Hola, Doc! This question stems from a conversation here about Fast 5 and P90X (the thread is below). As you know, I'm no bodybuilder! I'm a 42 year old, 6'4" guy who used to weigh well over 400, who is now down to about 225 through diet and exercise. Weight training has been, at least for me, the thing that transformed me mentally and physically. Fast 5 has been not only a big part of my transformation, but also an eating plan that I continue to champion. Anyway -- I want to ask about amino acid supplementation. Every morning and afternoon, I take in 5-7 grams each of glutamine and branched-chain amino acids, as well as arginine (AAKG) and creatine. I have a better understanding on how the aminos are used. Glutamine, from what I've read, is not only immediately used as an alternate fuel source for the brain and gut, but also seeme to be regarded as something that helps inhibit cortisol production at its highest regular cycles (like morning and afternoon, for instance). I believe I read that over half of your skeletal makeup is glutamine, so supplementing with it can actually keep your body from using muscle for fuel. My question - if amino acids are assimilated rapidly as a "food source," would they derail the fat-burning of a fasting state even if I can't see that they have any calories associated with them? At least none of the pure powders that I use have any calories listed on them. I'd love your input. I feel like my regimen is really pretty effective for me. I also supplement with conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) which is basically an oil that does have some calories, but I was more interested in the amino acids themselves. Regards, Phil
--- On Sun, 2/28/10, David Nyman <david@davidnyman.com> wrote:
From: David Nyman <david@davidnyman.com>
Subject: Re: [fast5] Fast5 and P90X
To: "fast5" <fast5@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, February 28, 2010, 7:14 AM
Very interesting take, Phil. I suppose the critical question would be whether the body can become (i.e. after any whatever transient adaptations are necessary) as efficient at using long-term stored calories, and previously-ingested stores of protein and other anabolic components, as it is presumed to be at exploiting immediately- available gut-contents in the "6-meal-a-day" paradigm. My suspicion would be - e.g. on evolutionary grounds - that it can (I think Dr Herring has commented on aspects of this) and indeed there are some quite proficient bodybuilders out there who have gained substantial muscle on an IF regime, e.g: http://www.leangain s.com/I suspect the "continuous eating" approach is partly driven by the difficulty of ingesting large amounts of calories within a limited window, and partly because, in the absence of the critical adaptations, the trainer tends to feel weak without a regular energy "fix". Additionally, most men (and it's nearly always men) who want to gain bulk have a very unrealistic idea of just how much of any weight they add is really muscle. Certainly, if you ingest 1000s of extra calories per day in pursuit of a "bulking" phase you will gain lots of pounds and inches, but as physique competitors who subsequently have to "cut" down to the very low body-fat levels required for elite competition discover, the vast majority of the poundage gained in this way turns out to have been fat, not muscle. The "lean-gain" approach short-cuts this "inflationary- deflationary" cycle by using much more modest caloric increments to support the development of the same amount of underlying muscle without concomitant - and unhealthy - gains in fat. One last point is that I suspect that much of the "lab" research on these issues is influenced at least as much by the convenience of collecting results of blood-tests etc, as by other aspect of experimental design. I heard an interesting pod-cast recently on this topic, which pointed out that studies in which participants followed specific exercise protocols and ingested particular combinations of proteins, carbs etc before or after the sessions, had a limited daily window of at most an hour or two - i.e. while the participants were still routinely available in the "lab" setting - to collect the blood-samples on which these studies usually rely. Consequently much of the specificity of timing of the exercise or nutritional supplementation - destined forever-after to be interpreted by research-hounds as "best practice" - in actuality may well be simply an artefact of experimental convenience. David On 28 February 2010 05:52, Phil Voelker <mail4pvoelker@ yahoo.com> wrote: | Hi, Sanjeev - Well, I don't do P90X; however I do weight train and cardio pretty substantially - I would argue that my regimen is probably similar, at least in terms of calories burned and the fact that it's a whole-body workout that changes all the time. I can tell you from experience from a standard 'weight training diet' that they do work - but you do have to create almost a part-time job out of managing your nutritional intake and timing. There is certainly plenty of evidence that it works. Without knowing what the P90X diet specifically looks like, my guess is that it's high in protein, particular about good-quality carbohydrates and fresh vegetables, good fats, and low sodium. I have found that Fast 5 works well for me. We're not the only ones - I read a fascinating article (New York Times) the other day about Stanley McChrystal - the commanding military officer in Afghanistan. He is a consummate military man. Completely lean and muscular, exercises like a madman, used to run his 12 mile commute every day . . . . .and for most of his adult life has subsisted generally one one meal per day, in order to not feel sluggish. My take: If your physical demands are high and consistent, your body is going to adapt to either approach. I do suspect though, if your aim is more about muscle building than fat loss, that you would be in a more consistent anabolic state if you were taking in calories more regularly. Fast5, to me, is primarily a way to allow the body to use the energy it already has stored, and muscle-building would be secondary. One other caveat - I'd certainly look to a professional like Dr. Herring to weigh in, but my reading indicates that the body's own ability to produce growth hormone actually increases when in a fasting state, so I think that there's some real potential advantages to a more ascetic eating schedule like Fast 5. I think it might be working for me, as I do feel that I'm getting stronger, more muscular, and leaner. I've just gotten back on the Fast 5 track after lagging over the holidays though - we'll see how things look come summer. :-) Cheers,
From: sanjeev.bhadresa <sanjeev.bhadresa@ gmail.com>
Subject: [fast5] Fast5 and P90X
To: fast5@yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 8:53 PM Hey!
I have a question I hope someone can help me with.
I've been on the fast5 diet for around 6 weeks or so and am seeing a moderate reduction in weight (around a pound a week).
I've recently purchased the P90X system and noticed that they recommend a very different diet. It's taken me a while to transition to the fast5 and so really don't want to switch (besides I feel great......much better than I did eating multiple meals).
Does anyone have any experience they care to share?
I'm inclined to just start with the exercise part of the system and see what happens.
Sanjeev
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment