Left right asymmetry

I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
one slow controlled drop with the left. I have very mild hip pain in
the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
stand mostly on the right leg.

Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual? Should I try to
develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
lop-sided balance? It could for example be the best natural compromise
as a result of the slight left hip damage.

I'm not aware of any differences in injury between my two arms, but
just with the natural favouritism of the right armed person I have a
stronger right arm, although not nearly as dramatic a difference as in
the legs. I notice that when I do chins my weight in more to the right
side, which is a natural compensation so that both arms give up at the
same time, despite being of different strengths. So I have the same
question about the arm differences: should I try to strengthen the
weaker arm, or just let what seems to be a natural difference develop
in its own way?

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5mivtrFds2bgU1@mid.individual.net...
>I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
> discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
> one slow controlled drop with the left. I have very mild hip pain in
> the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
> consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
> stand mostly on the right leg.
>
> Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual?

I'm "left-sided" but I injured my left knee years ago and have arthritis
there now. I recently did a power analysis of my bicycle stroke and it
showed I was generating about 60% of the stroke power from my right leg. I
knew I favored my right leg but I didn't know it was that significant.

Should I try to
> develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
> should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
> lop-sided balance?

I couldn't give an authoritative answer but I usually exercise both legs at
the same time in my lower-body workouts. I try to use both legs evenly but I
suspect the right is working a good bit harder than the left. For that
reason I think it'd be a good idea to do some exercises for indiv legs. I
have an appt next week with an orthopod so mebbe I'll ask about that.

My left mid-delt is noticeably shapelier, rounder, than my right. My
right arms measures almost half an inch more than my left. My left
calf is "flatter" in comparison to my right calf.

I have noticed in some photos in the bodybuilding magazines that some
guys have abs that don't even match up right!

As for strength, which is the issue you raised, yes, I would think
that there is a lot of left-right differences in that regard as well.
I've not had any myself, but it stands to reason that the dominant
side would tend to be naturally a bit stronger.

Speaking of which...I've read that even if one only curls the right
arm, say, the left arm would see some development as well! Anyone
ever heard of such a thing? Apparently the body would naturally try
to "compensate"...it seems it is preprogrammed to try to be symmetric,
such that even if only one arm is worked out, the other would still
see some development!

You should definitely try to strengthen the weaker arm, though be
careful with that: I messed up my left elbow/biceps this summer
because I thought my left arm was lagging just a little behind -- like
I'd seem to find that, while doing chin-ups, for example, it wasn't
pulling as much as the right arm would -- and so I really worked my
left arm...I may have overworked it, and it still hasn't fully
healed...so be careful....



On Oct 3, 10:02 pm, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
> discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
> one slow controlled drop with the left. I have very mild hip pain in
> the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
> consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
> stand mostly on the right leg.
>
> Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual? Should I try to
> develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
> should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
> lop-sided balance? It could for example be the best natural compromise
> as a result of the slight left hip damage.
>
> I'm not aware of any differences in injury between my two arms, but
> just with the natural favouritism of the right armed person I have a
> stronger right arm, although not nearly as dramatic a difference as in
> the legs. I notice that when I do chins my weight in more to the right
> side, which is a natural compensation so that both arms give up at the
> same time, despite being of different strengths. So I have the same
> question about the arm differences: should I try to strengthen the
> weaker arm, or just let what seems to be a natural difference develop
> in its own way?
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5mivtrFds2bgU1@mid.individual.net...
>I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
> discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
> one slow controlled drop with the left. I have very mild hip pain in
> the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
> consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
> stand mostly on the right leg.
>
> Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual? Should I try to
> develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
> should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
> lop-sided balance? It could for example be the best natural compromise
> as a result of the slight left hip damage.

Chris, I'm a big fan of the one-legged squat, which is often referred to as
a Pistol. What you describe isn't at all unusual, and the path to
correcting it is just to work your weaker side first, try to find and
address your technical and strength problems, and carry on as best you can.

> I'm not aware of any differences in injury between my two arms, but
> just with the natural favouritism of the right armed person I have a
> stronger right arm, although not nearly as dramatic a difference as in
> the legs. I notice that when I do chins my weight in more to the right
> side, which is a natural compensation so that both arms give up at the
> same time, despite being of different strengths. So I have the same
> question about the arm differences: should I try to strengthen the
> weaker arm, or just let what seems to be a natural difference develop
> in its own way?

One way to try and address the problem is to work on other one-legged
exercises, e.g., the one-legged deadlift. I do them with kettlebells and
find the hardest combination is to pick up the kettlebell with the opposite
hand, e.g., right leg and left hand, but it's good to practice all the
possibilities including where you place the weight to start. Another great
thing to do is simply swing or otherwise move one leg vigorously while
standing on the other, e.g., to work you left leg, stand on that and do
front-to-back swings with your right leg. Likewise, martial-arts style
kicks will work the leg that's on the ground. Steve Maxwell used to put us
through a whole routine like this, standing on one leg and doing various
things with the other for 5-10 minutes at a time, e.g., drawing figure-8's
in the air to the front, side, and back.

Last but not least, consider reading Pavel's "Naked Warrior"
http://www.kbnj.com/nw.htm - it's devoted to the one-legged squat and the
one-armed pushup, and it's got about everything you'd ever want to know
about working these two exercises, including variations and techniques you
could use to improve your weaker side. In lieu of that, here's what I
suggest you do on your left side: lower only as far as you can under
complete control, pause, and reverse. Practice just that range of motion
and work on gradually increasing it. Also try box pistols - sit on your
favorite set of steps, place your foot one step below you butt, and drive
the heel into the ground and stand up. Now reverse, sitingg down on the
higher step, rocking back a little, then standing up again.

