Question to Alan Aragon regarding nutrient timing.

[alan aragon]

Yea that should be interesting waiting to hear back.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20977582

here's a study trying to disprove protein ingestion post workout vs 2 hours after. Although I dislike it because the diets are calorie restricted and designed for weight loss. There was 13kg roughly weight loss in 16 weeks which is approx a standard 1k calorie deficit. Can't really expect differences in fat free mass in a deficit imo. Perhaps it's more related to increasing muscle gain as opposed to preserving fat free mass.



ok got it. I mean yea it's true if you're talking to people just getting into it and saying hey u gotta eat this and that it's more important they get the right food first and then worry about other crap.

But imo it's important to note for people looking to get aesthetics like zyzz and rakich, if you wanna take it one step further this is very beneficial. I just disliked how people are saying it's not worth it. In fact it IS worth it.

Just make sure u get food in and then worry about it is what alan is saying which makes sense to me.

You simply are unaware of the full range of research & I suggest you dig some more. Let me warn you that nutrient timing for the purpose of the present context is not as magical as you appear to hope. Hanging your hat on the Cribb et al study (Cribb is the lead formulator for AST, who funded the study) tells me that you have plenty to learn. The importance of nutrient timing varies with the individual & the goal. You need to go over my posts in this thread. Carefully.

[alan aragon]

Here, I'll help you...........

The postexercise "anabolic window" is a highly misused & abused concept. Preworkout nutrition all but cancels the urgency, unless you're an endurance athlete with multiple glycogen-depleting events in a single day. Getting down to brass tacks, a relatively recent study (Power et al. 2009) showed that a 45g dose of whey protein isolate takes appx 50 minutes to cause blood AA levels to peak. Resulting insulin levels, which peaked at 40 minutes after ingestion, remained at elevations known to max out the inhibition of muscle protein breakdown (15-30 mU/L) for 120 minutes after ingestion. This dose takes 3 hours for insulin & AA levels to return to baseline from the point of ingestion. The inclusion of carbs to this dose would cause AA & insulin levels to peak higher & stay elevated above baseline even longer.

So much for the anabolic peephole & the urgency to down AAs during your weight training workout; they are already seeping into circulation (& will continue to do so after your training bout is done). Even in the event that a preworkout meal is skipped, the anabolic effect of the postworkout meal is increased as a supercompensatory response (Deldicque et al, 2010). Moving on, another recent study (Staples et al, 2010) found that a substantial dose of carbohydrate (50g maltodextrin) added to 25g whey protein was unable to further increase postexercise net muscle protein balance compared to the protein dose without carbs. Again, this is not to say that adding carbs at this point is counterproductive, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that you must get your lightning-fast postexercise carb orgy for optimal results.

To add to this... Why has the majority of longer-term research failed to show any meaningful differences in nutrient timing relative to the resistance training bout? It's likely because the body is smarter than we give it credit for. Most people don't know that as a result of a single training bout, the receptivity of muscle to protein dosing can persist for at least 24 hours: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204

More from earlier in the thread:

Here's what you're not seeming to grasp: the "windows" for taking advantage of nutrient timing are not little peepholes. They're more like bay windows of a mansion. You're ignoring just how long the anabolic effects are of a typical mixed meal. Depending on the size of a meal, it takes a good 1-2 hours for circulating substrate levels to peak, and it takes a good 3-6 hours (or more) for everythng to drop back down to baseline.

You're also ignoring the fact that the anabolic effects of a meal are maxed out at much lower levels than typical meals drive insulin & amino acids up to. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.

[transformation2]

lmao I was actually reading your posts. Got caught up reading the little discussion with layne. But thanks for posting that again^^. And I looked up that Cribb guy, and he works with that AST supplement company and if they funded the study , gotta admit can't give it that much weighting.

Well anyway thanks for responding this fast! I was kind of hoping it was true, who wouldn't love 2x gains amirite?

[alan aragon]

lmao I was actually reading your posts. Got caught up reading the little discussion with layne. But thanks for posting that again^^. And I looked up that Cribb guy, and he works with that AST supplement company and if they funded the study , gotta admit can't give it that much weighting.

Well anyway thanks for responding this fast! I was kind of hoping it was true, who wouldn't love 2x gains amirite?

Here's the main thing: if you were truly aware of where the weight of the non-acute evidence falls currently, you would have a different perspective. Knowing of only a couple studies here & there does not make for a complete view of the issue.

[str8flexed]

lmao I was actually reading your posts. Got caught up reading the little discussion with layne. But thanks for posting that again^^. And I looked up that Cribb guy, and he works with that AST supplement company and if they funded the study , gotta admit can't give it that much weighting.

