Broscience versus REAL SCIENCE

Sidesteal

I'm pretty sure he does. If what he's doing is working, why must you pick holes in it? There's a whole psychological side to this you don't seem to account for, and the value of energy on demand during a workout cannot be underestimated.

Because he believes in something that's pointless? This is what you don't get. By allowing people to constantly believe in asinine things you are essentially encouraging people to continually do them. Then you have people who don't actually want to do it actually think it works. He might go advise other people to do the same as him and these people may prefer to eat calories from whole foods yet they don't because someone suggests that copious amounts of whey and glucose timed works miracles.

You see where I'm going? This is the same thing that the effects of meal frequency and how people recommend 5-6 meals when it doesn't make a lick of difference for the average joe. This is the same as someone saying eating clean helps you lose more fat when it doesn't. It can and does complicate people's lives. For every person it works for, it fails for many other people and they never progress.

So, sure, he's happy but what about the people he will eventually advise? Then they start doing dumb **** that doesn't work and then more people. The truth then becomes obscure and this when we run into the problem that correctness isn't necessarily the truth but what the majority believes. Sorry I can't accept such a silly thing as to obscure truth.

^ This is an excellent post.

tgzerozone

And what would the benefits would rapid replenishment of glycogen be?

Fuels the repair process in your muscles. As you depleted your glycogen, you need to replace it so that muscle repair can commence.

Sidesteal

And what would the benefits would rapid replenishment of glycogen be?

Fuels the repair process in your muscles. As you depleted your glycogen, you need to replace it so that muscle repair can commence.

But unless you're doing multiple intra-day glycogen depleting events, there's no need to rapidly replenish glycogen. Whenever you eat next, you'll be restoring glycogen without needing to intentionally jack up insulin post workout. In other words, it will happen on it's own through regular food sources before your next workout, assuming you have a relatively "normal" schedule.

Now, if you were to lift at night and then again in the AM with no food in between, then you might have a reason to go out of your way to replenish, but in normal circumstances it's somewhat silly.

tgzerozone

But unless you're doing multiple intra-day glycogen depleting events, there's no need to rapidly replenish glycogen. Whenever you eat next, you'll be restoring glycogen without needing to intentionally jack up insulin post workout.

That would bring us back to the point whether you agree that a spike in insulin stimulates the brain to optimally absorb nutrients.

If above is true, then providing the body with nutrients during an insulin spike would have said nutrients optimally absorbed.

Sidesteal

But unless you're doing multiple intra-day glycogen depleting events, there's no need to rapidly replenish glycogen. Whenever you eat next, you'll be restoring glycogen without needing to intentionally jack up insulin post workout.

That would bring us back to the point whether you agree that a spike in insulin stimulates the brain to optimally absorb nutrients.

If above is true, then providing the body with nutrients during an insulin spike would have said nutrients optimally absorb those nutrients.

A simple protein shake with no added carbs gets insulin high enough to maximize protein synthesis for upwards of 3 hours if I'm remembering correctly. I would have to believe that whatever you're going to eat for a normal meal would do the same.

EDIT: But, if you've got any research to show that insulin spike leads to greater nutrient absorption, I'd be curious to see it because now we're talking about something other than the benefits of glycogen. The problem though, is that (I'm taking a guess here so keep that in mind) most studies will probably only compare acute effects of insulin spiking without looking at a more long term situation where they factor in normal eating and compare the two.

It seems like there's a lot of meal frequency and protein dosage testing that's done that fails to look at the big picture and the acute effects tend to bias towards timing being important.

tgzerozone

A simple protein shake with no added carbs gets insulin high enough to maximize protein synthesis for upwards of 3 hours if I'm remembering correctly. I would have to believe that whatever you're going to eat for a normal meal would do the same.

EDIT: But, if you've got any research to show that insulin spike leads to greater nutrient absorption, I'd be curious to see it because now we're talking about something other than the benefits of glycogen. The problem though, is that (I'm taking a guess here so keep that in mind) most studies will probably only compare acute effects of insulin spiking without looking at a more long term situation where they factor in normal eating and compare the two.

