Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: Princess L on October 31, 2007, 08:15:44 PM
-
The purpose of this review paper was to analyze past and contemporary issues in protein consumption for resistance trained athletes. The review analyzed the amount of protein needed daily by athletes, the optimal timing of protein intake relative to exercise, the optimal pattern of protein digestion, the role of protein quality in muscular hypertrophy, the effects of added energy on protein balance, as well as the efficacy of protein supplementation.
http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/JISSN-3-1-7-27-06.pdf
-
solid meta analysis
-
As many of us have suspected, there appears to be a ceiling on the amount of protein in a given meal that the body can absorb.
-
hm....this would be an ineteresting fact; if true...because it would imply that you could have huge binges on protein and still be losing weight..
I don't think that's the implication, just because there is a ceiling on muscles' ability to ultilize protein, the surplus calories would nevertheless still be stored as fat.
-
I don't think that's the implication, just because there is a ceiling on muscles' ability to ultilize protein, the surplus calories would nevertheless still be stored as fat.
well if the body doesnt ABSORB the calories, then they wont be in the blood stream, and thus wont be available for fat storage.
obviously, we all already knew that the body can only UTILIZE so much protein at one time....if there was no limit, then the amount of protein you ate would be directly proportionate to how fast you could recover, and consequently= grow bigger. but since obviously there is a point of "no further benefit" in regards to the amount of protein consumed, then the question is, What happens to the excess protein not being utilized? if it is indeed absorbed into the blood stream, then there are a few otpion, it can be converted into glucose through glucogensis, and then used for energy or for fat storage; or, it could be urinated. and then there is another question to be asked, does the body convert more amino acids into glucose than it actually needs for energy demands? and then, there is even another question to be asked on top of that, is excess protein even absorbed AT ALL.
i think the answer depends on what type of metabolism your body is currently utilizing (is it using mostly lipids or mostly glucose for energy?), how much damaged muscle tissue is in the body at present(how much protein is actually needed and can be used), and how much free floating insulin, testosterone, and growth hormone is in your body.
and i also dont believe that if you eat 5 pounds of steak in one sitting, that your body is anywhere near capable of digesting and sending that much aminos and calories into the blood stream. obviously there is a limit to the amount of calories that you can ABSORB at any given time. you are nto going to be storing the entirety of a meal that contained 5000 calories. its not just feasable.
-
I would like to have seen more analysis done on protein sources like fish, red meats, chicken, eggs, etc, and how they provided an anticatabolic or anabolic state. Even though it mostly delt with whey vs caesin it was still a very good article.
Thanks Your Worshipfulness. :)
-
This isn't really new...and you're still going to get muscleheads arguing that you need huge amounts of protein.
Well, if you're on steroids, you do...because the body can actually USE those proteins. If you're not on steroids, and you have a genetically higher threshold, then you're probably already taking in enough protein...that would account for those mesomorphs who use the protein more efficiently.
For the majority, all the extra protein just turns into sugar at some point and is either used as energy or stored as fat. Scientists have figured this out looooong ago.
Once protein has not been utilized once it's broken down into aminos, then any more is useless. You don't excrete protein in your urine, by the way. That should be common knowledge.
The bottom line should be that if you're taking in a gram per pound, you're taking in PLENTY...if you're drug free. If you're not growing off that much protein, then protein isn't the reason you're not growing...time to look elsewhere for the cause.
-
The bottom line should be that if you're taking in a gram per pound, you're taking in PLENTY...if you're drug free. If you're not growing off that much protein, then protein isn't the reason you're not growing...time to look elsewhere for the cause.
what whould be some of the additional areas to look at as you suggest in the above? I hear of a lot of weight lifters men and women complaining they are not seeing the results... they reference the diet, they reference the lifting rutine, they reference the supplements, but wtill in their mind no results are "forthcoming" generally speaking if you have a average healthy male say 6ft and at 190 pounds and he goes on a high protein intake diet working out 5 days a week..common program... if looking for rip and cut, what time frame are we talking about... I knwo the skin is going to get loose from the loss of body weight and fat, which will most likely result in a trip to the doc for Lypo or a tummy skin graph... but othere than natural skin srinkage..what time lines for actula visual results are you looking at? 6-8 months?
-
In my research I was led to believe the body will only absorb 20 gms. of protien in a 2 1/2 to 3 hr period and any more is pasted and stored as fat. Is this correct?
-
In my research I was led to believe the body will only absorb 20 gms. of protien in a 2 1/2 to 3 hr period and any more is pasted and stored as fat. Is this correct?
Short answer, no. Your body will adapt based on your metoblism and needs to how much it can absorb at once. The BIG problem is, that's different for everyone and there's no definitive answer as to only X amount of protein will be absorbed in X amount of time. Purely speculation.
-
Thank you,,,,,,,
So basically the only way to tell if you ingesting to much is by the amount of body fat gained. as far a muscle, keep eating protein as long as growth is occurring.......
-
http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/JISSN-3-1-7-27-06.pdf
Too bad, this link is death. Got another one?
-
Too bad, this link is death. Got another one?
Dang it! Didn't know it died :-\
Try this: http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/8
also, a ton of other good articles (note: multiple pages of articles) http://www.jissn.com/articles/browse.asp?date=&sort=&page=2
-
Dang it! Didn't know it died :-\
Try this: http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/8
also, a ton of other good articles (note: multiple pages of articles) http://www.jissn.com/articles/browse.asp?date=&sort=&page=2
Interesting stuff, thanks! And everything seems to be free content, most of those journals let you pay first :D
-
anyone have problems with kidneys or too much creatinine in blood samples ?
