Why it's Futile to Argue with Dr. P

[Conciliator]

This is a reponse to Dr. P's post: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...&postcount=844.
He, in turn, makes reference to this thread: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=980390

I didn't want to respond in that first thread because I anticipate that this would really sidetrack it. This started as PM to Dr. P, but as I got writing, I thought I might as well post this as it demonstrates how Dr. P is challenged when it comes to interpreting people, reasoning, and forming arguments.


1. After posting the study, Dr. P says "so, the usefulness of putting 'dextrose or maltodextrin into your PWO whey shake' like a certain wannabesmart individual suggested in the said thread is not only not backed by science but apparently disproved."

Apparently, he didn't read the study. The researchers were looking at protein synthesis. As I discussed with Bobo, protein balance is what ultimately matters. It's the net effect between protein synthesis and protein breakdown. Study after study after study shows that after training, aminos increase protein synthesis and carbs/insulin decrease protein breakdown. This study was looking at protein synthesis so, no surprise, it didn't find an additive effect from the carbs.

To quote the paper:

It has been firmly established that post-exercise protein and/or amino acid administration
stimulates muscle protein synthesis (3, 6, 18, 19, 26, 35-37), resulting in a positive net muscle
protein balance (3, 6, 35, 42). In the present study, we demonstrate that whole-body protein
synthesis exceeds protein breakdown, resulting in a positive net protein balance when protein
is ingested during post-exercise recovery (Figure 5A). It has been suggested that
carbohydrate co-ingestion is needed to further augment the anabolic response to exercise. The
latter has been attributed to the proposed efficacy of carbohydrate ingestion to elevate plasma
insulin concentrations (5, 18, 19, 23, 29) and, as such, to inhibit post-exercise muscle protein
breakdown (5, 29). Muscle protein synthesis does not seem to be affected by the ingestion of
carbohydrate only during post-exercise recovery (5, 29). However, hyperinsulinemia has
been shown to further stimulate muscle protein synthesis during conditions of
hyperaminoacidemia (10, 12, 13). Consequently, it remains to be established whether coingestion
of carbohydrate with an ample amount of protein can further augment the muscle
protein synthetic response to exercise.
...
Co-ingestion of carbohydrate with protein resulted in substantially greater plasma glucose
responses when compared to the ingestion of only protein (Figure 1B). We assessed plasma
glucose kinetics to ensure that exogenous glucose was indeed taken up from the gut in the
PRO+LCHO and PRO+HCHO treatments (Figure 2). The greater glucose appearance rate in
PRO+HCHO was accompanied by higher plasma insulin levels compared to the other
treatments (Figure 1A/B). Hyperinsulinemia has been reported to attenuate muscle protein
breakdown following resistance type exercise (5, 29). Though we did not assess skeletal
muscle protein breakdown rates, we observed lower plasma and muscle BCAA levels when
carbohydrate was co-ingested. The latter may imply that either protein breakdown was
reduced and/or that amino acid loss via transamination/oxidation was enhanced.

Finally, keep in mind the scope of this paper. They gave an assload (1.8 g/kg BW) of casein hydrosylate over six hours. This is much different than your typical guy in the gym who comes home and takes a scoop of 25g whey protein in a single post workout shake.

As Lyle McDonald predicted: "Unfortunately, dip****s on the internt will use this to argue that carbs post-workout are unnecessary. Except that they will still be wrong."

[Conciliator]

2. Dr. P then says "and then he proceeds with: 'a mix of higher GI and low-GI with fiber PWO is entirely unnecessary.' his statment is absurd because later in the thread he proposes to have meal one hour after the high-GI shake."

Dr. P's interpretative and reasoning skills are just terrible. This is a perfect example.

First, there's the CONTEXT of my statement that "a mix of higher GI and low-GI with fiber PWO is entirely unnecessary." It doesn't take half a brain to see that this argument refers to the immediate post workout shake. uhockey said a super high GI shake PWO is entirely unnecessary. My response is something to "add" to that... that "a mix of higher GI and low-GI with fiber PWO is entirely unnecessary." What am I talking about here? About the several hours following your workout, in general? Or about the freakin' PWO shake? It's not that hard. Yet, Dr. P speaks as though I'm talking about post workout in general. He somehow trys to present it as a contradiction to my recommendation to have a meal an hour after a high GI shake. However, an hour after the PWO shake is clearly not what I'm talking about when I say "a mix of higher GI and low-GI with fiber PWO is entirely unnecessary." I'm obviously talking about the shake itself. Accordingly, what Dr. P wrote is just retarded. My statement is not "absurd", he's just ignorant of its obvious scope.

