Bench For The Wench, Or All You Need To Know About The King Exercise

What up homos?

Doth thy bosom heave with the weight of mine absence?

THEN FUCKING PRESS IT OFF YOUR CHEST!

That's why we're here today. I love it, you love it, and more importantly, girls love it. I'm talking about the Exercise King. It ain't squats, doll faces. It's BENCH PRESS!

Aight actually bench press is far from being a favourite and I don't always throw it on my routines, but this is Gimmick World yo

So yeah, bench press. Why bench press? Because even though it's ridiculous, everybody will ask your bench press mark as a measurement of your strength. Because girls will love its aftermaths on your body, and niggas will be 'mirin.

Summarising, we bench press to crush our enemies, to see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

If you don't recognise the quotation... Man. You got problems.

Kinesiology of the Bench Press

I'd like to add more technical information in these series on compound movements with a colleague's work, whose knowledge on kinesiology and body mechanics is far deeper.

Movement Axes: Coronal (0.55), Sagital (0.45)

Shoulder: Horizontal adduction (0.55) + Flexion (0.45)

Shoulderblade-Chest cavity joint: Lateral rotation

Elbow: Extension. Forearm: Isometric flexion

Movement Skeletal Joints: Gliding (0.15), Angular (0.25), Circumduction (0.4), Rotation (0.2)

Agonists: Pectoralis major (Sternal)

*Origin/Insertion: 

Pec O: (Sternocostal head) Anterior surface of the sternum, aponeurosis of obliques (E), the superior six costal cartilages, anterior surface of medial half of clavicle (Clavicular head)

Pec I: Lip of intertubercular groove of humerus (Lateral)

Synergists: Pectoralis major (Clavicle), anterior deltoidis, teres major, coracobrachialis, triceps brachii, trapezius (U+L) short head of biceps, serratus anterior (16 extra subset muscles involved)

Antagonists: Posterior deltoidis, infraspinatus, teres minor, levator scapulae, rhomboids, *coracobrachialis, *trapezius (Med) (See: Lombard's Paradox, section [1])

Stabilizers: Short head of biceps brachii

Explanation: Grip stance at user's discretion (Pending user's height), legs as well. Shoulderblades fully adducted beforehand, recommended head placement as eyes are directly below barbell. As the exercise begins, eccentric contraction is to occur in the medial cross section of both the coronal and sagital planes. The reason behind it is the interlocking of the scapulas which do not allow for full RoM and create a heavier load effect upon the anterior deltoidis, which may result in injury. Erector spinae curve is permitted as long as user's bottom does not detach from the bench. Such phenomenon is a biomechanical tendency of the body to elevate pressure off smaller muscles (Pectoralis) and enhance effectiveness by involving the latissimus dorsi, as user's body is then more aligned with shoulder adduction (Agonist: Latissimus dorsi) at the coronal phase. This is also the reason why decline bench press is significantly easier than flat and incline bench presses. Full RoM is required, end of eccentric phase is to be when barbell touches the tip of middle chest (At the nipples or 5cm lower). End of concetric phase is to be at full elbow compression element (Locked).

This gives a very profound view of the exercise to all those with at least a decent base in kinesiology, but shall we delve deeper into the bench press and its variations?

I swear I was looking for a caption showing good form, but then this looked so much better...

What to do and what to choose.

For any guy who goes to the gym at least on a weekly basis, recognizing at least a couple of the variations here should not be a problem. The problem arises when we don't know what to do and end up doing a bunch of different exercises instead of focusing on what we should.

• Flat Bench Press: Not a variation per se, this is the normal execution and should be a staple in your routine, whether for mass or strength.

• Incline Bench Press: One of the favourites in every gym, but why? Barnett et al. tested several variations in 1995 looking for the mV/s in EMG, and their results corroborated what most people usually think. Indeed, with more trunk inclination comes more activity in the clavicular head of the Pectoralis Major, and also in the Deltoidis Anterior. It also showed that activity in the Pectoralis, unlike in the decline bench press, augmented with a wider grip. Therefore, a wide grip incline bench press could well be another staple.

• Decline Bench Press: First bump on the road. Most people swear by the decline, but is I worth it? According to the aforementioned study, decline showed lower activity in the Pectoralis, Deltoidis, and Triceps, and it only showed more recruitment in the Latissimus Dorsi. Therefore, I'd advise against doing decline bench press, and invest that time and energy in more useful exercises.

