Workout Nutrition - Are You Doing it Right?

[IMT staff]

If you want to build muscle, lose fat or perform at your best, then what you eat is of the utmost importance. But nutrition researchers have recently come to understand and appreciate that when you eat could be just as significant as what you eat.

Arguably the most nutritionally important period of the day is during your workout window, the time just before your workout and several hours afterward. Proper nutrition during this period will take your fitness to the next level.

Many people don't understand the nature and value of the workout nutrition window, though, or they believe certain myths about what to do during this time. But it's not as complicated as it sounds, and you can easily maximize this time of day to accelerate your progress.

THE WORKOUT NUTRITION WINDOW

To read the full article click the link below:

https://increasemyt.com/blog/workout-nutrition

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

That article is completely incorrect and severely outdated I'm afraid.

I could list all the flaws of the article here, but there are so many that it wouldn't really be appropriate against a sponsor - suffice to say the "workout nutrition window" nonsense has been debunked for a while now.

I strongly recommend you read this and update the article accordingly:

JISSN | Full text | Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window?

 

[IMT staff]

That article is completely incorrect and severely outdated I'm afraid.

I could list all the flaws of the article here, but there are so many that it wouldn't really be appropriate against a sponsor - suffice to say the "workout nutrition window" nonsense has been debunked for a while now.

I strongly recommend you read this and update the article accordingly:

JISSN | Full text | Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window?

No please do, I have seen the article you posted a few times and it is anything but definitive.

Your basically saying everything in the article is wrong, and basing it on 1 example of 33 subjects, so I would like to hear you go through each one please.

Make sure you understand fully the parts of the article you are referencing, because I do and will provide my input once your done.

Based on what you have posted so far, I am not sure you understand what you are reading very well.

Thanks for your input

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

No please do, I have seen the article you posted a few times and it is anything but definitive.

Good to see that your willing to engage in discussion, unlike some others who take the corrections far too personally
I'll apologise in advance for the lack of additional references (I'm currently on holiday) but I will of course provide them if requested.

I'll go point by point:


- "The workout nutrition window begins 20 to 30 minutes before you exercise and lasts for one to two hours after the workout".

The data on this is extremely mixed and there is nothing solid to say that this magical window actually exists.
Most studies that do make this claim are basing it on ACUTE responses to training, with reliance on nitrogen balance (very inaccurate way of measuring these things) and ignoring the long term muscular responses - far more important for growth.


- "Start sipping on a workout shake 20 to 30 minutes prior to working out, and continue sipping on it throughout the duration of your workout. A simple shake is a 32 oz. sports drink with 1 scoop of whey protein. A more advanced drink is 50 g of a glucose & maltodextrose sugar blend with hydrolyzed whey protein"

Studies have shown that the effects of a protein shake continue well after the workout has been completed, so I see no need for intra-workout continuation of the shake unless the individual is doing long (2 hours+), endurance style training. Its simply not necessary.
And although fast acting carbs intra-workout can be beneficial to maintain energy, 15-20g is more than sufficient for a typical resistance training session with anything more being complete overkill. IME, this intra-workout need would mainly apply to guys who are dieting and therefore may suffer from reduced performance.


- "In the 45 to 60 minutes following the completion of your workout have a meal of 1 grilled chicken breast sandwich with 2 pieces of fruit...6 oz. boneless, skinless chicken breast along with 1 1/2 cups of brown rice and a small salad of baby spinach, mushrooms, red onions, olive oil and red wine vinegar. "

The importance of the postworkout meal is completely dependent on what sort of nutrition the individual has preworkout. For example, if someone has a relatively large preworkout meal 1-2hours before training, then they can easily go 4-6 hours postworkout with no extra nutrition needed whatsoever. On the other side of the coin, if an individual trains fasted, then they would need to consume a meal postworkout as soon as possible.
Also, fruit is not recommended postworkout since its useful mainly for restoring liver glycogen rather than muscle (which is the main aim since a resistance training session depletes muscle glycogen).


- "Carbohydrates are the most important nutrient to get during and after you exercise."

There is zero evidence to show that carb timing of any kind is needed if the overall carb intake for the day is sufficient. In fact, studies show the presence of protein postworkout negates the need for carbs because it simply isn't necessary to immediately start working on glycogen replenishment.


- "During the hours following exercise, the human body is essentially a nutrient sponge. It's ready to soak up carbohydrates and amino acids and use them to restore muscle energy reserves, repair torn muscle fibers and fast-track the recovery process so you can train longer and harder during your next session."

This postworkout benefit doesn't simply last for a couple of hours, in fact studies show maintenance of elevated proteolysis for at least 24 hours and potentially up to 72 hours.
Again this is a case where the results seen in acute studies, with protein immediately postworkout and consumed every 2-3 hours, simply doesn't play out in real life for muscle growth (which we have to remember is a long term process).


- "...workout nutrition "meals" should be liquid. Liquid protein and carbohydrates enter your bloodstream and reach your muscles faster than those in a solid meal, which must be broken down and digested. Additionally, shakes help keep you hydrated during your workout, another key to optimal performance."

