MEMBER LOGIN

Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Just joined M&S
    • Join Date
      Nov 2012
    • Posts
      16
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Cut Fat
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      NorthWest
    • Reputation
      10
    • Rep Power
      0

    Default High Glycemic Carbs Pre Workout When Doing Recomp?

    I'm mid 40's doing recomposition instead of a long bulk phase. I do an intense full body resistance training sessions once a week (takes that long for my leg and back muscles to fully recover at this age) followed by just an arms/shoulders/chest session 2 days later then 1-2 days after that I do some HIIT cardio. So it looks like this:

    Day 1: Full Body, hit each muscle group 3 times to failure - workout session ~ 30-40 minutes, eat 15% calorie surplus aim for approx minimum 0.8g protein per lbs lean mass - balance macro like 40% protein, 35% carbs, 25% fat
    Day 2: Rest, 15% calorie surplus
    Day 3: Upper body except back - eat 15% calorie suprlus for 24 hours post
    Day 4: Rest, eat break-even calories
    Day 5: HIIT Cardio, 15% calorie deficit, moderate low-carb (100g or less)
    Day 6: Rest, 15% calorie deficit, moderate low-carb (100g or less)
    Day 7: Rest, 15% calorie deficit, moderate low-carb (100g or less)

    So as you can see, in my last three days I'm doing semi-low carb with a calorie deficit. What I've found it that by day 7 I'm a bit lethargic due to the calorie deficit and low carbs. Most texts recommend doing no carbs pre workout but that's if the objective of the workout is fat burn. Ones that do recommend low-medium glycemic carbs before weight training.

    If I've been in a calorie deficit 3 days in a row prior to my most intensive resistance training session, it would seem to me, about 30-60 minutes prior to workout I should ingest some high-glycemic carbs along with my pre-workout drink with 200g caffeine to get my mood (serotonin) and focus up and give me an energy boost. It seems the recommendation of steering away from high-glycemic carbs pre-workout mostly stems from assuming the workout will be longer, more in the 1-2 hours range instead of my 30-40 minute rage. Glycogen isn't a consideration for that short of a workout, but mood/general energy is. It seems the better you feel during your lifting the better you can perform. If a bagel prior to workout makes me feel better and more energetic after being semi-low carb for the past 3 days wouldn't that be a wise choice in my situation? Plus, my insulin will already be elevated during and immediately after the workout - but I will need to eat more carbs post, to keep it that way.

    Probably splitting hairs here but interested in others take on this.

  2. #2
    Time To Rebound! LayzieBone085's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Dec 2010
    • Posts
      26,858
    • Years Exp
      3-4 Years
    • Goal
      Build Muscle
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Erie, Pennsylvania
    • Reputation
      1,875,321,636
    • Rep Power
      18,753,359

    Default

    They are not necessary for almost all individuals unless you are training to be an endurnace athlete or training in a 24+ Hour fasted state:

    Post a few studies:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15277409
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17617942



    For most of us who train with an intra-workout BCAA or pre-workout meal there is stil food overlap as i touched in the other thread, do we need to spike insulin? absolutely not, food is still digesting, aminos are still present, so do we really need simple carbs post-workout not really..

    Could they be optimal .. sure why not? but remember the total calories/macros if meeting your protein/fat/fiber minimums on a daily basis are optimal for your goal.


    more:

    he 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

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289204

    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.




    More:

    "ou do not need to neccessarily "spike" insulin for creatine to be maximally absorbed, but yes insulin is involved with the trasnsport.

    FYI: The insulin and creatine studies I have seen up to this point have involved taking the glucose 30 minutes after the creatine. This may be because the insulin release from the dextrose doesn't entirely coincident with the pharmacokinetics of the creatine absorption.

    Personally I think more consistent waves of insulin may be more anabolic than "spikes" anyway. This is because smoother waves of insulin more than likely affect ATP production more beneficially than "spikes" probably do. ATP is what rebuilds muscles and you want the most efficiency you can get here. I'm saying this because there is a delicate balance here between oxidative phosphorylation and lipogenesis (stimulated by acetyl COA carboxylase from HCO3-) in the mitochondrial in the presence of insulin. This "balance" I am talking about here is different for everyone though. Some people "shunt" over to lipgenesis so much sooner than other people. This has to do with other "global" processes happening in the body."

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319


    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 & insulinlevels 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
    Team ScoobyPrep

  3. #3
    Time To Rebound! LayzieBone085's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Dec 2010
    • Posts
      26,858
    • Years Exp
      3-4 Years
    • Goal
      Build Muscle
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Erie, Pennsylvania
    • Reputation
      1,875,321,636
    • Rep Power
      18,753,359

    Default

    Digestion of meal depends on how much you eat, that varies.. which applies to this article:

    A longstanding belief in fitness circles is that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal, and the excess is either oxidized or excreted. The ballpark range thrown around is 20-30 grams, with 30 grams being perhaps the most common figure.
    This guideline has led many trainees to go through the pains of consuming multiple doses of protein throughout the day, banking that it will maximize muscle anabolism or muscle retention.
    Well, true or not, this concept fits in nicely with another longstanding fitness “rule” that you have to eat at least six times per day in order to keep the body’s metabolism revving high. Since the meal frequency and metabolism dogma has been thoroughly debunked [1-5], it’s time to dig into the topic of whether there’s a limit to effective protein dosing, and if so, what that limit might be.
    Looking at simple logic first
    Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.

    If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.

    The body will take all the sweet time it needs to effectively digest and absorb just about whatever dose you give it. Person A will have shorter digestion periods per meal in order to effectively absorb and utilize the small meals. Person B will have a longer digestion period in order to effectively absorb and utilize the large meal. While the truth in this logic seems self-evident, the important question is whether or not it’s supported by scientific research. Let’s look at the evidence, starting with immediate-effect (acute) studies, then move on to the longer-term trials.
    Research examining speed of absorption
    A thorough literature review by Bilsborough and Mann compiled data from studies by various investigators who measured the absorption rates of various protein sources [6]. Oddly, an amino acid mixture designed to mimic the composition of pork tenderloin made the top spot, at 10 g/hour, while whey took a close second at 8-10 g/hour. Other proteins fell in their respective spots below the top two, with little rhyme or reason behind the outcomes. As a matter of trivia, raw egg protein was the most slowly absorbed of them all at 1.3 g/hour.
    It’s important to note that these data have some serious limitations. A major one is the variance of the methods used to determine the absorption rates (i.e., intravenous infusion, oral ingestion, ileal ingestion). Most of the methods are just too crude or far-fetched for serious consideration. Another limitation is that these figures could be skewed depending upon their concentration in solution, which can affect their rate of gastric evacuation. Another factor to consider is the timing of ingestion relative to exercise and how that might differentially affect absorption rates. Finally, short-term data leaves a lot open to question.
    Short-term research supporting the magic limit
    I’ve heard many folks parrot that the maximal anabolic effect of a single protein dose is limited to 20 grams, citing recent work by Moore and colleagues [7]. In this study’s 4-hour post-exercise test period, 40 g protein did not elicit a greater anabolic response than 20 g. I’d interpret these outcomes with caution. Fundamentally speaking, protein utilization can differ according to muscle mass. The requirements of a 140-lb person will differ markedly from someone who’s a lean 200. Additionally, a relatively low amount of total volume was used (12 sets total). Typical training bouts usually involve more than one muscle group and are commonly at least double that volume, which can potentially increase the demand for nutrient uptake. Finally, the conclusion of the authors is questionable. They state explicitly,
    “…we speculate that no more than 5-6 times daily could one ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein synthesis to be maximally stimulated.”
    So, they’re implying that 100-120 grams of protein per day is maximal for promoting muscle growth. Wait a minute, what? Based on both the bulk of the research evidence and numerous field observations, this is simply false [8,9].