Second, there's the CONCEPT of "mixing" things in that post-workout shake. It's just assinine to post "So, he is mixing high-GI carbs with low-GI carbs, with the only difference of having a time gap between those two carb sources." Umm yeah, that's called taking them seperately, Dr. P. You know, the opposite of mixing them. You take one, and then an our later, you take the other, seperately... not mixed. LOL. When you take a whey+dextrose PWO shake, you're not "mixing" any low-GI carbs with it. To say the PWO shake is "mixed" with the meal that follows an hour later is just retarded. You've really got to stop with the wacky logic.

Third, there's the issue of NECESSITY. I say that "a mix of higher GI and low-GI with fiber PWO is entirely unnecessary." Now what does that entail? Does that mean that it can't be just as effective as an alternate approach? No. It just means that as an approach, it's not required. It's not necessary. However, it can still be sufficient. So let's do a little hypothetical here. Let's assume Dr. P's misinterpretation is the case, that my statement (about a mix of higher GI and low-GI carbs being unnecessary) was about the several hours post workout, in general, and not just the PWO shake. Now is it a contradiction, or "absurd" for me to then recommend a "mix" after saying a mix is not necessary? No, it's not. It might not be necessary to mix higher and lower GI carbs because I can sip on a whey+dextrose shake for the next 6 hours. Saying that it's not necessary but then recommending it (even though that's not what I did), is not "absurd" at all. I can say it's entirely unnecessary to take the freeway to get to the movies. If I then take the freeway, it's not absurd though. Basically, even if all Dr. P's other arguments above were correct, his whole conclusion that I'm being "absurd" rests on an assinine minunderstanding of necessity.

Why Dr. P would keep trying to argue with me when he gets owned every time is beyond me.

[browndustin]

I love Dr.P and I thought you were just a jackass when I first caught wind about some DNP posts. Since then, I've realized that you're far from a jackass and I'm really impressed with your sleuthing. But damn, you and Dr.P go at it like a cat and dog.

I'm about ready to lock you two in a room and keep you there till you bond, dammit!!! Boys will be boys.

[Conciliator]

Originally Posted by browndustin

I love Dr.P and I thought you were just a jackass when I first caught wind about some DNP posts. Since then, I've realized that you're far from a jackass and I'm really impressed with your sleuthing. But damn, you and Dr.P go at it like a cat and dog.

I'm about ready to lock you two in a room and keep you there till you bond, dammit!!! Boys will be boys.

Yeah, I'm the dog

[browndustin]

Originally Posted by Conciliator

Yeah, I'm the dog

LOL you two are always at it.

C'mon, Conci... tell us how you REALLY feel!

[Conciliator]

Originally Posted by browndustin

LOL you two are always at it.

C'mon, Conci... tell us how you REALLY feel!

I'm just messing around. Honestly, I think Dr. P is a pretty smart guy. He obviously has a lot of knowledge about different aspects of bodybuilding, even if he bull****s about some things he's not too sure about (DNP) . He can carry on discussions about concepts that most people have no clue about. I've learned a lot and have further developed my own positions by debating with him.

The problem, as I've pointed out, is mainly with his reasoning, logic, and debate. His arguments offen suffer logically. A lot of his conclusions don't follow from his premises and he uses several logical fallacies. He seems to get sidetracked and loses track of the issue being argued. I also feel that often he disingenuously takes the least plausible interpretation of his opponet's argument, on purpose, rather than the one that's most likely and most sound. There's a "principle of charity" in debate. You don't take the least plausible interpretation of your oppontent's argument, especially when they've clarified what they mean. Dr. P does this and it makes debate a waste of time, since you spend pages of posts arguing what you clearly meant, rather than the issue at hand. A lot this can be seen in Dr. P's post that I linked to above. There are logical errors with necessity. He also takes the least plausible interpretation of my statement about mixed GI's, ignoring or misrepresenting the context (in a PWO shake). It makes for a futile debate.

