Muscle Glycogen and Growth

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by Martin Levac, Feb 4, 2008.

  1. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

  2. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    My thoughts on science - if you are going to talk science, then back yourself up with multiple studies. Dr. Devany provided none in that article to support his statements. The study that you provided is significant as the p values are less than 1% in most of the comparisons, but the sample size is small at n = 7.
     
  3. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    That's what I think too. What with the amount of studies that make no sense, it's best to rely on multiple. Nevertheless, it makes me think there's something to it.
     
  4. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Devany needs a slap in the face.
     
  5. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    Hmmmmmmm

    I've read that study before and I must admit I'm at a loss as to what Devany is saying.
     
  6. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    I'm at a loss too. Until I understood the context in which he spoke. I think he means the anabolic response to muscle glycogen depletion is transient. It's a signal to return to normal function, to go back to same old same old. It's not a permanent signal where as long as we keep glycogen absent from our muscle we keep growing. That would be somewhat incongruous.
     
  7. Bryan Haycock

    Bryan Haycock Administrator Staff Member

    I'm not so sure his problem was one of lacking references so much as misinterpreting the research.

    It is my understanding that a low energy state within the cell (i.e. low glycogen and/or high metabolic demand) increases AMPK activity which has a negative effect on Akt>mTOR>etc. The end result would be a decrease in protein synthesis and overall cellular hypertrophy.

    The effects of putting metabolic pressure on a muscle cell to switch from glycogen to fat for fuel also alters signaling pathways which can reduce hypertrophy signaling pathway activity.

    This is the underlying reason why building muscle while dieting (cutting carbs) is so difficult.

    -bryan
     
  8. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    Do you consider total energy or only glycogen energy?

    -edit- No wait, my question makes no sense. -edit-
     
  9. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (Bryan Haycock @ Feb. 06 2008,17:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not so sure his problem was one of lacking references so much as misinterpreting the research.

    It is my understanding that a low energy state within the cell (i.e. low glycogen and/or high metabolic demand) increases AMPK activity which has a negative effect on Akt&gt;mTOR&gt;etc. The end result would be a decrease in protein synthesis and overall cellular hypertrophy.

    The effects of putting metabolic pressure on a muscle cell to switch from glycogen to fat for fuel also alters signaling pathways which can reduce hypertrophy signaling pathway activity.

    This is the underlying reason why building muscle while dieting (cutting carbs) is so difficult.

    -bryan</div>
    OK. A genuine question this time.

    When you say dieting, what do you mean exactly? You say cutting carbs but do you also imply a caloric deficit? Or low fat too? How about the scenario below, would that constitute dieting?

    zero carbs / high fat / reg protein / caloric surplus
     
  10. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    I also think DeVany missed the point as well. This study really tells us that the fuel sensing system not only acts on conserving energy for ATP homeostasis but also it's affect on trophic signalling pathways. In this case the low glycogen content of the muscle cells invoked an increase in atrogenic genes and as Bryan states I would assume this is directly related to AMPK, (see the recent work by Nakashima, 2007). But and I feel more important is how training reversed this and that reversal was independant on glycogen levels, making DeVany's assertion incorrect.
     
  11. Bryan Haycock

    Bryan Haycock Administrator Staff Member

    <div>
    (Martin Levac @ Feb. 07 2008,05:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (Bryan Haycock @ Feb. 06 2008,17:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not so sure his problem was one of lacking references so much as misinterpreting the research.

    It is my understanding that a low energy state within the cell (i.e. low glycogen and/or high metabolic demand) increases AMPK activity which has a negative effect on Akt&gt;mTOR&gt;etc. The end result would be a decrease in protein synthesis and overall cellular hypertrophy.

    The effects of putting metabolic pressure on a muscle cell to switch from glycogen to fat for fuel also alters signaling pathways which can reduce hypertrophy signaling pathway activity.

    This is the underlying reason why building muscle while dieting (cutting carbs) is so difficult.

    -bryan</div>
    OK. A genuine question this time.