It seems like there's a lot of meal frequency and protein dosage testing that's done that fails to look at the big picture and the acute effects tend to bias towards timing being important.

On protein getting insulin high enough: It doesn't restore glygocen as glucose and without glycogen restored, muscle and strength gains won't be optimal.

On insulin causing optimal nutrient absorption: I thought this was common medical knowledge. Maybe it's not.

albinogorilla

Until posting here in the forums beginning 2 - 3 weeks ago I had no idea I was following "broscience" for years. I began reading Muscle and Fitness in middle school, Men's Health and Men's Fitness 5 years ago. I played organized sports throughout middle school (basketball), high school (basketball, football, and racquetball), and most of my career in the Army (basketball and football).

The principles of nutrition I've been following (reading articles and studies in M&F and Men's Health) I've been following since I began weight training in high school. Such as....

1. Preworkout Whey Protein and Creatine
2. Post workout Whey Protein
3. Before going to bed Casein

Quite a few people here have informed me I've been following broscience and evidently I didn't even know it, (because of the articles I've been reading for years). Even the NBC Show the Biggest Loser follows the principle of Whey Protein after a workout to build muscle for weight loss.

Other than people "saying" those principles are broscience are there any reputable studies and research proving it is USELESS to follow the 3 "broscience" principles above?

The small amount of elementary research I've conducted last weekend basically says "NOBODY REALLY KNOWS" if it's broscience or not

I'm only asking because I'm trying to TRANSFORM my "frame".

Those 3 principles are followed by every pro-bodybuilder i have every heard of, natural and otherwise. Is the timing necessary? Not necessarily, but i dont think anyone can argue with taking in protein or against the benefits of creatine. I always have some whey and casein mixed together after a workout, which is also before bed, and creatine before. I don't feel the whey before is necessary as I have been eating all day..................but after, when i have sufficiently punished my muscles, I like to give them some protein. Broscience or not.

tgzerozone

Those 3 principles are followed by every pro-bodybuilder i have every heard of, natural and otherwise. Is the timing necessary? Not necessarily, but i dont think anyone can argue with taking in protein or against the benefits of creatine. I always have some whey and casein mixed together after a workout, which is also before bed, and creatine before. I don't feel the whey before is necessary as I have been eating all day..................but after, when i have sufficiently punished my muscles, I like to give them some protein. Broscience or not.

This.

Sidesteal

On protein getting insulin high enough: It doesn't restore glygocen as glucose and without glycogen restored, muscle and strength gains won't be optimal.

I'm making the assumption that it's not necessary since your regular eating schedule will restore glycogen before you need it again.

On insulin causing optimal nutrient absorption: I thought this was common medical knowledge. Maybe it's not.

The question becomes whether or not it's necessary to force this issue by raising insulin immediately post workout. My belief (as of now, subject to change of course!) is that assuming you're getting in adequate nutrients and not doing multiple day fasts or performing multiple workouts with inadequate intake in between workouts, it will happen on it's own.

Not sure if I'm making sense here, what I'm getting at is that I don't think there will be much (if any at all) difference between intentionally spiking your insulin in a specific period of time post workout, vs just eating whatever and whenever your next normal meal is.

Aside: There's also a small body of research showing anabolic supercompensation when you go for a while post-workout without any food, and this combined with the fact that pre-workout nutrition typically has you covered well into the post workout period, pretty much negates the need to mainline PRO+CHO.

I'll see if I can find the specifics on the above. I bet Acg67 has it.

antoniosmooth

I'm going to throw a wrench into a few of the posts regarding my previous protein timing from my original post to start this topic (we'll see after I read a bit of research from Alan Aragon {thanks Sidesteal but I hope there is more info out there}).

As a refresher here's my Protein Timing from the original post I've followed all my life when I wanted ..... GROWTH. Remember growth only for example I haven't been following these principles below since December 2011.

1. Preworkout Whey Protein & Creatine
2. During workout only water
3. Post Workout Whey Protein
4. Before bed Casein Protein

Here's the wrench I'm throwing in... (by the way that DECONSTRUCTED philly cheesesteak sounds awesome)

I believe the misconception in this thread is "protein timers" don't eat real food throughout the day or before/after workout. I don't know about all of the purposeful broscience followers or the accidental broscience followers like myself.... I ATE real food before/after workout (chicken breast, oatmeal, egg whites, once a week red meat, vegetables, milk, fruit, and etc.) daily.

Sidesteal

Here's the quote I was looking for and I think this is a very good explanation:


This is by Alan:


"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. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.

---

"

tgzerozone

On protein getting insulin high enough: It doesn't restore glygocen as glucose and without glycogen restored, muscle and strength gains won't be optimal.

I'm making the assumption that it's not necessary since your regular eating schedule will restore glycogen before you need it again.

On insulin causing optimal nutrient absorption: I thought this was common medical knowledge. Maybe it's not.

The question becomes whether or not it's necessary to force this issue by raising insulin immediately post workout. My belief (as of now, subject to change of course!) is that assuming you're getting in adequate nutrients and not doing multiple day fasts or performing multiple workouts with inadequate intake in between workouts, it will happen on it's own.

Not sure if I'm making sense here, what I'm getting at is that I don't think there will be much (if any at all) difference between intentionally spiking your insulin in a specific period of time post workout, vs just eating whatever and whenever your next normal meal is.

Aside: There's also a small body of research showing anabolic supercompensation when you go for a while post-workout without any food, and this combined with the fact that pre-workout nutrition typically has you covered well into the post workout period, pretty much negates the need to mainline PRO+CHO.

I'll see if I can find the specifics on the above. I bet Acg67 has it.

I would imagine you would pretty much need the glycocen after your workout as this is when the repair process starts. Low glycogen causes less release of ATP.

So I am thinking why not give your body immediate quick releasing fuel as soon as you are finished training. Why miss this opportunity to start the repair process until your next meal?

Sidesteal

I'm going to throw a wrench into a few of the posts regarding my previous protein timing from my original post to start this topic (we'll see after I read a bit of research from Alan Aragon {thanks Sidesteal but I hope there is more info out there}).

As a refresher here's my Protein Timing from the original post I've followed all my life when I wanted ..... GROWTH. Remember growth only for example I haven't been following these principles below since December 2011.

1. Preworkout Whey Protein & Creatine
2. During workout only water
3. Post Workout Whey Protein
4. Before bed Casein Protein

Here's the wrench I'm throwing in... (by the way that DECONSTRUCTED philly cheesesteak sounds awesome)

I believe the misconception in this thread is "protein timers" don't eat real food throughout the day or before/after workout. I don't know about all of the purposeful broscience followers or the accidental broscience followers like myself.... I ATE real food before/after workout (chicken breast, oatmeal, egg whites, once a week red meat, vegetables, milk, fruit, and etc.) daily.

To clarify something, there's nothing wrong with any of the above. I'm also a firm believer in doing what works. The question though, is whether or not the items on the above list are making a difference outside of how they effect your total intake of macronutrients AND how the nutrient timing that you are using is effecting performance. (<--- And performance is a very valid reason to monitor nutrient timing).

And it's hard to isolate those variables but it's important to differentiate ESPECIALLY when you (I use the word "you" to mean anyone) advise people of what is necessary vs what is personal preference.

If it so happens that nutrient timing is strictly personal preference, and you tell someone that timing your protein intake is critical for lean mass gains, you are applying a restriction to their diet and their behavior. The more you do this with meaningless behaviors, the harder this becomes.

seansquared

Stronglifts.

Boom, done.

Eat a lot of clean food, lift heavy, gain muscle. I packed on 12lbs of muscle (Katch-McArdle measurements) in 2 months.

tgzerozone

Here's the quote I was looking for and I think this is a very good explanation:


This is by Alan:


"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. Furthermore, you're also ignoring the body's ability of anabolic (& fat-oxidative) supercompensation when forced to work in the absence of fuels. So, metaphorically speaking, our physiology basically has the universe mapped out and you're thinking it needs to be taught addition & subtraction.

---

"

Good reading, thanks.

Regarding the body being able to burn fat if no other fuels are available. There tends to be some belief that the body refuses to burn fat when insulin levels are high.

kokaneesailor

bump

AeolianHarp

Here's the quote I was looking for and I think this is a very good explanation:

Awesome post, Steal. I forgot about that. This essentially puts a wrench in the need to focus so heavily on workout nutrition. He has mentioned before that it is ideal to eat around workouts but the necessary detail some people display seems kind of pointless. I personally train fasted and eat immediately post-workout. I got no pre-workout in me.

tgzerozone

Awesome post, Steal. I forgot about that. This essentially puts a wrench in the need to focus so heavily on workout nutrition. He has mentioned before that it is ideal to eat around workouts but the necessary detail some people display seems kind of pointless. I personally train fasted and eat immediately post-workout. I got no pre-workout in me.

So let's say you have the following variables.

You eat a 500 calorie meal before workout containing 30P/50C/20F
So on that, you have 62.5 grams of carbs (The most efficient fuel for your body to burn)

You gym for 1.5 hours, burning approximately 500 calories of which 60% is probably fat and 40 % is carbs.

40 percent of 500 is 200 calories carbs burned, meaning 50 grams of carbs. That leaves you with 12.5 grams of carbs for your body to use to start the repair of the muscles until your next meal.

How can it not be beneficial to give it more fuel at that point?

EDIT: Above is not even taking in the carbs burned for just everyday normal things like walking to the loo etc.

Acg67

Awesome post, Steal. I forgot about that. This essentially puts a wrench in the need to focus so heavily on workout nutrition. He has mentioned before that it is ideal to eat around workouts but the necessary detail some people display seems kind of pointless. I personally train fasted and eat immediately post-workout. I got no pre-workout in me.

So let's say you have the following variables.

You eat a 500 calorie meal before workout containing 30P/50C/20F
So on that, you have 62.5 grams of carbs (The most efficient fuel for your body to burn)

You gym for 1.5 hours, burning approximately 500 calories of which 60% is probably fat and 40 % is carbs.

40 percent of 500 is 200 calories carbs burned, meaning 50 grams of carbs. That leaves you with 12.5 grams of carbs for your body to use to start the repair of the muscles until your next meal.

How can it not be beneficial to give it more fuel at that point?

EDIT: Above is not even taking in the carbs burned for just everyday normal things like walking to the loo etc.

And how much of your skeletal muscle glycogen stores did you burn through on top of the cho from your pre wo meal?

antoniosmooth

What I hate about this topic with us consumers caught in the middle is, nobody smarter than us can agree. I'm beginning to wonder if it's impossible to conduct meaningful research that proves either side.

Sidesteal's post regarding Alan Aragon assertions is a great read and appears VERY reputable. However others such as those in this article http://www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/and-after refute everything Alan Aragon claims regarding research.

Funny thing is the M&F article above is written by two PhDs (Sidesteal, Acg, and I already had a conversation about this in another thread) claims research proves the need for protein timing and Alan Aragon (also with good credentials) claims research proves there is no need for protein timing.

Yes, we consumers are caught in the middle....

Is it ALL broscience??

tgzerozone

Awesome post, Steal. I forgot about that. This essentially puts a wrench in the need to focus so heavily on workout nutrition. He has mentioned before that it is ideal to eat around workouts but the necessary detail some people display seems kind of pointless. I personally train fasted and eat immediately post-workout. I got no pre-workout in me.

So let's say you have the following variables.

You eat a 500 calorie meal before workout containing 30P/50C/20F
So on that, you have 62.5 grams of carbs (The most efficient fuel for your body to burn)

You gym for 1.5 hours, burning approximately 500 calories of which 60% is probably fat and 40 % is carbs.

40 percent of 500 is 200 calories carbs burned, meaning 50 grams of carbs. That leaves you with 12.5 grams of carbs for your body to use to start the repair of the muscles until your next meal.

How can it not be beneficial to give it more fuel at that point?

EDIT: Above is not even taking in the carbs burned for just everyday normal things like walking to the loo etc.

And how much of your skeletal muscle glycogen stores did you burn through on top of the cho from your pre wo meal?

Lots I would say.

albinogorilla

For me, Broscience is useful. Not for losing weight, but for gaining strength and size. Losing weight is just math...........its simple. But gaining mass and strength is much more complicated, and it is much harder to study. Intensity of workout, and energy levels as far as I am concerned (and i am no scientist), cannot be accurately measured or defined for all..........And that is where you have to listen to your body, and to those around you, that are doing what you are doing. Their input is more valuable to me than a bunch of intangible studies.

Sidesteal

What I hate about this topic with us consumers caught in the middle is, nobody smarter than us can agree. I'm beginning to wonder if it's impossible to conduct meaningful research that proves either side.

Sidesteal's post regarding Alan Aragon assertions is a great read and appears VERY reputable. However others such as those in this article http://www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/and-after refute everything Alan Aragon claims regarding research.

Funny thing is the M&F article written by two PhDs (Sidesteal and I already had a conversation about this in another thread) claims research proves the need for protein timing and Alan Aragon (also with good credentials) claims research proves there is no need for protein timing.

Yes, we consumers are caught in the middle....

Is it ALL broscience??

I think you have to consider the studies being referenced, including how they are conducted and what conclusion are being drawn based on the studies. In many cases there are rather big flaws, or the data doesn't support the conclusion. This is why I'm a big believer in how Alan comes to his conclusions. His AARR (Research Review, a subscription only service) does a very, very thorough write-up on peer-reviewed research where he goes over, in detail, the conclusions that he draws from research as well as his opinion on the validity of the study. It's helped me learn quite a bit, not just about the individual studies but about the thought process that goes into review analysis.

Never take a study at face value by just reading the conclusion.

Also,

I certainly don't think you should ever just listen to one person though, and you should always do your own homework on it-- you just need to consider the source and what (if any) research validates what that source tells you. Additionally, does that source benefit from the information? (For example, a bodybuilding magazine urging the use of a supplement).

But, I understand your frustrations.

tgzerozone

On that note, just had my first meal of the day before working out in 2 hours. Man was that nice. 800 calories of goodness!

Sidesteal

Intensity of workout, and energy levels as far as I am concerned (and i am no scientist), cannot be accurately measured or defined for all..........And that is where you have to listen to your body, and to those around you, that are doing what you are doing.

I agree with everything above, but I also think that the science behind it is important so that we can separate necessity from personal preference. This matters a great deal, IMO.

AeolianHarp

What I hate about this topic with us consumers caught in the middle is, nobody smarter than us can agree. I'm beginning to wonder if it's impossible to conduct meaningful research that proves either side.

Sidesteal's post regarding Alan Aragon assertions is a great read and appears VERY reputable. However others such as those in this article http://www.muscleandfitness.com/nutrition/and-after refute everything Alan Aragon claims regarding research.

Funny thing is the M&F article above is written by two PhDs (Sidesteal, Acg, and I already had a conversation about this in another thread) claims research proves the need for protein timing and Alan Aragon (also with good credentials) claims research proves there is no need for protein timing.

Yes, we consumers are caught in the middle....

Is it ALL broscience??

Antonio, do you see who one of the PhDs are? Stoppani? It might not ring a bell for you but he is quite popular for another study: The Scivation Xtend study, which actually never got published. He helped produce that and, as a result, he most likely has an agenda. You have to be wary of things like that. Lyle and Alan are two very scientific-orientated individuals. No one is saying that workout nutrition is completely obsolete but rather the level of immediacy and intricacy some people ascribe to is quite pointless.

