Post Wo E Gatorade

[max_power]

Domanda...Sapete cosa è il GH?Come fate a "spegnerlo" con una bevanda simile?
Qui ci vuole un piccolo ripasso di endocrinologia ragazzi!
Ah...e poi perchè avrebbe senso per ragazzi molto secchi e giovanio?se dici che inibisce il GH...i ragazzi molto giovani ne avrebbero veramente bisogno per il loro sviluppo...! BOh????

"Spegnere" il GH è un termine poco tecnico in effetti. Diciamo che una fonte di carboidrati ad alto IG sopprimerebbe la secrezione di GH, tutto qui

[Noodles]

Domanda...Sapete cosa è il GH?Come fate a "spegnerlo" con una bevanda simile?
Qui ci vuole un piccolo ripasso di endocrinologia ragazzi!
Ah...e poi perchè avrebbe senso per ragazzi molto secchi e giovanio?se dici che inibisce il GH...i ragazzi molto giovani ne avrebbero veramente bisogno per il loro sviluppo...! BOh????

Ripasso di endocrinologia?????? Guarda che il GH E' un ormone controinsulinare ,pertanto,in condizioni di iperglicemia ne viane inibita la secrezione! (Nelle prove di inibizione del GH si effettua un carico di glucosio;nelle prove di stimolazione s' induce ipoglicemia tramite digiuno!)

[max_power]

Ripasso di endocrinologia?????? Guarda che il GH E' un ormone controinsulinare ,pertanto,in condizioni di iperglicemia ne viane inibita la secrezione! (Nelle prove di inibizione del GH si effettua un carico di glucosio;nelle prove di stimolazione s' induce ipoglicemia tramite digiuno!)

Sì. Ma si dice controinsulare

[Noodles]

Sì. Ma si dice controinsulare

eh si scusa!

[max_power]

eh si scusa!

[Ador]

Ripasso di endocrinologia?????? Guarda che il GH E' un ormone controinsulinare ,pertanto,in condizioni di iperglicemia ne viane inibita la secrezione! (Nelle prove di inibizione del GH si effettua un carico di glucosio;nelle prove di stimolazione s' induce ipoglicemia tramite digiuno!)

Beh, diciamo che ora "va meglio"!

[Z700]

riapro il 3d perche' ho trovato una cosa interessante che puo' rispondere e dare qualche spunto in +

leggete e' estrapolata da un'intervista a Lyle:

Wannabebig: Ok, back on topic again. Lets look at insulin and its effect on fat loss. Does spiking insulin inhibit fat loss to an appreciable degree post workout? Furthermore, is it better to skip the carbs and just take in some protein? In other words, if someone were trying to lose as much body fat as possible it would make sense to keep the amount of insulin that is released to a minimum. This would mean that protein and/or fats could be taken post workout.

Lyle M: Oh, not this question. I put it that way because the issue of post-workout nutrition during fat loss is one that I:

a. get asked about all the time
b. go back and forth in my head all the time

To understand why, lemme give a little background into the problem.

Insulin is one of those double-edged hormones which is why people are so confused about it. Half the time you read that insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body, and half the time you read that it makes you fat. Well, both happen to be true. The problem with insulin, fundamentally, is that it's not tissue specific. Both muscle and fat cells have insulin receptors and insulin drives calories into both quite effectively. And while it's true that there are slightly different insulin thresholds for muscle vs. fat cells, the difference in quite small and I'm not convinced that you can manipulate insulin tightly enough to really take advantage of it. Even the small increase in insulin from protein intake tends to lower blood fatty acid levels. Of course, carbs raise insulin much much more.

Now, insulin shuts down lipolysis pretty effectively at even low concentrations. It's actually depressingly low. Of course, you have to keep in mind that folks have been getting ripped (i.e. losing body fat) on carb-based diets for decades. So I have to wonder if the focus on lowering insulin and keeping it low is that big of a deal. It looks good on paper but if insulin completely prevented fat loss, nobody would EVER get cut on carb-based diets and we simply know that isn't true. So theory has to give way to real world results in this case.

Even Duchaine, prior to his death, mentioned that lowering insulin didn't seem to have a truly significant impact, especially not in men (note: for women trying to lose hip/thigh fat and *maybe* for men and ab fat, lowering insulin does seem to help for a bunch of complicated reasons). That is, on a calorie-reduced diet, you lose fat, even if insulin stays elevated. Of course, you can counter that you may lose more fat if you lower insulin (because you allow better fatty acid mobilization). Which works on paper but not really in the real world. Not to as great a degree as you'd expect anyhow. The differences between fat and LBM loss in cyclical keto diets compared to say, a Zone/Isocaloric type of diet (roughly 30% of calories from each macronutrient) were never huge at the same calorie level: a few pounds either way over 12 weeks. Even that wasn't consistent across the board: some folks lost more fat and less muscle on the higher carb diets. Measurement error? Individual biochemical differences? AT this point I don't know.