I think an introductory logic course or book (like this excellent one) would really benefit him (and anyone else who's not familair with logic as a discipline). If Dr. P's argument forms were logically strong, if his arguments were tight and on-topic, and if he abstained from fallacies and disingenuous misinterpretations of his opponent, he'd be a strong debater.

Now all that sounds really patronizing. It's not like I'm always right. I think my background in logic and philosophy has helped me to clarify and organize my ideas, to identify weaknesses in arguments, and to debate with logical strength, cogency, and soundness. But perhaps the flipside is true for me... I know how to construct an argument, but surely I could better understand the physiological concepts (which end up constituting the truth-claims of your arguments' premises). We're all still learning.

Anyway, there's me being frank.

[MattyH7688]

so... bored on a saturday night

[leonidas300]

I may be mistaken but I do not believe English is Dr.P's first language, so that may account for some of the interpretation problems. I am probably wrong and have just insulted him, but I swear I remember reading this.

[tee45peeolb]

your arguments are awesome

very entertaining

[DRP7]

Originally Posted by Conciliator

1. After posting the study, Dr. P says "so, the usefulness of putting 'dextrose or maltodextrin into your PWO whey shake' like a certain wannabesmart individual suggested in the said thread is not only not backed by science but apparently disproved."

Apparently, he didn't read the study. The researchers were looking at protein synthesis. As I discussed with Bobo, protein balance is what ultimately matters. It's the net effect between protein synthesis and protein breakdown. Study after study after study shows that after training, aminos increase protein synthesis and carbs/insulin decrease protein breakdown. This study was looking at protein synthesis so, no surprise, it didn't find an additive effect from the carbs.

straw man(uups ) your argument is completely irrelevant to what I said.
the addition of carbs did not improve whole body protein net balance and this is what finally counts. you have no advantage from the addition of carbs when you look at whether your body will build more protein than break down.
moreover: they determined whole body protein breakdown, whole body protein synthesis, whole body protein net balance and fractional synthesis in muscles (gastrocnemicus).

whole body protein breakdown did not differ between groups as did not whole body protein synthesis and net balance.

Figure 5. Whole-body protein breakdown, synthesis, and oxidation rates and net protein balance (expressed as μmol phenylalanine.kg-1.h-1) (A) and fractional synthesis rate (FSR) of mixed muscle protein (B) in the PRO, PRO+LCHO and PRO+HCHO treatments in healthy men (n=10). Values represent means+SEM. Data were analyzed with ANOVA. No differences were observed between treatments in whole-body protein breakdown (P=0.68), synthesis (P=0.74), oxidation (P=0.69), whole-body protein net-balance (P=0.53), and FSR in skeletal muscle tissue (P=0.51)

let me also quote the part of the discussion from the koopman paper that you assidiously cropped out:

Consequently, the further rise in circulating insulin levels following carbohydrate coingestion did not seem to modulate post-exercise protein metabolism. Even in the absence of carbohydrate co-ingestion, plasma insulin levels averaged 16.5?1.6 μU?ml-1 during the 6 h recovery period in the PRO treatment. Interestingly, it was recently suggested by Rennie et al
(27) that an increase in insulin levels above 10-15 μU?ml-1 does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis and/or reduce protein degradation. Therefore, the present data as well data from previous studies (1, 7, 11) seem to confirm that insulin merely plays a permissive role in stimulating muscle protein anabolism.

with regards to your remark that the amount of ingested protein was higher (in this study) than usually utilised in the "typical" PWO shake / nutrition: that is correct, but please note that they have not investigated a dose-response relationship. this study simply does not reveal any information about how breakdown, synthesis, net balance etc would have been be when smaller doses of protein had been applied. so deducin from this study that we would see a sugnificantly different picture of proteindegradation / synthesis and balance is pure speculation.
moreover: even in the case that "a scoop of whey" may be insufficient to deliver positive protein net balance, by simply adding free leucine you can substantially increase insulin levels even in the absence of carbs. BTW, free-form leucine is included in may post-workout formulas (like replenish)

conclusion: we do not necessarily need high GI carbs (and carbs at all, btw) in order to maximise protein synthesis / minimize protein degradation after a workout. spiking insulion beyond a cetain level that can be achieved with aminos alone does not further decrease protein breakdown. and this is what I wanted to point out in support of uhockeys initial remark that a high GI PWO shake is not necessary. He was perfectly right with that and above you see the science behind it.

moreover, if people want to ingest carbs PWO than it is VERY reasonable to have some low GI carbs (either as only carb source or as addition to a high GI source) in order to minimise gross blood sugar and insulin fluctuations, which in turn will greatly enhance the risk for pro-catabolic counterregulatory measures of the body (those that I have explained in my post in the other thread. so, uhockeyx was again perfectly right in recommending the write up of replenish that deals with the advantages of mixing low and high GI carbs PWO.

bottom line: the "point of ignition" between you and uhockey was where uhockey recommended to read the write up ot replenish in order to get to know the advantages of mixed carbs vs. high-GI carbs for PWO shakes. the rest of the discussion between you and him is rather boring because you permanently insisted to get some "pubmed-proof" for his reasoning about the potential prooxidative action of very high blood sugar levels, while you were not able to provide any counter-proof. the very first few posts of the your discussion were the interesting part because you started to attack him from the beginning before he even mentioned anything about oxidative stress. This is why I relate to this very beginning of your discussion: to show that uhockeys initial thoughts were perfectly in place and thus did not deserved to be attacked.

You really enjoy attacking people, and I really hate when people are being attacked without sufficient proof.

[DRP7]

let me say two things about the part where you say I would pick the "least probable interpretation". I will not entirely exclude the possibility that something like that could incidentally happen - in exceptions. while in the majority of cases it appears to me that you have perfectly backpedalled from some of your initial implications. You first make some statements whose implications are pretty clear for everybody. I cite them and argue against them and this is usually followed by you saying: "no, I not at all have implied that, I wanted to say something entirely different, you misrepresented me or misinterpreted my words etc...". this is the obligatory first argument you almost every time bring when we start a discussion. Is this what your book recommends? Come on, I am posting here at bb.com for more than two years and have almost 4000 postings and countless discussions with hundreds of people. Never anybody complained about me that I would misinterpret / misrepresent / falsely quote him. You are the first and only subject who does so - permanently. Either you speak a different language than all the other people here or what? It is of course a brilliant chess move to say: "you didn't understand my thoughts because I wanted to say THIS and not THAT." from a rhetorical perspective this is truly brilliant because nobody can prove or disprove what you allegedely really thought and wanted to say. BUT: Because this happens ONLY with you and ALWAYS with you, I must assume that this is part of your rhetorical tactics. If it would be due to my "comprehension deficits" "brain damage" "retarded idioty" (to list a few names you used to call me) then wouldn't this happen all the time when I argue with hundreds of other people?. I know you will deny this and I don't feel like arguing about it, so let it be.

secondly, from a majority of your posts I receive the impression that you truly enjoy walking all over somebody. and this is something that extremely provocates me to "respond" or counter this type of posts.

you did this with hooker and did this with uhockey and basically with everybody else you apparently dislike or who is not inline with your line of reasoning.
owning somebody by rhethorics is something where you truly shine. kudos to you. nonetheless, I don't see bb.com as a rhetorical debating club where people discuss in order to compare their rhetorical skills. bb.com is for me a platform to share and exchange some knowledge / opinions/ information about things that really count: nutrition, exercise, supplementation etc. and this is something where "average" language skills and "average" comprehension skills usually suffice to allow a healthy discussion. in contrast to my discussions with you, the discussions with a lot of other people (and a lot of them have by far more knowledge in their special fields like nutrition / steroids / training than me) always went absolutely fine: without bashing, without hair splitting and always exceptionally informative and efficient.

why can't you and I just have a "normal" discussion and speak like two "normal" humans with each other? I would wish this were possible.

[DRP7]

Originally Posted by Conciliator

(insert a page of usual quibbling and hair-splitting)

Why Dr. P would keep trying to argue with me when he gets owned every time is beyond me.

this only happens in your imagination. you think that your hair-splitting translates into "owning"? lol. do I need to remind you of your UCP-1 fiasco?

[sonicology]

Originally Posted by leonidas300

I may be mistaken but I do not believe English is Dr.P's first language

That much is obvious - for example he keeps misspelling the word "pwning" as "owning"! I mean WTF???

Seriously though I'm quite shocked to hear that, as his posts are more concisely written and eloquent than 95% of the native English speaking posters here (or 100% of the posters in teh misc).

[leonidas300]

Hey Dr.P what is your first language?

[DRP7]

Originally Posted by leonidas300

Hey Dr.P what is your first language?

it's indeed not English. that should suffice for now

[MattyH7688]

Originally Posted by Dr.P

it's indeed not English. that should suffice

are you really a doctor?

[NoNameNecessary]

I must say that the discussions between Dr.P and Conciliator are quite entertaining and thought provoking.

I am surprised that English is not Dr.P's first language. He speaks (read: types) it so well and expresses himself in such an eloquent manner.

[leonidas300]

Originally Posted by NoNameNecessary

I must say that the discussions between Dr.P and Conciliator are quite entertaining and thought provoking.

I, too, would like to know if English is Dr.P's first language. If it isn't, I would be surprised - he speaks (read: types) it so well and expresses himself in such an eloquent manner.

He has said twice in this thread that english is not his first language.

[NoNameNecessary]

Originally Posted by leonidas300

He has said twice in this thread that english is not his first language.

I only see once where Dr.P actually confirms English was his first language. However, that was posted while I was typing my post. I went back and edited my post.

Regardless, I am still surprised.

[DRP7]

Originally Posted by MattyH7688

are you really a doctor?

as I have already stated in another thread some time ago, I will not comment on this. "Dr.P" is my screenname, not more and not less.

My stance is that people should NEVER trust so called "e-authorities". as long as you don't know them personally, base your jugdement solely on their postings, how plausible and informative they are, and always try to verify them against actual science that you can access via different online- and offline sources.

Even if I would stand up and say: yes I am an MD, you should nonetheless NOT trust me and take EVERY single word from me with a large grain of salt. But this you should also do if I were not an MD.

So, it makes no difference for you to know who I am in reality because you shouldn't trust me anyways.

[MattyH7688]

Originally Posted by Dr.P

as I have already stated in another thread some time ago, I will not comment on this. "Dr.P" is my screenname, not more and not less.

My stance is that people should NEVER trust so called "e-authorities". as long as you don't know them personally, base your jugdement solely on their postings, how plausible and informative they are, and always try to verify them against actual science that you can access via different online- and offline sources.

Even if I would stand up and say: yes I am an MD, you should nonetheless NOT trust me and take EVERY single word from me with a large grain of salt. But this you should also do if I were not an MD.

So, it makes no difference for you to know who I am in reality because you shouldn't trust me anyways.

agreed..

[DRP7]

Originally Posted by NoNameNecessary

I must say that the discussions between Dr.P and Conciliator are quite entertaining and thought provoking.

I am surprised that English is not Dr.P's first language. He speaks (read: types) it so well and expresses himself in such an eloquent manner.

thanks for the kind words. however, I have a completely different opinion on my english-skills, which I consider grossly under-developed.

btw, this is one of the reasons why I enjoy bb.com: it is a good chance to actively use this language. I would really be grateful if you native speakers would correct me when my grammar is not correct. so I could more efficiently learn I'll give reps!

[NoNameNecessary]

Originally Posted by Dr.P

as I have already stated in another thread some time ago, I will not comment on this. "Dr.P" is my screenname, not more and not less.

My stance is that people should NEVER trust so called "e-authorities". as long as you don't know them personally, base your jugdement solely on their postings, how plausible and informative they are, and always try to verify them against actual science that you can access via different online- and offline sources.

Even if I would stand up and say: yes I am an MD, you should nonetheless NOT trust me and take EVERY single word from me with a large grain of salt. But this you should also do if I were not an MD.

So, it makes no difference for you to know who I am in reality because you shouldn't trust me anyways.

Good post.

Originally Posted by Dr.P

thanks for the kind words. however, I have a completely different opinion on my english-skills, which I consider grossly under-developed.

btw, this is one of the reasons why I enjoy bb.com: it is a good chance to actively use this language. I would really be grateful if you native speakers would correct me when my grammar is not correct. so I could more efficiently learn I'll give reps!

