T Nation

PWO Sugar Will Stop HGH Release

http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2010/07/27/the-growing-promise-of-shorter-more-intense-strength-training-workouts.aspx?aid=CD945

And… discuss.

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:

And… discuss.[/quote]

Someone from Biotest better explain the data found in the journal reference in the cohort study that this article cites!

Kinda hard to ignore the facts given! Making wonder about Surge all together!!

Mods? TC? Anyone???

[quote]wings_931 wrote:

[quote]pro-a-ggression wrote:

And… discuss.[/quote]

Someone from Biotest better explain the data found in the journal reference in the cohort study that this article cites!

Kinda hard to ignore the facts given! Making wonder about Surge all together!!

Mods? TC? Anyone???[/quote]

This has been discussed before.

You can’t view the effects on any one hormone out of context to everything else going on in the body.

If raising your growth hormone level is your primary focus, you might be best training in a fasted state. However, for most trainees growth hormone is just one part of the puzzle and the real objective is to build muscle and/or lose fat, and for the vast majority with these objectives peri-workout carbs allow better workouts which ultimately lead to better physiques.

You will make yourself crazy, and likely retard your progress, if you get to hung up on any one detail in your quest to get bigger, stronger, and/or leaner.

You’ll also constantly hear studies about how shorter rest periods will increase GH output, but longer rest periods will allow for heavier weights and more fiber recruitment. Basically BOTH are positives,… so what to choose… Like Brian was saying, you can’t focus on just one aspect of your training in a vacuum.

That’s why so many of the vets on here get all fired up when someone who has only been training a year posts up the most insanely over-analyzed question. Stop thinking so much. If eating after exercise were a negative, don’t you think that everyone in the iron game, going back to Steve Reeves wouldn’t have made any progress? -lol.

Seriously, some of these studies just ignore everything but one tiny aspect of training. It’s almost as if the researchers are intentionally trying to find something, no matter how skewed, that makes it sound like they’ve discovered information that rebuts everything else we’ve accepted up to now. It’s getting ridiculous.

S

Also, unfortunately – as it would be convenient if it were true – it’s completely useless “science” to measure GH levels at a given point in time if the intent is to come to some overarching conclusion on what the biological effect of a given protocol will be over time.

For example, arginine GH boosters ought to be giving everyone some incredible gains, at least if there were valid predictive power to this approach.

But they don’t.

It would very likely be quite meaningful to look at total GH area-under-the-curve over 24 hours as a function of what protocol is used.

But single time points? Little to no predictive value. They don’t mean that more GH total was released over the day, but only that a peak was induced (or not) at a given time point.

And of course, GH also is not the whole story.

Lastly, it’s always an unfortunate error to miss the forest for the bark of the trees. Where information is available regarding actual outcomes of interest – such as performance or size gains over time actually experienced in use – there’s nothing “scientific” about instead arguing that it probably isn’t so because at 60 minutes post-exercise GH levels were this or that, or what have you.

If not having anything on outcomes of interest, such as size or strength gains, but having only some data such as levels of some hormone and also having a theory that actually is a fairly valid predictor, then of course it can make sense to try something, or not, based on that level. So I’m not saying there are no situations where one should look at such things: there certainly are. And we do look at them: all the time.

[quote]Mod Brian wrote:

You can’t view the effects on any one hormone out of context to everything else going on in the body.

[/quote]

Lol…yet shockingly, retards attempt to do it all the time!!

As if your biochemical and physiological responses exist in a vacuum.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It’s almost as if the researchers are intentionally trying to find something, no matter how skewed, that makes it sound like they’ve discovered information that rebuts everything else we’ve accepted up to now. [/quote]

As if? That’s exactly what they’re doing.

Because the Internet guru who dies with the most toys wins!! Lol…you’re right, it’s fucking ridiculous.