Well anyway thanks for responding this fast! I was kind of hoping it was true, who wouldn't love 2x gains amirite?

dude, every study is funded by SOMEBODY. Even if it's government funded they still want results. Doesn't mean the results are invalid, it still has to undergo peer review scrutiny, and if you've never been put under that I can tell you that at least for any decent journal, the review process is enough to give you a full head of gray hair quickly

[zstanton]

dude, every study is funded by SOMEBODY. Even if it's government funded they still want results. Doesn't mean the results are invalid, it still has to undergo peer review scrutiny, and if you've never been put under that I can tell you that at least for any decent journal, the review process is enough to give you a full head of gray hair quickly

^^^^ this

[snorkelman]

dude, every study is funded by SOMEBODY. Even if it's government funded they still want results. Doesn't mean the results are invalid, it still has to undergo peer review scrutiny, and if you've never been put under that I can tell you that at least for any decent journal, the review process is enough to give you a full head of gray hair quickly

^^ That's what must be holding up Xtend/Stoppani et al study

[str8flexed]

^^ That's what must be holding up Xtend/Stoppani et al study

you are probably just trying to joke, but i'm not. I did research in 2006 that wasn't published til 2009. I am just about to resubmit research I did in 2007 for review.

You cannot possibly imagine how difficult and slow the review process is unless you've done it. It's like someone buying the raw materials to build a sky scraper and then they come back 2 weeks later and start yelling at the contractor... WHERE IS MY BUILDING???? You just can't imagine everything that goes into it

[zstanton]

you are probably just trying to joke, but i'm not. I did research in 2006 that wasn't published til 2009. I am just about to resubmit research I did in 2007 for review.

You cannot possibly imagine how difficult and slow the review process is unless you've done it. It's like someone buying the raw materials to build a sky scraper and then they come back 2 weeks later and start yelling at the contractor... WHERE IS MY BUILDING???? You just can't imagine everything that goes into it

my psychology professor was telling the class it can take 5+ years after something has been researched before it gets published, by showing us the date done vs. date published, it was RIDICULOUS

[jcosley]

^^ That's what must be holding up Xtend/Stoppani et al study

you are probably just trying to joke, but i'm not. I did research in 2006 that wasn't published til 2009. I am just about to resubmit research I did in 2007 for review.

You cannot possibly imagine how difficult and slow the review process is unless you've done it. It's like someone buying the raw materials to build a sky scraper and then they come back 2 weeks later and start yelling at the contractor... WHERE IS MY BUILDING???? You just can't imagine everything that goes into it

Owned.

[alan aragon]

I think that funding source is one of the many factors to put into consideration when evaluating a trial. Obviously, someone's gotta fund the research in order to exist. I wasn't suggesting that the Cribb et al study be dimsmissed solely on the grounds of funding (as I've said repeatedly before - this would be a bias in & of itself). I was suggesting, however, that the Cribb et al study is only part of the body of evidence, & must be viewed within the larger context rather than an end-all or definitive piece. And as far as the potential for commercial bias goes, there's no denying that it ranks higher than other trials due to the principal investigator being the lead product developer of the supp company who sponsored the trial (on their own product, VP2). Not every study in this area has this degree of interconnectedness between PI & sponsor. Since Cribb et al DOES, I'd view its results (which have not been close to replicated) with particular caution & tentativity. The only other study whose results are robust enough to perk some ears up is the yet-unpublished Stoppani Xtend study that Snorkelman mentioned. Bottom line though, funding source is poor grounds for dismissal (design/methodology should be the focus), but it shouldn't be completely ignored from consideration, either.

[str8flexed]

of course not, that's why you are required to acknowledge your funding source in the journal when you publish. I think funding source becomes more problematic in the discussion/conclusion sections where scientists can get a bit more liberal with their 'interpretations of the data'. The data is the data. Look at the actual RESULTS and determine for yourself. I've read GOOD data in papers where I actually disagreed with the final conclusion... the whey vs. casein research by Yves Boire comes to mind immediately. I think the data is good, but I wholly disagree with their interpretation of it.

this is why it is crucial not to base your opinions off of abstracts and the conclusions of other researchers which is nothing more than a scientific opinion. Read the actual data and the methods and draw your own conclusions

Just my opinion

[alan aragon]

of course not, that's why you are required to acknowledge your funding source in the journal when you publish. I think funding source becomes more problematic in the discussion/conclusion sections where scientists can get a bit more liberal with their 'interpretations of the data'. The data is the data. Look at the actual RESULTS and determine for yourself. I've read GOOD data in papers where I actually disagreed with the final conclusion... the whey vs. casein research by Yves Boire comes to mind immediately. I think the data is good, but I wholly disagree with their interpretation of it.

this is why it is crucial not to base your opinions off of abstracts and the conclusions of other researchers which is nothing more than a scientific opinion. Read the actual data and the methods and draw your own conclusions

Just my opinion

On the note of the bold (& in full agreement, of course), I would LOVE to see the Stoppani et al Xtend trial make it to full publication.

[oats_addict]

In after Layne and Alan discussing some straight up sheer brilliance. I cant quite contain myself.

The info in this thread is seriously very interesting and both of your inputs make for a mad good read.

Cheers boys

[str8flexed]

On the note of the bold (& in full agreement, of course), I would LOVE to see the Stoppani et al Xtend trial make it to full publication.

i as well

[aKKuRaCy]

in on possibly most life-changing thread in Nutrition section.

[ontclone]

there are also people who eat one meal of mcdonalds per day and look awesome.

doesn't make it optimal

what do you mean? people eat 1 mcdonald meal a day and gain muscle?