I will have an article on pistols for people with bad backs on the
DragonDoor site soon - I'm just finishing it up now.

Hope that helps some.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


> --
> Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>

Dnia Thu, 04 Oct 2007 o 17:42 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>
> Speaking of which...I've read that even if one only curls the right
> arm, say, the left arm would see some development as well! Anyone
> ever heard of such a thing?

I've heard about it. AFAIKT it was based on the study on frogs. They
bound one leg of a frog, and it developed some, even without movement.
It was either badly designed study, badly interpreted study, or I don't
know something important about it. Anyway, it's bollocks.

> Apparently the body would naturally try to "compensate"

Have you ever had your limb unusable due to an injury? If not, I assure
you that it simply doesn't work this way. In frogs it might, because a
frog can be too stupid to not strain against it's bonds while trying to
move. Or something else... Anyway, your body apparently doesn't try
too hard at keeping you symmetrical.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Thu, 04 Oct 2007 o 04:02 GMT Chris Malcolm napisa³(a):
> I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
> discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
> one slow controlled drop with the left.

Not unusual, and it doesn't necessarily mean that your left leg is that
much weaker. Try some easier exercise, like leg press or leg
curl/extension. If your strong leg still outperforms your weak one so
much, you should probably try to fix it.

> I have very mild hip pain in
> the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
> consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
> stand mostly on the right leg.
>
> Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual?

For pistols, it shouldn't be. They are technically difficult exercise,
which might mean that you are simply able to keep your balance better
when standing on your right leg or something along these lines.

> Should I try to
> develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
> should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
> lop-sided balance? It could for example be the best natural compromise
> as a result of the slight left hip damage.

I'd say, that you should consider doing stepups. They work pretty well
at developing hip stability, so no matter what's the cause of your
performance imbalance, they should have a chance at fixing it.

> I'm not aware of any differences in injury between my two arms, but
> just with the natural favouritism of the right armed person I have a
> stronger right arm, although not nearly as dramatic a difference as in
> the legs. I notice that when I do chins my weight in more to the right
> side, which is a natural compensation so that both arms give up at the
> same time, despite being of different strengths. So I have the same
> question about the arm differences: should I try to strengthen the
> weaker arm, or just let what seems to be a natural difference develop
> in its own way?

Until you develop some obvious imbalances, you shouldn't worry. But if
you want to be on the safe side, switch to unilateral (one-sided)
training for most of exercises. Start with your weaker side and repeat
the performance with your stronger side. You can use barbell gripped in
the middle, if you don't mind looking like a wannabe old-time strongman.
;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5mivtrFds2bgU1@mid.individual.net...
>I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
> discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
> one slow controlled drop with the left. I have very mild hip pain in
> the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
> consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
> stand mostly on the right leg.
>
> Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual? Should I try to
> develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
> should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
> lop-sided balance? It could for example be the best natural compromise
> as a result of the slight left hip damage.
>
> I'm not aware of any differences in injury between my two arms, but
> just with the natural favouritism of the right armed person I have a
> stronger right arm, although not nearly as dramatic a difference as in
> the legs. I notice that when I do chins my weight in more to the right
> side, which is a natural compensation so that both arms give up at the
> same time, despite being of different strengths. So I have the same
> question about the arm differences: should I try to strengthen the
> weaker arm, or just let what seems to be a natural difference develop
> in its own way?
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>

Chris,
I don't think that you can say that everyone has a stronger dominant side vs
nondominant. I'm right handed and my left arm has always been stronger when
it comes to curling etc., but my right arm used to be larger than my left. I
had renal failure in 1991 and had an access in my left arm installed for
dialysis. It is called a fistula. They connect an artery to a vein, so the
arterial pressure makes the vein larger. They need to do this so they can
put large 14 gauge needles into it. That increased blood flow in my left arm
over those years caused my left arm to now be larger than my left. It's not
something that is significantly noticeable to other people, but I can see
it. If we use our dominant sides more, they will get larger. Check out the
arms on tennis players. As to there being a written rule as to how one side
is vs another, I don't think you can say that there is one.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

On Oct 4, 5:02 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've heard about it. AFAIKT it was based on the study on frogs. They
> bound one leg of a frog, and it developed some, even without movement.
> It was either badly designed study, badly interpreted study, or I don't
> know something important about it. Anyway, it's bollocks.

Yeah, the French always have to be different, don't they!

> Have you ever had your limb unusable due to an injury? If not, I assure
> you that it simply doesn't work this way. In frogs it might, because a
> frog can be too stupid to not strain against it's bonds while trying to
> move. Or something else... Anyway, your body apparently doesn't try
> too hard at keeping you symmetrical.

Thanks for clearing that up. So it's just another "gym myth"...do you
know anything about protein shakes? I using them, and I'm not sure
whether they help. I know that psychologically, I like the idea of
taking a "magic potion" right before, half-way through, and
immediately after working out...it's just fun; I'm a big eater
anyway...but I'm just not sure whether it actually works, whether I
lift any better than I would have without the shakes, nor whether I'm
growing or making progress, etc.

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 05 Oct 2007 o 19:18 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Oct 4, 5:02 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Have you ever had your limb unusable due to an injury? If not, I assure
>> you that it simply doesn't work this way. In frogs it might, because a
>> frog can be too stupid to not strain against it's bonds while trying to
>> move. Or something else... Anyway, your body apparently doesn't try
>> too hard at keeping you symmetrical.
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. So it's just another "gym myth"...do you
> know anything about protein shakes? I using them, and I'm not sure
> whether they help.

