Nutrient timing and hormone levels

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 12:33pm #1

Here are some interesting articles on the effects of nutrient timing on growth hormone and testosterone.
For anyone who's simply happy with the eat big and lift big mantra then there's no need to really post here as you won't be interested in this complication.
I'm not sure how to interpret these studies as my grounding in nutrition is basic at best.although it looks like pw carbs are out?

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/conn/genrel/auto_pdf/InsulinProject.pdf
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ditch_post_workout_carbs.htm
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/post-workout-fasting/#axzz2dn4MeS2w

calfmuscle · 03-09-2013 1:01pm

Marks logic is flawed, he doesn't understand that insulin is needed regardless of whether you eat crabs or not. He says that HGH is suppressed by insulin production so he avoids crabs post workout. But in reality exercise will cause an increase in ketosis and therefore insulin to combat rising blood sugars.

FYI I think marks daily apple is a snake oil peddler.

amazingemmet · 03-09-2013 1:45pm

@calfmuscle I think your logic is bit flawed there. There won't be rising blood sugar after exercise unless you put some carbs in there.

In my experience going carbless post workout can be quite a potent method of fatloss. I can work quite well by going carbless after a workout your not going to stop the use of fatty acids for fuel. As a rule of thumb it takes roughly 6 hours to restore glycogen so if your work outs are in evening staying carbless til the next morning is a viable strategy for fat loss.

Theresalwaysone · 03-09-2013 1:54pm

amazingemmet wrote: »

@calfmuscle I think your logic is bit flawed there. There won't be rising blood sugar after exercise unless you put some carbs in there.

In my experience going carbless post workout can be quite a potent method of fatloss. I can work quite well by going carbless after a workout your not going to stop the use of fatty acids for fuel. As a rule of thumb it takes roughly 6 hours to restore glycogen so if your work outs are in evening staying carbless til the next morning is a viable strategy for fat loss.

Would this have an adverse affect on protein synthesis? or could/would proper pre workout nutrition make a difference.

Curious as I would have thought going carbless immediately post workout might lead to much slower recovery.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 2:12pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Here are some interesting articles on the effects of nutrient timing on growth hormone and testosterone.

I am assuming that that by interesting you actually mean ridiculous?

For anyone who's simply happy with the eat big and lift big mantra then there's no need to really post here as you won't be interested in this complication.

You mean asides from the fact that much of it is preposterous.

I'm not sure how to interpret these studies as my grounding in nutrition is basic at best.although it looks like pw carbs are out?

Well half of this statement is correct at least.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/conn/genrel/auto_pdf/InsulinProject.pdf
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ditch_post_workout_carbs.htm
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/post-workout-fasting/#axzz2dn4MeS2w

I'd be only too happy to have a discussion on this topic with anyone who 1. Actually has a clue what they are talking about. 2. Who really understands the subject i.e they aren't just copying and pasting stuff from the interwebz. 3. Who has any understanding and knowledge of this subject that they didn't get reading bodybuilding.com or tnation...(as an addendum...when I ask later for you to post 'evidence' or 'research' to back up your contention or argument you are forbidden from posting links to either site). 4. A good way to start would be for someone to lay out what we are actually talking about here and I will be only to happy to chime in.

Mellor · 03-09-2013 2:15pm

amazingemmet wrote: »

As a rule of thumb it takes roughly 6 hours to restore glycogen so if your work outs are in evening staying carbless til the next morning is a viable strategy for fat loss.

Makes sense, depleted glycogen, delayed replenishing, forces increased fat use for energy.

On the other hand, its not really a hormonal advantage, just supply and demand.

amazingemmet · 03-09-2013 2:16pm

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Would this have an adverse affect on protein synthesis? or could/would proper pre workout nutrition make a difference.

Curious as I would have thought going carbless immediately post workout might lead to much slower recovery.