-
anyone have problems with kidneys or too much creatinine in blood samples ?
Go back to Doctor, tell them you supp protein, they'll run other test..... your fine
-
anyone have problems with kidneys or too much creatinine in blood samples ?
This can actually be caused from creatine supplementation (and yes before someone comments I realize creatine and creatinine are different).
-
Protein intake is irrelevant. Anti-catabolism is more important than anabolism.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Protein intake is irrelevant. Anti-catabolism is more important than anabolism.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
This study would agree with you:
Comparison of protein intakes on strength, body composition and hormonal changes were examined in 23 experienced collegiate strength/power athletes participating in a 12-week resistance training program. Subjects were stratified into three groups depending upon their daily consumption of protein; below recommended levels (BL; 1.0 – 1.4 g·kg-1·day-1; n = 8), recommended levels (RL; 1.6 – 1.8 g·kg-1·day-1; n = 7) and above recommended levels (AL; > 2.0 g·kg-1·day-1; n = 8). Subjects were assessed for strength [one-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press and squat] and body composition. Resting blood samples were analyzed for total testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor. No differences were seen in energy intake (3,171 ± 577 kcal) between the groups, and the energy intake for all groups were also below the recommended levels for strength/power athletes. No significant changes were seen in body mass, lean body mass or fat mass in any group. Significant improvements in 1-RM bench press and 1-RM squat were seen in all three groups, however no differences between the groups were observed. Subjects in AL experienced a 22% and 42% greater change in Δ 1-RM squat and Δ 1-RM bench press than subjects in RL, however these differences were not significant. No significant changes were seen in any of the resting hormonal concentrations. The results of this study do not provide support for protein intakes greater than recommended levels in collegiate strength/power athletes for body composition improvements, or alterations in resting hormonal concentrations.
Effect of Protein Intake on Strength, Body Composition and Endocrine Changes in Strength/Power Athletes
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006; 3(2): 12–18.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2129168
-
This study would agree with you:
Comparison of protein intakes on strength, body composition and hormonal changes were examined in 23 experienced collegiate strength/power athletes participating in a 12-week resistance training program. Subjects were stratified into three groups depending upon their daily consumption of protein; below recommended levels (BL; 1.0 – 1.4 g·kg-1·day-1; n = 8), recommended levels (RL; 1.6 – 1.8 g·kg-1·day-1; n = 7) and above recommended levels (AL; > 2.0 g·kg-1·day-1; n = 8). Subjects were assessed for strength [one-repetition maximum (1-RM) bench press and squat] and body composition. Resting blood samples were analyzed for total testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor. No differences were seen in energy intake (3,171 ± 577 kcal) between the groups, and the energy intake for all groups were also below the recommended levels for strength/power athletes. No significant changes were seen in body mass, lean body mass or fat mass in any group. Significant improvements in 1-RM bench press and 1-RM squat were seen in all three groups, however no differences between the groups were observed. Subjects in AL experienced a 22% and 42% greater change in Δ 1-RM squat and Δ 1-RM bench press than subjects in RL, however these differences were not significant. No significant changes were seen in any of the resting hormonal concentrations. The results of this study do not provide support for protein intakes greater than recommended levels in collegiate strength/power athletes for body composition improvements, or alterations in resting hormonal concentrations.
Effect of Protein Intake on Strength, Body Composition and Endocrine Changes in Strength/Power Athletes
J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006; 3(2): 12–18.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2129168
dumbest conclusion ever - that study shows there is no need to take greater amounts of protein than 1-1.4g per kg - not the recomended 1.6-1.8g per kg. ::)
-
This study would agree with you
Actually, my claim has nothing to do with the study. Protein consumption is irrelevant because the body can only use so much. Force-feeding yourself tons of protein won't force extra muscle growth: it will make you fat. You don't get big by eating massive amounts of protein: you get big by eating an excess of calories which allows your body to use the protein to build muscle instead of burning it for fuel. The largest guys are those who eat lots of carbs and moderate amounts protein. The guys who eat tons of protein and little carbs are usually very lean and muscular but can't pack on the weight, because the protein is simply turned via gluconeogenesis into glucose to sustain the body rather than be used to build muscle. Anti-catabolism is more important than anabolism!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Actually, my claim has nothing to do with the study. Protein consumption is irrelevant because the body can only use so much. Force-feeding yourself tons of protein won't force extra muscle growth: it will make you fat. You don't get big by eating massive amounts of protein: you get big by eating an excess of calories which allows your body to use the protein to build muscle instead of burning it for fuel. The largest guys are those who eat lots of carbs and moderate amounts protein. The guys who eat tons of protein and little carbs are usually very lean and muscular but can't pack on the weight, because the protein is simply turned via gluconeogenesis into glucose to sustain the body rather than be used to build muscle. Anti-catabolism is more important than anabolism!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
wow, this is a pretty good post
so 30/50/20 with 15-20% caloric excess would work well?
under the presence of plenty of hormones too of course
Thanks
-
Actually, my claim has nothing to do with the study. Protein consumption is irrelevant because the body can only use so much. Force-feeding yourself tons of protein won't force extra muscle growth: it will make you fat. You don't get big by eating massive amounts of protein: you get big by eating an excess of calories which allows your body to use the protein to build muscle instead of burning it for fuel. The largest guys are those who eat lots of carbs and moderate amounts protein. The guys who eat tons of protein and little carbs are usually very lean and muscular but can't pack on the weight, because the protein is simply turned via gluconeogenesis into glucose to sustain the body rather than be used to build muscle. Anti-catabolism is more important than anabolism!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
i read a study recently that reported all thats needed to produce maximum muscle protein synthesis is 40g a day :o ( you can dowload and read the whole paper for free)
Human muscle protein synthesis is modulated by extracellular, not intramuscular amino acid availability: a dose-response study.Bohé J, Low A, Wolfe RR, Rennie MJ.
Division of Metabolism, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Shriners Burns Hospital, Galveston, TX 77550, USA.
To test the hypothesis that muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is regulated by the concentration of extracellular amino acids, we investigated the dose-response relationship between the rate of human MPS and the concentrations of blood and intramuscular amino acids. We increased blood mixed amino acid concentrations by up to 240 % above basal levels by infusion of mixed amino acids (Aminosyn 15, 44-261 mg kg-1 h-1) in 21 healthy subjects, (11 men 10 women, aged 29 +/- 2 years) and measured the rate of incorporation of D5-phenylalanine or D3-leucine into muscle protein and blood and intramuscular amino acid concentrations. The relationship between the fold increase in MPS and blood essential amino acid concentration ([EAA], mM) was hyperbolic and fitted the equation MPS = (2.68 x [EAA])/(1.51 + [EAA]) (P < 0.01). The pattern of stimulation of myofibrillar, sarcoplasmic and mitochondrial protein was similar. There was no clear relationship between the rate of MPS and the concentration of intramuscular EAAs; indeed, when MPS was increasing most rapidly, the concentration of intramuscular EAAs was below basal levels. We conclude that the rates of synthesis of all classes of muscle proteins are acutely regulated by the blood [EAA] over their normal diurnal range, but become saturated at high concentrations. We propose that the stimulation of protein synthesis depends on the sensing of the concentration of extracellular, rather than intramuscular EAAs.
-
Actually, my claim has nothing to do with the study. Protein consumption is irrelevant because the body can only use so much. Force-feeding yourself tons of protein won't force extra muscle growth: it will make you fat. You don't get big by eating massive amounts of protein: you get big by eating an excess of calories which allows your body to use the protein to build muscle instead of burning it for fuel. The largest guys are those who eat lots of carbs and moderate amounts protein.The guys who eat tons of protein and little carbs are usually very lean and muscular but can't pack on the weight, because the protein is simply turned via gluconeogenesis into glucose to sustain the body rather than be used to build muscle. Anti-catabolism is more important than anabolism!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Ketosis would seem like the way to go...Its easier for me to eat high amounts of fat (good), rather than moderate/high amounts of low glycimic carbs...*LOL*...just guessing here...
GC
-
The bottom line should be that if you're taking in a gram per pound, you're taking in PLENTY...if you're drug free. If you're not growing off that much protein, then protein isn't the reason you're not growing...time to look elsewhere for the cause.
I beg to differ. I can tell you from my own experience, especially when I was in college, that it took more than 1 gram/lb of bodyweight for me to put on size. And, I could barely afford weight-gainer and protein powder, MUCH LESS STEROIDS or any other drugs.
My protein intake, during a particular semester, that resulted in 21 lbs, was in the low-to-mid 300-gram range. I ended up going from 189 to 210 lbs. Considering that the weight gainer I was using (Mega Mass 2000) had PLENTY of carbs and I'd already been consuming lots of carbs for years, I can confidently say that increased protein was the difference.
I don't know why some people keep complaining about increasing their protein intake. It seems that they're looking for any excuse NOT to do what they probably need to do to see some growth: "I don't use steroids"; "you can only consume X grams of protein"; "the big-bad-supplement-company-muscle-magazine-conspiracy, etc."
If you need more protein, then it's time to eat/drink more to get the job done. People need to quit using the aforementioned excuses and get 'er done. And, keep in mind, that protein increase should be gradual. If you weigh 180 lbs, for example, don't try to jump from 180 grams to 300 grams instantly. Start at, say, 240-250 grams of protein and work from there.
-
amino acids are the basis for all the proteins made in the body, not just muscle, but hormones and neurotransmitters, and the precursors for nucleic acids.
additionally, if there is really excess protein around, after deanimation, the carbon skeletons can enter the energy production cycle as either acetyl-CoA or a TCA-cycle intermediate - so they are burned for energy -- but not as sugar.
some aa can also be converted to glucose if the body has an overt requirement for glucose at that time.
(open to correction on which pathway is favored - burning or glucose production when CHO are restricted vs not restricted)
there is no direct pathway from protein to fat (at least not that I can think of).
If the protein is burned for energy and dietary fat is thereby spared, the excess fat can store as fat - but that isn't the same thing.
theoretically, glucose produced from aa could get stored as fat - but I think it would be very unlikely as the body wanted the glucose for the obligate glucose-burning cells or it would not gone to the trouble to make it. (again, open to correction on what pathway would be actually favored in CHO restriction)
nitrogen balance:
the state of the body in regard to the rate of protein intake and protein utilization. When protein is metabolized, about 90% of the protein nitrogen is excreted in the urine in the form of urea, uric acid, creatinine and other nitrogen end products. The remaining 10% of the nitrogen is eliminated in the feces.
