Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by imported_dkm1987, Aug 30, 2004.
Macronutrient considerations for the sport of bodybuilding.
Maybe I will give that 30 minute carb intervals for 4 hrs post WO a try when I begin bulking again. I'll see if it makes any difference.
Looking at that, for me it would be somewhere in the ballpark of 2575 calories in the midst of 4 hrs. That's about my maintenance level of calories, but then again I'm not a professional BB. I just found it curious. I wish I had the full text so I could see what reference studies they utilized.
one day you wont be able to put that bar on your neck back, and nobody will be there to help u... so please be a normal being and just once "U"ask the question and u learn... sometimes it feels relaxing not knowing everything in the dang world
while moderately interesting, they do make a huge assumption in there, I will hunt it off my other computer later.. I think they assume you need 2g/kg carbs more, becuase of eccentric muscle damage. Ya, that makes sense, reduced carb uptake, so you give it more carbs with no research backing thier concept
Research isn't everything, Aaron. Experience and results do play a part. Though, I'm not at all saying they have experience or results on their side. I just don't like when people hold science so highly that they make it supreme. It has its place, but sometimes science won't cover all bases, and things unaccounted for will be influencing results, thus throwing your little studies and research out the windows.
Not meant to be a personal attack or anything. I know it sounded harsh, but it wasn't meant to be. Just me generally addressing my feelings on science and research.
As for the link...I'll have a look later. I've been busy reading Core Performance by Mark Vestergen. You guys may want to pick this up at B&N. I just got it today and I'm enjoying it a lot so far. Some stuff I don't exactly agree with, but all in all, it's pretty sensible and I plan to follow some of the steps involved in it.
Usual comment of somebody without a scientific background (which you have shown before in other threads)
Most things in the western world are science based, as is HST and HSN. Ones interpretation of science is important as the results in the research itself. However the authors in question just pull a figure out of the air, with no backing in any research to support their view.
Doing something becuase it makes sense will bring us all back to trusting weiders for their nutritional supplements, and doing HIT for its advances in training theory
The author's need to do this to sound "cutting edge". Say stuff like out clients did awesome with 2g/kg CHO of something to that effect. It is hard to say train hard and eat right and make it very interesting. BTW, research IS everything. Anecdotal evidence is just that.
I doubt the science used with HST is flawless. Even if it were, the outlined program that follows the supposed principles of hypertrophy isn't all too special, from what I've seen.
A lot of the bigger guys (no juicers or pros, just regular guys who lift and work hard) I've seen got their fine without something similar to HST.
And HST might just you get you there faster, then. Well that would mean it would be allowing people to add muscle mass at the fastest possible rate. And while it works (like ANY training program), I don't see it as really being any better than others.
I've seen HST have end results between 4-8 lbs. LBM gained after an 8 week cycle. That's 0.5-1.0 lbs. per week. I've seen so many others using programs other than HST gaining at that rate, albeit slower or quicker depending on certain variables, which shows me that this frequency thing may just be overrated. Maybe there will be more science in the future to show why the studies behind HST should not be held in such high regard. Science can always be turned around if it's not infallible, and HST certainly is not.
um... okay. What would make the program more "special"?
have you tried it? Garnering your info from a thread of results which mostly can't be validated or otherwise standardized isn't very reliable. And you talk like a pound a week is bad. How long have you been lifting Tom? If I lifted half the year and gained a pound a week, I'd be putting on about 25 pounds a year. Not bad, at least by my standards. How fast exactly do you think muscle should be put on?
It might be frustrating that you can't develop the physique you want in a matter of days or weeks. But that's just reality. And hell, a pound a week is great.
Not really, the mRNA transcription after a workout will last about 36 hours, that isn't going to change in a couple of years. The repeated bout effect won't disappear.
I agree. Their recommendation is for 5-6g/kg. For me that tends to be way too many (500-600g/day). Unless I'm doing a lot of cardio, that many carbs really helps me get fat.
It should not surprise anyone that they tend to over emphasize carbohydrates. Carbs are the old favorite of exercise scientists. They are easy to understand and they are fairly easy to test with.
The authors base their recommendation for high carb intake partly on the fact that weight training uses primarily glycogen for fuel. What a person must keep in mind is that just because you use glycogen for lifting weights does not necessarily mean that if you don't consume the maximum amount of carbs physiologicaly possible does not mean you will become glycogen depleted.
They do mention the effects of muscle damage on glucose uptake/glycogen synthesis. They site 1 study suggesting that eccentric muscle damage may increase the requirement for carbs. (Costill DL, Pascoe DD, Fink WJ, Robergs RA, Barr SI, Pearson D. Impaired muscle glycogen resynthesis after eccentric exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1990 Jul;69(1):46-50. )
Costill's reasoning for suggesting more carbs after damaging exercise is this: "The most likely explanation for this diminished resynthesis is that the traumatized muscle is infiltrated with inflammatory cells, which have a large affinity for glucose oxidation. In addition, inflammatory cells release a factor that stimulates glucose oxidation and lactate production by the surrounding petition between the inflammatory cells and the glycogen- depleted muscle fibers for blood glucose, thereby
reducing the amount of muscle glycogen stored. The
impairment in glycogen storage after eccentric exercise
can be partially overcome by ingesting larger quantities
of CHO. In the present study, an intake of 8.5 g/kg
resulted in glycogen concentrations in the EL that were
similar to those observed in the CL after 3 days of a
CHO intake of 4.3 g/kg. Thus glycogen synthesis is
impaired after eccentric exercise, although the muscles
demonstrate the ability to increase glycogen storage with
larger amounts of dietary CHO."
So, Costill would have me take in 850 GRAMS of carbs to ensure that my muscles were able to restore glycogen levels. I'm sorry folks, I doubt my stomach to handle 850 grams per day, let alone my waistline.
Still, I like the Lambert paper. Its just nice to have somebody at least thinking about bodybuilding once in a while.
1) I don't know, nor care what would make it more special. All I know is, there's nothing fantastic about it.
2) I never said I thought muscle should be put on faster. Even half a pound a week would be good, but you didn't account for SD times. Two weeks between cycles, so you wouldn't be gaining at a constant of 0.5 lb./cycle.
Even still, my point was this: HST doesn't seem to be having ANYONE gain at a faster rate than other programs I've seen. DC and typical 5x5 routines are adding mass as well as HST, along with a large degree of strength. I don't agree with DCs style of training because it is harsh on the body, but a 5x5 routine allows progressive load, and periods of "SD" can be incorporated.
My point was, while HST works, it's nothing "special" because people are gaining at roughly the same rate regardless.
3) The mRNA transcription or whatever might not change, but it might be proven that it's not as important as we're making it out to be.
ok well as far as the "specialness" of the program I don't know what you're expecting. I think the fact that it works is great; do you think it should be more complex or something?
I took SD into account. That's why I made the point of 25 weeks of training a year. Which is even less than one would do assuming that they used the sample HST workout all year round with 8 weeks of training and then 2 weeks of SD. Even training half the year, that is a 12-25 pound gain in a year. Most lifters I know, doing ANY kind of program, aren't making gains like that.
For the last time, HST isn't a single program. It's a set of principles. The sample HST program is one, partially simplified example of how to apply the principles. Biology isn't easy and it isn't simple. There isn't just one single way to do this. Lastly, you must know some pretty gifted people if NO ONE on this board is gaining at a faster rate than these people you know. If they are consistently putting on over a pound a week, that is fantastic and they should donate their muscles to science.
I said 0.5-1.0 lb./week. There is a range, and too many variables to keep it constant, whether you're on HST or another program.
Case & point - I see HST working. I know it's a set of principles, and I even said such. At the same time, many follow the sample program here because it's easier to just pick out some cookie-cutter routine and stick to it. People feel comfortable with that.
So I see all results posted here, and I've seen results elsewhere, and taking into account the wide range of people, results, and the possible variables that could influence those results, it occurred to me that HST isn't producing anything extravagant.
Oh, and I misread something you said. I thought you said if you lifted all year and gained half a pound a week you'd have 25 lbs. of LBM. That's why I mentioned you not accounting for SD.
I didn't post that back then under the assumption of it's accuracy, I was merely pointing out that it is interesting to see a review that was striclty (from the abstract) based on BB Nutrition, as most are related to Obesity, or the opposite extreme, Starvation. So it was refreshing that's all.
Salihyz, sorry if I come across that way, but my zeal for knowledge prevents me from not digging into a subject with both hands, when I am intriqued, I have been that way the whole 40 years of my existence. Case in point how often do you see me post in Strength Topics? Rarely, Strength is not my main concern or focus. Also I don't know everything in the "dang" world, far from it, but we all should have dreams
this whole topic is so dang annoying some say this some say that...berardy clames its macronutrition splitting, some go with the moderate diet, some go with zone, tkd or whatever
over all its just annoying and confusing
I hear you...
One of the reasons this topic is so confusing (and subsequently annoying) is that everybody is trying to "trick" the body into doing something it doesn't want to. In reality, there are very few things a person can do to overcome the body's own system to keep things the same.
Don't forget the commercial aspect of diet/nutrition. Many people who are considered authorities make their living by selling the information they have. There is a need to market their information just like any other product. In the process, "uniqueness" or "exclusivity" is something most will claim in order to sell more info.
This is why you have so many people saying so many different things...everybody wants to have a monopoly on nutrition.
In the end, reducing calories causes a reduction in bodyfat. Increasing caloric expenditure without increasing caloric intake reduces bodyfat. Its that simple...
The same goes for bodybuilding. Get enough protein, get enough essential nutrients, and adjust your calories and caloric expenditure to meet your goals of weight gain or weight loss.
Will I ever try to sell a book about nutrition? Of course I will. But it won't be a book of "secrets" because there are none. It may be a book of revelations however because I feel there are many aspects of nutrition that people fail to realize amid all the marketing that goes on.
It seems that simple but it doesn't really seem that simple.
How much protein? 1g/lb for nattys, 1.5-2g/lb for assisted? Some nattys say they do better with more than 1g/lb, hypo or hypercalorically. I've even heard an AAS user say that 1g/lb is fine for natty or even when assisted.
Same for fats. You say 25-30% is ideal. Right?
Carbs. You say carbs are great for building muscle, and for losing fat it will preserve muscle, that calorie restriction for losing fat. But Blade says Boris doesn't handle massive carb loads well .... so he's an exception. How many exceptions are there?
In my mind it's a never ending battle. A battle between science and personal experience. I would think experience would be everyone's best bet, try out different things. BUT ... who wants to waste time trying out different things? I know i don't ... i just want to know the best way and go with it from now on. I just don't know when something assurative will come along.
One thing i've found for sure though ... without eating clean foods you won't reach your goals. Or for that matter, without having the discipline to stick to whatever diet regimene you choose.
Lance addresses my concerns perfectly!
How many exceptions to rules are there, like with carbs?
Protein? Even when the same amount of calories are intaken, excess protein rather than carbs seems to produce better gains.
n=1 is always the best method of scientific analysis
Separate names with a comma.