New study finds no difference between consuming a protein shake pre or post workout

[kissdadookie]

Apparently you're unaware that this indeed was a gap in the literature - as in, no such design has yet been carried out. Another thing you're failing to understand is that the early post-exercise period has repeatedly been touted in both the primary & secondary literature as the MOST critical feeding juncture for stimulating MPS acutely, and hypertrophy chronically. Our purpose was to test this claim by comparing pre vs. post in a longitudinal design. Finally, research is not avoided on the basis of what we feel trainees or coaches "already know." Research is about testing both questions and assumptions -- this is what builds foundations for objective knowledge, as opposed to speculation, anecdote, tradition, & opinion.

Fair enough. Was not contesting the validity of the research and I did mention that it is of value

The participants in the BCAA study were consuming 5 meals per day. There is no mention of training fasted in that study. In all likelihood, they weren't.



That's not the reason. If ~187 pound guys, strong guys, working out 4 days a week only lose a 100 grams (!) of body weight over 8 weeks, they were not in a significant deficit. The purpose of the study was to make it a cutting study. The data suggests it wasn't.

One of the authors of the BCAA study has already admitted that the data shows they did not stick to their calorie targets.

I'll make this easy for you: there's currently no good evidence to support that fasted training is better for fat loss or worse for muscle gain/retention.

The recent BCAA study the authors admitted that PREVIOUSLY giving just a caloric target did not result in good adherence and thus this time around they gave out meal plans with clearly laid out meals.

As for training fasted or not, I think the BCAA study was more profound then that. BOTH groups were "fed" preworkout but one had only carbs whilst the other had BCAAs (calorically matched for both groups). Otherwise the diets were basically the same between both groups. If the difference here was just having BCAAs vs without and resulting in such a big difference in outcomes, it's not that much of a leap to suspect that differences fasted vs fed strength training at least within the context of a caloric deficit would not see an even greater difference. The only big question in regards to that BCAA study is how much the citrulline malate and I forget what the other ingredient in Xtend had on the results or what the results would be if instead of Xtend they used whey protein instead.

[Mrpb]

The recent BCAA study the authors admitted that PREVIOUSLY giving just a caloric target did not result in good adherence and thus this time around they gave out meal plans with clearly laid out meals.

No that was not previously, it was in reference to this study. If you join the ISSN group on ******** you can read it yourself.

Otherwise the diets were basically the same between both groups.

The Xtend group lost 100 grams of body weight over 8 weeks. The carb group lost 5 pounds. Logical conclusion: only one group was in calorie deficit.

And no matter how long you toss and turn, a study where both groups trained fed doesn't lend support to claims about fasted training.

The Aragon & Schoenfeld study that we're talking about in this thread had the subjects in the POST group not eat for at least 2 hours before their workout. It made no difference for muscle gain.

[alan aragon]

The Xtend group lost 100 grams of body weight over 8 weeks. The carb group lost 5 pounds. Logical conclusion: only one group was in calorie deficit.

Good point. Doing studies in free-living humans is a colossally difficult undertaking to stabilize the variables of. It's entirely possible that a lack of dietary control confounded the results, as it often does (& this is possible even in my own work). However, what really chaps my hide is how the authors of the Xtend study put Xtend in some sort of deified light, whether purposely or accidentally. They explicitly report that the Xtend group lost a significant amount of fat, and the CHO group did not. This is blatantly false, the opposite of that happened. The Xtend group lost virtually no fat at all (0.05 kg), while the CHO group lost 1.4 kg. It sucks to see this kind of fishy stuff get past peer review.

[kissdadookie]

No that was not previously, it was in reference to this study. If you join the ISSN group on ******** you can read it yourself.



The Xtend group lost 100 grams of body weight over 8 weeks. The carb group lost 5 pounds. Logical conclusion: only one group was in calorie deficit.

And no matter how long you toss and turn, a study where both groups trained fed doesn't lend support to claims about fasted training.

The Aragon & Schoenfeld study that we're talking about in this thread had the subjects in the POST group not eat for at least 2 hours before their workout. It made no difference for muscle gain.

The Xtend group lost just fat. Actually gained LBM. Also, how does it magically end up being only the Xtend group not being on a deficit? This study was blinded and had a placebo group. Unless you're suggesting that the researchers fibbed the study and influenced the Xtend group to get the outcome they ended up with. It could be a possibility, I'm not discounting that possibility. Just trying to tease out how it would end up being just the Xtend group not adhering to the meal plan.

Was the Aragon & Schoenfeld study using a deficit diet (not sure, thus I'm asking)? Also, if the training was relatively brief, I don't expect there to be a notable difference in gains between the pre and post group. You ingest a protein shake preworkout, that's still not going to be mostly/fully assimilated into the system until around an hour later for whey isolate. The time difference between feedings for the pre and post group I don't expect to make much of an impact. Like I've mentioned earlier, if you're well nourished pre and optionally intra, the post workout meal/dose is no longer as important. If you were running on an empty tank pre and during, then the post workout meal/dose would be of benefit.

[Mrpb]

Also, how does it magically end up being only the Xtend group not being on a deficit?

Nothing magic about it. It's just a rational observation. If people lose only 100 grams over 8 weeks they were practically eating around maintenance.

As to what was causing them to not be in deficit, we can only speculate. Seems reasonable that the people consuming carbs were less hungry and therefore cheated less on their diet.

Also the Xtend group was on average 6 kg heavier than the carb group, while they were supposed to eat ~250 kcal less than the carb group. This would make the deficit larger. The larger the deficit, the greater the chance that people won't stick to it.

Was the Aragon & Schoenfeld study using a deficit diet (not sure, thus I'm asking)?

I haven't seen the study yet but I expect they were not in deficit. They were supposed to gain muscle and both groups did, whether they trained 'fasted' or not. (the term fasted isn't accurate here of course)

If you had said 'fasted training may be less optimal for muscle gain or retention' I would have agreed with you. But there's also data that suggest otherwise.

Deldicque et al. [91] observed a greater intramyocellular anabolic response in fasted compared to fed subjects given a post-exercise carbohydrate/protein/leucine mixture. This result suggests that the body is capable of anabolic supercompensation despite the inherently catabolic nature of fasted resistance training. These data, in addition to the previously discussed chronic studies, further support the idea that macronutrient totals by the end of the day may be more important than their temporal placement relative to the training bout.

http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/20

[Mrpb]

Good point. Doing studies in free-living humans is a colossally difficult undertaking to stabilize the variables of. It's entirely possible that a lack of dietary control confounded the results, as it often does (& this is possible even in my own work). However, what really chaps my hide is how the authors of the Xtend study put Xtend in some sort of deified light, whether purposely or accidentally. They explicitly report that the Xtend group lost a significant amount of fat, and the CHO group did not. This is blatantly false, the opposite of that happened. The Xtend group lost virtually no fat at all (0.05 kg), while the CHO group lost 1.4 kg. It sucks to see this kind of fishy stuff get past peer review.

Agreed.

Also, in the conclusion they state that BCAAs maintained lean mass, but when someone pointed out that the BCAAs blunted fat loss they reacted with 'oh that was because they ate more than they were told to'. Uh wut?

[kissdadookie]

Nothing magic about it. It's just a rational observation. If people lose only 100 grams over 8 weeks they were practically eating around maintenance.

As to what was causing them to not be in deficit, we can only speculate. Seems reasonable that the people consuming carbs were less hungry and therefore cheated less on their diet.

Also the Xtend group was on average 6 kg heavier than the carb group, while they were supposed to eat ~250 kcal less than the carb group. This would make the deficit larger. The larger the deficit, the greater the chance that people won't stick to it.




I haven't seen the study yet but I expect they were not in deficit. They were supposed to gain muscle and both groups did, whether they trained fasted or not.

If you had said 'fasted training may be less optimal for muscle gain or retention' I would have agreed with you. But there's also data that suggest otherwise.


http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/20

The carbs in the placebo group, iirc that was only about 100 calories worth of carbs. Maybe less. It's negligible. It was also from Powerade iirc, that's essentially simple sugars, if anything, that should have led to increased hunger due to the spike in blood sugar. I don't think the bodyweight difference would have made much of a difference though, since the meal plans were created on a per individual basis rather than a one size fits all.

