Thread: Protein shake. Is it neccessary?

Originally Posted by Call of Ktulu

Also, sometimes when I take a shake after cardio it makes me tired. I am not sure why.

After cardio your glycogen stores are a bit depleted. Whey stimulates an insulin response. Normally, hepatic glucose will rise to protect against hypoglycemia but post workout this may not easily be the case. Your blood sugar drops from the insulin released following consumption of the whey, and you thus feel tired. You may also feel hungry.

Originally Posted by bjg

protein shakes are not necessary a good protein meal would do the same.

for the most part, you're right. Protein shakes are still just protein; it's still food.

Originally Posted by bjg

now the protein shakes have some advantages (a good brand must be used) is that
1- they are absorbed quicker than milk protein lets say

Not by very much.

Originally Posted by bjg

2- they can have a low amount of carb

Yep

Originally Posted by bjg

3- they are convenient, you may not have the time to always prepare a good protein meal.

also true

Originally Posted by bjg

disadvantages:
1- relying on them is not really good for your digestive system in the long run

Why not? Whey is loaded with glutamine and glutamine is very helpful for gut health.

Originally Posted by bjg

2- they are not going to give you the muscles

Again, food is food. If you eat more food than you need (whey is food) you'll gain weight. If you do this and lift weights regularly, much of this gained weight will be muscle.

Maybe you mean something else?

Originally Posted by bjg

3- expensive

Whey's a pretty cheap source of protein. I pay $40 for 2000g of whey protein, which works out to 2 cents a gram. A fifty gram serving of whey costs me a buck. I'd need to consume 7 ounces of chicken breast or lean steak to get this much protein. Last time I checked, both chicken breast and sirloin cost a bit more than 2 bucks a pound.

Originally Posted by bjg

so if you have time to have good protein rich meals all the time, you can get some protein powder and use them only when needed this way you save your money and you give your stomach a break.

My .02

Why not? Whey is loaded with glutamine and glutamine is very helpful for gut health.

maybe but they also contain loads of artificial stuff , and your digestive system might not tolerate them in the long run , i have known many people having problems but not serious, one though had ulcers but maybe not from protein shakes but protein shakes did not make him feel good.

One point i forgot to mention:
protein must be taken in small amounts at a time like 20 grams so you can benefit from it ...many take 100g in one shake and most o fit is not absorbed or will tend to make you gain fat , better to divide it into many small amounts.

Originally Posted by bjg

One point i forgot to mention:
protein must be taken in small amounts at a time like 20 grams so you can benefit from it ...many take 100g in one shake and most o fit is not absorbed or will tend to make you gain fat , better to divide it into many small amounts.

Master of Misinformation

Llike your other post, you have a propensity of providing misinformation.

There is no research to substantiate that the body is unable to absorb 20 grams or more of protein in one feeding.

That myth that has been around forever.

Pulse Feeding

As Built mention in an earlier post, Pluse Feeding in which large amounts of protein are consumed with infrequent meals appears to promote better absorption.

Consuming Large Amounts of Protein Makes You Fat

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Fact and Fiction

Your post are a combination of fact and fiction.

Kenny Croxdale

Originally Posted by Call of Ktulu

Do you need a protein shake after you workout? Is food just as good or milk just as good for a protein source after a workout? I'm asking because protein shakes are expensive after a while.

Milk has way to much sugar in it. Not to mention your drinking shit from a pregnant cow. No thanks.


Most of us use powder cause eating 2 lbs. of chicken get's old after a few day's. With the advent of liquid egg whites and protein powder you can drink 50g of protein in a lil under 20 seconds.

Originally Posted by bjg

Why not? Whey is loaded with glutamine and glutamine is very helpful for gut health.

maybe but they also contain loads of artificial stuff , and your digestive system might not tolerate them in the long run , i have known many people having problems but not serious, one though had ulcers but maybe not from protein shakes but protein shakes did not make him feel good.

One point i forgot to mention:
protein must be taken in small amounts at a time like 20 grams so you can benefit from it ...many take 100g in one shake and most o fit is not absorbed or will tend to make you gain fat , better to divide it into many small amounts.

muuuuuuuuuuuuuust beccccccccccccccccccccccome moooooooooooreeeeeeeeeeeeeee eddddddddddddddducaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatedddddddd ddddddddd beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefoooooooooooooooooooooore spooooooooooooooooooooooooouttttttttttttttttttting

off senseless shit

Originally Posted by BP2000

Milk has way to much sugar in it. Not to mention your drinking shit from a pregnant cow. No thanks.