They don't hurt much, for sure. I haven't looked at the data for quite
a while, so I can't say if anything substantial showed up. As it was
before, it was hard to say if shakes do anything more than real food.
I tended to think, that they don't. I never could make required leap
of faith, that protein absorption had much to do with muscle building.

> I know that psychologically, I like the idea of
> taking a "magic potion" right before, half-way through, and
> immediately after working out...it's just fun;

Problem solved, I'd say. You like it, go with it.

> I'm a big eater
> anyway...but I'm just not sure whether it actually works, whether I
> lift any better than I would have without the shakes, nor whether I'm
> growing or making progress, etc.

Until you go crazy with shakes and stop eating real food, they will not
hamper your progress.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia Thu, 04 Oct 2007 o 04:02 GMT Chris Malcolm napisa?(a):

>> I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
>> discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
>> one slow controlled drop with the left.

> Not unusual, and it doesn't necessarily mean that your left leg is that
> much weaker. Try some easier exercise, like leg press or leg
> curl/extension. If your strong leg still outperforms your weak one so
> much, you should probably try to fix it.

>> I have very mild hip pain in
>> the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
>> consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
>> stand mostly on the right leg.
>>
>> Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual?

> For pistols, it shouldn't be. They are technically difficult exercise,
> which might mean that you are simply able to keep your balance better
> when standing on your right leg or something along these lines.

It's definitely strength. I can easily lower my weight slowly with my
right leg, and the first stand up doesn't strain it all, whereas
lowering down on my left leg it collapses in muscular pain not far
past the right angle.

>> Should I try to
>> develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
>> should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
>> lop-sided balance? It could for example be the best natural compromise
>> as a result of the slight left hip damage.

> I'd say, that you should consider doing stepups. They work pretty well
> at developing hip stability, so no matter what's the cause of your
> performance imbalance, they should have a chance at fixing it.

I have no difficulty walking up flights of stairs two at a time, even
carrying heavy bags of shopping. Stepups as they're illustrated on
many web pages about exercise seem to be a rather more pedestrian
exercise than what I do every time I visit the supermarket :-)

>> I'm not aware of any differences in injury between my two arms, but
>> just with the natural favouritism of the right armed person I have a
>> stronger right arm, although not nearly as dramatic a difference as in
>> the legs. I notice that when I do chins my weight in more to the right
>> side, which is a natural compensation so that both arms give up at the
>> same time, despite being of different strengths. So I have the same
>> question about the arm differences: should I try to strengthen the
>> weaker arm, or just let what seems to be a natural difference develop
>> in its own way?
>
> Until you develop some obvious imbalances, you shouldn't worry. But if
> you want to be on the safe side, switch to unilateral (one-sided)
> training for most of exercises. Start with your weaker side and repeat
> the performance with your stronger side. You can use barbell gripped in
> the middle, if you don't mind looking like a wannabe old-time strongman.

I'm far from being strong enough to lift a barbell one handed! The
most I can lift overhead with one hand is about 30lbs, so there's
plenty of room left in an ordinary dumb bell set. But I have in fact
started doing that, and I'll let the stronger side have an easier ride
while I try to catch up the weaker one.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:5mivtrFds2bgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>I recently tried doing one legged deep bodyweight squats, and
>> discovered that I can do four with the right leg, and can't even do
>> one slow controlled drop with the left. I have very mild hip pain in
>> the left leg, which I'm told is mild arthritic damage (I'm 65). As a
>> consequence when given a choice I prefer to use the right leg, e.g. I
>> stand mostly on the right leg.
>>
>> Is this amount of difference in leg strength unusual? Should I try to
>> develop more strength in the left leg to lessen the difference, or
>> should I just train them independently and let them choose their own
>> lop-sided balance? It could for example be the best natural compromise
>> as a result of the slight left hip damage.

> Chris, I'm a big fan of the one-legged squat, which is often referred to as
> a Pistol. What you describe isn't at all unusual, and the path to
> correcting it is just to work your weaker side first, try to find and
> address your technical and strength problems, and carry on as best you can.

Good -- that's what I'm doing.

>> I'm not aware of any differences in injury between my two arms, but
>> just with the natural favouritism of the right armed person I have a
>> stronger right arm, although not nearly as dramatic a difference as in
>> the legs. I notice that when I do chins my weight in more to the right
>> side, which is a natural compensation so that both arms give up at the
>> same time, despite being of different strengths. So I have the same
>> question about the arm differences: should I try to strengthen the
>> weaker arm, or just let what seems to be a natural difference develop
>> in its own way?

> One way to try and address the problem is to work on other one-legged
> exercises, e.g., the one-legged deadlift. I do them with kettlebells and
> find the hardest combination is to pick up the kettlebell with the opposite
> hand, e.g., right leg and left hand, but it's good to practice all the
> possibilities including where you place the weight to start. Another great
> thing to do is simply swing or otherwise move one leg vigorously while
> standing on the other, e.g., to work you left leg, stand on that and do
> front-to-back swings with your right leg. Likewise, martial-arts style
> kicks will work the leg that's on the ground. Steve Maxwell used to put us
> through a whole routine like this, standing on one leg and doing various
> things with the other for 5-10 minutes at a time, e.g., drawing figure-8's
> in the air to the front, side, and back.

That sounds good. Having injured myself with a repeated single
exercise I'm now a fan of very varied wide joint movements along with
strength building.

