Manipulating muscle protein turnover to maximize exercise adaptations, Stuart Phillips
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 07. 2024
- This talk was given at The Biomedical Basis of Elite Performance
East Midlands Conference Centre, Nottingham, UK 6-8 March 2016
8 March 2016
Session: Exercise metabolism and nutrition
Chair: Carolyn Greig, University of Birmingham, UK
Full title: Manipulating muscle protein turnover to maximize exercise adaptations: Evidence-based strategies - Věda a technologie
So it doesn't really matter what you do or how you do it. As long as you hit the gym regularly and eat your protein regularly you get some kind of gains thats seems pretty much pre-determined. Very good presentation. Thank you!
My best gains (14 years ago, when I was 45) came when I did all three types of lifts... 4-6 reps, 8-12, then 20+ (not for squats... I'm not crazy). The theory is, ratcheting filaments respond to low reps, sarcoplasmic reticulum to mid, and mitochondria to high. Fred Hatfield, Scientific Bodybuilding... came out in the 80s I think. Just because low reps are not superior to mid reps, or high reps, per the studies cited here, does not mean there can be no additive effect from all three. So...
I read an article about this by a body building trainer about 15 years ago. He said it depends on the individual person how high the load should be. So I wonder if there are individual differences in the response to different loads due to the genetic make up of each person. With the design used in the studies presented that would not be detected.
Also training to failure in a set with 30 percent takes longer and feels harder than at 80 percent. So I will stick with the higher load :)
Thank you so much for this video. Just finishing off my masters in sports nutrition and the info is incredibly useful. Thank you Dr Philips
It would be interesting to see more research on high reps for endurance sports and mid-distance events.
Very interesting, I wonder what would be the results if you make one group of people do 5 reps to failure program vs 15 reps to failure and you test their before and after 10RM. Which one would do better?
I'm working in an Orthopedic Rehabilitation Center and we are successful with 30% if 1 max/rep
er....of the many shortcomings of this methodology, surely the most glaring is the disruptive, confounding element of the 3-week 1RM strength testing session, the obvious training effect of which seems to have been overlooked. Remember that a 1RM is worked up to via a series of progressively heavier singles. How can one high rep hypertrophy program sensibly be compared to another, higher rep program, when both were periodically disrupted by a session of very low rep, pure strength training? This isn't a zero sum game, whereby the commonality of the 1RM testing cancels out its impact on both program;
This was a great scientific based lecture on muscular adaptation. We need more of this type of honest scrutiny in the health fields. Thank you.
I love how he interacts with social media, this is the future of research where the highly cerebral scientist gets more experiential findings from the masses and then conducts studies to see if there is something to them.
Noob Gainz xD
Wonder who paid for these studies that suggest eating 24/7 would be ideal.
Chau Nguyen: To me eating multiple times a day is the same as stuffing your face 24/7. Your body is kept busy digesting food and never gets to rest. There is a lot more to health and well-being than muscle growth (for example the repair work your body needs do to to get rid of cancer cells and unhealthy protein deposits in the brain which can lead to Alzheimer). I always wonder who "sponsors" people who proclaim that eating all day is a good thing.
Chau : Yeah, I know. There are many people out there (athletes, body builders, ...) who seem to believe that maximum performance is everything. But how can you achieve top performance if you don't pay attention to your health.
This is true for most studies, not matter what they are about. You can *always* produce the result that matches your prefabricated ideas. All you need to do is look at who paid for the studies. Since your keep bringing up the ketogenic diet and red meat, I suggest you take a look at what Zoë Harcombe has to say about it. This lady is not only completely independent of $$$ from the industry, she is also one of the few people who not only knows how to dissect valid information from bullshit, and she's proved it over and over again. Other people who believe in true and *unbiased* studies are Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz. Google them!
To me there is nothing vague about being healthy. Either you are healthy or you're not. Do you need medication or any kind of other substances (legal or illegal) to make you feel better? Is your body aching? Are you dealing with an obsession or cravings of any sort (going to the gym can be an obsession too). Are you dealing with depression or any other psychological issue? This is not about you personally, I'm just voicing my opinion. Oh, and by the way: I'm very happy for you if plants are all you need. I'm one of many ex-(long-term)-vegans, and health issues were what made me realize that this lifestyle is *not* beneficial for me over the long run. The fact that you keep bringing up meat and the ketogenic diet tells me that your opinion is biased and not based on true science.
Anima Libera hi animals! Wish you well. What is the diet you follow?
for me the different rep ranges never made real sense for me. because at the end you destroy your muscle. that is what you need to do to make the body repair and grow. how many reps you need to destroy is not that important. but of course with higher rep ranges you can get closer to that border because maybe you could squeeze another rep out before failure.
destroy your muscle and get a good protein supply.
because i am ketogenic, higher rep ranges are perfect for me. thanks doc!