[alphafreak]

I already knew this from personal experience I use to take a whey hydrolysate and simple carbs mix in the morning on a empty stomach before I workout now the only thing I take in the morning is my pre workout I actually trained harder with the pre workout and my recovery is the same.

[kissdadookie]

I already knew this from personal experience I use to take a whey hydrolysate and simple carbs mix in the morning on a empty stomach before I workout now the only thing I take in the morning is my pre workout I actually trained harder with the pre workout and my recovery is the same.

Pre workout I will assume has stims in it, of course you're going to perform better with stims in you I'm guessing that you had a post workout meal of some sort though?

[alan aragon]

Agreed.

Also, in the conclusion they state that BCAAs maintained lean mass, but when someone pointed out that the BCAAs blunted fat loss they reacted with 'oh that was because they ate more than they were told to'. Uh wut?

Here's the crazy part - they not only erroneously relayed the results (by falsely stating the opposite of what happened regarding fat loss), but they also speculated about WHY it happened: "While there was a significant decrease in lean mass in the CHO group, there was not a loss of fat mass" [...] "This could potentially be due to the presence of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the CHO supplement as HFCS, and other processed carbohydrates such as sucrose, have been associated with fat accumulation"

^^^WTF?? Their own graphical data shows greater fat loss in the CHO group:

[kissdadookie]

Here's the crazy part - they not only erroneously relayed the results (by falsely stating the opposite of what happened regarding fat loss), but they also speculated about WHY it happened: "While there was a significant decrease in lean mass in the CHO group, there was not a loss of fat mass" [...] "This could potentially be due to the presence of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the CHO supplement as HFCS, and other processed carbohydrates such as sucrose, have been associated with fat accumulation"

^^^WTF?? Their own graphical data shows greater fat loss in the CHO group:

Excellent catch/observation.

[OT2000]

The this would make Phil's observation around the BCAA group truly eating around maintenance and the CHO group eating in a actual deficit pretty accurate.

[Mrpb]

The carbs in the placebo group, iirc that was only about 100 calories worth of carbs. Maybe less. It's negligible.

Table 1 displays a ~250 calorie difference between the Xtend and CHO diet.

It was also from Powerade iirc, that's essentially simple sugars, if anything, that should have led to increased hunger due to the spike in blood sugar.

Actually sugar has been shown to improve dietary adherence.

Here's a quote from Eric Helms: "In fact White and colleagues found improvements that only reached significance in a high sucrose diet group in the mental component of a quality of life assessment http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20095912. This finding is not solitary. Drummond observed subjects consuming a low fat, sugar containing diet who when compared to baseline, reported improvements in perceived quality of life, diet attitude and adherence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15369982. Finally, the participants in Raben and colleagues’ highest sucrose group reported higher diet satisfaction and palatability compared to the other groups http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9347402."

[kissdadookie]

Table 1 displays a ~250 calorie difference between the Xtend and CHO diet.



Actually sugar has been shown to improve dietary adherence.

Here's a quote from Eric Helms: "In fact White and colleagues found improvements that only reached significance in a high sucrose diet group in the mental component of a quality of life assessment http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20095912. This finding is not solitary. Drummond observed subjects consuming a low fat, sugar containing diet who when compared to baseline, reported improvements in perceived quality of life, diet attitude and adherence http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15369982. Finally, the participants in Raben and colleagues’ highest sucrose group reported higher diet satisfaction and palatability compared to the other groups http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9347402."

Good find on the second part.

Back to the first part of the caloric difference, is this difference due to variance on diets based on the participant's size or due to one using Xtend and one using Powerade? I was under the impression that the two groups were matched after you factor in participant size differences.

[Mrpb]

Here's the crazy part - they not only erroneously relayed the results (by falsely stating the opposite of what happened regarding fat loss), but they also speculated about WHY it happened: "While there was a significant decrease in lean mass in the CHO group, there was not a loss of fat mass" [...] "This could potentially be due to the presence of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the CHO supplement as HFCS, and other processed carbohydrates such as sucrose, have been associated with fat accumulation"

Indeed, a lot of strange things going on in the study.