> Last but not least, consider reading Pavel's "Naked Warrior"
> http://www.kbnj.com/nw.htm - it's devoted to the one-legged squat and the
> one-armed pushup, and it's got about everything you'd ever want to know
> about working these two exercises, including variations and techniques you
> could use to improve your weaker side. In lieu of that, here's what I
> suggest you do on your left side: lower only as far as you can under
> complete control, pause, and reverse. Practice just that range of motion
> and work on gradually increasing it. Also try box pistols - sit on your
> favorite set of steps, place your foot one step below you butt, and drive
> the heel into the ground and stand up. Now reverse, sitingg down on the
> higher step, rocking back a little, then standing up again.

I like what I've heard of Pavel (mostly from you here), and will
pursue the book.

> I will have an article on pistols for people with bad backs on the
> DragonDoor site soon - I'm just finishing it up now.

> Hope that helps some.

It does. And while my back is now as good as most of its age, it got
badly smashed up when I fell off a cliff in my twenties, and it'll
never be a good back. I'll keep an eye out for your article.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Dnia Sat, 06 Oct 2007 o 12:33 GMT Chris Malcolm napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd say, that you should consider doing stepups. They work pretty well
>> at developing hip stability, so no matter what's the cause of your
>> performance imbalance, they should have a chance at fixing it.
>
> I have no difficulty walking up flights of stairs two at a time, even
> carrying heavy bags of shopping. Stepups as they're illustrated on
> many web pages about exercise seem to be a rather more pedestrian
> exercise than what I do every time I visit the supermarket :-)

Leonid Taranenko supposedly did stepups with up to 460 lbs. Difficulty
also depends on how high your stepup box is, but I'm not pushing you to
use them. I just happen to know, that until you gain some proficiency
in doing them, you feel them around your hip joint. Doing stepups to
the kitchen table isn't as "pedestrian" as it might look like.

Anyway, the higher your box, the more stepup becomes hamstring and
glute dominant exercise. Also see Bulgarian split squats. They are
good quad dominant exercise with lower skill requirements than pistols.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia Sat, 06 Oct 2007 o 12:33 GMT Chris Malcolm napisa?(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say, that you should consider doing stepups. They work pretty well
>>> at developing hip stability, so no matter what's the cause of your
>>> performance imbalance, they should have a chance at fixing it.
>>
>> I have no difficulty walking up flights of stairs two at a time, even
>> carrying heavy bags of shopping. Stepups as they're illustrated on
>> many web pages about exercise seem to be a rather more pedestrian
>> exercise than what I do every time I visit the supermarket :-)

> Leonid Taranenko supposedly did stepups with up to 460 lbs. Difficulty
> also depends on how high your stepup box is, but I'm not pushing you to
> use them. I just happen to know, that until you gain some proficiency
> in doing them, you feel them around your hip joint. Doing stepups to
> the kitchen table isn't as "pedestrian" as it might look like.

Ah! I guess for the size of me and my table that would be the
equivalent of a one legged Hindu squat! I didn't see anything like
that on the web pages I consulted about step ups. All I saw was people
stepping up on rather tiny steps. Perhaps they were trying not to
scare people :-)

> Anyway, the higher your box, the more stepup becomes hamstring and
> glute dominant exercise. Also see Bulgarian split squats. They are
> good quad dominant exercise with lower skill requirements than pistols.

Thanks, will check them out. My guess based on recent improvement is
that I'm only a few weeks away from being able to do a left leg Hindu
squat.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Oct 5, 3:09 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> They don't hurt much, for sure. I haven't looked at the data for quite
> a while, so I can't say if anything substantial showed up. As it was
> before, it was hard to say if shakes do anything more than real food.
> I tended to think, that they don't. I never could make required leap
> of faith, that protein absorption had much to do with muscle building.

Well, I read in that book "Nutrient Timing" how protein shakes deliver
protein quickly, during that 30-45 minute window of opportunity after
exercise, whereas real food like meat would take a long time to
digest, during which time the muscle would keep breaking down.

But I still can't get around the logic involved: if protein powders
are "real" food, then why can't one simply go meatless? If they're
not "real" foods, then how can protein powders be as useful as claimed
in that book? If it's protein, the body should be utilizing it the
same, right?

Note: I have discovered now that the co-author of that book, Robert
Portman, is employed by the company that puts out Accelerade,
PacificHealth Laboratories. The main author -- or so it appears -- is
the Head of Kinesiology and Health Education at the University of
Texas, however....

> Problem solved, I'd say. You like it, go with it.

Well, the issue is whether there ever was a "problem" to begin with:
they have to be "biologically useful," not simply "biologically
harmless."

I was, you might recall, very skeptical of protein powders. But being
35 and worried that my body isn't responding like it used to, I'm
willing to try most anything.

> Until you go crazy with shakes and stop eating real food, they will not
> hamper your progress.

I'd hate to waste money, all the same.

I'm going to stop using them once my current supply runs out, and then
after a few months report back on whether I am still able to make
progress.

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Tue, 09 Oct 2007 o 16:26 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Oct 5, 3:09 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> They don't hurt much, for sure. I haven't looked at the data for quite
>> a while, so I can't say if anything substantial showed up. As it was
>> before, it was hard to say if shakes do anything more than real food.
>> I tended to think, that they don't. I never could make required leap
>> of faith, that protein absorption had much to do with muscle building.
>
> Well, I read in that book "Nutrient Timing" how protein shakes deliver
> protein quickly, during that 30-45 minute window of opportunity after
> exercise, whereas real food like meat would take a long time to
> digest, during which time the muscle would keep breaking down.