Well destroying is what you don't want to do on purpose. Calcium ion influx actually sets off a negative spiral of catabolism resulting in possibly less gains made. Especially when you force muscle breakdown with heavy or very slow eccentrics. For further information consider Chris Beardsley
20g of protein stimulates maximal protein synthesis? What about the variability of protein source/ leucine content, speed of digestion and absorption, age of participant, feeding frequency e.g. intermittent fasting vs 6 meals a day, where the former increases growth hormone and protein assimilation and utilization. These one-size-fits-all theorization are worthless.
Intermittent fasting may cause a brief spike of growth hormone, like tossing a single sheet of paper onto a fire, but it does not sustain that level. Meanwhile insulin-like growth factor is severely suppressed during the fast.
@@samwest4538 is that a fact or a theory?
@@zeroxox777 fact. Run a search for "fasting igf-1" it gets cut in half.
The assimilation of protein or “synthesis” for muscle hypertrophy also depends on the individual’s genetics.
There was no mention of carbohydrate consumption which is absolutely essential in aiding protein assimilation.
Lastly, it has been proven that as we grow older, the need to consume higher amounts of protein is essential for muscle mass maintenance, let alone growth.
So, the insulin thing its another fake story of the bodybuilding subculture? The gym is full of bro science. Thank God for this lectures.
Well it all depends on the dosage. lol stay natty bru 1000 mg test is still natural on youtube's fake natural scam builders
"noob gainz"
with a "z"
Thanks for useful presentation. But, honestly, I don't believe when you prove that Testosterone and Growth hormones don't affect on MPS. So, could you please tell us how professional bodybuilders, such as Phil Heath, Kai Greene etc. reach that level of muscle size what they have now?! I think It's impossible to gain such a big muscle without injecting or taking hormones. No one can't gain that much with using only protein.
If you see this comment please respond
Testosterone and growth hormone don't seem to affect MPS in the studies much because we're talking about natural levels, not external enhanced levels.
Again, this was just comparing people with different levels of hormones, and even the ones who had the most test didn't gain noticeably more than people with the lowest levels of hormones.
If any of these subjects injected hormones though, they would gain A LOT from it.
i think what steroids do is reduce recovery period to near 0, allowing you to see gains from every workout, even with a whole body work out every single day.
us mortals have to take breaks and worry about over training. But at least our MPS is similar!
He just scientifically roasted people with poor genetics lmao
As if you have seen every case.
Talos Smith I think he roasted people who eat high carb diets, and virtually crap diets, = 75% of the USA population = overweight or obese.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
interesting
I think the big problem there is in any research in this area is the effect of the individual. Meaning no one person is the same as the other. For example a set to failure for one person is much different than a set to failure for another person. Quite frankly some people can't push themselves to complete failure. So studies are not objective. They are subjective. I guess we can make some conclusions but there seems to be more confusion than answers.
There are many aspects of this talk which makes me believe he is a snake oil salesmen. He referenced a study by Cameron Mitchell which I believe is this one: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/ where participants (probably untrained) took isotonic leg presses to failure using 30% and 80% of 1RM. Then at the end of 10 weeks tested their muscle sizes as well as their strength both isotonically and isometrically and what they found was that both groups had similar increases in muscle size. They differed when their leg press 1RM was tested isotonically, but when their leg strength was tested isometrically both groups had similar gains. The presenter seems to imply that the isometric test is a better indicator that both groups had similar gains in strength. His argument was very wishy washy. How was the isometric strength measured? Also how could isometric strength be more indicative of strength gains for a study which used isotonic movements during the study?
On the topic of strength gains I would believe time tested empirical methods more than any average scientist studying this stuff. But if you were to follow the advise of someone from the scientific community, i'd go with someone like Andy Galpin: czcams.com/channels/e3R2e3zYxWwIhMKV36Qhkw.html
Awesome stuff, some hard pills to swallow.
After the intro... then 9:00 he demonstrates he doesn't even know what sufficient and necessary means. Incredible.
Tripped me up at first as well but if you go back to the beginning he said that the question is: Is proteïne sufficient and necessary for GREATER muscle growth? The answer to that is yes
So you've never heard of newbie gains, and you want us to believe anything you say? You aren't aware that new trainees respond better to resistance training at the start than at any other time in their natural bodybuilding career? If you don't know the most basic of things bodybuilding, then why are you here?
Holy shit. Stuart, Just review Louie Simmons, Westside Barbell. With over 40 years of creating the largest volume of world records, Louie will teach you more than you will ever learn in building strength and hypertrophy. As a Canadian, and Canadian taxpayer money used for your study was a waste. Call Louie next time.
Bs