"Workout myths"

[308sniper147]

Again I think this thread deserves to be on it's own instead of getting lost in another thread.

So this thread is a thread basically to disprove the MULTITUDE of myths that surround the fitness industry. Please if you have a difference of viewpoint based on SCIENCE you may interject into this thread whenever you want to. This thread has the potential to be an extremely beneficial, informational thread to any and all.

What I DO NOT want in this thread is "my bro did this and he got big", or "I did this and it worked for me". This isn't evidence because while something "may work", it in NO way makes it optimal. There is no best and worst in fitness(in my opinion). There is only optimal for your particular goals. I will end this paragraph with a quote
"If someone does not value evidence, what evidence would you provide to make them value evidence?" ~Sam Harris.

I will start this thread with a myth from one of our own. This is a very common myth amongst every "bodybuilder" in the gym.(I put "bodybuilder" in quotes because every bro that's never even pathomed Pre-contest diet calls themselves a bodybuilder). The myth of having to drink high glycemic carbs directly after your workout. I'll let Mr. Sully take it from here.


Andrew


MYTH #1
"I'll give you a BIG one that is costing the members of this forum about 1K$ a year. You DO NOT need any sugar/carb laden gobble-d-gook with your protein/creatine mix post workout. Real science, the guys in the lab coats that don't give one iota about how much of a particular product gets sold, have determined that unless your activity taps so deeply into your glycogen stores the whole simple carb thing will do nothing to increase anabolism or stop catabolism and does zero to increase creatine saturation. The only time it has show to be useful is for activity so intense that it goes beyond the normal training threshold. The FEW tests that show a value were conducted on long distance cycling, Lance Armstrong type, where a high intensity activity was carried out over 4+ hours. But, the supplement companies forget to point out that little tidbit. So unless your in Ranger school or the Tour De France all it is going to do is make you fatter. That is unless your on steroids/insulin and created the false hormonal environment to make it useful. And THAT is what is driving the "real world" results market. Steroids, and more exact, insulin change everything so everyone goes on the internet and reads about the "results" and never asks the question, what else are you on? And trust me folks A LOT of people are on "gear" including many reading this. Not a judgement, just changes how "supplements" work in non users.

Now having been involved in the fitness industry for 30+ years I have seen a marked increase in "fat" gym rats and recreational trainers as well as my brethren in natural bodybuilding. Bodybuilders off season have become FAT! One reason is that they take all the high carb post training drinks and the training never comes anywhere near the threshold required for it to be useful. All that sugar has to go somewhere and if the training did not create the "need" for the sugar spike then it may be restored as bodyfat. Not to get into a biochem lesson but insulin is anabolic and (oversimplified and not really exactly correct but factual) can also cause fat storage. Google "role of insulin" and you can get the drift.

So big money saving myth #1, for 90% of workout nutz, ditch the sugar/protein/creatine post workout drink.

OK Andrew, you throw one out and lets keep this going, lol."

Sully


MYTH #2
This one makes my head want to explode every time I hear it. "You can only absorb X amount of protein". Gosh I can't tell you how many bros I've heard that from. I will start it off with a question. How in the world does that make any sense whatsoever? That statement is 100% false in every single way possible. Our bodies can absorb ANY amount of protein or any macronutrient for that matter. If you could only absorb for say 25g of protein (which is what I hear most offen) you would literally shit out whole chunks of food like steak. I don't know about you but that doesn't happen to me... Now is there a point where the LEUCINE content of your protein maxes out the anabolic response? Yes there is, as most research shows, that for a normal 200lbs male it would be around 30g of whey protein isolate +/- 5g, but as stated earlier the amino acid Leucine is shown by research to be the main contributor to muscle protein Synthesis. That is why proteins like wheat and soy protein take a much more significant amount of protein to work effectively. THIS ALSO MEANS that BCAA products like Scivation Xtend will also stimulate muscle protein synthesis with NO calories. So that is an excellent option for someone on any type of caloric restriction. Also, if you don't believe me watch this video by Dr. Layne Notron.

http://youtu.be/mjmV8BlsJTQ

 

[308sniper147]

Reserved

 

[308sniper147]

Reserved.

 

[sulcop96]

You stole my myth #2, lol. How about another BIG one that is about to cause a stir..... You must eat every 2-2.5 hours to optimally stoke the metabolism and you will start to lose muscle if you go beyond that. People, think about it for two seconds, humans developed to be resilient and to endure long ass periods of hardship and starvation. Also for thousands of years humans normally nibbled whatever was left over from the night meal and then went off to forage for food or, in the case of warriors like the Spartans, train for battle. Long hours spent in high activity and when did the warrior/gatherer eat? AT night, if at all (sometimes it could be 24-48 hours between feedings). The Spartan army was known to eat only at night and feasted on a type of blood soup and whatever veggies they could find. Not a huge number of calories, but nutritionally dense. Now go back and look at old Greek and Roman sculpture. Those guys be jacked and had the physiques most of us aspire! No muscle loss there, and the Greek's and Romans prided themselves on the exactness of the sculpture so it was not like the modern comic book or toy where the artist has some liberties (see Barbi dolls... hmmmm wish that was not a myth and she did exist... but I digress) so the ancients were very muscular, ate once or twice a day, at best, and suffered no muscle loss.