    When you say dieting, what do you mean exactly? You say cutting carbs but do you also imply a caloric deficit? Or low fat too? How about the scenario below, would that constitute dieting?

    zero carbs / high fat / reg protein / caloric surplus</div>
    When you cut carbs (or burn an excess amount) the body responds as if there is a caloric deficit even if total calories are sufficient. Fat does not produce the same hormonal/signaling environment as carbohydrates, and thus is not as helpful for hypertrophy.

    It is my belief that trying to cut body fat and increase muscle mass is a losing proposition. In order to cut body fat significantly you must create a caloric deficit. This inhibits anabolic signaling. So all the hard work pretty much goes towards keeping what you have instead of producing more mass.

    In order to grow you must provide &quot;sufficient&quot; carbohydrates to optimize the environment within your body. A &quot;sufficient&quot; amount will differ from one individual to another.
     
  12. nkl

    nkl Member

    Follow up question. If I eat &quot;sufficient&quot; carbohydrates around workout to reap the beneficial hormonal/signaling enviroment (not only restore glycogen levels in the muscle cells) while going for an above maintenance caloric surplus, and then during the next day eat at caloric deficit, a low carbohydrate, high protein and fat regimen and continues to do so until the next workout (the next day), would the protein synthesis be hampered, while there is still a surplus of glycogen available in the muscle? From what I understand the availability of essential amino acids are what really makes a difference on protein synthesis levels, if ampk is not active (cell energy levels restored). This way, the whole body fat-burning can run its course without sacrificing anabolism in the muscle cells. Muscle glucogen levels should at least be 'normal' 2-3 days. What are your views on this?
     
  13. pete69

    pete69 New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;Preexercise mRNA abundance of atrogenes was also higher in the Norm compared with the Low leg [atrogin: approximately 14-fold&quot;</div>

    I'm a little confused. If atrogenes place the muscle in a catabolic state, and are 14x higher in the higher glycogen state (Norm), compared to low glycogen (Low), isn't this undesirable for muscle growth?

    http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/3/950
    FULL TEXT, (You obviously have this one)
    &quot;Influence of muscle glycogen availability on ERK1/2 and Akt signaling after resistance exercise in human skeletal muscle&quot;

    This showed in a bout of exercise in glycogen depleted muscle, a greater response with regards to ERK1/2 and p90 expression, but higher glycogen was more beneficial for the AKT/mTOR pathway.

    Antecdotally, some gain muscle fine without carbs and others say it's impossible for them. Perhaps it's individual variance? Muscle can be built with carbs OR fat (protein being equal)? Or i'm smoking crack and the claims some make building muscle on keto diets are BS.
     
  14. nkl

    nkl Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Follow up question. If I eat &quot;sufficient&quot; carbohydrates around workout to reap the beneficial hormonal/signaling enviroment (not only restore glycogen levels in the muscle cells) while going for an above maintenance caloric surplus, and then during the next day eat at caloric deficit, a low carbohydrate, high protein and fat regimen and continues to do so until the next workout (the next day), would the protein synthesis be hampered, while there is still a surplus of glycogen available in the muscle? From what I understand the availability of essential amino acids are what really makes a difference on protein synthesis levels, if ampk is not active (cell energy levels restored). This way, the whole body fat-burning can run its course without sacrificing anabolism in the muscle cells. Muscle glucogen levels should at least be 'normal' 2-3 days. What are your views on this?</div>
    For future readers of this forum, I got my question answered in this thread here.
     
  15. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (Bryan Haycock @ Feb. 22 2008,18:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (Martin Levac @ Feb. 07 2008,05:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (Bryan Haycock @ Feb. 06 2008,17:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not so sure his problem was one of lacking references so much as misinterpreting the research.

    It is my understanding that a low energy state within the cell (i.e. low glycogen and/or high metabolic demand) increases AMPK activity which has a negative effect on Akt&gt;mTOR&gt;etc. The end result would be a decrease in protein synthesis and overall cellular hypertrophy.

    The effects of putting metabolic pressure on a muscle cell to switch from glycogen to fat for fuel also alters signaling pathways which can reduce hypertrophy signaling pathway activity.

