Nutrient Timing--is it BS?

[EatTrainClean]

This thread seems to have gotten derailed fast, but I did like that someone mentioned Leangains. I've never tried it or had time to read Martin's stuff, but it's supposed to be pretty good.

The timing of carbs seems to be what is mostly being debated here, and I would argue that if performing a glycolytic-heavy workout, some pre-workout or post-workout carbs would be ideal.

If you aren't dipping into the glycolytic pathway, your need for any kind of nutrient timing should be irrelevant, though I have had clients work out without being properly hydrated or fasted for too long, and run into issues. Again, that's a glucose problem though.

The EPOC (excess postexercise oxygen consumption) effect that is best seen in interval and resistance training would possibly indicate the commonly held belief of 'protein or protein shake ASAP after exercise'. An excellent paper entitled 'Resistance Training and EPOC' by Jeff M. Reynolds and Len Kravitz, Ph.D. can be read about this.

This obviously gets into the area of splitting hairs, and for practical purposes (re: non-competitive athletes) nutrient timing is not a MAJOR issue. I would argue that food QUALITY and macro nutrients are of more importance. An interesting (though self-performed) study on low-carb eating and CrossFit (about the most glycolytic workout possible) can be found by Googling 'Mat Lalonde CrossFit Low Carb'. He's a PhD organic chemist from Harvard, and in a follow up to that article he talks about nearly passing out from lack of glucose, and then eating some Ben and Jerry's. Interesting stuff, as he was a few months in, with seemingly only good results until that point.

[mattvdh]

I think this whole timing matter is heavily dependent on your insulin sensitivity level. What is beneficial to some, may be detrimental to others.

[cumminslifter]

I think this whole timing matter is heavily dependent on your insulin sensitivity level. What is beneficial to some, may be detrimental to others.

no.....why did you come back

[xJellyBirdx]

no.....why did you come back

Same reason respawn did

[cumminslifter]

Same reason respawn did

the nutrition gods must be angry

[mattvdh]

This might be a little salt in the wound, but I just scored 100% on my CHO exam...ouch!

[Requiem238]

I've seen a lot of articles and videos on how you want to time carbs around the time when you work out so that it doesn't store as fat, and also you want to eat many small meals a day to keep your metabolism fired up...Is this thinking a load of crap--does it all just come down to calories in/out?

The calorie in vs calorie out mantra is a myth. It's not nearly that simple at all. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21105792

If it were that simple, it would not matter what your macros are. However, as the study above shows and numerous others can show too, depending on the breakdown of your diet will change the results of weight loss. Therefore it's astoundingly clear that a calorie is not simply a calorie, there are many hormones at play(like Insulin) that react differently to what you eat as opposed to the caloric content.

More studies proving that a calorie is not simply a calorie:

nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
jama.ama-assn.org/lookup/pmid?view=long&pmid=17341711
jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract

If you want even more studies, there are a crap ton!

Carbs don't 'store as fat' unless they're eaten in EXTREME excess after glycogen stores are already full. They're burned in favor of fat or protein, so they're muscle-sparing. Eat them whenever you feel like it. Close thread.

This is wrong. Whenever you have an insulin response, glucose is converted into either glycogen in your liver and muscles or into fat into your fat cells. So you make both glycogen and fat whenever you eat carbs, it's impossible not to because your blood contains the glucose which takes it to all over your body...not just going to your liver and muscles but to your fat cells too.

From wiki:

Insulin causes cells in the liver, skeletal muscles, and fat tissue to absorb glucose from the blood. In the liver and skeletal muscles, glucose is stored as glycogen, and in fat cells (adipocytes) it is stored as triglycerides.

[StackingPlates]

The calorie in vs calorie out mantra is a myth. It's not nearly that simple at all. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21105792

If it were that simple, it would not matter what your macros are. However, as the study above shows and numerous others can show too, depending on the breakdown of your diet will change the results of weight loss. Therefore it's astoundingly clear that a calorie is not simply a calorie, there are many hormones at play(like Insulin) that react differently to what you eat as opposed to the caloric content.

