My feeling from reading your posts is that the preferable route for weight gain would be somewhat similar to the practical recommendations for weight loss (as strange as that may sound)….With the specific goal not being fat loss but lean tissue gain, I would argue that the post workout meal would be the best window in which to consume carbohydrate (as some glycogen depletion would have occured) – perhaps the typical post-workout insulin profile would also favour this (athletes are often told that post-workout is the only suitable time to consume simple sugars/hypotonic solutions).

David,

As strange as it may seem, I think you are indeed right that the same protocol could be useful for both weight loss and weight gain. A high protein diet and intermittent post-workout feeding are useful for both “weight loss” and “weight gain”. This apparent paradox is resolved by realizing that the “weight loss” is primarily fat loss and the “weight gain” is primarily the gain of lean muscle. If further weight gain and “bulk” is desired, this can be achieved by judiciously adding what Paul Jaminet calls “safe starches” — mainly rice, potatoes, and a limited amount of fruit — in combination with the protein, particularly after workouts. These carbohydrates help drive both protein and glycogen uptake by transiently raising insulin levels. Insulin is not a “bad” hormone, so long as it is only elevated for short periods of time, and not chronically.

In summary, I would see a weight gain programme being broadly similar to a weight loss programme with perhaps 3 main distinctions:
1) greater focus on intense resistance training and the improvement of athletic performance in this regard
2) possible addition of a protein-rich food/supplement outside of the one or two “set” daily meals
3) greater latitude to consume carbohydrates in the post-workout period.

Do you think i’m moving in the right direction here or not? Feel free to say you think any of the above is nonsense, I am interested in the hormetic perspective.

Definitely not nonsense. I have not researched this deeply, but what you say makes eminent sense. Please let us know if you find any supporting references, or any support from your personal experimentation.

Thanks,

Todd

My feeling from reading your posts is that the preferable route for weight gain would be somewhat similar to the practical recommendations for weight loss (as strange as that may sound).
As with weight-loss, I feel the most important aspect is not a crude balance of calorie intake with activity levels but the exposure of the body to small “positive” stresses, the same principles of enhancing insulin and leptin sensitivity would still apply (it would likely be detrimental to athletic performance and weight gain to bring about insulin insensitivity). From a training point of view the emphasis should be on short intense workouts, there is some evidence that the movements which place the most stress on the whole body- weighted squats, deadlifts etc. stimulate muscle growth in a generic sense (as much hypertrophy in muscle groups which play a minimal role in the movement as those which are the prime movers).
When it comes to eating, I have met several weightlifters/power athletes who have gone against the grain and achieved great results with intermitent fasting (which is thought-provoking in the light of your views on the subject)- yet I can’t help questioning whether the body can assimilate its required daily protein intake (which is elevated for those undertaking heavy resistance training) in just one or two sittings. I have read in several sources that there is a limit (30-40g depending on individual factors) to how much protein can be digested in one meal and processed by the kidneys. I am very atuned to the idea that the best time to ingest protein (particularly the branch-chain amino acids) is immediately post workout when the body is beginning to repair damage to muscle cells, and an hour before nightly sleep as the first sleep cycle sees a disproportionately large release of growth hormone and muscle repair activity. With the specific goal not being fat loss but lean tissue gain, I would argue that the post workout meal would be the best window in which to consume carbohydrate (as some glycogen depletion would have occured) – perhaps the typical post-workout insulin profile would also favour this (athletes are often told that post-workout is the only suitable time to consume simple sugars/hypotonic solutions).
In summary, I would see a weight gain programme being broadly similar to a weight loss programme with perhaps 3 main distinctions:
1) greater focus on intense resistance training and the improvement of athletic performance in this regard
2) possible addition of a protein-rich food/supplement outside of the one or two “set” daily meals
3) greater latitude to consume carbohydrates in the post-workout period.

Do you think i’m moving in the right direction here or not? Feel free to say you think any of the above is nonsense, I am interested in the hormetic perspective.
David

Thanks for your question, and please excuse the tardy reply…I’ve been traveling a lot this past month.

I’m not sure I see any contradiction in what I’ve written. In my article “Change your receptors, change your set point”, I present arguments in opposition to the “fixed set point” theory that is espoused by Gordon Kennedy and Gina Kolata. As I wrote in my post,

…while there is some plausibility to the set point theory, I am convinced that it is wrong because it overlooks some important factors…in this post I’ll present some strong evidence for an alternative theory, based on the homeostatic regulation of cellular receptors for hormones and neurotransmitters.

Regarding the starvation response: The evidence is that a true starvation response, meaning metabolic slowing, takes more than 48 hours to set in, probably at least 72 hours in most cases. By contrast, the sort of intermittent fasting that I advocate involves refraining from eating food for typically 12-24 hours at a time, and never more than 48 hours.

Hope that clarifies things.

Todd

Glad to hear this article clicked for you!

If you use the subjective perception of hunger as the cue and eating as the response to extinguish, then you have to wait around for the hunger to “happen”. And spontaneous hunger can be somewhat unpredictable and random. So it doesn’t lend itself to systematic extinction or deconditioning. Whereas triggers of hunger — the presentation and aroma of food — are much easier to deliberately control. So cue exposure can be quite deliberate and even enhanced or intensified to provoke a response on cue. That’s why I think they are good focal points for deconditioning. The result is being able to walk through a kitchen, restaurant, bakery, etc. or be around others who are eating, without being sucked in.

Incidentally, since I’ve written this original article, I’ve modified my view on the role of preprandial insulin secretion as a source of hunger, and I plan to edit this article on Diet to reflect my current understanding. I now believe that the the primary cause of cue-driven hunger (as opposed to circadian hunger) is input to the hypothalamic appetite centers via the amygdala, and ultimately from sensorial inputs such as the olfactory bulb. I think that preprandial insulin fluctuations are more of an concurrent effect of stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus, rather than a cause, of the hunger. I’ve written about this in my two most recent posts, “Obesity starts in the brain” and “Hormesis and the limbic brain”

Todd

For an elegant discussion of anti-angiogenesis foods, see this TED Talk by William Li — especially the second half of it, which addresses diet:
http://www.ted.com/talks/william_li.html

The list of anti-angiogenesis foods from Li’s talk is here:
http://blog.ted.com/2010/02/10/dr_william_lis/