Author Topic: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)  (Read 11772 times)

Offline Charles Moreland

  • Global Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Karma: +225/-24
    • View Profile
    • www.charlesmoreland.com
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2009, 12:02:30 PM »
Tom, as much as I'm looking forward to meeting you in real life and perhaps even seeing you venture out to one of the jams, I want to express in as friendly a way as I can that having you on the forums is as much a blessing as it is an annoyance.

Quote
There is no blunting in PWO, and a mixture is suboptimal compared to just fast-acting proteins.

Blunted was the wrong word. But you are mistaken and confused in that fast-acting proteins are more optimal in the pre and during workout stages but not in the post workout. I did provide you with the reference for this and you merrily ignored it. Here is a link to the "about" page for the IWC. A conference that boasts, "At the IWC 2008 you will be able to see how the expanding science platform is facilitating the evolution of whey into the most important and versatile component of milk." Yet, at this very conference, it was presented that a MIXTURE of BOTH whey and casein is more optimal for lean body mass gains WITH TRAINING.

Here is a study that examined the impact of either 20grams of casein or whey after training. By your stance, you would expect to see whey foster a much higher response in protein synthesis because of its fast acting nature. Yet, the data found identical results for both.

Tipton KD et. al. Ingestion of casein and whey proteins result in muscle anabolism after resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2004) 36(12):2073-81.

Or take this one that found a superior anabolic response when subjects were given skin milk proteins (3.6g whey, 14.4g casein, 24g carbs, 1.5g fat) when compared to a soy based drink with identical nutrients and calories following resistance exercise.

Wilkinson SB et. al. Consumption of fluid skin-milk promotes greater muscle protein accretion after resistance exercise than does consumption of an isonitrogenous and isoenergetic soy-protein beverage. Am J Clin Nutr. (2007) 85(4):1031-40.

And then they did what most don't and continued to study the long-term effects regarding LBM gains.

Hartman JW et. al. Consumption of fat-free fluid milk after resistance exercise promotes greater lean mass accretion than does consumption of soy or carbohydrate in young, novice, make weightlifters. Am J Clin Nutr. (2007) 86: 373-381.

I offered you a piece of literature to read and for some reason you neglected it. To be honest, we're debating extremely negligible differences for most of this audience. If this were a bodybuilding forum, this may have some actual value. Seeing as this isn't, I find it hard to justify why I needed to spend 2 hours dishing through references to satisfy you. I said what needed to be said and then offered you a viable solution which would help you better know and understand mine and chris' argument as well as learning a little bit more about the world of protein which wasn't discussed here. The book I suggested would take a person of your stature a couple of lazy days to finish. I apologize if I'm being harsh, but I don't see how nit-picking and reference battling this one point (which will be extremely less of a help as will the idea that protein + carb after training is beneficial) is helping either you, myself, or others become more knowledgeable in regards to pwo nutrition.

Offline Jon

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
  • Karma: +57/-38
  • I dont go through walls, I'm above that.
    • View Profile
    • HuntPK
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2009, 12:37:15 PM »
personaly i drink powerthirst (look it up on youtube)
but really i grab some kinda granola or power bar and some powerade
the only advantage gatorade has it that you can buy it in powder and massive bottles
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in getting up every time we do.
-Confucius
:::====(=''')- (guitar emoticon)

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2009, 03:03:56 PM »
Tom, as much as I'm looking forward to meeting you in real life and perhaps even seeing you venture out to one of the jams, I want to express in as friendly a way as I can that having you on the forums is as much a blessing as it is an annoyance.

Quote
There is no blunting in PWO, and a mixture is suboptimal compared to just fast-acting proteins.

Blunted was the wrong word. But you are mistaken and confused in that fast-acting proteins are more optimal in the pre and during workout stages but not in the post workout. I did provide you with the reference for this and you merrily ignored it. Here is a link to the "about" page for the IWC. A conference that boasts, "At the IWC 2008 you will be able to see how the expanding science platform is facilitating the evolution of whey into the most important and versatile component of milk." Yet, at this very conference, it was presented that a MIXTURE of BOTH whey and casein is more optimal for lean body mass gains WITH TRAINING.

Here is a study that examined the impact of either 20grams of casein or whey after training. By your stance, you would expect to see whey foster a much higher response in protein synthesis because of its fast acting nature. Yet, the data found identical results for both.

Tipton KD et. al. Ingestion of casein and whey proteins result in muscle anabolism after resistance exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2004) 36(12):2073-81.

Or take this one that found a superior anabolic response when subjects were given skin milk proteins (3.6g whey, 14.4g casein, 24g carbs, 1.5g fat) when compared to a soy based drink with identical nutrients and calories following resistance exercise.

Wilkinson SB et. al. Consumption of fluid skin-milk promotes greater muscle protein accretion after resistance exercise than does consumption of an isonitrogenous and isoenergetic soy-protein beverage. Am J Clin Nutr. (2007) 85(4):1031-40.

And then they did what most don't and continued to study the long-term effects regarding LBM gains.

Hartman JW et. al. Consumption of fat-free fluid milk after resistance exercise promotes greater lean mass accretion than does consumption of soy or carbohydrate in young, novice, make weightlifters. Am J Clin Nutr. (2007) 86: 373-381.

I offered you a piece of literature to read and for some reason you neglected it. To be honest, we're debating extremely negligible differences for most of this audience. If this were a bodybuilding forum, this may have some actual value. Seeing as this isn't, I find it hard to justify why I needed to spend 2 hours dishing through references to satisfy you. I said what needed to be said and then offered you a viable solution which would help you better know and understand mine and chris' argument as well as learning a little bit more about the world of protein which wasn't discussed here. The book I suggested would take a person of your stature a couple of lazy days to finish. I apologize if I'm being harsh, but I don't see how nit-picking and reference battling this one point (which will be extremely less of a help as will the idea that protein + carb after training is beneficial) is helping either you, myself, or others become more knowledgeable in regards to pwo nutrition.

(bolded just because it's a long post and hard to scan otherwise):

Charles, there is value in being able to check back on the evidence that supports your current views, and you shouldn't think of checking references for my benefit but rather for yours. When I check references after a particular view has been put into question, I view it as something I want to verify for my own sake.  And even if you were already sure that you were right (which is never a guarantee that we actually are), it would be a good practice in figuring out which study most clearly supports your point (not like the unrelated ones mentioned in the previous posts for example).

Now, the references you listed in this post are instead exactly right, they are about post-exercise and relevant. Looking at Tipton 2004 I have to scale down my claim, because yes I would have expected casein to do worse than whey while after averaging over several hours they did equally well on protein synthesis.
But that's an important detail, averaged over time until you completely absorbed the mere 20g of protein they might look the same in terms of intake (all 20g in both cases).
But if you look at the data, whey does much better for the first 2 hours after exercise (or 1hr after ingestion), in AAs uptake, insulin levels etc. Yet the post-workout window is when you can try to cram as much protein as you can in that window for maximum effectiveness compared to other times outside of the window when muscles won't be so willing to use it for protein synthesis.

I would still expect that if they added also carbs (so that AAs like leucine didn't end up getting used up for energy), larger amounts, and considered administration of protein at two times, immediately after and then again after two hours, they would have better results using whey for the first one compared to casein.
That's actually a pretty realistic situation I think since that's what I usually end up doing; during and immediately after lifting I usually have whey+carbs, and then have a meal usually an hour or two after that.

But aside from these hypotheticals, you should consider that that same study is also opposite to your initial claim, remember that you were stating that casein should be better (based on those unrelated meal studies), and that's clearly not the case.

The other pair of studies Wilkinson and Hartman you mention are also post-exercise, so again exactly the kind of study to look at for this type of question. But they are comparing soy protein vs whey+casein. Now the results are useful, and they have the right conditions to compare them, but that's not related at all to what we are discussing, it would be if they were comparing whey+casein vs whey for example, or the same proteins with and without fat. But since they don't, all you would derive is that something like soymilk is not as good as milk as a post-workout drink, which was never in question.

Now, a final point about the 'reference that I just merrily ignored', Phillips 2005 (whey conference presentation). I actually had written some text in my reply about it, but decided not include it until you actually posted again perhaps with specific details, to avoid discussing everything in the hypothetical.
All you said was that you think there is a paper or poster in a conference that proves your point but I have no easy way to get the conference proceedings to see the actual data and details, and from the title it's not even clear that it's post-exercise and without at least the experimental setup there's no way to tell. They don't seem to have published those results in a journal so I would expect that if you have the actual data rather than just guessing it might be related based only on the title that you would report it here or point me to an actual link with it.

On a side note, there are several assumptions you make that seem unnecessary and uncalled-for.  For example suggesting that I might choose to ignore a point on purpose or maliciously, or subjectively choose to disregard all postprandial-related papers just because (rather than because they are objectively unrelated) are both shifting to ad-hominem rather than staying focused on the actual discussion.
Similarly, you can always make more progress by keeping the conversation to fact X,Y,Z rather than claiming "you are confused about X, you don't know/understand Y, or you are wrong about Z". After all the discussion is not about trying to determine if someone is confused or wrong, it's about determining which facts and explanations are correct (about science not about people).


Even this far in the discussion, there is still no evidence presented here to support your claim that post-exercise using slow-absorption proteins would be better than fast-absorption proteins or AAs, or that adding fat rather than carbs would be better.

While I appreciate your suggestion to read lyle's book and I will take it into account as I am sure it's a good reference, it would have been more welcome if it didn't appear to come attached with a tone or implication on some presumed lack of fundamental knowledge about 'the world of proteins'...
Also as related to the specific questions of post-exercise it is a bit too generic so I think a much more to the point reference would be this, the official position of the society of sports nutrition (and in fact also cites all the references you quoted in your previous post, without reading past what the evidence supports in each):
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18834505
It's also much shorter and to the point, as you can see already from the abstract:
Quote
Position Statement: The position of the Society regarding nutrient timing and the intake of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats in reference to healthy, exercising individuals is summarized by the following eight points:

1.) Maximal endogenous glycogen stores are best promoted by following a high-glycemic, high-carbohydrate (CHO) diet (600 – 1000 grams CHO or ~8 – 10 g CHO/kg/d), and ingestion of free amino acids and protein (PRO) alone or in combination with CHO before resistance exercise can maximally stimulate protein synthesis.

2.) During exercise, CHO should be consumed at a rate of 30 – 60 grams of CHO/hour in a 6 – 8% CHO solution (8 – 16 fluid ounces) every 10 – 15 minutes. Adding PRO to create a CHO:PRO ratio of 3 – 4:1 may increase endurance performance and maximally promotes glycogen re-synthesis during acute and subsequent bouts of endurance exercise.

3.) Ingesting CHO alone or in combination with PRO during resistance exercise increases muscle glycogen, offsets muscle damage, and facilitates greater training adaptations after either acute or prolonged periods of supplementation with resistance training.

4.) Post-exercise (within 30 minutes) consumption of CHO at high dosages (8 – 10 g CHO/kg/day) have been shown to stimulate muscle glycogen re-synthesis, while adding PRO (0.2 g – 0.5 g PRO/kg/day) to CHO at a ratio of 3 – 4:1 (CHO: PRO) may further enhance glycogen re-synthesis.

5.) Post-exercise ingestion (immediately to 3 h post) of amino acids, primarily essential amino acids, has been shown to stimulate robust increases in muscle protein synthesis, while the addition of CHO may stimulate even greater levels of protein synthesis. Additionally, pre-exercise consumption of a CHO + PRO supplement may result in peak levels of protein synthesis.

6.) During consistent, prolonged resistance training, post-exercise consumption of varying doses of CHO + PRO supplements in varying dosages have been shown to stimulate improvements in strength and body composition when compared to control or placebo conditions.

7.) The addition of creatine (Cr) (0.1 g Cr/kg/day) to a CHO + PRO supplement may facilitate even greater adaptations to resistance training.

8.) Nutrient timing incorporates the use of methodical planning and eating of whole foods, nutrients extracted from food, and other sources. The timing of the energy intake and the ratio of certain ingested macronutrients are likely the attributes which allow for enhanced recovery and tissue repair following high-volume exercise, augmented muscle protein synthesis, and improved mood states when compared with unplanned or traditional strategies of nutrient intake.

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: powerade?
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2009, 08:33:34 AM »
This has taken me days to get around to....and I kind of only glazed over your discussions with Charles...so I am going to just address the points you made towards my evidence.  I still am not really swayed towards your side of the fence, as explained below.

I think the problem is that you didn't follow some of those nested references deep enough.

All the evidence you are referring to is just for normal meals with no exercise involved. 

For example, in the paper you quote multiple times in your post, the statement is just taken from this [2] paper, specifically:
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12730415
which is just about postprandial aminoacid intake, which is a big word for "after a meal". It's just saying after a meal you have more sustained release and uptake with slower absorption, which should be no surprise to you. But again it's completely different for post-workout with its exercised-induced increased uptake, and a timeframe where 'time-released' simply doesn't matter at all and is clearly inferior to fast-release.

Hm.  I think you fall victim to the same accusation you made of me ;)  You ignored the first nested study [13] of which most of those claims were based:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413102
Quote from: Wilkinson SB, Tarnopolsky MA, Macdonald MJ, Macdonald JR, Armstrong D, Phillips SM.
CONCLUSIONS: Milk-based proteins promote muscle protein accretion to a greater extent than do soy-based proteins when consumed after resistance exercise. The consumption of either milk or soy protein with resistance training promotes muscle mass maintenance and gains, but chronic consumption of milk proteins after resistance exercise likely supports a more rapid lean mass accrual.

These studies WERE based on post exercise.  The milk based proteins (slower absorption) promote a superior muscle protein synthesis response than soy-based proteins (faster absorption).  Protein, of course, helps no matter what...but the slower absorption is more beneficial even in a PWO environment.

For PWO it's not even a matter of spiking, as I mentioned aminoacids are quickly absorbed so you don't get any negative feedback on intake until your muscles are more than saturated and happy, or you completely run out of digested whey, both of which don't happen for a while and when you do you reached your optimal goal anyways.

That sounds theoretical/hypothetical to me.  According to the experimental data, as shown above, the fastest proteins (i.e. whey and soy) are inferior compared to slower proteins (i.e. milk which contains fast & slow proteins).

Rehydration is a completely unrelated issue from fast or slow absorption of protein and protein synthesis.
And even if we were talking about rehydration problems, the additional clearing of excess water from a sport drink (which was never what we were discussing, unless sport drinks contained whey too for example), the issue would be only one of efficiency given a limit on how much you can drink after losing too much fluids. If you can afford to drink an extra sip of a sport drink or water+salt+sugar, then you are probably better off, since being able to use that extra water for filtration is generally an advantage.

No we were not talking about that - but we were talking about slow absorption fluids compared to high absorption fluids and their viability as a PWO meal/drink.  This data only supports the fact that a slower absorption drink is more beneficial than higher absorption when put into the greater context of the discussion.

Again, regardless of side discussions about efficient water retention, all evidence on post-workout drinks clearly and conclusively shows the opposite of what you are claiming. Fast-absorption is ideal, slow-absorption is sub-optimal. That's why whole milk is not as good as just whey+sugar right after workout, while something like cheese (mostly casein and fat) is better throughout the day and especially night for total protein absorption and synthesis.

If you found even a single paper showing specifically any advantage of slower protein release and slower digestion immediately post-exercise, that would be a big plus for your current position, but again if you follow any of the links and studies and papers you cited so far, it's never about post-exercise, and again all the literature I have ever seen specifically about post-exercise measurements always shows clearly that faster absorption is better.

Both the literature review and the papers within both support my position.

I think we are ignoring a big pink elephant in the side of the room.

There is likely a balance between peaking AA levels and slow release proteins.  For example, casein is likely going to provide a blood AA level increase that has too low of an amplitude to be of much use in the PWO environment.  Whey or soy alone, however, may be too fast -- too high, too soon -- and diminish out too quickly to be of optimal use.  I really do think more research is needed regarding the ideal mix of the two...and no study has investigated this yet, as far as I am aware.  It would also be very hard to control since absorption rates are hard to quantify outside of fasted individuals consuming isolated proteins.

Saying that Whey+Sugar is better than milk is jumping to a conclusion.  As far as I am aware, no study has looked at that.  Anecdotal evidence from those who train seriously shows a massive increase in lean body mass when whole milk is consumed in mass quantities throughout the day as opposed to Whey+Sugar in just PWO.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 10:04:33 AM by Chris Salvato »

Offline FastGuppy

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Karma: +13/-9
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2009, 10:12:26 AM »
With these studies I have came to the conclusion that I need to study more . . .


I need to sign up for some more science classes this fall.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 10:17:22 AM by FastGuppy »
"obsession is a great replacement for talent" -Steve Martin

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2009, 10:45:32 AM »
Chris,
keep in my those are all studies I was already very familiar with before this discussion even started.
And by that I mean I had read them, looked at all the data and understood it in the context of the experimental settings used, known physiological mechanisms and other studies, rather than just relying on a one-sentence summary written in the context of a different point than the study originally addressed.

Reference 13 does NOT compare fast vs slow proteins, at all. It's just comparing soy-based drinks to a milk-like beverage, to show that whey and casein (and from other studies actually whey alone) are better than proteins from a soy drink. I will cover this more below in a second but I will mention a couple other points first.

Also, whey+carbs being optimal for pwo is supported -conclusively- by what is traditionally referred as a '*$@#load" (a lot) of studies :P, just look through all the studies referenced in support of that point alone in the journal review article I already mentioned
( http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18834505 ).
In contrast, there is not a single study anywhere in support of fat and casein being better than whey+sugar for post-workout, not even one. And there is no logical or evidence-based reason to believe they should (especially since we are talking about supplements to cover the first 60 minutes immediately post-exercise optimally).

About the blue elephant in the room, the problem with potentially wrong assumptions, even ones that seem to make minimal or almost no difference in practice, is that they get might get used later on to make all sorts of additionally wrong conclusions. Plus, knowing how one might have arrived at the wrong conclusions might help in preventing similar mistakes in the future, for example by being willing to look back more carefully at an actual study rather than only always trusting a summary statement for it.


Now, for the specifics, I am in a bit of a hurry so I will just paste some of my explanations for these same points I wrote down in a similar PM conversation with Charles (just my text so I am sure he won't mind):


Quote from: tombb, about ref 13 Wilkinson and Hartman papers
This I might have to address more specifically later as well, but the main point is that they were comparing very different proteins with different aminoacid balance etc, and I will have to check back again but I think they were even using an actual soy-based beverage like soy-milk rather than soy-protein isolate enriched with methionine which is what you would use as a supplement, which also has higher biological value, digestibility, bioavailability.
As I mentioned to be meaningful in the realm we are discussing you would need a few controls (or data from other published tests) to see just how different whey and that form of soy protein are in that scenario before you can make a conclusion or logical inference like

whey+casein > soy milk
?soy milk ~= whey?
=  whey+casein > whey ?

 because I think what you have is more like

whey+casein > soy milk
whey > soy milk
= ?

(in the classic southpark logical form of step1: collect underpants, step 2: ?, step 3: profit)

Quote from: tombb, about Phillips 2005 whey conference about casein+whey supposedly being optimal

There seems to be no paper to be found and they don't have a webpage or program of the conference anymore (looks like they take them down after each year before the next conference), but all indications are that it was an invited talk about trends and interesting directions to explore, and that the particular statement about the 50/50 mix was just a single sentence in a speech, a suggestion of something that could probably work, with no data behind it.

A few additional indications are the title of the talk "Eating the Right Proteins to Support Muscle Mass with Exercise. Presentation at the 4th International Whey Conference", which is very general and non-descriptive, and the fact that it says just "presentation",and that it's just one person (actual studies usually have a lot more names because it takes multiple people to do them).

Other clues are the exact ratio, 50/50, which seems a good initial guess, but an actual study would have actually tested also 40-60, 55-45, etc, and it seems less likely that the ideal would have been exactly 50-50 even after testing slightly different amounts.

I then found further support for this in an older USDEC News report:

At the 4th International Whey Conference in 2005, Dr. Stuart Phillips from McMaster University in Canada proposed that a 1:1 blend of whey to casein may be optimal to stimulate muscle protein anabolism following resistance exercise, given the ability of whey protein to stimulate muscle protein synthesis and that of casein to suppress the breakdown of muscle protein.
I added the bolding to show that it was just a suggestion, and he gives an argument for why casein would help, because it suppresses the breakdown of muscle proteins. But as you know casein doesn't have a special ability to do that compared to whey, it only helps in this respect when it is able to cover gap periods in nutrition due to its longer release time. And that's not helpful for the first 2 hours pwo. If you exercise, then take whey, and then take casein or whey only 2 hours later when whey has been completely absorbed, you won't get any less benefit related to stopping protein breakdown compared to mixing casein right away. Not only that, but sugar does an even better job at preventing protein breakdown immediately after workouts.

Just to be extra sure I found his university research homepage to see if he did do any study on casein+whey (in general or pwo) and it doesn't seem to be the case from his publication list, and rather he seems to have concentrated now on whey+carbs only, which actually is another sign that he might know better now than to follow his previous suggestion, maybe he did try it and realized it didn't help, and therefore did not try to publish:

http://www.mcmaster.ca/kinesiology/faculty/phillips.cfm#publications

So, that's one example of why it's useful to sometimes look back deeper at statements even when they have references or even studies, because sometimes the summary interpretation can appear to say something very different from what the data actually supports, and even with the best intentions of the person who summarized them and the person who read them, you can end up getting the wrong conclusions.

Offline Jon

  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
  • Karma: +57/-38
  • I dont go through walls, I'm above that.
    • View Profile
    • HuntPK
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2009, 01:58:23 PM »
nothing inherently wrong with water either guys
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in getting up every time we do.
-Confucius
:::====(=''')- (guitar emoticon)

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2009, 02:59:24 PM »
Chris,
keep in my those are all studies I was already very familiar with before this discussion even started.
And by that I mean I had read them, looked at all the data and understood it in the context of the experimental settings used, known physiological mechanisms and other studies, rather than just relying on a one-sentence summary written in the context of a different point than the study originally addressed.

Well then -- I am glad I am able to help you explore these boring old studies in a new way :)

Sometimes extrapolating a conclusion is all we can do in the world of "more research is needed".


Reference 13 does NOT compare fast vs slow proteins, at all. It's just comparing soy-based drinks to a milk-like beverage, to show that whey and casein (and from other studies actually whey alone) are better than proteins from a soy drink. I will cover this more below in a second but I will mention a couple other points first.

Sure it does.  Soy based drinks to milk-like beverages.  Same macronutrient content.  "Isonitrogenous, isoenergetic, and macronutrient-matched soy or milk beverages".  Everything is the same except the type of protein.  Soy = fast. Whey+Casein = slower than soy.

Better lean mass gains with the slower combination (whey+casein) as opposed to the fast isolate (soy.)

I don't get how this is unclear.  It seems to me that you dislike the conclusion so you are throwing mud at the premise...which is a sound premise no matter how much you dislike it.


Also, whey+carbs being optimal for pwo is supported -conclusively- by what is traditionally referred as a '*$@#load" (a lot) of studies :P, just look through all the studies referenced in support of that point alone in the journal review article I already mentioned
( http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18834505 ).
In contrast, there is not a single study anywhere in support of fat and casein being better than whey+sugar for post-workout, not even one. And there is no logical or evidence-based reason to believe they should (especially since we are talking about supplements to cover the first 60 minutes immediately post-exercise optimally).

You say Whey+Carbs is optimal.  Optimal is not a subjective term.  Optimal means "the best".  The absolute best combination/selection for a post exercise environment.  That has never once been proven.

What HAS been proven is that Whey+Carbs is very good.  Better than Whey alone.  Better than carbs alone.  Better than no protein at all.  Better than a lot of things.  Not the best.  If that were the case the research would be done and we could wrap up all science in this sector.  If that were the case you wouldn't have people at conferences speculating that "whey+carbs and casein may or may not be better than whey+carbs alone)

About the blue elephant in the room, the problem with potentially wrong assumptions, even ones that seem to make minimal or almost no difference in practice, is that they get might get used later on to make all sorts of additionally wrong conclusions. Plus, knowing how one might have arrived at the wrong conclusions might help in preventing similar mistakes in the future, for example by being willing to look back more carefully at an actual study rather than only always trusting a summary statement for it.

Who is trusting summary statements?  Sure, that is easier, and when I am just getting some general knowledge that's all I do...like most other people.  If it comes up in a situation like this, though, its easy to see where that notion came up.  Even now we are digging deeper I *still* see the summarizer's point of view...and it makes the most sense, in my opinion.  This is based on the data within the studies.  I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I am pulling from somewhere else.

Quote from: tombb, about ref 13 Wilkinson and Hartman papers
This I might have to address more specifically later as well, but the main point is that they were comparing very different proteins with different aminoacid balance etc, and I will have to check back again but I think they were even using an actual soy-based beverage like soy-milk rather than soy-protein isolate enriched with methionine which is what you would use as a supplement, which also has higher biological value, digestibility, bioavailability.

What they were using is clearly stated in the abstract: isonitrogenous, isoenergetic, and macronutrient-matched soy or milk beverages.

Everything is the same, for the most part.  Soy protein, isolate or otherwise, still has very high bioavailability, digestibility and BV - compared to milk protein it is in the same ball park either way...so... I don't quite get your point here.

Quote from: tombb, about ref 13 Wilkinson and Hartman papers
As I mentioned to be meaningful in the realm we are discussing you would need a few controls (or data from other published tests) to see just how different whey and that form of soy protein are in that scenario before you can make a conclusion or logical inference like

whey+casein > soy milk
?soy milk ~= whey?
=  whey+casein > whey ?

 because I think what you have is more like

whey+casein > soy milk
whey > soy milk
= ?

(in the classic southpark logical form of step1: collect underpants, step 2: ?, step 3: profit)

See now you are getting back into mud flinging comparing our logic to South Park...where clearly our logic is sound you are just either (a) misunderstanding it or (b) misrespresenting it.

The logic is simple:

In terms of absorption speed:
Soy > Casein
Whey > Casein
Whey > Casein+Whey
Soy > Casein+Whey (even if this is not directly proven - Whey and Soy have such SIMILAR BV, digestibility and bioavailability i would say this is a very safe assumption ... though a study proving it would be nice)

Then, in terms of lean muscle gains:
Casein > Soy > Whey+Casein

Based on its similarities to Soy, Whey likely falls somewhere next to soy -- still making Whey+Casein superior.  A study would be nice...but we don't have one.  Based on the available information this is an extremely sound hypothesis...if you would like to test it in your labs at UofM I would be really excited to see the results...but I think its safe to say that it would be true.

Quote from: tombb, about Phillips 2005 whey conference about casein+whey supposedly being optimal
...

The fact that experts that devote their lives to these studies are contemplating it as a sound hypothesis that just needs verification I would say it is a safe bet to assume it may hold some really good weight.  With that in mind, I am going to say that the benefits between whole and skim are so slim that its not even worth ALL of this chatter.  Even if there are differences, I am inclined to lean towards whole milk for long term usage...just because it is cheaper per calorie and if weight gain is REALLY your motive then you need as many as you can get.  The only way my opinion would change on that is if the differences were remarkable..1.5-2 fold differences in LEAN MASS over months, that is.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 03:02:39 PM by Chris Salvato »

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2009, 08:35:53 PM »
Chris,
perhaps I see what you are trying to say, I think your thinking is that if, say, soy is 20g vs 10gWhey+10gCasein, then  the amount released by 20g of fast absorption should be higher than 10g fast and 10g slow. But that's not how it works. There  are a lot of other factors about protein absorption by the digestive system, and even factors like aminoacid profile or  agglomeration of proteins make huge differences (as in 200% to 300% difference). It should be crystal clear if we use actual real measured numbers (instead of your guess that soy protein should absorb as fast as whey, which couldn't be more wrong).

Look at the actual absorption speed for Milk-Proteins (still in unseparated colloidal micellar aggregates etc as  they appear in normal milk), compared to soy protein isolate, whey, and casein, in terms of actual gram per hour absorption through digestion, slowest to fastest:
Max absorption rate, from isotope labeling and tracking of AAs in proteins:
0) Egg protein raw 1.3 g/h (ref 43)
1) Milk protein         3.5 g/h (ref 40) slower
2) Soy protein isolate  3.9 g/h (ref 46) slow
3) Casein isolate       6.1 g/h (ref 38) faster
4) Free AA (same profile as casein) 7-7.5 g/h (ref 39)
5) Whey isolate        8-10 g/h (ref 38) fastest

Now, do you see anything interesting? Casein and Whey are both actually faster than milk proteins, and even soy protein is faster than milk proteins in their natural state, because those are more tangled up together and harder to absorb rapidly.
The main reason why casein acts in a more time-released way is that it forms a gel that acts as a physical barrier to  complete parallel digestion of casein itself, and that's the reason it can still release low level AAs for up to 7 hours, usually releasing lower amounts in small burst despite its max absorption rate.

But even when combined you would basically have whey with a release speed 3x that of soy, so even if you had 10g of whey vs 20g of soy, whey would still win out without any help from the time-released burst of casein AAs.

So, what your 'reference 13' (Wilkinson) paper compared was 3)+5) (still at least 6~8g/h even if casein effective release was twice as slow as whey) vs soy (3.9  g/h), so really whey+casein were the fast-absorbing compared to the twice as slow absorption of soy, with whey carrying most of the weight in winning. Their results are exactly what you would expect in supporting again whey being the optimal compared to casein or soy or casein+whey mixtures.
It's good that they kept calories the same, total protein the same etc (and actually they were wise in not choosing actual milk as that would have not worked as well as the mix of calories and whey+casein isolates they chose to match the soy parameters). But the result is still the same, whey is what is doing the work in beating soy, and casein is just not as good for post-workout (it is nice as a way to ensure lower levels of AAs over the rest of the day, but not post-workout when you actually really need them).

Sure it would have been nice if they compared also whey alone and casein alone in the same paper, but they didn't really have to, because it's been done  before many times.
All comparisons of whey vs casein and whey vs soy show whey outperforming, even in other parameters besides AA uptake and muscle  protein synthesis (for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15618122 comparing soy vs whey vs casein and showing whey is  best at suppressing catabolism and restoring glycogen).

The main advantage of casein is clear, it's the slower and lower-dose time-release which is useful between meals and during  sleep when the body is not stimulated to use much protein, but it's not good immediately post-workout when you need high levels  of proteins fast.
Definitely Casein is not better than whey+casein or even more so whey post-workout, for lean muscle gains or anything, there is  again not a single study that would ever claim that, and all the studies you referenced say the same thing, that whey results in  higher muscle protein synthesis in the first hour after ingestion compared to casein.

So again, all evidence of whey+ sugars or AAs+sugars being optimal for post-workout compared to everything they ever been  compared to, including casein and soy. No evidence saying Fat or casein addition would make it better somehow, and actual  evidence suggesting in fact the opposite (fat interfering with the needed fast absorption post-exercise and casein performing  worse than whey in the same critical window immediately post-exercise).
While extra studies and more comparisons are always good (for example I wish more studies used supplement immediately after rather than 1hr after exercise, and would include enough sugar/energy so LEU and other AA would not end up as energy), even with all the studies we have so far it couldn't be more clear-cut.

While extra studies and more comparisons are always good (for example I wish more studies used supplement immediately after rather than 1hr after exercise, and would include enough sugar/energy so LEU and other AA would not end up as energy), even with all the studies we have so far it couldn't be more clear-cut, whey+sugar is best for the 1~2 hours post-workout, and fat, casein and other components don't add anything useful to any anabolism or muscle recovery parameters and can only detract from them.

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2009, 10:22:54 PM »
I was almost swayed...until I realized there is now an apples-to-oranges comparison going on...not apples-to-apples.


Chris,
perhaps I see what you are trying to say, I think your thinking is that if, say, soy is 20g vs 10gWhey+10gCasein, then  the amount released by 20g of fast absorption should be higher than 10g fast and 10g slow. But that's not how it works. There  are a lot of other factors about protein absorption by the digestive system, and even factors like aminoacid profile or  agglomeration of proteins make huge differences (as in 200% to 300% difference). It should be crystal clear if we use actual real measured numbers (instead of your guess that soy protein should absorb as fast as whey, which couldn't be more wrong).

That is what I was saying...but lets get away from soy and whey/casein right now...lets get back into fast or fast+slow.  The reason I want to do this is because Soy and Soy protein is different...Milk and Milk protein is different.  If we avoid these terms for now it may alleviate confusion between us (since i am 100% sure no one else is reading this).  Yet, despite this fact, my point still stands...


Max absorption rate, from isotope labeling and tracking of AAs in proteins:
0) Egg protein raw 1.3 g/h (ref 43)
1) Milk protein         3.5 g/h (ref 40) slower
2) Soy protein isolate  3.9 g/h (ref 46) slow
3) Casein isolate       6.1 g/h (ref 38) faster
4) Free AA (same profile as casein) 7-7.5 g/h (ref 39)
5) Whey isolate        8-10 g/h (ref 38) fastest

Now, do you see anything interesting? Casein and Whey are both actually faster than milk proteins, and even soy protein is faster than milk proteins in their natural state, because those are more tangled up together and harder to absorb rapidly.
The main reason why casein acts in a more time-released way is that it forms a gel that acts as a physical barrier to  complete parallel digestion of casein itself, and that's the reason it can still release low level AAs for up to 7 hours, usually releasing lower amounts in small burst despite its max absorption rate.

But even when combined you would basically have whey with a release speed 3x that of soy, so even if you had 10g of whey vs 20g of soy, whey would still win out without any help from the time-released burst of casein AAs.

Yes this certainly shed light on some important aspects that were bogging down this discussion.  I appreciate the post -- it would have been helpful a long time ago :D  I still think that, despite this, the point still stands.  I'll explain in a bit...

BTW, I ignored the latter part of this because its a bit speculative to think we can just average the two together.  Also, as I said, I want to avoid this whole whey/casein/soy deal and talk just about fast or fast+slow.

So, what your 'reference 13' (Wilkinson) paper compared was 3)+5) (still at least 6~8g/h even if casein effective release was twice as slow as whey) vs soy (3.9  g/h), so really whey+casein were the fast-absorbing compared to the twice as slow absorption of soy, with whey carrying most of the weight in winning. Their results are exactly what you would expect in supporting again whey being the optimal compared to casein or soy or casein+whey mixtures.
It's good that they kept calories the same, total protein the same etc (and actually they were wise in not choosing actual milk as that would have not worked as well as the mix of calories and whey+casein isolates they chose to match the soy parameters). But the result is still the same, whey is what is doing the work in beating soy, and casein is just not as good for post-workout (it is nice as a way to ensure lower levels of AAs over the rest of the day, but not post-workout when you actually really need them).

This is where your point falls apart.  IMHO, you misinterpreted the "Objectives" section.

Quote
OBJECTIVE: We examined the effect of consuming isonitrogenous, isoenergetic, and macronutrient-matched soy or milk beverages (18 g protein, 750 kJ) on protein kinetics and net muscle protein balance after resistance exercise in healthy young men. Our hypothesis was that soy ingestion would result in larger but transient hyperaminoacidemia compared with milk and that milk would promote a greater net balance because of lower but prolonged hyperaminoacidemia.

They did not choose isolates.  They were using milk and soy beverages.  As stated in their methods the milk they were using has a "lower but prolonged hyperaminoacidemia" compared to the soy beverage they used.  At this point, the table above is not really useful in this discussion since we don't know for sure exactly what their constituted their soy/whey/casein mix.  What we do know based on this "Objectives" section is that the beverages were isonitrogenous, isoenergetic, macronutrient-matched and the milk beverage in question had a lower but more prolonged hyperaminoacidemia when compared to the soy beverage.

This data presents the following points:
A) Beverage X produces higher blood AA than beverage Y more quickly.
B) Beverage Y produces a less intense rise in blood AA than beverage X but it's effects are more prolonged.
C) Beverage Y is empirically superior to Beverage X in producing lean mass gains when ingested PWO.

Definitely Casein is not better than whey+casein or even more so whey post-workout, for lean muscle gains or anything, there is  again not a single study that would ever claim that, and all the studies you referenced say the same thing, that whey results in  higher muscle protein synthesis in the first hour after ingestion compared to casein.

I think this is where your passion for academic debate ran away from you.  I never said any of the things you are claiming that I said.  It would be just plain silly to think that Casein is a better PWO drink than whey based on the data that is everywhere.

What I am trying to say is that whey is very good...but it may be better if you couple it with a slower releasing protein and/or buffer its absorption a bit with fats/carbs/fiber in order to prolong the increased blood AA levels.  The right amount of "buffer" still needs to be found.

No evidence saying Fat or casein addition would make it better somehow,

...yet...

and actual  evidence suggesting in fact the opposite (fat interfering with the needed fast absorption post-exercise and casein performing  worse than whey in the same critical window immediately post-exercise).

The study above kind of spits in the face of that.  Maybe fat DOES hinder the protein synthesis/lean gains...but a slower protein may not.  The above logic is sound and very hard to argue based on the Objectives, Design and Conclusions section.


...and fat, casein and other components don't add anything useful to any anabolism or muscle recovery parameters and can only detract from them.

I think that is jumping to a conclusion, again.  The above study is significant enough to garner a second look.  The slower absorption of Beverage Y is superior, in this case, to Beverage X....when all other *known* elements are controlled.

So, to reiterate my stance: Whey+sugar is definitely well documented as producing very good lean mass gains...superior to anything seen in literature so far.  Emerging data, however, is showing that slower proteins can actually wind up being MORE beneficial than faster ones...so there is something else added to the equation here.  It could be speed of digestion, it could be something intrinsic (and still unknown) about milk proteins.  With this data in mind, there should be less fear about potentially "slowing down" the rate of absorption - especially when the beverage in question is milk (since the data that is conflicting shows milk is superior then there may actually be something unknown about milk that we have to find out).  Any effects between Whole Milk and Skim Milk are probably not different enough to cause a preference based on nutrition at this point.  I still think whole milk is superior because if you care about lean mass gains it is ultimately the total caloric intake that is more important than protein synthesis.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 10:26:52 PM by Chris Salvato »

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2009, 11:41:05 PM »
So, to reiterate my stance: Whey+sugar is definitely well documented as producing very good lean mass gains...superior to anything seen in literature so far.  Emerging data, however, is showing that slower proteins can actually wind up being MORE beneficial than faster ones...so there is something else added to the equation here.  It could be speed of digestion, it could be something intrinsic (and still unknown) about milk proteins.  With this data in mind, there should be less fear about potentially "slowing down" the rate of absorption - especially when the beverage in question is milk (since the data that is conflicting shows milk is superior then there may actually be something unknown about milk that we have to find out).  Any effects between Whole Milk and Skim Milk are probably not different enough to cause a preference based on nutrition at this point.  I still think whole milk is superior because if you care about lean mass gains it is ultimately the total caloric intake that is more important than protein synthesis.
Chris,
Just to change it up, I will try to make this one reply shorter, especially since it seems our views are not as far from each other as it might have seemed at the start. If needed I will make a more expanded discussion in a next post.

A big part of the point I am trying to make, which I am not sure came through, is this:

I am only talking about the first 1~2hours after exercise. After that, I think a second intake particularly as a mix of slow+fast or even just slow proteins is needed and will produce greater results, and not taking any more proteins 90min after whey will give reduced benefits.  And this IS clearly supported by the literature. I think we agree on that second part. 
The problem is in saying something like "fast protein X does badly when averaging 3-5 hours post exercise while slow protein Y does better" is that really it's that X is doing awesome in the first 1hr and then drops off completely for the next few hours, and Y is doing so-so in the first hour but at least it keeps doing so-so over the remaining hours.
Yes, a 3hr average will say Y is doing better. But in the same data and same experiment, X is much better (sometimes ~2x) in the first hour (that's what is shown for example in figure 3 vs fig2 of ref 13/Wilkinson, 3hr average seems worse, but first 90min it's better).

What I am saying is that all the evidence actually suggests you should use X for the first hour and then Y for the remaining hours (you could also do repeated whey every 90 min, and people tested that and it works, but that's just tedious as heck).
The only reason for saying mixtures are good is the assumption that you can only take protein once (which is obviously not a must) and looking at the averages past the point where fast proteins would be gone anyways.

Now, for convenience, you might argue that it's easier just to go with mixing them (or getting them together) so you don't have to worry about it and you can just drink once. And that would be reasonable.
But again that would be for convenience rather than optimality or any actual, say, synergistic effect.

Plus there can be disadvantages to the "1 drink only, might as well add slow proteins" strategy.  At least from personal experience (since we are talking about convenience/practicality), if I drink something like fast+slow+other drinks right after workout, that fills me up for a lot longer and is a bit harder to take in larger amounts, especially If I am trying to fit as much protein as I can in this post-workout time, while whey+~sugar alone feels much lighter, and in 60-90 min I can actually feel like eating a more complete meal with more proteins again (including cheese etc).

Offline Steve Low

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Karma: +287/-56
    • View Profile
    • Eat, Move, Improve
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2009, 11:10:47 AM »
The point is...

You should train hard and not worry too much about PWO supplementation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342?dopt=Abstract
Posts NOT medical, training or nutrition advice
Site // Overcoming Gravity Book

Offline Dan Elric

  • Ambassador
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1586
  • Karma: +92/-53
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2009, 11:59:24 AM »
In the area of sports drinks, what do you guys think about NASA's new product?

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2009, 08:12:47 PM »
The point is...

You should train hard and not worry too much about PWO supplementation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342?dopt=Abstract
Steve,
that's a relevant paper but the conclusion does not apply to training that increases muscle mass. For that type of training, PWO supplementation has instead a very large impact (10~25% increase) on muscle mass.
Unless you consider that, you would have trouble reconciling these results with the many other studies that show instead a very high increase in muscle size and lean body mass after 10-12 weeks training due to protein intake timing (also studies specifically looking the final overall effects, not to mention all the other ones that show also precise mechanisms and even instantaneous effects, hormonal changes etc)

Even a difference of just 2 hours (immediately instead of waiting 2hrs) in pwo protein for 12 weeks caused an increase in muscle size (cross-sectional area) of 8%, which is a lot, and a 25% increase in mean muscle fiber size, which is also very significant (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11507179 and other studies on both young and old, trained and untrained etc).

While they might appear to lead to opposite conclusions, they really both say the same thing, protein timing is very important for muscle mass increases, but only when you are training in a way that promotes muscle gains. If you are training just for strength or endurance and not for muscle mass, and your muscle mass doesn't increase at all, then it won't matter if you eat extra protein at all, or if you eat it at a specific time. If you notice, in the study you linked none of the groups gained any lean mass or muscle size, and even the group that took no proteins at all had the same results. But in other situations, especially say someone training for a bodybuilding competition and making already muscle mass gains, extra protein will make a very significant difference even after just 10 weeks, and the timing of protein intake pre- and post-exercise will make even more difference.

To use an overly simplified analogy, if you decided not to build a new house it doesn't matter if you have a lot of extra cash and materials . But if you decided to build a second house (exercised in a way that produces a stimulus for hypertrophy and muscle growth), then it will matter how much money and materials (energy and proteins) you have available at that exact time, because you might decide to build a smaller house if you are currently short on them, or a larger house if you have plenty.

Having said that, parkour is more about pure strength and not so much about muscle size, so this is less relevant for strength only. But it has other relevant implications for that too, as it helps speed up recovery between training sessions, improve endurance adaptations etc.

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2009, 08:24:34 PM »
In the area of sports drinks, what do you guys think about NASA's new product?
Daniel,
I fixed your link in the quote. You shouldn't use "" in the url tag or it will mess up your link.

About the content, it's just an electrolyte drink, more like gatorade, with no proteins, so not what we are talking about.

It's still good to take water, sugar and salt/electrolytes after you train and sweat a lot, but different drinks are essentially the same.
And if it's by NASA it might be optimized for astronauts' needs, like limited water amounts available in space-missions, but that is a different situation from someone exercising normally, so it wouldn't make it any more special or useful than any other similar drink containing some calories and minerals, or even just plain water if you also plan to eat a meal soon after workout.

Offline Steve Low

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • Karma: +287/-56
    • View Profile
    • Eat, Move, Improve
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #35 on: June 07, 2009, 07:08:26 PM »
The point is...

You should train hard and not worry too much about PWO supplementation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342?dopt=Abstract
Steve,
that's a relevant paper but the conclusion does not apply to training that increases muscle mass. For that type of training, PWO supplementation has instead a very large impact (10~25% increase) on muscle mass.
Unless you consider that, you would have trouble reconciling these results with the many other studies that show instead a very high increase in muscle size and lean body mass after 10-12 weeks training due to protein intake timing (also studies specifically looking the final overall effects, not to mention all the other ones that show also precise mechanisms and even instantaneous effects, hormonal changes etc)

Even a difference of just 2 hours (immediately instead of waiting 2hrs) in pwo protein for 12 weeks caused an increase in muscle size (cross-sectional area) of 8%, which is a lot, and a 25% increase in mean muscle fiber size, which is also very significant (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11507179 and other studies on both young and old, trained and untrained etc).

While they might appear to lead to opposite conclusions, they really both say the same thing, protein timing is very important for muscle mass increases, but only when you are training in a way that promotes muscle gains. If you are training just for strength or endurance and not for muscle mass, and your muscle mass doesn't increase at all, then it won't matter if you eat extra protein at all, or if you eat it at a specific time. If you notice, in the study you linked none of the groups gained any lean mass or muscle size, and even the group that took no proteins at all had the same results. But in other situations, especially say someone training for a bodybuilding competition and making already muscle mass gains, extra protein will make a very significant difference even after just 10 weeks, and the timing of protein intake pre- and post-exercise will make even more difference.

To use an overly simplified analogy, if you decided not to build a new house it doesn't matter if you have a lot of extra cash and materials . But if you decided to build a second house (exercised in a way that produces a stimulus for hypertrophy and muscle growth), then it will matter how much money and materials (energy and proteins) you have available at that exact time, because you might decide to build a smaller house if you are currently short on them, or a larger house if you have plenty.

Having said that, parkour is more about pure strength and not so much about muscle size, so this is less relevant for strength only. But it has other relevant implications for that too, as it helps speed up recovery between training sessions, improve endurance adaptations etc.

Wrong.

The study measured body composition which is a measure of how much muscle/fat you have. No significant difference.

These are RESISTANCE TRAINED MEN. Which are MOST of us here.

Your elderly man study it doesn't say if they were trained, but they probably weren't. So obviously every little bit helps.
Posts NOT medical, training or nutrition advice
Site // Overcoming Gravity Book

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #36 on: June 07, 2009, 08:26:34 PM »
The point is...

You should train hard and not worry too much about PWO supplementation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342?dopt=Abstract
Steve,
that's a relevant paper but the conclusion does not apply to training that increases muscle mass. For that type of training, PWO supplementation has instead a very large impact (10~25% increase) on muscle mass.
Unless you consider that, you would have trouble reconciling these results with the many other studies that show instead a very high increase in muscle size and lean body mass after 10-12 weeks training due to protein intake timing (also studies specifically looking the final overall effects, not to mention all the other ones that show also precise mechanisms and even instantaneous effects, hormonal changes etc)

Even a difference of just 2 hours (immediately instead of waiting 2hrs) in pwo protein for 12 weeks caused an increase in muscle size (cross-sectional area) of 8%, which is a lot, and a 25% increase in mean muscle fiber size, which is also very significant (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11507179 and other studies on both young and old, trained and untrained etc).

While they might appear to lead to opposite conclusions, they really both say the same thing, protein timing is very important for muscle mass increases, but only when you are training in a way that promotes muscle gains. If you are training just for strength or endurance and not for muscle mass, and your muscle mass doesn't increase at all, then it won't matter if you eat extra protein at all, or if you eat it at a specific time. If you notice, in the study you linked none of the groups gained any lean mass or muscle size, and even the group that took no proteins at all had the same results. But in other situations, especially say someone training for a bodybuilding competition and making already muscle mass gains, extra protein will make a very significant difference even after just 10 weeks, and the timing of protein intake pre- and post-exercise will make even more difference.

To use an overly simplified analogy, if you decided not to build a new house it doesn't matter if you have a lot of extra cash and materials . But if you decided to build a second house (exercised in a way that produces a stimulus for hypertrophy and muscle growth), then it will matter how much money and materials (energy and proteins) you have available at that exact time, because you might decide to build a smaller house if you are currently short on them, or a larger house if you have plenty.

Having said that, parkour is more about pure strength and not so much about muscle size, so this is less relevant for strength only. But it has other relevant implications for that too, as it helps speed up recovery between training sessions, improve endurance adaptations etc.

Wrong.

The study measured body composition which is a measure of how much muscle/fat you have. No significant difference.

These are RESISTANCE TRAINED MEN. Which are MOST of us here.

Your elderly man study it doesn't say if they were trained, but they probably weren't. So obviously every little bit helps.
Steve,
you have not made a logical argument here aside from writing the word wrong in all capital letters. I think you might want to read again my post as it doesn't seem like you addressed my explanation and currently it doesn't seem like you have a point or a reason for disagreeing with the consensus from all experimental evidence,  which is clearly against your position.

Yes, the study measured body composition which is the same parameter other studies also measured.
Again, ALL evidence shows the same thing, that post-workout supplements of protein, carbs or both all increase -significantly- your gains in body composition, muscle mass and muscle size as well as many other parameters (as many studies clearly showed), unless of course your training was insufficient to generate any muscle growth or body composition change to begin with (as in the study you referenced).

As I mentioned these significant improvements due solely to nutrient timing are true across the board between young, old, trained and untrained. Except that in trained people you have to train more carefully and specifically for muscle growth if that is your goal, while in untrained it will happen even without paying attention. And if you do you again see a great difference based on nutrition timing pwo (sugar+proteins). For example, professional bodybuilders are trained athletes and yet are still able to train for muscle mass gains.

If you want a study on young (21-24) and trained people over 10weeks+ showing large differences due to exact timing of pwo nutrition in muscle size, body composition, lean muscle mass, etc, here is one of many:
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of supplement timing compared with supplementation in the hours not close to the workout on muscle-fiber hypertrophy, strength, and body composition during a 10-wk RE program. METHODS: In a single-blind, randomized protocol, resistance-trained males were matched for strength and placed into one of two groups...
...RESULTS: PRE-POST demonstrated a greater increase in lean body mass and 1RM strength in two of three assessments. The changes in body composition were supported by a greater increase in Cross-Sectional-Area of the type II fibers and contractile protein content. PRE-POST supplementation also resulted in higher muscle Creatine and glycogen values after the training program.

Again, all studies, including the one you referenced point to the same conclusion: sugar and/or proteins immediately after exercise modulate significantly the amount of muscle mass gains and body composition improvements.

Using some numbers just as an example, if your training was able to stimulate muscle mass increase of say 10% over time, you might only see an increase of say 5% without pwo supplementation, or the full 10% if you consumed sugar and protein immediately after. Similarly, if your training was generating a 0% muscle mass increase (as in the study you references), you would see a 0%x50% = 0% without pwo supplementation and a 0%x100% = 0% with it.

Offline Chris Salvato

  • Moderator
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Karma: +327/-64
  • Eat. Move. Improve.
    • View Profile
    • Chris Salvato
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #37 on: June 07, 2009, 08:52:25 PM »
Chris,
Just to change it up, I will try to make this one reply shorter, especially since it seems our views are not as far from each other as it might have seemed at the start. If needed I will make a more expanded discussion in a next post.

If you could take away 2 things from this thread it would be the following:
1) Our views are never as far from each other as you make them out to be.  We are usually 90% on the same page and there is a nitpicking-of-details going on.
2) Short posts are preferable to long ones.

I am only talking about the first 1~2hours after exercise. After that, I think a second intake particularly as a mix of slow+fast or even just slow proteins is needed and will produce greater results, and not taking any more proteins 90min after whey will give reduced benefits.  And this IS clearly supported by the literature. I think we agree on that second part. 

We do agree on the second part for sure...though I still think the proper mix of fast+slow is desirable.

On the first point, though, I am still in the air.  the study we have been discussing and referring to as [13] shows that after a bout of exercise there is more benefit to a mix of fast/slow than of fast alone.  True, however, that the abstract is not detailed in the latency between the bout of exercise and the ingestion of said protein.

Literature is always up for debate because there are always conflicting studies.  Sadly, the realm of exercise science and nutrition is a lot different than engineering and molecular biology in that there are still huge gray areas that may not be filled in for decades, yet....likely centuries.

The problem is in saying something like "fast protein X does badly when averaging 3-5 hours post exercise while slow protein Y does better" is that really it's that X is doing awesome in the first 1hr and then drops off completely for the next few hours, and Y is doing so-so in the first hour but at least it keeps doing so-so over the remaining hours.
Yes, a 3hr average will say Y is doing better. But in the same data and same experiment, X is much better (sometimes ~2x) in the first hour (that's what is shown for example in figure 3 vs fig2 of ref 13/Wilkinson, 3hr average seems worse, but first 90min it's better).

This depends on your definition of "doing better".  In the first hour there is definitely a much larger spike of AA with fast proteins (thus the name "fast proteins!") but there is emerging data showing that a huge AA spike may or may not be what we want.

What I am saying is that all the evidence actually suggests you should use X for the first hour and then Y for the remaining hours (you could also do repeated whey every 90 min, and people tested that and it works, but that's just tedious as heck).

Yeah...tedious and probably unnecessary.  Right now, in the field, there is a lot of speculation that a lot of the AA's in the blood stream get oxidized and used as energy because blood AA levels are SO much higher than their "set point" in the body.  Tedious and perhaps even a waste of time, if that is the case.

Now, for convenience, you might argue that it's easier just to go with mixing them (or getting them together) so you don't have to worry about it and you can just drink once. And that would be reasonable.
But again that would be for convenience rather than optimality or any actual, say, synergistic effect.

Arguably, since we are traceurs and care more about performance as opposed to size, "optimal" is not really necessary in this instance.  Convenience may be the key factor here, anyway, for a practical standpoint for this audience.

Plus there can be disadvantages to the "1 drink only, might as well add slow proteins" strategy.  At least from personal experience (since we are talking about convenience/practicality), if I drink something like fast+slow+other drinks right after workout, that fills me up for a lot longer and is a bit harder to take in larger amounts, especially If I am trying to fit as much protein as I can in this post-workout time, while whey+~sugar alone feels much lighter, and in 60-90 min I can actually feel like eating a more complete meal with more proteins again (including cheese etc).

Still -- it is funny that the recommendation now is whey+sugar (and presumably water) as opposed to the original suggestion you put forward which was whey+skim milk....which is going to consist of very slow proteins (milk proteins) along with whey and a slower sugar (lactose).  I guess now I am nitpicking you :)

you have not made a logical argument here aside from writing the word wrong in all capital letters.

BTW, steve didn't use all caps ;)

I think there is too much aggression flying around here.  I haven't really been aggressive since the start of the discussion because I enjoy it and actually learn from it.  Though text can muddle my words.

We're all on the same team here.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 09:12:20 PM by Chris Salvato »

Offline Jake Vigil

  • Epically Awesome
  • Hirundo Rustica
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Karma: +103/-17
  • Be the Change you wish to see in the world
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #38 on: June 07, 2009, 09:23:03 PM »
I try Very Very hard to follow you guys on these topics, because this sort of stuff interests me, but man, most of it just bounces around inside my skull before falling out the other side It came in. Do any of you guys have a couple good sorta "go-to" sources/sites you can share so I can learn more? I currently read a whole lot on T-Muscle, Performance Menu, Gymnastic Bodies, and APK, but yeah, you guys got any more starter places you can throw at me? I would appreciate it.
Life is what you make of it.
Training Log

Offline tombb

  • Mangabey
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Karma: +60/-34
    • View Profile
Re: powerade? (and other post workout drinks)
« Reply #39 on: June 07, 2009, 09:37:56 PM »
The problem is in saying something like "fast protein X does badly when averaging 3-5 hours post exercise while slow protein Y does better" is that really it's that X is doing awesome in the first 1hr and then drops off completely for the next few hours, and Y is doing so-so in the first hour but at least it keeps doing so-so over the remaining hours.
Yes, a 3hr average will say Y is doing better. But in the same data and same experiment, X is much better (sometimes ~2x) in the first hour (that's what is shown for example in figure 3 vs fig2 of ref 13/Wilkinson, 3hr average seems worse, but first 90min it's better).

This depends on your definition of "doing better".  In the first hour there is definitely a much larger spike of AA with fast proteins (thus the name "fast proteins!") but there is emerging data showing that a huge AA spike may or may not be what we want.

What I am saying is that all the evidence actually suggests you should use X for the first hour and then Y for the remaining hours (you could also do repeated whey every 90 min, and people tested that and it works, but that's just tedious as heck).

Yeah...tedious and probably unnecessary.  Right now, in the field, there is a lot of speculation that a lot of the AA's in the blood stream get oxidized and used as energy because blood AA levels are SO much higher than their "set point" in the body.  Tedious and perhaps even a waste of time, if that is the case.
The points you bring up, namely 'spiking', 'blood AA overloading' and 'AA oxidation', are mostly relevant in normal non-pwo situations.
But an important point I want to make is that post-workout is quite different and these same effects essentially do not apply there. First off, while there can be spiking and AA oxidation from excess levels in normal situations, pwo your muscles are essentially continuously and voraciously uptaking AAs from the bloodstream. There is no risk of AAs going over the cap because of that. And similarly the AA release post-workout is not spiked, it is more like a steady release at maximal output for as long as nutrients are available (~90min). Spiking implies a much sharper sudden increase and decrease, especially due to some negative feedback mechanism. For example, in normal situations that would be excess bloodstream accumulation causing both unnecessary AA oxidation and a downregulation of absorption of new AAs. PWO however that is not what the body does, rather, the muscles just uptake more (since they are already greatly in need) to maintain blood levels at normal thresholds.
And even AA oxidation only happens pwo if you don't take sugar/carbs with it, and even then it is a useful mechanism because it just allows you to switch to anabolism as you should even in the absence of sugar/carbs.

One more point I want to make about reference 13 since it didn't come through from my previous posts, is that it doesn't show that a mix is better, when you look at the data it shows that whey is clearly better for the first 90min and a mix is inferior. The AA uptake and protein synthesis was the main parameter they were studying but evidence and data from many other studies made the link between this faster pwo uptake, many other increased muscle parameters and better overall results. Again if you look at ref 13 it only seems better if you take the average over 3 hours but if you average over the first 1.5 hours you are better with fast proteins alone than with a mix. which was the point I was trying to convey.

Still -- it is funny that the recommendation now is whey+sugar (and presumably water) as opposed to the original suggestion you put forward which was whey+skim milk....which is going to consist of very slow proteins (milk proteins) along with whey and a slower sugar (lactose).  I guess now I am nitpicking you :)
Actually my recommendation has always been sugar+whey. I never once suggested whey+milk, I simply mentioned that if you already planned to use milk as a pwo drink, you would be better off with fat-free than with whole milk and that you could take your butter at other times when it doesn't risk interfering with a needed fast absorption. Personally I never used milk for pwo, alone or mixed with anything mostly because I think it would be very impractical and would probably be spoiled by the time I carry it with me, exercise, and drink it (there might be ways to make it work, like mixing milk powder at the last minute, but at that point it seems like you might as well go for whey).


P.S.: About the capital letters yeah somehow I thought they were, oops :P