Most of us use powder cause eating 2 lbs. of chicken get's old after a few day's. With the advent of liquid egg whites and protein powder you can drink 50g of protein in a lil under 20 seconds.

x2

Originally Posted by Kenny Croxdale

Master of Misinformation

Llike your other post, you have a propensity of providing misinformation.

There is no research to substantiate that the body is unable to absorb 20 grams or more of protein in one feeding.

That myth that has been around forever.

Pulse Feeding

As Built mention in an earlier post, Pluse Feeding in which large amounts of protein are consumed with infrequent meals appears to promote better absorption.

Consuming Large Amounts of Protein Makes You Fat

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Fact and Fiction

Your post are a combination of fact and fiction.

Kenny Croxdale

you base your opinion on some studies i base mine on many other studies on expert medical opinions and on 35 years of bodybuilding.
i can show you studies that say something and other studies that say the opposite.
normally one an assimilate 20-50 g of protein at one time depending on how much muscle cell break down or tear had happened during a workout.
an as far as supplements are concerned there are no long term studies (years) because it is not possible to do that is why one should not over abuse supplements. As far as protein making you fat: Anything you eat in excess makes you fat ( conservation of energy principle) and protein shakes are not all pure protein.

Originally Posted by bjg

you base your opinion on some studies i base mine on many other studies on expert medical opinions and on 35 years of bodybuilding.
i can show you studies that say something and other studies that say the opposite.
normally one an assimilate 20-50 g of protein at one time depending on how much muscle cell break down or tear had happened during a workout.
an as far as supplements are concerned there are no long term studies (years) because it is not possible to do that is why one should not over abuse supplements. As far as protein making you fat: Anything you eat in excess makes you fat ( conservation of energy principle) and protein shakes are not all pure protein.

You didn't say that.
You said nothing about excess consumption. You said protein must be taken in small amounts at a time, and that if you ate it all at once, it would tend to make you gain fat:

One point i forgot to mention:
protein must be taken in small amounts at a time like 20 grams so you can benefit from it ...many take 100g in one shake and most o fit is not absorbed or will tend to make you gain fat , better to divide it into many small amounts.

Humour me. Kindly post recent, peer-reviewed research - or at the very least, describe the pathways and proposed mechanism - in support of your claims that:
a) protein consumption should be limited to 20g at a time
b) Eating your daily protein in large servings (as opposed to frequent, smaller servings) leading to fat-gain. I'll further clarify this is in the context of equal calories and protein.

Originally Posted by bjg

i can show you studies

Studies

Great. So, you will have no problem presenting that information.

I look forward to you posting it.[/U][/B]

"one should not over abuse supplements."

Exactly, who has posted anything advocating abusing supplements???

Originally Posted by bjg

As far as protein making you fat: Anything you eat in excess makes you fat ( conservation of energy principle)

Too Much Protein Will Make You Fat

That was what you said.

So, the take home message for you is...

Be Explicit

The information you present is vague. You need to be more explicit.

Fact Combined With Fiction

You also present information based on your on dimensional view.

Present Data

"Because I said so"...is your battle cry. Back it up.

Originally Posted by bjg

and protein shakes are not all pure protein.

Not All Protein

No one said a protein shake is 100% protein.

However, out of 100 grams of protein (as you eluded to), the majority of it is protein.

Kenny Croxdale

take it easy...are you a lawyer? coz you argue about the smallest word and detail i said. the point is that each gives his opinion not to argue. protein absorption and how much you need and are supplements necessary is not an exact science
i am sure you can look up some articles (you are good at it) that will support what i am saying.
my approach is that it is better to take a small amount of protein that is in shake form and use it for muscle building than take a lot and not use it. others would think the opposite take lot the excess is better than the shortage.
well the whole thing is not that simple your muscles are not a bucket that you need to fill out as quickly as possible.
And to add on my view on supplements: my view is probably not similar to most of the people in this forum, protein shakes and vitamins are the furthest i would go. As far as other supplements and Androwhatever and prohormones and even creatine no matter how many research articles you show me , i would not think of taking them, and even if i did i would not prescribe them to my son so why should i prescribe them to other young bodybuilders. I am doing fine without them and i see many are doing fine without... my body is not a research lab to try whatever crap is advertised. There are no long term studies on any of this mess because long term human studies ( i am talking years) are not possible. Professional athletes do not care about long term effects so most studies are done on a short term basis.
I rely on the quality of my workout and on a healthy diet. Only time and experience will make you understand what your body needs and what exercises are good for you. Rushing things will never help.

bjg, I don't blame you for not wanting your son to take prohormones.

