Printable View
When is the best time to lift in the day? Morning, afternoon, night?
I don't believe it's night but I'm hard pressed to decided on morning or afternoon. Morning means you get more meals and protein intake before sleep but perhaps your body needs to sleep sooner after lifting? I think most muscle growth is done during sleep.
Thoughts? I'm clueless.
A lot depends on your goals, but usually most peoples bodies are good to go a couple hours after waking up. If your looking to lose, then I would say definitely early AM since the body is in a fasted state and it will energize the metabolism most of the day. But for strength and body building, most go with their body and lift when they feel strongest, and that is usually a couple hours or so after their first meal. Too late is tougher since the body is weaker, and you have had a mentally or physically challenging day. Most pros have a 10 or 11am session and have a shake right after, then 1 hour later a full lunch. Then an evening session, for smaller muscle groups or specialty training that requires less effort.
Doesn't matter, and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know the research. Really the only time to not lift is immediately upon waking when your spine cannot handle compression nearly as well (not to mention nervous system is just weak), but that goes away shortly after awakening. Nutrient timing also has no research to back it, at least it didn't as of about 1.5 years ago (which was the last I studied this stuff). The best we know is simply just daily totals of nutrients and rest (assuming it's handled non-stupidly).
However, personal preference and everything that goes along with that DOES matter, but that wasn't your question.
in my experience there is no 'perfect' time to lift. just do it when it best works in with your schedule. keep in mind that you are going to want proper nutrition to see any serious (weight loss or muscle gain) results. i usually lift right before my lunch or dinner, and usually have a protein filled snack (shake or powerbar) before i go lift. lifting on an empty stomach is basically worthless cause you will run out of energy very fast.
On my cardio days I do it in the AM on an empty stomach b/c otherwise I'd get to re-taste most of the days meals. I do some high-intensity cardio though, not sure how my stomach would handle some lower-intensity workouts.
When I life I do it after work. I don't have the time in the morning to eat a meal, down a shake, let my stomach settle, and lift for an hour. Because of that I'll up the carbs on lifting days and workout later at night.
You're not supposed to eat for at least 2 hours before a race if running. 1 hour should be ok, but I can still feel it if, especially if I eat chipotle or something 1 hour before.
I make sandwiches and fruit at work (1/4lb chicken or turkey usually). I eat one around 11 and one around 3. That way when I get home I can work out without being starving and without feeling sick.
I often lift weights and then immediately go home and take a nap (after ingesting protein in some form). Bad?
This is what my friend told me who gets trained by some former olympian.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
But others say it doesn't matter? I haven't done my research but fuck I'll stop waking up early if this is the case.
Waht the hell are you talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
What is the best time to train? First and foremost, when you can! However, research on circadian rhythms (your body's internal clock) indicate that the summation of several important (anabolic) hormones peak at 3 and 11 hours upon awakening. What does that mean in plain english? Well, according to science, if you wake up at 6:00 am, you are at your strongest at 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. And, according to Olympic Strength Coach Charles Poliquin*, your joints (specifically, the synovial fluid that lubricates your joints) require about 3 hours to reach an optimal level of warmth which will help improve performance while decreasing the likelihood of injury. Also, some people require a meal before training (remember to allow at least 1 hour for digestion) to maintain adequate energy levels throughout their workout particularly in the morning; others don't. However, there is a difference between ideal conditions and reality!
Reality dictates that we train when we can regardless of what time it is. The important part is to get your workout in. Today's lifestyle is quite busy and hectic. Many people have a tendency to jeopardize their workouts later in the day because other priorities get in the way. For these individuals, I suggest working out first thing in the morning and getting it out of the way. Actually, some authorities believe that training first thing in the morning on an empty stomach will facilitate weight loss. Greg Landry is an Exercise Physiologist who highly recommends exercise in the morning for the following reasons (for more information send a blank email to [email protected] or visit http://www.Landry.com):
* 90% of people exercise consistently in the morning
* elevates metabolism and makes you feel energized all day long
* helps to regulate appetite
* makes it easier to wake up; hormones and metabolism elevate while you sleep to prepare your body for exercise
* mental acuity is increased for 4-10 hours after exercise
While others believe that you should train at night because your strength will be higher since you have eaten during the day and energy levels should be elevated. Although, I would caution late night workouts as they may adversely affect sleep.