I'd be more than glad to help if I see anything. However, you should probably be giving out lessons, as you speak English as, I assume, a second language far better than most people speak it as a first language.

[DRP7]

Originally Posted by browndustin

I love Dr.P and I thought you were just a jackass when I first caught wind about some DNP posts. Since then, I've realized that you're far from a jackass and I'm really impressed with your sleuthing. But damn, you and Dr.P go at it like a cat and dog.

I'm about ready to lock you two in a room and keep you there till you bond, dammit!!! Boys will be boys.

I think that Conciliator is an incredibly smart guy. nonetheless, I am absolutely allergic to certain things.

everything began with DNP, which he considers a legitimate supplemental measure for fat loss. This is where I completely disagree with my whole heart and soul. it appears that he knows quite a lot about DNP and he definitively knew more than me when we started discussing it. During this discussion I learned really quite a bit: partly from his posts and partly from a bunch of literature I collected in the course of these discussions. While I can say that I was wrong with regards to some details (oxidative stress, muscle wasting), I still do not and cannot consider DNP as a legitimate and recommendable fat loss supplement and to promote it as such. I am still of the opinion that DNP is definitively too dangerous in order to be used by people for fat loss, which can be achieved by other methods that pose zero health risks. this is where he and I grossly dissociate. I would not say one single word if the topic was about green tea or any other comaprable fat-loss supplement. But I can't keep silent when I see that some posts imply that the side effects are low to zero when I am convinced that this stuff is too dangerous. you know, my general stance is: when it comes to health and life you can't be safe enough. and advising people against something that could potentially do them serious harm is an expression of my respect towards people's life's and their health. If I get some beating for it - O.K., let it be. But as long as I am entirely convinced that - from a medical perspective - nobody should take this stuff, I will not stop advising against its use. The Mods would need to ban me if they dislike my voice on this topic.

So, this is what does not stop to bother me. and when I see him posting "Uhockey should be sued" and as "reference" he cites a thread of the said discussion about high and low PWO carbs then I could explode! this is somethign what I have often blamed him for: I really have the impression that despite his brilliant mind he is more than once driven by some severe misantrophy. need further examples? how about a recent attack against certain people without even having read the appropriate literature on the topic and then getting severely owned (see the "More Bad Science" about hookers new fat loss supplement.).

Maybe I am wrong and I just "misunderstood" his posts and he wanted to say something entirely different. maybe my english skills are really too terrible in order to comprehend what he wants to say. If this should be the case then I would owe him a big apology. But as of yet I really don't think that this is the case.

[BiggJohn]

Originally Posted by Dr.P

as I have already stated in another thread some time ago, I will not comment on this. "Dr.P" is my screenname, not more and not less.

My stance is that people should NEVER trust so called "e-authorities". as long as you don't know them personally, base your jugdement solely on their postings, how plausible and informative they are, and always try to verify them against actual science that you can access via different online- and offline sources.

Even if I would stand up and say: yes I am an MD, you should nonetheless NOT trust me and take EVERY single word from me with a large grain of salt. But this you should also do if I were not an MD.

So, it makes no difference for you to know who I am in reality because you shouldn't trust me anyways.

Good post, so few people realize this.

[Conciliator]

Originally Posted by Dr.P

straw man. your argument is completely irrelevant to what I said.

You need to learn what a straw man is. Second, my argument is entirely relevant. For reference, you said "so, the usefulness of putting 'dextrose or maltodextrin into your PWO whey shake' like a certain wannabesmart individual suggested in the said thread is not only not backed by science but apparently disproved." We'll ignore the obvious bull**** that adding carbs to a PWO shake is "not backed by science". Talk about an embarassing statement. That leaves the question: did this study "apparently disprove" "the usefulness" of adding high GI carbs to a PWO shake?

Well, how could the addition of carbs in a PWO shake be "useful"?

1. Net protein balance. So far, this is the only issue we've addressed. You say "the addition of carbs did not improve whole body protein net balance and this is what finally counts". I'd argue that what finally counts is net protein balance in muscle, not in all the non-contractile tissues of the whole body. In this study, they looked at the fractional synthetic rate in muscle, but they "did not assess skeletal muscle protein breakdown rates". For example, there was no 3-methylhistidine data looking at myofibrillar degradation. This was an acute study looking at the effects for 6 hours after one training bout. This raises questions, since studies like this have found that supplementing with CHO+EAA after training, for 12 weeks, leads to a reduction in protein degradation and an increase in cross sectional muscle area when compared to EAA alone. Yet EAA alone in this study raised insulin to 12.7 - 19.4 μU?ml-1. If it's true that "an increase in insulin levels above 10-15 μU?ml-1 does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis and/or reduce protein degradation" then why did adding carbs to the drink make such a difference? Well, perhaps by increasing glycogen levels or decreasing muscle damage...

You have to keep in mind that with FSR they're looking at extremely small numbers that are hard to detect. The margin of error on the readings is relatively high (around 10% of the value). You've got to have some power to detect statistically significant differences here. For example, the FSR readings for the PRO and PRO+HCHO groups were 0.10?0.01 and 0.11?0.01 %?h-1. Now with 10 subjects, there was no statistical difference here. With more, things might be different. It's possible that the actual means in this study were 0.09 and 0.12. That would be a 33% increase from the PRO group to the PRO+HCHO group, yet that still might not have had statistical significance with the small group size.

What I think this study does is call into question the importance of CHO intake PWO as it relates to muscle protein balance. The results were unexpected since carbs are known to reduce protein breakdown. Surely more research will be done on this. The take home message is that protein is the primary factor when it comes to protein synthesis. I think it's premature to say that this disproves the usefullness of taking carbs PWO, though. As I pointed out, this study has questionable scope when you look at the protocol and amount of protein ingested. 6 hours of frequent dosing with an assload of casein hydrolysate is far different than a single PWO bolus of intact whey. The sipping makes this fast protein hydrolysate mimic the digestion of a slow protein (like intact casein). This sustained release might inhibit degradation to such an extent that insulin hardly reduces it any more. Also, with so much research in other circumstances showing a benefit from the addition of carbs, I think it's safe to say that this study has NOT disproved the usefulness of adding carbs.

2. Repleting glycogen. This hasn't even been addressed yet, but the addition of carbs in a PWO shake is especially "useful" from the standpoint of glycogen replacement. Immediately PWO is optimal for both the rate and amount of replenishment. This is probably the primary reason most people include them, at a time when muscle insulin sensitivity is high and partitioning is most favorable. You can't replenish glycogen nearly as quickly at other times as you can PWO.

3. Reducing muscle damage. Protein is most important for this, but carbs also play a role. Reducing muscle damage accelerates recovery and restores performance more quickly.

All in all, I think you were out in left field when you said "the usefulness of putting 'dextrose or maltodextrin into your PWO whey shake' like a certain wannabesmart individual suggested in the said thread is not only not backed by science but apparently disproved." The usefulness of adding carbs to a PWO shake IS backed by science and though this study raises some very good questions, it doesn't "apparently disprove" the usefulness of carbs in your typical PWO whey shake.

Not sure what study you were looking at, but they determined FSR in the vastus lateralis, not the "gastrocnemicus".

Originally Posted by Dr.P

let me also quote the part of the discussion from the koopman paper that you assidiously cropped out:

I didn't "crop it out", lol. That wasn't part of the paragraph. And I'd stress that they're talking about "muscle protein anabolism" there. Did you "assiduously crop out" what followed your quote? It said "However, as muscle glycogen content can be reduced by 30-40% following a single session of resistance type exercise (17), carbohydrate co-ingestion would be preferred when trying to accelerate muscle glycogen repletion".

Originally Posted by Dr.P

with regards to your remark that the amount of ingested protein was higher (in this study) than usually utilised in the "typical" PWO shake / nutrition: that is correct, but please note that they have not investigated a dose-response relationship. this study simply does not reveal any information about how breakdown, synthesis, net balance etc would have been be when smaller doses of protein had been applied. so deducin from this study that we would see a sugnificantly different picture of proteindegradation / synthesis and balance is pure speculation.

