All the required genetic protocols for natural growth are already set, within most people. Admittedly, the variance of individual capability for growth among people is incalculably wide. The whole concept in itself, although seemingly simplified is really multi-dimensional in breath and scope. For example, two persons with like body types and structures may find out that similar gains can only be attained at different threshold intensities in different movements altogether, for the same target areas. This even applies to supplements, albeit to an extent. This extent realistically ends when standardized and predictable effects reveal their patterns across various training populaces and/or in empirically tested situations with supplements and/or their ingredients. In other words, if supplements had totally different effects on a person-to-person basis, then no predictive patterns, product/ingredient formulation model(s), or market value could be discerned. If you can predict the effect of an ingredient or particular combination thereof within the training cycle and nutritional program, then one should be "better" able to contextually position supplement use, based on desired and expected results, provided that all other factors are controlled through measured isolation.
One of the challenging areas of analysis is the repositioning of creatine from a post-workout supplement to that of a pre-workout supplement stacked inside of highly caffeinated pre-training energy powders. This has become widely popular, in recent years. Some experts in sports nutrition have counter-intuitively opined that creatine should be taken in the pre-training phase to exploit stabilized insulin uptake, during training. But remember, trade offs exist here, as well. Insulin moves inversely to GH, so users want to be aware of the exposure involved. Also, excess caffeine consumption can interfere with creatine uptake and optimal ATP replenishment, as well. When creatine first appeared on the market in 1993, it was positioned as a post-training supplement that took advantage of post-training increases in insulin production induced by escalated consumption.
Now, the repositioning effects of creatine (pre-workout formulation), make its particular initial effects more noticeable (i.e., accelerate pumps with NO2 pre-cursors), but somewhat modest in terms of long-term cell-volumization: Post-workout monohydrate-based creatine formulas fare better here. Please note that the vast majority of creatine in pre-workout formulations is esterified for increased cell membrane permeability. Therefore, less is needed compared to its monohydrate equivalent. But monohydrate qualitatively promotes superior lean mass and long-term strength gains on the merits of the creatine attachment alone, whereas its pre-workout counterparts afford users a collective set of benefits from various training enhancement substrates. What this all means is that each type and/or variance of a particular supplement may have a detailed set of advantages and disadvantages compared to other specialty formulations within its product category. Likely, these differences once identified become key to supplement positioning.
On an interesting note, a few esterified creatine pre-workout formulations are laced with neuro-transmission precursors to give off greater amounts of contractile energy and strength. This benefit should in tertiary standing keep the parasympathic nervous system from substantially interfering with the body's sympathetic nervous system induced excitory response. These neuro-transmission precursors also improve nervous system regeneration, for subsequent training sessions. Therefore users may want to consider the possibility of nootropic supplementation to compliment CNS (Central Nervous System) recovery.
A key insight here is to train extremely hard when using products from this category of pre-training formulas. This consistent positioning of pre-workout creatine to increased training intensity creates a nice rebound effect for extended post-workout repartitioning and recovery. Done over long periods of time, overall bodyweight should actually increase in tandem with sharp recomposition effects (as muscle has higher density and weight per unit of volume than fat). This assertion factors in the presumption that accelerated fat loss will most likely occur at a faster rate than muscle mass gain. The difference in rate calculus between that of muscle mass gain and fat loss is based on the fact that nitrogen is harder to assemble into muscle protein than lipid derived hydro-carbons are to disassemble for energy deployment. In other words, fat loss for most people is easier than muscle mass gain. In sum, the optimal value from supplementation is in significant part contingent upon how each product is optimally positioned relative to other elements of the training cycle and nutritional regimen.
Recommended Product(s):
NO XPLODE Pre-Training Energy Formula
NO2 Precursor
Micronized Creatine Monohydrate
No comments:
Post a Comment