Its a costs to benefits trade off. Being glycogen depleted while your cortico-steroids are high is a very potent mechanism for the release and then oxidation of fatty acids. Its not the best approach for muscle gain but as a stimulator of fatloss it works pretty good.

Its basically working with the bodies action reaction factors. As the longer you spend glycogen depleted the more fatty acids you'll release the more fat you'll lose then when you add carbs back in the more you'll store and the bigger anabolic response you'll have.

Yesterday I just started my version of the bodyopus diet which uses similiar ideas and in my experienc is one of the most productive dieting styles

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 2:18pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

when I ask later for you to post 'evidence' or 'research' to back up your contention or argument you are forbidden from posting links to either site

Woah,who pissed in your porridge.I don't have a contention or argument silly,just a question,hence the question mark at the end of my op.

amazingemmet · 03-09-2013 2:22pm

Ok Will I'll dance.

In your opinion does having carbs post workout increase or decrease fatty acid oxidation? I'm not just referring to the stereotypical 2:1 post workout shake.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 2:24pm

schwalbe wrote: »

I don't have a contention or argument silly,just questions,hence the question marks at the end of my op.

Oh...in that case...I don't really see anything that you need to worry about.

We can all just move on now.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 2:25pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Woah,who pissed in your porridge.I don't have a contention or argument silly,just a question,hence the question mark at the end of my op.

Do I need to edit my reply now to include your witty put down?

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 2:32pm

amazingemmet wrote: »

Ok Will I'll dance.

In your opinion does having carbs post workout increase or decrease fatty acid oxidation? I'm not just referring to the stereotypical 2:1 post workout shake.

Nope. I am not in the mood for this style of game anymore here on boards. If you know something to be the case then you state it and back it up.

What typically happens is that someone here says something retarded...I say it's wrong...everyone goes crazy....then I alone am forced to explain both sides of the argument....everyone here start interweb crying...mods get involved....then I post all the evidence proving beyond doubt that I am correct...no one ends up happy and 5 people have to go and set up new accounts and usernames because of the internet shame.

So if you or anyone else here wants to jump in on this topic then fire away....outline your argument....post your evidence and we'll take it from there.

I'm bored with having to argue both sides of the argument better than the person arguing with me can argue theirs.

amazingemmet · 03-09-2013 2:34pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Nope. I am not in the mood for this style of game anymore here on boards. If you know something to be the case then you state it and back it up.

What typically happens is that someone here says something retarded...I say it's wrong...everyone goes crazy....then I alone am forced to explain both sides of the argument....everyone here start interweb crying...mods get involved....then I post all the evidence proving beyond doubt that I am correct...no one ends up happy and 5 people have to go and set up new accounts and usernames because of the internet shame.

So if you or anyone else here wants to jump in on this topic then fire away....outline your argument....post your evidence and we'll take it from there.

I'm bored with having to argue both sides of the argument better than the person arguing with me can argue theirs.

Can we take it to pm as I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the subject?

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 2:34pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Do I need to edit my reply now to include your witty put down?

It's only a put down if you see it like that.
Are you sure there isn't something else bothering you besides my stupidity?You seem very angry.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 2:40pm

amazingemmet wrote: »

Can we take it to pm as I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the subject?

Nope.

I get paid not nearly enough money in my day job for my opinion and no offence but this is my happy time...I rarely post here anymore but occasionally I see stuff that I think is funny and lots of people posting other stuff that I think is funny and I have a very strong community service ethic and if I can stop dumb stuff from happening or being said in just one place than I feel like I've done my bit.

So I'd rather post it here in the open.

Theresalwaysone · 03-09-2013 2:43pm

amazingemmet wrote: »

Can we take it to pm as I'm genuinely interested in your opinion on the subject?

Can we not? I am also interested in this whole debate. I dont have anything to offer but Id like to read both your stances.