Protein powder, however, isn't a supplement. It's just food, and not all of us use it with muscle-gain in mind. I for one use a premeal whey shake because it helps me feel full longer - and hence keep my food intake under control (whey promotes an insulin response, even for those of us who may not get a normal insulin response to glucose). My sister has Celiac disease, and she uses it for the easy-to-digest protein and for gut health. The added perq is of course the fact that whey provides a cheap, easy source of readily-used amino acids - hardly unwelcome in a bodybuilding paradigm.

You may wish to revisit creatine. If your son eats steak, he's already had creatine. This naturally-occurring nutrient has demonstrated benefit not only for the purpose of muscle-gain, but also for heart health, glucose uptake and cognitive function in the elderly (I have my 81 year old mother taking it). It has also been researched to death for decades and subsequently found to not only be safe, but in many cases, beneficial.

Peace.

Originally Posted by Built

bjg, I don't blame you for not wanting your son to take prohormones.

Protein powder, however, isn't a supplement. It's just food, and not all of us use it with muscle-gain in mind. I for one use a premeal whey shake because it helps me feel full longer - and hence keep my food intake under control (whey promotes an insulin response, even for those of us who may not get a normal insulin response to glucose). My sister has Celiac disease, and she uses it for the easy-to-digest protein and for gut health. The added perq is of course the fact that whey provides a cheap, easy source of readily-used amino acids - hardly unwelcome in a bodybuilding paradigm.

You may wish to revisit creatine. If your son eats steak, he's already had creatine. This naturally-occurring nutrient has demonstrated benefit not only for the purpose of muscle-gain, but also for heart health, glucose uptake and cognitive function in the elderly (I have my 81 year old mother taking it). It has also been researched to death for decades and subsequently found to not only be safe, but in many cases, beneficial.

Peace.

true..protein shakes are sometimes beneficial i use them because a good source of protein is not always available at the moment besides it prevents me from eating good stuff like chocolate or ice cream .My son does occasionally take protein drinks, i just don't passionately encourage him because when a young bodybuilder starts with protein and becomes deeply attached to it it may lead to other stuff. just look at this forum and you will find so many young kids encouraging each other on taking substances that could lead to serious health problems and most of them started with innocent protein shakes..you see my point?
Creatine taken moderately by a healthy person will not hurt probably.people swear by it. but for me it gives me water retention and subsequently could cause high blood pressure... i feel the results and benefits do not outweigh the side effects at least for me.
peace

Originally Posted by Built

You didn't say that.
You said nothing about excess consumption. You said protein must be taken in small amounts at a time, and that if you ate it all at once, it would tend to make you gain fat:

Humour me. Kindly post recent, peer-reviewed research - or at the very least, describe the pathways and proposed mechanism - in support of your claims that:
a) protein consumption should be limited to 20g at a time
b) Eating your daily protein in large servings (as opposed to frequent, smaller servings) leading to fat-gain. I'll further clarify this is in the context of equal calories and protein.

Built he has this one on lock down. The research pretty much says 20g whey vs 30 vs 40 ect all equal the same level of protein synthesis. This suggests there is no point for taking more than 20g of whey at one time if the only reason for it is to increase protein synthesis. But we know that we can simply use the extra protein for energy so its not a big deal, but it may be more costly than using CHO.

The same study also showed that 8-10 grams of EEA and 12-15g of BCAA provided the same response as 20g of whey. You can check out the study name I am referencing in my previous post over here, Protein intake guide.

Originally Posted by bjg

take it easy...are you a lawyer? coz you argue about the smallest word and detail i said.

Take It Easy

As I stated in a previous reply to one of your post, I have a short disposition with individuals posing as experts, yet lack enough knowledge to know what they are talking about.

Small Details

In an intelligent discussion, one need to present some type of support data on their position when ask.

You Equivocate

Your ramble in your post. They are ambigious, unclear, and misleading.

You don't do it intentionally. You're a scatter brain.

"Because I said so"...

that is your battle cry.

Originally Posted by bjg

the point is that each gives his opinion not to argue. protein absorption and how much you need and are supplements necessary is not an exact science
i am sure you can look up some articles (you are good at it) that will support what i am saying.

"i can show you studies"

You SPECIFICALLY stated that you could provide research that supports your position.

Now, you saying that you have nothing to support your position.

Built's Request

"Kindly post recent, peer-reviewed research - or at the very least, describe the pathways and proposed mechanism - in support of your claims..."

"i am sure you can look up some articles..."

So, we're back to you making things up as you go. You DON"T have any research.

