PDA

View Full Version : Commercial protein bar /drink before exercise?


Arbor
December 2nd 04, 06:00 PM
J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Dec;104(12):1800-4. Related Articles, Links


Glycemic and insulinemic responses to protein supplements.

Parcell AC, Drummond MJ, Christopherson ED, Hoyt GL, Cherry JA.

Abstract Objective The effects of common servings of commercially
marketed nutritional protein supplements on blood glucose and insulin
responses were studied in 12 healthy men after ingestion of feedings
that had varying carbohydrate and protein compositions. Design Fasting
subjects consumed a 50-gram glucose drink, a white bagel, peanuts, a
protein bar, or a protein drink in a counterbalanced fashion. Setting
Subjects rested in a supine position and were not disturbed while
blood samples were drawn at rest and at 10-minute intervals during the
ensuing 2 hours. Results The area under the curve for glucose was
greater in the glucose drink group vs all treatment groups except the
white bagel group ( P <.05). At 20 to 40 minutes, plasma glucose was
elevated in the glucose drink group vs the peanuts group, the protein
bar group, and the protein drink group ( P <.05). The glycemic
response was greater in the glucose drink group vs the white bagel
group at 30 minutes (8.1+/-0.5 vs 6.5+/-0.3 mmol/L, respectively) ( P
<.05). The area under the curve for insulin was lower in the peanuts
group vs all treatment groups ( P <.05). Insulin concentrations peaked
at 40 minutes in the glucose drink group (285.5+/-18.3 pmol) and was
similar in all but the peanuts group (130.5+/-14.3 pmol) ( P <.05).
Conclusions A common serving of a commercially available protein
supplement resulted in a marked insulin response with no glycemic
response because of the lack of carbohydrate content. Inasmuch as many
such supplements similar in composition are marketed on the bases of
their nutritional energy benefits, these data underscore the need to
educate consumers regarding appropriate fuel for exercise and
nutritional supplement composition.

PMID: 15565072 [PubMed - in process]

John M. Williams
December 2nd 04, 11:37 PM
(Arbor) wrote:

>J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Dec;104(12):1800-4. Related Articles, Links
>
>
>Glycemic and insulinemic responses to protein supplements.
>
>Parcell AC, Drummond MJ, Christopherson ED, Hoyt GL, Cherry JA.

"This research was funded by a grant from Experimental and Applied
Sciences, Inc." (EAS)

FYI

John M. Williams
December 3rd 04, 01:33 AM
DZ > wrote:

>John M Williams > wrote:
>> (Arbor) wrote:
>>
>>>J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Dec;104(12):1800-4. Related Articles, Links
>>>
>>>Glycemic and insulinemic responses to protein supplements.
>>>
>>>Parcell AC, Drummond MJ, Christopherson ED, Hoyt GL, Cherry JA.
>>
>> "This research was funded by a grant from Experimental and Applied
>> Sciences, Inc." (EAS)
>>
>> FYI
>
>So is it likely to biased? (fwiw I don't think so)

It doesn't really say anything new. Endurance weenies maybe shouldn't
use low-carb protein supps before workouts. I don't know what
products EAS is pumping at the moment, so I don't know if they have an
axe to grind.

Arbor
December 3rd 04, 04:18 AM
John M. Williams > wrote in message > "This research was funded by a grant from Experimental and Applied
> Sciences, Inc." (EAS)
>
> FYI
Damn'em if they do damn'em if they don't (invest money in research)!

But most importantly: Does EAS sell any product made of peanuts?;-)
Yet they found that:
"The area under the curve for insulin was *lower in the peanuts
group* vs all treatment groups ( P <.05). Insulin concentrations peaked
at 40 minutes in the glucose drink group (285.5+/-18.3 pmol) and was
similar in all but the peanuts group (130.5+/-14.3 pmol) ( P <.05)."

John M. Williams
December 3rd 04, 05:03 AM
(Arbor) wrote:

>John M. Williams > wrote:
>> "This research was funded by a grant from Experimental and Applied
>> Sciences, Inc." (EAS)
>>
>> FYI
>Damn'em if they do damn'em if they don't (invest money in research)!
>
>But most importantly: Does EAS sell any product made of peanuts?;-)
>Yet they found that:
>"The area under the curve for insulin was *lower in the peanuts
>group* vs all treatment groups ( P <.05). Insulin concentrations peaked
>at 40 minutes in the glucose drink group (285.5+/-18.3 pmol) and was
>similar in all but the peanuts group (130.5+/-14.3 pmol) ( P <.05)."

Your point? Peanuts aren't very insulemic. They're mostly fat. They
aren't very glycemic, either.

The point of the study is that protein supps with low carbs are still
very insulemic. Increased insulin release enhances
contraction-mediated GLUT4 translocation, and thus, muscle glucose
uptake. Without carbs, the increased muscle glucose uptake lowers
blood glucose levels. OK for strength training; not so good for
endurance weenies.

But most of that effect was already assumed.

Maybe EAS wants to promote protein bars loaded with sugar, rather than
the low-carb glycerine-loaded ones that are the current rage.

Proton Soup
December 3rd 04, 06:55 AM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:03:46 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

(Arbor) wrote:
>
>>John M. Williams > wrote:
>>> "This research was funded by a grant from Experimental and Applied
>>> Sciences, Inc." (EAS)
>>>
>>> FYI
>>Damn'em if they do damn'em if they don't (invest money in research)!
>>
>>But most importantly: Does EAS sell any product made of peanuts?;-)
>>Yet they found that:
>>"The area under the curve for insulin was *lower in the peanuts
>>group* vs all treatment groups ( P <.05). Insulin concentrations peaked
>>at 40 minutes in the glucose drink group (285.5+/-18.3 pmol) and was
>>similar in all but the peanuts group (130.5+/-14.3 pmol) ( P <.05)."
>
>Your point? Peanuts aren't very insulemic. They're mostly fat. They
>aren't very glycemic, either.
>
>The point of the study is that protein supps with low carbs are still
>very insulemic. Increased insulin release enhances
>contraction-mediated GLUT4 translocation, and thus, muscle glucose
>uptake. Without carbs, the increased muscle glucose uptake lowers
>blood glucose levels. OK for strength training; not so good for
>endurance weenies.
>
>But most of that effect was already assumed.
>
>Maybe EAS wants to promote protein bars loaded with sugar, rather than
>the low-carb glycerine-loaded ones that are the current rage.

I'm thinking "Snickers" and "Baby Ruth" are starting to look pretty
good. Or maybe that old-fashioned Southern energy drink, pouring a
bag of peanuts into a bottle of coke. :)

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Hugh Beyer
December 3rd 04, 12:28 PM
Proton Soup > wrote in
:

>>The point of the study is that protein supps with low carbs are still
>>very insulemic. Increased insulin release enhances
>>contraction-mediated GLUT4 translocation, and thus, muscle glucose
>>uptake. Without carbs, the increased muscle glucose uptake lowers
>>blood glucose levels. OK for strength training; not so good for
>>endurance weenies.
>>
>>But most of that effect was already assumed.
>>
>>Maybe EAS wants to promote protein bars loaded with sugar, rather than
>>the low-carb glycerine-loaded ones that are the current rage.
>
> I'm thinking "Snickers" and "Baby Ruth" are starting to look pretty
> good. Or maybe that old-fashioned Southern energy drink, pouring a
> bag of peanuts into a bottle of coke. :)
>

Unfortunately MRP manufacturers are either as dumb as the general public or
are so busy chasing the fad of the moment that they might as well be. All
the MRP's seem to have gone to protein/low carb as opposed to protein+carbs.
PowerBar has revamped the ProteinPlus line and totally ruined it--less
protein, less carb, more calories.

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.