Will Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition

Will Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition

By Will Brink
Columnist and Consultant to the Fitness Indutry
Author of : Brink’s Bodybuilding Revealed and Fat Loss Revealed.

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even “Theory of Everything,” they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it “an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God.” That’s how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don’t have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the ‘old school’ of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and “a calorie is a calorie,” no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the ‘new school’ of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the “calorie is a calorie” mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

  • A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.
  • A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.

“A calorie is a calorie”

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of “calories in, calories out.” Translated, if you “burn” more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the “calories in calories out” mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra “a calorie us a calorie” proven to be false, “all fats are created equal” or “protein is protein” is also incorrect. For example, we no know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The “calories don’t matter” school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don’t matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don’t matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don’t matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it’s clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That’s not to say people can’t experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables…

Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition

…Thus, this reality has led me to Brink’s Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

“Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses;
macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses”

This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.

Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical.

Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:

“Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition.”

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the “calorie is a calorie” school with the “calories don’t matter” school to help people make decisions about nutrition?

Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the ‘net, and well meaning friends, but that’s another article altogether).

  • Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:
  • An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.
  • A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.
  • Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can’t be ignored.

This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

Simply asking, “how much weight will I lose?” is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can’t keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!

There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don’t receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition “guru” laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.

Any diet that claims calories don’t matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it’s a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don’t like!

will brink
Author Will Brink

Will Brink is a columnist, contributing consultant, and writer for various health/fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles relating to nutrition, supplements, weight loss, exercise and medicine can be found in such publications as Lets Live, Muscle Media 2000, MuscleMag International, The Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Body International, Power, Oxygen, Penthouse, Women’s World and The Townsend Letter For Doctors.

He is the author of Priming The Anabolic Environment and Weight Loss Nutrients Revealed. He is the Consulting Sports Nutrition Editor and a monthly columnist for Physical magazine and an Editor at Large for Power magazine. Will graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural sciences, and is a consultant to major supplement, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies.

He has been co author of several studies relating to sports nutrition and health found in peer reviewed academic journals, as well as having commentary published in JAMA. He runs the highly popular web site BrinkZone.com which is strategically positioned to fulfill the needs and interests of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge.

The BrinkZone site has a following with many sports nutrition enthusiasts, athletes, fitness professionals, scientists, medical doctors, nutritionists, and interested lay people. William has been invited to lecture on the benefits of weight training and nutrition at conventions and symposiums around the U.S. and Canada, and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs.

William has also worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders, golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel.

Tired of eating the same fats?

 

Tired of eating the same fats?

tired of eating the same fats???
guys i hear this non-sense from people who say they get tired of their fats….

yea, i’d be tired of them too if i ate them everyday for months on end…

you have to be creative and cycle through different foods.. keeping yourself PSYCHOLOGICALLY on track with your diet…

so for those of you scarfing pb and almond butter all the time… switch up to something ur really gonna love

pistachios

did u guys ever wonder why its so hard to stop eating sunflower seeds?? how about cracking a peanut shell and eating the peanuts??

notice how these foods make you work a little bit.. through their shells.. for their nutrients??

our brains LOVE THIS STUFF…. your brain rewards you for the work you put out.. and it just tastes better… also it makes you feel full because signals are being sent that your eating, but not eating alot at a time.. thx to having to work through the shell..

pistachios are the forgotten efa’s…… people dont think pistachio when they think efa.. but we’re talking about a great fat source here…

they’re low in calories.. so you can eat more of them and feel fuller, longer.. great stuff if your cutting.. or about to go to sleep at night..

In research at Pennsylvania State University, pistachios in particular significantly reduced levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol) while increasing antioxidant levels in the serum of volunteers.[22][23] In rats, consumption of pistachios as 20% of daily caloric intake increased beneficial high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol) without lowering LDL cholesterol, and while reducing LDL oxidation.[24]
Human studies have shown that 32-63 grams per day of pistachio nut can significantly elevate plasma levels of lutein, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, and gamma-tocopherol.[23]
In December 2008, Dr. James Painter, a behavioral eating expert professor and chair of School of Family and Consumer Sciences at Eastern Illinois University, described the Pistachio Principle. The Pistachio Principle describes methods of “fooling” one’s body into eating less. One example used is that the act of de-shelling and eating pistachios one by one slows one’s consumption allowing one to feel full faster after having eaten less.[25]

A more anabolic protein drink

Title: Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise.Researchers: Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, & Wolfe RR.Source: American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2001 Aug;281(2):E197-206.

