Reverse aging by manipulating your own hormones for maximum growth hormone production.

Subject: the post-workout meal

Submitted By: Ron Nelson, Minneapolis, MN

QUESTION: I read on an online bodybuilding magazine about a concoction they have devised to produce a whopper of an insulin spike post workout. It consists of whey hydrosylate, aminos, glucose , and maltodrexin. They have described the effect as "drug like" producing what sounds to me a temporary state of shock. Why would they be doing this? I realize their goal is to speed the recovery process. Could you explain the hormonal processes that are taking place here? I have also seen where they advise against adding essential fatty acids to a post workout meal for it would mess up the "desirable" insulin spike post exercise. Why are they so desperate for the post exercise insulin spike?

ROB'S ANSWER:

You ask: "Why are they so desperate for the post exercise insulin spike?" Their desperation for the insulin spike is likely motivated by desperation for your money. Do you recall the discussion in NHE about dirt-cheap ingredients such as glucose and maltodextrin? (Which are the same ingredients as found in the drink to which you refer.) Nonetheless, assuming there is a non-commercial-related rationale operating here, see Ask Rob [next question submitted by Robert Wolf] for a refutation of this rationale.

Subject: the post-workout meal

Submitted By: Robert Wolf, biochemist and California state powerlifting champion

QUESTION: When consuming a post workout meal is a protein/fat meal going to halt catabolism as quickly as a moderate protein/high carb meal? I know carbs can suppress GH, but according to the Guyton Text. of Medical Phys, fatty acids also suppress GH.

ROB'S ANSWER:

As an initial matter, it is not appropriate to undertake consideration of the ideal post-workout meal in a vacuum. You must look at the overall diet and assess anabolism/lipolysis over day or week. For reasons explained in NHE, the fat-burning state is anti-catabolic as compared with the sugar-burning state. Consuming a large quantity of carbohydrate post workout pushes you away from a fat-burning state toward a sugar-burning state.

More specifically, insight into your question can be gained by reading the footnote on the bottom on p. 162 of NHE. For your convenience, here it is: "It makes perfect sense that stabilizing insulin would lower cortisol. You will recall from the discussion of the 'sugar-burner-deprived-of-sugar' scenario, in Chapter 11, that when blood sugar levels become depressed as a result of an insulin surge, muscle-eating catabolic hormones like cortisol are released. Therefore, the 'muscle-breakdown zone' for blood sugar is the opposite side of the coin of the 'fat-storage zone' for insulin."

Although a high-carb post-workout meal will stimulate more anabolic/FAT-STORING insulin than a low-carb meal, it will also suppress anabolic/FAT-BURNING growth hormone - this is a net negative. Even assuming that a high-carb post-workout meal is more anabolic than a low-carb post-workout meal immediately after it is ingested, what happens a few hours later to the person who ate the high-carb meal? Read NHE to learn about the hypoglycemia-induced release of counterregulatory catabolic hormones (alluded to in the footnote above, and discussed in Chapters 10 and 11). This offsets any anabolic benefits of a high-carb post-workout meal. Of course, you can avoid hypoglycemia-induced release of counterregulatory catabolic hormones by carbing-up again before blood sugar drops, and again, and again, and again. Eventually you become a full-blown, fat, bloated, sugar-burner. Not only is the sugar-burning state inferior in terms of your muscle/bodyfat ratio but also in terms of energy and mood; and it is dramatically worse in terms of health.

Now you see why I began my answer by saying you can't consider the post-workout meal in a vacuum. One of the premises of NHE is that the physiological ramifications of a meal persist for hours after it is consumed and trigger a chain of metabolic events. Along this line of reasoning, your question whether a protein/fat meal "will halt catabolism as quickly" as a high-carb meal is misconceived because it fails to appreciate that halting catabolism more abruptly may induce greater catabolism later. It is academic whether one is more or less catabolic at any given point in time. For example, if I finish my workout at 1pm, I don't ask what dietary measures will foster an optimal hormonal state from 1:30 to 2:30, I ask what dietary measures will foster an optimal hormonal state during the rest of the day. As you can see, the NHE Eating Plan takes a more far-sighted, more nuanced, sounder, and ultimately more effective, approach than those diets to which you are accustomed.