Paddywiggum · 03-09-2013 2:43pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Do I need to edit my reply now to include your witty put down?

how about this put down:

you are consistently the most unhelpful and obnoxious poster on health & fitness topics.

its actually painful to have to read your derisory comments.

people come on here seeking advice and your attitude in response sends them packing none the wiser.

give it a rest, you don't impress anyone.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 2:44pm

Paddywiggum wrote: »

how about this put down:

you are consistently the most unhelpful and obnoxious poster on health & fitness topics.

its actually painful to have to read your derisory comments.

people come on here seeking advice and your attitude in response sends them packing none the wiser.

give it a rest, you don't impress anyone.

That's grand. Good luck with your training and nutrition. Bye.

As an aside...I believe you are incorrect about being unhelpful...I think my help/post ration is pretty high and my thanks/post ratio is pretty high. As for the obnoxious part...I disagree with that as well...unlike a huge number of posters here past and present I've never ever said anything to anyone that I wouldn't say to their face.

Feel free to PM me and point out my 'painful and derisory' comments?

People post ridiculous rubbish here...then others post the same rubbish repeatedly. I come along and point out they are wrong and I have to not only post evidence to support my own argument but have to also post evidence to prove that their statement is false. I just think that's weird....people here would rather read absolute rubbish posted nicely than to actually just know what is right and wrong...that's weird.

You say that people come here looking for advice and that I drive them off none the wiser? I think the fact that I've made 1897 posts on this Health & Fitness forum and I've been thanks 1188 times would go some way to negate your argument.

Zillah wrote: »

You are completely insufferable.

That may be true.

Zillah wrote: »

Like, you might be 100% correct,

That is definitely true.

Zillah wrote: »

but you're coming across as the biggest jackass on this thread. Some people don't understand a certain topic as well as you do, grand; that doesn't mean you should start tripping over yourself to roll your eyes and heap scorn on them.

So it's better to be nice and to be posting rubbish than to be curt/short with people and be right?

Zillah wrote: »

You could try actually discussing the topic instead of declaring the stupidity of the OP.

I invited ANYONE to post ANYTHING on the topic but that to do it PROPERLY and that if they did I would be happy to counter there argument and argue my point.

Zillah wrote: »

Sounds to me like the problem is that you don't enjoy using discussion forums very much.

Personally I was looking forward to the discussion because I've seen heaps of myths, rubbish, part truths etc etc etc here and would of been only too happy to put a few things straight....but there were tears before I ever got the chance.

amazingemmet · 03-09-2013 2:47pm

I too get paid a lot of money for my opinion, last week I just got hired to redesign the supplement range for an italian company so despite the lack of verbosity I present here and seperation of my business identity with my online persona I did think we could have an interesting conversation.

Sangre · 03-09-2013 2:58pm

Well, that escalated quickly.

Zillah · 03-09-2013 3:15pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Do I need to edit my reply now to include your witty put down?

You are completely insufferable.

Like, you might be 100% correct, but you're coming across as the biggest jackass on this thread. Some people don't understand a certain topic as well as you do, grand; that doesn't mean you should start tripping over yourself to roll your eyes and heap scorn on them.

You could try actually discussing the topic instead of declaring the stupidity of the OP.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I'm bored with having to argue both sides of the argument better than the person arguing with me can argue theirs.

Sounds to me like the problem is that you don't enjoy using discussion forums very much.

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 4:40pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Nope.

I get paid a lot of money in my day job for my opinion and no offence but this is my happy time

This doesn't seem like your happy time at all brah,this seems like your venting time tbh.Look just tell us what's wrong and we'll see can we help,your gonna make yourself sick otherwise with all the anger and furious.

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 4:44pm

Sangre wrote: »

Well, that escalated quickly.

Lol,it was going fine,everybody having a nice discussion until Willheffernan comes along with furious and well paid job :eek:
Anyway,would anyone like to return to the topic at hand?Nutrient timing and it's effects on hormones.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 4:46pm

So that's a no then? Not a single person is willing to actually say anything of substance and to back up anything they have to say with any evidence at all?

Everyone is more concerned with me being a meanie than having any kind of informative or interesting discussion?

Right, I got it now. Good to know where peoples priorities lie...we can all just go along as per normal then.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 4:48pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Lol,it was going fine,everybody having a nice discussion until Willheffernan comes along with furious and well paid job :eek:
Anyway,would anyone like to return to the topic at hand?Nutrient timing and it's effects on hormones.

Grand. What are you saying? Say something...say anything...make a statement of some kind...support it with some kind of evidence and we'll be off and running.

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 4:53pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Grand. What are you saying? Say something...say anything...make a statement of some kind...support it with some kind of evidence and we'll be off and running.

Again,I'm not making statement as I know little on this topic,I'm asking a question,hence the question mark after the words I wrote down in my op,that's what indicates that it's a question-the question mark.
You seem to be struggling with the difference between asking a question and making a statement.

calfmuscle · 03-09-2013 5:04pm

amazingemmet wrote: »

@calfmuscle I think your logic is bit flawed there. There won't be rising blood sugar after exercise unless you put some carbs in there.

No this is the bit that has me tearing out my hair in frustration with the no carb brigade. Your body will convert fat or protein via glucogenisis to keep the blood sugars level. This is constantly happening when there is not enough carbohydrate available to meet the cells needs.

Think about it lodgically, your body must maintain a blood sugar level of mean 5.5mmol. If it drops below 4.8 your hypoglycemic. So if you don't eat carbohydrates then your blood sugar level will fall. When this happens your body starts to use gluconeogenesis (make glucose from other cells) Ketones are a by product of this.

Now your body is not perfect and will not only make the amount that is needed. It will continue gluconeogensis until the blood sugars rise. When they rise insulin is released to bring them back down. This on/off is going on all the time!

Now throw exercise (especially weight lifting) into it and your body will be mass producing glucose and the ketones will be the by product of this. Then you will need more insulin to deal with the extra demands.

(fyi I've has type 1 diabetes for 17 years and have tried exercise and low carb diets and this ^^^ is what happens)

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 5:05pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Again,I'm not making statement as I know little on this topic,I'm asking a question,hence the question mark after the words I wrote down in my op,that's what indicates that it's a question-the question mark.
You seem to be struggling with the difference between asking a question and making a statement.

So the entirety of your question is as quoted below?

schwalbe wrote: »

I'm not sure how to interpret these studies as my grounding in nutrition is basic at best.although it looks like pw carbs are out?

That's it?

I'll point a few things out before you answer.
1. You didn't post any 'studies' to interpret. You posted a bit of a article that selectively quotes some studies that was written to look 'scientific'. Then two links to commercial sites. There are no studies to interpret.
2. You are asking whether post workout carbohydrate intake should be abandoned because of some articles?

I am trying to work out what you are actually asking?

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 5:19pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

So the entirety of your question is as quoted below?

That's it?

I'll point a few things out before you answer.
1. You didn't post any 'studies' to interpret. You posted a bit of a article that selectively quotes some studies that was written to look 'scientific'. Then two links to commercial sites. There are no studies to interpret.
2. You are asking whether post workout carbohydrate intake should be abandoned because of some articles?

I am trying to work out what you are actually asking?

It's ok,you don't have to work anything out if you don't want to,we're getting on just fine as is.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 5:24pm

schwalbe wrote: »

It's ok,you don't have to work anything out if you don't want to,we're getting on just fine as is.

Well actually...the sad thing is...you aren't. Yes, people can work the google machine but as shocking as this might be...it isn't the best source of information. Well...actual correct information that is.

So you might actually think you are getting on fine but that's only because as you admitted yourself...you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 5:42pm

calfmuscle wrote: »

No this is the bit that has me tearing out my hair in frustration with the no carb brigade. Your body will convert fat or protein via glucogenisis to keep the blood sugars level.

I think what you are referring to here is gluconeogensis as you refer to it later in your post. Just to clarify so we are all talking about the same thing.

This is constantly happening when there is not enough carbohydrate available to meet the cells needs.

Think about it lodgically, your body must maintain a blood sugar level of mean 5.5mmol. If it drops below 4.8 your hypoglycemic. So if you don't eat carbohydrates then your blood sugar level will fall. When this happens your body starts to use gluconeogenesis (make glucose from other cells) Ketones are a by product of this.

I don't think you mean...(make glucose from other cells)?

Now your body is not perfect and will not only make the amount that is needed. It will continue gluconeogensis until the blood sugars rise. When they rise insulin is released to bring them back down. This on/off is going on all the time!

Now throw exercise (especially weight lifting) into it and your body will be mass producing glucose and the ketones will be the by product of this. Then you will need more insulin to deal with the extra demands.

(fyi I've has type 1 diabetes for 17 years and have tried exercise and low carb diets and this ^^^ is what happens)

calfmuscle · 03-09-2013 5:45pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I think what you are referring to here is gluconeogensis as you refer to it later in your post. Just to clarify so we are all talking about the same thing.

Yup thats what I meant, diabetic and dyslexic amn't I lucky :P

I don't think you mean...(make glucose from other cells)?

I was just trying very hard to keep it simple.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 5:53pm

calfmuscle wrote: »

I was just trying very hard to keep it simple.

No problem with that at all. Just wanted to make sure we are all talking about the same things.

This process is a massively interesting one and I am currently involved in study in this area and hence it was of particular interest to me.

It is a very complicated area and it takes an effort to keep it simple.

Suffice to say it is more complicated than the interplay between glucose and insulin and this topic really can't be discussed properly without considering the interplay between glucagon, epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol and the influence and action they have in the regulation of plasma glucose concentration as well.

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 5:57pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Well actually...the sad thing is...you aren't. Yes, people can work the google machine but as shocking as this might be...it isn't the best source of information. Well...actual correct information that is.

Well why don't you give me some frickin info then rather than dancing around like a little bitch singing "I know,I know but I'm not telling". We get it,you see yourself as a superior source of information on this topic,and you may well be,so share it.

calfmuscle · 03-09-2013 5:59pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

No problem with that at all. Just wanted to make sure we are all talking about the same things.

This process is a massively interesting one and I am currently involved in study in this area and hence it was of particular interest to me.

It is a very complicated area and it takes an effort to keep it simple.

Suffice to say it is more complicated than the interplay between glucose and insulin and this topic really can't be discussed properly without considering the interplay between glucagon, epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol and the influence and action they have in the regulation of plasma glucose concentration as well.

Cortisol is the killer! The amount of type one diabetics with who wake up with high blood sugars because of increased cortisol in the am is massive!
The sugars just start to creep up around 4am.
What is the study on??

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 6:10pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Well why don't you give me some frickin info then rather than dancing around like a little bitch singing "I know,I know but I'm not telling".

Ahhhh...I don't actually think that is what I am doing. It's an absolutely massive area of study with absolutely enormous scope, breadth and depth. You might as well make a random post and throw up 3 worthless links and then say...'Well it looks like the days of training are over.' Then when I say...No, that's not the case you say...well explain training to me.

Where am I supposed to start when what you are asking me to do is to tell you everything I know about endocrinology in relation to exercise physiology without any sort of reference point other than some worthless articles and a statement along the lines of 'Looks like having post workout carbohydrate is worthless.'?

Are we talking resistance training...and if so...what kind....and for what purpose? Are we talking conditioning work? Sprint training? Multi sprint? Endurance? Are we talking team or individual sports? What context? Multi event? Multiple exertion single day events? Are we talking about the hormonal effects? If so...for what purpose? Increased muscle mass? Improved muscular function?

I could go on and on and on.

You've made a one line statement and from that I am supposed to explain what exactly?

We get it,you see yourself as a superior source of information on this topic,and you may well be,so share it.

I honestly think you know so little about the subject and the material that you don't even understand what you are asking about.