Also current research has shown that frequent feedings do no more to stoke the metabolic process then eating 3 meals a day. Fat loss studies conducted, and repeated with the same findings, show little to no difference in fat loss with three vs. six feedings and only a slight difference in muscle retention in six over three. The real difference was in the daily caloric content and macro nutrient make-up (grams of carbs/fats/proteins) and not number of meals. Now the study was done doing the three meals vs. six but I assume the results would show the same lack of variance between fewer meals and six.

Now DO NOT get me wrong, I am not saying eating 1-2 meals over 5-8 is better. I am also not a huge proponent of Intermittent Fasting or things like the Warrior diet. I think there is value associated with more frequent feeding; however, there is zero reason to freak out over missing a meal. I have actually had clients tell me they feel like they are shrinking and can't meet me for a workout because they missed a meal. Really?? Hell, I'll use that the next time we have a call out for SWAT and I don't feel like going, "sorry sir, I forgot to eat lunch and running around in all that heavy tac gear may cause muscle wasting and I can't afford that now..." Yha, that would go over like a lead balloon.

So all this "tricking" the body, and "maximizing" this and that is no more effective then finding your bodies own nutrition cycle, tailor your macro nutrient needs to your individual body chemistry and eating within that.

Sully

edit: Anyone using any hormonal drugs, steroids, insulin, GH etc. is not included in the above reference. The steroid using bodybuilding and figure world are often cited as the "example" of why this theory works. NOT! What it shows is that the drugs create a totally different chemistry and this type of feeding is actually very necessary. So bottom line, if your on gear then yes you need to eat 4-5 times a day and if your also taking insulin (as 99% of all pro bodybuilders/figure/wrestlers) you need more then that, say 7-9 meals a day. For those of us not indulging in the above don't sweat missing a meal or two... or three.

 

[BKS]

I'm not saying you guys are right or wrong, but to be taken seriously, you need more than your word, tall tales about greek gods, and a Layne Norton vid. Post up some peer reviewed journal articles or something.

 

[sulcop96]

I'm not saying you guys are right or wrong, but to be taken seriously, you need more than your word, tall tales about greek gods, and a Layne Norton vid. Post up some peer reviewed journal articles or something.

sure, and I agree 100%, here is a bit of my library. Now to reinforce my point above, research shows you will not melt away if you miss a meal, or two... or, in some cases even fast (although I am against that) and that it is nutrient composition and caloric intake and not eating 5-6-7-8 times a day that triggers fat loss and muscle gain. A lot of the below deal with various forms of fasting or period of no significant nutrient intake. Review the skeletal muscle loss rates and returns to baseline in them and you will see that the human body will recover and hold muscle, and in three of the below studies gain muscle, even with one feeding a day. So enjoy some light reading and I urge you to go to pubmed.com and review for yourself anything you read on the bodybuilding forums and see on TV or in the mainstream media.

Sully


1.Farshchi HR, et al. Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, and fasting lipid profiles in healthy obese women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):16-24.
2.Farshchi HR, et al. Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 May;28(5):653-60.
3.Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.
4.Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
1.Rashidi MR. Effects of nibbling and gorging on lipid profiles, blood glucose and insulin levels in healthy subjects.
Saudi Med J. 2003 Sep;24(9):945-8.
2.Jenkins DJ. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 5;321(14):929-34.
5.Iwao S, et al. Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1996 Oct;6(5):265-72.
1.Swindells YE, The metabolic response of young women to changes in the frequency of meals. Br J Nutr. 1968 Dec;22(4):667-80.
6.Young CM, Frequency of feeding, weight reduction, and body composition. J Am Diet Assoc. 1971 Nov;59(5):466-72.
7.Antoine JM, et al. Feeding frequency and nitrogen balance in weight-reducing obese women. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1984 Jan;38(1):31-8.
8.Verboeket-van de Venne WP, et al. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obese Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
9.Øyvind H, et al. The effect of meal frequency on body composition during 12 weeks of strength training (Abstract). 12th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, 2007.
10.Johnstone AM. Fasting - the ultimate diet? Obes Rev. 2007 May;8(3):211-22.
11.Wadden, et al. Less food, less hunger: reports of appetite and symptoms in a controlled study of a protein-sparing modified fast. Int J Obes. 1987;11(3):239-49.
12.Speechly DP, Buffenstein R. Greater appetite control associated with an increased frequency of eating in lean males. Appetite. 1999 Dec;33(3):285-97.
13.Speechly DP, et al. Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1151-9.
14.Stote, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.
15.Heilbronn, et al. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):69-73.
16.Rampersaud GC, et al. Breakfast habits, nutritional status, body weight, and academic performance in children and adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5):743-60; quiz 761-2.
17.Nicklas, et al. Impact of breakfast consumption on nutritional adequacy of the diets of young adults in Bogalusa, Louisiana: ethnic and gender contrasts. J Am Diet Assoc. 1998 Dec;98(12):1432-8.
18.Ruxton CH. Breakfast: a review of associations with measures of dietary intake, physiology and biochemistry. British J Nutr. 1997 Aug;78(2):199-213.
19.Morgan KJ. The role of breakfast in the diet adequacy of the US population. J Am Coll Nutr. 1986 5(6):551-63.
20.Farshchi HR, et al. Deleterious effects of omitting breakfast on insulin sensitivity and fasting lipid profiles in healthy lean women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Feb;81(2):388-96.
21.Layman DK. Protein quantity and quality at levels above the RDA improves adult weight loss. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Dec;23(6 Suppl):631S-636S.
22.Biorie Y, et al. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Dec 23;94(26):14930-5.
23.Capaldo B, et al. Splanchnic and leg substrate exchange after ingestion of a natural mixed meal in humans. Diabetes. 1999 May;48(5):958-66.
24.Benton D, Pearl Y. Breakfast, blood glucose, and cognition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Apr;67(4):772S-778S.
25.Wyatt HR, et al. Long-term weight loss and breakfast in subjects in the National Weight Control Registry. 2002 Feb;10(2):78-82.
26.Heilbronn, et al. Glucose Tolerance and Skeletal Muscle Gene Expression in Response to Alternate Day Fasting. Obes Res. 2005 Mar;13(3):574-81.
27.Halberg, et al. Effect of intermittent fasting and refeeding on insulin action in healthy men. J Appl Phsiol. 2005 Dec;99(6):2128-36. Epub 2005 Jul 28.
28.Faintuch J, et al. Changes in body fluid and energy compartments during prolonged hunger strike. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 2000 Mar-Apr;55(2):47-54.
1.Roki R, et al. Physiological and chronobiological changes during Ramadan intermittent fasting. Ann Nutr Metab. 2004;48(4):296-303. Epub 2004 Sep 24.
29.Bener A, et al. Road traffic injuries in Al-Ain City, United Arab Emirates. J R Soc Health. 1992 Dec;112(6):273-6.
30.Roki R, et al. Daytime alertness, mood, psychomotor performances, and oral temperature during Ramadan intermittent fasting. Ann Nutr Metab. 2000;44(3):101-7.
31.Roky R, et al. Daytime sleepiness during Ramadan intermittent fasting: polysomnographic and quantitative waking EEG study. J Sleep Res. 2003 Jun;12(2):95-101.
32.Zerguini Y, et al. Impact of Ramadan on physical performance in professional soccer players. Br J Sports Med. 2007 Jun;41(6):398-400.
33.Fontana L, et al. Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 27;101(17):6659-63.
34.Varady KA, Hellerstein MK. Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jul;86(1):7-13.
35.Walfred RL, et al. The calorically restricted low-fat nutrient-dense diet in Biosphere 2 significantly lowers blood glucose, total leukocyte count, cholesterol, and blood pressure in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Dec 1;89(23):11533-7.
36.Lakka TA, Laaksonen DE. Physical activity in prevention and treatment of the metabolic syndrome. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007 Feb;32(1):76-88.
37.Carrol S, Dudfeld M. What is the relationship between exercise and metabolic abnormalities? A review of the metabolic syndrome. Sports Med. 2004;34(6):371-418.
38.Mattson MP, Wan R. Beneficial effects of intermittent fasting and caloric restriction on the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. J Nutr Biochem. 2005 Mar;16(3):129-37.
39.Mattson MP. Neuroprotective signaling and the aging brain: take away my food and let me run. Brain Res. 2000 Dec 15;886(1-2):47-53.
40.Ferris LT, et al. The effect of acute exercise on serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels and cognitive function. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Apr;39(4):728-34.
41.Winter B. High impact running improves learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2007 May;87(4):597-609.
42.Aragon A. Myths under the microscope. 2006. Myths Under the Microscope Part 1: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone - AlanAragon.com - Fitness Based on Science & Experience
43.Baty JJ, et al. The effect of a carbohydrate and protein supplement on resistance exercise performance, hormonal response, and muscle damage. J Strength Cond Res. 2007 May;21(2):321-9.
44.Tipton KD, et al. Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Aug;281(2):E197-206.
45.Tipton KD, et al. Stimulation of net muscle protein synthesis by whey protein ingestion before and after exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Jan;292(1):E71-6. Epub 2006 Aug 8.
46.Bird SP, et al. Liquid carbohydrate/essential amino acid ingestion during a short-term bout of resistance exercise suppresses myofibrillar protein degradation. Metabolism. 2006 May;55(5):570-7.
47.Garrow JS, et al. The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects.Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15.


