Against Glycogen Repletion...

[AlexTemper]

Ok, so week 2 is pretty much done.

Still absolutely fine and I've continued to gain on each session and with no drop off in energy levels despite the addition of more cardio sessions.

I've leaned up a little but this always initially happens when I cardio up as I start to burn calories like crazy so I've introduced more but not around the workout period or a few hours after.

Picked up a slight sniffle, but again this I'd atttribute to extra cardio and is fairly normal for me.

[AlexTemper]

Completed the 3 weeks of no pre, intra or post workout carbs and as per the previous 2 weeks, have suffered no ill effects. Strength gains are good with no tail off through the sessions.

Ultimately I will be going back to a token 10g carbs intra workout for the shuttling effect as I think this is the optimum.

I think in conclusion, carbs pre and/or post workout aren't really needed unless you're purely looking to bulk and get in calories. For Intra I'd say 10g carbs are good for a shuttling effect of other supplements but again not neccessary if generally you only would use water.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Thanks, Alex, for undertaking this personal experiment and keeping us updated with the results - it has been very interesting and a fitting addition to the thread.

[Donjman]

I found some data contradicting that insulin PWO wipes out GH, and infact it can increase it...

From good old JB

"Thanks, Charles. That's exactly right. And in my post above I believe I demonstrated a clear respect for his ideas.

Yet, in the end, there are a few things about his comments that are wrong. Specifically, this study CLEARLY shows that the GH response to resistance training isn't any lower with supplementation vs no supplementation.

Here's the study:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/85/4/1544

In fact, here's the graph of GH:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/vo...06051003x.jpeg

Notice that on day 1, the GH response to training is MUCH HIGHER when supplemented with a carb/protien drink. On day 2 and 3 there is no difference, though.

So, when Dr DeVany claims that GH is blunted post-exercise, he's missing some important data. This is not to say that his overall approach is incorrect. It's just that this one thing - and the conclusions he draws from it (that carb/protein drinks during and post-exercise reduce fat loss due to GH suppression) are incorrect.
"

Hrm

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Don't have time to go through this study as I am late getting ready to go to work! Will check it out in detail later.

However my initial reaction is this:

Quote

So, when Dr DeVany claims that GH is blunted post-exercise, he's missing some important data.

Quote

Yet, in the end, there are a few things about his comments that are wrong. Specifically, this study CLEARLY shows that the GH response to resistance training isn't any lower with supplementation vs no supplementation.

So he seems to be saying that he is right based on ONE study but DeVany is wrong because he ignored (or was not aware of) ONE study!

I'm pretty sure DeVany's observations were based on more than one study.

[hailtotheking]

As i have said before, mechanisms for GH secretion / inhibition in the presence of insulin-promoting compounds (including carbs) seem a bit more complicated than most people think. For example, amino acids such as arginine and orthinine are insulinogenic, yet also trigger noticeable GH output.

[Gareth83]

Donjman, I commented on those studies previously in this thread. There were a few flaws in the study which JB failed to comment on even once I asked him about it...

http://forum.myprotein.co.uk/showthr...erardi&page=47

read from there on....

[NU_nutrition_TS]

I thought there was something familiar about that study And JB's comments! Thanks for pointing that out Gareth - it saves me having to read through it all over again and comment, as both you and I have already given our views on why it is flawed and unrepresentative!

As I said a few posts back it is highly hypocritical of JB to latch onto this one solitary study as a means of trying to discredit DeVany and his theories. How many other contradictory studies has JB himself ignored or remained ignorant of in order to hold up this one study in support of his theory!

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Not that it should need hammering home any more but I couldn't resist reproducing this post in Mark's Daily Apple:

Quote

Dear Mark,

I am a loyal Daily Apple reader who’s just begun a full-scale primal + IF + HIIT lifestyle. My only worry is that of muscle loss or impeded muscle growth. As a friend of multiple muscle builders, I’ve been told that carbohydrates are necessary for that muscle growth. While I’m not about to go back to my high-carb ways, I am willing to make an exception for post-lifting meals (within an hour window). I’ve heard this is the optimal time for carb-intake as your muscles are depleted of glycogen stores. I am wondering if you could shed light on this. Is this method actually effective for muscle growth? If so, how many carbs should I consume, and of what kind? And finally, will making this one compromise induce inflammation or impede fat loss?

Thanks to Joshua for the question. It’s a common belief that substantial carbs are required for muscle development. As you say, a post-workout carb boost is often seen as a given. The thinking behind this concept is primarily two-fold. First, as you mention, carbs are touted as essential to refill your glycogen stores - pronto - post-workout so you can be ready to work out again tomorrow. I imagine you’ve also been told that your body will begin to break down muscle if you don’t refuel the glycogen reserves right away. The second element involves the role of insulin. The belief here is that raising insulin levels (as a result of carb intake) will enhance protein synthesis.

I’m here to debunk both of those “truths,” but let me lay out the context for that dispute.

Read the rest of Mark's reply here: Post Workout Carb Loading and Muscle Building | Mark's Daily Apple

[daffy]

Thought this was a useful post by Bobo/Kruger @ AM

Quote

Because glyocgen depletion and catabolism is highly overated post exercise. The hormonal respons to exercise in itself in anti-catabolic in nature. This is also the time when nutrient signaling is at its highest so the need for such a drastic insulin spike is not necessary. There has been no study confirming that the faster you restore glyogen stores the faster protein synthesis occurs. In fact protein synthesis is at its highest 24 hours after exercise. If proper nutrition is followed the need for a large amount of fast acting glucose is not warranted. There is also the the fact the glyocgen synthesis is biphasic and the frist stage (30 minutes post exercise) is insulin indpendent. This stage is more reliable on available amino acids as a substate rather than glucose. Exercise in itself increases glut4 permeability so the increased amounts of insulin are not needed to achieve this to improve trnasport. This is just some of the reasons I recommend a slower more stable release of insulin that will coincided wiht the second phase of glycogen resynthesis. Thjere is also the the reaosn of increased glucose storage due to a high insulin spike. Studies show that not all glucsoe in absorbed by the exercised muscle and there is increase chances of this being utilized by other tissues, adipose tissue being one of them

The bit in bold points out the response to exercise (the elevation of glut4) in and of itself is enough to promote anabolism, provided that the raw materials (AA) are there, and this is independent of the action of insulin.

So while a spike isn't necessary immediately post workout, insulin can still play a role in anti-catabolism, however, ingestion of protein pre and post workout will elevate insulin anyway.