That isn't me being mean or and a-hole...you just only have the vaguest clue of what you even think you are asking about.

Brian? · 03-09-2013 6:17pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Well why don't you give me some frickin info then rather than dancing around like a little bitch singing "I know,I know but I'm not telling". We get it,you see yourself as a superior source of information on this topic,and you may well be,so share it.

Keep it clean please. No need for the "little bitch" comment, it's impolite.

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 6:41pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

You've made a one line statement and from that I am supposed to explain what exactly?

I honestly think you know so little about the subject and the material that you don't even understand what you are asking about.

Wait,am I asking or making a statement?You're still confused as to the difference.

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 7:02pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Wait,am I asking or making a statement?You're still confused as to the difference.

I have absolutely no idea why you are trying to derail your own thread? If you are trying to appear smarter than me then fair enough...I'll leave it for others to judge how successfully that's working out for you.

Anyway...I've fair bit of experience both in the industry and academically. I continue to work in the area as well as have an ongoing involvement at university studying the very subject you're currently asking about both from a theoretical and practical viewpoint. So if and when you grow up and decide what it is you are actually interested in maybe you could just state it outright.

Till then as I said....if anyone would like to argue the pro's and con's of nutrient timing on growth hormone and testosterone...I don't know what the OP was trying to point out.

Or that eating big and lifting big is worthless or irrelevant because of the 'articles' the OP posted as they seem to have inferred...I am happy to discuss that as well.

The third point the OP seems to be inferring is that post workout carbs are out...or that they are wondering if post workout carbs are out...if someone wants to argue that corner....then I'd be happy to take the opposing side?

harvester of sorrow · 03-09-2013 7:44pm

Jesus, give it a rest will ya.

schwalbe · 03-09-2013 11:11pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

So if and when you grow up and decide what it is you are actually interested in maybe you could just state it outright.

Well the very first sentence of my 3 sentence opening post was -
"Here are some interesting articles on the effects of nutrient timing on growth hormone and testosterone" - so I'll grow up right now and say what I'm interested in and guess what?Strangely enough it's the effects of nutrient timing on growth hormone and testosterone,fancy that.
How's that?Clear enough?

Will Heffernan · 03-09-2013 11:35pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Well the very first sentence of my 3 sentence opening post was -
"Here are some interesting articles on the effects of nutrient timing on growth hormone and testosterone" - so I'll grow up right now and say what I'm interested in and guess what?Strangely enough it's the effects of nutrient timing on growth hormone and testosterone,fancy that.
How's that?Clear enough?

Are you interested generally in nutrient timing with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone?

Are you interested specifically in nutrient timing post workout with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone?

Are you interested specifically in nutrient timing post workout with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone and there effects generally?

Are you interested specifically in nutrient timing post workout with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone and there effects specifically on an anabolic state and improved protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy?

It would help if you could be more specific?

schwalbe · 04-09-2013 12:59am

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Are you interested generally in nutrient timing with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone?

Are you interested specifically in nutrient timing post workout with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone?

Are you interested specifically in nutrient timing post workout with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone and there effects generally?

Are you interested specifically in nutrient timing post workout with regards the release of testosterone and growth hormone and there effects specifically on an anabolic state and improved protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy?

It would help if you could be more specific?

The last one looks the most relevant tbh.

Duck's hoop · 04-09-2013 3:58am

I thought it made no difference when you ate as long as you ate in 24 hours after w.o?

Will Heffernan · 04-09-2013 8:21am

schwalbe wrote: »

The last one looks the most relevant tbh.

I will make some generalisations, statement and critiques firstly so you know where I am coming from.

The assumption that people work under is that 'nutrient timing' effects either carbohydrate storage and or synthesis. That it effects protein synthesis and in particular either effects the speed and repair of muscle or increases muscle hypertrophy. You can extend that here to a supposition that nutrient timing effects 'anabolic' hormones like testosterone and growth hormone which supposedly leads to increases in muscle mass and or performance. People go further and talk about nutrient timing decreasing the 'catabolic' hormones...those responsible for the breakdown of tissue.

Now what you also get is people/camps/vested interests that want to make arguments that nutrient timing is more important that the total intake and or the components of nutrients consumed over a day for instance.

There's been a heap of studies on nutrient timing...its effect on glycogen storage and usage, on protein synthesis and on fat utilisation etc etc etc.

The problem with many of the studies and in particular the ones that are misused and misquoted and wilfully used deceitfully to try to make money or used by people with little or no understanding of the science they are using to attempt to support their argument as happens a lot here and elsewhere.

Rather than rabbit on about nutrient timing and it's effects on testosterone and growth hormone I think I might just make some observations and ask some questions.

These are in no particular order:
1. When someone quotes a study or you see a study rather than just read the abstract have a look at how the study is conducted and who it was conducted on.
a) Studies are most commonly done on untrained subjects...are the findings based on an untrained 18 year old doing 3 sets of 10 repetitions of leg extensions twice a week for 4 weeks a good comparison to yourself or to elite athletes?
b) Studies looking at nutrient timing are usually done on fasted subjects...some as long as 24hrs and most 12hrs....when was the last time you ate nothing then went and did 2hrs to exhaustion on a bike or did max effort isometric leg extensions to failure?
c) With regard to testosterone and growth hormones....these are but two hormones...i) they don't act in isolation when it comes to hypertrophy ii) the interaction and ratio of ALL hormones are often not considered.
d) If the subjects aren't fasted and have eaten prior to training how can you possibly attribute all the changes going on post exercise to the nutrients consumed post exercise alone?
e) If you are studying subjects and they are getting additional protein for example 'post workout' how can you know that the results if any were a result of nutrient timing and not just the additional intake of protein?
f) Then have a look at what time they are training and what time the nutrient intervention is taking place. Hormone levels fluctuate naturally I could do one study and take blood samples after my invention at 6am in the morning and 6pm at night and testosterone and growth hormone levels would be completely different....are you willing to change your training and nutrition based on me choosing the 'best' time to conduct my study?
g) Again if you look at trained versus untrained subjects issue...a one off resistance training session in an untrained subject kicks off both mitochondrial and myofibrillar protein synthesis, whereas in trained subjects, protein synthesis becomes far more geared toward the myofibrillar protein synthesis.

I will leave it at that I suppose for now but as I have been from right at the beginning I am only to happy to discuss the topic as generally or as specifically as possible.

Will Heffernan · 04-09-2013 8:30am

Duck's hoop wrote: »

I thought it made no difference when you ate as long as you ate in 24 hours after w.o?

It depends who you are, what you are doing, what you've done previously, how long you've been doing it for, how old you are, what sex you are, what purpose you are doing it for and on and on the list goes.

The reason I shake my head when I see some of these threads is because 'general' advice is just that....very general and depending on your circumstance it could be miles and miles from being appropriate.

The 'studies' that were posted by the OP were closer to advertising and marketing than they were to science or research and that is annoying because this is the sort of rubbish that circulates here and gets posted and reposted over and over again.

Is anyone here seriously going to take any notice of someone that sells paleo supplements? Pleeeeeeeeese give me a break.

schwalbe · 04-09-2013 3:08pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I will make some generalisations, statement and critiques firstly so you know where I am coming from.

The assumption that people work under is that 'nutrient timing' effects either carbohydrate storage and or synthesis. That it effects protein synthesis and in particular either effects the speed and repair of muscle or increases muscle hypertrophy. You can extend that here to a supposition that nutrient timing effects 'anabolic' hormones like testosterone and growth hormone which supposedly leads to increases in muscle mass and or performance. People go further and talk about nutrient timing decreasing the 'catabolic' hormones...those responsible for the breakdown of tissue.

Now what you also get is people/camps/vested interests that want to make arguments that nutrient timing is more important that the total intake and or the components of nutrients consumed over a day for instance.