All the above can be referenced on pubmed.com

 

[308sniper147]

I'm not saying you guys are right or wrong, but to be taken seriously, you need more than your word, tall tales about greek gods, and a Layne Norton vid. Post up some peer reviewed journal articles or something.

http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/uploads/Layne-Norton-PhD-Thesis.pdf


Here is layne's dissertation leading to the fact of leucine being the main contributor to muscle protein synthesis making other many interesting findings.
I will do more research on the protein absorption although if someone needs scholarly work to prove that your body absorbes all of the nutrients you put in it. I seriously worry about them....

Andrew

 

[sulcop96]

Here is a cut and paste from and abstract by McDonald from "The Protein Connection"



How long does a meal maintain the body in an anabolic state?

Having looked at the possibility that eating too frequently might actually be detrimental (or at least not particularly beneficial) given how long a typical meal takes to digest, I want to look at how long a given meal might possibly maintain an anabolic state.

Mentioned above, considering the relatively slow rate of protein and other nutrient digestion, it appears that even a moderate sized meal maintains an anabolic state for at least five to six hours (8). Individual whole food meals are still releasing nutrients into the bloodstream at the 5-hour mark (7). Very slowly digesting proteins such as casein may still be releasing AAs into the bloodstream seven to eight hours after ingestion (22). Considering this research, we might set a conservative limit of five hours as the absolute longest time that should pass between eating some source of dietary protein during waking hours.

 

[sulcop96]

Oh, forgot to back up myth #1:

Coingestion of carbohydrate with protein does not further augment postexercise muscle protein synthesis
René Koopman,1 Milou Beelen,1 Trent Stellingwerff,1 Bart Pennings,1 Wim H. M. Saris,2 Arie K. Kies,3 Harm Kuipers,1 and Luc J. C. van Loon1,2

Departments of 1Movement Sciences and 2Human Biology, Nutrition and Toxicology Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University, Maastricht; and 3DSM Food Specialties, R&D, Biochemistry and Nutrition Department, Delft, The Netherlands

Submitted 28 February 2007 ; accepted in final form 1 July 2007

The present study was designed to assess the impact of coingestion of various amounts of carbohydrate combined with an ample amount of protein intake on postexercise muscle protein synthesis rates. Ten healthy, fit men (20 ± 0.3 yr) were randomly assigned to three crossover experiments. After 60 min of resistance exercise, subjects consumed 0.3 g·kg–1·h–1 protein hydrolysate with 0, 0.15, or 0.6 g·kg–1·h–1 carbohydrate during a 6-h recovery period (PRO, PRO + LCHO, and PRO + HCHO, respectively). Primed, continuous infusions with L-[ring-13C6]phenylalanine, L-[ring-2H2]tyrosine, and [6,6-2H2]glucose were applied, and blood and muscle samples were collected to assess whole body protein turnover and glucose kinetics as well as protein fractional synthesis rate (FSR) in the vastus lateralis muscle over 6 h of postexercise recovery. Plasma insulin responses were significantly greater in PRO + HCHO compared with PRO + LCHO and PRO (18.4 ± 2.9 vs. 3.7 ± 0.5 and 1.5 ± 0.2 U·6 h–1·l–1, respectively, P < 0.001). Plasma glucose rate of appearance (Ra) and disappearance (Rd) increased over time in PRO + HCHO and PRO + LCHO, but not in PRO. Plasma glucose Ra and Rd were substantially greater in PRO + HCHO vs. both PRO and PRO + LCHO (P < 0.01). Whole body protein breakdown, synthesis, and oxidation rates, as well as whole body protein balance, did not differ between experiments. Mixed muscle protein FSR did not differ between treatments and averaged 0.10 ± 0.01, 0.10 ± 0.01, and 0.11 ± 0.01%/h in the PRO, PRO + LCHO, and PRO + HCHO experiments, respectively. In conclusion, coingestion of carbohydrate during recovery does not further stimulate postexercise muscle protein synthesis when ample protein is ingested.

The full study can be found on pubmed.
Sully

 

[sulcop96]

And a second study on myth #1. Look at this graph in the discussion part of the study, comparing 6g EAA to 6g EAA + 35g carbs.

Essential amino acids and muscle protein recovery from resistance exercise | Endocrinology and Metabolism

“In a recent study, Miller et al. (14) compared the independent and combined effects of a balanced mixture of amino acids (i.e., EAAs + NEAAs) and carbohydrate on muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise. Addition of 35 g of carbohydrate to 6 g of mixed AA did not cause a greater stimulation of net muscle protein synthesis than the AAs alone. The effect of adding carbohydrate to 6 g of EAA can be seen in Fig. 7, which compares the AUC for net phenylalanine uptake for the 1st h after intake of drink (i.e., 60-120 min) in the present study with the previously published response to 6 g of EAAs plus 35 g of carbohydrate (16). The additional carbohydrate provided no advantage to EAAs alone. From these results, it is clear that the stimulation of protein synthesis by EAAs is not a caloric effect, because ingestion of an additional 3 g of EAA (difference in EAA content between mixed AA and EAA groups) caused a much larger effect than addition of 35 g of carbohydrate to the amino acid mixture (Fig. 7), and 35 g of carbohydrate alone had a minimal effect (14). Although direct comparison with historical data may be problematic, the cited studies (14, 16) were performed in the same laboratory, approximately contemporaneously, and by use of the same general experimental protocol and techniques. ”

Clearly there is little if any difference between ingesting protein alone vs. protein+carbs. So to say that protein+carbs is “superior” than protein alone, is false and the increased carb/sugar intake can increase fat storage.

Sully

 

[Longshot chaser]

Good thread guys
Myth 3 when you stop training your muscle will turn into fat.
Anyone who can do that should try turning water into wine cause it's the same thing the reason people believe this to be true is cause they stop exercising but continue with the same higher calorie diet fat loss is simply maths calories in vs calories out eat less than your burning you'll loose weight eat more than your expending you'll gain weight. I know this is a very simplified theory but we're just bustin myths

 

[sulcop96]

But wait... there's more...

Title
Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70.

Abstract
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people’s habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a ‘nibbling’ meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship.

However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies

We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure.



Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.


Now this study centered on the weight loss aspect of frequent feeding, not the muscle end, but there is a ton that refute the need to eat every 2-2.5 hours in the above references.

Sully

 

[308sniper147]

But wait... there's more...

Title
Bellisle F et. al. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. (1997) 77 (Suppl 1):S57-70.

Abstract
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people’s habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a ‘nibbling’ meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship.

However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies

We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure.



Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.


Now this study centered on the weight loss aspect of frequent feeding, not the muscle end, but there is a ton that refute the need to eat every 2-2.5 hours in the above references.

Sully

It is amazing how easily our bodies adapt to caloric intake and meal frequency.

 

[BKS]

Much better. +1 on PubMed even though most will only be able to see abstracts, that is enough to get the idea.

 

[BKS]

http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/uploads/Layne-Norton-PhD-Thesis.pdf


Here is layne's dissertation leading to the fact of leucine being the main contributor to muscle protein synthesis making other many interesting findings.
I will do more research on the protein absorption although if someone needs scholarly work to prove that your body absorbes all of the nutrients you put in it. I seriously worry about them....




I think the myth of absorption came from people trying to explain (or people misunderstanding) the idea that you reach a point when taking in more protein no longer increases protein synthesis at the muscle.

 

[308sniper147]

http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/uploads/Layne-Norton-PhD-Thesis.pdf


Here is layne's dissertation leading to the fact of leucine being the main contributor to muscle protein synthesis making other many interesting findings.
I will do more research on the protein absorption although if someone needs scholarly work to prove that your body absorbes all of the nutrients you put in it. I seriously worry about them....




I think the myth of absorption came from people trying to explain (or people misunderstanding) the idea that you reach a point when taking in more protein no longer increases protein synthesis at the muscle.

Of course we may be both wrong, but I agree with you 100%. It makes perfect sense to me as to how that would've happened.

 

[JBNj]

Myth# 4 "bro science part 1"
Doing an extreme routine on your broceps is not gonna make your abs better looking. I understand muscle confusion, but do you need to run to the mirror after a set of bicep curls to pull your shirt up and make sure your abs are still there? Muscle confusion or retard? I know it confuses the shit out of me, it doesn't know whether it wants to come out my ass or my mouth after seeing this sillyness

 

[sulcop96]

Much better. +1 on PubMed even though most will only be able to see abstracts, that is enough to get the idea.

Good point, there are resources that cover the entire study but most of the time you have to contact the institute and pay for the 1000+ pages and then sift through till you find what your looking for. Not all studies are that extensive, but a lot are. And your spot on to ask for a resource, but one problem is knowing what to look for. A classic is myth #1 where a study showed carbs and amino's better then amino's alone:

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May;97(2):225-38. Epub 2006 Mar 24.
Independent and combined effects of liquid carbohydrate/essential amino acid ingestion on hormonal and muscular adaptations following resistance training in untrained men.

Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE.

School of Human Movement Studies, Charles Sturt University, Allen House 2.13, Bathurst, NSW, Australia. [email protected]

Erratum in:

* Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 May;97(2):239.

This investigation examined chronic alteration of the acute hormonal response associated with liquid carbohydrate (CHO) and/or essential amino acid (EAA) ingestion on hormonal and muscular adaptations following resistance training. Thirty-two untrained young men performed 12 weeks of resistance training twice a week, consuming ~675 ml of either, a 6% CHO solution, 6 g EAA mixture, combined CHO + EAA supplement or placebo (PLA). Blood samples were obtained pre- and post-exercise (week 0, 4, 8, and 12), for determination of glucose, insulin, and cortisol. 3-Methylhistidine excretion and muscle fibre cross-sectional area (fCSA) were determined pre- and post-training. Post-exercise cortisol increased (P<0.05) during each training phase for PLA. No change was displayed by EAA; CHO and CHO + EAA demonstrated post-exercise decreases (P<0.05). All groups displayed reduced pre-exercise cortisol at week 12 compared to week 0 (P<0.05). Post-exercise insulin concentrations showed no change for PLA; increases were observed for the treatment groups (P<0.05), which remained greater for CHO and CHO + EAA (P<0.001) than PLA. EAA and CHO ingestion attenuated 3-methylhistidine excretion 48 h following the exercise bout. CHO + EAA resulted in a 26% decrease (P<0.01), while PLA displayed a 52% increase (P<0.01). fCSA increased across groups for type I, IIa, and IIb fibres (P<0.05), with CHO + EAA displaying the greatest gains in fCSA relative to PLA (P<0.05). These data indicate that CHO + EAA ingestion enhances muscle anabolism following resistance training to a greater extent than either CHO or EAA consumed independently. The synergistic effect of


BUT, the study I posted above refutes that. Reason???? In the Bird study above only 6 grams of EAA was given. When the amount of proteins or EAA's in increased the effect of EAA vs. the EAA/CHO groups are more or less identical. So for 36-50 grams less sugar and 150-200 fewer calories per post workout serving you get the same effect. SO it is not just reading an abstract but being able to put it in context, and THIS is where the modern media as well as the supplements companies go wrong (or in the case of the supplement companies just mislead)

Sully

 

[sulcop96]

Myth# 4 "bro science part 1"
Doing an extreme routine on your broceps is not gonna make your abs better looking. I understand muscle confusion, but do you need to run to the mirror after a set of bicep curls to pull your shirt up and make sure your abs are still there? Muscle confusion or retard? I know it confuses the shit out of me, it doesn't know whether it wants to come out my ass or my mouth after seeing this sillyness

Just spit my coffee all over my lap top. Best myth of day!

Sully

 

[BKS]

Good point, there are resources that cover the entire study but most of the time you have to contact the institute and pay for the 1000+ pages and then sift through till you find what your looking for. Not all studies are that extensive, but a lot are. And your spot on to ask for a resource, but one problem is knowing what to look for.

I'm spoiled by my university which pays for online access to most all scientific journals. Plus, the department I'm in gets the actual paper copies of all the major physiology and nutrition journals.
Also, like you guys mention above, most of the research being taught at the university level is dealing with endurance training. There is newer research being done with resistance training, but it has not made it into the curriculum at most schools. So people naturally take the message of replenishing carbs after a workout and apply it to weight training, even though it doesn't have the same benefits.

 

[308sniper147]

Myth# 4 "bro science part 1"
Doing an extreme routine on your broceps is not gonna make your abs better looking. I understand muscle confusion, but do you need to run to the mirror after a set of bicep curls to pull your shirt up and make sure your abs are still there? Muscle confusion or retard? I know it confuses the shit out of me, it doesn't know whether it wants to come out my ass or my mouth after seeing this sillyness

And there goes the seriousness of the thread.... Lol! But seriously that is a myth that applies to MANY!
But I agree with sully I laughed at this one.

Andrew

 

[308sniper147]

[MENTION=62337]sulcop96[/MENTION] I think the next myth should probably be high rep schemes make you ripped and low rep heavy weight schemes make you big. I will gather my research but please feel free to interject your own as you seems to have many references and access to a lot!


Andrew

 

[sulcop96]

Good thread guys
Myth 3 when you stop training your muscle will turn into fat.
Anyone who can do that should try turning water into wine cause it's the same thing the reason people believe this to be true is cause they stop exercising but continue with the same higher calorie diet fat loss is simply maths calories in vs calories out eat less than your burning you'll loose weight eat more than your expending you'll gain weight. I know this is a very simplified theory but we're just bustin myths

I still get this ALL THE FREAKING TIME! People muscle and fat are two totally different things. Its not even like comparing pistols to rifles, it is so different its like comparing pistols to HD TV's. People who believe fat turns to muscle are the same as the people who believe people turn into wear wolves and if they feed there Magwi after midnight it will turn into a gremlin.

I don't think I need to surf pubmed for this topic because when I type it in no study's pop up, all I get from my computer is laughter.

Sully

 

[sulcop96]

[MENTION=62337]sulcop96[/MENTION] I think the next myth should probably be high rep schemes make you ripped and low rep heavy weight schemes make you big. I will gather my research but please feel free to interject your own as you seems to have many references and access to a lot!


Andrew

Andrew,

Got a ton but I will let you start and add in to reinforce your point.

Sully

 

[sulcop96]

I'm spoiled by my university which pays for online access to most all scientific journals. Plus, the department I'm in gets the actual paper copies of all the major physiology and nutrition journals.
Also, like you guys mention above, most of the research being taught at the university level is dealing with endurance training. There is newer research being done with resistance training, but it has not made it into the curriculum at most schools. So people naturally take the message of replenishing carbs after a workout and apply it to weight training, even though it doesn't have the same benefits.

BKS,

You may end up being my new BFF! Please share with the collective! That is what I miss about being out of the academic sector, unlimited access to information!

Sully

 

[BKS]

A common myth I hear is that it is best to work each body part once a week. This depends on the amount of damage done to the muscle during the workout, but most of the time 36hrs, and certainly 48hrs is all the body needs to recover and return muscle protein synthesis back to baseline. SO, what this means to me is that you can work a body part more frequently than once a week. This does not mean you won't still be sore, and it also does not mean that you can't make gains working a body part once a week.
The time course for elevated muscle prote... [Can J Appl Physiol. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[sulcop96]

Myth of the night, I think we are up to five? Ketogenic diets are superior to simple reduced carbohydrate non-ketogenic diets for fat loss. Simply put, Atkins is no better then simply reducing carb and fat content to create a caloric deficit. You hear all the no carb BS and how superior it is, hell even the cave man diet has turned keto, but you simply do not need zero carbs in a diet for it to be highly effective. How many carbs? That is individual and depends on lots of variables but you need some (I consider anything under 100 grams a day to be low and for most people >50 leads to ketosis) So why suffer through a ketogenic diet? I agree with the study below (and there are many more like it) that shows 30% of energy from fats and 40% from carbs is optimal. What that means is after I deduct my protein needs from my daily caloric intake the remaining calories should be split as 30% fats (mostly EFAs or essential fatty acids) and 40% carbs (mostly complex). And this does not even get into the muscle retention equation, meaning ketogenic diets are not optimal for muscle retention. So here is one reference.

Title and Abstract

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet. Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled. Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet. Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

 

[sulcop96]

A common myth I hear is that it is best to work each body part once a week. This depends on the amount of damage done to the muscle during the workout, but most of the time 36hrs, and certainly 48hrs is all the body needs to recover and return muscle protein synthesis back to baseline. SO, what this means to me is that you can work a body part more frequently than once a week. This does not mean you won't still be sore, and it also does not mean that you can't make gains working a body part once a week.
The time course for elevated muscle prote... [Can J Appl Physiol. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

BKS, do you know how the "each muscle group once a week" got popular? From the drug culture bodybuilders. When I was stationed in CA back in the early 80's everyone hit each muscle group twice and sometimes three times a week. The volume and intensity (meaning threshold of muscle failure and not load) was lower and the workouts were very productive. There were a lot of great natural physiques around. Then the drug using bodybuilders started doing all this "beyond failure" stuff. I remember seeing guys do rest pause, strips sets, forced negatives and 1/4 reps not just in the same workout but on the same set! And then do 15-20 sets like this in the same workout! Of course the ever increasing amount of steroids they took compensated and they did recover but they rationalized that for "recover" they needed only one such workout per muscle per week. Well, everyone sees these meat heads growing sooooo, it must be the workouts right? Has nothing to do with the drugs, right? So now we have a culture permeated with each muscle once a week training.

So can you make gains training that way if your not on drugs? Of course, but in a smart YTP you will cycle in some training as such along with other frequency training and keep the body evolving. Not every workout cycle needs to be, or should be once a week style.

BKS, I am sure you have access to more abstracts that show training past failure is also not necessary to trigger growth. I have a bunch but feel like sharing?

Sully

 

[BKS]

This is not a subject that I am too familiar with and there really are not that many studies (relatively speaking) that have been done on training to failure and beyond. But, the ones that have been done seem to show that going to failure too often will result in overtraining. Duh, right? But this is not overtraining at the muscle, this is a fatigue of the central nervous system.
The application of training to failure i... [J Strength Cond Res. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Exercise and its effects on the central ... [Curr Sports Med Rep. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

I'll look for some other studies, but for now I will suggest that if you have not already done so, do a search on Google Scholar. It is almost as good as PubMed and it gives you better search results. You don't have to be as specific with your search topic to find articles on what you want.