This is a good example of your bad reasoning. You correctly recognize that the study "simply does not reveal any information about how breakdown, synthesis, net balance etc would have been be when smaller doses of protein had been applied." That was my point. The study says nothing about your typical PWO shake. Yet you are. You're pointing to it to make an argument about the "usefulness of putting 'dextrose or maltodextrin into your PWO whey shake'". I'm not the one speculating about things the paper doesn't really address, you are. I'm the one pointing out the limited scope of the paper.

Originally Posted by Dr.P

conclusion: we do not necessarily need high GI carbs in order to maximise protein synthesis / minimize protein degradation after a workout.

This is a premature conclusion, especially in the context of a typical shake taken once PWO. Also, that wasn't your conclusion earlier, which was much more broad. You said "so, the usefulness of putting 'dextrose or maltodextrin into your PWO whey shake' like a certain wannabesmart individual suggested in the said thread is not only not backed by science but apparently disproved."

Originally Posted by Dr.P

and this is what I wanted to point out in suuport of uhockeys initial remark that a high GI PWO shake is not necessary. He was perfectly right with that and above you see the science behind it.

However, uhockey's statement wasn't based on this science, since this paper was just published. Rather, his statement was based on research in a pathologic population. It gave little to no support for his claims. Further, uhockey's initial remark "that a high GI PWO shake is not necessary" was never in dispute. We talked a little about necessity already.

Originally Posted by Dr.P

I think that it is pretty clear who has been owned now, Conci!

Yes, as clear as when I first posted this thread. That was a good try, but you still need to work on things.

[Conciliator]

Originally Posted by Dr.P

Maybe I am wrong and I just "misunderstood" his posts and he wanted to say something entirely different. maybe my english skills are really too terrible in order to comprehend what he wants to say. If this should be the case then I would owe him a big apology. But as of yet I really don't think that this is the case.

Yes, this is the case. Either that or you intentionally constructed quite a straw man in that thread. You took my post and then said my conclusion was something completely different than was clearly stated. You then spent lots of energy attacking what wasn't my position or argument. That's probably the best example ever of you misrepresenting me.

[dito]

This is BS. Dr. P gets his own thread? I am jealous. No one has ever started Dito is an ******* thread before

Please excuse me while I go cry myself to sleep.

[DRP7]

Originally Posted by dito

This is BS. Dr. P gets his own thread? I am jealous. No one has ever started Dito is an ******* thread before

Please excuse me while I go cry myself to sleep.

If you want I can start a thread named "dito is a cool guy" but I thought this would not be necessary since people already know you are awesome (serious).

[DRP7]

@ Conciliator and his one-pager rubuttal http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...1&postcount=26

let me just say one thing about this post: what exactely did you wanted to tell us?

you can attack this study left and right but since you have no better study you should accept what we have. and what we have clearly shows that whole body protein net balance, synthesis and breakdown are not further improved by the addition of carbs to a PWO protein supplementation.

so, carbs do not necessarily further contribute to protein metabolism PWO.

This is such a simple truth and so clear and all your attempts to create some rethorical fog and clouds are really pointless. such a useless discussion. I really don't know why I am wasting my time arguing with somebody who suffers from obsessive-compulsive bossiness.

you are pointing to the fact that this study was not published when uhockey made his post. thanks for pointing this out because it shows the superiority of a reasoning that is based on a broad medical education rather than on "pubmed hunting". although he could not cite this study his reasoning made a lot of sense and was retroactively proven to be correct.


you are trying to find "exceptions" to where carbs make sense, such as glycogen depletion? this is correct, this is what I have always been saying as well. but the "typical" workout in the "typical" bodybuilder usually does not lead to glycogen depletion. It's an entirely different thing if we would speak about a marathon / triathlon. but a typical workout of 45 minutes to 1 hour will in most cases not even remotely empty your glycogen stores.

And even if we assume such a condition: depleted glycogen stores after an exausting workout, I would hands down prefer a mixed GI-source over a high-GI source for my PWO shake because of the cited evidence that insulin spiking above a certain thereshold might not further improve protein synthesis / -breakdown and because of the provocation of gross blood sugar and insulin fluctuations + GH inhibition - all things we do not really prefer to have after a workout.

just to clarify because you are really good in creating logical fog: uhockey was right and your reasoning is insufficient to prove him wrong. this is why your attack that you started against him was unsubstantiated. and this is not the first time you did something like that.