Originally Posted by bjg

my approach is that it is better to take a small amount of protein that is in shake form and use it for muscle building than take a lot and not use it. others would think the opposite take lot the excess is better than the shortage.

Your Approach

Let me reiterate, you approach is based on your one dimensional view.

Originally Posted by bjg

And to add on my view on supplements: my view is probably not similar to most of the people in this forum, protein shakes and vitamins are the furthest i would go. As far as other supplements and Androwhatever and prohormones and even creatine no matter how many research articles you show me , i would not think of taking them, and even if i did i would not prescribe them to my son so why should i prescribe them to other young bodybuilders.

Attention Deficit Disorder

You definitely keep wondering off topic.

Not Taking Creatine

Creatine is a proven winner, empirical data tells us that. That meaning if you talk (no reading required on your part) to most athletes, they will tell you it works.

Creatine is one of the most scientifically researched supplements on the market. It has been shown to have many health benefits.

Reading

However, reading is not one of your stong suites. So, you are clueless.

"i would not think of taking them"

So, you have NO practical experience and nor do you read or believe in research.

Prescribing Them

Thanks for clarifying your ignorance and re-inforcing reasons why no one should listen to your views.

Originally Posted by bjg

There are no long term studies on any of this mess because long term human studies ( i am talking years) are not possible.

Long Term Studies

Actually, on some of the supplements there are decades of research information on. (When all else fails, READ!)

Creatine is a prime examle of that.

Books and Articles

Try reading books and articles that have more word than pictures. It amazing what you will learn.

Kenny Croxdale

Originally Posted by Kenny Croxdale

"i can show you studies"

You SPECIFICALLY stated that you could provide research that supports your position.

Now, you saying that you have nothing to support your position.

Built's Request

"Kindly post recent, peer-reviewed research - or at the very least, describe the pathways and proposed mechanism - in support of your claims..."

"i am sure you can look up some articles..."

So, we're back to you making things up as you go. You DON"T have any research.


Kenny Croxdale

To be fair to his stance I did post material that supports one of his claims. I doubt he knew of the study, or the others like it, but he did get this one. Even the blind man playing darts will get a bulls-eye if he throws enough darts.

Originally Posted by pebble

To be fair to his stance I did post material that supports one of his claims.

Pebble,

I appreciate you posting the information.

You get points for getting off your ass and researching the subject.

Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men

Part of the problem with this research (any research for the matter) are the test subjects and the number of individuals used in the study.

"Six healthy active males (mean ± SE: 22 ± 2 y; 86.1 ± 7.6 kg; 1.82 ± 0.1 m) who had ≥4 mo of previous recreational weight-lifting experience (range: 4 mo–8 y) volunteered to participate in the study."

The Law Of Numbers

One of the rules of reasearch is the larger the study group, the more more accurate the results.

"Six health active males..."

Six is too low to accomodate "The Law Of Numbers" Rule.

Individuals In The Study

Using individuals with 4 mo to 8 years is too broad a range. The difference between an individual with 4 months of training vs 8 years is huge.

Realiability of Study

While the study provides some information, the study cannot be applied to every group.

Charles Poliquin (Canadian Strength Coach)

Poliquin has often cited the problem with the majority of research is not using the right groups.

In other word, what effects of nutrition and training of novice trainees does not usually carry over to intermediate or advanced trainees.

Originally Posted by pebble

I doubt he knew of the study, or the others like it, but he did get this one.

That's My Point

He has no idea because he didn't take the time to do the research like you did.

Originally Posted by pebble

Even the blind man playing darts will get a bulls-eye if he throws enough darts.

Yes. However, nothing happens unless you get off your ass and make the effort.

Kenny Croxdale

Originally Posted by Kenny Croxdale

Pebble,

I appreciate you posting the information.

You get points for getting off your ass and researching the subject.

Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men

Part of the problem with this research (any research for the matter) are the test subjects and the number of individuals used in the study.

"Six healthy active males (mean ± SE: 22 ± 2 y; 86.1 ± 7.6 kg; 1.82 ± 0.1 m) who had ≥4 mo of previous recreational weight-lifting experience (range: 4 mo–8 y) volunteered to participate in the study."

The Law Of Numbers

One of the rules of reasearch is the larger the study group, the more more accurate the results.

"Six health active males..."

Six is too low to accomodate "The Law Of Numbers" Rule.

Just about all training studies use low numbers like this because they are generally done in universities on university students (just like this one). This means low funding. I know because I have been a part of teams conducting like studies.

Studies like these get tossed into a review and then pushed into meta-analysis and all of a sudden the data has accumulated into a substantial amount which allows for relationships/correlations/ trends to emerge. Every topic has to start somewhere, and this paper is only 3 years old, which you should know is not very old for science - it takes time for new studies to be conducted.

It is not as if this study is in a small no name journal, it is a very reputable journal and has been conducted by two of the top protein guys in the world, Mark and Stuart. To further validate this study it has been cited multiple times in other peer reviewed reputable journals. This is not some fly by the night article.

Originally Posted by Kenny Croxdale

Individuals In The Study

Using individuals with 4 mo to 8 years is too broad a range. The difference between an individual with 4 months of training vs 8 years is huge.


Realiability of Study

While the study provides some information, the study cannot be applied to every group.

Having a wide range of training expiernce was used because of Marks previous work. He has shown that with less training experience you need more protein (to accomadate the weaker therefore more damanged sarcolemma). By using a wide range of training expiernce and not seeing any statisticlly significant differences (in what volume of whey elicited the greatest protein synthesis response) it reduces the need to conduct studies on specific populations. If there was significant difference between the population ( ie less experience responded better to 40g and more experienced responded better to 20g) it would have encouraged interest in studying each specific population more in depth and likely warranted additional funding to do so. Without the difference there is no need to conduct studies on specific populations.

Generally studies use males first (unless the researcher is particularly interested in females) because they do not have a menstrual cycle (hormonal fluctuation). They are usually only tested after they know the expected results to see if they differ from males.

Originally Posted by Kenny Croxdale

Charles Poliquin (Canadian Strength Coach)

Poliquin has often cited the problem with the majority of research is not using the right groups.

In other word, what effects of nutrition and training of novice trainees does not usually carry over to intermediate or advanced trainees.

Despite that one of the conclusions that can be made form this study spits in this faces of his thoughts. 20g whey maximally stimulates PS for novice, intermediate and advanced young males.

I have trained beside Charles and the man is very smart, but also very ignorant and CRAZY. Have you seen the training principles he has? Have you been to his seminars? Did you look at his biosignature software? Some of that stuff is big joke.

And his information does not relate to the people here. All of his research is on high level athletes which I doubt many of the members are here. Are we not looking for population specificity anymore?

Originally Posted by bjg

true..protein shakes are sometimes beneficial i use them because a good source of protein is not always available at the moment besides it prevents me from eating good stuff like chocolate or ice cream .My son does occasionally take protein drinks, i just don't passionately encourage him because when a young bodybuilder starts with protein and becomes deeply attached to it it may lead to other stuff. just look at this forum and you will find so many young kids encouraging each other on taking substances that could lead to serious health problems and most of them started with innocent protein shakes..you see my point?

Completely.

You may be interested to know that over 99% of heroin addicts drank milk as children. I hope and pray you had the good sense to keep your child from drinking milk when he was little - I would hate to see him become a heroin addict.

On a more serious note, I'm a supermoderator on this forum and if you see ANYONE encouraging a kid to take steroids, prohormones or anything stronger than food (I include whey in this), creatine and a multivitamin, tell me and I'll shut that poster RIGHT down.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a member, sponsor or moderator who supports the use of drugs by children.

I personally have gone behind the scenes by PM many times to explain, in detail, the problems that may arise from using these substances, and why it is critical that young people who haven't yet become adults refrain. I've invested the time to help many of these youngsters with diet and training advice - for free - to help make it easier for them to see that there are other, better, safer ways to achieve their goals . I even wrote an article about it - which you'll see posted in the link in my sig. Feel free to read it if you like, you may find it interesting.

Originally Posted by bjg

Creatine taken moderately by a healthy person will not hurt probably.people swear by it. but for me it gives me water retention and subsequently could cause high blood pressure... i feel the results and benefits do not outweigh the side effects at least for me.
peace

You actually may want to re-think this one. Premix creatine is basically koolaid with a bit of creatine, and a serving will give the user a LOT of sugar. If it isn't premixed, many people drink creatine down with something like fruit juice - either way, you're getting a huge whack of sugar, and sugar promotes a pro-inflammatory hormone to rise: insulin. The water retention you speak of is more likely a product of bloat from excess carbohydrate consumption rather than from the creatine. Creatine increases muscle cell hydration a little, but this isn't the same as the water retention seen from elevated levels of aldosterone. Blood pressure should not be affected. If you had a pre-existing kidney disease, I'd suggest you contact your doctor before taking anything - but to be fair, if you had a preexisting kidney condition - one bad enough to require dialysis, for instance - a single banana could kill you (potassium).