And here is the point I disagree with most.
Intra-workout carb intake should be liquid because you need the energy quickly, but pre & post workout nutrition should always be solid.
The studies use liquid sources of protein & carbs (whey, dextrose, etc) because it is an easier way to see how they work than using mixed meals. These methods are also what lead to the false idea of a small anabolic window & the need for immediate postworkout nutrition (I suspect this comes from the fact that whey protein is completely digested 2 hours after ingestion).

We know that a solid preworkout meal can continue to be effective for muscle growth even after a workout has been completed. We also know that the "anabolic window" regarding protein synthesis can last from 24-72 hours.
There also studies showing that casein protein, which can take up to 8 hours to digest, has been seen to be more effective at limiting muscle protein breakdown postworkout due the slow, constant release of amino acids vs whey's quicker release action.

With all this information in mind, solid mixed meals are more useful postworkout because there is NO advantage to getting the nutrients into the muscles as soon as possible.
Mixed meals are also preferential preworkout provided some time (1-2hours) is given for the meal to digest because, as I've already stated, the benefits of a large preworkout meal can last past the workout and negate the need for postworkout nutrition altogether.

In terms of hydration, protein shakes are always inferior to water, this is pretty self explanatory and I wont go further into it.


To summarise:
- A good preworkout meal negates the need for immediate post workout nutrition potentially for up to 4-5 hours.
- Intra-workout nutrition is only useful for long, endurance style training.
- There is zero evidence to suggest carb timing of any kind exists provided overall carb intake is sufficient - in my experience with clients carbs are more useful preworkout, but that's anecdotal only.
- Liquid sources should not be relied upon for pre/post workout nutrition, only intra-workout.

As a final point, the main reason the meta-analysis is not definitive is because the studies done on workout nutrition are the same - not definitive.
This is one of those areas where we, as coaches, have learnt what works and what doesn't and its a case of the science finally catching up to it.

 

[IMT staff]

Good to see that your willing to engage in discussion, unlike some others who take the corrections far too personally
I'll apologise in advance for the lack of additional references (I'm currently on holiday) but I will of course provide them if requested.

I'll go point by point:


- "The workout nutrition window begins 20 to 30 minutes before you exercise and lasts for one to two hours after the workout".

The data on this is extremely mixed and there is nothing solid to say that this magical window actually exists.
Most studies that do make this claim are basing it on ACUTE responses to training, with reliance on nitrogen balance (very inaccurate way of measuring these things) and ignoring the long term muscular responses - far more important for growth.

Actually I don't know why you say that, the article you posted clearly says this window exists, its simply a matter of debate on how long it is and when it actually starts.

For maximizing MPS, the evidence supports the superiority of post-exercise free amino acids and/or protein (in various permutations with or without carbohydrate) compared to solely carbohydrate or non-caloric placebo [50,51,54-59].

^^^ quoted from your article

Levenhagen et al. [62] demonstrated a clear benefit to consuming nutrients as soon as possible after exercise as opposed to delaying consumption.

^^^ also from your article so I am confused as to where you got the idea there is no evidence this window exists?

- "Start sipping on a workout shake 20 to 30 minutes prior to working out, and continue sipping on it throughout the duration of your workout. A simple shake is a 32 oz. sports drink with 1 scoop of whey protein. A more advanced drink is 50 g of a glucose & maltodextrose sugar blend with hydrolyzed whey protein"

Studies have shown that the effects of a protein shake continue well after the workout has been completed, so I see no need for intra-workout continuation of the shake unless the individual is doing long (2 hours+), endurance style training. Its simply not necessary.
And although fast acting carbs intra-workout can be beneficial to maintain energy, 15-20g is more than sufficient for a typical resistance training session with anything more being complete overkill. IME, this intra-workout need would mainly apply to guys who are dieting and therefore may suffer from reduced performance.

First of all I would like to say you are simply sharing your opinion, I don't see a single study proving the point you are trying to make here. You are simply guessing, which is fine, but you used some pretty strong words earlier like "debunked" and "need to update your article" I am sorry but I am not doing that based on your opinion.

Then you carry on to say that it depends on the pre workout meal? So if they were fasted our statement would be correct, but if not then it may or may not be correct? Then you admit they can be beneficial, and then go on to tell me how many grams are enough without even knowing my BMR or daily caloric intake? I am going to stop here with this one because your point is not very clear.

- "In the 45 to 60 minutes following the completion of your workout have a meal of 1 grilled chicken breast sandwich with 2 pieces of fruit...6 oz. boneless, skinless chicken breast along with 1 1/2 cups of brown rice and a small salad of baby spinach, mushrooms, red onions, olive oil and red wine vinegar. "

The importance of the postworkout meal is completely dependent on what sort of nutrition the individual has preworkout. For example, if someone has a relatively large preworkout meal 1-2hours before training, then they can easily go 4-6 hours postworkout with no extra nutrition needed whatsoever. On the other side of the coin, if an individual trains fasted, then they would need to consume a meal postworkout as soon as possible.
Also, fruit is not recommended postworkout since its useful mainly for restoring liver glycogen rather than muscle (which is the main aim since a resistance training session depletes muscle glycogen).

