The book is called ‘Nutrient Timing’, I thought the whole premise of the book was the important factor of ‘time’ rather than the actual food. I remember there being a quote where it said taking a low quality protein, I think the authors referred to corn protein in this case, taken post-training was more effective than a high quality protein taken say two hours later.
[quote]David Barr wrote:
CM I think I can clear things up right away, because we’re looking for different things. I am quite happy to extrapolate data from different studies in order to reach a conclusion. Not only do they all support the theory, the trend is consistent among each study -despite the differences in protocol you pointed out. In fact, one could argue that this only strengthens the point.[/quote]
A theory is all well and good, but when data comes out that doesnt support that theory, where does that put it?
[quote]cycomiko wrote:
A theory is all well and good, but when data comes out that doesnt support that theory, where does that put it?[/quote]
Basically, if data come out that conflict with the current dogma, then those data must be immediately dismissed. Sorry.
Naw, you know how it goes… it gets thrown onto the pile and we all ask “WTF? How does this fit?” and go from there. The fact that it’s a direct comparison is pretty big and I look forward to seeing it (have I said that already? Hmmm…).
Cheers