A negative nitrogen balance occurs when more protein is utilized by the body than is taken in. A positive nitrogen balance implies a net gain of protein in the body. Negative nitrogen balance can be caused by such factors as malnutrition, debilitating diseases, blood loss and glucocorticoids. A positive balance can be caused by exercise, growth hormone and testosterone.
-
I'm not here to cause any trouble so please don't start firing insults at me...but it seems that no one REALLY knows what to do with protein or how to best supplement with it.....
some of you say that protein is not excreted in the urine and some of you say it is..
some of you say that we are taking in too much protein and it can't be absorbed and some of you say we need to keep protein intake high for growth...
I just find it kind of strange that all of us on here ( me included)and a whole bunch of BB'ers all over the world are sspending tons of cash and supplementing with something we don't have the foggiest notion about....
I am not putting anyone down here..you guys have definitely done your homework and this is the best thread I have ever seen in discussing this topic...
I just wish we were able to pin things down a little better...
-
I'm sorry.
Allow me to clarify: the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that are left over (after protein synthesis is complete) are indeed converted to glucose and used for energy. How much will be dependent on the storage of glucose
The nitrogen residue (ammonia) is not used for energy. It is processed by the liver, which converts the ammonia to urea. Ammonia is toxic to the body and MUST be removed. High levels of ammonia are even more toxic to the body. Some bodybuilders may even smell ammonia when they sweat during and after a workout.
In summary: some ARE broken down and used and some ARE excreted...the fate of an amino acid after it is transported to the liver is highly dependent upon the body's needs at the moment.
-
I'm sorry.
Allow me to clarify: the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that are left over (after protein synthesis is complete) are indeed converted to glucose and used for energy. How much will be dependent on the storage of glucose
The nitrogen residue (ammonia) is not used for energy. It is processed by the liver, which converts the ammonia to urea. Ammonia is toxic to the body and MUST be removed. High levels of ammonia are even more toxic to the body. Some bodybuilders may even smell ammonia when they sweat during and after a workout.
In summary: some ARE broken down and used and some ARE excreted...the fate of an amino acid after it is transported to the liver is highly dependent upon the body's needs at the moment.
Very nice post.....you seem to know what you are talking about and your explanation is welcome..thanks for the info.....it's good knowledge to have....
but....how can you relate this to the average guy trying to get big and /or build muscle?...are you saying eat more or less protein??
-
Very nice post.....you seem to know what you are talking about and your explanation is welcome..thanks for the info.....it's good knowledge to have....
but....how can you relate this to the average guy trying to get big and /or build muscle?...are you saying eat more or less protein??
I am a firm believer in "less"
I have done exhaustive studies on the effects of a high protein diet in diseased individuals. There was one particular study listing many types of diseases and age groups. This may have absolutely nothing to do with a young, healthy bodybuilder; nonetheless, I don't need my kidneys working anymore overtime than they already do.
Bill Pearl was another firm believer in very limited amounts of protein. He is considered "old school", but he had great genetics regardless.
Someone might argue the effects with a "juiced" bodybuilder versus "natty", but I don't want to get into that here... at least not now. I have been on both sides of the fence at different times in my life.
I started out bodybuilding 15 years ago. I was 175 at 16% bodyfat. I am 5'6". I am now 45 years old, (still 5'6") at 194 and 11% bodyfat. I don't compete, I just train people (mostly women).
I have NEVER taken in large amounts of protein. I trained naturally for 10 years straight. I can actually take 6 months off of training (not activity, just weights) and maintain most everything I've got.
Train hard, train steady, train drug-free (in the beginning). I don't think solid muscle tissue just leaves when you put down the weights. I have seen biopsies of steroid-induced muscle and all-natural muscle. They are NOT one and the same.
What is my point? You are worried about losing muscle and making maximum gains... you are afraid that when you take Ibuprofen after a workout you might lose some appreciable mass, etc.
I say, once you reach your "setpoint" (homeostasis, all things being equal)- it is hard to change regardless of how much your opinion may differ in your opinion of high or low protein.
Most of the old-school bodybuilders I know still have their bigass guns, whether they train hard or not. The media makes money buy selling you things. Those things are not neccesarily the 'truth'
Test your bodyfat levels. Whenever you make adjustments, stick with them long enough for them to make a change. One of these adjustments might be a very low protein intake. You may be surprised.
Genetics and DNA makeup are huge deciding factors in exactly what happens in our bodies. There is a chance that I am an "exception". Give it a try and see for yourself. I am sure you won't shrink overnight.
Sorry for rambling... it's past my bedtime.
