Best Drink To Pack On Solid Mass

[Silent Method]

I apologize if again this seems personal; of course it is not. The fact is, I could certainly be wrong.

But think about this: If those of us who believe this data are in the wrong, then so are the vast majority of current top athletic coaches for swimming, cycling, and running.


So what some of us are wondering is this:

What are the SPECIFIC reasons that you do NOT believe that these data are correct?

Have you been able to observe and document a series of events that contradict these findings? And if so, why don't I have any of your articles in my vault of studies, and why, when I search on the net for relevant studies in these fields, does your name never appear?

I've tried this route. You will not get a reply that is congruent to the parameters of your inquiry.



If one does not have a concept of physiological exersise resopnse patterns, how could they comment on the effect of given variables on those patterns?

I'd like to say that the answer would be that the party ignorant of the specific concept would learn as the dialogue evolves, process new the information, and weigh it against the knowledge that they do have. From there they can judge the validity of the concept (exercise response) as well as the effect of given variables (nutrients, timing, etc.) in relation to that concept.

However, when such party has already made up his or her mind against the validity of the effects of variables on a concept with which they are not even familiar, they simply cannot provide rational argument.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Funken: Now, that's a good answer.

I didn't want to come off like I blaming you. I know you always offer solid evidence to back up you opinions. It was more directed to people who dont even bother reading or understanding the information and just use it ammunition.

I understand what you're saying about the last set but I still maintain it isn't a very accurate gauge. It's like the HIT one set to failure concept. Well, what is failure? If you can do another set one minute later are you REALLY exausted? It's too hard to say for certain.

You said the meaningful thing mentioned in this entire thread. (And Silent Method should take note) You said the evidence suggests that it PROBABLY increases the chance of muscle growth. You are so right! All I'M saying is that I believe from my experiences and observations that it PROBABLY isn't that much of a difference.

And for this, we have hundreds of nasty posts. How ridiculous.

Also (and this is important), why do coaches enploy these methods with cyclists and swimmers and runners? BECAUSE THEY ARE ENDURENCE ATHLETES WHO MUST DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO GET AS MUCH ENERGY AS POSSIBLE. I would do the same exact thing if I were training a swimmer or a cyclists.

But that has NOTHING to do with muscle growth!!!

I think we're finally in agreement here .

One last thing. Not every observation is documented on the net. I'll bet you can't find an single references on the net that an apple is red. But it is. The same goes with this. My experience, both personal and with clients and from speaking with athletes of all levels (which is extensive) tells me, that a high GI post workout as opposed to a low GI carb, fifteen minutes after or 25 minutes after , shows no discernable difference in MUSCLE GROWTH. This is the point of contention that Silent could not comprehend, but instead he chose to harp on it and harp on it. I'm willing accept that he doesn't get it and move on, but he insists on trying to make me out as incompetant and that pisses me off. I know it shouldn't because e's just a jerk, but I have a little too much pride somethimes.

Thank you Funkenshredded for bringing everything into a clearer light.

 

[Spidey]

Wow Nelson, you are unbelievable. You must have blown right past my last post. I don't know how anyone can make the case any more plainly.

Several of those references in SM's post even refer to anabolism or muscle growth as a function of carb intake right in the title. They are not all about REPLENISHING GLYCOGEN as you have repeatedly claimed. THEY ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU REQUESTED.

I am truly at a loss here. Is your ego really that big that you simply are incapable of admitting when you are wrong? Even when it is painfully obvious to everyone else?

 

[genarr3]

Wow. If you read this carefully it seems Nelson and Fukkenshredded are almost in agreement. What I think Nelson is trying to point out that it isn't necessary to start a stopwatch the instant you rack the bar after your last set of Squats. In the long run it really isn't going to make much of a difference. What we do is a marathon of years, not a single day. Olympic level athletes base their whole lives on a single day's performance. The smallest measurable improvement could make the difference between being a hero or an also ran. For the vast majority of weight trainers, whatever their reasons for doing it, timing nutrition intake to the last second isn't needed. Try doing that for a few years and see how old it will get. I used to be very anal about when I ate what, but the past few years I've drifted away from that, not completely, but I don't stress about it anymore. It hasn't made any noticeable difference. Maybe I'd have an extra pound of muscle, but I prefer my sanity.