[Magnetics]

what do you mean? people eat 1 mcdonald meal a day and gain muscle?

He was just giving an example of one extreme, calm your pants

[ibracadabra]

He was just giving an example of one extreme, calm your pants

It's not that "extreme" though. What matters is that the macronutrient needs are met.

[Magnetics]

It's not that "extreme" though. What matters is that the macronutrient needs are met.

If you read the post he was saying it was an extreme case in regards to meal timing and how it has no affect on body composition.

[sailingpece]

Can I insert a question here and ask whether circadian rhythms are in any way involved in how the body handles nutrition ?

I feel like all these studies about nutrient timing are performed over periods of weeks(data collection isn't done every few hours), and thus your body's internal clock would change accordingly.....LOL I know I'm rambling, please don't flame me or get too emotional on this, just a suggestion.

[str8flexed]

Can I insert a question here and ask whether circadian rhythms are in any way involved in how the body handles nutrition ?

I feel like all these studies about nutrient timing are performed over periods of weeks(data collection isn't done every few hours), and thus your body's internal clock would change accordingly.....LOL I know I'm rambling, please don't flame me or get too emotional on this, just a suggestion.

don't mind answering your question, but i'm afraid it doesn't make sense

[sailingpece]

don't mind answering your question, but i'm afraid it doesn't make sense

Surely there is fluctuation in hormone levels throughout the day, which appear to cycle in approximately a 24 hour period....I dunno...yea I take that back, most of the hormones that fluctuate throughout the day probably don't affect or get affected by your nutritional intake ( melatonin and such)

[str8flexed]

affect it in what way. you aren't being specific with what you are asking, you are just... talking lol

[Mr.Cooper69]

affect it in what way. you aren't being specific with what you are asking, you are just... talking lol

LOL

I have a question of my own.

Yes it relates to supplement timing, but this is for my own knowledge when I help other people out on these boards.

Assuming someone is eating 4 or fewer meals a day, would taking fat loss agents (EC stack, A-Yohimbine, TTA, etc) during the fasted periods have any different effects on body composition than taking the agents during the fed periods (if you're reading this alan, let's assume that, say, EC stack works...which it does ). I understand that it takes 3-6 hours for various aspects of human physiology to return to baseline levels following a meal, so would these "elevations" in whatever we're talking about (i.e. insulin) interfere with the MOA of fat loss agents? In other words, would an IF-style diet be more compatible with fat burners than a diet with high meal frequency, given the same caloric deficit? By fat burners, I generally mean effective stimulants like EC stack, alpha-yohimbine, and HEAT stack.

Sorry for going off on the tangent, but if layne or alan could answer this question it would help a lot of people in the supplement section, as I am quick to pass on my knowledge to others.

[sailingpece]

affect it in what way. you aren't being specific with what you are asking, you are just... talking lol

Jeeezuz you people and your specifics haha, asking a general question "wouldn't it make sense that since some hormone levels fluctuate throughout the day, that how the body handles nutrients is affected by that"......I'm off to consult my old buddy pubmed lol

[Mr.Cooper69]

Jeeezuz you people and your specifics haha, asking a general question "wouldn't it make sense that since some hormone levels fluctuation throughout the day, that how the body handles nutrients is affected by that"......I'm off to consult my old buddy pubmed lol

Transient differences in hormonal levels should not affect how you go about your daily nutrition. Food consumption creates as great or greater hormonal responses than those generated by circadian rhythm. If you are talking about the pulsatile GH release during deep sleep, or the high testosterone levels at night, or the high cortisol levels at waking, these are all transient and are almost perfectly analagous to the brief fluctuations in these hormones following training sessions. If pre/post workout nutrient timing is irrelevant, why would it be relevant with respect to the circadian rhythm?

[sailingpece]

Transient differences in hormonal levels should not affect how you go about your daily nutrition. Food consumption creates as great or greater hormonal responses than those generated by circadian rhythm. If you are talking about the pulsatile GH release during deep sleep, or the high testosterone levels at night, or the high cortisol levels at waking, these are all transient and are almost perfectly analagous to the brief fluctuations in these hormones following training sessions. If pre/post workout nutrient timing is irrelevant, why would it be relevant with respect to the circadian rhythm?

OK this is somewhat of a satisfying answer...but lets take for example in the morning when your testosterone levels are highest(I don't have any scientific evidence to back this up, just going by my exercise physiology book lol) , lets assume that somehow you were able to bring in enough amino acids into your blood stream and ready to be utilized for whatever transcription is needed for muscle growth DURING the time when this elevation is present AND also you had done some form of resistance training within the past 24 hours, you see where I'm going ?

[str8flexed]

Jeeezuz you people and your specifics haha, asking a general question "wouldn't it make sense that since some hormone levels fluctuate throughout the day, that how the body handles nutrients is affected by that"......I'm off to consult my old buddy pubmed lol

again, i would have answered the question if it made sense.

[str8flexed]

as far as GH goes nobody should be concerning themselves with physiological levels of GH

http://broscience.com/layne-norton-p...ectations.html