On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:26:35 GMT, "Sam" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>I get this question a lot.
>
>The early research had two problems:
>
>1) Some of the studies measured only the insulin response and not the actual glycogen re-synthesis
> rate.
>2) IIRC, the Zawadzki paper compared the results of 4:1 with 4 g of CHO (no protein). The problem
> here is the energy intake in the former is 20% greater.
>
>Recently, Louise Burke ( no relation) and others have shown that adding protein does not increase
>glycogen synthesis when the energy intake was isocaloric (that is the same amount of energy was
>taken in under both methods).
>
>I argued with Ed Burke about this on occasion saying that the literature did not support that 4:1
>was any better than 5:0 in terms of glycogen; however, I agreed that protein is important for other
>reasons. Another thought I have heard recently is that as little as 20 g of protein regardless of
>CHO will do a great job and that more than that might not be necessary.
>
>Again, in real life people are better off getting a meal than something out of a can. Ed did have a
>stake in Endurox but he really believed that it was superior. I miss him a lot (we saw each other
>every couple of weeks and rode together on occasion).
>
>While I am "blasting" protein, if you will, the addition of protein to sport drinks for benefits
>during normal exercise is also a bit overblown.
I personally can't do "protein" during a workout. Acclerade in any concentration that allows a
decent income of CHO always made me sick. I tried Endurox as a "hydration" drink only once and
nearly couldn't make it back home. I also tried protein powder, whey, mixed with other various
drinks with the same "intestinal fortitude" issues.
I pretty much use protein as a recover only. I think the main benefit for me is that if I were to do
an analysis of my overall diet I suspect I'd be on the low end of where I should be for protein
intake. The additional 20g I put in my recovery drinks may just boost me up to were I should be with
a healthier overall diet.
Thanks for the info.
~Matt
> The claims made by Accelerade for instance are based on one study that I am not sure has been
> published except in abstract form. Even in that case the problem was the design of the performance
> protocol.
>
>
>"Dot" <dot.h@#att.net> wrote in message
news:6xK_b.84687$hR.1718247@bgtnsc05-
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Sam wrote:
>> > There is some evidence that protein is needed as part of recovery post exercise for anabolism
>> > and tissue repair. However, protein's role in
>muscle
>> > glycogen synthesis has, IMHO, been overblown and not fully supported by
>the
>> > literature.
>> >
>>
>> Same, What're your thoughts on the 4:1 carb
rotein ratio research (referred to frequently by
>> endurox/accelerade products and in Burke's book on optimal muscle recovery)? I know the research
>> was done in a university originally, and I recognize Burke stood to profit. (Much of my own
>> research - not running - is funded by private companies, but it doesn't affecct the results.
>> Admittedly, not the case for others.) I also haven't poked around in original literature for counter-
>> examples. I recognize the 4:1 had something to do with the protein helping the carbs be absorbed.
>> I was just curious on your take on it, since you read at least an order of magnitude more primary
>> literature than I do. Thanks.
>>
>> AS it turns out, many things, including slimfast, have approximately 4:1 ratio carb
rotein.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Dot
>>
>> --
>> "Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
>