Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: wavelength on October 07, 2009, 12:25:51 PM
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342
(posted by signature166 on BB.com)
Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Tranchina CP, Rashti SL, Kang J, Faigenbaum AD.
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA.
The effect of 10 wk of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body composition was examined in 33 resistance-trained men. Participants were randomly assigned to a protein supplement either provided in the morning and evening (n = 13) or provided immediately before and immediately after workouts (n = 13). In addition, 7 participants agreed to serve as a control group and did not use any protein or other nutritional supplement. During each testing session participants were assessed for strength (one-repetition-maximum [1RM] bench press and squat), power (5 repetitions performed at 80% of 1RM in both the bench press and the squat), and body composition. A significant main effect for all 3 groups in strength improvement was seen in 1RM bench press (120.6 +/- 20.5 kg vs. 125.4 +/- 16.7 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively) and 1RM squat (154.5 +/- 28.4 kg vs. 169.0 +/- 25.5 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively). However, no significant between-groups interactions were seen in 1RM squat or 1RM bench press. Significant main effects were also seen in both upper and lower body peak and mean power, but no significant differences were seen between groups. No changes in body mass or percent body fat were seen in any of the groups. Results indicate that the time of protein-supplement ingestion in resistance-trained athletes during a 10-wk training program does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes.
PMID: 19478342 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-
Interesting. I wonder what the rest of their diets consisted of. I wonder if that was even considered. Considering they were all lifters, they might have a bit of a different diet than the average joe.
-
Interesting. I wonder what the rest of their diets consisted of. I wonder if that was even considered. Considering they were all lifters, they might have a bit of a different diet than the average joe.
At least it looks like all their diets were sufficient for a significant increase in strength. What's also interesting is that the control group had the same results.
And welcome to getbig! :)
-
Interesting. I wonder what the rest of their diets consisted of. I wonder if that was even considered. Considering they were all lifters, they might have a bit of a different diet than the average joe.
I think that's actually a good thing BTW, this way it can be better applied to bodybuilding.
-
I don't know but 10 weeks sounds to short to make that conclusion?
-
that study is not statistically significant
-
I don't know but 10 weeks sounds to short to make that conclusion?
I would say 10 weeks is pretty good for a study like that. Many such studies are way shorter than that.
But if nutrient timing had a siginificant effect I would assume that it would show up after 10 weeks.
-
that study is not statistically significant
good point, no doubt
-
The statistical power of this study is way to low to draw any conclusions from this.
-
A statistically significant improvement in strength was found in all 3 groups, however there were no significant differences between the 3 groups themselves. Studies always suffer from a small sample; n of the groups was 13,13,7! Main effects will have to be very large to be able to show differences between such small groups. The study is not really a longitudinal study either, 10 weeks is a very short period, considering the slow process of unassisted protein synthesis.
another recent study showed that consumption of caseine immediately pre-workout was bad. It had to be digested during training, leaving less energy for the training session (the latter is an assumption by the researchers). Common sense applies here: consume protein 2 hours before training, as goes for any half-decent meal.
-
The number of study participants is far to small to achieve statistical significance so of course nothing can be shown. Also, protein is probably a lot more useful with juice
-
The number of study participants is far to small to achieve statistical significance so of course nothing can be shown. Also, protein is probably a lot more useful with juice
::)
-
Protein is overrated... :D
-
Results indicate that the time of protein-supplement ingestion in resistance-trained athletes during a 10-wk training program does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes.
So much for Milos' "empty blood" theory! ;D
-
"The College of New Jersey"
Oh brother.
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342
(posted by signature166 on BB.com)
Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Tranchina CP, Rashti SL, Kang J, Faigenbaum AD.
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA.
The effect of 10 wk of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body composition was examined in 33 resistance-trained men. Participants were randomly assigned to a protein supplement either provided in the morning and evening (n = 13) or provided immediately before and immediately after workouts (n = 13). In addition, 7 participants agreed to serve as a control group and did not use any protein or other nutritional supplement. During each testing session participants were assessed for strength (one-repetition-maximum [1RM] bench press and squat), power (5 repetitions performed at 80% of 1RM in both the bench press and the squat), and body composition. A significant main effect for all 3 groups in strength improvement was seen in 1RM bench press (120.6 +/- 20.5 kg vs. 125.4 +/- 16.7 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively) and 1RM squat (154.5 +/- 28.4 kg vs. 169.0 +/- 25.5 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively). However, no significant between-groups interactions were seen in 1RM squat or 1RM bench press. Significant main effects were also seen in both upper and lower body peak and mean power, but no significant differences were seen between groups. No changes in body mass or percent body fat were seen in any of the groups. Results indicate that the time of protein-supplement ingestion in resistance-trained athletes during a 10-wk training program does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes.
PMID: 19478342 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Great study. Should I post 10 others now claiming the opposite? ::)
-
Great study. Should I post 10 others now claiming the opposite? ::)
Sure, go ahead.
I'm just putting out the info, I don't endorse it.
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342
(posted by signature166 on BB.com)
Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Tranchina CP, Rashti SL, Kang J, Faigenbaum AD.
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA.
The effect of 10 wk of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body composition was examined in 33 resistance-trained men. Participants were randomly assigned to a protein supplement either provided in the morning and evening (n = 13) or provided immediately before and immediately after workouts (n = 13). In addition, 7 participants agreed to serve as a control group and did not use any protein or other nutritional supplement. During each testing session participants were assessed for strength (one-repetition-maximum [1RM] bench press and squat), power (5 repetitions performed at 80% of 1RM in both the bench press and the squat), and body composition. A significant main effect for all 3 groups in strength improvement was seen in 1RM bench press (120.6 +/- 20.5 kg vs. 125.4 +/- 16.7 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively) and 1RM squat (154.5 +/- 28.4 kg vs. 169.0 +/- 25.5 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively). However, no significant between-groups interactions were seen in 1RM squat or 1RM bench press. Significant main effects were also seen in both upper and lower body peak and mean power, but no significant differences were seen between groups. No changes in body mass or percent body fat were seen in any of the groups. Results indicate that the time of protein-supplement ingestion in resistance-trained athletes during a 10-wk training program does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes.
PMID: 19478342 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Interesting stuff , thanks for posting it.
-
I would say 10 weeks is pretty good for a study like that. Many such studies are way shorter than that.
But if nutrient timing had a siginificant effect I would assume that it would show up after 10 weeks.
Really? you realize they are resistance trained men, ie experienced lifters. Ten weeks is also to short to make a statistically significant finding. Most of these guys were probably already taking protien supps before hand.
-
Like a car, the desired fuel or mechanism in the engine will be called upon as it is needed. I always think of it as stopping off at a petrol/gas station, you can put in enough to get to the next station or you can fill up the tank and let it be used as and when needed for the unforeseeable future.
-
Really? you realize they are resistance trained men, ie experienced lifters. Ten weeks is also to short to make a statistically significant finding. Most of these guys were probably already taking protien supps before hand.
Why is the fact that they are experienced lifters and that they were taking protein supps beforehand relevant to the results of the study? Just curious.
-
A trained individual should be recycling protein at a rate far higher than an untrained individual so the study should show that they are building muscle with a limited amount of additional protein anyway.
-
Why is the fact that they are experienced lifters and that they were taking protein supps beforehand relevant to the results of the study? Just curious.
How much strenth/power would an experienced lifter gain in 10 weeks?
-
How much strenth/power would an experienced lifter gain in 10 weeks?
I don't know how the study was conducted exactly but it states that significant strength gains were made in those 10 weeks (bench and squat).
-
that study is not statistically significant
effin' hilarious!
-
The real question, Wavelength, is how you stay lean without cardio.
-
So much for Milos' "empty blood" theory! ;D
::) ::)
Did you read the study?
The effect of 10 wk of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body composition was examined in 33 resistance-trained men. Participants were randomly assigned to a protein supplement either provided in the morning and evening (n = 13) or provided immediately before and immediately after workouts (n = 13). In addition, 7 participants agreed to serve as a control group and did not use any protein or other nutritional supplement. During each testing session participants were assessed for strength (one-repetition-maximum [1RM] bench press and squat), power (5 repetitions performed at 80% of 1RM in both the bench press and the squat), and body composition. A significant main effect for all 3 groups in strength improvement was seen in 1RM bench press (120.6 +/- 20.5 kg vs. 125.4 +/- 16.7 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively) and 1RM squat (154.5 +/- 28.4 kg vs. 169.0 +/- 25.5 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively).
Now, would you bet your house (providing you have one?) that having SPECIFIC NUTRIENTS in blood - during the training (yes, my supplements would be EXACT FORMULA) will have significant influence on favorable changes in body composition + recovery/glycogen replenishment + athletic performance...
Well, I'll bet both of mine instantly...Find the lab that wants to do it - and I am all in ;)
-
This was not a "controlled" study.
How many random studies proved to be errant when future "controlled" studies were implemented?
Random people + random study= Bullshit results.
-
The real question, Wavelength, is how you stay lean without cardio.
like everyone through caloric restriction
-
This was not a "controlled" study.
How many random studies proved to be errant when future "controlled" studies were implemented?
Random people + random study= Bullshit results.
yep...as i said before the "study" is not statistically significant AND lacked scientific method. Prob a study by a couple dumbass grad students who had to do something to get their MS
-
yep...as i said before the "study" is not statistically significant AND lacked scientific method. Prob a study by a couple dumbass grad students who had to do something to get their MS
You don't have the slightest clue what "statistically significant" means and I'm doubting your understanding of the scientific method.
-
Now, would you bet your house (providing you have one?) that having SPECIFIC NUTRIENTS in blood - during the training (yes, my supplements would be EXACT FORMULA) will have significant influence on favorable changes in body composition + recovery/glycogen replenishment + athletic performance...
How can anyone critique your formulas, and even if shown effective knowing which part of the formula did what, when you use a proprietary blend?! You can't prove, or even show solid evidence, that your formula is more effective than any old protein/sugar combo, such as chocolate milk. In fact, chocolate milk might be more effective!
-
You don't have the slightest clue what "statistically significant" means and I'm doubting your understanding of the scientific method.
wanna test me genius?
-
How can anyone critique your formulas, and even if shown effective knowing which part of the formula did what, when you use a proprietary blend?! You can't prove, or even show solid evidence, that your formula is more effective than any old protein/sugar combo, such as chocolate milk. In fact, chocolate milk might be more effective!
I agree. Some words from Alan Aragon on the topic:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/an-objective-comparison-of-chocolate-milk-and-surge-recovery.html
and:
The benefit of supplemental BCAA on top of a protein-sufficient diet is basically an optimistic hypothesis.
It's not that it's anything harmful or counterproductive, it just hasn't been repeatedly demonstrated in the research as effective when a fair (isonitrogenous) comparator is used.
There's a single study done (the Scivation-funded one that's on its way to JISSN) that lends support to BCAA supping on top of a preexistent high-protein intake. But, there are obvious limits to a single-study evidence base for any claim.
-
It makes sense that milk would be superior. Milk has been developed over thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to promote the fastest mass gains in growing mammals.
-
It makes sense that milk would be superior. Milk has been developed over thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to promote the fastest mass gains in growing mammals.
It would be best if we could get our mothers to use the breast pump still.
Think how genetically tailored that liquid is, just for you.
-
::) ::)
Did you read the study?
The effect of 10 wk of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body composition was examined in 33 resistance-trained men. Participants were randomly assigned to a protein supplement either provided in the morning and evening (n = 13) or provided immediately before and immediately after workouts (n = 13). In addition, 7 participants agreed to serve as a control group and did not use any protein or other nutritional supplement. During each testing session participants were assessed for strength (one-repetition-maximum [1RM] bench press and squat), power (5 repetitions performed at 80% of 1RM in both the bench press and the squat), and body composition. A significant main effect for all 3 groups in strength improvement was seen in 1RM bench press (120.6 +/- 20.5 kg vs. 125.4 +/- 16.7 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively) and 1RM squat (154.5 +/- 28.4 kg vs. 169.0 +/- 25.5 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively).
Now, would you bet your house (providing you have one?) that having SPECIFIC NUTRIENTS in blood - during the training (yes, my supplements would be EXACT FORMULA) will have significant influence on favorable changes in body composition + recovery/glycogen replenishment + athletic performance...
Well, I'll bet both of mine instantly...Find the lab that wants to do it - and I am all in ;)
Hey Milos, where are those pro cycles you promised us 2 months ago ?