According to the opinion of Dr. Ann de Wees Allen, a Board Certified Doctor of Naturopathy, the above question should be rephrased: Are you a morning or night person? It's really that simple. She believes that we respond better during certain periods of the day and those are the times that we should train.
As stated above, this reflects our circadian rhythm - something that we are born with and cannot change. Subsequently, there will be times during the day that we are the strongest. This does not happen by chance. You must recognize those times and use them to your advantage. So, the answer, in her opinion, will have a big impact on your performance. Does it mean that you can't workout at other times? No! But, it is a good idea to train at the same time each workout if possible - your body will naturally adjust to that time and prepare itself. If you are forced to change your workout time ,though, to accommodate your schedule, then allow 3 weeks for your body to get used to the new time (especially if you are unaccustomed to training first thing in the morning.) It usually takes about 3 weeks to form a habit. Whatever you decide ... just make sure to train!
Quote:
Most people know not to eat a gallon of Ben and Jerry’s before an intense workout and that drinking water to hydrate a sweating body is good. That guidance is okay as far as it goes, but operating a complex machine such as the human body with only a meager list of such maxims is akin to feeding a racehorse Mountain Dew and cheesecake so he’ll speed from the sugar—you can do better.
John Ivy
Dr. John Ivy
Dr. John Ivy, chairperson of the Department of Kinesiology and Health Education in the College of Education at The University of Texas at Austin, has spent the past thirty years looking at simple, healthy options for building strength, endurance and muscle mass. What he has discovered is that timing is everything.
For decades, serious athletes as well as hard-pushing weekend warriors have searched for the holy grail of exercise nutrition, following one trend after another in an effort to capture the magic formula that increases strength, endurance and lean muscle mass.
Conventional wisdom in the late 1960s and early 1970s pointed to carbo-loading as a way to super-saturate muscles with carbohydrate and fuel cross-country skiers as well as long-distance runners and endurance cyclists. For strength athletes, that paradigm was flipped on its head and protein intake was stressed.
With each new wave of information and fad-following, the one element that often seemed to be missing was strong, conclusive scientific substantiation.
When Ivy, a world-renowned expert on the role of nutrition in exercise performance, began to study the maximization of physical performance, his research concentrated on the cellular level and a somewhat overlooked element of nutrition—timing. His goal was to explain, in scientific terms, why an athlete sees particular effects when she supplements at specific times with certain nutrients.
“When you exercise,” says Ivy, “the muscles become very sensitive to certain hormones and nutrients, and you can initiate many highly desirable training adaptations if you make sure the correct nutrients are present. This increased sensitivity of the muscles only lasts for a limited length of time, so the element of time becomes absolutely crucial. If you miss this window of opportunity, there’s no way you can stimulate the muscle adaptations to that extent until after the next bout of exercise.”
To understand Ivy’s breakthrough findings, it’s helpful to revisit Biology 101 and look at the delicate, elaborate symphony of hormone activity and energy replenishment occurring behind the scenes when you run, swim, power-lift, ski or cycle.
Three Misconceptions About Exercise Nutrition: For exercise lasting fewer than 45 minutes, water is fine. You have 18-20 hours after workout to restore muscles. Carbohydrate is nutrient for aerobic athletes, and protein is nutrient for strength athletesAs with any good high-performance product, a contracting muscle needs fuel. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is the only energy source that can drive muscle contraction, but, like a car that gets two miles to the gallon, muscles can only store enough ATP for a few seconds of high intensity contraction. If muscle contraction is going to be sustained, and you want to keep sprinting or pedaling up a steep incline, the muscle needs this ATP to be continuously replenished.
Fortunately, the body has ways of generating more ATP and keeping the marathon-runner running and the soccer player blocking goals. Through the anaerobic pathway, glycogen and creatine phosphate rush to provide rapid energy for intense bursts of activity as you speed from third base to home plate. Through the aerobic pathway, fat, carbohydrate and protein fill the void and are used to provide sustained energy with much more efficiency than the anaerobic pathway.
As systems scramble to meet the muscles’ appetite for ATP, wear and tear on the body can occur, leaving you tired, dehydrated and with reduced blood volume, a compromised immune system and muscle damage. The degree of the negative effects correlates with the intensity and duration of exercise.
“What we found in our studies,” says Ivy, “is that you can recover more effectively, work out harder more frequently, increase muscle mass and enhance the physical adaptations that are happening when you exercise just by minding what supplements you use and when you supplement.”
Ivy tested distance runners, triathletes and strength athletes between the ages of 19 and 35, hoping to determine what allowed for the fastest recovery of muscle glycogen, a key fuel for contracting, hardworking muscle.
Female athlete drinking sports beverage
Sports drinks that have a 4:1 carb/protein ratio improve endurance, reduce muscle damage and speed recovery after exercise.
When the athletes ingested a carbohydrate supplement immediately after exercise, they had a much higher rate of glycogen recovery, which is fuel for the muscle, than if the supplement was delayed for several hours. Ivy also discovered that once this fuel storage process kicked in it could be maintained at a rapid rate if the individual supplemented at two-hour intervals for up to eight hours after exercise ended.
Although approximately 1.4 grams of carb per kilogram of body weight maximized glycogen storage, Ivy found that more of a seemingly good thing did not end up being better—the rate of glycogen storage could not be increased with an increase in carb intake.
The surprising addition of a limited amount of protein, however, sparked a chain reaction that does a body good.
When protein is added to carbohydrate, the insulin concentration in the blood rises. Insulin is a facilitator and stimulates glucose uptake by the muscle and the conversion of glucose into the highly valuable glycogen, as well as increasing the rate of protein synthesis when the supplement is taken immediately after exercise.
With his research findings, Ivy identified a span of time during which exercise and post-exercise nutrition is very important to the athlete who wants to improve endurance, reduce muscle damage, maintain immune function and jumpstart a much quicker recovery.
According to Ivy, “nutrient timing” begins 30 minutes before exercise, when one should fully hydrate and raise blood glucose levels by consuming approximately 14-20 ounces of water or electrolyte solution. This delays the development of dehydration, hastens the onset of sweating and moderates the rise in body temperature.
During exercise, smart nutrition choices become even more important. In order to spare muscle glycogen, limit cortisol and free radical levels, prevent dehydration and set the stage for faster recovery after a workout, Ivy found that fluids should be replenished every 15 to 20 minutes, if possible.
Effects of Increasing Dehydration on Physical Performance. As body water loss increases, effects on body's physical performance worsenIn one study with cyclists, Ivy discovered that drinking a fluid containing carbohydrate and protein in a 4:1 ratio improved endurance 57 percent compared with water and 24 percent compared with a carbohydrate drink.
Because muscle breakdown occurs faster during exercise, consuming a supplement that includes protein while exercising gives muscles some of the protein they need to produce extra energy. The result is less muscle damage. Similarly, maintaining blood glucose levels by ingesting carbohydrates during exercise leads to less depletion of glycogen stores and less fatigue.
Wrapping up the metabolic window of opportunity around exercise is the very important 30 minutes following a workout. In fact, according to Ivy, this is the most important time for minding nutrition p’s and q’s.
In the 30 minutes following a workout, a muscle’s potential to rebuild peaks, and it is extremely sensitive to insulin. To take full advantage of the muscle rebuilding benefits that can occur in this golden window of opportunity, the right combination of nutrients, such as carbohydrate and high quality protein, should be consumed within 15 to 45 minutes after exercise.
Insulin sensitivity, and the ability of muscle fibers to pack in as much energy as possible, falls significantly one hour after exercise. After two hours, muscles not only lose their sensitivity but actually become insulin resistant and muscle breakdown occurs. Even though activity has stopped, the muscles continue to lose protein and nutrients without supplementation.
“Paying attention to what you eat or drink and when you consume it is a lot easier, cheaper, healthier and safer than using some plant steroids, androstenedione or creatine supplementation, for example,” says Ivy. “Just following a good basic diet and supplementing at the right time may not sound all that exciting, but solid scientific research says it works and yields increases in muscle mass, strength and endurance. It can even protect your immune system and keep you from getting as many colds and upper respiratory ailments.”
Muscular arm of weightlifter holding a large weight
Supplementation should begin 15 to 45 minutes after exercise ends or you risk missing the metabolic window of opportunity.
Ivy’s pioneering findings in the area of sports nutrition are presented in his two latest books, “Nutrient Timing” and “The Performance Zone,” which he co-authored with Dr. Robert Portman, president and director for PacificHealth Laboratories.
With “Nutrient Timing,” the guidance is geared to strength athletes and bodybuilders. In it, Ivy emphasizes that attention to timing and nutrition during the muscles’ 24-hour growth cycle can help weight trainers break through plateaus, increase muscle mass and suffer less soreness and stiffness after workouts.
“The Performance Zone” serves as a sports nutrition action plan and workbook for all levels of athletes, with sports-specific information from Olympic swimmers, exercise physiologists, world champion triathletes and professional sports stars. In order to encourage amateurs as well as more serious exercise enthusiasts to implement nutrient timing, the book includes, among other things, information on calculating the number of calories expended during different types of exercise, how to determine fluid and nutrient needs during exercise and a comparison of the many sports drinks on the market. The specific needs of female athletes as well as active children also are addressed.
“At any given time, there’s a lot of information out there about how to train better,” says Logan Schwartz, an Austin strength conditioning coach who trains professional as well as high school and college athletes. “But there’s not much good information. Dr. Ivy’s nutrient timing system, which I and my clients use, stands apart because when you look behind the claims you find valid scientific research. Attention to nutrition as a vital part of improving physical performance is really a fairly new, revolutionary thing, and it’s turning out to be very important.”
Cyclist riding his bike across campus
In exercise, as dehydration increases, quality of performance will continue to decrease.
Although Ivy now finds himself talking to reporters and interested groups from coast to coast about nutrient timing, sports nutrition might be described as something of a second love. For the past 30 or more years the bulk of his research has been devoted to diabetes and, most specifically, the effects of exercise on diabetes.
“One thing we discovered that’s very significant,” says Ivy, “is that muscle contraction, which happens when you exercise, increases glucose uptake differently from the way that insulin increases glucose uptake. Diabetics who are insulin-resistant have muscles that cannot efficiently take up glucose by insulin stimulation, but the muscle will take up glucose in a normal manner with muscle contraction. That means you can help regulate blood glucose levels through exercise. That’s good news and a natural way to address the problem.”
Having spent his professional career studying exercise and nutrition, one would expect Ivy to practice what he preaches. And he does.
A former college baseball player, he is trim and athletically built, with an office ringed in pictures of his trim, muscled and athletic children, one of whom is test-driving the nutrient timing system along with Ivy.
Glancing at Ivy and the photos of his cheerleading, baseball-playing progeny, you might be tempted to argue that the family simply enjoys good genes. But that’s like watching the smooth, perfect arc of a Tiger Woods swing and saying he’s just awfully lucky again and again—you’re ignoring the importance of hard work…and good timing.
Kay Randall
Those are uncontrolled and non-peer reviewed articles based in anecdote and various scientific suggestions. Pubmed and other sources of peer-reviewed literature is where you go for the actual conclusions.
As for the first article, I kinda stopped reading at Poliquin. I have never known him to be referenced by somebody who knows the research. He has a reputation in the sound-minded exercise community as somebody who pulls shit out of his ass on a regular basis. You ever read his article on the elemental types wrt exercise? How bout his toxin cleansing shit? He also claims to have put on like 25 pounds of lean mass on one of his clients in like six weeks or something ludicrous. I recall his reasoning had to do with some fabricated intestinal condition that inhibited his athlete from digesting a certain kind of protein. Nevermind how it's a physiological impossibility to naturally synthesize lean mass at that rate in an averaged weight human. Such bollocks.
As for the second one, I do submit that there is a ton of non-anecdotal evidence (not what that article was referencing, even though it tries to claim one man's clinical experience was controlled and soundly followed the scientific method) that suggests that nutrient timing is optimal. The problem is that I am not convinced this is conclusive due to every one of the studies I've found not having controlled calories.
And here's my n=1 to neutralize any n=1 that you may have: I got buff with crappy nutrient timing protocols. I also have switched around from many different forms of nutritional approaches, and none of them were any different. The only thing that matters wrt lean mass gains were total calories, adequate protein, and at least some carbs and fat. But this is all just anecdote and I don't claim for it to do anything other than cancel out anecdotes thrown at me.
If you provide me with actual abstracts of studies, I'll be happy to comment. That can be a really hard process, though, since not all variables can be examined from the abstracts and thus require finding the whole study, some can be hard to find, and it's time consuming. I did my research back when I cared, and am personally satisfied. It would be kinda nice to find some new studies with new conclusions, though. I know some people who would like to see them.
But seriously man, articles, especially ones that reference anecdote, are not reliable sources of scientific data. The stuff in them may be true, and that's one reason for the existence of articles, but they're still not reliable sources for the authenticity of that information.
Great then you can be the new exercise and diet guy.
Direct all questions to wufwugy from now on.
i think the above argument is kinda pointless. bigred isn't turning himself into a professional body builder or something crazy so the theoretical best timing for lifting and nutrition isn't going to apply. do what makes the most sense, lift when you aren't tired and aren't hungry so you can make it through a productive workout. i personally think nutrient timing is somewhat important, but getting appropriate amounts of protein, calories, etc... is more important then when you take them. however, you should be eating in such a way that the only time you ever actually feel hunger is when you wake up (so your metabolism stays at a steady pace). this might mean eating more but smaller meals, or more (healthy) snacks throughout the day.
yea arguments are frustrating.
wufwugy posted this in my gettin jacked thread
Posted: Sat, 05 Jan 2008, 3:46pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Full House
Full House
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 809
WPP: 88
So do you actually wanna get jaaaaaaacked or just become slightly leaner and slightly bigger with an asymmetrical physique while wasting money on impotent supplements and wasting taste buds on food changes that provide no body composition benefits?
Dude.. your such a dud.
-#1 Jyms Fanboy
When it's soft.
Oh I thought you mean the best time to lift my enormous cock.
Dud? Goodness.
1. The only supplements that have ever been shown to aid in lean mass increases are steriods and creatine. Steroids create a more androgenic/anabolic hormonal milieu for muscle hypertrophy and adipose atrophy. Creatine increases lean mass basically through water weight. It will increase muscle size up to a point (5-10lbs generally), but after that it has no more affect other than maintenance. It does not increase maximal strength but does aid in strength endurance. This is also up to a point. If you eat a decent amount of red meat chances are creatine supplementation will not affect you.
The supplement industry pushes tonsssss more products for muscle hypertrophy/fat loss/exercise enhancement than this. They all have 'research' which is done in house (read: biased) and on anecdote. These supps come and go, and if you watch the industry long enough you'll see they get repeated over and over and over. A lot of the products seem to be on around 5-10 year cycles. They do this because it's long enough for the old consumers to have moved on and the new consumers to join. They do not work, and they have always not worked. Not all the products are recycled, however. Some get such a bad rap that they disappear completely, and some new and just as ineffective ones surface.
Protein supplementation is generally unnecessary. I believe that the research still shows that 1 gram per kilogram of body weight is enough, and enough hasn't been shown to be less than optimal. Fabricating research that concludes that 2g/1kg body weight sells more powder, and the industry has done a shitload of that. There has, however, been a nice deal more of research on protein in the last two years that I have not kept up on. I do know any new conclusions are not big, though.
Other supps like glutamine and fatty acids have nice health benefits, but not wrt body comp.
2. In the body composition arena (read: not health) there is no such thing as healthy/clean food. 100g of donut carbs = 100g of any other carbs. As long as you do not have a specific disease and are consuming adequate protein and fats, you can mix and match the rest of your caloric sources any way you like and your body composition will respond based on total calories in/out.
3. The program you outlined would result in minor gains and an asymmetrically developed physique.
You expressed a desire to take supps and eat better to get bigger/leaner, and it doesn't work that way. It doesn't hurt, however. The one supplement that creates more bigness and leanness are steroids. The only way to gain weight or lose weight is through caloric surplus/deficit.
Look, Jym knows what he's doing. I said as much in the other thread. If you wanna get bigger and leaner he can guide you and much better than most trainers. I have addressed superfluity.
But don't listen to me please. People hold beliefs about exercise/diet in the same way they do politics/religion, and debating non-cordially and regressively is silly. Probably because it's less a debate and more a spewing of opinions.
Wuf, from reading what you just wrote you don't subscribe to the glycemic index of carbs, is that a correct assumption?
You don't believe about insulin/blood-sugar spikes and what it does to one's body?
100gcarb in donuts is the same at that in 100g of carbs in oats? I just want to make sure I'm hearing you right and then I'll weigh in on my thoughts which are certainly less qualified than yours or jyms.
I wish I could say conclusively on this subject, but I cannot. I'm pretty sure, though, but that should just encourage you to look at some research yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigspenda73
I have studied this a little, but I also just take the word of a few individuals who work in the field whom I learned to trust on this topic. Honestly, I do not remember exactly if there have been conclusive studies done and that they showed no body comp effects by GI, but I do know that the large majority of studies did not correctly control some variables. Mainly they were self-reporting and thus an unreliable source of caloric data. Also, a lot of GI work has been done on unhealthy individuals with certain conditions then related to healthy individuals. That's a no no because it's just not applicable. Kinda like how a certain supplement called CLA that made the industry millions works in rats, but does nothing for humans. The industry knows this, but still pimps the product(s) because they can get away with it. If you look over the history of T-Nation/Biotest (one of the biggest exercise supplement companies on the web and maybe in the country) you'll see that their owners/CEOs spoke out against CLA and how it didn't do anything for humans. But lo and behold, as the company got more and more money hungry they eventually came out with a CLA product (or at least said they were working on it, I don't remember since I left the site around that time), and they had all this pimpin research (in house) to back it up.
Tons of people experience better fat loss when they eat more fibrous, lower GI, multiple meals and such, but that type of dieting also means you're gonna eat lower calories. It's real easy to get a ton of calories from high GI foods, and real hard to meet that same number with low GI foods. When you or somebody you know experiences fat loss from dietary alterations you can be assured that most likely your calories also reduced or your energy expenditure increased (because when he go out of our way to eat well we also try to exercise more). That's not to say emphatically that there are not other factors, simply because I do not know, but any other factors have definitely been demonstrated to be rather insignificant.