This is my take on it: get in a decent pre-workout meal and, if it doesn't trouble you too much, have a whey shake post-workout. Simple. You don't need dextrose, malto-dextrin, glucose, or anything like that. Just whey and whatever else you want. If it makes your life too difficult, you can hold off on the shake an hour or two after working out. Or, if you want, you can have a meal. I prefer eating meals and I take my shake when I'm under my protein macronutrient.

tgzerozone

Antonio, do you see who one of the PhDs are? Stoppani? It might not ring a bell for you but he is quite popular for another study: The Scivation Xtend study, which actually never got published. He helped produce that and, as a result, he most likely has an agenda. You have to be wary of things like that. Lyle and Alan are two very scientific-orientated individuals. No one is saying that workout nutrition is completely obsolete but rather the level of immediacy and intricacy some people ascribe to is quite pointless.

This is my take on it: get in a decent pre-workout meal and, if it doesn't trouble you too much, have a whey shake post-workout. Simple. You don't need dextrose, malto-dextrin, glucose, or anything like that. Just whey and whatever else you want. If it makes your life too difficult, you can hold off on the shake an hour or two after working out. Or, if you want, you can have a meal. I prefer eating meals and I take my shake when I'm under my protein macronutrient.

As said I don't know why you would hold off nutrition if you can give your body immediate nutrition and replace what was lost. Doesn't make logical sense to me.

Also don't understand how your body will make optimum use of your whey if it has no fuel to take it where it's needed.

Acg67

Antonio, do you see who one of the PhDs are? Stoppani? It might not ring a bell for you but he is quite popular for another study: The Scivation Xtend study, which actually never got published. He helped produce that and, as a result, he most likely has an agenda. You have to be wary of things like that. Lyle and Alan are two very scientific-orientated individuals. No one is saying that workout nutrition is completely obsolete but rather the level of immediacy and intricacy some people ascribe to is quite pointless.

This is my take on it: get in a decent pre-workout meal and, if it doesn't trouble you too much, have a whey shake post-workout. Simple. You don't need dextrose, malto-dextrin, glucose, or anything like that. Just whey and whatever else you want. If it makes your life too difficult, you can hold off on the shake an hour or two after working out. Or, if you want, you can have a meal. I prefer eating meals and I take my shake when I'm under my protein macronutrient.

As said I don't know why you would hold off nutrition if you can give your body immediate nutrition and replace what was lost. Doesn't make logical sense to me.

Also don't understand how your body will make optimum use of your whey if it has no fuel to take it where it's needed.

Read the studies I posted

tgzerozone

Antonio, do you see who one of the PhDs are? Stoppani? It might not ring a bell for you but he is quite popular for another study: The Scivation Xtend study, which actually never got published. He helped produce that and, as a result, he most likely has an agenda. You have to be wary of things like that. Lyle and Alan are two very scientific-orientated individuals. No one is saying that workout nutrition is completely obsolete but rather the level of immediacy and intricacy some people ascribe to is quite pointless.

This is my take on it: get in a decent pre-workout meal and, if it doesn't trouble you too much, have a whey shake post-workout. Simple. You don't need dextrose, malto-dextrin, glucose, or anything like that. Just whey and whatever else you want. If it makes your life too difficult, you can hold off on the shake an hour or two after working out. Or, if you want, you can have a meal. I prefer eating meals and I take my shake when I'm under my protein macronutrient.

As said I don't know why you would hold off nutrition if you can give your body immediate nutrition and replace what was lost. Doesn't make logical sense to me.

Also don't understand how your body will make optimum use of your whey if it has no fuel to take it where it's needed.

Read the studies I posted

Will do.

tgzerozone

On a non-related note. Can anyone see my diary. I opened it but a mate complains he can't see it.