Not sure if you had noticed this before: the same authors ran an identical study design (same training, same diets etc) previously, except they used whey instead of Xtend. The whey group lost 2.5kg of fat mass in 8 weeks. That's a hell of a lot better than Xtend.

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Ab...h_a.96749.aspx

Back to the first part of the caloric difference, is this difference due to variance on diets based on the participant's size or due to one using Xtend and one using Powerade? I was under the impression that the two groups were matched after you factor in participant size differences.

I'm not sure.

[alan aragon]

Excellent catch/observation.

Thank you, sir. And like I said, this makes me view the Xtend study with considerable caution. It's an awkward enough situation when authors misreport their findings due to typos or just errors on placement of the data on the charts/graphs. However, it's a whole other level of WTF to see them wrongly interpret & speculate over falsely reported data. If I was on the peer review panel of this study, it would have never gotten published in the present state. I'm not claiming to be certain of any foul play, but I am saying that errors like this making it to publication is lamentable.

As for our latest nutrient timing study currently in review, the subjects indeed fell into a deficit, and this was not programmed or planned. Our subjects complied like sh!t, but at least we reported the reality of that matter.

[Madevilz]

However, it's a whole other level of WTF to see them wrongly interpret & speculate over falsely reported data.

That's pretty amateurish, borderline fraudulent. Study's credibility is pretty much nulled.

Where's Mike at? Would like to hear from him over this matter.

[1JFS3]

That's pretty amateurish, borderline fraudulent. Study's credibility is pretty much nulled.

My thoughts exactly.

[MikeWines]

School is in session, sorry I'm late.

Just getting caught up but in for further discussion.

[NewAgeMayan]

Research is about testing both questions and assumptions -- this is what builds foundations for objective knowledge, as opposed to speculation, anecdote, tradition, & opinion.

lulz...I vaguely recall reading about something called 'geocentricism'. Or that old classic, the flat earth model.

I think Im with Popper here, and Hume to a degree; our beliefs (and knowledge) are mere hypotheses, with the potential to be falsified at any given time.

[LoudyRowdy]

School is in session, sorry I'm late.
.

[EmperorRyker]

Am I in bizzaro world? Taking a look at most posts in this forum has many people recommending a post-workout shake. Even many of the guys that say in one breath that they are aware that the most important factor is total protein, in the next breath say that they personally have a shake afterwards, and/or tout BCAAs for between meals.

Yeah, but it's only because it's super convenient and palatable to chug down a shake right after a workout, and they also sip on BCAAs because of the incredible taste. It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with them not being sure of what they're so loudly advocating for.

[jimaras2222]

See i told you that months/years ago ****gets , no one believed me.

[iamjeffrey]

See i told you that months/years ago ****gets , no one believed me.

thanks joel

[xLGx]

New Xtend February.

[AvengeMe]

So the study is essentially stating that taking BCAA's periworkout will blunt fat loss efforts? Would this still be the case if taking the BCAA's because of fasted morning training?

Oh and speaking about the Xtend study just to clarify

[AMeyer9]

So this is what I missed

[kissdadookie]

So the study is essentially stating that taking BCAA's periworkout will blunt fat loss efforts? Would this still be the case if taking the BCAA's because of fasted morning training?

Oh and speaking about the Xtend study just to clarify

Not even sure if it's just the BCAAs. Xtend contains 2 other ingredients that may possibly be causing it or increasing that effect (citrulline malate and glutamine).

[snorkelman]

Not even sure if it's just the BCAAs. Xtend contains 2 other ingredients that may possibly be causing it or increasing that effect (citrulline malate and glutamine).

Even MORE of a reason to dissuade bros from needlessly supplementing with glutamine.

[kissdadookie]

Even MORE of a reason to dissuade bros from needlessly supplementing with glutamine.

I take glutamine post workout though :P Give the good bacteria in my gut something to feed on :P