    In another recent study, Symons and colleagues compared the 5-hour response of a moderate serving of lean beef containing 30 g protein with a large serving containing 90 g protein [10]. The smaller serving increased protein synthesis by approximately 50%, and the larger serving caused no further increase in protein synthesis, despite being triple the dose. The researchers concluded that the ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. While their conclusion indeed supports the outcomes of their short-term study, it’s pretty easy to predict the outcomes in muscle size and strength if we compared a total daily protein dose of 90 g with 30 g over a longer trial period, let alone one involving a structured exercise protocol. This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. It’s not completely meaningless, but it’s far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects.
    Longer-term research challenging the magic limit
    If we were to believe the premise that a 20-30 g dose of protein yields a maximal anabolic effect, then it follows that any excess beyond this dose would be wasted. On the contrary, the body is smarter than that. In a 14-day trial, Arnal and colleagues found no difference in fat-free mass or nitrogen retention between consuming 79% of the day’s protein needs (roughly 54 g) in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals [11].
    Notably, this study was done on young female adults whose fat-free mass averaged 40.8 kg (89.8 lb). Considering that most non-sedentary males have considerably more lean mass than the female subjects used in the aforementioned trial, it’s plausible that much more than 54 g protein in a single meal can be efficiently processed for anabolic and/or anti-catabolic purposes. If we extrapolated the protein dose used in this study (79% of 1.67g/kg) to the average adult male, it would be roughly 85-95 g or even more, depending on just how close someone is to the end of the upper limits of muscular size.
    When Arnal and colleagues applied the same protocol to the elderly population, the single-dose treatment actually caused better muscle protein retention than the multiple-dose treatment [12]. This raises the possibility that as we age, larger protein feedings might be necessary to achieve the same effect on protein retention as lesser amounts in our youth.
    IF research nailing the coffin shut?

    Perhaps the strongest case against the idea of a dosing limit beyond which anabolism or muscle retention can occur is the recent intermittent fasting (IF) research, particularly the trials with a control group on a conventional diet. For example, Soeters and colleagues compared two weeks of IF involving 20-hour fasting cycles with a conventional diet [13]. Despite the IF group’s consumption of an average of 101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between groups.In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.
    Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.

    In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.
    In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day.
    Team ScoobyPrep

  4. #4
    Frequent Poster
    • Join Date
      Dec 2014
    • Posts
      542
    • Years Exp
      3-4 Years
    • Goal
      Build Muscle
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Oklahoma
    • Training Log
    • Reputation
      1,032,112,119
    • Rep Power
      10,321,128

    Default

    Yeah..... that.
    Pick up heavy things.
    Put them down.
    Then pick them up again.

    Do this many times.

  5. #5
    Moderator EKnight's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Feb 2008
    • Posts
      6,405
    • Years Exp
      10-20 Years
    • Goal
      Performance
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Metropolis
    • Reputation
      1,613,671,072
    • Rep Power
      16,136,754

    Default

    I'd revsist that split. Especially at your age, you're just asking for shoulder issues. Horribly imbalanced.
    Donít chase the 1%, there is no magic training routine or diet thatís going to provide any measurable results over the basic principles for getting huge and strong: Train heavy, eat and sleep more.

  6. #6
    Just joined M&S
    • Join Date
      Nov 2012
    • Posts
      16
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Cut Fat
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      NorthWest
    • Reputation
      10
    • Rep Power
      0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EKnight View Post
    I'd revsist that split. Especially at your age, you're just asking for shoulder issues. Horribly imbalanced.
    What would be your more specific recommendation? When I said hit each muscle group 3 times I didn't me 3 sets of a multitude of narrowly isolated resistance exercises - I meant hit the muscle groups 3 times by virtue of overlap of more compound exercises. Studies have shown that number of sets in resistance training is a poster child for the law of diminishing returns - but then we must also acknowledge reasons for spending long periods in the gym can include psychological benefits and not just physical.