4-6 hours post workout? did you even read the article posted? It clearly says insulin levels are 5x higher within1-2 hours and return to baseline within 5-6? So you suggest waiting until insulin levels return to baseline?

This insulinogenic effect is easily accomplished with typical mixed meals, considering that it takes approximately 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and 36 hours (or more) for a complete return to basal levels depending on the size of a meal.

^^^^ from your article

Then you go on to write about glycogen levels and purporting there is sufficient evidence these need to be replenished when the article YOU posted clearly does not support the need to replace glycogen..........in fact YOUR article states that it may actually even be beneficial to NOT replenish lol wow such definitive.

As such, it blunts energy-consuming processes including the activation of mTORC1 mediated by insulin and mechanical tension, as well as heightening catabolic processes such as glycolysis, beta-oxidation, and protein degradation [9]. mTOR is considered a master network in the regulation of skeletal muscle growth [10,11], and its inhibition has a decidedly negative effect on anabolic processes [12]. Glycogen has been shown to inhibit purified AMPK in cell-free assays [13], and low glycogen levels are associated with an enhanced AMPK activity in humans in vivo[14].

^^^^^ from your article

- "Carbohydrates are the most important nutrient to get during and after you exercise."

There is zero evidence to show that carb timing of any kind is needed if the overall carb intake for the day is sufficient. In fact, studies show the presence of protein postworkout negates the need for carbs because it simply isn't necessary to immediately start working on glycogen replenishment.

You don't even understand why there is a need for carb post workout, and neither does your article. The entire study you posted researching carbohydrate findings starts with the premise that "people take carbs post workout to spike insulin" and anyone with half a brain and understanding in human physiology knows that regardless of your nutrient intake insulin will be high post workout because your body stimulates growth hormone, GH then passes through the pancreas and turns into insulin. So basically your study assumes a false premise and uses that to try and prove the point, in other words we can go ahead and throw that one in the trash as it means nothing.

- "During the hours following exercise, the human body is essentially a nutrient sponge. It's ready to soak up carbohydrates and amino acids and use them to restore muscle energy reserves, repair torn muscle fibers and fast-track the recovery process so you can train longer and harder during your next session."

This postworkout benefit doesn't simply last for a couple of hours, in fact studies show maintenance of elevated proteolysis for at least 24 hours and potentially up to 72 hours.
Again this is a case where the results seen in acute studies, with protein immediately postworkout and consumed every 2-3 hours, simply doesn't play out in real life for muscle growth (which we have to remember is a long term process).

Again you don't understand what your reading. Yes it does show elevation up to 72 hours, but it also shows peak levels within hours after workout, so what exactly is your point here? Are we optimizing or no? Sorry my answers are getting short its so obvious you have a very limited understanding of what your reading that it would take me an hour to correct your false assumptions.

- "...workout nutrition "meals" should be liquid. Liquid protein and carbohydrates enter your bloodstream and reach your muscles faster than those in a solid meal, which must be broken down and digested. Additionally, shakes help keep you hydrated during your workout, another key to optimal performance."

And here is the point I disagree with most.
Intra-workout carb intake should be liquid because you need the energy quickly, but pre & post workout nutrition should always be solid.
The studies use liquid sources of protein & carbs (whey, dextrose, etc) because it is an easier way to see how they work than using mixed meals. These methods are also what lead to the false idea of a small anabolic window & the need for immediate postworkout nutrition (I suspect this comes from the fact that whey protein is completely digested 2 hours after ingestion).

THE STUDY YOU POSTED CLEARLY SAYS IT USED SOLID MEALS!!!! WHICH IS ACTUALLY A FLAW OF THE STUDY! AND ALSO IN ONE OF YOUR POSTED ARTICLES THEY ARE DOING AEROBIC EXERCISE!!!! THEN IN 2 OTHERS THEY ARE USING ELDERLY MEN!!!

YOUR ARTICLE ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER ITS PRINTED ON IM SORRY! THROW IT IN THE TRASH! FYI THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU READ THE CONCLUSION OF A STUDY AND ACCEPT IT AS FACT

I'm sorry i have lost my patience and cannot go further with this at the moment the Lions game will be on soon. Its obvious you didn't even read the article posted, or just don't understand it, either way after looking at the parameters of most of the studies you posted they are not even worth reading. I highly encourage you to read IMT's bodybuilding science article, it seems to me you are simply parroting information you do not understand, it also seems to me you put far too much weight in these studies.

ITS NO LONGER ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THINGS WORK
ITS BECOME FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHY THEY WORK

One of the interesting things about the fitness industry is that, like fashion, trends come and go only to resurface years later. And, much like fashion, people look back with bemused nostalgia and wonder how they ever thought it was a good idea in the first place.

In this way, bodybuilding and bell-bottoms are fairly similar, at least in the way that they are sometimes loved and sometimes hated by the industries they represent.

The unfortunate thing about bodybuilding hatred is that, in my opinion, it occurs for all the wrong reasons.

Let's look at the reasons the training methods of bodybuilders have been discarded and ridiculed by the general fitness industry -- and the reasons for the imminent and necessary return of those methods.

RESULTS WERE ALL THAT MATTERED

In the golden age of bodybuilding, Arnold was, without question, both the paragon of its success and the foremost representative of its methodologies. What Arnold said, others believed. What Arnold did, others did.

When it came to training methods, his word on what to do was generally accepted, and with the exceptions of when he intentionally misled people with bad advice, what he recommended produced results. If Schwarzenegger or any other bodybuilders of the age were using and teaching a method, there was a very simple reason for it: it worked.

In the golden age, bodybuilders were interested in results -- and only results. That, I think, is the biggest thing we can say for the guiding philosophy behind the training methods of those days. Arnold and his contemporaries did things that worked simply because they worked.

As a result, figuring out what worked -- and what didnt -- was a driving force that pushed our entire knowledge of training forward. Over the course of months or years, methods, systems and programs emerged. If Arnold was interested in new or unusual approaches, he tried them out. If it could possibly yield results, it was worth testing; after a while, the ideas were either incorporated into the overarching umbrella philosophy of what was effective or discarded altogether. All that mattered was that it worked.

For better or worse, that was not to last.

THE RAW DEAL
In many ways, bodybuilders of that era did not differ very much from many coaches and trainers of today: We develop theories based on existing evidence, test these hypotheses on our clients and observe the results. If something seems to be more effective than what we were doing previously, we try to find a place for it. However, the biggest difference between the fitness industry's golden age and the present is the current focus on and impact of scientific research.

This is important for a number of reasons, the first of which is that it demonstrates a very clear shift in the collective mindset of strength culture: Its no longer enough to know that things work; its become far more important to know why they work. And this, unfortunately, has proven to be a double-edged sword.

Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I think the shift to wanting to know the how and why -- not just the what -- is a good one: It fosters questioning and should foster critical thinking. Of course I see great value in research, and all of my more advanced programs are based on concepts that I was either made aware of or was able to validate through literature. The ability to test the gym-generated theories in a controlled environment helps us see what works.

All of that's great, and should help the industry at large -- but, as it turns out, for all the good the focus on studies and lab testing has done, there has also been a fair bit of harm. You see, over the course of the past two decades, research has gained an almost deific status in the fitness industry. Studies are considered by many to be the final word on any issue, and this has led to unforeseen consequences: being blind to everything else.

THE IMPORTANT THING TO REALIZE IS THAT BECAUSE OF A PUSH TOWARD
RESEARCH AND AGAINST EVERYTHING ELSE, THE PENDULUM HAS SWUNG
TO THE EXTENT THAT "BROSCIENCE" HAS BECOME AN INSULT.

This is an obvious problem -- you have personal trainers and coaches who get so wrapped up in the value of studies that they fail to see value in anything else, and, by extension, immediately devalue anything that hasnt been tested in a research lab or published in a peer-reviewed journal. If it hasnt been thoroughly researched, it can be overlooked or thought worthless, at least in the eyes of a certain subset of coaches in the industry.

To give you some context, lets go back to the golden age bodybuilders for a moment. Without question, its obvious that when it comes to training, they got a number of things wrong. But they also got a lot right. Unfortunately, much of what they got right (or nearly right) has been attacked and rejected, simply because there was no hard data to back it up -- only anecdotal (and obvious) reports of results.

As research was given higher and higher esteem, it became acceptable to lambast methods that were supported solely by observation. In a very real sense, it became almost en vogue to publicly tear down and mock methods or theories that couldnt be (or, at least, hadnt been) proved effective in a controlled academic environment.

Those who were too dependent on research and the idea of research would laugh at the idea that you should do different exercises to target different areas of the chest, or change hand position to hit the biceps differently.

Now, there wasn't a lot of research to back those ideas up at that point, and while that might seem like fairly straightforward reasoning, science zealots were, for a time, so intent on tearing town "conventional bodybuilding wisdom" that they lost sight of something truly important: that it worked.

Just because there aren't seven studies backing something up doesn't mean it doesn't work. In many, many cases, the gym is a bit ahead of the lab. Again, studies are important -- the issue isnt wanting to base things on research or wanting to prove things with research; the issue is that when only one stream of information is willingly incorporated into the viewpoint, the potential for growth and change will be severely limited, both personally and within the industry. Lets take a look at where this has led.

https://www.increasemyt.com/blog/bodybuilding-science

If you still think that article you posted has any value at all, next week I will point all the areas it is completely wrong when I have more time.

If you notice, the original article that was supposedly "debunked" is very vague and covers all areas. This is because there is no solid research on it, and its all mixed. We recommend people do these simple things, because they work, period.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Firstly, stop acting like its just a nonsense article - its a meta-analysis of all the available data on workout nutrition, as reliable as scientific evidence gets. I have also had the pleasure of corresponding regularly with the authors so you criticize my reliance on it lowers your reputation, not mine.

Actually I don't know why you say that, the article you posted clearly says this window exists, its simply a matter of debate on how long it is and when it actually starts.

The original use for the term "anabolic window" was created because it was wrongly believed that the length of time was low, such as 1 -2 hours. If the length of time is actually 24-72 hours - then that's not exactly a "window" but more of a wide open door.

I also find it puzzling that you would criticize me for relying on a meta-analysis of ALL the available studies on workout nutrition because it involves studies in elderly men, aerobic exercise, etc (a meta analysis must include all data).
AND YET you then proceed to use the Levenhagen study to illustrate your point when the study is based on LONG DURATION AEROBIC EXERCISE!
Here's another quote from my meta-analysis:
"A limitation of the study was that training involved moderate intensity, long duration aerobic exercise. Thus, the increased fractional synthetic rate was likely due to greater mitochondrial and/or sarcoplasmic protein fractions, as opposed to synthesis of contractile."

First of all I would like to say you are simply sharing your opinion, I don't see a single study proving the point you are trying to make here. You are simply guessing, which is fine, but you used some pretty strong words earlier like "debunked" and "need to update your article" I am sorry but I am not doing that based on your opinion.

Then you carry on to say that it depends on the pre workout meal? So if they were fasted our statement would be correct, but if not then it may or may not be correct? Then you admit they can be beneficial, and then go on to tell me how many grams are enough without even knowing my BMR or daily caloric intake? I am going to stop here with this one because your point is not very clear.

Lol my opinion is based on taking everything science has offers, then APPLYING that information to protocols I use for my clients - successful bodybuilders who always place.
You will also find my opinion on intra-workout nutrition is shared by Alan Aragon (one of the authors of this meta-analysis) and Lyle Mcdonald (an expert with body recomposition nutrition). But I'm sure that is as equally meaningless to you.
I should add that YOU are also guessing - the information in your article about intra-workout nutrition is based on YOUR opinion and is not a fact either.

If you read my summary my point is very clear:
- Post workout nutrition is dependent on preworkout nutrition, which is why its impossible to give out set guidelines like you have in your article.
- Intra-workout nutrition is dependent on duration & style of training.
- My 15-20g of carbs recommendation is based on the maximum amount of energy an average individual expends during a typical resistance training with some nutrition preworkout. I had no idea that you wanted me tailor this to each individual.

4-6 hours post workout? did you even read the article posted? It clearly says insulin levels are 5x higher within1-2 hours and return to baseline within 5-6? So you suggest waiting until insulin levels return to baseline?

Yea...the quote from the meta-analysis you decided to use against me said it takes 36 HOURS FOR INSULIN TO RETURN TO BASELINE.
You seem to be relying on the insulin spiking BULLSHIT that other people who have no clue also do.
AGAIN - timing of the postworkout meal is dependent on what happened preworkout, I'm not repeating this again.

Then you go on to write about glycogen levels and purporting there is sufficient evidence these need to be replenished when the article YOU posted clearly does not support the need to replace glycogen..........in fact YOUR article states that it may actually even be beneficial to NOT replenish lol wow such definitive.

Enough.
WHERE DID I SAY THAT YOU NEED TO REPLENISH GLYCOGEN HMM?? I HATE when people resort to misrepresenting me when they have no adequate retorts.
I CLEARLY stated that you do NOT need to worry about glycogen replenishment, not that you do - read what I say properly before trying to undermine me.

You don't even understand why there is a need for carb post workout, and neither does your article.

This says a lot - my META-ANALYSIS STUDY, looking at ALL THE AVAILABLE DATA ON WORKOUT NUTRITION, has no clue about carbs postworkout.
Your relying on the complete nonsense of insulin spiking like others before you have done - go ahead and see how well that plays out for you
I made more then enough arguments against insulin spiking during my time on this board and have no energy to get into it again.

YOUR ARTICLE ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER ITS PRINTED ON IM SORRY! THROW IT IN THE TRASH! FYI THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU READ THE CONCLUSION OF A STUDY AND ACCEPT IT AS FACT

Your clearly determined to look at me as some random dude who lifts and reads the conclusions of studies aren't you?
I have a masters in nutrition, this meta-analysis is the BEST form of scientific evidence we currently have when it comes to workout nutrition.
Are their some holes to be filled? Yes but that's why actually utilizing the information and seeing what works with clients (as I do, and 3J and many other good coaches) helps us to see the most OPTIMAL protocols.

https://www.increasemyt.com/blog/bodybuilding-science

If you notice, the original article that was supposedly "debunked" is very vague and covers all areas. This is because there is no solid research on it, and its all mixed. We recommend people do these simple things, because they work, period.

I have read the article and already practice what it preaches anyway.
In my response, you must have noticed that I didn't rely ONLY on science but I also included my opinion based on working as a coach to natural bodybuilders. In short, its about science + experience, not one or the other.
I should mention that when working with natural bodybuilders I have to get everything right because otherwise I have failed as a coach - there are no drugs to flaws in nutrition or training.


If the article you guys wrote was purposely meant to be vague - then I apologise for the criticism. I assumed that since you guys are so well respected with regards to TRT that if you were to write an article on nutrition it would be based on what science + experience tells us, not solely on experience/broscience as you have done.

I do not want to continue this debate any further for a few reasons (your constant need to undermine me, you misquoting me, you calling a meta-analysis of all the available data on this issue "nonsense", you believing in insulin spiking, etc). And most importantly, the fact that you want to ignore this meta-analysis completely because it goes against the article you wrote.

Let people read through the information on both sides and make up their own minds.

 

[IMT staff]

there is no debate!!!!! the article you posted is complete bullshit! on top of that your claiming there is no window when its obvious there is, furthermore you haven't even acknowledged my point for peak levels! I will say again, your article is based on the premise that carbohydrate post workout is used to spike insulin levels, and I already covered this. Since it is a false premise, it means absolutely nothing.

Whats even funnier is you still believe I somehow think a post workout shake increases insulin levels. Honestly its laughable. Then you try to laugh at me for pointing to the study YOU posted, your poking fun at the article YOU posted, your not making any sense at all. It does not matter how big the window, its all about peak levels. If you don't think insulin helps build muscle then there is really no reason for a discussion at all.

The "meta analysis" is full of flaws, the entire thing is built on false premises with elderly men and aerobic exercise lol if thats the best there is then maybe you shouldn't be relying on scientific literature to make your point.

You didn't even realize they DID IN FACT USE SOLID MEALS.

You may be able to fool others, but I can clearly tell you don't even understand what your reading. I could rip your entire article apart, have already done so in just a few minutes time, and will take some more time early this week, but for now I am too hungover for a debate on an article that isn't even worth reading.

15 grams of carbs lol my BMR is over 3200!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess carbs provide 0 nutritional value in regards to MPS, they are ONLY used for glycogen replenishment lol

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

You may be able to fool others, but I can clearly tell you don't even understand what your reading. I could rip your entire article apart, have already done so in just a few minutes time, and will take some more time early this week, but for now I am too hungover for a debate on an article that isn't even worth reading.

I'll be waiting for your critique of the meta-analysis before I say anything else, it will help me establish whether this is worth even arguing over, depending on how knowledgeable you really are about nutrition
But I should mention that I don't really entirely on the article for my own protocols, its a solid base to start from but my experiences allow me to alter certain things based on how clients respond.

Incidentally, I could address the other points you mentioned in your latest post but what's the point?
Am I really going to change your mind? Do I have anything to gain from this? No to both of these.

 

[IMT staff]

its not a solid base at all! its garbage and isn't even worth reading!!!!

I mean your article thinks insulin spikes based on your post workout meal!!!! They don't even understand basic human physiology.

 

[IMT staff]

Thirteen untrained elderly male volunteers were matched in pairs based on body composition and daily protein intake and divided into two groups:

Subjects performed multiple sets of leg press and knee extension 3 days per week

this study only investigated adaptive responses of supplementation on the thigh musculature;

Given that the group receiving the protein supplement consumed an additional 40 grams of protein on training days, it is difficult to discern whether results were due to the increased protein intake or the timing of the supplement.

The study was limited by its use of DXA to assess body composition, which lacks the sensitivity to detect small changes in muscle mass compared to other imaging modalities such as MRI and CT

A strength of the study was its long-term training period, providing support for the beneficial effects of nutrient timing on chronic hypertrophic gains

After a 6-week washout period where no training was performed

The majority of chronic studies have examined pre- and post-exercise supplementation simultaneously, as opposed to comparing the two treatments against each other.

Another important limitation is that the majority of chronic studies neglect to match total protein intake between the conditions compared. As such, its not possible to ascertain whether positive outcomes were influenced by timing relative to the training bout, or simply by a greater protein intake overall

Collectively, the available data lack any consistent indication of an ideal post-exercise timing scheme for maximizing MPS.

In an elegant single-blinded design, Cribb and Hayes [70] found a significant benefit to post-exercise protein consumption in 23 recreational male bodybuilders.

other research by Tipton et al. [65] showed that the ingestion of 20 g whey taken immediately pre-exercise elevated muscular uptake of amino acids to 4.4 times pre-exercise resting levels during exercise, and did not return to baseline levels until 3 hours post-exercise.

In light of these findings, when training is initiated more than ~3-4 hours after the preceding meal, the classical recommendation to consume protein (at least 25 g) as soon as possible seems warranted in order to reverse the catabolic state, which in turn could expedite muscular recovery and growth.

or example, someone with 70 kg of LBM would consume roughly 28-35 g protein in both the pre- and post exercise meal. Exceeding this would be have minimal detriment if any, whereas significantly under-shooting or neglecting it altogether would not maximize the anabolic response.

there are so many things wrong with your argument and this article its gonna be tough to even know where to begin.

But we will get to it.

Since there isn't a reliable study confirming one way or another maybe we should just not eat? or consume any carbs at all?

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I mean your article thinks insulin spikes based on your post workout meal!!!! They don't even understand basic human physiology.

First - I'm happy to see you don't believe in the insulin spiking nonsense, I was worried for a little bit earlier on.

The article simply states that the reason most guys take carbs post workout is because THEY believe the extra insulin spike will help with muscle gains. They have no idea that it is an adaptation caused by the training itself, or that simply consuming protein will increase insulin sufficiently.
It then goes on to state why the "insulin spike postworkout" stuff is nonsense based on the data as a whole - something we agree on.
So no, the analysis certainly doesn't "believe" in this.


Also, the weaknesses of some of the studies used by the authors is also pointed out by them - in other words they are showing just how mixed the data is & how some of the studies shouldn't be relied upon. This is the whole point of a meta-analysis lol.
They're thoughts at the end in the discussion section, taking into account the big picture, is correct and certainly lines up with what I have seen with clients.

 

[IMT staff]

The article simply states that the reason most guys take carbs post workout is because THEY believe the extra insulin spike will help with muscle gains. They have no idea that it is an adaptation caused by the training itself, or that simply consuming protein will increase insulin sufficiently.

exactly as I said, the argument is based on a false premise.

First - I'm happy to see you don't believe in the insulin spiking nonsense, I was worried for a little bit earlier on.

I reiterated this a bunch, I just don't think you understand this process. Insulin does in fact have great anabolic properties, it is simply that it will spike wether you eat carbs or not simply from your workout. Should we provide nutrients to the body when anabolic substances are roaming the blood stream or no?

Also, the weaknesses of some of the studies used by the authors is also pointed out by them - in other words they are showing just how mixed the data is & how some of the studies shouldn't be relied upon. This is the whole point of a meta-analysis lol.
They're thoughts at the end in the discussion section, taking into account the big picture, is correct and certainly lines up with what I have seen with clients.

Hey I never said it was definitive, your the one who came in here saying "change your article all this stuff has been debunked"

So you do agree a fasted workout is best correct? as in no large meals a couple hours before strength training?

I really hope you answer yes to that, if not I will be worried.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I reiterated this a bunch, I just don't think you understand this process. Insulin does in fact have great anabolic properties, it is simply that it will spike wether you eat carbs or not simply from your workout.

Agreed.
But if we agree that carbs are not necessary post workout to spike insulin, and also agree that it is not necessary to focus on glycogen replenishment immediately (provided overall carb intake is good), then what is the basis of the recommendation for carbs immediately post workout in your article?
Or is it based on the premise that the individual hasn't had a meal in several hours and only a shake pre?

Hey I never said it was definitive, your the one who came in here saying "change your article all this stuff has been debunked"

So you do agree a fasted workout is best correct? as in no large meals a couple hours before strength training?

I really hope you answer yes to that, if not I will be worried.

Lol my stance became a lot more polite when you mentioned that the article written on your site was intended to be vague rather than a be all and end all of the topic.

Yes I agree but not just for physiological reasons, the simple fact is that working out after you consumed a large meal isn't very comfortable.
However, I disagree with actual fasted training (eating nothing for 3hrs or so). A medium sized meal 1-2 hours preworkout, with adequate carbs & protein, is my preferred approach - very much a "in the middle" look at things.
This is why I kept saying that what happens preworkout dictates whether intra & post workout nutrition becomes more important than normal.

 

[IMT staff]

Agreed.
But if we agree that carbs are not necessary post workout to spike insulin, and also agree that it is not necessary to focus on glycogen replenishment immediately (provided overall carb intake is good), then what is the basis of the recommendation for carbs immediately post workout in your article?
Or is it based on the premise that the individual hasn't had a meal in several hours and only a shake pre?



Lol my stance became a lot more polite when you mentioned that the article written on your site was intended to be vague rather than a be all and end all of the topic.

Yes I agree but not just for physiological reasons, the simple fact is that working out after you consumed a large meal isn't very comfortable.
However, I disagree with actual fasted training (eating nothing for 3hrs or so). A medium sized meal 1-2 hours postworkout, with adequate carbs & protein, is my preferred approach - very much a "in the middle" look at things.
This is why I kept saying that what happens preworkout dictates whether intra & post workout nutrition becomes more important than normal.

All of our articles are very vague, its impossible to devise any kind of workout, nutritional or hormonal needs without having a complete understanding of the individual specific situation. The article is in general a good basic way to make sure nutritional needs are met during a very important window

The reason you want to fast pre workout is so that insulin levels do not suppress growth hormone levels, insulin and GH are on a teeter totter like testosterone and estrogen.

Also I do agree with it being uncomfortable, which is another reason the article is completely accurate, most people do not eat right before a workout. If the individual was fasted, the article you posted actually confirms the regimen laid out in our article.

The problem is, the article is not worth much when trying to apply it to healthy men that vigorously exercise on a regular basis. Some of the men were trained, some untrained. Some of the exercises were only 1 body part, some were elderly and some were tested when they were not even exercising.

Its not an article we would use to give definitive answers thats for sure.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

The reason you want to fast pre workout is so that insulin levels do not suppress growth hormone levels, insulin and GH are on a teeter totter like testosterone and estrogen.

But doesn't the protein shake recommendation pre workout completely negate this? Considering whey alone has been shown to increase insulin by a noticeable amount?
You then have to consider the fact that the majority of folks simply cannot perform at the same level of intensity in the gym when fasted - not all, but the majority. And I hope we agree that regardless of nutrition, if your not progressing in the gym your not gaining muscle (if natural).

Also I do agree with it being uncomfortable, which is another reason the article is completely accurate, most people do not eat right before a workout. If the individual was fasted, the article you posted actually confirms the regimen laid out in our article.

Lol yes indeed - if the individual was fasted then the workout nutrition timing indicated in your article would be 100% correct
But if they had an adequate meal preworkout then that's another story...

I suppose rather than saying the article is complete nonsense, I should say that more focus should be placed on the importance of preworkout nutrition and how this can negate the need for intra/post protein shakes, etc. This would make the article more relevant to the majority (not many people train fasted).

In terms of timing, I think too much emphasis is placed on nutrition around peak levels (something you alluded to earlier that I'll address now that we're both in a sensible conversation).
IME, Adequate nutrition at peak levels vs non-peak but still elevated levels made no difference in all but one of my clients (and she was a beginner so I wouldn't put too much stock in this). I'm not talking about just 2-3 individuals neither.
And yes I know I have no studies to back me up on this but I still think its important to consider just how much of a difference nutrition at peak levels will make when applied in reality.

 

[IMT staff]

But doesn't the protein shake recommendation pre workout completely negate this? Considering whey alone has been shown to increase insulin by a noticeable amount?

No, protein shakes are fine. I'm lol at noticeable BTW.

You then have to consider the fact that the majority of folks simply cannot perform at the same level of intensity in the gym when fasted - not all, but the majority. And I hope we agree that regardless of nutrition, if your not progressing in the gym your not gaining muscle (if natural).

Now your dreaming stuff up, are you trying to tell me if someone doesn't eat for 2 hours their exercise ability will be diminished? you have me chuckling again

Lol yes indeed - if the individual was fasted then the workout nutrition timing indicated in your article would be 100% correct
But if they had an adequate meal preworkout then that's another story...

So now your having a pre workout meal so you do not have to have a post workout shake/meal? Im chuckling again

I suppose rather than saying the article is complete nonsense, I should say that more focus should be placed on the importance of preworkout nutrition and how this can negate the need for intra/post protein shakes, etc. This would make the article more relevant to the majority (not many people train fasted).

And you were making such huge strides, its like 1 step forward and 2 steps back, I thought we agreed eating pre workout doesn't make any sense?

In terms of timing, I think too much emphasis is placed on nutrition around peak levels (something you alluded to earlier that I'll address now that we're both in a sensible conversation).
IME, Adequate nutrition at peak levels vs non-peak but still elevated levels made no difference in all but one of my clients (and she was a beginner so I wouldn't put too much stock in this). I'm not talking about just 2-3 individuals neither.
And yes I know I have no studies to back me up on this but I still think its important to consider just how much of a difference nutrition at peak levels will make when applied in reality.

Im not even going to reply to this one, i just can't

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

No, protein shakes are fine. I'm lol at noticeable BTW.

Protein shakes increase insulin - fact. You cannot say that training fasted is better when in your NOT training fasted because you drank a shake

So now your having a pre workout meal so you do not have to have a post workout shake/meal? Im chuckling again

That's probably because you know a preworkout meal would make your article completely null and void

And you were making such huge strides, its like 1 step forward and 2 steps back, I thought we agreed eating pre workout doesn't make any sense?

I clearly stated that the preferred approach should be an average sized meal 1-2 hours preworkout - I only agreed that it shouldn't be "large".
You have a terrible habit of misquoting me don't you?

Im not even going to reply to this one, i just can't

Isn't it amazing how arrogant someone can be even when debating someone who's educational background & career is dedicated to training and nutrition, while yours obviously isnt
Let's end this here - keep pretending you know more than me regarding nutrition.

 

[IMT staff]

lol noticeable! That must mean its huge and has an impact.

You should post your study on it, I would love to help you understand it better. Make sure you only read the conclusion, no need to understand the impact it has in the real world.

 

[THE-DET-OAK]

OMG what happened in here?

 

[3J]

Lol.. I havn't had a chance to read through all this but you'll see me comment on it when I get a chance to sit down and go through it..

Look at the two of you, going to war lol