 

[Silent Method]

I understand what you're saying about the last set but I still maintain it isn't a very accurate gauge. It's like the HIT one set to failure concept. Well, what is failure? If you can do another set one minute later are you REALLY exausted? It's too hard to say for certain.

This is certainly a better notion then those you had posted before. However, you're still a bit cloudy.

Look, these are some principles of exercise physiology we must understand:

*Exercise is a single acute bout of physical exertion requiring energy expenditure beyond regular daily physical activity. (For athletes, the intensity of energy expenditure during exercise is significantly elevated and exercise session are highly structured - making actual "exercise" bouts easy to identify.)

*Exercise disrupts the dynamic equilibruim of the body. These homeostatic disruptions are cumulatively the body's exercise response.

*In large part, exercise response patterns can be gauged. If they could not be, the body would make no differentiation in function between exercise and non-exercise - there would not be exercise physiology.


Now, what are we trying to gauge? You brought up the notion of the "un-gaugeable" interval between exercise and post-exercise in specific regard to glycogen resynthesis a couple pages back. Lets roll with that.

One answer is simple: Glycogen synthase. The level of the very enzyme responsible for glycogen resynthesis is floating around in enormous quantities during that 15 minute post-exercise window (and in lesser but still abnormally high abundance up to an hour after exercise).



OK, enough from the glycogen replenishment aspect - how does this relate to muscle growth? Again, analyze exercise response. Read what has already been posted in this thread. In the most simple terms I can muster: Exercise -> catabolism + 4:1 high GI/high BV protein -> anabolism.

You said the meaningful thing mentioned in this entire thread. (And Silent Method should take note) You said the evidence suggests that it PROBABLY increases the chance of muscle growth. You are so right! All I'M saying is that I believe from my experiences and observations that it PROBABLY isn't that much of a difference.

This is fine. I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with much of the nonsense you had put forth in argument before getting to this point.

Also (and this is important), why do coaches enploy these methods with cyclists and swimmers and runners? BECAUSE THEY ARE ENDURENCE ATHLETES WHO MUST DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO GET AS MUCH ENERGY AS POSSIBLE. I would do the same exact thing if I were training a swimmer or a cyclists.

From the glycogen resynthesis perspective you keep coming back to you are largely correct in this point. Read what I have already posted on this thread – way back. After a bout of anaerobic exercise such as a weight training session, the body needs very little help in regard to glycogen resynthesis. (In terms of glycogen replenishment, high GI carbs shine following aerobic, higher duration exercise.)

But that has NOTHING to do with muscle growth!!!

I think we're finally in agreement here .

One last thing. Not every observation is documented on the net. I'll bet you can't find an single references on the net that an apple is red. But it is. The same goes with this. My experience, both personal and with clients and from speaking with athletes of all levels (which is extensive) tells me, that a high GI post workout as opposed to a low GI carb, fifteen minutes after or 25 minutes after , shows no discernable difference in MUSCLE GROWTH. This is the point of contention that Silent could not comprehend, but instead he chose to harp on it and harp on it. I'm willing accept that he doesn't get it and move on, but he insists on trying to make me out as incompetant and that pisses me off. I know it shouldn't because e's just a jerk, but I have a little too much pride somethimes.

Again, you are limiting yourself to concerns of glycogen. The concept of anabolic drive is quite real. Any athlete knows this – and for bodybuilders it is an obsession. The post-exercise recovery shake I have recommended in this thread WILL catapult an athlete from a catabolic post-exercise state to a strong anabolic state. This has everything to do with muscle growth.

Now, if you wish to debate the degree to which this will actually affect muscle growth, fine. As a piece of the “anabolic” puzzle, I believe it will yield a significant advantage over time. Men like Dr. Michael Colgan, the world’s premier authority on sports nutrition, believe it and have measured it. The elite athletes they train have seen it for themselves.

Nelson, what kind of clients have you tried the 4:1 High GI carb/High BV protein shake with? Did you have a control group with similar stats training and eating in otherwise identical ways? For how many months were they engaged in the systematic testing of the proposed recovery meal? How about years? Places like the Colgan Institute track this stuff. They, and others, say it works.



Playing off of genarr's post, I readily concede that precise, stopwatch timing of the post-recovery meal is quite unnecessary. The recovery meal is not rocket science. Following exercise the body is in a state ripe for the utilization of the nutrients. With time, normal equilibrium returns and the introduction of the recovery meal is less adventageous.

Like you said - what we do is a marathon of years, not a single day. This is exactly what the post-exercise recovery shake fits so well with us. It's easy as hell for most of us to utilize, made correctly it tastes good, and, over the course of time, it works!

 

[Fonz]

Wow Nelson, you are unbelievable. You must have blown right past my last post. I don't know how anyone can make the case any more plainly.

Several of those references in SM's post even refer to anabolism or muscle growth as a function of carb intake right in the title. They are not all about REPLENISHING GLYCOGEN as you have repeatedly claimed. THEY ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU REQUESTED.

I am truly at a loss here. Is your ego really that big that you simply are incapable of admitting when you are wrong? Even when it is painfully obvious to everyone else?

I think this post has revealed what kind of a person Nelson is.

In my 4 years here, I don't think I have seen more than a dozen posts with such a huge amount of information sources posted.

Yet, he still does not give credit where credit is due, because he just can't stand the fact his assumptions where flat-out wrong.

Fact is Silent Method, you, and Fukkenshredded backed every single one of your points up. Quite well IMO btw.

Yet Nelson chooses to ignore this like usual.

Just ignore him. Not worth debating with him. He accuses people of acting like children...yet take a look at his antics in this post.

Talk about irony of ironies.

Heck, I learnt a lot from the sources posted on this thread (As hopefully everybody did as well).

Good job guys. Definately saving this one.

Fonz

 

[Citruscide]

Fuck all you guys that try to Shit on NELSON!
you are just jelous because he makes money and you don't.... is like Puffy Daddy said, "the more money we come around the more problems we see"... \

Did you just site Puff Daddy on the Anabolic board?!?! LOL -- Banned.

C-ditty

 

[Citruscide]

you guys are just hating on me because you probaly got scamed by the supplement f*ckers, since you couldn't afford to buy nelson's book and you are not platnium. Yeah i have a lot of Karma because I give the Bros a lot of good advice.

Let me get this straight... in one post you have gotten in the weightlifting scene 3 weeks ago... and now, you are giving all the bros good advice? What good advice is that!?!? I haven't even seen any of your posts? 500 of them come from your plat membership and God knows where your other 200+ come from??

I smell a bad karma hit coming on!!

C-ditty

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Actually I am in complete agreement with Nelson in one regard, and that is the issue of real world practicality.

I find that Nelson's thinking tends to be geared toward what will actually be implemented, not what might yield the extra 1/8 pound of muscle in six months.

Now, we have differing ideas about many little points (and maybe one big one where protien degredation is concerned), but I have to admit that I do not actually implement the procedures that I profess to agree with, mainly because I am not a professional athlete or bodybuilder.

In fact, I am a pretty skinny guy who doesn't look at all like a bodybuilder, although I am in fairly good shape.

Interestingly, I find myself wondering if the small differences yielded by some of the protocol I have suggested are overshadowed simply by using steroids...

In any event, I do think that Nelson gives pretty good insight as far as real world training is concerned, and I think that his general question of 'is it worth the effort' for some of the small particulars is definitely valid.

I would venture a guess that our actual training is very similar, with the exception of the windsprint routines that I do in the summers.

 

[Silent Method]

Another good post Fukkenshredded. Lots of good points.

As I have stated in regard to the recovery meal I support in this thread, can an athletes gaols be reached without it? Sure. Could it help? Sure.

No weight trainer must have it. The average trainer will not realize much advantage from it in comparison to their normal diet. The average individual will demand that "advantage" be defined as entire pounds gained in weeks or days along with immediate inches on their arms.


However, does it have it's place in the athletes tool box? Can a "real world" amature athlete see some advantage from the recovery drink over time? Of course.

For those of us who are athletes with athletic goals, life is a constant balancing act. There are things we do which hinder adaptation, things we do which enable adaptation, and things we do with no net effect. For myself and many others, a post-exercise recovery meal is part of the positive, adaptation enabling equation.