That's the logic behind it, but I haven't seen "good enough" (subjective
term) data, which clearly supports the idea, that you really need to
digest your meal within milliseconds to have the best response possible.
If we rebuild our muscles for hours after the workout, why having a
spike of protein absorption directly following training would matter?

Regarding cortisone elevation, I doubt that you need specifically
proteins to stop it from happening. Sugars probably would work just as
good (I think I've seen some studies on that, but it was long time ago),
and normal meal in most cases would have at least some amount of
quickly digesting foods to deal with immediate needs.

> But I still can't get around the logic involved: if protein powders
> are "real" food, then why can't one simply go meatless?

You could, if you insisted. There was some scientist living on meal
replacement shakes for above half a year, iirc.

> If they're
> not "real" foods, then how can protein powders be as useful as claimed
> in that book? If it's protein, the body should be utilizing it the
> same, right?

Protein shakes are really mostly protein (unless stated otherwise), and
your body is able to absorb them well. Eating only shakes isn't best of
ideas, the same way as eating any other food source to the exclusion of
other sources. No single food is *that* complete.

> Note: I have discovered now that the co-author of that book, Robert
> Portman, is employed by the company that puts out Accelerade,
> PacificHealth Laboratories. The main author -- or so it appears -- is
> the Head of Kinesiology and Health Education at the University of
> Texas, however....
>
>> Problem solved, I'd say. You like it, go with it.
>
> Well, the issue is whether there ever was a "problem" to begin with:
> they have to be "biologically useful," not simply "biologically
> harmless."

They are useful in that term, that you will digest them. But I doubt
that you either need shakes, or even need much of extra protein. Honestly,
if shakes were such a great way of delivering needed nutrients, you'd have
juicers praising their merits all the time, but experienced juicers
simply eat a lot. First timers often start eating clean, then say how
much better they would be if they didn't follow all this clean eating
nonsense.

For me it looks like high protein "clean" diet is a good way to *control*
the amount of nutrients, not necessarily the best way of delivering
them.

> I was, you might recall, very skeptical of protein powders. But being
> 35 and worried that my body isn't responding like it used to, I'm
> willing to try most anything.

Try it. I never did try them, but I used to blend cottage cheese with
some powdered milk, full milk and some sugar, which I ate with corn flakes
post-workout. I can't say much beyond that I simply liked it, but it
tasted pretty well.

But if you want to speed up your gains, go with red meat. Also, stop
that jogging nonsense and start doing intervals and/or agility drills.
Jogging is purely catabolic.

>> Until you go crazy with shakes and stop eating real food, they will not
>> hamper your progress.
>
> I'd hate to waste money, all the same.

Cottage cheese and granulated powdered milk will work fine, as long as
you digest milk well.

> I'm going to stop using them once my current supply runs out, and then
> after a few months report back on whether I am still able to make
> progress.

It would be nice to hear how it worked in your case. In real life
nobody bothers about isocaloric this or that, so if shakes work, nobody
cares why they do it.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:feg5tm$qdu$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia Tue, 09 Oct 2007 o 16:26 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>> On Oct 5, 3:09 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> They don't hurt much, for sure. I haven't looked at the data for quite
>>> a while, so I can't say if anything substantial showed up. As it was
>>> before, it was hard to say if shakes do anything more than real food.
>>> I tended to think, that they don't. I never could make required leap
>>> of faith, that protein absorption had much to do with muscle building.
>>
>> Well, I read in that book "Nutrient Timing" how protein shakes deliver
>> protein quickly, during that 30-45 minute window of opportunity after
>> exercise, whereas real food like meat would take a long time to
>> digest, during which time the muscle would keep breaking down.
>
> That's the logic behind it, but I haven't seen "good enough" (subjective
> term) data, which clearly supports the idea, that you really need to
> digest your meal within milliseconds to have the best response possible.
> If we rebuild our muscles for hours after the workout, why having a
> spike of protein absorption directly following training would matter?
>
> Regarding cortisone elevation, I doubt that you need specifically
> proteins to stop it from happening. Sugars probably would work just as
> good (I think I've seen some studies on that, but it was long time ago),
> and normal meal in most cases would have at least some amount of
> quickly digesting foods to deal with immediate needs.
>
>> But I still can't get around the logic involved: if protein powders
>> are "real" food, then why can't one simply go meatless?
>
> You could, if you insisted. There was some scientist living on meal
> replacement shakes for above half a year, iirc.
>
>> If they're
>> not "real" foods, then how can protein powders be as useful as claimed
>> in that book? If it's protein, the body should be utilizing it the
>> same, right?
>
> Protein shakes are really mostly protein (unless stated otherwise), and
> your body is able to absorb them well. Eating only shakes isn't best of
> ideas, the same way as eating any other food source to the exclusion of
> other sources. No single food is *that* complete.
>
>> Note: I have discovered now that the co-author of that book, Robert
>> Portman, is employed by the company that puts out Accelerade,
>> PacificHealth Laboratories. The main author -- or so it appears -- is
>> the Head of Kinesiology and Health Education at the University of
>> Texas, however....
>>
>>> Problem solved, I'd say. You like it, go with it.
>>
>> Well, the issue is whether there ever was a "problem" to begin with:
>> they have to be "biologically useful," not simply "biologically
>> harmless."
>
> They are useful in that term, that you will digest them. But I doubt
> that you either need shakes, or even need much of extra protein.
> Honestly,
> if shakes were such a great way of delivering needed nutrients, you'd have
> juicers praising their merits all the time, but experienced juicers
> simply eat a lot. First timers often start eating clean, then say how
> much better they would be if they didn't follow all this clean eating
> nonsense.
>
> For me it looks like high protein "clean" diet is a good way to *control*
> the amount of nutrients, not necessarily the best way of delivering
> them.
>
>> I was, you might recall, very skeptical of protein powders. But being
>> 35 and worried that my body isn't responding like it used to, I'm
>> willing to try most anything.
>
> Try it. I never did try them, but I used to blend cottage cheese with
> some powdered milk, full milk and some sugar, which I ate with corn flakes
> post-workout. I can't say much beyond that I simply liked it, but it
> tasted pretty well.
>
> But if you want to speed up your gains, go with red meat. Also, stop
> that jogging nonsense and start doing intervals and/or agility drills.
> Jogging is purely catabolic.
>
>>> Until you go crazy with shakes and stop eating real food, they will not
>>> hamper your progress.
>>
>> I'd hate to waste money, all the same.
>
> Cottage cheese and granulated powdered milk will work fine, as long as
> you digest milk well.
>
>> I'm going to stop using them once my current supply runs out, and then
>> after a few months report back on whether I am still able to make
>> progress.
>
> It would be nice to hear how it worked in your case. In real life
> nobody bothers about isocaloric this or that, so if shakes work, nobody
> cares why they do it.
>
> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R