There's been a heap of studies on nutrient timing...its effect on glycogen storage and usage, on protein synthesis and on fat utilisation etc etc etc.

The problem with many of the studies and in particular the ones that are misused and misquoted and wilfully used deceitfully to try to make money or used by people with little or no understanding of the science they are using to attempt to support their argument as happens a lot here and elsewhere.

Rather than rabbit on about nutrient timing and it's effects on testosterone and growth hormone I think I might just make some observations and ask some questions.

These are in no particular order:
1. When someone quotes a study or you see a study rather than just read the abstract have a look at how the study is conducted and who it was conducted on.
a) Studies are most commonly done on untrained subjects...are the findings based on an untrained 18 year old doing 3 sets of 10 repetitions of leg extensions twice a week for 4 weeks a good comparison to yourself or to elite athletes?
b) Studies looking at nutrient timing are usually done on fasted subjects...some as long as 24hrs and most 12hrs....when was the last time you ate nothing then went and did 2hrs to exhaustion on a bike or did max effort isometric leg extensions to failure?
c) With regard to testosterone and growth hormones....these are but two hormones...i) they don't act in isolation when it comes to hypertrophy ii) the interaction and ratio of ALL hormones are often not considered.
d) If the subjects aren't fasted and have eaten prior to training how can you possibly attribute all the changes going on post exercise to the nutrients consumed post exercise alone?
e) If you are studying subjects and they are getting additional protein for example 'post workout' how can you know that the results if any were a result of nutrient timing and not just the additional intake of protein?
f) Then have a look at what time they are training and what time the nutrient intervention is taking place. Hormone levels fluctuate naturally I could do one study and take blood samples after my invention at 6am in the morning and 6pm at night and testosterone and growth hormone levels would be completely different....are you willing to change your training and nutrition based on me choosing the 'best' time to conduct my study?
g) Again if you look at trained versus untrained subjects issue...a one off resistance training session in an untrained subject kicks off both mitochondrial and myofibrillar protein synthesis, whereas in trained subjects, protein synthesis becomes far more geared toward the myofibrillar protein synthesis.

I will leave it at that I suppose for now but as I have been from right at the beginning I am only to happy to discuss the topic as generally or as specifically as possible.

Nice one,quite a circuitous route to get here but much appreciated all the same.
Next topic,discussions with will and their effects on testosterone.:D

Will Heffernan · 04-09-2013 3:10pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Nice one,quite a circuitous route to get here but much appreciated all the same.
Next topic,discussions with will and their effects on testosterone.:D

It is a massive area and it is just far easy to talk about when people are specific about what they are asking.

schwalbe · 04-09-2013 4:17pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

It is a massive area and it is just far easy to talk about when people are specific about what they are asking.

Yeah I can see that now,I had no idea how complicated it was when I started the thread.

Will Heffernan · 04-09-2013 4:23pm

schwalbe wrote: »

Yeah I can see that now,I had no idea how complicated it was when I started the thread.

It's a really interesting area.

It doesn't have as 'big' an impact as it is generally made out to and to be honest you would probably get a bigger performance increase and larger lean muscle mass gains from getting an extra hour of sleep every night for a week.

People probably spend more time in a catabolic state staying up too late trying to read whatever they can about how to maximise testosterone and growth hormone release.

schwalbe · 04-09-2013 4:47pm

Will Heffernan wrote: »

It's a really interesting area.

It doesn't have as 'big' an impact as it is generally made out to and to be honest you would probably get a bigger performance increase and larger lean muscle mass gains from getting an extra hour of sleep every night for a week.

People probably spend more time in a catabolic state staying up too late trying to read whatever they can about how to maximise testosterone and growth hormone release.

Are there optimal times for getting the main body of sleep,as in if I sleep between midnight and 7 am is this better than say 4 am and 11 am?And if so is there much of a difference?
And if so what is the worst sleep cycle to have?

Nutrient timing and hormone levels

Comments