• Reverse Grip Bench Press: Another problem. Once again, this is an exercise that's been claimed to work better the Clavicular head of the Pectoralis Major. However, changing the grip can only change the load in more distal muscles (like those in the arms) and not medial (like those in the trunk). When you supinate your forearm, the point of insertion of the Pectoralis has not moved at all, since the humerus has not changed position. HOWEVER, a reverse grip, depending on user's flexibility, will usually force us to make an external rotation, which along with the narrower grip can emphasize the Deltoidis Anterior and Clavicular head of Pectoralis. This you can do with a pronated grip, though. This variation retains some merit, though, as it can relieve some stress from the shoulders. All in all, I would not advise throwing it in the routine.

• Guillotine or Neck Bench Press: Very often advised by the Iron Guru, Gironda, the neck press is seldom seen at gyms. Bret Contreras found that the Guillotine press had noticeably higher EMG activity in both upper, middle, and lower chest in peak activation, although they were similar and even lower in mean activation. The claimed superiority is due to allowing the Pectoralis fibers to contract optimally along its line of axis. However, it comes at the cost of greater stress for the rotator cuffs and the glenohumeral joint. Therefore, I'd advise leaving it aside until we're at least decently experienced, and try it out then. It can be a great exercise, and everyone's different, so if you notice no discomfort, go at it and reap dem gainz.

• Epic Bench Press: According to the latest research it's likely the highest contending suitor for both mean and peak EMG levels. The IPF is debating whether they should drop the traditional Bench Press and use this in competitions. Strongly advised for all ages and experiences.

Now, what else may you have doubts about? Of course! More variants pls.

• Dumbbells or barbell: In the previous study by B. Contreras, dumbbells showed greater activation. In general, dumbbells usually allow a more natural path, and are therefore advisable for all those with joint problems. They usually allow for a greater stretch and contraction, too, and are therefore superior for hypertrophy, in my opinion. Of course, if you compete in powerlifting, barbell should be your main concern. That being said, I'd advise using both when in a split routine and IF POSSIBLE.

• Full RoM or stop a few cms shy of the chest: I normally only consider a rep valid when there's full RoM, and we know that with full RoM come greater benefits, both in hypertrophy and mobility (it'd be hard to assess in terms of strength). However, it all depends on the individual. If you reach the same angle of horizontal abduction without touching your chest, because you're not arching your back, or retracting your shoulder blades, for example, who's there to say you shouldn't? Everybody advocates full RoM, and then advocates execution changes that shorten this. Do whatever works for you. However, I'd like to point out that those who don't do it because of mobility problems would be better off, probably, working on gaining movement in a range that should be normal for the glenohumeral joint, so that they can perform with better technique instead of worsening the problem by using heavier loads. Not to mention you have to touch and pause there if you train for powerlifting, and it's the part that most heavily trains and activates the chest, so no matter your objective, YOU'RE BETTER OFF TOUCHING.

• Arch or no arch: This should be pretty obvious. Are you training for powerlifting? Nice, arch that back. Are you not? Then I can fucking well assume you want to train your Pectoralis and not look like a bent idiot straining his Latissimus in a fucked up position. Are you training your ego or your chest? That's what I wanted to hear.

If you look like this when you bench press and you're not a competing powerlifter...

you're likely to have one chromosome too many.

Hopefully that will have solved lots of doubts, homos. Now you know what you gotta do. Make papa proud eh?

Peace out,

J.

Sources:

-Gozlan, L. Kinesiological View Of The Compounds. 2012

-Bernett, C., V. Kippers, and P. Turner. Effects of Variations of the Bench Press variations on the EMG of five shoulder muscles. J. Strength and Cond. 1995.

-Contreras, B. Inside The Muscles, Best Chest And Triceps Exercises. T Nation. 2010.

Minimalist Routines, Minimalist Gainz

What's up homos!

So, yeah, I'm probably going to hell for saying this. I mean, sure, all of these routines have been around for a while and are foolproof, and quite tested. HOWEVER (mind the caps yo), people don't usually think of the objectives these routines were created for. 

5x5 variations have been used for football, amateur, teen players for years. You really think the NFL players roll with just a couple sets? 5/3/1 is a nice routine, but when did Jim Wendler design it? After stop competing. That doesn't take from the fact that he's still strong as fuck, but why would you use it? As I mentioned here, you can almost always cope with more volume. Yes, you heard that right. I know it hurts for those who think they are the hardest ass out there, but 3 sets of squats is hardly taxing shit. Deadlifting once per week? Well deadlifts are really easy to improve, but don't you think you can get away with more, especially if you do ONLY ONE FUCKING SET?

So many of these routines make you work off a fake 1RM (90% of your real one) and then do a percentage breakdown from there, resulting in strength working sessions with 60-70% of your 1RM. Of course every rep helps in terms of building a little bit of muscle here, and improving neuromuscular coordination there, but it probably gets better with more intensity ya know?

So there, we usually have either puny volume or shitty intensity. Hey, nothing wrong with it; I am a proponent of lifelong training, and taking it as a ways, a lifestyle, and not as something you bust your ass doing for 2 years and then give up. So is my stance, and so is Mao's in MFQH. 

The problem arises when people are not really satisfied with their results. Nowadays, you see, bodybuilding has gotten a bad rep, and thus most new lifters hop on the strength bandwagon simply because bodybuilding used to be the mainstream shit. Nobody can give in and accept they'd like to look better. 

Nah, we need functional strength, "relative" strength and not net total, and a heavy ass squat to make up for our two incher. 

Most of the people, though, after toying with strength training for a while, get tired of looking almost the same, and transfer to other routines, or give up. 

You're really interested in strength? Be my guest. 

You're simply deluded and denying your objectives? Fuck you, pay me.

If you don't recognise the quote, or you don't know who Paul Sorvino is, you have worse problems than your routine.

Why not try for once something different? Get your balls to the wall and dare do singles, doubles, and triples if you train for strength. I'm no telling you to base your training on that alone, but it helps with strength. Why not more sets? People REALLY underestimate the role of volume. You could probably build more strength on a 10x10, a traditional bodybuilding template, than with 3 sets of 5 reps, believe me. Do that everyday? Not necessarily, but doing higher reps and especially higher sets will help with your objectives almost always, be it strength or hypertrophy.

So let's summarise a little for the guys with special education needs and shit

• Fucking first of all and I cannot stress this enough, come to terms with yourfuckingself. You want hypertrophy? Then do hypertrophy.

• I won't tell you to ditch your old routine. But next time you finish a mesocycle, take a reload week off, and try some new ideas do a good 3-4 months. You got nothing to lose.

• Go harder. You can almost always go harder. Eat more, rest more. This is your new mantra.

So let's see what you could do in those months:

• Fullbody and lower/upper are great. P/P/L is great although it's way too much sacrifice for most. Find your comfy zone.

• Up those sets. Doing a couple exercises for 5 sets each per muscle group is a nice way to start.

• Strength training? Try some doubles. Hypertrophy? Ever toyed with 10x10? Give it a try, and you'll love it.

• Make sure each set counts. Hint, it doesn't if you're stopping like 8 fucking reps shy of failure.

So, that'll be all for today, no fancy studies or science to back up shit up in dis bitch now. Just pure, honest hard work, and good gains. Sin cojones no hay gloria.

Peace out,

J

"Eat Often, Dem Muscles Soften", Or A Take On Meal Timing

Greetings, brohegans.

Been some time huh? Yeah, bring the hate. I've been slacking, and you've been missing me. I can totally understand, I'm just that good. Please don't post below to disagree with this specific point.

I wanted to write today on meal timing. After some interesting discussions on fasting in MFQH, and Shane's take on IF, I decided it was too recurrent a topic not to write on it.

I already covered one of the most spread faces of meal timing, the anabolic window, here. 

As you already know, this is one of the most resilient myths in the industry. But I'm coming too early (pun not intended, although my girlfriend would disagree) on this. Why did I call meal timing a myth? And whence did it came?

We have to examine first why the people who support these ideas do so. Keeping meal frequency high has often been preached in fitness circles, especially bodybuilding, but also among people who were trying to diet down. We'll take a look at both.

Eat frequently to lose weight. Easy, right?

The mother of all myths. You must have heard this a hell of a lot.

"Nah, bro, fuck three meals a day. Eat every hour to stoke the metabolic fire!".

It'd be very ironic not to admit I used to believe this, to be honest. Fortunately for all of us, internet has brought an era of free information like none before for everyone who's willing to put in some effort and learn. The catch? You have to learn what advice to heed, as well, and sadly, you can find these myths in maaany more websites than you can find blunt truth backed up by studies.

I frankly think it may have arised by a wrong grasp on TEF. TEF stands for Thermic Effect of Food, and refers, roughly speaking, to the amount of energy that is lost in the form of heat when digesting macronutrients. Indeed, eating stokes your metabolic fire, but the people preaching these myths have so far failed to mention TEF is totally portion dependent.

As it is, if we consider isocaloric and with equally divided macros diets, we reach the same TEF with different meals.

Let's consider a TEF of 20% for the food we eat, and a daily intake of 2000kcal.

Diet #1:

1. 9AM, 1000kcal meal. 200kcal TEF.
2. 1PM, 500kcal meal. 100kcal TEF.
3. 5PM, 250kcal meal. 50kcal TEF.
4. 9PM, 250kcal meal. 50kcal TEF.

With a net total of 400kcal TEF, a 20% of 2000kcal, our daily set intake.

Diet #2:

1. 7PM, 1500kcal meal. 300kcal TEF.
2. 9PM, 500kcal meal. 100kcal TEF.

A total net of 400kcal TEF, again.

Indeed, and according to this, Bellisle et al. found no differences in 1997 with body calorimeters and measuring energy expenditure any difference between more, smaller meals, and fewer, bigger ones.

Now, we know that more meals don't lead to higher TEF, but we also have studies supporting the evidence that fewer meals may be even better! As it is, Leidy et al. tried in 2010 to determine how much meal frequency mattered, and divided their test subjects into groups with normal and high protein, and 3 or 6 daily meals. Well, results showed that the higher protein groups reported better fullness. Take this with a pinch of salt, because they also showed higher ghrelin levels.

You have the information. Use it responsibly.

Eat frequently to build muscle. 

This is but the other side of the same coin. It is based usually on the myth regarding protein absorption, which has been know from the 90's to be of about 5g/hour for most usual proteins, although some fast digesting ones like whey have rates upwards to 10g/hour. However, and contradicting the myth, you still have EEA in your bloodstream 5-10 hours after having eaten, as you may have guessed by now. So whence comes the problem?

Again, the most likely culprit is the "legit research" conducted by supplement companies. Of course, it'd be great for them if this were actually true, and you had to eat protein every 2-3 hours. Can you imagine how much whey they'd sell? 

So, what can we make of all this?

• Meal frequency is irrelevant when trying to lose weight. Net caloric expenditure remains as the really important to factor in determining body changes.

• Meal frequency is irrelevant when trying to gain weight. Again, net caloric expenditure trumps over. Only in cases where very little protein has been consumed should we worry about upping frequency. However, that may not be the best idea, as some studies have also found that the more frequently and in smaller quantities you eat protein, the likelier it is to be used for energetic instead of structural purposes.

• Fasting helps with hunger control management. I'd frankly recommend a protocol like IF or similar when trying to lose weight, as it'll help you to be in a deficit without hunger.

• Energy balance is key, as we've seen. However, fasting may not be the best approach while bulking, as you usually have to deal with decently higher kcal intakes.

• In the end... The best diet is whichever you can adhere to, as usual. Don't forget that results usually come from perseverance and not from perfect planning.

Peace,

J.

Sources:

-Bellisle, McDevitt R, Prentice AM, Meal frequency and energy balance, 1997, British Journal of Nutrition.

-Leidy, Armstrong CL, Tang M, Mattes RD, Campbell WW, The influence of higher protein intake and greater eating frequency on appetite control in overweight and obese men, 2010.

The Slower, The Stronger, Or A Take On Time Under Tension

Greetings, Brethren of the Iron Cult.

Today, it is my intention to take you out of your comfort zone. Nah, no groping, it'll be worse.

I know you think you work hard, but... How hard are you working? Yeah, I know. You bench 100kg! How comes everybody always guesstimates his strength at a 100kg bench?

Truth is, if you really go to the gym with the hopes of ripping sleeves, you may need to worry a little less about the weight and a little more about the execution of the lift.

This guy definitely leaves the ego at the door. Do you?

We all know hypertrophy requires a good diet (a minimum amount of protein, a positive balance energetic state, etc), and a good routine. But the latter is seldom paid enough attention. What frequency are you using? What volume? Fortunately, people are more aware about the former as of late, and the latter was always higher than necessary for most gym-goers. But what about execution?

Within this we can consider reaching failure and Time Under Tension, henceforth referred as TUT. Most people aiming for hypertrophy usually reach failure alright (they've watched Pumping Iron I guess?), but not many pay attention to their tempos. And I'm sorry to bear bad news, but throwing the weights around without giving two fucks about form or TUT is not benefitting you.

We all know that slowing tempos can help to avoid momentum, but slowing the concentric can turn the reps into grinders and make you use less weight than you could. That's bad, mmmkay?

What about slowing it especially in the eccentric phase? You can still do fast, even explosive concentrics, and thus use heavier weight, and slow it down in the eccentric, enough to produce the metabolic stress you're seeking.

Tanimoto et al tested 36 lifters, and had two different groups do 5 basic compounds, with group 1 using 55-60% of 1RM with tempos 3-0-3-0, and group 2 using 80% of 1RM with tempos 1-0-1-1. Both aimed for 8 reps, trained twice a week, and followed this protocol for 13 weeks. The results? Group 1 increased muscle thickness by 6.8 +/- 3.4% and 1RM strength by 33.0 +/- 8.8%, whereas group 2 did by 9.1 +/- 4.2%, and increased their 1RM strength by 41.2 +/- 7.6%. Pretty significant, given group 1 was probably working below their full capacity (they were using only 55-60% of 1RM after all).

Nicholas et al had 8 test subjects perform three sets of unilateral knee extension exercise at 30% of one-repetition maximum strength with either 6-0-6-0 or 1-0-1-0 tempos. Protein synthesis, which was checked through vastus lateral is biopsies, showed an increase of 114% in the slow tempo group, and 77% in the fast one. In this one, we can see better results due to not having such a high discrepancy between the intensities used. We must note, however, that both groups worked to failure.

Cameron et al split 18 test subjects in 3 groups, with leg trainings of 3 sets of 30% of 1RM, 3 sets of 80% of 1RM, or 1 set of 80% of 1RM. Working to failure, 3 times a week, and 10 weeks. The usual jazz. Well, apparently no significant differences were found between the two 3-set groups in terms of muscle protein synthesis, and only the group which had done a single set had had worse results.

I like numbers. They make me feel smart and shit.

What can we make of all this?

When test subjects reached failure, intensity was slightly influential, but nowhere near decisive, in comparison to total volume. Total work load determined the highest group MPS when the rest of the variables were equal in tested groups.

When test subjects reached failure using slow tempos instead of faster reps, they showed higher MPS.

What can you do?

• This can't be stressed enough. If you're working for strength, you should work it rather than test it. Other way to say it is "leave your ego outside the gym". This is especially important for hypertrophy lifters.

• Working to failure is good yo.

• Working beyond failure is even gooder.

• Forced reps, or having your routine include negatives, is goodest.

• "Both 3-set groups had the same MPS, but I'd rather lift heavy". Yeah, well, guess what group could aim for higher volume without frying their CNS.

• We know volume and TUT are cornerstones for hypertrophy, and high frequency trumps over everything in my experience. Aiming for high volume while maintaining frequency 2 or 3 is a great way to work for hypertrophy, and strength. Full body, upper/lower, and L/P/P are great ways to train. Probably you don't need to do over 8-12 sets per MG and day. Forget about your 50 sets old chest day which took you nowhere. Keep your reps moderately high. MPS was shown equal for both groups, but the one with higher reps will be able to do higher volume without taxing their CNS as much. Now that's quite a thing eh?

Stay around,

J

Sources:

Manimoto, Sanada K, Yamamoto K, Kawano H, Gando Y, Tabata I, Ishii N, Miyachi M. Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men. Journal for  Strength Conditioning Research. 2008

Nicholas A Burd, Richard J Andrews, Daniel WD West, Jonathan P Little, Andrew JR Cochran, Amy J Hector, Joshua GA Cashaback, Martin J Gibala, James R Potvin, Steven K Baker, and Stuart M Phillips. Muscle time under tensiontension during resustance exercise stimukates differential muscle protein sub-fractional protein responses in men. J Physiol, 2012

Cameron J. Mitchell, Tyler A. Churchward-Venne, Daniel D.W. West, Nicholas A. Burd, Leigh Breen, Steven K. Baker, and Stuart M. Phillips. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2012

To All The Carnivores I Loved

Did that sound gay? Yeah it probably did.

To all the lifters in the place, with style and grace, would you please raise your hand if you've been told before meat is bad? 

Flexing guns ain't necessary, thanks. 

So yeah, probably most of us have faced that claim in our hoisting-devoted lives at least once. "You need more veggies", or "meat is bad". Almost on par with the arguments against busting a nut (at least eating meat doesn't fuck your sight), these people usually brandish the worst type of bullshit you'll ever encounter: scientific bullshit.

Indeed, vegetarianism (and veganism) was incredibly supported during the last quarter of the last, pathetic century. Along with pop music, people descended into the uttermost phaggotry by supporting veganism, political correction, and every other side of sheer stupidity. Good bye real men who ate 2kg steaks and fled civilisation on huge Harley-Davidson bikes at the cry of "fuck pollution" to rape coyotes in the desert. Now we drink fat free water, listen to whoever is famous that week, and, sometimes, fuck trees. Of course, it was the era when most gurus would chant the benefits of munching on grass.

No more meat?!

But weep not, noble men, for today the "vegetarianism for health reasons" flag has been burnt and pissed on. 

Burkert et al. from the henceforth glorious Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, in Graz, Austria, has come up with some very, very interesting results after testing 1320 individuals and their eating behaviours. 

Apparently, vegetarians had a lower average BMI, and were unlikelier to drink alcohol, but they also ended with higher percentages in illness biomarkers. Test subjects on more common diets (carnivorous with fruit and vegetables) showed less incidence or tendency to develop cancer, allergies, or mental health ailments. The icing on the cake? Vascular risk, the long preferred argument of pro-veganists, was found to be the same in both groups, and moreover, a lower animal fat intake was linked to poorer health. 

Of course, this doesn't entail that a vegetarian diet may be the cause of poorer health; I won't incur in cum hoc fallacious argumenta. God forbid. Tested subjects could have opted for a vegetarian diet due to their already weakened health condition, but we can't deny the light the study has shed. 

Of course, there's another side to it. Vegetarian diets have been found to be linked with lower cholesterol levels (Appleby et al.) or found a higher life expectancy in vegans.

So, what can we make of all this?

• Vegetarian/Vegan diets may have been linked to poorer health partly because of the general lack of knowledge about nutrition many of their practitioners may suffer. A more restricted aminogram, and lower levels of certain micronutrients (or a lack thereof) could be the culprit. If you plan to go veggie, perhaps you should consider supplementing B12, iodine, calcium, iron, and vitamin D. This is not as crucial for vegetarians, who can rely on better protein sources to maintain bone density and health, besides muscle. Omega-3 fatty acid levels were also found to be lower in vegetarians (WH Wu).

• I totally understand people not wanting to eat animal products for ethical reasons, but they should be aware that these diets are not only not necessarily healthier, but also could be unhealthier.

• Given the audience of the blog is the lifting community mainly... You probably should eat meat or fish if you want to grow bigger or stronger. IIFYM is a thing, but it won't work wonders when your protein intake lacks certain aminoacids.

• Conversely, you should eat fruit and vegetables every day. Taking a multi vitamin may be nice to cover whatever micro nutrient you may be deficient in, but you have to factor in fiber intake as well.

Stay around,

J

Sources:

Paul N Appleby, Margaret Thorogood, Jim I Man & Timothy JA Kay, The Oxford Vegetarian Study, The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, 1999.

WH Wu et al, Effects of docosahexaenoic acid supplementation on blood lipids, estrogen metabolism, and in vivo oxidative stress in postmenopausal vegetarian, European Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, 2005.

Nathalie T. Burkert, Johanna Muckenhubber, Franziska Grobßschädl, Éva Rásky, & Wolfgang Freidl, Nutrition And Health - The Association Between Eating Behaviour And Health Parameters, A Matched Sample Study, PLOSONE, 2014.

How Much Protein Do You Need Or "They Shall Call Me Jack The Butcher"

Sup kneegrows,

This is a pretty recurrent thread. If any of you guys happen to lift (which you may, but do you even?) you surely have come across this age old question before:

"Bro how much protein do I need?"

We all know protein is key. Yeah you heard that right you grass-loving hippie. If Nixon were still in office you'd be guilty of phaggotry and condemned to 25 steaks and a chicken wing.

In fact, if any of you apes studied Greek you should know that protein comes from a term from the aforementioned language, proteios, meaning primary. That adjective fits its noun pretty well, given protein helps in maintaining and building both muscle and the skeleton, catalyses metabolism reactions, transports shit throughout that pathetic excuse for a body you're trying to change, and above all, and the role we're interested in, it is necessary to GET JACKED.

We can agree now that it IS important, right?

This wolf knows where it's at. Then again, wolves are so badass they probably don't give a shit.

Ok, so now that we've put facts forward, does the average Joe need more? If by average Joe we understand somebody who does even lift, YEAH.

But how much is more? Many people (among whom I can count myself) fall short of their protein OPTIMAL intake. Some others, on the other hand, go way beyond that line. We'll see why neither is the best approach.

First of all, what does the body use protein for, besides structural reason? Mainly what we saw above, and also to provide a supply of energy through gluconeogenesis, that is, the synthesis of glucose from aminoaclike   Is this the best method, cost effectiveness? Hardly.

For structural (building mussels yo) reasons, let's see how much the body can process.

Some (Tarnopolski et al, Walberg et al) found that you could maintain positive nitrogenic balance with as little as 0.8g/kg. We have to say, though, that tested subjects were elite bodybuilders, with a very adapted metabolism already, meaning they break down much less protein in results to training (this has been backed up by many other scientists, like Rennie & Tipton, Moore et al, and Hartman, Phillips, Moore). 

Tarnopolski also found that after two weeks, no differences were shown when consuming 1.4g/kg or 2.4g/kg in total protein synthesis.
Phillips and Van Loon added two standard deviations and went as high as 1.8g/kg. However, in most instances the highest mean value taken from studies is 1.7g/kg. And that was seen in test subjects who were pretty likely to have better protein assimilation than normal people do, like elite athletes or bodybuilders.


So what do we have?

• 0.81g/lb or 1.7g/kg is a very sensible number to aim for. No, you don't train harder than the test subjects, and thus need more. If anything, you may need much less.

• AAS users have a much higher capacity to synthesise protein, and therefore should consume more. How much though...? Sadly, I haven't found any literature regarding this issue, but many people go for 3-3.5g/kg (and I think you're pushing it at 3.5-4) with excellent results.

• Should you take less? Unless on a tight budget (protein rich foods are usually the most expensive) you should try to aim for that. Whey protein can be found at very nice prices. Look out for deals and buy in bulk, it'll last for very long.

• Should you take more? Unless you don't keep track of your macros and you give two shits about being in a 1k kcal surplus, more protein will entail less carbs/fats, and thus worse power output.

• Should you eat always less than 30g because the body won't process more? Nope. Eat it all in once sitting if you will, although some research seem to point out that spreading your meals out helps raise your protein synthesis.
• Do you need to take that protein immediately after training? No. Read here why.

• Does that mean you're better off snacking on protein all day? Hardly. Some studies also show that the steadier the supply with little amounts of protein, the more it is oxidised instead of used for structural processes.

• I'm a vegetarian, wat do? Well, if you're a vegetarian, you can still have dairy products, and eggs. Literally you keep the best sources.

• I'm a vegan. Drinking milk makes sweet baby Jesus cry at night. Ok, you still have powders derived from pea, soy, or wheat protein. Keep in mind these will lack in certain aminoacids, so buying separately those would be good. In food sources, look for beans, lentils, chickpeas, tofu, etc.

Don't worry, little buddy, there's some hope for you too!

So summarising! 1.7g/kg is plenty. If you are really concerned about protein synthesis, trying to spread your intake in more meals could be good, but don't lose sleep over that if it interferes with your life. On the long term, since we don't live for this (unless I have drawn the attention of a professional bodybuilder, or any strength athlete), the best diet is that you can stick to for the longest time.

Peace,

J

Sources:

Walberg JL, Leidy MK, Sturgill DJ, Hinkle DE, Ritchey SJ, Sebolt DR. Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet affects nitrogen retention and muscle function in weight lifters.  Int J Sports Med. 1988 Aug;9(4):261-6

Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93.

Phillips SM, Van Loon LJ. Dietary protein for athletes: From requirements to optimum adaptation. J Sports Sci. 2011;29 Suppl 1:S29-38.

Hartman, J. W., Moore, D. R., & Phillips, S. M. (2006). Resistance training reduces whole-body protein turnover and improves net protein retention in untrained young males. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 31, 557–564.

The Anabolic Window, Or "Hurry Bro I Gotta Have My Shake!"

Greetings,

Gather round, brethren, for today a most ubiquitous issue haunts us. Tread lightly. Catabolism lurks in the shadows, ready to feast upon our hardly achieved gainz.

Bullshit.

I know this may be a dying myth, but also a pretty resilient at that. Plenty of people still live by the 30 minutes rule. "Take the shower at home bro I gotta have my shake or otherwise this session will have been useless!"

Allow me to present a rebuttal. But before that, let's properly define the "anabolic window", as proposed by most supplement companies and 135lbs soaking wet gurus. The anabolic window is a period of time during which you have to eat, especially protein, not to hinder gains. Some even claim that gains can be null without this post workout shake/meal. Some have even claimed that timing the intake may even play a bigger role than net daily energetic balance towards changes in body composition. We have before us, then, a really wide spread notion.

This wouldn't have happened if he had had his low GI high fructose corn syrup with casein, by Bull Hit Nutrition.

This seems to be a very favorable notion for supplement companies that live on their customers' naivete. Indeed, who else could have spread such a myth? Who benefits from it? Exactly. Some critical thinking is usually good, boys. Throw some sets into your routine.

Fortunately, many actually educated people fight on our behalf day after day. Many nutritionists and coaches have been trying to debunk this and other myths in the last decades, much to the aforementioned companies' dismay. Let's see what some of them have to say.

Among other variables, the most often preached benefits of the post workout shakes are their seemingly uncanny glycogen stores refilling properties, and the ability to raise protein synthesis.

Glycogen stores repletion

Given the traditional target of these companies' advertisements are bodybuilders, powerlifters, and weightlifting practitioners in general, a sport where most of our fuel will come from glycolysis, glycogen repletion should be something to be concerned about.

