I think I just dicovered my roadblock

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Sep. 27 2005,3:40)]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Sep. 26 2005,4:51)]

Quote[/b] ]Not  from tipton, just generic protein research

If you know of more other than the Esmark study in the aged or the Anderson 2005, Rankin 2004 work released please point them out.

there is a review somewhere with them, might have been a meta-analysis.
but also Burke 2001, Chromiak 2004, Colker 2000

Do you want to quote Aagaard

Quote[/b] ]Further, timed intake of protein in conjunction with resistance training elicit greater strength and muscle size gains than resistance training alone

there is a few others but Im too lazy to hunt them down.

Quote[/b] ]Journal of Physiology (2001), 532.2, pp. 575-579

thats the one I thought you were meaning.  If taking that reference as true, the same latency would happen for both directly after and 1 hour after.  So why does the 1hr after have a much higher response even with 1hour later doseage time.
or
Dose + Latency = 2
1hr + Dose + Latency = 3.5
(no particular scale)

Quote[/b] ]Exactly, my point is, you mentioned other energy outside of protein, this has been looked at over the years and seems to show that insulin is permissive but the main stimulatory effect is seen with AA availability. Sucroses impact therefore helps but I don't see where changing the non nitrogenic energy changes the fact that AA availabilty is what is needed.

um, you were the one who quoted Wolfe saying that

Quote[/b] ]And it hasn't changed the the results.

Changed the direct comparability of some of the data.  

Quote[/b] ] So I say again the need to worry about getting 1 or 2 g/lb a day is to worry about nothing but the vast majority of the science shows an anabolic edge if you time the ingestion around your training.

except it doesnt.  The vast majority of the rencent science shows that having protein compared to no protein around training makes an effect when FASTED.  Even tipton states that.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know if the anabolic response would be as great in the fed state. However, when we give two boluses of amino acids an hour apart, we still see an increase in the anabolic response. I suspect that there would be a jump in net muscle protein synthesis in the fed state. What I am not convinced of is whether that increase, on the order of nanomolar changes in amino acids, translates into measurable gains in muscle mass.

Quote[/b] ]As I mentioned above a study by Aagard this year shows that with 14 weeks of training and Isoenergetic supplementation PRE and POST protein vs. carbs. Hypertrophy only increased in the protein group. This to me shows that pre and post timing is important even in chronic. Granted it doesn't show which was the cause (pre or post) and since I only have the abstract I don't know what age the subjects were.

I take it you mean the paper by Andereson et al? as Aagaard hasnt many papers as the lead author.  Anderesn compared the isocaloric, but not iso-nitrogenous.  50% extra protein is a big whack, especially when the initial people are consuming lower protein for a novice (98g - 0.6g/lb... on the lower end of the potential range for novices.)

Quote[/b] ]Another chronic study by Rankin shows the same thing when looking at foods containing protein vs those that don't in the Young 18-25 yrs.

mmmm milk  
I take it you mean his J Am Cll nutr paper, which sez

Quote[/b] ]Post-resistance exercise consumption of MILK and CHO caused similar adaptations to resistance training.

Ie, showed no significant difference between the two groups?

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Burke
Lean mass gains where seen with supplementation?
The abstract doesn't mention when supplemenation took place, do you know?

Chromiak
3.4Kg FFM gain with supplementation vs 1.5 without, 7.5 lbs vs 3lbs, not significant. Seems significant to me. The variance of .027 could have been from the hydrostatic testing and or error in skinfold measures, they should have used some other measure for determining like maybe MRI. Also they note themselves the trend was leaning towards supplementation.

Colker 2000
Can you give me a journal?

Quote[/b] ]I don't know if the anabolic response would be as great in the fed state. However, when we give two boluses of amino acids an hour apart, we still see an increase in the anabolic response. I suspect that there would be a jump in net muscle protein synthesis in the fed state. What I am not convinced of is whether that increase, on the order of nanomolar changes in amino acids, translates into measurable gains in muscle mass.

But he doesn't say it won't either.

Quote[/b] ](98g - 0.6g/lb... on the lower end of the potential range for novices

I doubt the difference between .7 and .6g/lb is going to make a difference at all.

Quote[/b] ]mmmm milk

Yeah I know you love your chocolate milk, which if I recall other comments you've made, you drink when?

 

Quote[/b] ]I take it you mean his J Am Cll nutr paper, which sez

and

Quote[/b] ]MILK tended to increase body weight and FFST mass (p = 0.10 and p = 0.13, respectively) compared to CHO

Yeah I know .05, .05, .05, .05
and

Quote[/b] ]It is possible that a more prolonged training with supplementation period would expand the trend for greater FFST gains in MILK.

I will agree with you on the fact that more studies are needed looking at the differences in fed vs fasted state. If you ever remember those reviews (or meta, not the Nissan one since I have it) I would appreciate you sharing.

Thanks for sharing Aaron I appreciate it.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Sep. 28 2005,2:51)]Burke
Lean mass gains where seen with supplementation?
The abstract doesn't mention when supplemenation took place, do you know?
Chromiak
3.4Kg FFM gain with supplementation vs 1.5 without, 7.5 lbs vs 3lbs, not significant. Seems significant to me. The variance of .027 could have been from the hydrostatic testing and or error in skinfold measures, they should have used some other measure for determining like maybe MRI. Also they note themselves the trend was leaning towards supplementation.
Colker 2000

Can you give me a journal?

Burke DG, Chilibeck PD, Davidson KS, Candow DG, Farthing J & Smith-Palmer T. (2001)The effect of whey protein supplementation with and without creatine monohydrate combined with resistance training on lean tissue mass and muscle strength. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 11, 349-364


Colker et al. Effects of Supplemental protien on body composition and muscular strength in healthy athletic male adults. Current Theraputic research 2000;61:19-28

Quote[/b] ]But he doesn't say it won't either.

neither have I... I have said "Theres potential, but its not looking good." and "Doesnt mean it wont, but at this stage it doesnt look overly promising."

Quote[/b] ]Yeah I know you love your chocolate milk, which if I recall other comments you've made, you drink when?

havent had any chocolate milk. I do however have a whey shake in the morning, mainly because I got some free, and also I train at 6am, which is pretty much the fasted state and its easy to drink the way I have it currently.

Quote[/b] ]I will agree with you on the fact that more studies are needed looking at the differences in fed vs fasted state. If you ever remember those reviews (or meta, not the Nissan one since I have it) I would appreciate you sharing.

I will see if I feel energetic enough when I get home. Highly likely not.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Obviously you weren't energetic enough.

Funny thing though, it seems that you argued for Pre/Post timing in the past. An Old thread I found when digging at something else shows you felt timing was very important. Has the research changed since your posts? I would find that hard to believe since much of the research was done before your posts in that thread.

Anyway just curious as to what changed your views.

 

[imported_daxie]

This thread has turned into "battle of the titans"

 

[Fausto]

Could agree more!

Aaron, Dan, we have managed to pick up some of the "trash" you guys threw at us, poor vilains

Moretury te salutem, Caesar!

Enough you gladiators, Caesar will not give the thumb, neither up nor down

 

[Aaron_F]

Well....
3.5years is a long time, combined with a ton of research between then and now makes a big difference...

did you ever think HIT made sense?

if you go back far enough I would have also argued towards a low fat high carb diet, or even a low carb diet.... but we learn and move on

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Aaron_F @ Oct. 04 2005,6:01)]did you ever think HIT made sense?

Well......