 

[3bnRanger]

Guys,
I appreciate the knowledge listed above. Can you touch on the benefits of the different types of protein and when they should be ingested? I have been trying to educate myself that past few days on what type and ratio of protein I should be using. I think many times we go on what our “bros” use without checking the actual ingredients (guilty). My current protein is Beverly UMP because naturally that’s what my bros use and I get a discount. Can you give me the down and dirty education on protein? Are 80:20 Casein/Whey ratio proteins the way to go? Should I be taking a faster absorbing straight Whey protein after a workout and use the blends throughout the day and before bed? Should I be checking the NSF GMP and if so….how?
I thought I had my choices narrowed down between sticking with Beverly UMP or maybe trying ON Whey or MTS.
Any help would be appreciated.

 

[JBNj]

Guys,
I appreciate the knowledge listed above. Can you touch on the benefits of the different types of protein and when they should be ingested? I have been trying to educate myself that past few days on what type and ratio of protein I should be using. I think many times we go on what our “bros” use without checking the actual ingredients (guilty). My current protein is Beverly UMP because naturally that’s what my bros use and I get a discount. Can you give me the down and dirty education on protein? Are 80:20 Casein/Whey ratio proteins the way to go? Should I be taking a faster absorbing straight Whey protein after a workout and use the blends throughout the day and before bed? Should I be checking the NSF GMP and if so….how?
I thought I had my choices narrowed down between sticking with Beverly UMP or maybe trying ON Whey or MTS.
Any help would be appreciated.

My advice......eat a lot of food and stop worrying about how many protein shakes your willing to take. Too many people get the idea their body is gonna vanish right before their eyes. Train hard, eat well, and rest

Now for the person with an odd eating schedule.
Whey protein first thing waking up (afterall you body has been wasting away)
Casein protein sipping throughout the day including before workout
Whey protein after workout
Casein before bed.

That's alot of protein and fillers to consume. General rule of thumb 1-1.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight. 1.5-2 grams of carbs per pound of body weight while "bulking"

 

[3bnRanger]

My advice......eat a lot of food and stop worrying about how many protein shakes your willing to take. Too many people get the idea their body is gonna vanish right before their eyes. Train hard, eat well, and rest

Now for the person with an odd eating schedule.
Whey protein first thing waking up (afterall you body has been wasting away)
Casein protein sipping throughout the day including before workout
Whey protein after workout
Casein before bed.

That's alot of protein and fillers to consume. General rule of thumb 1-1.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight. 1.5-2 grams of carbs per pound of body weight while "bulking"

In response to your first sentence "answer"....thanks but no thanks. That answer had nothing to do with my question.

 

[sulcop96]

Ahh, the protein conundrum. I was just checking a few things before work but I have quite a bit of info on this topic and why, for the most part, there is more of a mountain made out of this molehill. On the above referenced protein schedule altering the whey, fast acting, stops catabolism, and casein, slower so more anabolic, that is a nice guideline but as always there is much more to it then that. When I have an hour to put it all together I'll cover protein.

Sully

 

[JBNj]

Sorry if my response came off a little off. But when someone asks what type of protein/when should i take. One has to wonder if said person is eating right in the first place as protein is just a supplement. Either way i would use True Nutrition - The Highest Quality Supplements and Protein at the Lowest Prices for a source of protein. Normally when you buy a 5lb bottle of protein in reality you get roughly 2lbs of protein and 3lbs of flavoring and filler. Your paying for those fillers and flavoring. At truenutrtion you pay for the protein and not the fillers. Neat site for all your protein needs. Custom mix and choose what type of protein.

 

[ArcticLight]

I teach Shotokan Karate 2-4 nights a week. I work out doing this, and the more I work out the better I feel, the bigger my grocery bill goes.

Your body knows what it needs. You will eat, if you eat well, what you need to provide for those workouts.
Your body is your best doctor, listen to it.

I have nights where I don't push it because I can feel some pain in the lower back, great, we'll do Kata that night.

Gyms are boring to me, no variety. Karate, - as much variety as you want.

 

[SuckitTrebek]

Here's a myth for ya'll.

Just concentrating on the gym and not enough on diet.

diet is 80% of your results.

 

[jameybaxter]

Some of the idiotic shit I hear from crossfit gyms is crazy.
Focus on the results and the time, not the form. (tell your herniated disks that)
You have to fuel up your body and increase caloric intake to crossfit effectively. (you have to create a caloric deficit to lose weight)
I just did 100 pullups in 2 minutes (no...you did 1 pullup and 99 kips)

You should always workout a "X-time" every day. (nope, everybody is different. You are better at 5pm than I am at 5am)

Core training means abs (nope...not even close)

Lifting heavy makes you bulky and unflexible