    This is the underlying reason why building muscle while dieting (cutting carbs) is so difficult.

    -bryan</div>
    OK. A genuine question this time.

    When you say dieting, what do you mean exactly? You say cutting carbs but do you also imply a caloric deficit? Or low fat too? How about the scenario below, would that constitute dieting?

    zero carbs / high fat / reg protein / caloric surplus</div>
    When you cut carbs (or burn an excess amount) the body responds as if there is a caloric deficit even if total calories are sufficient. Fat does not produce the same hormonal/signaling environment as carbohydrates, and thus is not as helpful for hypertrophy.

    It is my belief that trying to cut body fat and increase muscle mass is a losing proposition. In order to cut body fat significantly you must create a caloric deficit. This inhibits anabolic signaling. So all the hard work pretty much goes towards keeping what you have instead of producing more mass.

    In order to grow you must provide &quot;sufficient&quot; carbohydrates to optimize the environment within your body. A &quot;sufficient&quot; amount will differ from one individual to another.</div>
    Is it your belief that we must create a caloric deficit? Or do you have research that either proves or disproves this theory?

    While you and I can read about that hypothesis everywhere, that we must cut calories to cut body fat, it's just that, a hypothesis. It's never been proven. It's been debunked many times though. The name of this hypothesis is the Positive Caloric Balance Hypothesis.

    In short, to grow fat we must eat more or do less. To grow lean we must eat less or do more. That's what you believe, yes? That's what I believed as well. Note the past tense. Now I don't believe anything I read about diet until I see the research behind it. There is literally no research that proves the hypothesis. Not a single paper. It's all been a Big Fat Lie.

    Our current thinking of hypertrophy training is skewed by the abnormal metabolic profile we've been accustomed to because of the high carb diet. I say abnormal because a high carb diet is abnormal to humans. We didn't survive these millenias on sugar and starch. We ate meat. Fat meat.

    The &quot;optimized environment&quot; you speak of is bogus. Consider the following. A child grows because of growth hormone. Carbohydrates inhibit GH and we grow shorter, weaker and fatter than otherwise. Now tell me how eating carbohydrates as an adult changes this mechanism. I'll tell you, it doesn't. The mechanism is the same: We continue to grow shorter, weaker and fatter than otherwise.

    At first, I didn't believe it either that we could cut fat and grow muscle simultaneously. Now, I know better. It's not about caloric quantity, it's about caloric quality. It's not how much. It's what. It's all about the carbs. As we cut carbs, we also cut the ability to store fat in adipose tissue. But there's a whole lot more going on on the muscle tissue side. It becomes more insulin sensitive as a result of the reduction of glucose in the blood and the subsequent reduction of insulin in the blood too. It works this way because of the previous high insulin resistance that occurred because of the high carb diet in the first place. Had we not eaten the carbs, the metabolic environment would be much different to begin with and we'd be looking at it from a very different perspective indeed.

    We would consider a low carb, high fat diet normal. And we would consider a high carb, low fat diet as absurd.

    Consider the amount of protein BB'ers eat to grow. Protein and carbs don't do the same thing when ingested. One shoots blood glucose skyward, the other shoots amino acid skyward. One drive fat into fat cells, the other drive amino acid into muscle cells. They both work with insulin but one works better than the other at pushing amino acids into muscle cells. Extend this logic by taking out carbs altogether and only eating fat and protein. No amount of fat gets pushed into fat cells so we don't grow fat ever.


    Bryan, I think you should doubt and question your belief instead of simply accepting the hypothesis as fact. Doubt is, after all, the fundamental principle of the scientific method.



    Gary Taubes wrote a book, Good Calories Bad Calories. Check it out if you really want to understand how it all works. I'm sure you will find it useful for hypertrophy training.
     
  16. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Wow, Rock the Casbah, Martin!
    I dunno, but that sounded a lot like the arguments for the paleo and the warrior's diets, ending with the failure-prone Atkins. There were many good points on either side, but looking at historic man is of little account IMO, since, as you mentioned, we're in a different metabolic state overall...and we shouldn't forget along the way that eating a diet of today's meats and fats will also have a bugaboo of preservatives, odd chemicals and poisons when taken in gross amounts. I do believe we eat too many carbs as a species nowadays.
    I believe it was around 1975 or so that the &quot;High Fat Diet for Bodybuilders&quot; came out and just as quickly faded out...it was pre Atkins, and I just can't remember why nobody stuck with it, besides being touted in all the BB rags.
    Just something to think about.
     
  17. ZMT

    ZMT New Member

    Martin [​IMG] [​IMG]
    too much to argue with [​IMG]
     
  18. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The &quot;optimized environment&quot; you speak of is bogus. Consider the following. A child grows because of growth hormone. Carbohydrates inhibit GH and we grow shorter, weaker and fatter than otherwise. Now tell me how eating carbohydrates as an adult changes this mechanism. I'll tell you, it doesn't. The mechanism is the same: We continue to grow shorter, weaker and fatter than otherwise.</div>

    Well, that certainly explains why we are all so much shorter, smaller and fatter than our ancestors.

    Oh wait...
     
  19. TunnelRat

    TunnelRat Active Member

    <div>
    (Martin Levac @ Mar. 19 2008,04:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The mechanism is the same: We continue to grow shorter, weaker and fatter than otherwise.</div>
    If I get any shorter, weaker, or fatter, I'll melt away altogether.. [​IMG]
     
  20. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (quadancer @ Mar. 19 2008,08:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Wow, Rock the Casbah, Martin!
    I dunno, but that sounded a lot like the arguments for the paleo and the warrior's diets, ending with the failure-prone Atkins. There were many good points on either side, but looking at historic man is of little account IMO, since, as you mentioned, we're in a different metabolic state overall...and we shouldn't forget along the way that eating a diet of today's meats and fats will also have a bugaboo of preservatives, odd chemicals and poisons when taken in gross amounts. I do believe we eat too many carbs as a species nowadays.
    I believe it was around 1975 or so that the &quot;High Fat Diet for Bodybuilders&quot; came out and just as quickly faded out...it was pre Atkins, and I just can't remember why nobody stuck with it, besides being touted in all the BB rags.
    Just something to think about.</div>
    More like rock the myths.

    Failure-prone Atkins? It's a matter of opinion. While the name is more popular than any other, the Atkins diet is basically the same as paleo and other low carb diets.

    Bryan mentioned the different metabolic state. I just picked up on it. He mentioned it as if the high carb diet was normal. Thus, the arguments following this assumed that the metabolic state resulting from this is also normal. Looking at where we come from is precisely what Bryan et al are doing. They are looking at how our metabolism works. They can't avoid finding out what we evolved into. And by extension, what we evolved from.

    Preservatives in meat? Have you looked at the ingredients list lately? It's quite short for meat. All it says this side of the border is this: Ingredients: Meat. Quite a contrast to what's listed in every processed food on the shelves, don't you think? As for chemicals in meat, I'll take them over whatever chemicals we purposely add to those prepared foods any day of the week. There is one I won't eat, it's carrageenan. It's an additive in cream.

    Further, define &quot;gross amount&quot;. Are we talking about something we can actually eat? Or amounts that surpass our ability to digest? We do have a limit on the amount of fat and protein we can digest. It's not so low but it's there nonetheless. To digest fat, we need bile. To digest protein, we need enzimes. When we're full on fat, we get this gag reflex at the next bite. Eat fat past that and puke. It's that simple to reach the limit on fat intake. As for protein, I'm don't know. You tell me.

    About the pre-Atkins high fat diet for bodybuilders, I don't know about that. But I think it would serve us well to look at where we've been before we draw conclusions on where we are. See the old pictures of lifters. Notice how strong they are compared to how fat they are. Notice most if not all of them were very lean. Only recently did lifters grow fat. Maybe they found an advantage to growing fat? I don't think so. They did find that they were growing fat, that's for sure. I think they justified this by thinking up some bogus advantage to it.

    On another note, in Olympic lifting parlance, do you know what cut week is? And do you know what diet they go with for that? I haven't found a reliable source of information on the subject yet so I can't swear on it.
     

Share This Page