On the other hand, oral creatine keeps your arteries a little less stiff after exercise, which may be of tremendous benefit for those dealing with modest hypertension; my elderly mother, for instance. The following recent article in the European Journal of Applied Physiology showed no increase in systolic blood pressure measured in the arm btw.
Creatine supplementation attenuates hemod... [Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Sep;111(9):1965-71. Epub 2011 Jan 20.

Creatine supplementation attenuates hemodynamic and arterial stiffness responses following an acute bout of isokinetic exercise.
Sanchez-Gonzalez MA, Wieder R, Kim JS, Vicil F, Figueroa A.
Source

Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, 120 Convocation Way, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1493, USA.
Abstract

Arterial stiffness and hemodynamics may be increased following a bout of resistance exercise. Oral creatine supplementation (Cr) may attenuate cardiovascular responses after exercise via improved anaerobic metabolism. This study was aimed to determine the effect of Cr on hemodynamic and arterial stiffness responses after acute isokinetic exercise. Sixteen healthy males (22.6 ± 0.6 year) were randomly assigned to either placebo (Pl, n = 8) or Cr (n = 8) (2 × 5 g/day) for 3 weeks. Brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV), and leg PWV were measured in the supine position at rest before and after the interventions. After the supplementation period, parameters were also measured 5 min (PE5) and 15 min (PE15) after two sets of leg isokinetic exercise. There was no difference between the groups in resting measurements before and after the supplementation.

Originally Posted by Built

(The bolded text above are the parts that showed resting blood pressure was unaffected btw)

Compared with the Pl group, the Cr group had attenuated (P < 0.05) increases in SBP

Originally Posted by Built

This is an extremely important finding: the ordinary increase in blood pressure seen following a bout of activity was LOWER in those supplemented by creatine. Yep, creatine makes it easier for your body to handle the stresses of intense activity because it keeps your blood pressure from rising as high as it would have under the same circumstances, but without creatine supplementation.

at PE5 (Pl 14.0 ± 2.5, Cr 5.6 ± 2.3 mmHg), HR at both P5 (Pl 28 ± 4 vs. Cr 16 ± 2 beats/min) and PE15 (Pl 21 ± 3, Cr 11 ± 2 beats/min) and rate pressure product at P5 (Pl 45.8 ± 6.4, Cr 24.8 ± 2.2) and P15 (Pl 34.2 ± 5.0, Cr 15.9 ± 6.0). Compared with the Pl group, the Cr group had suppressed increases in baPWV at PE5 (Pl 1.5 ± 0.4, Cr -0.1 ± 0.4 m/s) and PE15 (Pl 1.1 ± 0.2, Cr -0.3 ± 0.3 m/s) and returned SBP to pre-exercise values at PE15 (Pl 10.6 ± 2.8, Cr 2.1 ± 2.6 mmHg). PWV in the exercised leg decreased at PE5 in both groups. These findings suggest that Cr supplementation attenuates the hemodynamic and baPWV responses after acute isokinetic exercise.

im not expert but think about this..

You workout what ever muscle and break it down.

You want to replenish this with all the nutrients you can as fast as you can this is why in my opinion a shake is better to have then food..

I say this because a shake is liquid form and will be absorbed into the muscle quicker then food as the food will have to be broke down and digested so it will take longer to get to the muscle...

Theres a vid of zach kahn and he says always a shake after a workout not food due to its absorbed quicker..

As far as shakes vs food and prople using shakes as meal replacement food is by far the better option

Originally Posted by jimm

im not expert but think about this..

You workout what ever muscle and break it down.

You want to replenish this with all the nutrients you can as fast as you can this is why in my opinion a shake is better to have then food..

I say this because a shake is liquid form and will be absorbed into the muscle quicker then food as the food will have to be broke down and digested so it will take longer to get to the muscle...

Theres a vid of zach kahn and he says always a shake after a workout not food due to its absorbed quicker..

I know, and I agree - you need a pool of aminos around. Thing is, you'll get this in time unless you're in a deeply fasted state, and even then there are compensatory mechanisms which alternatively stimulate and halt protein synthesis. No matter which way you slice it, if you're operating at an overall surplus and you lift heavy stuff, you're gonna grow.


A friend of mine - Hatred on another b oard - started doing intermittent fasting recently and has finallybeen able to cut deep enough to see abs. He's keeping his size, too. Now this is a big, beefy guy and he's doing this assisted, but I still know plenty of big guys who can't diet down, even on gear.

He summed it up this way: "Lions don't have refrigerators."

