The science behind Vega's Recovery Accelerator

Can anyone tell me where Mr. Brazier got his science for this product, the whole 4:1 car to protein ratio, followed later by a protein shake/smoothie?

I am a Gracie Jiu-Jitsu practioner and everywhere I read I read drink protein after exercise, everything seems to be in opposition to what Mr. Brazier says, and they have footnotes and University studies, he does not.

??

He probably got the 4:1 ratio from a few studies that have been done....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1601794?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12235033?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580650?dopt=Abstract

Thomas, read his book, Thrive. http://www.amazon.com/Thrive-Nutrition-Optimal-Performance-Sports/dp/0738212547 He goes into detail about why different ratios of protein, fat, and carbs work best for different activities, from anaerobic to aerobic, endurance to speed. He never states that "one ratio fits all." I can back up his statements with my own research, several sports scientists, physiologists and athletes who all say the same thing, and my own personal experience. I've tried his recommendations and they work. Only a tiny tweak here and there is needed to suit each individual; you may need to add something now and then to his products to optimize them for yourself.

The real key is to use the ratios as a foundation and then go from there to find your own perfect balance. Your body is a little bit different every day according to your stress levels, what's on your mind, what you're healing from or fighting off at the moment (which you usually aren't even aware of), and natural hormone cycles that both men and women have. It sounds like a lot to juggle but it gets very easy once you learn to listen to the subtle signals your body is sending you. Rather than plugging into a preset formula and trying to force yourself to stay there, try plugging into yourself. All the info you need is right on the other side of your skin. Feel for it.

Baby Herc

I've read 'THRIVE' and his footnotes are seriously lacking. Yes, there is a bibliography, but that doesn't tell me if what he's saying is in fact derived from any of those sources.

I've read 'THRIVE' and his footnotes are seriously lacking. Yes, there is a bibliography, but that doesn't tell me if what he's saying is in fact derived from any of those sources.

Then read the sources. Better yet, read further. It's all out there. When I really want to find something, I go in search of it. However, there's a much simpler, faster way to find out if something works: try it. If it doesn't work for you, move on.

Baby Herc

It makes sense. You expend glycogen, aka glucose, stores in the body during rigorous physical activity and instead of using your liver enzyme glucagon to convert stored glycogen to glucose into your cardiovascular system you feed your body a high carbohydrate meal to breakdown rapidly into glucose. Your body is starving for it. The protein and carbs are much more readily absorbed at this time, aka the workout window. The insulin spike caused by the high carbohydrate meal thus helps transport the glucose you just ate into the cellular membrane at a much faster rate, thus causing decreased recovery time, and enabling your body to be recovered from workouts faster.

I've read 'THRIVE' and his footnotes are seriously lacking. Yes, there is a bibliography, but that doesn't tell me if what he's saying is in fact derived from any of those sources.

I more or less like Thrive and I like Brazier, but I do agree with you on this point.

Some of the claims in that book just seem like he plucked them out of thin air or there aren't any peer-reviewed articles cited. I can't give specific examples as it's been a couple of years since I read the book. I'm not picking on just him though, I noticed this with a LOT of health books on the market.

Personally I like to take peer-reviewed research into account when making decisions about my health, but I know not everyone feels that way and I'm certainly not looking to start an argument on this thread.

That being said, I still think his books are a good read for athletes and I would recommend them to others, with a couple of caveats.

I've read 'THRIVE' and his footnotes are seriously lacking. Yes, there is a bibliography, but that doesn't tell me if what he's saying is in fact derived from any of those sources.

 

I more or less like Thrive and I like Brazier, but I do agree with you on this point.

 

Some of the claims in that book just seem like he plucked them out of thin air or there aren't any peer-reviewed articles cited.

 

Ditto on this sentiment.

The whole idea at the foundation of buying a non-fiction book is that the author is telling you facts you don't know. People make mistakes. People make things up. You know you are getting facts ( and not wasting your time with the book ) by asking "how does the author know what s/he claims to know?". Citations to solid research where people can look up those claims directly is how that question is answered. Without that question answered you might as well take advice from anyone.