Now, on top of all of that, let's go back to something I talked about in the above: contrary to popularly held belief, what you burn during the workout really doesn't appear to make that huge of a difference in terms of fat loss. Ultimately, it really does come down to calorie balance (calories in vs. out). Or more, accurately nutrient balances.

Wannabeig: "Nutrient balance?"

Lyle M: By nutrient balance I mean this. Fat loss on a diet ultimately comes down to the following equation

Fat balance = fat intake - fat oxidation, so if you eat more fat than you're burning, you gain fat; if you burn more fat than you're eating, you lose it.

This partly explains why low carb/higher fat diets didn't make a huge difference in terms of fat loss. Yes, lowering carbs (and glycogen depletion) ramps up fat oxidation to very high rates. But you're eating more fat too so the balance still comes down to the caloric deficit.

Wannabebig: Ok, so what about carb based diets?

Lyle M: A higher carb diet does lead to less fat oxidation, but you're eating less fat. The difference between the two is usually pretty negligible.

When you run the numbers, the difference usually comes out to be about the same. That is, depending on genetics and stuff outside of our control (mainly leptin), calorie balance will equal fat balance. That is, most of the deficit will be made up by the body using fat for fuel no matter how you cut it. People won't be thrilled to hear that but that's the conclusion that the data supports.

Basically, it's 24-hour nutrient balance that seems to be the bigger issue. But, again, I'm digressing.

Let's assume that it matters where you keep insulin on a diet. That is, let's assume that fat loss really is better if you keep insulin lower (ignoring research and real-world data to the absolute contrary) over the long haul.

Recall from above that insulin is a schizy hormone: yeah, it promotes fat storage, but it also promotes anabolism (more technically, insulin is anti-catabolic in muscle, it takes VERY high concentrations for it to be directly anabolic; that is insulin helps to prevent muscle breakdown). By corollary, low insulin does allow better fat mobilization, but it also makes you more catabolic. I've said it before but it bears repeating: your body hates you.

Wannabebig: I guess we got a love hate relationship with our bodies.

Lyle M: Anyhow, the conundrum we're faced with is this: Which is more important, improving muscular recovery/avoiding muscle loss by spiking insulin OR keeping fat burning going by not spiking insulin?

Wannabebig: That's the million-dollar question isn't it?

Lyle M: Well, this is the question I go around and around and around on in my head. Right now, I have to think (especially based on the fact that insulin levels just don't seem to be that big of a deal overall) that recovery/slowing catabolism is the more important facet. That is, fat loss is going to be mainly caused by the caloric deficit. And muscle loss is enough of a problem to begin with. I think a post-workout carb/protein drink is the better choice. Of course, you still have to count those calories towards the daily total but I think that's the better way to go.

[vincent_81]

riassunto?

[Z700]

riapro il 3d perche' ho trovato una cosa interessante che puo' rispondere e dare qualche spunto in +

leggete e' estrapolata da un'intervista a Lyle:

Wannabebig: Ok, back on topic again. Lets look at insulin and its effect on fat loss. Does spiking insulin inhibit fat loss to an appreciable degree post workout? Furthermore, is it better to skip the carbs and just take in some protein? In other words, if someone were trying to lose as much body fat as possible it would make sense to keep the amount of insulin that is released to a minimum. This would mean that protein and/or fats could be taken post workout.

Lyle M: Oh, not this question. I put it that way because the issue of post-workout nutrition during fat loss is one that I:

a. get asked about all the time
b. go back and forth in my head all the time

To understand why, lemme give a little background into the problem.

Insulin is one of those double-edged hormones which is why people are so confused about it. Half the time you read that insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body, and half the time you read that it makes you fat. Well, both happen to be true. The problem with insulin, fundamentally, is that it's not tissue specific. Both muscle and fat cells have insulin receptors and insulin drives calories into both quite effectively. And while it's true that there are slightly different insulin thresholds for muscle vs. fat cells, the difference in quite small and I'm not convinced that you can manipulate insulin tightly enough to really take advantage of it. Even the small increase in insulin from protein intake tends to lower blood fatty acid levels. Of course, carbs raise insulin much much more.

Now, insulin shuts down lipolysis pretty effectively at even low concentrations. It's actually depressingly low. Of course, you have to keep in mind that folks have been getting ripped (i.e. losing body fat) on carb-based diets for decades. So I have to wonder if the focus on lowering insulin and keeping it low is that big of a deal. It looks good on paper but if insulin completely prevented fat loss, nobody would EVER get cut on carb-based diets and we simply know that isn't true. So theory has to give way to real world results in this case.

