from the diet and nutrition FAQ, blade's fifth post down, titled "gaining muscle mass"
huh? what's the deal with that? who's right, then?
[b said:
huh? what's the deal with that? who's right, then?
FAQ re: post-WO
- Thread starter tai4ji2x
- Start date
Keebler Elf
New Member
Ya, I was thinking the same. That look like Bryan's style of writing but I cant remember ever seeing the original post.
If it is true it will fit well into my new diet.
If it is true it will fit well into my new diet.
Keebler Elf
New Member
Wouldn't the protein only meal be converted to glucose?
The first goal of the body after a workout is to restore glucose to cns and glycogen to muscles before bothering too much with synthesis, yes?
Firstly, let me clarify my previous post. Knowing Blade's cut-and-paste history, those words were unlikely to be his. And Bryan would probably know better than writing something like that, so I wasn't suggesting either of them were at fault. I just had no time to go into details yesterday.
This struck me as very odd, because the enterocytes are the site of polypeptide hydrolysis and amino acid absorption. If you look at the physiology of the enterocyte, the apical side of the surface of these cells contains the microvilli. The tips of the microvilli contain the many different transmembrane proteins that transporter the amino acids into the blood stream. Only now, having been absorbed into the bloodstream, can the amino acids be taken up by the skeletal muscle cells, most likely though the liver.
First of all, how would the absence of carbs or insulin allow the amino acids to skirt (1) the enterycotes (2) the liver.
(1) is highly unlikely.
(2) is even less likely because hepatic glycogen stores are somewhat lowered, so it would make sense to oxidize a greater portion of the protein (also keep in mind the presence of catecholamines, glucagon, cortisol, etc -- all acting to mobilize extra-hepatic stores to refill liver glycogen!
.
Moreover, the insulin spike created by the glucose is very anti-catabolic, and has a favorable permissive effect on protein synthesis.
Gene
[b said:
This struck me as very odd, because the enterocytes are the site of polypeptide hydrolysis and amino acid absorption. If you look at the physiology of the enterocyte, the apical side of the surface of these cells contains the microvilli. The tips of the microvilli contain the many different transmembrane proteins that transporter the amino acids into the blood stream. Only now, having been absorbed into the bloodstream, can the amino acids be taken up by the skeletal muscle cells, most likely though the liver.
First of all, how would the absence of carbs or insulin allow the amino acids to skirt (1) the enterycotes (2) the liver.
(1) is highly unlikely.
(2) is even less likely because hepatic glycogen stores are somewhat lowered, so it would make sense to oxidize a greater portion of the protein (also keep in mind the presence of catecholamines, glucagon, cortisol, etc -- all acting to mobilize extra-hepatic stores to refill liver glycogen!
.Moreover, the insulin spike created by the glucose is very anti-catabolic, and has a favorable permissive effect on protein synthesis.
Gene
[b said:
Of course I wrote this.
Before you all get your knee wraps in a knot, I'll explain. The macronutrient composition of a protein meal effects where that protein is ultimately deposited and incorporated into new proteins. This is due mainly to the effects of insulin on amino acid uptake in tissues that will either deaminate and/or retain that protein well before your muscles ever see it. Such tissues include the gastrointestinal tract (stomach, small and large intestines, and the splanchnic bed (liver), then into the periphery which include ALL organs and tissues of the body, not just muscle tissue.It turns out the insulin causes fewer amino acids to make it past these first pass organs/tissues. Why? Because as I said, those tissues will take up a greater percentage of those amino acids and use them for their own purposes or deaminate them.
A model based on the collected tracer data demonstrates the effects of carbs on the partitioning of ingested proteins. (note the difference between fast and slow proteins as well)
Milk protein
Splanchnic proteins 18%
Peripheral proteins 34%
Sucrose and milk protein
Splanchnic proteins 35%
Peripheral proteins 26%
Sucrose and soy protein
Splanchnic proteins 37%
Peripheral proteins 19%
So, this data/research is what my comments were based on. Of course the absolute amount of protein ingested can make these facts less important. You can simply overwhelm the system with quantity and get more amino acids out to the muscle tissue. But as far as my earlier comments are concerned, I stand by them as accurate.
Here are a few papers that illustrate these points further.
1: Fouillet H, Mariotti F, Gaudichon C, Bos C, Tome D. Peripheral and splanchnic metabolism of dietary nitrogen are differently affected by the protein source in humans as assessed by compartmental modeling. J Nutr. 2002 Jan;132(1):125-33.
2: Fouillet H, Gaudichon C, Mariotti F, Bos C, Huneau JF, Tome D. Energy nutrients modulate the splanchnic sequestration of dietary nitrogen in humans: a compartmental analysis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Aug;281(2):E248-60.
3: Fouillet H, Gaudichon C, Mariotti F, Mahe S, Lescoat P, Huneau JF, Tome D.
Compartmental modeling of postprandial dietary nitrogen distribution in humans.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2000 Jul;279(1):E161-75.
4: Gaudichon C, Mahe S, Benamouzig R, Luengo C, Fouillet H, Dare S, Van Oycke
M, Ferriere F, Rautureau J, Tome D. Net postprandial utilization of [15N]-labeled milk protein nitrogen is influenced by diet composition in humans. J Nutr. 1999 Apr;129(4):890-5.
5: Fouillet H, Bos C, Gaudichon C, Tome D. Approaches to quantifying protein metabolism in response to nutrient ingestion. J Nutr. 2002 Oct;132(10):3208S-18S.
6: Fouillet H, Bos C, Gaudichon C, Tome D. Approaches to quantifying protein metabolism in response to nutrient ingestion. J Nutr. 2002 Oct;132(10):3208S-18S.
If you read the title of the forum, it clearly says: "FAQ - Bryan Haycock's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions"[b said:
As stated previously, there are a few posts or comments by me or Lyle McDonald - and I didn't bother to add quotation marks at the time as the workload was pretty monstrous at the time. I will, though - since it seems that people for some reason need to know exactly who the source of every single statement is.
btw - you're not so bad at cutting & pasting yourself, Gene
Now you all got your explanation, so everything should be ok I hope...
Take protien aroudn the workout. Take carbs too, hell even a little fat wont make much of a difference overall. If you want to get right down to the infintismally small gains, you can try to perfect your pre/post workout nutrition, but for most of us, it wont add up to much.
That one was so good it deserved a second mention![b said:Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Feb. 04 2003,12:50)]Nice when you can bulk up your post by referencing the same thing twice[b said:
It depends on your goals really. If you are trying to get big at all costs, you want plenty of carbs in both your pre- and post-workout drink.[b said:Quote[/b] (tai4ji2x @ Feb. 04 2003,1:17)]ok then, so it is bryan's writing.what is the final recommendation though? the main HSN articles on pre-/post-WO nutrition still say to have carbs AND protein.
If you are trying to grow, while leaning out, you will want no carbs in your pre-workout drink, and delayed carbs about 30 minutes after your post workout protein drink.
If you are trying to get lean and keep as much muscle as possible, use only protein pre- and post-workout, then have carbs with your first whole food meal following your workout.
These are just guidelines. There is nothing special about them. You can still get lean with carbs in your pre-and post-workout drink. You can still get big without carbs in your pre- and post-workout drink. Overall calories is still the most important factor and shouldn't be forgotten while nit-picking over subtle physiological mechanisms, etc.
Bryan--
First and foremost, you didn't address the issue of circumventing the enterocyte, which is where I took issue most. I am aware of six amino acid transporters -- for dipeptides, tripeptides, and acidic, basic, neutral and hydrophobic aminos -- all residing on the microvilli tips, on the enterocyte! Are you instead suggesting that you have discovered an alternative means of amino acid absorption? Also, you have not made clear your assertion that insulin has anything to do with amino acids before they enter the bloodstream.
