- This topic has 5 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
Hello everyone,I have been following CNS since December 1st and this is the most success I have had while doing CNS(3rd time). I have been getting stronger and leaner for the most but starting to feel I will have better results if I switch over to a Mountain dog/CBL approach. Mountain includes pre and intra carbs so would it be beneficial to use CS anymore? I still have 4 jars @ home and I don't really want to waste it. I am sure I will cycle with CNS in the future but I am curious if it would still be a benefit to me.
If doing Intra Carbs, no need for the CS. Just do a whey shake with some more carbs or just the whey itself.
If doing Intra Carbs, no need for the CS. Just do a whey shake with some more carbs or just the whey itself.
I might want to make the switch @ the 6 month mark just to do a full cycle of CNS. Plus I am very interested in seeing a full 6 month results of CNS.
The CS protocol of waiting an hour after training will be pointless to do, however, CS itself can still be used as it will enhance the insulin spike of any meal. So anytime you want high insulin levels, you can take Carb Shock with it.
I've basically just started using both at the same time… when doing twice-a-days, I do my AM workout and use CarbShock after an hour, and do a bodybuilding/pump workout. Then in the PM, I'll usually do some powerlifting, o-lifting, or another bodybuilding workout and use the PeptoPro + HBCD (at least for now, until I run-out).I'm did the J.Meadows intra with his training style a few months ago, for a few months, PM heavy bodybuilding workouts, and had some great gains.What I'm wondering, is if CarbShock with a protein powder and some HBCD could do the same thing as PeptoPro or the IntraMD, since getting PeptoPro or IntraMD (or Mag-10) is cost prohibitive in Canada... Kiefer did mention that CarbShock is designed to get those di and tri peptides going that J.Meadows references as his main reason for using PeptoPro.
I am going to keep the CS for the time being. I don't really want to sell it but I don't want it to go to waste either. I think it will come in handy.
So, from my rudimentary understanding of why intra hydrolysates are used… is for the insulin spiking. When insulin is present, growth hormone secretion “turns off”, making your normally catabolic workout… no longer catabolic, getting you a greater net gain protein synthesis… and thus the gains you're seeing. The di/tri-peptides that are flush in your hydrolysates cause the insulintropic response. The 5g leucine and protease(digestive enzyme which helps facilitate the the peptides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease ) the combined with a whey-iso should provide a more cost effective intra-insulin spike with the rapidly digesting proteins.What I don't understand is why would this be better than a preworkout Whey Iso and MCT, and peri/intra BCAAS for the leucine-insuline spike, and the Iso-Leucine and Valine for the anti-catabolic properites? Your blood stream would still be flush with aminos from the whey, and lean tissue catabolic resistent from the MCT and BCAAS (which you in theory should only need if you're on a VERY demanding workout protocol). This followed up with the immediate PWO shake should keep catabolism pretty much null... but then you lose all the benefits of Growth Hormone Secretion and Cortisol Catabolism to adipose tissue...Maybe I'm missing something here, but unless you're simply after bulk mass(not lean mass specific) following keifer's protocol of NO-PERI/Intra, and waiting for the PWO-catabolic hormone effects to complete. You're kind of styming your overall body recomposition benefits of resistance training.
So, from my rudimentary understanding of why intra hydrolysates are used... is for the insulin spiking. When insulin is present, growth hormone secretion "turns off", making your normally catabolic workout... no longer catabolic, getting you a greater net gain protein synthesis... and thus the gains you're seeing. The di/tri-peptides that are flush in your hydrolysates cause the insulintropic response. The 5g leucine and protease(digestive enzyme which helps facilitate the the peptides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease ) the combined with a whey-iso should provide a more cost effective intra-insulin spike with the rapidly digesting proteins.What I don't understand is why would this be better than a preworkout Whey Iso and MCT, and peri/intra BCAAS for the leucine-insuline spike, and the Iso-Leucine and Valine for the anti-catabolic properites? Your blood stream would still be flush with aminos from the whey, and lean tissue catabolic resistent from the MCT and BCAAS (which you in theory should only need if you're on a VERY demanding workout protocol). This followed up with the immediate PWO shake should keep catabolism pretty much null... but then you lose all the benefits of Growth Hormone Secretion and Cortisol Catabolism to adipose tissue...Maybe I'm missing something here, but unless you're simply after bulk mass(not lean mass specific) following keifer's protocol of NO-PERI/Intra, and waiting for the PWO-catabolic hormone effects to complete. You're kind of styming your overall body recomposition benefits of resistance training.
I think the two protocols need to be tested against each other with experienced lifters that use the same training style.Kiefer's protocols make sense from a scientific standpoint. The catabolic compounds produced during training are what causes the adaptation in the muscles. Decreasing the production of those compounds are certainly counterproductive.The thing about Meadows protocol is that studies show that intra workout nutrition enhance performance. This means that you can train harder and longer than you would without it. The fact that your training load could increase with this nutrition protocol may explain why you would get a boost in training.I think if you control for training, Kiefer's protocol would give better results, but if you don't control for training, I think Meadow's protocol would do just as well or possibly better. Meadows protocol is also something that might not be bad for a non-bodybuilder who is in a very hard phase where they are at risk of overtraining.I think a good comparison is to think of Meadow's protocols like using NSAIDs if you are having joint pain. They aren't good to use because they can blunt the training response, but they can be used to get the work done.
So, from my rudimentary understanding of why intra hydrolysates are used... is for the insulin spiking. When insulin is present, growth hormone secretion "turns off", making your normally catabolic workout... no longer catabolic, getting you a greater net gain protein synthesis... and thus the gains you're seeing. The di/tri-peptides that are flush in your hydrolysates cause the insulintropic response. The 5g leucine and protease(digestive enzyme which helps facilitate the the peptides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease ) the combined with a whey-iso should provide a more cost effective intra-insulin spike with the rapidly digesting proteins.What I don't understand is why would this be better than a preworkout Whey Iso and MCT, and peri/intra BCAAS for the leucine-insuline spike, and the Iso-Leucine and Valine for the anti-catabolic properites? Your blood stream would still be flush with aminos from the whey, and lean tissue catabolic resistent from the MCT and BCAAS (which you in theory should only need if you're on a VERY demanding workout protocol). This followed up with the immediate PWO shake should keep catabolism pretty much null... but then you lose all the benefits of Growth Hormone Secretion and Cortisol Catabolism to adipose tissue...Maybe I'm missing something here, but unless you're simply after bulk mass(not lean mass specific) following keifer's protocol of NO-PERI/Intra, and waiting for the PWO-catabolic hormone effects to complete. You're kind of styming your overall body recomposition benefits of resistance training.
I think the two protocols need to be tested against each other with experienced lifters that use the same training style.Kiefer's protocols make sense from a scientific standpoint. The catabolic compounds produced during training are what causes the adaptation in the muscles. Decreasing the production of those compounds are certainly counterproductive.The thing about Meadows protocol is that studies show that intra workout nutrition enhance performance. This means that you can train harder and longer than you would without it. The fact that your training load could increase with this nutrition protocol may explain why you would get a boost in training.I think if you control for training, Kiefer's protocol would give better results, but if you don't control for training, I think Meadow's protocol would do just as well or possibly better. Meadows protocol is also something that might not be bad for a non-bodybuilder who is in a very hard phase where they are at risk of overtraining.I think a good comparison is to think of Meadow's protocols like using NSAIDs if you are having joint pain. They aren't good to use because they can blunt the training response, but they can be used to get the work done.
Very true, probably why CBL works better with limitted backloading and training days, and not so much with intense multi-hour grinds daily.
So, from my rudimentary understanding of why intra hydrolysates are used... is for the insulin spiking. When insulin is present, growth hormone secretion "turns off", making your normally catabolic workout... no longer catabolic, getting you a greater net gain protein synthesis... and thus the gains you're seeing. The di/tri-peptides that are flush in your hydrolysates cause the insulintropic response. The 5g leucine and protease(digestive enzyme which helps facilitate the the peptides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease ) the combined with a whey-iso should provide a more cost effective intra-insulin spike with the rapidly digesting proteins.What I don't understand is why would this be better than a preworkout Whey Iso and MCT, and peri/intra BCAAS for the leucine-insuline spike, and the Iso-Leucine and Valine for the anti-catabolic properites? Your blood stream would still be flush with aminos from the whey, and lean tissue catabolic resistent from the MCT and BCAAS (which you in theory should only need if you're on a VERY demanding workout protocol). This followed up with the immediate PWO shake should keep catabolism pretty much null... but then you lose all the benefits of Growth Hormone Secretion and Cortisol Catabolism to adipose tissue...Maybe I'm missing something here, but unless you're simply after bulk mass(not lean mass specific) following keifer's protocol of NO-PERI/Intra, and waiting for the PWO-catabolic hormone effects to complete. You're kind of styming your overall body recomposition benefits of resistance training.
I think the two protocols need to be tested against each other with experienced lifters that use the same training style.Kiefer's protocols make sense from a scientific standpoint. The catabolic compounds produced during training are what causes the adaptation in the muscles. Decreasing the production of those compounds are certainly counterproductive.The thing about Meadows protocol is that studies show that intra workout nutrition enhance performance. This means that you can train harder and longer than you would without it. The fact that your training load could increase with this nutrition protocol may explain why you would get a boost in training.I think if you control for training, Kiefer's protocol would give better results, but if you don't control for training, I think Meadow's protocol would do just as well or possibly better. Meadows protocol is also something that might not be bad for a non-bodybuilder who is in a very hard phase where they are at risk of overtraining.I think a good comparison is to think of Meadow's protocols like using NSAIDs if you are having joint pain. They aren't good to use because they can blunt the training response, but they can be used to get the work done.
Very true, probably why CBL works better with limitted backloading and training days, and not so much with intense multi-hour grinds daily.
Maybe, but I think that has more to do though with the fact that if you increase training frequency, you reduce the concentration of loading. More concentrated loading probably means better GLUT4 translocation and a better hypertrophic response.Personally I think only advanced lifters should be training more than 4 days per week. Beginners need to learn to train efficiently and that can't be done if you are training every day.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.