Andrzej,
I HAVE to ask. Why do you bother reading or responding to this PAW asshole?
He is a bigot, a racist and a troll. He lies about 90% of everything. The
other thing that kills me is when he thinks he is getting "old" at 35. Let's
face it, he is a fat ass who is more concerned about being a bigot than
getting into shape. You have good info for people. I think you are wasting
your time with this piece of shit. That's just my opinion of course. ;-)


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

Dnia Tue, 09 Oct 2007 o 22:07 GMT Hard Bop Drums napisa³(a):
>
> Andrzej,
> I HAVE to ask. Why do you bother reading or responding to this PAW asshole?
> He is a bigot, a racist and a troll. He lies about 90% of everything. The
> other thing that kills me is when he thinks he is getting "old" at 35. Let's
> face it, he is a fat ass who is more concerned about being a bigot than
> getting into shape. You have good info for people. I think you are wasting
> your time with this piece of shit. That's just my opinion of course. ;-)

PAW never did anything wrong to me, so I have no reason to treat him
badly. He asked a reasonable question, so I answer. Why not? Even if
we had some Inet brawl before, I'd still do the same. I have my bad
days, so I'm in no position to be too judgmental toward others.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fegnvj$arl$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia Tue, 09 Oct 2007 o 22:07 GMT Hard Bop Drums napisa³(a):
>>
>> Andrzej,
>> I HAVE to ask. Why do you bother reading or responding to this PAW
>> asshole?
>> He is a bigot, a racist and a troll. He lies about 90% of everything.
>> The
>> other thing that kills me is when he thinks he is getting "old" at
>> 35. Let's
>> face it, he is a fat ass who is more concerned about being a bigot
>> than
>> getting into shape. You have good info for people. I think you are
>> wasting
>> your time with this piece of shit. That's just my opinion of course.
>> ;-)
>
> PAW never did anything wrong to me, so I have no reason to treat him
> badly. He asked a reasonable question, so I answer. Why not? Even
> if
> we had some Inet brawl before, I'd still do the same. I have my bad
> days, so I'm in no position to be too judgmental toward others.

You just need to be here another year or three before you'll stop
responding to trolls like him - that is my prediction. (No, I'm not
willing to wager on it.)

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Tue, 09 Oct 2007 o 22:43 GMT Steve Freides napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fegnvj$arl$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> PAW never did anything wrong to me, so I have no reason to treat him
>> badly. He asked a reasonable question, so I answer. Why not? Even
>> if
>> we had some Inet brawl before, I'd still do the same. I have my bad
>> days, so I'm in no position to be too judgmental toward others.
>
> You just need to be here another year or three before you'll stop
> responding to trolls like him - that is my prediction. (No, I'm not
> willing to wager on it.)

Then I'll simply take a break from mfw. You need your time off to
progress, you know. ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Oct 9, 4:23 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> PAW never did anything wrong to me, so I have no reason to treat him
> badly. He asked a reasonable question, so I answer. Why not? Even if
> we had some Inet brawl before, I'd still do the same. I have my bad
> days, so I'm in no position to be too judgmental toward others.

Well said.

Ironic how these people are so self-righteous they are blind to their
own bigotry. The fact that they can't discuss facts and ideas without
first vetting the personalities involved through some personal
ideology demonstrates their immaturity, as does the fact that they
can't abide others being more mature.

These people are just fascists, only with different prejudices.

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's the logic behind it, but I haven't seen "good enough" (subjective
> term) data, which clearly supports the idea, that you really need to
> digest your meal within milliseconds to have the best response possible.
> If we rebuild our muscles for hours after the workout, why having a
> spike of protein absorption directly following training would matter?

Because that's when muscles are most sensitive to insulin, which spike
is supposed to help propel the protein.

It's a matter of "efficiency" -- muscles are built hours after
properly intense exercise, but the first twenty to sixty minutes (I've
seen numbers all over the place) are supposed to be optimal times of
protein-utilization, when you get twice or thrice what you could get
later....

> Regarding cortisone elevation, I doubt that you need specifically
> proteins to stop it from happening.

It's not so much that proteins "stop" it from happening as "make up"
for it happening...while cortisol and other catabolic hormones are
breaking down muscle, protein synthesis is building up muscle, and the
theory is that you come out ahead if you have a net protein gain....

> Sugars probably would work just as
> good (I think I've seen some studies on that, but it was long time ago),

The sugars help induce the insulin which propels the protein....

> and normal meal in most cases would have at least some amount of
> quickly digesting foods to deal with immediate needs.

Not as quick as liquid protein, is the claim.

> You could, if you insisted. There was some scientist living on meal
> replacement shakes for above half a year, iirc.

I think someone referenced the case of a doctor who did that...he took
the year off, visiting all the baseball teams' stadia, driving around
the country in an RV -- but he wasn't trying to build muscle.

> Protein shakes are really mostly protein (unless stated otherwise), and
> your body is able to absorb them well. Eating only shakes isn't best of
> ideas, the same way as eating any other food source to the exclusion of
> other sources. No single food is *that* complete.

We're only talking protein here; one could certainly eat nothing but
beef, tuna, etc., and get all one's protein needs.

That's what I'm talking about: if protein shakes really are full of
protein, then how come one couldn't simply live off of that -- as far
as one's protein needs are concerned....

> They are useful in that term, that you will digest them. But I doubt
> that you either need shakes, or even need much of extra protein. Honestly,
> if shakes were such a great way of delivering needed nutrients, you'd have
> juicers praising their merits all the time, but experienced juicers
> simply eat a lot.

If they "eat a lot," then that's "extra protein"....

> First timers often start eating clean, then say how
> much better they would be if they didn't follow all this clean eating
> nonsense.

Cleaning eating nonsense?? I don't know what you mean.

I don't know any juicers either, so I don't know that they aren't into
protein shakes. Being druggies, I'd imagine they take all kinds of
stuff, so I'd be surprised if they didn't also do protein shakes.

> For me it looks like high protein "clean" diet is a good way to *control*
> the amount of nutrients, not necessarily the best way of delivering
> them.

Well, yeah, we were talking about delivery systems, namely, liquid
protein. Since liquids are more readily digested than solids, it
follows that liquified protein delivers protein faster than solidified
protein....

> Try it. I never did try them, but I used to blend cottage cheese with
> some powdered milk, full milk and some sugar, which I ate with corn flakes
> post-workout. I can't say much beyond that I simply liked it, but it
> tasted pretty well.

Well, that sounds like a home-made protein shake, is all! Indeed,
there are recipes on the 'net for them....

> But if you want to speed up your gains, go with red meat. Also, stop
> that jogging nonsense and start doing intervals and/or agility drills.
> Jogging is purely catabolic.

Purely catabolic????

Is that just another weightlifter's gym myth...like how English majors
tend not to like math, and vice-versa...I don't think it has to be the
case...I might make faster gains by not jogging, but jogging is fun
and aerobic health is important, too...I don't see how it's purely
catabolic, or any more catabolic than weights...I think one simply has
to recover properly -- nutrition and rest -- and it isn't about the
exercise....

> Cottage cheese and granulated powdered milk will work fine, as long as
> you digest milk well.

I actually use lactose-free milk with the protein shakes when I want a
thicker consistency and a creamier taste.

> It would be nice to hear how it worked in your case. In real life
> nobody bothers about isocaloric this or that, so if shakes work, nobody
> cares why they do it.

Well, it's unfortunate people don't have much intellectual curiosity
about how things work, but I'll be sure to give my impressions then.
Already there have been a few sessions when I did not take as much
protein supplementation as others (I usually do pre, intra, and post,
but sometimes it's only been pre and post, or just post), and I have
not noticed a difference....

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Wed, 10 Oct 2007 o 19:45 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Oct 9, 11:15 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's the logic behind it, but I haven't seen "good enough" (subjective
>> term) data, which clearly supports the idea, that you really need to
>> digest your meal within milliseconds to have the best response possible.
>> If we rebuild our muscles for hours after the workout, why having a
>> spike of protein absorption directly following training would matter?
>
> Because that's when muscles are most sensitive to insulin, which spike
> is supposed to help propel the protein.
>
> It's a matter of "efficiency" -- muscles are built hours after
> properly intense exercise, but the first twenty to sixty minutes (I've
> seen numbers all over the place) are supposed to be optimal times of
> protein-utilization, when you get twice or thrice what you could get
> later....

The way I see it is that either muscles are rebuild for days or the
window of opportunity is crucial. Both assumptions together don't make
sense to me.

But I was proved wrong before.

>> Regarding cortisone elevation, I doubt that you need specifically
>> proteins to stop it from happening.
>
> It's not so much that proteins "stop" it from happening as "make up"
> for it happening...

It does stop it. If you don't eat post workout something must be broken
for fuel, so your body secrets break-down hormone to do the job. It
doesn't mean, that you need a protein shake though. Proteins aren't
best of fuels, carbs are.

> while cortisol and other catabolic hormones are
> breaking down muscle, protein synthesis is building up muscle, and the
> theory is that you come out ahead if you have a net protein gain....

Juicers don't support it, at least not much. If you need a lot of extra
protein for rebuilding, then people who train hardest and gain fastest
would need ungodly amounts of protein. Yet they don't. They gain best
by simply eating more.

>> Sugars probably would work just as
>> good (I think I've seen some studies on that, but it was long time ago),
>
> The sugars help induce the insulin which propels the protein....
>
>> and normal meal in most cases would have at least some amount of
>> quickly digesting foods to deal with immediate needs.
>
> Not as quick as liquid protein, is the claim.

I doubt that you need quick response in the first place. Insulin or
not.

[...]
>> Protein shakes are really mostly protein (unless stated otherwise), and
>> your body is able to absorb them well. Eating only shakes isn't best of
>> ideas, the same way as eating any other food source to the exclusion of
>> other sources. No single food is *that* complete.
>
> We're only talking protein here; one could certainly eat nothing but
> beef, tuna, etc., and get all one's protein needs.
>
> That's what I'm talking about: if protein shakes really are full of
> protein, then how come one couldn't simply live off of that -- as far
> as one's protein needs are concerned....

The reason is "protein poisoning" aka "rabbit disease". (hint - Google
told me he likes to eat keywords ;-))

>> They are useful in that term, that you will digest them. But I doubt
>> that you either need shakes, or even need much of extra protein. Honestly,
>> if shakes were such a great way of delivering needed nutrients, you'd have
>> juicers praising their merits all the time, but experienced juicers
>> simply eat a lot.
>
> If they "eat a lot," then that's "extra protein"....

Not when compared to a "clean diet". You can eat a ton of cottage
cheese and chicken breast, but it doesn't seem to work as well as eating
junk food.

>> First timers often start eating clean, then say how
>> much better they would be if they didn't follow all this clean eating
>> nonsense.
>
> Cleaning eating nonsense?? I don't know what you mean.

Clean eating. Egg whites, chicken breast, salads, fish oil, oatmeal or
whatever is somebody's idea of eating "clean".

> I don't know any juicers either, so I don't know that they aren't into
> protein shakes. Being druggies, I'd imagine they take all kinds of
> stuff, so I'd be surprised if they didn't also do protein shakes.

Some do, sure enough. Pete here did mention that he used it too, but he
also wrote about plenty of fast foods. In such cases it's hard to tell
what works, shakes or fast foods, but there are some who eat mostly junk
and there are some who try to maintain "clean" diet when on, and it seem
that clean diet on juice simply doesn't work well.

If a diet rich in protein is inferior to a diet with much lower protein
content then it's hard to say why one would need so much extra proteins
even without juice.

>> For me it looks like high protein "clean" diet is a good way to *control*
>> the amount of nutrients, not necessarily the best way of delivering
>> them.
>
> Well, yeah, we were talking about delivery systems, namely, liquid
> protein. Since liquids are more readily digested than solids, it
> follows that liquified protein delivers protein faster than solidified
> protein....

And why speed would matter, if your body can't rebuild itself fast
anyway?

>> Try it. I never did try them, but I used to blend cottage cheese with
>> some powdered milk, full milk and some sugar, which I ate with corn flakes
>> post-workout. I can't say much beyond that I simply liked it, but it
>> tasted pretty well.
>
> Well, that sounds like a home-made protein shake, is all! Indeed,
> there are recipes on the 'net for them....

It's rather a food shake than protein shake. It contains all
macronutrients, some fiber, and some micro-somethings probably too.
It's not a powdered placebo. ;-)

>> But if you want to speed up your gains, go with red meat. Also, stop
>> that jogging nonsense and start doing intervals and/or agility drills.
>> Jogging is purely catabolic.
>
> Purely catabolic????

Yes!!!!!

> Is that just another weightlifter's gym myth...

If facts can be myths, then yes.

> like how English majors
> tend not to like math, and vice-versa...I don't think it has to be the
> case...I might make faster gains by not jogging, but jogging is fun
> and aerobic health is important, too...

Do some intervals and check your heart rate. Besides, you don't have a
stroke while slowly jogging. You have a stroke while lifting something,
running after a bus, chasing a cat and in similar situations. Sudden
exertions, not slow and steady.

> I don't see how it's purely
> catabolic, or any more catabolic than weights...

That makes no sense at all. Google it, really.

> I think one simply has
> to recover properly -- nutrition and rest -- and it isn't about the
> exercise....

I already wrote about sympathetic and parasympathetic response to excess
training (or lack of recovery). Sudden bursts of activity (sprinting,
running uphill, throwing, lifting) are different stimulus and stressor
than steady jog. They make use of different energy pathways (anaerobic
and aerobic) and your body reacts very differently to them.

Do you know that long distance runners have one of the highest injury
rates and often problems with lack of sex hormones?

>> Cottage cheese and granulated powdered milk will work fine, as long as
>> you digest milk well.
>
> I actually use lactose-free milk with the protein shakes when I want a
> thicker consistency and a creamier taste.

I blended mine into semi-liquid paste.

>> It would be nice to hear how it worked in your case. In real life
>> nobody bothers about isocaloric this or that, so if shakes work, nobody
>> cares why they do it.
>
> Well, it's unfortunate people don't have much intellectual curiosity
> about how things work, but I'll be sure to give my impressions then.
> Already there have been a few sessions when I did not take as much
> protein supplementation as others (I usually do pre, intra, and post,
> but sometimes it's only been pre and post, or just post), and I have
> not noticed a difference....

Strange. Assuming all those spikes in insulin and protein absorption,
you should start growing like hell... ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Oct 10, 2:42 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The way I see it is that either muscles are rebuild for days or the
> window of opportunity is crucial. Both assumptions together don't make
> sense to me.
>
> But I was proved wrong before.

They are not mutually exclusive concepts. "Window of opportunity"
refers to an optimum state of protein synthesis. That protein
synthesis continues at a much reduced pace outside that window is a
separate, though related, matter.

> It does stop it. If you don't eat post workout something must be broken
> for fuel, so your body secrets break-down hormone to do the job. It
> doesn't mean, that you need a protein shake though. Proteins aren't
> best of fuels, carbs are.

We're not talking about "fuel" here -- your body can use fat stores,
if it gets to that point, particularly with aerobic exercises. Even
with weightlifting, I think protein is the last resort for the body.

Protein is about repairing muscle damage and building new muscle. The
importance of post-workout protein is that it helps with such
recovery. Fuel -- energy -- is about the carbs, you're right -