[/quote]

Oops. Here was your quote: “You don’t need a scientific article to prove that a specific PWO meal is ‘necessary.’” IOW, you don’t need EVIDENCE to support your assertions.

How is that relevant to the conversation? Of course, as you should know (but obviously don’t know) “common sense” and religion share something in common: Both are based largely on wives tales and faith. E.g., here would be a conversation between me and you:

eengrms76: X is true?
Me: Why?
eengrms76: That’s just common sense.
Me: I would like to see some EVIDENCE supporting your proposition.
eengrms76: It’s just common sense.

IOW, you want people to take you assertions on FAITH, not facts. Arguing science would be like arguing religion with a zealot.

One reason we usually disagree - and will continue to disagree - is because you are not a critical thinker. You uncritically accept the assertions you read here. You are, in short, a thoughtless fanboy. Of course, that just means you’re normal. Very few people actually research their arguments. They just say “common sense” things.

You are right that it’s silly of me to try to elevate the discussion with you. I’d have better luck talking astrophysics with my dog.

32

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Oops. Here was your quote: “You don’t need a scientific article to prove that a specific PWO meal is ‘necessary.’” IOW, you don’t need EVIDENCE to support your assertions.[/quote]

When the topic of discussion is not a life and death situation then no you do not need EVIDENCE to support any assertations, especially if they turn out to be true. If they don’t, then you live and learn. It must be very difficult for you to ever learn anything if you never make any mistakes.

[quote]How is that relevant to the conversation? Of course, as you should know (but obviously don’t know) “common sense” and religion share something in common: Both are based largely on wives tales and faith. E.g., here would be a conversation between me and you:

eengrms76: X is true?
Me: Why?
eengrms76: That’s just common sense.
Me: I would like to see some EVIDENCE supporting your proposition.
eengrms76: It’s just common sense.

IOW, you want people to take you assertions on FAITH, not facts. Arguing science would be like arguing religion with a zealot.[/quote]

How is it relavent? You brought up religion and I brough up common sense prior, both not new to the conversation.

How is common sense based on wives tales? It’s based on your own personal history. My common sense is not based on what people have told me is true, but what I have experienced.

[quote]One reason we usually disagree - and will continue to disagree - is because you are not a critical thinker. You uncritically accept the assertions you read here. You are, in short, a thoughtless fanboy. Of course, that just means you’re normal. Very few people actually research their arguments. They just say “common sense” things.

You are right that it’s silly of me to try to elevate the discussion with you. I’d have better luck talking astrophysics with my dog.[/quote]

Who says I’m not a critical thinker? I’m just smart enough to only care about the things that really matter, and not dwell on every minute little detail. I actually have a life and enjoy living it and not worry so much and spend 10 hours a day on Pubmed or whatever you do. It must be very difficult for you to have any real conversations in your life, what with being 100x smarter than anyone you know. No wonder you talk to your dog.

Back to what actually started this discussion- find me EVIDENCE that if you do not have a proper PWO meal- you will DIE. Because that is the way you are treating it.

33

Art Devany’s take…

Two A Days and More Against “Repletion”
October 5, 2006 04:02 PM
You have seen this before regarding the gene expression that occurs during and after exercise and the effect of muscle glycogen on that expression. My earlier post discussed Pederson’s research from a talk she gave (J. Applied Physiology 2005, 99, 6). Now there is more.

First, I used to see some guys at my old gym doing two workouts a day, trying to get bigger. That is not a bad idea so long as you go into the second work out without fully repleting the muscle glycogen drained in the first. It seems that muscle gene expression is up-regulated when muscle is low in glycogen stores. The first work out drains glycogen and sets up better gene expression in the second, but with a big IF. You must not replentish the glycogen between work outs. The problem is that everybody does because they believe in the “window of opportunity” theory of glycogen replentishment and eat and guzzle glucose and protein drinks between work outs to get ready for the next one. This is a big mistake, but you already knew that.

Many genes are activated by exercise in muscle that has low glycogen content; two of them are PGC-1, the gene involved in muscle recovery and PDK4, a regulator of fat oxidation in muscle. These are two good things to have going on and low glycogen is a key that turns them on or up. In addition, RNA and protein synthesis are activated with acute exercise of the sort we Evolutionary Fitters do in muscle that is low in glycogen. We assure low glycogen by exercising on an empty stomach and by not gulping down protein drinks, sports drinks, or over-eating.

Pederson’s work also showed that in exercise to failure the leg with the low glycogen stores was the LAST to fail. In that leg, biopsies revealed oxidative genes for mitochondrial enzymes were increased. Less glycogen, more dependance on fat oxidation as a source of energy rather than glycogen. Makes sense. Another hit against the carb loading idea.

And, finally, cytokines, the signalling factors to the immune system and metabolic pathways, are altered by exercise in low glycogen muscle. IL-6 is released and increases fat metabolism (Keller, FASEB Journal 2001).

An evolutionary perspective makes all this seem so natural. Glycogen would be exhausted in an ancestor who either died or escaped. If he escaped, he had to shift energy metabolism to fat since glycogen stores are low after a major, acute effort. Gene expression and cytokine signalling are just some of the things that make that possible.

And you thought you had to do cardio in the “fat burning zone” to burn fat. At least that is what everybody is told. I am beginning to think that almost everything people are told about exercise is wrong. It is time for a new theory or science of exercise and diet. I am trying.

34

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Too many people here are willing to take things on faith. Save your faith for church, synagogue, mosque, etc. Otherwise, ask for evidence.[/quote]

FFS.

I’ve been calorie cycling for months now. This means one day I eat normal and the next I eat very little - consider it a one day v-diet or so.

Until very recently I did not even use PWO nutrition on the low eating days. I was and am still noticing good overall recovery and progress; including PR’s.

You don’t need scientific evidence to claim that the body is adept at adaptation. That is what it does. It survives. It finds a way. It makes do with whatever it is given.

Nobody is trying to claim it is optimal, but there was a time when people didn’t know about PWO nutrition, and get this, the human race survived.

Stop being such a pendantic nitwit.