Even Duchaine, prior to his death, mentioned that lowering insulin didn't seem to have a truly significant impact, especially not in men (note: for women trying to lose hip/thigh fat and *maybe* for men and ab fat, lowering insulin does seem to help for a bunch of complicated reasons). That is, on a calorie-reduced diet, you lose fat, even if insulin stays elevated. Of course, you can counter that you may lose more fat if you lower insulin (because you allow better fatty acid mobilization). Which works on paper but not really in the real world. Not to as great a degree as you'd expect anyhow. The differences between fat and LBM loss in cyclical keto diets compared to say, a Zone/Isocaloric type of diet (roughly 30% of calories from each macronutrient) were never huge at the same calorie level: a few pounds either way over 12 weeks. Even that wasn't consistent across the board: some folks lost more fat and less muscle on the higher carb diets. Measurement error? Individual biochemical differences? AT this point I don't know.

Now, on top of all of that, let's go back to something I talked about in the above: contrary to popularly held belief, what you burn during the workout really doesn't appear to make that huge of a difference in terms of fat loss. Ultimately, it really does come down to calorie balance (calories in vs. out). Or more, accurately nutrient balances.

Wannabeig: "Nutrient balance?"

Lyle M: By nutrient balance I mean this. Fat loss on a diet ultimately comes down to the following equation

Fat balance = fat intake - fat oxidation, so if you eat more fat than you're burning, you gain fat; if you burn more fat than you're eating, you lose it.

This partly explains why low carb/higher fat diets didn't make a huge difference in terms of fat loss. Yes, lowering carbs (and glycogen depletion) ramps up fat oxidation to very high rates. But you're eating more fat too so the balance still comes down to the caloric deficit.

Wannabebig: Ok, so what about carb based diets?

Lyle M: A higher carb diet does lead to less fat oxidation, but you're eating less fat. The difference between the two is usually pretty negligible.

When you run the numbers, the difference usually comes out to be about the same. That is, depending on genetics and stuff outside of our control (mainly leptin), calorie balance will equal fat balance. That is, most of the deficit will be made up by the body using fat for fuel no matter how you cut it. People won't be thrilled to hear that but that's the conclusion that the data supports.

Basically, it's 24-hour nutrient balance that seems to be the bigger issue. But, again, I'm digressing.

Let's assume that it matters where you keep insulin on a diet. That is, let's assume that fat loss really is better if you keep insulin lower (ignoring research and real-world data to the absolute contrary) over the long haul.

Recall from above that insulin is a schizy hormone: yeah, it promotes fat storage, but it also promotes anabolism (more technically, insulin is anti-catabolic in muscle, it takes VERY high concentrations for it to be directly anabolic; that is insulin helps to prevent muscle breakdown). By corollary, low insulin does allow better fat mobilization, but it also makes you more catabolic. I've said it before but it bears repeating: your body hates you.

Wannabebig: I guess we got a love hate relationship with our bodies.

Lyle M: Anyhow, the conundrum we're faced with is this: Which is more important, improving muscular recovery/avoiding muscle loss by spiking insulin OR keeping fat burning going by not spiking insulin?

Wannabebig: That's the million-dollar question isn't it?

Lyle M: Well, this is the question I go around and around and around on in my head. Right now, I have to think (especially based on the fact that insulin levels just don't seem to be that big of a deal overall) that recovery/slowing catabolism is the more important facet. That is, fat loss is going to be mainly caused by the caloric deficit. And muscle loss is enough of a problem to begin with. I think a post-workout carb/protein drink is the better choice. Of course, you still have to count those calories towards the daily total but I think that's the better way to go.

Secondo Lyle l'accoppiata chos/pro post wo e' la scelta migliore privilegiando piu' l'aspetto di recupero e rallentamento del catabolismo. La questione dei picchi di insulina e' relativa in quanto quello che realmente conta e' il bilancio calorico ovvero calorie ingerite - calorie spese ed e' importante che questo bilancio sia negativo. Nella parte iniziale dice pure che se fosse interamente una questione di insulina le diete basate sui chos non avrebbero mai portato risultati.

[vincent_81]

Secondo Lyle l'accoppiata chos/pro post wo e' la scelta migliore privilegiando piu' l'aspetto di recupero e rallentamento del catabolismo. La questione dei picchi di insulina e' relativa in quanto quello che realmente conta e' il bilancio calorico ovvero calorie ingerite - calorie spese ed e' importante che questo bilancio sia negativo. Nella parte iniziale dice pure che se fosse interamente una questione di insulina le diete basate sui chos non avrebbero mai portato risultati.

Quindi secondo voi è meglio :
1 bcaa + gluta post wo e 20 min dopo vitargo + whey
2 unico beverone post wo
....sempre tenendo il bilancio calorico negativo