-
A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans
Considerable debate has taken place over the safety and validity of increased protein intakes for both weight control and muscle synthesis. The advice to consume diets high in protein by some health professionals, media and popular diet books is given despite a lack of scientific data on the safety of increasing protein consumption. The key issues are the rate at which the gastrointestinal tract can absorb amino acids from dietary proteins (1.3 to 10 g/h) and the liver's capacity to deaminate proteins and produce urea for excretion of excess nitrogen. The accepted level of protein requirement of 0.8g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1 is based on structural requirements and ignores the use of protein for energy metabolism. High protein diets on the other hand advocate excessive levels of protein intake on the order of 200 to 400 g/d, which can equate to levels of approximately 5 g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1, which may exceed the liver?s capacity to convert excess nitrogen to urea. Dangers of excessive protein, defined as when protein constitutes > 35% of total energy intake, include hyperaminoacidemia, hyperammonemia, hyperinsulinemia nausea, diarrhea, and even death (the ?rabbit starvation syndrome?). The three different measures of defining protein intake, which should be viewed together are: absolute intake (g/d), intake related to body weight (g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1) and intake as a fraction of total energy (percent energy). A suggested maximum protein intake based on bodily needs, weight control evidence, and avoiding protein toxicity would be approximately of 25% of energy requirements at approximately 2 to 2.5 g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1, corresponding to 176 g protein per day for an 80 kg individual on a 12,000kJ/d diet. This is well below the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80 kg person (285 to 365 g/d).
Amino acid catabolism must occur in a way that does not elevate blood ammonia (26). Catabolism of amino acids occurs in the liver, which contains the urea cycle (26), however the rate of conversion of amino acid derived ammonia to urea is limited. Rudman et al. (27)
Early findings suggest that rapidly absorbed proteins such as free amino acids and WP, transiently and moderately inhibit protein breakdown (39, 53), yet stimulate protein synthesis by 68% [using nonoxidative leucine disposal (NOLD) as an index of protein synthesis] (54). Casein protein has been shown to inhibit protein breakdown by 30% for a 7-h postprandial period, and only slightly increase protein synthesis (38, 54). Rapidly absorbed amino acids despite stimulating greater protein synthesis, also stimulate greater amino acid oxidation, and hence results in a lower net protein gain, than slowly absorbed protein (54). Leucine balance, a measurable endpoint for protein balance, is indicated in Figure 1, which shows slowly absorbed amino acids (~ 6 to 7 g/h), such as CAS and 2.3 g of WP repeatedly taken orally every 20 min (RPT-WP), provide significantly better protein balance than rapidly absorbed amino acids (39, 54).
The misconception in the fitness and sports industries is that rapidly absorbed protein, such as WP and AA promote better protein anabolism. As the graph shows, slowly absorbed protein such as CAS and small amounts of WP (RPT-WP) provide four and nine times more protein synthesis than WP.
This "slow" and "fast" protein concept provides some clearer evidence that although human physiology may allow for rapid and increased absorption rate of amino acids, as in the case of WP (8 to 10 g/h), this fast absorption is not strongly correlated with a ?maximal protein balance,? as incorrectly interpreted by fitness enthusiasts, athletes, and bodybuilders.
Using the findings of amino acid absorption rates shown in Table 2 (using leucine balance as a measurable endpoint for protein balance), a maximal amino acid intake measured by the inhibition of proteolysis and increase in postprandial protein gain, may only be ~ 6 to 7 g/h (as described by RPT-WP, and casein) (38), which corresponds to a maximal protein intake of 144 to 168 g/d.
The rate of amino acid absorption from protein is quite slow (~ 5 to 8 g/h, from Table 2) when compared to that of other macronutrients, with fatty acids at ~ 0.175 g ? kg-1 ? h-1 (~ 14 g/h) (55) and glucose 60 to 100 g/h (0.8 to 1.2 g carbohydrate ? kg-1 ? h-1) for an 80 kg individual (56). From our earlier calculations elucidating the maximal amounts of protein intake from MRUS, an 80 kg subject could theoretically tolerate up to 301 to 365 g of protein per day, but this would require an absorption rate of 12.5 to 15 g/h, an unlikely level given the results of the studies reported above.
The consumption of large amounts of protein by athletes and bodybuilders is not a new practice (13). Recent evidence suggests that increased protein intakes for endurance and strength-trained athletes can increase strength and recovery from exercise (14, 80, 81). In healthy adult men consuming small frequent meals providing protein at 2.5 g ? kg-1 ? d-1, there was a decreased protein breakdown, and increased protein synthesis of up to 63%, compared with intakes of 1g ? kg-1 ? d-1 (16). Subjects receiving 1g ? kg-1 ? d-1 underwent muscle protein breakdown with less evident changes in muscle protein synthesis. Some evidence suggests, however, that a high protein diet increases leucine oxidation (82, 83), while other data demonstrate that the slower digestion rate of protein (38, 54), and the timing of protein ingestion (with resistance training) (84) promote muscle protein synthesis.
Absorption rates of amino acids from the gut can vary from 1.4 g/h for raw egg white to 8 to 10 g/h for whey protein isolate. Slowly absorbed amino acids such as casein (~ 6 g/h) and repeated small doses of whey protein (2.9 g per 20 min, totaling ~ 7 g/h) promote leucine balance, a marker of protein balance, superior to that of a single dose of 30 g of whey protein or free amino acids which are both rapidly absorbed (8 to 10 g/h), and enhance amino acid oxidation. This gives us an initial understanding that although higher protein intakes are physiologically possible, and tolerable by the human body, they may not be functionally optimal in terms of building and preserving body protein. The general, although incorrect consensus among athletes and bodybuilders, is that rapid protein absorption corresponds to greater muscle building.
From the limited data available on amino acid absorption rates, and the physiological parameters of urea synthesis, the maximal safe protein intakes for humans have been estimated at ~ 285 g/d for an 80 kg male. It is not the intention of this article, however, to promote the consumption of large amounts of protein, but rather to prompt an investigation into what are the parameters of human amino acid kinetics. In the face of the rising tide of obesity in the Western world where energy consumption overrides energy expenditure, a more prudent and practical approach, which may still provide favorable outcomes, is a 25% protein energy diet, which would provide 118 g protein on an 8000 kJ/d diet at 1.5 g ? kg-1 ? d-1 for an 80 kg individual (Table 2).
Little data exists on the comprehensive metabolic effects of large amounts of dietary protein in the order of 300 to 400 g/d. Intakes of this magnitude would result in some degree of prolonged hyperaminoacidemia, hyperammonemia, hyperinsulinemia, and hyperglucagonemia, and some conversion to fat, but the metabolic and physiological consequences of such states are currently unknown. The upper limit of protein intake is widely debated, with many experts advocating levels up to 2.0 g ? kg-1 ? d-1 being quite safe (102, 117, 118) and that renal considerations are not an issue at this level in individuals with normal renal function.
-
A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans
Considerable debate has taken place over the safety and validity of increased protein intakes for both weight control and muscle synthesis. The advice to consume diets high in protein by some health professionals, media and popular diet books is given despite a lack of scientific data on the safety of increasing protein consumption. The key issues are the rate at which the gastrointestinal tract can absorb amino acids from dietary proteins (1.3 to 10 g/h) and the liver's capacity to deaminate proteins and produce urea for excretion of excess nitrogen. The accepted level of protein requirement of 0.8g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1 is based on structural requirements and ignores the use of protein for energy metabolism. High protein diets on the other hand advocate excessive levels of protein intake on the order of 200 to 400 g/d, which can equate to levels of approximately 5 g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1, which may exceed the liver?s capacity to convert excess nitrogen to urea. Dangers of excessive protein, defined as when protein constitutes > 35% of total energy intake, include hyperaminoacidemia, hyperammonemia, hyperinsulinemia nausea, diarrhea, and even death (the ?rabbit starvation syndrome?). The three different measures of defining protein intake, which should be viewed together are: absolute intake (g/d), intake related to body weight (g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1) and intake as a fraction of total energy (percent energy). A suggested maximum protein intake based on bodily needs, weight control evidence, and avoiding protein toxicity would be approximately of 25% of energy requirements at approximately 2 to 2.5 g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1, corresponding to 176 g protein per day for an 80 kg individual on a 12,000kJ/d diet. This is well below the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80 kg person (285 to 365 g/d).
Amino acid catabolism must occur in a way that does not elevate blood ammonia (26). Catabolism of amino acids occurs in the liver, which contains the urea cycle (26), however the rate of conversion of amino acid derived ammonia to urea is limited. Rudman et al. (27)
Early findings suggest that rapidly absorbed proteins such as free amino acids and WP, transiently and moderately inhibit protein breakdown (39, 53), yet stimulate protein synthesis by 68% [using nonoxidative leucine disposal (NOLD) as an index of protein synthesis] (54). Casein protein has been shown to inhibit protein breakdown by 30% for a 7-h postprandial period, and only slightly increase protein synthesis (38, 54). Rapidly absorbed amino acids despite stimulating greater protein synthesis, also stimulate greater amino acid oxidation, and hence results in a lower net protein gain, than slowly absorbed protein (54). Leucine balance, a measurable endpoint for protein balance, is indicated in Figure 1, which shows slowly absorbed amino acids (~ 6 to 7 g/h), such as CAS and 2.3 g of WP repeatedly taken orally every 20 min (RPT-WP), provide significantly better protein balance than rapidly absorbed amino acids (39, 54).
The misconception in the fitness and sports industries is that rapidly absorbed protein, such as WP and AA promote better protein anabolism. As the graph shows, slowly absorbed protein such as CAS and small amounts of WP (RPT-WP) provide four and nine times more protein synthesis than WP.
This "slow" and "fast" protein concept provides some clearer evidence that although human physiology may allow for rapid and increased absorption rate of amino acids, as in the case of WP (8 to 10 g/h), this fast absorption is not strongly correlated with a ?maximal protein balance,? as incorrectly interpreted by fitness enthusiasts, athletes, and bodybuilders.
Using the findings of amino acid absorption rates shown in Table 2 (using leucine balance as a measurable endpoint for protein balance), a maximal amino acid intake measured by the inhibition of proteolysis and increase in postprandial protein gain, may only be ~ 6 to 7 g/h (as described by RPT-WP, and casein) (38), which corresponds to a maximal protein intake of 144 to 168 g/d.
The rate of amino acid absorption from protein is quite slow (~ 5 to 8 g/h, from Table 2) when compared to that of other macronutrients, with fatty acids at ~ 0.175 g ? kg-1 ? h-1 (~ 14 g/h) (55) and glucose 60 to 100 g/h (0.8 to 1.2 g carbohydrate ? kg-1 ? h-1) for an 80 kg individual (56). From our earlier calculations elucidating the maximal amounts of protein intake from MRUS, an 80 kg subject could theoretically tolerate up to 301 to 365 g of protein per day, but this would require an absorption rate of 12.5 to 15 g/h, an unlikely level given the results of the studies reported above.
