Dr. Andy Galpin

I don't know if it was enough of a difference.

And I spent a lot of time in that data set

I don't know if that's a real finding, to be honest, or if that was just a little bit of an artifact.

The counter to it was, as time went on, fatigue got higher in the TRE group.

Legs got heavier, performance in the legs started to decline.

Again...

So much so what I suggest TRE is gonna be bad.

No, no, but it was like, okay, I think there's something happening here.

I think potentially if we were to change the study design a little bit and give them fuel closer, that would have made it, not exactly sure.

We would have to run a separate study design for that.

And so if you torture the data a little bit, you might find some subtle differences between the two groups.

And they were, you know, statistically significant and effect size and like all those things there.

But looking at it from a real practitioner perspective, my general take home was it didn't matter a ton.

If you're trying to maximize leg strength and maximize leg growth, I probably wouldn't go to 16.8 TRE.

But if you have other reasons to do it, you're still going to get gains.

They still got stronger.

They didn't get as strong.

There's some other issues that happen, but either one of them works.

I think it would, honestly, it was more of a carbohydrate issue.

carbohydrates yeah i think that was the bigger issue because they were going so long without carbohydrates and they were training so hard they were and they were doing the same workout multiple times per week i just think over time we were also progressing them so they were being tested every time they came in the lab and the training got harder right like traditional progressive overload i don't think they i wish we had actually biopsy data for their um muscle glycogen levels