    I subscribe to a lot of the science taught in the book "Body By Science" although I don't use the "Super Slow" protocol as varous studies have shown it has and doesn't have benefit over reps with a quicker more traditional cadence. My cadene is in the middle of 'typical' and Super Slow as to lessen the effect of momentum and thereby reduce the risk of injury (which is really the main benefit of Super Slow IMHO.) Reps are really an inaccurate method of measuring your strength gains from session to session anyway as your cadence isn't always going to be exactly the same. Using a stopwatch to measure time under tension is more useful but I'm getting off onto another subject.

    I find it really is interesting how much mis-information can be taken for granted especially in the exercise science area. The idea that you must eat fast acting carbs after a workout is just one of many.

    I think one main point though that no one made (or agreed with me on) was that it's preferred to go into a resistance workout in a non-fasted state if the goal is to grow as opposed to lose fat. It just seems like common sense that if you worked out in the afternoon, not eating anything all day leading up to that is going to hurt your energy level during the workout.

    What is even more baffling to me is how small the percentage of people at he gym are really pushing themselves - whether cardio or resistance. Granted there's always the saying "everybody is different" but if you want up to the average person and asked, why are you here, most are either going to say to lose weight, get in better shape (which is usually another way of saying lose weight for most people) or build muscle. The second question would be, then why are you doing it so inefficiently? Some will have physical issues (injuries) but what I think it boils down to though is people don't like discomfort. Doing intervals for 15 minutes instead of walking on a treadmill for an hour is brief periods of extreme discomfort. Going to true failure on the resistance machines isn't pleasurable either, to put it sarcastically. But 90% of everyone there is giving a 60% effort. It just baffles me sometimes. Maybe it's because I hate spending time in a gym versus playing a sport, etc.

    BTW I link cbroadd's response best.
    Last edited by Jazee; 03-10-2016 at 04:19 PM.

  7. #7
    Moderator EKnight's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Feb 2008
    • Posts
      6,405
    • Years Exp
      10-20 Years
    • Goal
      Performance
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Metropolis
    • Reputation
      1,613,671,072
    • Rep Power
      16,136,754

    Default

    In general you should be shooting for a 2:1 pull to push ratio on your upper body. So for every 50 reps on the bench press or overhead press or some variation, you should be doing 100 reps of some kind of row, chin, shoulder extension, etc. Most people don't set up their programs correctly in that manner if they are working their backs as often as their chests. You're consciously making an effort to train your pushers a second day without your pullers at all. Bad move.
    Donít chase the 1%, there is no magic training routine or diet thatís going to provide any measurable results over the basic principles for getting huge and strong: Train heavy, eat and sleep more.

  8. #8
    Just joined M&S
    • Join Date
      Nov 2012
    • Posts
      16
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Cut Fat
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      NorthWest
    • Reputation
      10
    • Rep Power
      0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EKnight View Post
    In general you should be shooting for a 2:1 pull to push ratio on your upper body. So for every 50 reps on the bench press or overhead press or some variation, you should be doing 100 reps of some kind of row, chin, shoulder extension, etc. Most people don't set up their programs correctly in that manner if they are working their backs as often as their chests. You're consciously making an effort to train your pushers a second day without your pullers at all. Bad move.
    Interesting point. I was under the impression that the larger muscle groups (thighs, glutes, back) take longer to recover than biceps, triceps, etc though. But I'm neither do this for competition purposes nor am I any kind of expert - just like to read a lot. But obviously balance is balance whether you compete or not.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. high gi carbs
    By 0scar in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-04-2015, 01:19 PM
  2. high GI carbs!
    By ez91 in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-04-2013, 07:18 PM
  3. High glycemic carbs and testosterone production
    By TASan in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-04-2012, 09:26 PM
  4. question about fructose and high glycemic carbs
    By volubilis22 in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 09:37 PM
  5. Banana..High Glycemic???
    By jdwyz in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 06:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •