What Mike says sounds logical to me, which of course is counter my original argument. Like I said, I'm not an expert. If indeed less insulin will lead to the same amount of glucogen uptake in the muscle cells immediately after a workout, when they are receptive anyhow, then I guess taking it early makes sense. And, yes, diabetics take it before meals. My original thinking is in the case of a post workout carb load you are wanting to flood the system with sugar-carrying insulin (think about a BB taking insulin after his workout to put on mass), to really feed the muscles, and I was worried Glucophage might hamper that. Normally you want what Glucophage does, but for the brief period after a workout you want something different. There are clearly a lot of variables at work here, so I'm just conjecturing at this point.
Mr. Magoo, since you mentioned r-ala, do you have data supporting the efficacy of r-ala over regular, old, ala? There is a huge price difference, and I've heard the arguments both ways as to which is better. I'm not sure how the workings of either version of ala compare to Glucophage. Ala I gather tends to lessen the impact of carbs on body fat, whereas Glucophage increases the sensitivity of insulin receptors in muscle, fat cells, etc, meaning less insulin is needed, and that reduces the amount of blood sugars stored as fat. So I guess the outcome is similar, but the mechanism I imagine is quite different. I'd appreciate any input on this you have.