To be fair, some pop health publishers don't like printing citations as they think it turn the mass market pop health reader off. Then again, I've come across many nutrition books written for popular audiences where the authors did manage to get quality citations printed.

I've been doing health and brain research for decades--literally decades--and after all that time there are three facts I am absolutely sure of. One, there are "fact fads" that come and go according to waves of belief. When everybody in the scientific community decides that something is true, they do research around that topic to the exclusion of most everything else. They do this because donated funding is siphoned into the popular ideas that can be marketed and profited from, they do it because their egos are riding on making a name for themselves in peer reviewed publications, and they do it because those aforementioned publications carry so much imaginary clout that if the scientists didn't jump on the belief bandwagon, they'd be shunned from the scientific community. It sounds far fetched but it has been going on since the beginning of the scientific method as we know it. Ask Copernicus how well received his ideas were. Then talk to every other leading edge, barrier-breaking free thinker. You'll hear the same story in ten thousand flavors.

Two, we cannot know everything that is true. We either don't have the methodologies or instruments to discover it yet and/or we aren't prepared to understand its reality with our current world views. People used to believe we were all kept alive by something called ether. The guy who suggested that blood was crucial to life was laughed out of his university. The doctor who first suggested surgeons wash their hands and instruments between patients was called a lunatic. Quantum physics is a good example. We had to "invent" a physics to explain what we were witnessing out there at the atomic level but couldn't understand. In the field of health, a lot of us are witnessing results that we personally get by going counter to the establishment and their current ideas. And, FYI, the medical establishment is not immune to being swayed by financial incentive. Got milk?

And three, no matter what truths are revealed, they cannot heal all the people all the time. That's because all the people are different, and not just from the neck down. There are generalities and patterns, sure, but that's about it. You would differ dramatically from your own identical twin or clone if you had one just as you differ from every other person on the planet. It's coming to light just how much of an impact the mind has on health, that's the new frontier. But the mind is hard to market: you can't sell a person their own thoughts, you can only convince them that they need to buy a physical product outside of themselves. (Also, the idea that people take responsibility for their own mental patterns scares the shit out of those who would rather just buy a list of products provided by somebody else.) Mind research doesn't "sell" on many levels and that's too bad. Because if you really want to see positive results in your body, that's where you should start. In the meantime, us leading edge brain trainers are often getting laughed at--but not by the successful and happy corporate CEO's, inventors, artists, and Olympic athletes who hire us.

Know thyself, feed your head.

Baby Herc

I would invite anyone who still thinks that high quality citations in nutrition books do not matter to read this new thread.

It makes sense. You expend glycogen, aka glucose, stores in the body during rigorous physical activity and instead of using your liver enzyme glucagon to convert stored glycogen to glucose into your cardiovascular system you feed your body a high carbohydrate meal to breakdown rapidly into glucose. Your body is starving for it. The protein and carbs are much more readily absorbed at this time, aka the workout window. The insulin spike caused by the high carbohydrate meal thus helps transport the glucose you just ate into the cellular membrane at a much faster rate, thus causing decreased recovery time, and enabling your body to be recovered from workouts faster.

This is where I'm confused. I've heard this claim for years and used to practice it, but I have one problem with it.

Why the "hurry" in recovery time when most people only work out one muscle group per week?

You're recovering all the glycogen stores FAST so they can sit there for another week until you use them?

Doesn't make sense to me.

They are used in the area that you are working out only if the muscle becomes anaerobic during excercise. They glycogen breakdown is more generalized throughout the body during a normal workout, especially full body, cardio, running, biking, etc.

He probably got the 4:1 ratio from a few studies that have been done....

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1601794?dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12235033?dopt=Abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12580650?dopt=Abstract

Yup, other recovery formulas have done similarly in reference to that study, usually recommending between 3:1 and 5:1 carb/protein ratio for that reason.

P90X2 tells you how to make your own vegan recovery drink from scratch. Once you know the ratio and what it's supposed to do for you, it's easy....