Do this: Consume nothing but protein powder and koolaid and 6g of fish oils/day. Get 1g/kg bw of protein, and the rest of calories in koolaid. Start at 15g/lbs bw, and at the end of each week weigh yourself. If you haven't lost weight then reduce calories by 100. As the weeks go by and you maintain an energy deficit you will get lean as fuck. You'll also be hungry as fuck and unhealthy as fuck, but you will get lean as fuck and in the same time period as if you consumed the same calories of salmon and oatmeal. This is very basic physics. The burden is to demonstrate a significant effect on humans that has never been known before or even implied considering the rest of the animal kingdom, but that's very hard to do, and hasn't been done afaik.
calories are a myth
I'll preface this with saying that most everything I'll say is from what I've read and discussed with trainers. Not just jyms, I used to date a personal trainer too, not saying she was/is the end-all of knowledge but I feel like I have come across much more information than the average bear.
Everything I've read backs/supports the GI as a fundamental truth. Eating more fiber-full less sugary carbohydrates maintains a more stable blood-sugar level which doesn't cause insulin spikes.
What I don't get Wuf is that you discredit everything that has come along recently but you don't accredit your own findings/assumptions.
I myself, lost 30 (180lbs to 150lbs) pounds on a low-carb/high-protein/high-fat diet. Something like a 50/40/10 (pro/fat/carb) split. The vast majority of the carbs were consumed at breakfast and before/after workouts.
When Jyms says that calories are a myth I'm the only one here that's not surprised because he's said it to me plenty of times. I do and don't subscribe to calorie counting. The problem is, we truly do not know how many calories we are actually expending each day. Sure, we have a rough estimate, but if you go off of the 3500cal/lb trend you hear, if we were off in that estimate by only just 100 calories a day then our body weight would be affected (postively/negatively) by over 10lbs over the course of a year.
Eat a 2000 calorie diet consisting of 70% protien, 10% carb and 20% fat, or try a 2000 calorie diet consisting of 70% carbs, 10% protein and 20% fat. You tell me which diet would be better served for a
1) bodybuilder
2) distance runner
3) obese adult
4) obese child
I know for a fact that two people approximately the same height, weight and BF% can eat the exact same colories and macro nutrient breakdown and one will lose substantially more or less weight than the other, all while doing the same exercise regimen. There are just too many biological and metabolic differences within us to think a one size fits all calorie, is correct. One thing that must be carefully looked at is any study that a lobby group or medical/pharmaceutical group gets it's nails into. The whole CLA debacle that you went on about is the perfect example. It wasn't that CLA did not work that had Biotest and others up in arms, it was that EAS and particular Bill Phillips had a contract with the only manufacturer of Congegated Linoliec Acid, and was able to get properly processed CLA, to have more of the active isomers, presumed to be responsible for weight loss, which are subject to damage in processing. The usual Supplement lying went on, when other companies were claiming it did not work, becasue they could not produce or sell the product. Products like this come and go, as you said, within the diet industry, but in the bodybuilding industry, they have no time for products that don't work, nor diets. If anything sticks around in the bodybuilding industry, it is because it works. These guys are in tune with their bodies. It explains why MaHuang, creatine, Whey protien and ZMA have lasted as long as they have. I don't trust the diet or medical community at all, but I trust the bodybuilding community a ton, since they are on the front lines of testing and using supplements. Sure they are always trying new things and rush them to the market. But it's competitive and everyone wants an edge, to be bigger, leaner or stronger. But with the amount of information available, non are coming out with any secrets. Most have scientific, double blind, placebo testing done, long before any production of a new or improved supplement. i.e: NO2.
I gotta say, Wufwugy may be able to talk with big words and refute everything I say. But i know what I know and the nothing works mentality stinks of a closed mind. I don't have all the facts in my head to refute your claims and really don't feel like searching google to find scores of text to prove right and wrong, but I do know this. What you eat matters.
If I care to in the future, I will present my arguments with abstracts.