. . . you can't consider the post-workout meal in a vacuum. One of the premises of NHE is that the physiological ramifications of a meal persist for hours after it is consumed and trigger a chain of metabolic events. Along this line of reasoning, your question whether a protein/fat meal "will halt catabolism as quickly" as a high-carb meal is misconceived because it fails to appreciate that halting catabolism more abruptly may induce greater catabolism later.

The answer to your related question about free fatty acids (FFAs) suppressing GH is complicated. To begin, you are erroneously equating consuming fat with serum free fatty acid levels. To illustrate this fallacy, FFA levels may be higher in a fasted state (i.e., 0 grams of fat consumed) than after eating a pizza (100 grams of fat consumed). Fat moves through the bloodstream either as triglyceride or as free fatty acids. Triglyceride is the storage form of fat, whereas FFA is the readily usable form. Lipogenesis involves the construction and storage of triglyceride, whereas lipolysis involves the breakdown of triglyceride into its constituent FFAs and glycerol and the transport of FFAs through the bloodstream into the mitochondria of the cells. Hence, the level of FFAs in your blood is chiefly determined by your hormonal state (all of the foregoing is explained in NHE).

But assuming your meal and other factors put you in a lipolytic hormonal state, do FFAs suppress GH release, as you assert in your letter? Yes. This is the functional equivalent of saying lipolysis inhibits lipolysis, which is true. It is also true that lipogenesis inhibits lipogenesis, catabolism inhibits catabolism, and anabolism inhibits anabolism. All of these represent bioregulatory feedback loops, the means by which the hypothalamus governs hormonal output. Using GH as an example, when the hypothalamus (the conductor of the hormonal orchestra) senses a high level of FFA in the blood it interprets this to mean that the desired physiological event - fat burning - is taking place. Consequently, the hypothalamus releases somatostatin, which imparts a message to the pituitary gland to temporarily halt GH release. Similarly to FFAs, IGF-1 serves to inhibit further GH release. It is this system of feedback/feedforward that generates the rhythmic ebb and flow of daily hormonal secretion. The feedback concept seems counter-intuitive to the lay person because the desired "products" of GH release, free fatty acids and IGF-1, act to temporarily block further GH release. But once you understand how the endocrine system works, you realize that seeking to "avoid" high serum FFA levels because they inhibit GH release makes as much sense as refusing to eat because it will temporarily kill your appetite (until you become hungry again) or refusing to sleep because it will temporarily cause insomnia (until you become tired again).

The feedback concept seems counter-intuitive to the lay person because the desired "products" of GH release, free fatty acids and IGF-1, act to temporarily block further GH release. But once you understand how the endocrine system works, you realize that seeking to "avoid" high serum FFA levels because they inhibit GH release makes as much sense as refusing to eat because it will temporarily kill your appetite (until you become hungry again) or refusing to sleep because it will temporarily cause insomnia (until you become tired again).

Return to Index

Subject: why not carb-load every 7-10 days?

Submitted By: Rod McCarthy, Boston, MA

QUESTION: Wouldn't it be better to carb-load every 7-10 days instead of every 3-4 days as this would allow more days of fat loss?

ROB'S ANSWER:

The answer to this question can best be understood by asking why carb-load at all? From the 4th to the 7th day, glycogen levels will be too low and your workout intensity will consequently suffer. Furthermore, there are hormonal benefits associated with the carb-load (see p. 139 of NHE), which you are forgoing by skipping the scheduled carb-load.

Return to Index

Subject: fat consumption and the practical effect of switching to the Eating Plan on caloric intake

Submitted By: Andy Doerksen, Surrey, B.C., Canada

QUESTION: In the book you say we should be eating mostly "lean meat" as opposed to, say, bacon and sausages. But at the same time we're limited to 50g of protein per sitting, and can have veggies of course but need to make up the rest of our calories presumably in fat. Commensurate with that, you suggest toppings like cheese, butter, salad dressing. Does it really matter whether we eat "lean" meat, in that case?

ROB'S ANSWER:

Judging from what you wrote (i.e., "we're limited to 50g of protein per sitting, and can have veggies of course but need to make up the rest of our calories presumably in fat"), I sense that you may be under the impression that you must add fat to every meal. There is no such requirement on the general NHE Eating Plan (not to be confused with the bodybuilders' NHE Eating Plan). The fact that daily fat intake on the general Eating Plan should be moderate does not mean that it must be moderate at every meal. (I detect the influence of Barry Sears's Zone diet, which is much less flexible, on your thinking.)

Unlike Sears's Zone diet, the NHE Eating Plan does not prohibit, per se, low-fat or high-fat meals. Provided that total daily fat intake is moderate, evenly distributed fat intake throughout the day, though ideal, is not required. For example, two high-fat meals and two low-fat meals can amount to "moderate for the day." (Please see the discussion of "common-sense compensation" on p. 169 of NHE.) Hence, there is no reason to feel compelled to add fat to every meal. In fact, I want people to eat low-fat meals every once in a while to counteract the high-fat meals that they will likely wind-up eating occasionally with carbohydrate restricted. This answers your question about why, as paraphrased in your letter, NHE says that you "should be eating mostly 'lean meat' as opposed to, say, bacon and sausage." Moreover, "lean meat" does not equate with "low fat" as you seem to believe. Meat is animal flesh and usually contains at least a moderate amount of fat. Therefore, "lean meat" often means "moderate fat"; whereas bacon and sausage mean "high-fat."

. . ."lean meat" does not equate with "low fat". . . Meat is animal flesh and usually contains at least a moderate amount of fat. Therefore, "lean meat" often means "moderate fat"; whereas bacon and sausage mean "high-fat."

The most telling phrase in your letter with respect to your understanding of the Eating Plan is ". . . but need to make up the rest of our calories." This reflects a critical misapprehension. Calorie counting is prohibited on the general Eating Plan. "Calorie counting" refers to any conscious effort to manipulate caloric intake, either with a view toward restricting or with a view toward adding or "making up" calories.

Calorie counting is prohibited on the general Eating Plan. "Calorie counting" refers to any conscious effort to manipulate caloric intake, either with a view toward restricting or with a view toward adding or "making up" calories.

Your concern about replacing calories 1) presupposes that your previous level of caloric intake was ideal, and 2) overlooks the de facto calorie-raising influence of NHE's "meal frequency" feature. The latter misleads you to believe that you'll necessarily consume fewer calories on the Eating Plan if you don't add fat to every meal; while the former biases you against such an outcome. Most Americans, coerced by hormonal hunger to feed upon the calorie-dense carb+fat foods that Eating Plan adherents shun, consume an excessive amount of calories. Excessive caloric intake, like certain anti-depressant drugs and other unnatural factors, can impede fat loss notwithstanding hormonally correct eating. If you were among this group of calorie-gluttons, your caloric intake will decrease as a result of adopting NHE. However, if you were not previously among those who consume a prodigious quantity of calories, then your caloric intake may remain constant or increase as you switch from a conventional eating pattern (which generally means 3 meals per day) to the NHE Eating Plan (which requires a minimum of 4 meals per day). Caloric intake is especially likely to increase for people who had been restricting calories or fat either deliberately to "lose weight" or inadvertently as a result of lifestyle imperatives and/or stress coupled with negligent disregard for healthy eating.

In summary, depending on one's pre-intervention diet, some people will undergo a downward correction in caloric intake occasioned by the NHE Eating Plan. Others will not. Some will consume more calories. It makes little practical difference, because the main way that the Eating Plan works is by enhancing fat-burning hormones and balancing insulin/glucagon. Stated differently, the hormonal impact of the Eating Plan is more potent in terms of altering bodyfat than any incidental caloric reduction, or increase, associated with a switch to a healthier and more natural way of eating. In short, you should simply "go with the flow" of the Eating Plan and let the calories fall where they may, neither trying to restrict nor "make up" calories. Toward that end, consider this letter an eviction notice, served upon the word "calories," ordering it out of your mind.

. . . the hormonal impact of the Eating Plan is more potent in terms of altering bodyfat than any incidental caloric reduction, or increase, associated with a switch to a healthier and more natural way of eating.

. . . consider this letter an eviction notice, served upon the word "calories," ordering it out of your mind.

Return to Index