;)
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478342
(posted by signature166 on BB.com)
Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Tranchina CP, Rashti SL, Kang J, Faigenbaum AD.
Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA.
The effect of 10 wk of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body composition was examined in 33 resistance-trained men. Participants were randomly assigned to a protein supplement either provided in the morning and evening (n = 13) or provided immediately before and immediately after workouts (n = 13). In addition, 7 participants agreed to serve as a control group and did not use any protein or other nutritional supplement. During each testing session participants were assessed for strength (one-repetition-maximum [1RM] bench press and squat), power (5 repetitions performed at 80% of 1RM in both the bench press and the squat), and body composition. A significant main effect for all 3 groups in strength improvement was seen in 1RM bench press (120.6 +/- 20.5 kg vs. 125.4 +/- 16.7 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively) and 1RM squat (154.5 +/- 28.4 kg vs. 169.0 +/- 25.5 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively). However, no significant between-groups interactions were seen in 1RM squat or 1RM bench press. Significant main effects were also seen in both upper and lower body peak and mean power, but no significant differences were seen between groups. No changes in body mass or percent body fat were seen in any of the groups. Results indicate that the time of protein-supplement ingestion in resistance-trained athletes during a 10-wk training program does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes.
PMID: 19478342 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
nothing new in here
eat every 2-3 hours quality carbs + protein
nothing else matters
pre and past workout supplementation was invented by the industrie to sell supps
maybe taking a shake after workout not to stress the organism wiht a "heavy" meal
eat healthy not fancy
-
nothing new in here
eat every 2-3 hours quality carbs + protein
nothing else matters
pre and past workout supplementation was invented by the industrie to sell supps
maybe a shake after workout not to stress the organism wiht a "heavy" meal
Well there are studies claiming the opposite too, so I'm not fully decided. I couldn't see a significant difference.
Most studies on meal frequency show no advantage of more frequent meals BTW, e.g.:
- Bortz WM, et al. Weight loss and frequency of feeding. New England Journal of Medicine, Feb 17, 1966; 274: 376-379.
- Young CM, et al. Metabolic effects of meal frequency on normal young men. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Oct, 1972; 61: 391-398.
- Sudha Wadhwa P, et al. Metabolic consequences of feeding frequency in man. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Aug, 1973; 26: 823-830.
- Dallosso HM, et al. Feeding frequency and energy balance in adult males. Human Nutrition.
Clinical Nutrition, 1982; 36C: 25-39.
- Verboeket-van de Venne WP, et al. Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy
metabolism. British Journal of Nutrition, Jul, 1993; 70: 103-115.
- Arnold LM, et al. Effect of isoenergetic intake of three or nine meals on plasma lipoproteins and glucose metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar, 1993; 57: 446-451.
A more recent study even suggests a slight advantage of 1 meal a day on body composition:
- K. Stote, D. Baer, K. Spears, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr, Apr, 2007; 85: 981-988.
-
Well there are studies claiming the opposite too, so I'm not fully decided. I couldn't see a significant difference.
Most studies on meal frequency show no advantage of more frequent meals BTW, e.g.:
- Bortz WM, et al. Weight loss and frequency of feeding. New England Journal of Medicine, Feb 17, 1966; 274: 376-379.
- Young CM, et al. Metabolic effects of meal frequency on normal young men. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Oct, 1972; 61: 391-398.
- Sudha Wadhwa P, et al. Metabolic consequences of feeding frequency in man. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Aug, 1973; 26: 823-830.
- Dallosso HM, et al. Feeding frequency and energy balance in adult males. Human Nutrition.
Clinical Nutrition, 1982; 36C: 25-39.
- Verboeket-van de Venne WP, et al. Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy
metabolism. British Journal of Nutrition, Jul, 1993; 70: 103-115.
- Arnold LM, et al. Effect of isoenergetic intake of three or nine meals on plasma lipoproteins and glucose metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar, 1993; 57: 446-451.
A more recent study even suggests a slight advantage of 1 meal a day on body composition:
- K. Stote, D. Baer, K. Spears, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr, Apr, 2007; 85: 981-988.
well frequency is a point for sure
if i were a pro athlete and having someone for all the shitty cooking a would rather go with 1,5-2h (but thats not realistic for someone with a job)