So you are going to take a single "free living" study and give it more credence than every single controlled metabolic ward study in existence? Please tell me more about your scientific background and ability to discern data from all the available literature on a subject...

I briefly perused your other examples and they all have limitations or flaws in the study designs, by the way.

[xJellyBirdx]

You should see some of his other posts from today.

[cumminslifter]

The calorie in vs calorie out mantra is a myth. It's not nearly that simple at all. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21105792

If it were that simple, it would not matter what your macros are. However, as the study above shows and numerous others can show too, depending on the breakdown of your diet will change the results of weight loss. Therefore it's astoundingly clear that a calorie is not simply a calorie, there are many hormones at play(like Insulin) that react differently to what you eat as opposed to the caloric content.

More studies proving that a calorie is not simply a calorie:

nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
jama.ama-assn.org/lookup/pmid?view=long&pmid=17341711
jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract

If you want even more studies, there are a crap ton!



This is wrong. Whenever you have an insulin response, glucose is converted into either glycogen in your liver and muscles or into fat into your fat cells. So you make both glycogen and fat whenever you eat carbs, it's impossible not to because your blood contains the glucose which takes it to all over your body...not just going to your liver and muscles but to your fat cells too.

From wiki:

strong interpretation and cherry picking

[shaneee]

The calorie in vs calorie out mantra is a myth. It's not nearly that simple at all. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21105792

If it were that simple, it would not matter what your macros are. However, as the study above shows and numerous others can show too, depending on the breakdown of your diet will change the results of weight loss. Therefore it's astoundingly clear that a calorie is not simply a calorie, there are many hormones at play(like Insulin) that react differently to what you eat as opposed to the caloric content.

More studies proving that a calorie is not simply a calorie:

nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
jama.ama-assn.org/lookup/pmid?view=long&pmid=17341711
jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract

If you want even more studies, there are a crap ton!



This is wrong. Whenever you have an insulin response, glucose is converted into either glycogen in your liver and muscles or into fat into your fat cells. So you make both glycogen and fat whenever you eat carbs, it's impossible not to because your blood contains the glucose which takes it to all over your body...not just going to your liver and muscles but to your fat cells too.

From wiki:

Actually it is just calories in vs calories out
of course each macro isn't considered equal based on TEF, but nonetheless, yes, it can be simplified to calories in vs calories out.

[EatTrainClean]

Re: calories in vs. calories out, I think the smart choice (nutrition rarely has "correct" answers) is that it's a combination of:

-Macronutrients
-Insulin/Leptin Resistance
-Age/Activity Level
-Thermodynamics (Calorie Level +/-)
-Nitrogen Balance
-Ghrelin, Cortisol, & Other Hormones
-Sleep
-Existing Body Composition

Interesting Comparisons:

Every investigator who compared these carbohydrate-restricted diets with more balanced low-calorie diets also reported that the carbohydrate-restricted diet performed at least as well, and usually better, even when the caloric content of the carbohydrate-restricted diet was significantly greater - say 1,850 calories versus 950 calories, as Per Hanssen reported in 1936; or 2,200 calories versus 1,200 calories, as Bertil Sjovall reported in 1957; or even as "eat as much as you like" diet compared with a 1,000-calorie diet, as Trevor Silversone of St. Bartholomew's Hopsital in London reported in 1963 in a study of obese diabetics.

Source: Taubes, G. 2007. Good calories, bad calories. New York: Knopf. Pg. 337.

Obviously there is no one correct answer, but it is fascinating to see that the more we understand hormones (leptin, ghrelin, glucagon, insulin, etc.) and cellular biology and make up of foods, the more complicated weight loss becomes. All of those studies can be found in PubMed, by the way, regarding Taubes.