Now, onto the crust of this quandary. It has not yet been established that either hyperinsulinemia or carbohydrates themselves will impair protein utilization towards the skeletal muscle. Conversely, the propicious effects of both have been elucidated -- suppressive effect on glucagon and cortisol, favorable permissive effect on protein synthesis, maximal muscle glycogen resynthesis rates, and a superior anabolic hormone profile compared with protein intake alone, just to name a few.
For practical reasons, I find it hard to ignore this mounting evidence in support of concomitant high carb intake immediately post-workout. The recent issue of the Journal of Nutrition had a study examining protein synthesis rates as a function of blood amino acid concentration. They found that there exists a maximal rate, beyond which further increase in skeletal muscle synthesis is not possible with increase amino acid availability. The goal is to maximize this rate. As long as that condition is met, what happens to the remainder of the aminos is beyond our concern.
Amino acid availability is the driving force for protein synthesis, until the maximum rate is reached. As such, the addition of an extra few grams of protein to the protein-carb mix would easily out-weight the infinitesimal amount of amino acids sacrificed to splanchnic retention. In turn, the benefits of the carbs are overwhelming, and the protein-only mix would pale in comparison.
Finally, bear in mind that the Ferriere et al study did not test subjects in the critical, highly catabolic post-workout period, during which the glucose-induced hyperinsulinemia profoundly manifests it's important effects. From the looks of it, neither did the others.
Gene
First and foremost, you didn't address the issue of circumventing the enterocyte, which is where I took issue most. I am aware of six amino acid transporters -- for dipeptides, tripeptides, and acidic, basic, neutral and hydrophobic aminos -- all residing on the microvilli tips, on the enterocyte! Are you instead suggesting that you have discovered an alternative means of amino acid absorption? Also, you have not made clear your assertion that insulin has anything to do with amino acids before they enter the bloodstream.
Now, onto the crust of this quandary. It has not yet been established that either hyperinsulinemia or carbohydrates themselves will impair protein utilization towards the skeletal muscle. Conversely, the propicious effects of both have been elucidated -- suppressive effect on glucagon and cortisol, favorable permissive effect on protein synthesis, maximal muscle glycogen resynthesis rates, and a superior anabolic hormone profile compared with protein intake alone, just to name a few.
For practical reasons, I find it hard to ignore this mounting evidence in support of concomitant high carb intake immediately post-workout. The recent issue of the Journal of Nutrition had a study examining protein synthesis rates as a function of blood amino acid concentration. They found that there exists a maximal rate, beyond which further increase in skeletal muscle synthesis is not possible with increase amino acid availability. The goal is to maximize this rate. As long as that condition is met, what happens to the remainder of the aminos is beyond our concern.
Amino acid availability is the driving force for protein synthesis, until the maximum rate is reached. As such, the addition of an extra few grams of protein to the protein-carb mix would easily out-weight the infinitesimal amount of amino acids sacrificed to splanchnic retention. In turn, the benefits of the carbs are overwhelming, and the protein-only mix would pale in comparison.
Finally, bear in mind that the Ferriere et al study did not test subjects in the critical, highly catabolic post-workout period, during which the glucose-induced hyperinsulinemia profoundly manifests it's important effects. From the looks of it, neither did the others.
Gene
He was saying, with the inclusion of carbohydrates there an increased uptake of aminos into the enterocyte and hepatocytes that doesnt happen with protein alone. He didnt seem to write that very well in his origonal passage.[b said:
and remember what he stated in the last part of his reply
[b said:
Gene made some points that were obvious in bryans reply,well to me anyway (and to quote lyles ghost - Bryan has a tendency to overcomplicate stuff
)
The increased uptake of aminos by other cells could easily be overcome by a larger intake of protein.
The addition of carbs like Bryan mentioned here -
Protein with no carbs could potentially make a slight differnce in the amount of fat burnt. In reality, it wouldnt probably make one lick of difference in the real world as overall calories make or break fat loss. But the addition of carbs to a drink would do wonders for glycogen resynthesis.
The increased uptake of aminos by other cells could easily be overcome by a larger intake of protein.
The addition of carbs like Bryan mentioned here -
Which is true, hyperinsulineamia is excellent for protien synthesis.[b said:
Protein with no carbs could potentially make a slight differnce in the amount of fat burnt. In reality, it wouldnt probably make one lick of difference in the real world as overall calories make or break fat loss. But the addition of carbs to a drink would do wonders for glycogen resynthesis.
[b said:
For those still following this thread. Quoting from textbooks does nothing to help the majority of people here. Nor does your comments about amino acid transport systems in the brush border membrane (there are at least 8 with others still unidentified) have anything to do with the original question about my comments, nor to my comments explaining my original comments. (are you still following me?
And no one accept you said anything about circumventing enterocytes. You didn’t read the studies I suggested, otherwise you would know exactly what I meant by my comments.
[b said:
Ok, I have to think you are just pulling an Allman on me here.
[b said:
I don't recall saying anything AT ALL about insulin having any effect whatsoever on amino acids or any other foods stuffs before they are actually absorbed into the blood. For you to insinuate this tells me you are just looking for a sparing match, and aren't really interested in helping other people on the board.
[b said:
Once again, I’m not sure what post you are trying to post in (it could be that glitch effecting the HST forum) but I don’t believe anybody said anything about insulin impairing protein utilization in skeletal muscle.
The propitious, or rather, beneficial effects of adding carbs to your protein is well understood by anybody who has an interest enough in lifting to have made there way to this board. So what’s “your” point? (don’t answer, it was rhetorical)
Once again you insinuate that I was saying something to the contrary. I'm afraid I must have missed it because I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Once again, I'm starting to feel that perhaps you are Allman incognito (with an old textbook. Although Allman wasn’t really into physiology, but he did like to use his thesaurus and changed the subject a lot).
[b said:
Well, I can think of one good reason against “high carb intake”. A guy might not want to get fat. I see guys “eating big to get big” with a thousand calories over what they need, 500-600 grams of carbs per day, and still and chocking down 75grams of sugar in their protein because they think they have to replace all that glycogen they just burned training HIT on bench and sitting around gabbing to their buddies while eyeballing themselves in the mirror. Not only that but they are often training each muscle group once a week, perhaps because their glycogen stores are frightfully low! Why is everyone so afraid of not going into hyperglycemic shock after their workout?
If I’m beginning to sound unreasonable that’s because I think this thread has gotten unreasonable, and lost its usefulness.
[b said:
Now that is a useful comment. And I’m with you all the way, we need to try to get as much uptake of amino acids into the tissue as possible. See Gene, we totally agree!
This whole thread must have been some brobdingnagian misunderstanding. [b said:
There is good reason to believe that you didn’t even read the studies I suggested. Nor did you understand my explanation of my original remarks. Therefore, you have no idea why I would even recommend them. They mean absolutely nothing to you.
Gene, if you want to take these remarks as tongue in cheek, please do.
I do not see the confusion. My concern was very simple -- how is it possible for amino acid absorption to take place by skirting the cells within which that happens.[b said:
[b said:
This was the original quote, for which you took credit:
"Take your protein without (or with less) carbs immediately after you workout. This will allow more amino acids to skirt past your enterocytes and liver and make it into the blood stream where they are taken up by skeletal muscle."
[b said:
By suggesting that this would happen when taking protein without carbs, you implied that insulin plays a role in amino acid absorption.
I'm not interested in pointless sparring. But if there is a good reason to suggest that the protein alone is preferable, I would not mind trying to get to the bottom of it. You don't think that is helpful to the members of this forum?
The point was that extra protein would compensate. You pointed this out as well, showing that these numbers become insignificant when overwhelmed.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Now that is a useful comment. And I’m with you all the way, we need to try to get as much uptake of amino acids into the tissue as possible. See Gene, we totally agree!
With all due respect, that is not a valid reason. During the post-workout period there will be less glucose directed towards fat storage than at any other time of day. Unless you are zero-carb, there is absolutely no reason to believe that you would get fat from post-workout glucose, as opposed to not getting fat from carbs at other meals. I'm quite sure that's not what you meant though.[b said:
You're mistaken. I checked all of the relevant full-texts and verified your remarks, they were consistent with what was written in the studies. I can't figure out where it was evident that I had ignored these studies. I acknowledged the fact that postprandially the amino acids would show preference to the splanchnic bed. My only concern was this was not the catabolic post-workout period. If that does not matter (and it may not), then accept my apologies on this.[b said:
Yes, I'm sure of it, Gulliver.[b said:
Great. Everything is great.[b said:
But if not too much trouble, please comment on the enterocyte, specifically where I took issue. I would not mind learning a thing or two about how to skirt it.
What do you think we do on other forums. Discuss science for entertainment?[b said:
I would not bother with this if it didn't pertain directly to my practical application of this information.
If a very knowledgeable person in this field (e.g., you) asserts something with which I disagree, I would love nothing more than to question that person to find out that my own praxis is in need of refinement.
Gene
I think the problem, Gene, lies in the fact that you seem to be on some personal crusade to prove just about anything stated by Bryan Haycock and Lyle McDonald to be utter nonsense. It doesn't resemble scientific discussion after a while, but more trolling behaviour - where you can comfortably backpeddle, go around in circular arguments, make stuff up on the fly, or even post studies where someone bothering to read them finds that they in fact prove the exact opposite of your assertion ( ). I have no doubts that you are highly intelligent, but this behaviour is beginning to be more of an annoyance than a real help to people - and I'm not only referring to your posts here, but what I have witnessed on other forums as well. You frequently support certain methods and concepts, only to do a complete 180 and wave your fist in uproar at the stupidity of the exact same methods in the context of HST or articles by Bryan or Lyle.
Naw, Allman = Vince, who is a 50 something Mentzer/Jones fan from Australia, and thinks he has given the world a new set of commandments in the form of DOMS. He has been the object of ridicule on several forums across the Internet where he has stated his theories, but nonetheless appears every couple of months or so with the exact same theories and statements in new threads - generating hundreds of replies and views every single time.
Gene is a 22 year old dictionary addict from Brooklyn, NY who speaks of himself as an "enigma wrapped in a riddle drizzled with delicious bullshit" and a tell-tale signature which states "If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to "normalize" formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality."
Well, good luck with that, then....
). I have no doubts that you are highly intelligent, but this behaviour is beginning to be more of an annoyance than a real help to people - and I'm not only referring to your posts here, but what I have witnessed on other forums as well. You frequently support certain methods and concepts, only to do a complete 180 and wave your fist in uproar at the stupidity of the exact same methods in the context of HST or articles by Bryan or Lyle.[b said:
Naw, Allman = Vince, who is a 50 something Mentzer/Jones fan from Australia, and thinks he has given the world a new set of commandments in the form of DOMS. He has been the object of ridicule on several forums across the Internet where he has stated his theories, but nonetheless appears every couple of months or so with the exact same theories and statements in new threads - generating hundreds of replies and views every single time.
Gene is a 22 year old dictionary addict from Brooklyn, NY who speaks of himself as an "enigma wrapped in a riddle drizzled with delicious bullshit" and a tell-tale signature which states "If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to "normalize" formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality."
Well, good luck with that, then....
Oh, and the original comment implied that, with the inclusion of carbohydrates there is an increased absorption of amino acids into the enterocyte and hepatocytes - not that they circumvented said enterocytes. Although not as easy to understand at first glance, one would expect the clarifying comments and your claims of knowledge and having read the studies would enable you to understand.