Summary: This study was designed to determine whether drinking an essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement (6gEAA+35g carbs) before exercise results in a greater anabolic response than supplementation after resistance exercise.

Methods: Six healthy human subjects participated in two trials in random order, PRE (6g EAA+35g carbs consumed immediately before exercise), and POST (6g EAA+35g carbs consumed immediately after exercise). A primed, continuous infusion of L-[ring-(2)H(5)]phenylalanine, femoral arteriovenous catheterization, and muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis were used to determine phenylalanine concentrations, enrichments, and net uptake across the leg.

Results: Blood and muscle phenylalanine concentrations were increased by approximately 130% after drink consumption in both trials. Amino acid delivery to the leg was increased during exercise and remained elevated for the 2 h after exercise in both trials. Delivery of amino acids (amino acid concentration times blood flow) was significantly greater in PRE than in POST during the exercise bout and in the 1st h after exercise. Total net phenylalanine uptake across the leg was greater during PRE (209 +/- 42 mg) than during POST (81 +/- 19). Phenylalanine disappearance rate, an indicator of muscle protein synthesis from blood amino acids, increased after EAC consumption in both trials.

Conclusion: These results indicate that the response of net muscle protein synthesis to consumption of an EAC solution immediately before resistance exercise is greater than that when the solution is consumed after exercise, primarily because of an increase in muscle protein synthesis as a result of increased delivery of amino acids to the leg.

Discussion: First let’s talk about what’s right with this study. Then we’ll tackle what’s wrong with it to keep things in perspective.

Here’s what they did right. These researchers measured systemic levels of amino acids after the drink, the amount of amino acids delivered to muscle tissue, as well as the uptake of amino acids into the muscle for protein synthesis. This way they were able to follow the effects of the protein drink from the time it entered the blood stream to its eventual incorporation into muscle protein.

What they found was that systemic (amino acids in the blood stream) levels of amino acids were the same whether you took the drink before or after training. Amino acid delivery to the leg increased during exercise, and remained elevated for at least 2 hours after training. This is the result of increased blood flow to the working muscle. This increase in blood flow peaks during exercise then returns to normal over the next 2 hours.

Here is where it gets interesting. Delivery of amino acids, meaning the quantity of amino acids delivered to the muscle, was significantly greater when they gave the protein drink before training and remained significantly higher for at least an hour after the workout, compared to drinking it immediately after training. The increased delivery of amino acids from drinking the protein drink before training increased amino acid uptake into muscle by over 250%!

The superiority of taking protein before training is obvious when comparing the percentage of amino acids taken up by the leg from the protein drink. When the protein drink was taken before training, ~42% of the amino acids in the drink were taken up into the muscle. The proportion was much lower when the protein was drank after training, only about 16% of the drink was taken up into the muscle. That’s over twice as much of the amino acids being taken up by muscle when it is consumed before training. It was estimated that ~86% of total uptake was incorporated into proteins whereas only ~48% of total uptake during the post workout trail was incorporated into proteins. That’s a huge difference.

As for the bad, this study only used 6 grams of amino acids! I can blow my nose and produce more than 6 grams of protein. These researchers had previously (1) used higher amounts of protein (40 grams) without carbs, so in this study they wanted to see if they could elicit a similar anabolic response with less protein and more carbs. Of course, anybody who’s serious about putting on muscle weight is going to need more than 6 grams of amino acids before their workout. I would suggest at least 20 grams before and another 20 grams after. Although they used only essential amino acids in this study, using a whole protein source is equally effective as long as it contains all the essential amino acids.

If you want the most muscle growth from your protein supplements, you must take one right before training, and the another right after. Although I alone have been recommending this for some time, you will surely see others making these recommendations in the near future. At least you’ll know you knew about it way before the rest of the world did. 

1. Tipton, KD, Ferrando AA, Phillips SM, Doyle D, Jr, and Wolfe RR. Postexercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 276: E628-E634, 1999

Title: Effects of a 7-day eccentric training period on muscle damage and inflammation.Researchers: Chen TC, Hsieh SS.Institution: Department of Ball-Related Sports Science, Taipei Physical Education College, Taipei City, Taiwan.

Source: Medicine and Science Sports & Exercise 2001 Oct;33(10):1732-8

Purpose: This study examined the effects of a 7-day repeated maximal isokinetic eccentric training period on the indicators of muscle damage and inflammatory response.

Methods: Twenty-two college-age males were randomly assigned to eccentric training (ET) and control groups (CON). The initial exercise was 30 repetitions of maximal voluntary isokinetic eccentric contraction (ECC1) on non-dominant elbow flexors with Cybex 6000 at 60 degrees.s-1 angular velocity. The ET group performed the same exercise for the following 6 consecutive days (referred to as ECC2 to ECC7) after ECC1. Upper arm circumference (CIR), range of motion (ROM), and maximal isometric force (MIF) were measured before, immediately after, and every 24 h for 7 consecutive days after ECC1. Plasma creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), glutamic oxaloacetate transaminase (GOT), leukocyte counts, and serum interleukin-1beta and -6 (IL-1beta, IL-6) levels were assessed before; at 2 h; and at 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 d after ECC1. Muscle soreness was measured before and for 7 consecutive days after ECC1.

Results: The ECC1 produced significant changes in most of the measures for both groups, with the exception of leukocyte counts. No indicators of increased damage were found from the second consecutive day of eccentric training to the 7th day for the eccentric training group.

Conclusion: Continuous intensive isokinetic eccentric training performed with damaged muscles did not exacerbate muscle damage and inflammation after ECC1. In addition, a muscular “adaptation effect” may occur as early as 24 h after ECC1, as shown by the ET group’s performance for 6 consecutive days after ECC1.

Discussion: One of the most controversial aspects of HST is the suggestion that people train in a predominantly eccentric fashion for two weeks straight. Heresy! they shout. Then when you ask them why it’s so bad to train a muscle more frequently or, heaven forbid, do negatives two workouts in a row, they say because your muscle can’t “recover” that fast. This study calls into question the belief that muscles can’t recover if trained again soon or even the next day.

They looked at a wide variety of markers for muscle damage including plasma creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), glutamic oxaloacetate transaminase (GOT), leukocyte counts, and serum interleukin-1beta and -6 (IL-1beta, IL-6). Although both groups experienced a significant change in all these indicators (accept leukocyte count), no indicators of increased damage were found from ECC2 to ECC7 for the ET group.

What about soreness? For both the group who only did one training session as well as those who did seven in a row, muscle soreness developed 1 day after the first eccentric training bout, and remained through the 3rd day, then gradually diminished regardless of which group they were in. The group that did the eccentric sets every day experienced the same progression and subsidence of soreness as the group that did only one set at the beginning of the week. The soreness level was almost back to baseline on 7 day for both groups.

The results of this investigation indicated that repeated bouts of the eccentric exercise performed on each of the following 6 days after the first bout did not affect recovery from the first training bout. This is in agreement with a substantial amount of other studies indicating that muscle adapts effectively to physical load even when the loading is frequent or even continuous. Keep in mind that we are only talking about the physical recovery of the muscle. We are not talking about performance. After all, HST is “Hypertrophy-Specific” by design.

So once again, HST turns out not to be so outlandish, but instead, simply a derivative of the research. The results and the science, speak for themselves. 

In this day and age there is really no reason why people should be afraid of science. Science is what makes our world go round. Not only is science an integral part of our modern world, but it is the very foundation of any effective method for building muscle. So, we created theHS:Report to increase our readers awareness of the science behind modern training, diet, and supplementation.In 1978 I began lifting weights and drinking protein drinks. Decades ago, gyms were anything but high-tech. I remember one of the first gyms I trained at was in the back of an old laundromat. Most of the equipment was homemade (not to be confused with “custom made”) and rickety. Anything made of iron had a good layer of rust. It was dark, it was musty, and it smelled like old gym clothes that for some reason still unbeknownst to me were never actually washed.Man I used to bust my butt in that gym, dreaming of the day when I would look like Arnold and Lou. After my workouts I’d go home, pop in a rented copy of Pumping Iron (you couldn’t actually buy it yet) in the machine and throw back a horrendous tasting protein drink made by the Master Blaster himself. As I’d watch Arnold and Ed grimacing under the squat bar, I’d take a swig of the Blaster’s brew and you would’ve sworn by the grimace on my own face that I had just finished a “squat till you puke” set of squats right along with them. But you know what they used to say, no pain no gain. I just figured gagging down nasty protein drinks was just part of the commitment.