Another interesting quote:

Bistrian and Blackburn were able to reduce or eliminate hunger even at 650 to 800 calories. Had hunger remained acute, as Bistrian said, it's likely that the patients would have eventually cheated, and this would have thwarted the weight loss if they cheated with carbohydrates. If the cheaters reached daily for a few hundred calories of carbohydrates - say, a bagel or a couple of sodas - they would be eating a balanced semi-starvation diet with it's 1% success rate. The 50% success rate on the half-protein, half-fat diet suggests that these dieters do not feel hunger, or certainly do not feel it as acutely as they would had they been eating a diet that came with carbohydrates as well...

...So is the amount of calories consumed the critical variable, or is there something vitally important about the presence or absence of carbohydrates? The implication is that there is a direct connection between carbohydrates and our experience of hunger, or between fat and protein and our experience of satiety, which is precisely what Ethan Sims's overfeeding experiments had suggested - that it's possible to eat up to 10,000 calories of mostly carbohydrates and be hungry at the end of the day, whereas eating a third as many calories of mostly fat and protein will more than satiate us.

Source: Taubes, G. 2007. Good calories, bad calories. New York: Knopf. Pg. 340-41.

Keep in mind that I am not a staunch "low carb" person. Just interesting to see the results of decades of research. Here are some interesting studies on leptin, ghrelin, overeating and macronutrient composition, should anyone be interested:

Overeating of palatable food is associated with blunted leptin and ghrelin responses.

Ghrelin, macronutrient intake and dietary preferences in long-evans rats.

The correlation between lack of proper sleep, and as a result, RAISED ghrelin levels, is a hugely overlooked link and factor in overeating/nutrient timing, IMO.

[cumminslifter]

that would depend GREATLY on the type of carb and fat.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i am sure everyone would feel more full on 3,000 cals of broccoli than 3,000 cals of olive oil

[EatTrainClean]

that would depend GREATLY on the type of carb and fat.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
i am sure everyone would feel more full on 3,000 cals of broccoli than 3,000 cals of olive oil

This should interest you, re: satiety of carbohydrates.

Study:
Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food.

Conclusion:

In parallel with the growing obesity epidemic, global intake of liquid carbohydrates by adults and adolescents has dramatically increased. There is increasing evidence that liquid carbohydrates are less satiating and energy compensation at subsequent meals is incomplete and imprecise, which leads to increased energy intake. Growing evidence has linked intake of higher caloric beverages with weight gain [39,40]. Current recommendations call for restricted intake of beverages high in added sugars to reduce the risk of excessive weight gain and cardiometabolic disorders. Sugar-sweetened beverages should be replaced by healthy alternatives, such as water.

Re: fat satiety, and liquid fats hypothetically somehow not being as satiating...the information is actually surprising, if you're not familiar with it. It actually comes down to chain lengths of fats (medium chain triglycerides specifically are touted as the best choice for satiety). Coconut oil to me is the most relevant example, since I usually heat it slightly and add it to a salad or I will cook with it (at a similarly low temperature). It is now be a liquid, and yet it is one of, if not the MOST satiating fats. As this information shows, fat satiety is indeed surprising.

Source:
Fat Detection: Taste, Texture, and Post Ingestive Effects.

Quote:

Studies on the effect of fatty acid chain length on satiety have shown that medium-chain triacylglycerols (MCT, 8–12 C) are more satiating than long-chain triacylglycerols (LCT) in animals (Friedman et al., 1983) and humans (Stubbs and Harbron, 1996; Rolls et al., 1988; Van Wymelbeke et al., 1998, 2001; St-Onge et al., 2003). MCT consumed as a preload resulted in lower energy intake 30 min later compared to LCT in healthy individuals (Rolls et al., 1988) (Figure 15.1). A breakfast high in MCT (30%) resulted in lower energy intake (220 kcal) at lunch 4 h later compared to a high oleic acid breakfast (30%) in healthy individuals (St-Onge et al., 2003). A similar study also found that food intake at lunch was lower after a high MCT breakfast (43 g) compared to high oleic or high saturated fat breakfast in men (Van Wymelbeke et al., 1998). The same authors found lower intake at dinner when a high MCT lunch was consumed (Van Wymelbeke et al., 2001).

