Pre, During, & Postworkout Nutrition.

[Teflon_Don]

Originally Posted by PracFitnessTips

---

Hi again Julian & All,

Julian - thanks for posting that link. Some very interesting findings on protein intake.

However, I guess the next step is to determine which organisation(s) can be most trusted, how they did their research, who they did their experiments on (if applicable), if they potentially have any bias, and so on?

You've inspired me to dig a bit deeper, and I've found that the following organisations suggest the following intakes of protein for males (sorry again ladies!). If a separate figure was provided for 'active' males, or even better for 'bodybuilders' specifically (rather than 'sedentary'), I've provided this figure whenever possible. Here they are, roughly in order from least to greatest:


1) World Health Organisation - 0.45g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

2) British Nutrition Foundation - 0.75g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

3) Food & Nutrition Board (USA) - 0.8g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

4) Health Canada - 0.8g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

5) National Health & Medical Research Council (Australia) - 0.84g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

6) American Association of Kidney Patients - 0.8 to 1.0g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

7) Ask the Dietician - 1.2g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

8) Journal of Applied Physiology (USA) - 1.0 to 1.4g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

9) Medscape (USA) - 1.2 to 1.4g of protein per kg of bodyweight (for 'endurance athletes').

10) Canadian Dietetic Association - 1.0 to 1.5g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

11) American Dietetic Association - 1.0 to 1.5g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

12) Medscape (USA) - 1.4 to 1.8g of protein per kg of bodyweight (for 'bodybuilders').

13) Journal of the American College of Nutrition - 1.6 to 1.8g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

14) Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (UK) - 1.4 to 2.0g of protein per kg of bodyweight (thanks Julian!).

15) Iron Magazine (USA) - 2.2g of protein per kg of bodyweight.


There's certainly a lot of wisdom in getting multiple opinions on any kind of issue - which is why most of us are participating in this forum in the first place. The above sample from 15 organisations from all over the world should hopefully at least get people re-evaluating their current protein intake. Thanks for listening to my 2 cents/pence/fils, whatever! If anybody has any more up-to-date findings, or anything to add to this topic I'd love to hear from you.

Please see below:

Originally Posted by Pubmed

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2009 Oct 16. [Epub ahead of print]

Evidence that protein requirements have been significantly underestimated.

Elango R, Humayun MA, Ball RO, Pencharz PB.

The Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Canada, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses recent evidence that suggests a significant underestimation of protein requirements in adult humans. RECENT FINDINGS: Traditionally, total protein requirements for humans have been determined using nitrogen balance. The recent Dietary Reference Intake recommendations for mean and population-safe intakes of 0.66 and 0.8 g/kg/day, respectively, of high-quality protein in adult humans are based on a meta-analysis of nitrogen balance studies using single linear regression analysis. We reanalyzed existing nitrogen balance studies using two-phase linear regression analysis and obtained mean and safe protein requirements of 0.91 and 0.99 g/kg/day, respectively. The two-phase linear regression analysis is considered more appropriate for biological analysis of dose-response curves. Considering the inherent problems associated with the nitrogen balance method, we developed an alternative method, the indicator amino acid oxidation technique, to determine protein requirements The mean and population-safe requirements in adult men were determined to be 0.93 and 1.2 g/kg/day and are 41 and 50%, respectively, higher than the current Dietary Reference Intakes recommendations. SUMMARY: The indicator amino acid oxidation-based requirement values of 0.93 and 1.2 g protein/kg/day and the reanalysis of existing nitrogen balance studies are significantly higher than current recommendations. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reassess recommendations for protein intake in adult humans.

[pumped4life82]

Originally Posted by Teflon_Don

Whey itself will spike insulin to levels beyond what is needed for maximal rate of muscle protein synthesis. The whole idea behind the need to spike insulin comes from the (mistaken) belief that muscle glycogen is depleted during a typical weight training session and that it needs to be refilled immediately.

All of above, however, is irrelevant with proper pre-workout nutrition.

Great, thanks for the info!

[EJZastro]

Hey Alan...I read your article on 'cardio first thing in the morning' and have a ? for you...

I read in a popular weight training mag, that studies find that doing cardio after weight training burns alot of fat. The therory is energy expenditure increases for about 40 minutes to an hour after the w-tr is over. So doing my proform with 1 minute high intensity for every 1 minute steady should burn more fat...but the article says not to consume any CARBS while or after this for hours (2? 3? 4?).

I don't get it. Unless burning fat is a totally different realm than body building, i feel that this is totally catabolic and dangerous. I am actually FEARFUL of trying this cardio proposal here, skipping all the carbs and then not taking my post workout supplements!

I do my lifting and sip some carbs w aminos while I workout (starting about :20-:30 in) and when i finish, I try to consume some CytoCell w some added aminos. Generally i will shower, then have some oatmeal and about :20 after that a mix of Nitro-tech and ON Hyrdolized P. Am I on the right page w other successful lifters and trainers? Thanks...this is my first post so I hope the form is OK. EJ

[eriram]

Originally Posted by EJZastro

Hey Alan...I read your article on 'cardio first thing in the morning' and have a ? for you...

I read in a popular weight training mag, that studies find that doing cardio after weight training burns alot of fat. The therory is energy expenditure increases for about 40 minutes to an hour after the w-tr is over. So doing my proform with 1 minute high intensity for every 1 minute steady should burn more fat...but the article says not to consume any CARBS while or after this for hours (2? 3? 4?).

I don't get it. Unless burning fat is a totally different realm than body building, i feel that this is totally catabolic and dangerous. I am actually FEARFUL of trying this cardio proposal here, skipping all the carbs and then not taking my post workout supplements!

I do my lifting and sip some carbs w aminos while I workout (starting about :20-:30 in) and when i finish, I try to consume some CytoCell w some added aminos. Generally i will shower, then have some oatmeal and about :20 after that a mix of Nitro-tech and ON Hyrdolized P. Am I on the right page w other successful lifters and trainers? Thanks...this is my first post so I hope the form is OK. EJ

Well, check out the PWO recommendations that he suggests and you could probably figure out the answer to the question you pose in the last paragraph. (Ditch the amino's)

As for the cardio: Cardio is a tool and unless you are doing some type of work or sport that actually requires endurance, you probably don't need it. You can manipulate your weight with food and weights alone. Cardio is probably best used as a last resort.

[Brad155]

what do you guys think of a propper meal directly before a workout? something like a cup of cereal with a cup of milk, some whey and a potatoe. this good to take directly preworkout as long as i have no problem stomaching it? i ask because im gettin 4k cals throughout the day, and need a decent sized meal right before my workout to reach my macro and calorie goals throughout the day.

[Confuzzl3dOn3]

Originally Posted by eriram

Well, check out the PWO recommendations that he suggests and you could probably figure out the answer to the question you pose in the last paragraph. (Ditch the amino's)

As for the cardio: Cardio is a tool and unless you are doing some type of work or sport that actually requires endurance, you probably don't need it. You can manipulate your weight with food and weights alone. Cardio is probably best used as a last resort.

I would disagree to a certain extent. Cardio improves cardiovascular health so i don't see why we should neglect it.

[eriram]

Originally Posted by Confuzzl3dOn3

I would disagree to a certain extent. Cardio improves cardiovascular health so i don't see why we should neglect it.

I would agree with you IF I didn't do weights but I do so I don't. Some links Alan shared a couple of weeks ago:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10898247?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles& logdbfrom=pubmed

[cib0_madu]

Thanks for the advice, some good info here!

[martinelli]

Originally Posted by EJZastro

Hey Alan...I read your article on 'cardio first thing in the morning' and have a ? for you...

I read in a popular weight training mag, that studies find that doing cardio after weight training burns alot of fat. The therory is energy expenditure increases for about 40 minutes to an hour after the w-tr is over. So doing my proform with 1 minute high intensity for every 1 minute steady should burn more fat...but the article says not to consume any CARBS while or after this for hours (2? 3? 4?).

I don't get it. Unless burning fat is a totally different realm than body building, i feel that this is totally catabolic and dangerous. I am actually FEARFUL of trying this cardio proposal here, skipping all the carbs and then not taking my post workout supplements!

I do my lifting and sip some carbs w aminos while I workout (starting about :20-:30 in) and when i finish, I try to consume some CytoCell w some added aminos. Generally i will shower, then have some oatmeal and about :20 after that a mix of Nitro-tech and ON Hyrdolized P. Am I on the right page w other successful lifters and trainers? Thanks...this is my first post so I hope the form is OK. EJ

You know, this reminds me of the issue of doing weight and endurance training close together (it's been made a big deal of by some of the physiology professors here). Supposedly the endurance component dampens the growth stimulus from the training. Has something to do with inhibiting mTOR and dual phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK 1/2. Just throwing this out there for other people who trouble themselves with stuff at the cellular level. BUT, the people I see who do their cardio after their workouts are still pretty built, so no big deal, I guess.

[Confuzzl3dOn3]

Originally Posted by eriram

I would agree with you IF I didn't do weights but I do so I don't. Some links Alan shared a couple of weeks ago:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10898247?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles& logdbfrom=pubmed

I know, I read in Mark's Practical Programming that strength training can induce hypertrophy of the heart of the wall, i was just saying that aerobic exercise also has its cardiovascular benefits

[CoQ10]

Originally Posted by martinelli

You know, this reminds me of the issue of doing weight and endurance training close together (it's been made a big deal of by some of the physiology professors here). Supposedly the endurance component dampens the growth stimulus from the training. Has something to do with inhibiting mTOR and dual phosphorylation of p38 MAPK and ERK 1/2. Just throwing this out there for other people who trouble themselves with stuff at the cellular level. BUT, the people I see who do their cardio after their workouts are still pretty built, so no big deal, I guess.

Martinelli -

Are you aware of any studies on HIIT post-resistance training?

Thanks,
C10

[eriram]

Originally Posted by Confuzzl3dOn3

I know, I read in Mark's Practical Programming that strength training can induce hypertrophy of the heart of the wall, i was just saying that aerobic exercise also has its cardiovascular benefits

Oh yeah no argument here, it has benefits. But you don't NEED it if you are doing something else.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned to my co-workers that I don't do cardio. They kept on me how I NEEDED to do cardio. That weights weren't enough. Cardio has it's benefits but you don't HAVE to do it if you don't like it. I personally hate it. I showed them the links, with Alan's help, and they left me alone.

So I guess we agree, but it seems like you may like cardio...and I hate it.

[halfstepdown]

So, maybe my metabolism is slowing down or something..
I've always been a skinny guy and ALL A SUDDEN I've got some fat on my lower belly, what the hell?

So I never payed attention to any posts about losing fat.

So let me make sure I get this right. Keep lifting weights, decrease my calories, and I should still be getting stronger and lose that lil belly? Or will I not get stronger and have to wait for the belly to go away before I can start eating enough calories to gain weight without too much fat?

[Confuzzl3dOn3]

Originally Posted by eriram

Oh yeah no argument here, it has benefits. But you don't NEED it if you are doing something else.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned to my co-workers that I don't do cardio. They kept on me how I NEEDED to do cardio. That weights weren't enough. Cardio has it's benefits but you don't HAVE to do it if you don't like it. I personally hate it. I showed them the links, with Alan's help, and they left me alone.

So I guess we agree, but it seems like you may like cardio...and I hate it.

haha yeah i guess we're in the same boat. But i must say i used to enjoy doing cardio more than weights because to me it was so much easier. But then i sucked it up, quit acting like a pussy and so i dropped the cardio for probably half a year. Now i've gotten lazy i probably would hate doing cardio again

[martinelli]

Originally Posted by CoQ10

Martinelli -

Are you aware of any studies on HIIT post-resistance training?

Thanks,
C10

Hey C10,
I'm not aware of any studies. After reading your post, I went to a few online journals and started doing searches on those key words. I can't find any.

From personal experience, I do find that I can actually still do sprint intervals after a workout. I'm already warmed up - I've never pulled a hammy this way. Are you conditioning for a sport?

[sepandee]

Originally Posted by halfstepdown

So, maybe my metabolism is slowing down or something..
I've always been a skinny guy and ALL A SUDDEN I've got some fat on my lower belly, what the hell?

So I never payed attention to any posts about losing fat.

So let me make sure I get this right. Keep lifting weights, decrease my calories, and I should still be getting stronger and lose that lil belly? Or will I not get stronger and have to wait for the belly to go away before I can start eating enough calories to gain weight without too much fat?

Getting stronger + losing fat is really hard to do and depends on a # of things (age, genetics, etc.). To lift and get stronger you usually need to go on a caloric surplus diet, and to lose fat you need caloric deficit.

Search for 'culking' on this thread. That might help you a bit.

[CoQ10]

Originally Posted by martinelli

Hey C10,
I'm not aware of any studies. After reading your post, I went to a few online journals and started doing searches on those key words. I can't find any.

From personal experience, I do find that I can actually still do sprint intervals after a workout. I'm already warmed up - I've never pulled a hammy this way. Are you conditioning for a sport?

Thanks for looking into that, Martinelli.

Not conditioning for a sport at the moment, but still try to do HIIT once or twice a week just to stay in shape. IME, programming with HIIT can be fairly tricky; you don't want it to hinder growth or lower-body recovery, but it is a crucial component of athletic training. Performing it immediately after a lower-body workout has worked for me.

Thanks again.

-C10

[martinelli]

Originally Posted by CoQ10

Thanks for looking into that, Martinelli.

Not conditioning for a sport at the moment, but still try to do HIIT once or twice a week just to stay in shape. IME, programming with HIIT can be fairly tricky; you don't want it to hinder growth or lower-body recovery, but it is a crucial component of athletic training. Performing it immediately after a lower-body workout has worked for me.

Thanks again.

-C10

I just found a study that might help both of us. Although it's only one study, it's the only study I've found that even remotely suggests that HIIT cardio is NOT the same as LISS. So, I'd guess that HIIT cardio doesn't dampen the growth stimulus following resistance training.

Here's a link to the abstract (I can't get a hold of the full text, so we have a problem):

"Effect of high-intensity, interval exercise on signalling proteins and gene expression in human skeletal muscle."
www.apps.org.au/Proceedings/38/166P/166P.pdf

The researchers found that after the fourth bout of successive all-out cycling, there was measurable phosphorylation (activation) of p38 MAPK (which is also phosphorylated during resistance training), PKB, and S6K.

I remember from my cell biology class that PKB is synonymous with Akt, which is an upstream activator of mTOR (which, for our purposes, increases protein synthesis), which in turn is an upstream activator of S6K.

I also remember reading that if the adaptation from training is mostly endurance-oriented, then increased phosphorylation of ERK1/2 MAPK would have been observed. But it wasn't. And although the researchers said that there was "no activation of pathways responsible for growth-related protein synthesis," I'd say that they're contradicting themselves. mTOR was activated, so unless I have too simplistic an understanding of mTOR's roles in the body (which I'm very sure I do), protein synthesis should have occurred as a result of HIIT cycling.

Despite the study, I'm still on the fence about whether HIIT cardio can be thrown in the same boat as endurance activity.

Lastly, this morning I talked with my professors about the study suggesting that endurance training shouldn't immediately be done after weight training if the goal is hypertrophy. They explained that the endurance work was causing an inhibitory response within mTOR that was very close to the site of rapamycin binding (rapamycin inhibits hypertrophy). They also clarified to me that the trial was carried out for 8 weeks, so it wasn't exactly an acute study - and it was definitely enough time for the hypertrophy to manifest itself were it not for the masking effect of the endurance exercise. Until I get a hold of the study, I want to argue that as long as one's calories and protein are sufficient to reactivate mTOR, and as long as one is progressively increasing training load, what does it matter?

We know that in most sports, athletes want to get the benefits of weight training without the disadvantages of excessive muscle mass, so to this end the above study is relevant. I just didn't think it could block muscle gain that dramatically.

But anyway, I'll let you know when they get the study to me.

[projectaero]

Hello Alan,
A quick question, i am wanting to start a bulk but not sure my daily caloric needs, what is a good forumla to go by, then to adjust later on.
Some people say 1g of protein per lbs of weight?
Also should i be going on the weight that i am wanting to get to 220 pounds or go by my current weight 185 pounds?
The reason why is i thought if you say follow a 40/40/20 split then each week your bodyweight will increase so your PCF ratio will increase too, i thought that it would be better to follow a target weight to use for the pcf ratio?

thanks

[CoQ10]

Martinelli -

Thanks very much! I know I can always count on you for a solid, comprehensive response . I doubt that post-workout cardiovascular activity - regardless of intensity - plays much of a role in hypertrophy, but the studies are interesting. Keep me posted.

Projectaero -

I don't know how Alan feels about this calculator, but I have found it quite useful:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=114980801

Hope that helps.

-C10

[Julian_H]

Originally Posted by projectaero

Hello Alan,
A quick question, i am wanting to start a bulk but not sure my daily caloric needs, what is a good forumla to go by, then to adjust later on.
Some people say 1g of protein per lbs of weight?
Also should i be going on the weight that i am wanting to get to 220 pounds or go by my current weight 185 pounds?
The reason why is i thought if you say follow a 40/40/20 split then each week your bodyweight will increase so your PCF ratio will increase too, i thought that it would be better to follow a target weight to use for the pcf ratio?

thanks

Dr. Casey butt's calculator does a good job of getting somewhere in the ballpark. It takes lean body mass, not just weight, into consideration. Adding a bit more than the recommended protein wouldn't hurt, though

http://www.weightrainer.net/gaincalc.html

[martinelli]

Originally Posted by CoQ10

Martinelli -

Thanks very much! I know I can always count on you for a solid, comprehensive response . I doubt that post-workout cardiovascular activity - regardless of intensity - plays much of a role in hypertrophy, but the studies are interesting. Keep me posted.

Found it! I just realized how old the study actually is. Also, the trial was carried out for 10 weeks, not 8. If you don't have access to online journals, I can save it and send it to you if you'd like.

Hickson, RC. "Interference of Strength Development by Simultaneously Training for Strength and Endurance." 1980.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5462621u3011433/

Let's see how much Alan's research review has helped me to catch study limitations...

Problems I see with the study:
1) It's old
2) Small sample size for the group who underwent the strength + endurance protocol (7 subjects)
3) Huge dissimilarity between the protocol and how recreational bodybuilders actually train: the subjects in the S + E group performed purely leg exercises 5 days/week. Hmm...
4) No dietary intake record. Were the subjects eating a hypocaloric diet?

I'd also argue that there is no 1:1 correlation between strength and hypertrophy. I have seen too many people who don't put up the numbers I do but actually look like they bodybuild (sad). I've also heard that when one stops training, the first adaptation to go is strength. However, the hypertrophy will persist for a month or two despite the withering away of neuromuscular efficiency. My professors may be directly correlating strength inhibition with hypertrophy inhibition.

One more interesting thing to note that they stated is that hypertrophy doesn't immediately manifest itself the way neural adaptations do. My professor estimated a 3-4 week lapse before they become apparent. According to one of them, you can maintain a stagnant workload indefinitely and you should theoretically see the accompanying delayed hypertrophy eventually (although at some point it would obviously plateau).



I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on this.

EDIT - according to the above figure, most of the studies carried out in this field seem to be relatively acute (lasting about a month or a little over, when hypertrophy is just rearing its head). The fact that hypertrophy doesn't tend to occur until much, much later might explain why there are so few studies with the goal of measuring hypertrophy and what triggers it. It's a lot easier to assess training's near-immediate effects on performance. With the amount of money an even longer trial would require, I wouldn't be surprised if researchers didn't receive any grants to carry out a full-blown hypertrophy experiment.

[eriram]

Originally Posted by martinelli

Let's see how much Alan's research review has helped me to catch study limitations...
.

I think our Exericse IQ definitely goes up with each AARR.

[CoQ10]

Originally Posted by martinelli

Found it! I just realized how old the study actually is. Also, the trial was carried out for 10 weeks, not 8. If you don't have access to online journals, I can save it and send it to you if you'd like.

Hickson, RC. "Interference of Strength Development by Simultaneously Training for Strength and Endurance." 1980.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5462621u3011433/

Let's see how much Alan's research review has helped me to catch study limitations...

Problems I see with the study:
1) It's old
2) Small sample size for the group who underwent the strength + endurance protocol (7 subjects)
3) Huge dissimilarity between the protocol and how recreational bodybuilders actually train: the subjects in the S + E group performed purely leg exercises 5 days/week. Hmm...
4) No dietary intake record. Were the subjects eating a hypocaloric diet?

I agree wholeheartedly. Very astute observations. I've only given the study a cursory glance, but it seems strange that the "rate of strength improvement by the S and E group was similar to the S group for the first 7 weeks of training." Considering the lower-body oriented strength protocol, I would have thought that the cardiovascular work would have limited strength gains over the ~2 month period. It has to be largely neurological adaptations, right?

Originally Posted by martinelli

I'd also argue that there is no 1:1 correlation between strength and hypertrophy. I have seen too many people who don't put up the numbers I do but actually look like they bodybuild (sad). I've also heard that when one stops training, the first adaptation to go is strength. However, the hypertrophy will persist for a month or two despite the withering away of neuromuscular efficiency. My professors may be directly correlating strength inhibition with hypertrophy inhibition.

Anecdotally, this definitely seems to be the case. Lower weight class powerlifters are one such example. There is certainly a correlation between strength and muscle mass, but other factors (genetics, CNS, programming, etc.) must play a substantial role.

Originally Posted by martinelli

One more interesting thing to note that they stated is that hypertrophy doesn't immediately manifest itself the way neural adaptations do. My professor estimated a 3-4 week lapse before they become apparent. According to one of them, you can maintain a stagnant workload indefinitely and you should theoretically see the accompanying delayed hypertrophy eventually (although at some point it would obviously plateau).

Interesting. Would this contradict the so-called "overload principle" with respect to hypertrophy?

Thanks!

-C10

[sepandee]

Originally Posted by Julian_H

Dr. Casey butt's calculator does a good job of getting somewhere in the ballpark. It takes lean body mass, not just weight, into consideration. Adding a bit more than the recommended protein wouldn't hurt, though

http://www.weightrainer.net/gaincalc.html

Hmmm, according to that calculator, my diet should be 60/15/25 (carbs/protein/fat), with 111g/day of protein. That makes no sense... or does it???

[colletto]

rasins 30mins pre workout-- great energy source.

[eriram]

Originally Posted by colletto

rasins 30mins pre workout-- great energy source.

chocolate milk even better

[Julian_H]

Originally Posted by sepandee

Hmmm, according to that calculator, my diet should be 60/15/25 (carbs/protein/fat), with 111g/day of protein. That makes no sense... or does it???

The calculator has several variables, I need details.

Personally, I would ramp up the protein, say 1+ g/lb., provided you are seeking hypertrophy.

[colletto]

Originally Posted by eriram

chocolate milk even better

times a tough, raisins are all I can afford

[Julian_H]

Originally Posted by colletto

times a tough, raisins are all I can afford

Even more reason to love raisins and bananas. Both are very affordable and derishus