Well, times have changed. I no longer workout in the back of an old laundromat, and I no longer gag down awful tasting protein drinks, but I’ve never lost my passion for bodybuilding and supplements. On the contrary, it has become my life’s quest to find out all that can be known about building muscle. Along the way I’ve spent countless hours in the gym, a small fortune on supplements, and 10 years in college just to make sure I didn’t overlook any of the finer details.

What was the result of this life spent on bodybuilding? Well, I’ve had the good fortune of training some really great competitors, writing for a few of the best bodybuilding magazines ever, consulting for some really great companies, and the high point of it all…was the chance to publish HST to the world and create the best supplements yet made.

When I published HST, I never imagined the effect it would have. Don’t get me wrong, I knew without any doubt it was the most effective way to build size quickly, I just didn’t think people would listen. To my pleasant surprise, it has sent out a wave of change that has covered the globe and produced literally thousands of pounds of muscle. And the supplements, well, they are something I am very proud of.

My goal with HST and the HS:APS has always been muscle hypertrophy, period. TheAdvanced Protein System (APS) was designed according to the absolute latest research on the anabolic effects of protein and training. Although research has led to some controversy as to exactly how much protein an athlete needs on a daily basis, there is no question about the need for protein immediately before and after your workouts.(1-5) So I gathered the highest quality proteins available and I designed a protein system that would lead to the greatest uptake of amino acids each and every workout, thus producing the fastest muscle growth possible without a prescription.

The results had by users of HST and the HS:APS have proven their effectiveness.

Here is a sample:

“Ok, today I finished my second cycle fifth week (5’s). My results seem too good to be true. Get ready for this: So in two cycles with a length of two and a half months I gained 7.5 kilos (16.5 pounds), and my waist went increased only 1.5cm! Bryan if you want to use my post as proof that HST works please do!”

— restless

“Just did my measurements following the 15s of my full body cycle of HST. Man, it is going insane, sure I know that some of the gains will be local swelling from the constant training, but I doubt that it totals all of it.

Bodyweight 93.6 to 95.5kg
LBM 77.6 to 79.1kg
Arm +0.45inch
Thigh +1.2inches!!!!!
Calf +0.4inch

Loads are feeling good, only just reached failure in one exercise (bench) and am getting psyched to get my lbm over 80kg, possibly even to the great 181lb mark (82.5kg) and all this with a constant cold that my kids gave me. Excellent stuff”

— Aaron_F

“Hi Bryan, I have just finished my first HST cycle and am very pleased with the results, to say the least. I have gained 8.8 pounds, put on 1″ on my arms, 1.6″ on my thighs and 0.8″ on my calves (even though I didn’t train them directly). My strength has gone up noticeably as well. I can now power clean the weights that I used to deadlift!”

— Jean-Claude

As always, Hypertrophy-Specific Training is FREE to everybody. Add Primer and Driver to your program and you can’t make faster gains without a syringe! I’m not kidding. The science has finally reached a point where real muscle gains in only a matter of weeks are possible. HSN and HST are the embodiment of that science.

Come to www.Hypertrophy-Specific.com and set up your HST program and get yourself the Primer and Driver Advanced Protein System. I guarantee you will see improvements that will change the way you train and the supplements you use forever. 

Research behind HSN Primer & Driver:

1: Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR. Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001 Aug;281(2):E197-206.

2: Rasmussen BB, Tipton KD, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR. An oral essential amino acid-carbohydrate supplement enhances muscle protein anabolism after resistance exercise. J Appl Physiol. 2000 Feb;88(2):386-92.

3: Tipton KD, Ferrando AA, Phillips SM, Doyle D Jr, Wolfe RR. Postexercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids. Am J Physiol. 1999 Apr;276(4 Pt 1):E628-34.

4: Biolo G, Maggi SP, Williams BD, Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Increased rates of muscle protein turnover and amino acid transport after resistance exercise in humans. Am J Physiol. 1995 Mar;268(3 Pt 1):E514-20.

5: Biolo G, Williams BD, Fleming RY, Wolfe RR. Insulin action on muscle protein kinetics and amino acid transport during recovery after resistance exercise. Diabetes. 1999 May;48(5):949-57.

6: Biolo G, Tipton KD, Klein S, Wolfe RR. An abundant supply of amino acids enhances the metabolic effect of exercise on muscle protein. Am J Physiol. 1997 Jul;273(1 Pt 1):E122-9.

%d bloggers like this: