228064 Bullies, 4786 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 21 to 30 of 40
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 123 4 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Emevas is offline
    Emevas's Avatar

    Dysfunctionally Strong

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Minot AFB, ND
    Posts
    6,788

    Posted On:
    6/26/2008 9:25pm

    supporting member
     Style: Boxing/Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I dunno, I've never had any issue with whey, and have seen a great deal of studies supporting it over milk as well.

    I've gotten to the point where I've done enough research to find studies that justify anything I do.
    "Emevas,
    You're a scrapper, I like that."-Ronin69
  2. partyboy is offline
    partyboy's Avatar

    ^ the answer to life

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,586

    Posted On:
    6/26/2008 9:44pm


     Style: bjj/(not enough)MT

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    I've gotten to the point where I've done enough research to find studies that justify anything I do.
    yeah, that's the beauty about life these days
    In summation your argument denotes a lack of intellectual honesty on your part. It is my contention that this matter would best be solved with fisticuffs. I believe I will be victorious in this regard.
  3. Angry-Monkey is offline

    Welterweight

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Toronto/Hamilton
    Posts
    593

    Posted On:
    6/26/2008 10:11pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ/Kickboxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    why chocolate milk over regular milk?

    And I'm cheap so I buy powdered skim milk to drink after workouts, am I a terrible person?
  4. Quikfeet509 is offline

    Acupuncturist / Anesthesia Student

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kansas City - the mecca of civilization
    Posts
    1,622

    Posted On:
    6/27/2008 10:59am


     Style: Mostly weights now...

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas
    I dunno, I've never had any issue with whey, and have seen a great deal of studies supporting it over milk as well.

    I've gotten to the point where I've done enough research to find studies that justify anything I do.

    True dat.


    As for Phrost's original query, I do have a book that explains it all. It even has references, for what it's worth:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/lylemcdonald-the.html


    The font drives me crazy and there is too much spacing between the lines...breath...but so far, the information seems well-researched...although I must confuse that it might seem more interesting to me than it really is because I am spending time reading it instead of prepping for my MCAT part deux
  5. Judah Maccabee is offline
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar

    Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325

    Posted On:
    6/28/2008 11:12am

    supporting memberhall of fameBullshido Newbie
     Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry-Monkey
    why chocolate milk over regular milk?

    And I'm cheap so I buy powdered skim milk to drink after workouts, am I a terrible person?
    Better carb:protein ratio - 4:1, typically.
  6. Raining_Blood is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    194

    Posted On:
    7/01/2008 7:11am


     Style: Wrestling, MT

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The short answer is that insulin prevents catabolism in muscles. It also increase glucose uptake at a celluar level, increases protein synthesis and decreased protein breakdown.
  7. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    7/06/2008 5:08pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    This post is a reminder for me to get back to this thread. I've got some notes somewhere on insulin and the hormone cascade, glycemic/insulin index, cortisol, etc. that might be helpful if I can find them.
  8. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    7/06/2008 7:23pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Okay, first off, a quick overview (read: gross oversimplification) of how muscles work.

    Your central nervous system (read: brain) sends the signal to your muscle to contract by sending an action potential (read: electrical signal) down a nerve, which connects to the muscle fibers in question at the neuromuscular junction. When the action potential reaches this junction, a series of reactions take place.

    Inside muscle fibers, there are myofibrils, which are the "motor" that actually pulls the tips of the fiber towards each other. Each myofibril is made up of a bunch of sarcomeres, which are in turn made up of overlapping strands of actin and myosin (chains of protein). When the above reaction takes place, calcium ions bind to the actin chains, and the myosin chains "twist" along the actin chains, pulling the ends of the sarcomere (and thus the myofibril, and thus the muscle fiber) closer together. This movement is tiny (read: just one link of a long chain), and to disconnect the myosin from the actin to move up to the next link requires energy. It gets the energy to do this from a molecule known as adenosine triphosphate, or ATP.

    And now, a bit of physics:

    power = work / time
    work = force * distance
    therefore, power = force * distance / time

    This means:
    -The more ATP that is available to a sarcomere, the more twists the actin and myosin can perform.
    -The more calcium ions the sarcomere is exposed to, the faster the actin and myosin can twist.
    -The more twists the actin and myosin can perform in a given time, the more power* the sarcomere can generate
    -The more sarcomeres there are pulling in parallel, the more power** the muscle fiber can generate.
    -The more muscle fibers there are pulling in parallel, the more power** the muscle can generate.