I suggest you check out that whole source, it has some great info and studies linked re: carbohydrate satiation, fat and carbohydrate satiation when combined, fat and fiber, etc. al. Hope this was helpful.

[cumminslifter]

isnt this just agreeing with what i said?

[alan aragon]

EatTrainClean -- Referencing a pop diet book written by an anti-carb zealot does not help strengthen any argument. I'm just reminding you of this in the spirit of a forum focused on unbiased evidence. It's best to refrain from referencing Taubes altogether if you plan on remaining scientific.

[StackingPlates]

Damn, was about to post verbatim what Alan just said...Taubes is notorious for cherry picking and misrepresenting data presented as fact in his books.

[x-ray vision]

Taubes is notorious for cherry picking and misrepresenting data presented as fact in his books.

And going to jail for it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2063993.story

[xJellyBirdx]

And going to jail for it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2063993.story

wrong person?

[x-ray vision]

Ha! Yeah, I get the two confused. Gotta stop getting old, dammit!

[xJellyBirdx]

Ha! Yeah, I get the two confused. Gotta stop getting old, dammit!

haha, it happens.

[germaine07]

Source: Taubes, G. 2007. Good calories, bad calories. New York: Knopf. Pg. 337.

Source: Taubes, G. 2007. Good calories, bad calories. New York: Knopf. Pg. 340-41.

[EatTrainClean]

EatTrainClean -- Referencing a pop diet book written by an anti-carb zealot does not help strengthen any argument. I'm just reminding you of this in the spirit of a forum focused on unbiased evidence. It's best to refrain from referencing Taubes altogether if you plan on remaining scientific.

Hey Alan. While no doubt Taubes is in that camp, I don't believe this discredits his entire book, hypothesis, or all of the studies he references (he did spend 5 years writing it).

For anyone who is unfamiliar though, here is one of the many critiques of Taubes' book:
NY Times Book Review

Conversely, here are the (nearly) complete list of his sources:
They Start On Page 469

I think ignoring all of those studies would be very unscientific and even if you don't agree with Taubes' larger point and hypothesis, I still think he provides some solid arguments and hopefully gets people interested in the studies.

As I've said in other threads, I don't agree with his position 100% (here's what I said in this thread itself, earlier):

Keep in mind that I am not a staunch "low carb" person. Just interesting to see the results of decades of research.

As I listed, I think weight loss is way more complex than one element. If you want to be on the extreme end, you can look at any nutrition textbook and find this information, which provides an example of starvation, but from which you can see the obvious scientific basis for a low carbohydrate diet:

If Frank’s body continued to rapidly break down protein, he would survive less than three weeks. To avoid such a quick demise, protein breakdown slows drastically and gluconeogenesis drops by two-thirds or more. To pick up the slack, Frank’s body doubles the rate of fat catabolism to supply fatty acids for fuel and glycerol for glucose. Ketone bodies pour into the bloodstream and provide an important glucose-sparing energy source for the brain and red blood cells. After about 10 days of fasting, ketone bodies meet most of the nervous system’s energy needs. Some brain cells, however, can use only glucose. To maintain a small, but essential, supply of blood glucose, protein breakdown crawls along, supplying small amounts of amino acids for gluconeogenesis. (Insel 301) Insel, Paul, Don Ross, Kimberley McMahon, Melissa Bernstein. Nutrition: Custom Edition, 4th Edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 04/2010.

Clearly there is indisputable science behind low carbohydrate diets. When they are tied into weight loss, or referenced as a 'cure all' is when hyperbole takes off and science is left in the dust.

