Showing posts with label carbohydrates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbohydrates. Show all posts
Sunday, December 20, 2009
B2D Nutrition Article Index: All things Foodish on begin2dig
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
begin2dig has a lot of posts about topics in nutrition, from discussions around nutrients (how does fat and fat burning work; what are carbs) to supplements (and quality of same), to what do various body fat percentages really look like to how rewiring the brain may be a critical part for diet success. To get a feel for b2d's take on nutrition, here's an index of articles organized from nutrients to nutrition resources. Hope this provides a useful reference point for your nutrition explorations.
Fat:
Respect the Fat: An overview of Fat Burning Goodness
Brown Fat: New Improved Single Factor Thinking
We're Happy happy Happy With our Fat - or maybe not
"Lean Muscle "- muscle is lean - do you mean lean mass?
Green Tea - good for more than what ails ya - facilitating fat burning
Carbohydrates
What's 100% whole wheat? and what is it vs sprouted wheat? or sprouted anything?
Carbohydrates: the New Fat
Carbs or Protein before Bed? Not what you think
Protein
How much protein - no really - for muscle gain, maintenance
What's a whole protein? and why how should/can we have them?
Optimal Protein Blends - for carnivores and vegetarians alike
A Minute with Mike: BCAA's, Leucine, or Plain Old Whey - does it make a difference?
Nutrient timing *may* make difference - for strength, body comp, muscle fiber...
The Pump: What is it, Does it Work and if so How and for What Kind of Muscle Growth?
Farmed Salmon: Health and Environment Concerns. Dam
Diets
Eating: Rewiring our Instincts for Sure Fire Weight Loss
Habits and Alternatives: one step at a time dieting (within critique of P90x) (including references to Precision Nutrition, Lyle McDonald, M.Beck, and a cast of thousands)
Supplements
Supplement Curmudgeon: Does that DO anything for you?
Is what's on the label really in your supplement?
Creatine, Beta Alanine, Citrulline malate, and more b2d
Dealing with (a wretched) Cold
The Raw and The Cooked of Enzyme Supplementation
Weight Loss & Exercise
More on Exercise without Diet doesn't produce Weight Loss
Exercise doesn't work - without diet - really
Athletic Bodies: which one is you(r desired shape)?
P90X Critique Part 2 0f 3 - WIll you really "get ripped"?
Nutrient Timing
Nutrient timing *may* make difference - for strength/mass development
Minute with Mike (2 ), Post Workout Recovery Window: real or myth?
Approaches to Nutrition
What the Heck is Sustenance? Review of the Z-Health 9S Sustenance
Rewiring Habits - support for lean eating (part of a Critique of P90X )
Set Point Theory is Crap: We are Only What We Eat
Review of the "Science" claims of the Warrior Diet
Human Support is KEY for Good Eating/Diet Success
Resources
Precision Nutrition. The best source to Learn about one's self and food
Georgie Fear's Dig In: The new easy, fast, tasty, satisfying recipe book: DIG IN
Farmed Salmon: Health and Environment Concerns. Dam
Food Inc.: the unbearable lightness of the food industry
Fitness Geek Book Recommendations
Images and Approaches: Real People making Real Changes with Real Support
Athletic Bodies: which one is you(r desired shape)?
Reflection/Critique of P90X review (in Three Parts)
Motivation as Skill: a Functional Definition of same Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Fat:
Respect the Fat: An overview of Fat Burning Goodness
Brown Fat: New Improved Single Factor Thinking
We're Happy happy Happy With our Fat - or maybe not
"Lean Muscle "- muscle is lean - do you mean lean mass?
Green Tea - good for more than what ails ya - facilitating fat burning
Carbohydrates
What's 100% whole wheat? and what is it vs sprouted wheat? or sprouted anything?
Carbohydrates: the New Fat
Carbs or Protein before Bed? Not what you think
Protein
How much protein - no really - for muscle gain, maintenance
i like this piece - cuz i'm not crazy about the conclusions. That mainly protein may well be overdone if you're talking about muscle gain, which is different than using it for diet to feel fuller on less. There's also a difference between protein synthesis and protein absorption. They are not the same. And in particular, why creatine and load may be more important than protein for *gaining* beyond what ya gain just with exercise.
What's a whole protein? and why how should/can we have them?
ever wondered this? especially if you're a vegetarian? how get a whole protein from bread and beans? or what's a super bean as a whole/complete protein?
Optimal Protein Blends - for carnivores and vegetarians alike
Nutrient timing *may* make difference - for strength, body comp, muscle fiber...
The Pump: What is it, Does it Work and if so How and for What Kind of Muscle Growth?
Farmed Salmon: Health and Environment Concerns. Dam
Diets
Eating: Rewiring our Instincts for Sure Fire Weight Loss
Habits and Alternatives: one step at a time dieting (within critique of P90x) (including references to Precision Nutrition, Lyle McDonald, M.Beck, and a cast of thousands)
Supplements
Supplement Curmudgeon: Does that DO anything for you?Is what's on the label really in your supplement?
Creatine, Beta Alanine, Citrulline malate, and more b2d
Dealing with (a wretched) Cold
The Raw and The Cooked of Enzyme Supplementation
Weight Loss & Exercise
More on Exercise without Diet doesn't produce Weight Loss
Exercise doesn't work - without diet - really
Athletic Bodies: which one is you(r desired shape)?
P90X Critique Part 2 0f 3 - WIll you really "get ripped"?
Nutrient Timing
Nutrient timing *may* make difference - for strength/mass development
Minute with Mike (2 ), Post Workout Recovery Window: real or myth?
Approaches to Nutrition
What the Heck is Sustenance? Review of the Z-Health 9S Sustenance
Rewiring Habits - support for lean eating (part of a Critique of P90X )
Set Point Theory is Crap: We are Only What We Eat
Review of the "Science" claims of the Warrior Diet
Human Support is KEY for Good Eating/Diet Success
Resources
Precision Nutrition. The best source to Learn about one's self and food
Georgie Fear's Dig In: The new easy, fast, tasty, satisfying recipe book: DIG IN
Farmed Salmon: Health and Environment Concerns. Dam
Food Inc.: the unbearable lightness of the food industry
Fitness Geek Book Recommendations
Images and Approaches: Real People making Real Changes with Real Support
Athletic Bodies: which one is you(r desired shape)?
Reflection/Critique of P90X review (in Three Parts)
Motivation as Skill: a Functional Definition of same Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Nutrient timing *may* make difference - for strength, body comp, muscle fiber...
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Could changing when you have a recovery drink have a significant effect on strength, body comp and other performance factors? It may be that simple. If you like your workout routine, but want it to produce better results, you may find that changing one thing has a not insignificant effect. There seems to be significant benefit to strength, muscle fiber, body composition and muscle glycogen uptake based simply on when nutrients are taken around a workout. Likewise this nutrient timing requires no other change to one's diet to have this effect.
A cool thing about this study is that participants were used to doing resistance work; they aren't newbies (as many studies use).
Here's what they had in their drinks:
Strength & Muscle gains What the above breaks down to show is that there was a statistically significant difference (only 5% likelihood that the finding is based on chance) in STRENGTH performance improvements with the group in things like the 1RM. Intriguingly, the cross sectional area of muscle went up (hypertrophy) more than the other group of the fast twitch fibers in particular - the ones uses especially in power/strength work.
Creatine and Hypertrophy. So, nothing too surprising in what the good stuff in the drinks is. If i could redo this study, i'd take out the creatine to study separately, as the consensus there has seemed to be that one can take it anytime to be valuable. That said, the authors here in the discussion suggest that there may be particular benefit to taking creatine around time of exercise.
Body Comp - another interesting finding is that the effect of timing on body comp (bf%, lean mass) was also significant.
Citation:
CRIBB, P., & HAYES, A. (2006). Effects of Supplement Timing and Resistance Exercise on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38 (11), 1918-1925 DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000233790.08788.3e Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Could changing when you have a recovery drink have a significant effect on strength, body comp and other performance factors? It may be that simple. If you like your workout routine, but want it to produce better results, you may find that changing one thing has a not insignificant effect. There seems to be significant benefit to strength, muscle fiber, body composition and muscle glycogen uptake based simply on when nutrients are taken around a workout. Likewise this nutrient timing requires no other change to one's diet to have this effect.Bottom line: taking Creatine Monohydrate, Protein and Carbs "just before" & "right after" workout is a really cheap win to improving strength, body comp and muscle type improvements. The other group had taken the same fuel in the AM before any other food and late in the PM after anything else so fuel ups were at least 5 hours on either side of a workout.
Effects of supplement timing and resistance exercise on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
Exercise Metabolism Unit, Center for Ageing, Rehabilitation, Exercise and Sport; and the School of Biomedical Sciences, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
PURPOSE: Some studies report greater muscle hypertrophy during resistance exercise (RE) training from supplement timing (i.e., the strategic consumption of protein and carbohydrate before and/or after each workout). However, no studies have examined whether this strategy provides greater muscle hypertrophy or strength development compared with supplementation at other times during the day. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of supplement timing compared with supplementation in the hours not close to the workout on muscle-fiber hypertrophy, strength, and body composition during a 10-wk RE program. METHODS: In a single-blind, randomized protocol, resistance-trained males were matched for strength and placed into one of two groups; the PRE-POST group consumed a supplement (1 g x kg(-1) body weight) containing protein/creatine/glucose immediately before and after RE. The MOR-EVE group consumed the same dose of the same supplement in the morning and late evening. All assessments were completed the week before and after 10 wk of structured, supervised RE training. Assessments included strength (1RM, three exercises), body composition (DEXA), and vastus lateralis muscle biopsies for determination of muscle fiber type (I, IIa, IIx), cross-sectional area (CSA), contractile protein, creatine (Cr), and glycogen content. RRESULTS: PRE-POST demonstrated a greater (P < 0.05) increase in lean body mass and 1RM strength in two of three assessments. The changes in body composition were supported by a greater (P < 0.05) increase in CSA of the type II fibers and contractile protein content.
CONCLUSION: Supplement timing represents a simple but effective strategy that enhances the adaptations desired from RE-training.
A cool thing about this study is that participants were used to doing resistance work; they aren't newbies (as many studies use).
Here's what they had in their drinks:
All participants were prescribed 1 g of the supplement per kilogram of body weight (1 g-1·kg-1 bw), to be consumed twice on training days only. The supplement contained (per 100 g), 40 g of protein (from whey isolate), 43 g of carbohydrate (glucose), < 0.5 g of fat, and 7 g of CrM and was provided by AST Sport Science (Golden, CO). This dose provided an 80-kg participant with 32 g of protein, 34.4 g of carbohydrate, < 0.4 g of fat, and a 5.6 g of CrM in each serving (a total of 1124 kJ). The chosen supplement dose was based on previously reported intakes of this population (18) and was similar to previous studies that had involved protein (1) or CrM (8) supplementation close to RE. The participants were instructed to maintain their habitual daily diet during the trial.
Strength & Muscle gains What the above breaks down to show is that there was a statistically significant difference (only 5% likelihood that the finding is based on chance) in STRENGTH performance improvements with the group in things like the 1RM. Intriguingly, the cross sectional area of muscle went up (hypertrophy) more than the other group of the fast twitch fibers in particular - the ones uses especially in power/strength work.
Creatine and Hypertrophy. So, nothing too surprising in what the good stuff in the drinks is. If i could redo this study, i'd take out the creatine to study separately, as the consensus there has seemed to be that one can take it anytime to be valuable. That said, the authors here in the discussion suggest that there may be particular benefit to taking creatine around time of exercise.
it could be suggested that supplement timing promotes more efficient Cr accumulation within muscle and, therefore, greater strength gains and muscle hypertrophy during RE training. However, this aspect was not examined directly. Based on the results obtained, further investigations are warranted to examine dose responses and the extent of Cr accumulation during RE, and to fully elucidate the contributions of both CrM and whey protein to chronic adaptations during training.
Body Comp - another interesting finding is that the effect of timing on body comp (bf%, lean mass) was also significant.
A group×time interaction (P <>
Muscle Glycogen. Higher in the Pre/Post group too - and at that 10 weeks after the trial finished. The authors propose an argument for this finding.
Therefore, it could be suggested that PRE-POST supplement timing not only promoted more efficient CrM accumulation within muscle, but that this strategy may have also promoted more efficient muscle glycogen restoration during the RE program. In turn, these benefits may have enabled greater work capacity during subsequent workouts, thus helping to promote greater strength improvements and muscle hypertrophy. Although work capacity was not assessed, the significantly greater hypertrophy responses (in three of three assessments) and 1RM strength improvements (two of three assessments) demonstrated by the PRE-POST group after the program support this theory.Other studies have looked at taking on board fuel close to RE, but the authors of this study claim that the unique thing here is that no one changed their diet: they just added the supplement drink. The authors write:
In conclusion, although there has been a sound theoretical basis for expecting a beneficial effect from supplement timing, this is the first study to clearly demonstrate that this strategy results in greater strength and body composition improvements (i.e., a gain in lean mass and a decrease in body fat percentage) as well as muscle hypertrophy, compared with supplementation at times outside of the workout period. Unlike previous work that has examined chronic adaptations from nutrient consumption close to RE, a significantly greater muscle hypertrophy response from supplement timing was evident at three different levels (i.e., a greater increase in LBM, hypertrophy of the type IIa and IIx fibers, and contractile protein accrual). Additionally, these results were obtained with participants maintaining their normal eating patterns throughout the program. Therefore, we conclude that supplement timing represents a simple but effective strategy to enhance the adaptations that are desired from RE training.This study is from 2006. It may be that other studies since then that i've yet to find qualify these results differently. Likewise, the authors didn't use a total control group - a group that did no extra supplementation at all - it would be interesting to see if that outside RE time supplementation had ANY benefit at all.
That said, it does seem pretty compellingly simple, as the authors suggest, that just by putting pre/post protein/cho/CrM drinks around RE workouts is an Easy Win for supporting strength.
Related Posts
- A minute with mike 1: bcaa, leucine, whey: which when and why?
- A minute with mike 2: post workout recovery window
- nutrition in general: eating is a habit, and change is pain. here's help (inside p90x article)
- free 40+ page overview of approach that uses this nutrient timing stuff (precision nutrition)
Citation:
CRIBB, P., & HAYES, A. (2006). Effects of Supplement Timing and Resistance Exercise on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38 (11), 1918-1925 DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000233790.08788.3e Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
How Evil is a Molecule?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
To come back to the recent discussion on Carbs, recently i've seen more discussions that take it as given that there are good carbs and bad carbs.
This kind of understanding may be Gary Taube's fault for his good/bad dichotomizing of food stuffs.
But let's back up a step here. What do we mean by "bad" or "good" foods. Some folks may say that's obvious - a krispy kream is full of bad carbs - a spinach salad is full of good carbs.
Just to get clear, carbs are sugar molecules which in some combinations are starch (complex) carb molecule formations (more about simple/complex carbs here - with pictures!). So right away the good/bad thesis starts to tremble: what's wrong with a molecule? it's neither innately good or evil if good or evil can be innate, but the carb on the morality scale must be pretty neutral, devoid as we assume it to be of intent.
So what are we likely saying when we talk about 'good carbs' or 'bad carbs' - i don't know, but i'll guess we're actually talking about the foods in which they appear. And that foods that are high in starchy carbs tend to be high in other Bad things like Sugar and / or Salt and/ or processed white flour. Voila the donut or french baguette.
So, why are these things "bad" (and spinach "good"). As per usual, it's about scale, isn't it? about context.
Most of these foods are highly refined, which means most of their nutrients found in their whole product version (whole wheat vs white white) get stripped out. So these food stuffs end up being calorie dense (lots of cals) but very low nutritional value. Hence, eating these means weight gain with low to no nutritional value - they may fill a fast energy need, but may get a lot of the product processed into extra fat we don't want and do nothing for our digestion ( no anti-oxidants, no fiber, few vitamins etc etc)
So, these foods don't do anything for us, really. We indeed often experience them feeling good being ingested and then feel like crap after eating them. So they're "bad"? Bad for us? Will a krispy kream kill?
One? not likely. If we're trying to lose weight, well they cost at least a good half hour of intervals on the bike to get rid of them. Once in awhile? who cares?
It is a pretty good understanding that krispy kreams are not good for us in most circumstances, but that's not the same as saying they're "bad" for us. Context is important. And most reasonable people get that if they eat one once in awhile, they're not going to have horrible consequences.
So is calling something good or bad really a problem?
Perhaps not, but it seems that such terms (a) do nothing to help people understand why something is not good for us; how to make better food choices that are still healthy (have good quality chocolate rather than a krispy kreme) and taste good and (b) just perpetuates a moralizing head space about bad foods, guilt and puritanical punishment or catholic/jewish guilt that is well sinful (little joke there).
Michael Pollan talks about trends in north american diet where one nutrient is demonized and another celebrated. Carbs were good and fat was bad. Now, it seems, fats are in and carbs are out.
Food is more richly wonderful and complex than the recipe of a krispy kreme. Stupid simplifications that lead to these equally stupid and unfounded dietary prescriptions "reduce carbs! ahhhh!" give us nothing with which to understand our health. Heh, as pollan points out, the health press was wrong about the anti-fat prescription; will anti carb be any smarter?
So let's try to talk about food. Eating a rich pageant of it. Whole food. That's a simple prescription too: eat a variety of whole food types at each meal. lots of colour. if you want to lose weight, eat less of it. that's even simpler than thinking about nutrients - "reduce carbs"
But it's perhaps harder to apply because it may mean learning to cook real food meals for oneself. but is taking the simple way out of Dis the Nutrient good? or is it bad? or just stupid. and therefore a kind of evil of good intentions.
We can handle The Truth: that we need to get real about eating and cooking again and make some time for doing so. Anything else seems to be just cheating. The good news is, based on anywhere besides north america or most of the commonwealth, that means eating a great mix of foods, yum, and not some austere sprig of protestant work ethic parsley.
Eat Well rather than good, perhaps? Tweet Follow @begin2dig
This kind of understanding may be Gary Taube's fault for his good/bad dichotomizing of food stuffs.
But let's back up a step here. What do we mean by "bad" or "good" foods. Some folks may say that's obvious - a krispy kream is full of bad carbs - a spinach salad is full of good carbs.
Just to get clear, carbs are sugar molecules which in some combinations are starch (complex) carb molecule formations (more about simple/complex carbs here - with pictures!). So right away the good/bad thesis starts to tremble: what's wrong with a molecule? it's neither innately good or evil if good or evil can be innate, but the carb on the morality scale must be pretty neutral, devoid as we assume it to be of intent.
So what are we likely saying when we talk about 'good carbs' or 'bad carbs' - i don't know, but i'll guess we're actually talking about the foods in which they appear. And that foods that are high in starchy carbs tend to be high in other Bad things like Sugar and / or Salt and/ or processed white flour. Voila the donut or french baguette.
So, why are these things "bad" (and spinach "good"). As per usual, it's about scale, isn't it? about context.
Most of these foods are highly refined, which means most of their nutrients found in their whole product version (whole wheat vs white white) get stripped out. So these food stuffs end up being calorie dense (lots of cals) but very low nutritional value. Hence, eating these means weight gain with low to no nutritional value - they may fill a fast energy need, but may get a lot of the product processed into extra fat we don't want and do nothing for our digestion ( no anti-oxidants, no fiber, few vitamins etc etc)
So, these foods don't do anything for us, really. We indeed often experience them feeling good being ingested and then feel like crap after eating them. So they're "bad"? Bad for us? Will a krispy kream kill?
One? not likely. If we're trying to lose weight, well they cost at least a good half hour of intervals on the bike to get rid of them. Once in awhile? who cares?
It is a pretty good understanding that krispy kreams are not good for us in most circumstances, but that's not the same as saying they're "bad" for us. Context is important. And most reasonable people get that if they eat one once in awhile, they're not going to have horrible consequences.
So is calling something good or bad really a problem?
Perhaps not, but it seems that such terms (a) do nothing to help people understand why something is not good for us; how to make better food choices that are still healthy (have good quality chocolate rather than a krispy kreme) and taste good and (b) just perpetuates a moralizing head space about bad foods, guilt and puritanical punishment or catholic/jewish guilt that is well sinful (little joke there).
Michael Pollan talks about trends in north american diet where one nutrient is demonized and another celebrated. Carbs were good and fat was bad. Now, it seems, fats are in and carbs are out.
Food is more richly wonderful and complex than the recipe of a krispy kreme. Stupid simplifications that lead to these equally stupid and unfounded dietary prescriptions "reduce carbs! ahhhh!" give us nothing with which to understand our health. Heh, as pollan points out, the health press was wrong about the anti-fat prescription; will anti carb be any smarter?
So let's try to talk about food. Eating a rich pageant of it. Whole food. That's a simple prescription too: eat a variety of whole food types at each meal. lots of colour. if you want to lose weight, eat less of it. that's even simpler than thinking about nutrients - "reduce carbs"
But it's perhaps harder to apply because it may mean learning to cook real food meals for oneself. but is taking the simple way out of Dis the Nutrient good? or is it bad? or just stupid. and therefore a kind of evil of good intentions.
We can handle The Truth: that we need to get real about eating and cooking again and make some time for doing so. Anything else seems to be just cheating. The good news is, based on anywhere besides north america or most of the commonwealth, that means eating a great mix of foods, yum, and not some austere sprig of protestant work ethic parsley.
Eat Well rather than good, perhaps? Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