    * increased distance per time
    ** increased force

    So in an egghead sort of way, there are our goals.
    More released calcium = muscle can contract faster.***
    More available ATP = muscle can contract for longer.
    More sarcomeres and muscle fibers in parallel = muscle can produce more force when contracting.

    Insulin has important effects on the latter two.

    *** I'm not totally sure on this one. A higher calcium concentration may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for faster sarcomere contraction.
  9. Kaoz is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    On a mountain in Vermont
    Posts
    92

    Posted On:
    7/06/2008 9:49pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: TKD, BJJ, MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    edit: I learn read
    Last edited by Kaoz; 7/06/2008 9:52pm at . Reason: i
  10. TheRuss is offline
    TheRuss's Avatar

    is badder than you

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not Canada
    Posts
    4,334

    Posted On:
    7/06/2008 10:20pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    All this Krebs-cycle stuff is giving me a headache, so I'm going to switch gears a bit and talk about simple/complex carbs, glycemic index, and insulin index (with some bonus whey talk for Emevas).

    -Glucose is the body's ready-to-use carbohydrate. It gets shipped around in the bloodstream, and once in a cell, gets changed into pyruvate by glycolysis. Pyruvate is decarboxylated into acetyl-CoA, which is broken down further in the Krebs cycle. Each of these processes results in more available ATP.
    -Dextrose and glucose are the same thing. Supplement companies have made a lot of money off of confusion over the different names.

    -The "old-style" grouping of carbohydrates was into monosaccharides (glucose, fructose), disaccharides (sucrose, lactose), and polysaccharides (amylose, amylopectin, glycogen).
    -The more modern categorization of carbohydrates is along the spectrum of how much and how quickly they raise blood sugar levels, commonly known as the glycemic index.
    -There's a commonly-held belief in a correlation between old and new categorization - specifically, that monosaccharides and disaccharides ("simple carbohydrates") raise one's blood sugar level faster than polysaccharides ("complex carbohydrates"). This is inaccurate.
    -For example, the best available data indicates that lactose (milk sugar), a simple carbohydrate, has a dramatically lower glycemic index than potato starch, a mix of complex carbohydrates (about 1:3 amylose:amylopectin ratio). My best guess as to why is that the amylase in saliva breaks the amylopectin down to glucose almost immediately, whereas lactose isn't split by lactase into glucose and galactose until the small intestine, and the galactose isn't metabolized into glucose until it reaches the liver.
    -On the other hand, dietary fiber (polysaccharide cellulose, amongst others) has no glycemic impact, as the human digestive tract lacks the cellulase to break it down into constituent sugars. Some dietary fiber can be fermented, but the end product of this is fatty acids, not sugars.

    -Currently-available values for glycemic indexes are maddeningly inconsistent to the point of contradiction (look at the two values for baked russet potatoes - nearly a 100% margin of error). This makes it very difficult to structure a diet around published GI values.
    -Furthermore, it's not just sloppy experimental procedures. I would expect a fair bit of variation from person to person, depending on the proportions of their enzymes, their hormonal balances, and the structure of their digestive tract.
    -Fortunately, if you can handle needles and have some time and money to spare, you can take your own measurements with a glucometer and a battery of test strips. It looks like you should be able to switch fingers between tests, so long as you don't switch meters.
    -If anyone actually tries this, please let me know how it goes.

    -It is also commonly assumed that since the pancreas' output of insulin is sensitive to blood glucose levels, the magnitude and duration of insulin response (insulin index) will correspond to the magnitude and duration of blood glucose change. This is imprecise. I know of at least two cases where insulin response differs significantly from glucose response:
    -Several strains of rice have been shown to have a significantly smaller insulin response (off by a third) than glucose response.
    -Milk has a significantly larger insulin response than its lactose component alone. The researchers found that whey protein, despite not being a carbohydrate and thus having no glycemic response, stimulated the release of insulin. This is another benefit to consuming whey (and products that contain whey, like milk) immediately after workouts, as the increased insulin levels should counteract the catabolic effects of cortisol (which I'll get to eventually if y'all are interested).




    On a fast-vs-slow-protein aside: In either this study or one like it, they basically found that whey protein caused a large, short spike in blood amino acid levels and stimulated protein synthesis, whereas casein caused a lower, longer increase and inhibited protein breakdown. I'm of the opinion that this is mostly a product of casein gelling upon contact with stomach acid and thus digesting more slowly.

    Edit: I found the study that talked about hormone response to different proteins - it's this one.
    Last edited by TheRuss; 7/06/2008 10:27pm at .
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 123 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.