In several studies (MacDougall et al, Robergs et al), an elbow flexion at 80% 1RM, from 1 to 3 sets in the different studies, showed results indicating that the glycogen stores had been depleted, from as little as 12% from a single set to as much as 24.1% from 3 sets of 12RM.

It's been noted that a super compensation occurs when adding a carbohydrate shake immediately after training, and apparently delaying it for two hours can reduce this glycogen re-synthesis for as much as 50%.

What's the point of working out if you miss your anabolic window bro? May as well start doing cardio.

However, these same studies show that routines ranging in the 5-10 sets of volume per muscle group depleted as much as 30-40% of the glycogen. Therefore, unless a trainee were to workout several times a day, his glycogen stores would have time to recover. When upping the volume to 20+ sets, almost total depletion occurred, but these high volume routine are usually arranged in a low frequency protocol, as well.

Other study (Parkin et al) compared the differences in glycogen levels after 8 and 24h in groups that had taken a high GI carbohydrate shake immediately after training, and another one which had a normal replenishing meal hours after having trained, and found no differences.

Protein synthesis

What else, right? La pièce de résistance of every anabolic window theorist. Fuck glycogen depletion, what boys out there really care about is how much will their bulging biceps make up for their underdeveloped lower limbs (feel free to think of it as a double entendre). Protein synthesis is the really only important matter. Well, let's see what science says.

First of all, muscle protein synthesis is highly increased (as much as 200%) post exercise when using resistance training. This is counteracted by the catabolic (oh, NNNNOOOOEEES!!1!!one!!) effect of faster proteolysis.

It's generally acknowledged that eating post workout raises protein synthesis, although the existence of the anabolic window is argued still. One study (Levenhagen et al) showed a threefold increased when consuming a shake with protein, carbohydrates and fats immediately after training, whereas waiting 2 hours to take it showed only a 12% increase. These results, however, were attributed to increased mitochondrial/sarcoplasmic protein fractions instead of contractile elements (Brad Schoenfeld & Alan Aragon) due to the aerobic nature of the exercise in the study.

On the other hand, Rasmussen et al found no difference in amino acid net value when the shake was taken 1 or 3 hours afterwards. Conversely, Tipton et al found no difference when the protein shake was taken 1 hour before or after workout. Yup.

You'd better hurry and crawl in while it's open like you're Frodo at the Black Gate!

So what to do, after all this? Needless to say, it seems that the research fails to prove vehemently the existence of the infamous anabolic window. However, and the foregoing notwithstanding (I wanted to sound smart yo), bashing on the people who choose to take advantage of the anabolic window seems very arrogant. Research doesn't prove its definite existence, (if we take the definition of 1 hour window, a replenishing meal following workout as late as 3-4 hours later is still highly advised), but it doesn't prove it wrong either. As it is, trying to take any small benefit may be good, as long as the benefits are worth the hassle.

So what do we have?

• In low volume (circa 5-10 sets/MG), high frequency routines, there's not much need to worry about glycogen depletion because of the smaller portion of the stores these protocols use.

• In high volume (20 and upwards) there's a real concern, but the lower frequency makes up for that.

• Having a protein shake immediately afterwards may help raise MPS. I'd advise taking it if we can, although given the lack of definite proof I wouldn't go out of my way to do that.

• Many studies showed that what caused a dramatic change in MPS was the net protein intake, and not its timing. I'd advise aiming for 1.8g/kg of bodyweight, which is so far the maximum proved to be used by the body for structural reasons. Here you can see how much protein you need.

Stay safe,

J

Sources:

 MacDougall JD, Ray S, Sale DG, McCartney N, Lee P, Garner S: Muscle substrate utilization and lactate production.

Can J Appl Physiol 1999, 24(3):209-15.

 Robergs RA, Pearson DR, Costill DL, Fink WJ, Pascoe DD, Benedict MA, Lambert CP, Zachweija JJ: Muscle glycogenolysis during differing intensities of weight-resistance exercise.

J Appl Physiol 1991, 70(4):1700-6. 

 Parkin JA, Carey MF, Martin IK, Stojanovska L, Febbraio MA: Muscle glycogen storage following prolonged exercise: effect of timing of ingestion of high glycemic index food.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997, 29(2):220-4.

 Levenhagen DK, Gresham JD, Carlson MG, Maron DJ, Borel MJ, Flakoll PJ:Postexercise nutrient intake timing in humans is critical to recovery of leg glucose and protein homeostasis.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001, 280(6):E982-93.

 Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR: Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2001, 281(2):E197-206.

 Tipton KD, Elliott TA, Cree MG, Aarsland AA, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR: Stimulation of net muscle protein synthesis by whey protein ingestion before and after exercise.

Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2007, 292(1):E71-6.