[quote]ThetfordMiner wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
BTW, new data suggests that ingesting the bulk of BCAA’s 30 minutes before the session might be more effective than ingesting them during the session.
Thib,
I greatly respect you, your dedication to the iron game, and how on top of research you constantly are/your ability to always be on the cutting edge. So please do not take this post in any way as a cheap shot directed at you.
Obviously it will always be best to use the information at hand to optimize nutrition, supplementation, and training protocols. But with so much information being spread so rapidly and what is considered optimal seemingly changing in the blink of an eye, is it worth it to be almost perpetually tweaking things?
It feels as if you just finish learning one thing when along comes even newer information that supposedly alters the rules of the game again.
For example, in terms of real world results, is whether high-dose BCAA’s were consumed 30 minutes before the session or sipped just prior to and then throughout the session really going to make a noteworthy difference assuming that the person is already using optimal exercise selection, loading parameters, executing reps with precision/quality, and consuming a nutrient-dense diet congruent with his current goals?
It seems that determining where the line between making modifications that impart significantly-enhanced results ends and engaging in pedantry and focusing on minutia begins is becoming increasingly more difficult with each passing day.[/quote]
Is tweaking things necessary? No.
Is optimizing peri-workout nutrition necessary to get good gains? No… people were getting plenty big and strong even before supplements came along.
Is it possible to get good results only by training hard, eating well and not focusing on minute details? Of course!
Can optimized peri-workout supplementation as well as nutrition in general lead to even better gains? Definetly.
Is the added gains/progression worth the effort to titrate and adapt everything? For some it is, for others it isn’t.
It’s exactly like computers. There are plnety of things you can do efficiently with a first generation pentium desktop; you do not necessarily have to stay on top of things and always update to the latest model.
If all you use your computer for is writting word documents and watching online porn, any half-decent desktop will do just as well as the latest super bomb.
However if what you are doing requires the highest level of performance and that every little advantage you can get is crucial to you, then investing in the best equipment becomes a necessity.
See what I mean.
In supplementation, nutrition and training there is:
Bad
Ok
Good
Better
Best
For a lot of people, simply avoiding ‘‘bad’’ is enough and will lead to an acceptable rate of gain.
To me, ‘‘best’’ is the only acceptable option… and what constitutes ‘‘best’’ is doomed to change depending on the latest data available. This both makes it fun and annoying… you feel that you’ll never get it just right; but, to me, experimenting new methods is what makes this game fun.
BTW, just because a method based on new data surpasses an old one that was previously thought to be ‘‘best’’ doesn’t make the old method ‘‘bad’’… What was once ‘‘best’’ can only drop as low as ‘‘better’’ or ‘‘good’’, which still makes it am effective option.