Originally Posted by jimm

As far as shakes vs food and prople using shakes as meal replacement food is by far the better option

Agreed 100% - supplements are just that, supplements. I only recently started leaning on whey (and as mentioned, this is with a distinctly different purpose in mind), and always did just fine on eggs, cottage cheese, steak, veggies, natural peanut butter, broccoli, green beans, romaine, dairy fat, berries and sweet potatoes.

You'll note the conspicuous absence of grains, alcohol, or anything dyed blue or that came in a microwaveable pouch.

Originally Posted by pebble

Just about all training studies use low numbers like this because they are generally done in universities on university students (just like this one). This means low funding. I know because I have been a part of teams conducting like studies.

Great Point

I agree. The problem with just about all studies is the limited number of individuals used, the population of those in the study and the length of the stuy is not carried out long enough.

Originally Posted by pebble

Studies like these get tossed into a review and then pushed into meta-analysis and all of a sudden the data has accumulated into a substantial amount which allows for relationships/correlations/ trends to emerge. Every topic has to start somewhere, and this paper is only 3 years old, which you should know is not very old for science - it takes time for new studies to be conducted.

It is not as if this study is in a small no name journal, it is a very reputable journal and has been conducted by two of the top protein guys in the world, Mark and Stuart. To further validate this study it has been cited multiple times in other peer reviewed reputable journals. This is not some fly by the night article.

It a start and it provide a does provide a snap shot.

However, empirical data is another part of the study.

Often science works backwards. It see what works and then works backwards to understand why.

Originally Posted by pebble

Having a wide range of training expiernce was used because of Marks previous work. He has shown that with less training experience you need more protein (to accomadate the weaker therefore more damanged sarcolemma). By using a wide range of training expiernce and not seeing any statisticlly significant differences (in what volume of whey elicited the greatest protein synthesis response) it reduces the need to conduct studies on specific populations. If there was significant difference between the population ( ie less experience responded better to 40g and more experienced responded better to 20g) it would have encouraged interest in studying each specific population more in depth and likely warranted additional funding to do so. Without the difference there is no need to conduct studies on specific populations.

Law of Large Numbers

Having wide range of individuals with training experience with six individuals dilutes the research even more.

Concentrated Population

Having a larger number of the same population would have been a much better method.

Thus, a study of one severly limits the snap shot of what is going on.

As you noted above, that what most studies do.

Originally Posted by pebble

Despite that one of the conclusions that can be made form this study spits in this faces of his thoughts. 20g whey maximally stimulates PS for novice, intermediate and advanced young males.

I believe that 20 gram of protein for novice lifter makes sense.

Originally Posted by pebble

I have trained beside Charles and the man is very smart, but also very ignorant and CRAZY. Have you seen the training principles he has? Have you been to his seminars? Did you look at his biosignature software? Some of that stuff is big joke.

And his information does not relate to the people here. All of his research is on high level athletes which I doubt many of the members are here. Are we not looking for population specificity anymore?

Poliquin

Poliquin's information relates to people here.

Here again is what I stated:

Poliquin has often cited the problem with the majority of research is not using the right groups.

The point is, what works with one group doesn't necessarily work as well with another group.

Pulse Feeding Research

One of the interesting things about Pulse Feeding was how much better protein was synthethized and absorbed in a specific population.

"Food is the ultimate drug." Barry Sears

What's interesting is how you can manipulate food intake to create the effect (to some extent) that you want.

Kenny Croxdale

Kenny relax and calm down with your insults so far i have respected you, stop annoying people with your articles that you dug out from the internet, you know you can dig articles that say the opposite of what you are claiming, i have no time to do so.
As far as my knowledge and my logic, dude i am a professor of biomedical engineering graduated from texas A&M University in 1991 with a PHD, i have about 30 research articles and been teaching for 20 years or more, my CV alone is 25 pages much more than you read during your lifetime, so be civilized because if you are trying to intimidate or showing off with me i can show you that you are not up to the level in no time, but i have no time to waste on that.

Originally Posted by bjg

Kenny relax and calm down with your insults so far i have respected you,

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Ya gotta love Aretha Frankin, don't you?

Back to Basics

I find it hard to respect any indiviual who poses and an expert, yet clearly has limited knowledge.

Originally Posted by bjg

stop annoying people with your articles that you dug out from the internet, you know you can dig articles that say the opposite of what you are claiming, i have no time to do so.

"i can show you studies"

We're back to you making thing up as you go. You claim you can show studies then you acknowledge that you have none...

"i am sure you can look up some articles..."

Take Home Message

The underlying message is you make things up as you go.