For people who may be confused, here is a good study on ketogenic diets and physical performance:

Conclusion: Both observational and prospectively designed studies support the conclusion that submaximal endurance performance can be sustained despite the virtual exclusion of carbohydrate from the human diet. Clearly this result does not automatically follow the casual implementation of dietary carbohydrate restriction, however, as careful attention to time for keto-adaptation, mineral nutriture, and constraint of the daily protein dose is required. Contradictory results in the scientific literature can be explained by the lack of attention to these lessons learned (and for the most part now forgotten) by the cultures that traditionally lived by hunting. Therapeutic use of ketogenic diets should not require constraint of most forms of physical labor or recreational activity, with the one caveat that anaerobic (ie, weight lifting or sprint) performance is limited by the low muscle glycogen levels induced by a ketogenic diet, and this would strongly discourage its use under most conditions of competitive athletics.

...which is exactly what I was referencing earlier, in regards to glycolytic dependent activity and it determining your carbohydrate intake/timing.

Then there is the factor of just HOW MUCH dietary glucose do we need, to survive. The answer is very little, especially when you are adjusted to running off of mostly dietary fat.

Here is a study from Johns Hopkins, showing the great results of a controlled, recent (2011) experiment of a low-carb (AKA high-fat) diet that helped with weight loss.

Again, I have no issue with more active individuals (especially athletes in the glycolytic pathway or extreme energy demands) eating a ton of carbs. I think they should be from better sources than they usually are, but that's splitting hairs.

[mattvdh]

Ya Taubes is a cherry picker, but he does make some valid points in gcbc...logically speaking, meal size, the nutrition contents and timing seems to make sense as how your body processes it, at the very least it would impact your body's response to a work out. If you overeat, or eat or consume highly acidic foods, how could your body perform nearly as effectively during a workout sess. We don't need to cite PRAs to prove this, just listen to your gut and monitor your athletic performance l, its quite obvious.

[germaine07]

Ya Taubes is a cherry picker, but he does make some valid points in gcbc...logically speaking, meal size, the nutrition contents and timing seems to make sense as how your body processes it, at the very least it would impact your body's response to a work out. If you overeat, or eat or consume highly acidic foods, how could your body perform nearly as effectively during a workout sess. We don't need to cite PRAs to prove this, just listen to your gut and monitor your athletic performance l, its quite obvious.

No he doesn't. He's an idiot. Makes absurd claims which are not only not backed by science, but actually refuted.

[mattvdh]

No he doesn't. He's an idiot. Makes absurd claims which are not only not backed by science, but actually refuted.

So why are you only replying to what I've written when other users have written way more on the guy. Anyway, I don't buy in to 'science' when it comes to the human body. You can't just study a few dozen people on a certain topic (which are usually flawed when you put it under a microscope), have the article published, and then all of a sudden consider it 'science'--if it were actual science then the results would be able to reproduced over and over. If gaining muscle and losing fat was repeatable and predictable then we wouldn't have massive amounts of obesity in the population. I don't know why they bother studying groups of people like lab rats, they should be studying genes, hormones, and blood.

[sa7soon]

If gaining muscle and losing fat was repeatable and predictable then we wouldn't have massive amounts of obesity in the population.

It is repeatable and predictable, it's called bodybuilding...

[mattvdh]

haha...whaaa? You know that pro BB's are genetic freaks on AAS right?

[sa7soon]

How do explain the hundreds of thousands of recreational bodybuilders then? You can't refute the science because people lack willpower and determination. Every obese person in the world has the power to change themselves..

[mattvdh]

How do explain the hundreds of thousands of recreational bodybuilders then? You can't refute the science because people lack willpower and determination. Every obese person in the world has the power to change themselves..

What about them, just because someone considers themselves a lifter doesn't mean they have aesthetic and inspiring physiques. Where is the science in that statement? Really, so you honestly think that obese people simply lack will power, and fit/lean people are hardworking and diet? What about genetics, metabolism, insulin sensitivity??

I'll restate myself, the problem isn't science itself, the problem is that we are still lacking really good science.