Originally Posted by bjg

As far as my knowledge and my logic, dude i am a professor of biomedical engineering graduated from texas A&M University in 1991 with a PHD, i have about 30 research articles and been teaching for 20 years or more,

Qulifications

And that qualifites as a PhD in Steriodology?

Post your resume. I look forward to reading it.

Do you still live in College Station or Bryan, my old home town? I really miss those Chicken Oil hamburgers on South College, don't you?

Dude

I guess that a PhD term of endrement for buddy, right?

Originally Posted by bjg

my CV alone is 25 pages much more than you read during your lifetime,

Glad to find out that you are so familiar who I am and what I read.

Originally Posted by bjg

so be civilized because if you are trying to intimidate or showing off with me

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!"

I simply was making an effort to educate you in an area you are weak in...and this is the thanks I get?

Originally Posted by bjg

i can show you that you are not up to the level in no time, but i have no time to waste on that.

No Time

You just posted another message on one of the other board, so evidently you have a lot more time to waste than you realize. Steroids?

Kenny Croxdale

[

Do you still live in College Station or Bryan, my old home town? I really miss those Chicken Oil hamburgers on South College, don't you?

Dude

I left college station in 1991 to do research and teach in other universities and yes i used to go to south college: Chicken oil burger, Dixie chiken and so on....and worked out at Jay's Gym in Bryan (now closed and home of some bad ass lifters including myself)) friend with owner Jay K. who used to nickname me lebanese bobcat (because i am lebanese) in reference to the lebanese lion Samir bannout Mr Olympia 1983 , and worked out at Golds Gym in college station which opened in the late 80's if i can remember.
Here is a nice story with Jay ....he challenge me once in pullups (because i was jokingly bugging him claiming that i was the undisputed pullup champion in the gym) , he is a big 6ft2 guy and 220 lbs , i am a short guy 5'6 and at that time (1985) i was around 170 lbs i don't know something like that but his argument when he lost ( a big big loss i could easily do 3 times more than he did ) was that i had the advantage because i was lighter ( which is a silly argument) so i hang on my waist a 45 lbs plate with some chains so probably a total weight of 55 lbs this way i would be his weight and still managed to beat him by some margin ( I remember i had to stop at 15 reps after being tired from the first round, he did 12 .....and they were complete pullups no cheating )

Originally Posted by bjg

[

Do you still live in College Station or Bryan, my old home town? I really miss those Chicken Oil hamburgers on South College, don't you?

Dude

I left college station in 1991 to do research and teach in other universities and yes i used to go to south college: Chicken oil burger, Dixie chiken and so on....and worked out at Jay's Gym in Bryan (now closed and home of some bad ass lifters including myself)) friend with owner Jay K. who used to nickname me lebanese bobcat (because i am lebanese) in reference to the lebanese lion Samir bannout Mr Olympia 1983 , and worked out at Golds Gym in college station which opened in the late 80's if i can remember.
Here is a nice story with Jay ....he challenge me once in pullups (because i was jokingly bugging him claiming that i was the undisputed pullup champion in the gym) , he is a big 6ft2 guy and 220 lbs , i am a short guy 5'6 and at that time (1985) i was around 170 lbs i don't know something like that but his argument when he lost ( a big big loss i could easily do 3 times more than he did ) was that i had the advantage because i was lighter ( which is a silly argument) so i hang on my waist a 45 lbs plate with some chains so probably a total weight of 55 lbs this way i would be his weight and still managed to beat him by some margin ( I remember i had to stop at 15 reps after being tired from the first round, he did 12 .....and they were complete pullups no cheating )

Jay's Gym

I know Jay. I use to go by and see him. I worked right around the corner from him.

Twin City Athletic Club

I worked out at Twin City Athletic Club on Counter between South Texas and South College.

Bennett Clayton

Clayton owned the gym. It was a powerlifitng gym

LiftsClayton's best lifts back in the early 1980s were:

Squat 816 lbs

Bench Press 510

Deadlift 778

I was a memeber of the Texas A&M Powerlifting team, at one time. I continued to put on meets with them and assist them.

National Collegiate Championships

Texas A&M won two national titles back in the 1980s.

Many of the Texas A&M Powerlifters trained at Twin City Athletic Club. It produced some nationally rated collegiate powerlifters.

Kenny Croxdale

[QUOTE=Kenny Croxdale;2511170][COLOR="Navy"]Jay's Gym

I know Jay. I use to go by and see him. I worked right around the corner from him.

[B][U]Tw

he sold his gym in the 90's , too bad i liked that gym , last time we spoke 2 yrs ago on facebook , he was thinking of reopening a gym