The consumption of large amounts of protein by athletes and bodybuilders is not a new practice (13). Recent evidence suggests that increased protein intakes for endurance and strength-trained athletes can increase strength and recovery from exercise (14, 80, 81). In healthy adult men consuming small frequent meals providing protein at 2.5 g ? kg-1 ? d-1, there was a decreased protein breakdown, and increased protein synthesis of up to 63%, compared with intakes of 1g ? kg-1 ? d-1 (16). Subjects receiving 1g ? kg-1 ? d-1 underwent muscle protein breakdown with less evident changes in muscle protein synthesis. Some evidence suggests, however, that a high protein diet increases leucine oxidation (82, 83), while other data demonstrate that the slower digestion rate of protein (38, 54), and the timing of protein ingestion (with resistance training) (84) promote muscle protein synthesis.
Absorption rates of amino acids from the gut can vary from 1.4 g/h for raw egg white to 8 to 10 g/h for whey protein isolate. Slowly absorbed amino acids such as casein (~ 6 g/h) and repeated small doses of whey protein (2.9 g per 20 min, totaling ~ 7 g/h) promote leucine balance, a marker of protein balance, superior to that of a single dose of 30 g of whey protein or free amino acids which are both rapidly absorbed (8 to 10 g/h), and enhance amino acid oxidation. This gives us an initial understanding that although higher protein intakes are physiologically possible, and tolerable by the human body, they may not be functionally optimal in terms of building and preserving body protein. The general, although incorrect consensus among athletes and bodybuilders, is that rapid protein absorption corresponds to greater muscle building.
From the limited data available on amino acid absorption rates, and the physiological parameters of urea synthesis, the maximal safe protein intakes for humans have been estimated at ~ 285 g/d for an 80 kg male. It is not the intention of this article, however, to promote the consumption of large amounts of protein, but rather to prompt an investigation into what are the parameters of human amino acid kinetics. In the face of the rising tide of obesity in the Western world where energy consumption overrides energy expenditure, a more prudent and practical approach, which may still provide favorable outcomes, is a 25% protein energy diet, which would provide 118 g protein on an 8000 kJ/d diet at 1.5 g ? kg-1 ? d-1 for an 80 kg individual (Table 2).
Little data exists on the comprehensive metabolic effects of large amounts of dietary protein in the order of 300 to 400 g/d. Intakes of this magnitude would result in some degree of prolonged hyperaminoacidemia, hyperammonemia, hyperinsulinemia, and hyperglucagonemia, and some conversion to fat, but the metabolic and physiological consequences of such states are currently unknown. The upper limit of protein intake is widely debated, with many experts advocating levels up to 2.0 g ? kg-1 ? d-1 being quite safe (102, 117, 118) and that renal considerations are not an issue at this level in individuals with normal renal function.
Good read. Thanks bomz. I've been between 80-100g a day for about a month, none from supps or cow dairy, and feeling fine.
Enhanced lifters might use more, with hydration and veggies (or veggie juice) being important imo.
-
Man that post is worthy of some "cliff notes" Tbombz! ;D
Looks like we're definitely on the same page.
Let's just take the whole thing one step farther. What happens when people who do not have the genetic predisposition to rid the body of excess ammonia (regardless of how it got there)?? This is how I would make my decision. Surely there are tons of analogies that can refute this way of thinking, nonetheless; I think it deserves some thought.
"Thousands of people with liver and kidney disease die every year from too much ammonia in their blood, and scientists from the United States and Japan have found a possible solution.
In the April 2007 issue of The FASEB Journal they report that a protein which excretes ammonia through pufferfish gills is similar to human Rh blood proteins. By targeting human Rh proteins, new treatments will help people with damaged livers and kidneys remove toxic ammonia from their bloodstream."
"Rh proteins are important targets for treatment of high toxic blood ammonia levels that occur in liver disease," said Shigehisa Hirose, co-author of the study."Our findings also indicate that the ammonia transport system involving Rh glycoproteins is evolutionally conserved in a broad range of organisms, suggesting an essential role for surviving."
For people with kidney and liver damage, the need to remove naturally occurring ammonia from the bloodstream is critical. Brain cells are particularly susceptible to ammonia, and at low levels, ammonia toxicity can cause mild to severe confusion, drowsiness, or tremors. At high levels, ammonia toxicity leads to coma and eventually death. Rh blood proteins are most commonly recognized as being used to help define blood type. For instance, people who are type A, B, AB, or O positive have Rh blood proteins on the surface of their red blood cells. People who are type A, B, AB, or O negative do not have Rh proteins on the surface of their red blood cells.
"This study has broad implications for practically any disease or trauma affecting the liver or kidneys," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "And the evolutionary implications make it even more compelling hook, line, and sinker."
... (and how many Pro Bodybuilders are NOT already working their way to a future of kidney and liver trauma???)
-
so basically would you say to start off on the lower end and slowly add until you hit the amount that your body grows from? but in doing that youd have to give each amount of protein its fair time...i am also an advocate of not overdoing things and ive been messing with my diet trying to get it consistent and be where i want to be with my build and i have found that anything between 150-200 grams a day is plenty and anything over that i start to feel shitty...(i weigh 185) i may be wrong and it may not be enough but as i said i dont like to overdo things....
-
Start off lower.
The old analogy "If a little is good, more is better" should be dead and gone by now. Keep track of your intake and percentages. I know it sounds anal, but it is a good learning experience. You may have to do some research to get the numbers. You might also want a calculator.
You should be keeping records of your workouts also. You have to find a way to gauge progress. "Hit and miss" is just too time-consuming. Remember also that carbohydrates are "protein sparing"-- We can start another thread if you wish ;D
-
i probably need to start alot more then just one more thread...lol....but i do have a calculator and i have been tracking my workouts for a while now but i have never actually kept a detailed record of what i was eating but i am going to start just to really give all options its fair chance...i dont like doing things hit and miss cause i like to know and be aware of everything thats happening and know about as much of it as possible...now if you could explain for me what you mean when you say carbohydrates are protein sparing...
-
A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans
The key issues are the rate at which the gastrointestinal tract can absorb amino acids from dietary proteins (1.3 to 10 g/h) and the liver's capacity to deaminate proteins and produce urea for excretion of excess nitrogen. The accepted level of protein requirement of 0.8g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1 is based on structural requirements and ignores the use of protein for energy metabolism. High protein diets on the other hand advocate excessive levels of protein intake on the order of 200 to 400 g/d. The three different measures of defining protein intake, which should be viewed together are: absolute intake (g/d), intake related to body weight (g ∙ kg-1 ∙ d-1) and intake as a fraction of total energy (percent energy).
Rapidly absorbed amino acids despite stimulating greater protein synthesis, also stimulate greater amino acid oxidation, and hence results in a lower net protein gain, than slowly absorbed protein (54). Leucine balance, a measurable endpoint for protein balance, is indicated in Figure 1, which shows slowly absorbed amino acids (~ 6 to 7 g/h), such as CAS and 2.3 g of WP repeatedly taken orally every 20 min (RPT-WP), provide significantly better protein balance than rapidly absorbed amino acids (39, 54).
The misconception in the fitness and sports industries is that rapidly absorbed protein, such as WP and AA promote better protein anabolism. As the graph shows, slowly absorbed protein such as CAS and small amounts of WP (RPT-WP) provide four and nine times more protein synthesis than WP.
Using the findings of amino acid absorption rates shown in Table 2 (using leucine balance as a measurable endpoint for protein balance), a maximal amino acid intake measured by the inhibition of proteolysis and increase in postprandial protein gain, may only be ~ 6 to 7 g/h (as described by RPT-WP, and casein) (38), which corresponds to a maximal protein intake of 144 to 168 g/d.
From our earlier calculations elucidating the maximal amounts of protein intake from MRUS, an 80 kg subject could theoretically tolerate up to 301 to 365 g of protein per day, but this would require an absorption rate of 12.5 to 15 g/h, an unlikely level given the results of the studies reported above.
Some evidence suggests, however, that a high protein diet increases leucine oxidation (82, 83), while other data demonstrate that the slower digestion rate of protein (38, 54), and the timing of protein ingestion (with resistance training) (84) promote muscle protein synthesis.
Absorption rates of amino acids from the gut can vary from 1.4 g/h for raw egg white to 8 to 10 g/h for whey protein isolate. Slowly absorbed amino acids such as casein (~ 6 g/h) and repeated small doses of whey protein (2.9 g per 20 min, totaling ~ 7 g/h) promote leucine balance, a marker of protein balance, superior to that of a single dose of 30 g of whey protein or free amino acids which are both rapidly absorbed (8 to 10 g/h), and enhance amino acid oxidation. This gives us an initial understanding that although higher protein intakes are physiologically possible, and tolerable by the human body, they may not be functionally optimal in terms of building and preserving body protein. The general, although incorrect consensus among athletes and bodybuilders, is that rapid protein absorption corresponds to greater muscle building.
there is a condensed version.
interesting points=
-maximum rate of absorbtion for any protein is with whey protein, and that will be at 10grams of protein per hour. that means 30grams of whey protein would give you 10 grams every hour for three hours.
-best way to build muscle is 3 grams of whey protein taken every 20 minutes.
- with an average of about 6-7 grams per hour for all protein sources, it seems the highest amount of protein your body can absorb in 24 hours is 150-200grams.
if you used only whey protein, you could absorb 10grams everyhour for a maximum of 240 grams.
-
although you may be able to get your body to speed up its ability to digest proteins, if your over eating protein all the time.
J Formos Med Assoc. 1992 Jul;91(7):659-64.Links
Effects of excess protein intake on nitrogen utilization in young men.
Huang PC, Chiang A.
Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, R.O.C.
The efficiency of nitrogen (N) utilization was studied in 12 young male subjects. Protein intake levels were adjusted from moderate (1.08 and 1.18 g protein/kg/day) to high (1.74 and 2.00 g protein/kg/day). All of the food was supplied in the form of a normal mixed Chinese diet. Six subjects were admitted to a metabolic unit at a time for 56 days, in two consecutive periods. The results indicate that a higher protein intake causes more N excretion in urine and feces. Biologic value (BV) and net protein utilization (NPU) were markedly decreased during the high protein intake (HPI) period. However, a significant increase in the N balance was found in the presence of excessive protein intake. Digestibility of protein seemed to increase during the HPI period, with the apparent digestibility of the dietary protein being about 83% to 90%. We conclude from this study that excessive N intake reduces the efficiency of N utilization, but still results in a positive N balance in adult human subjects.
PMID: 1360290 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-
So basically as a natural the most your body can absorb is 200g of protein/day. What about a guy juicing the juice? Am I wasting my time eating over 300g protein/day when i'm on ?
-
...now if you could explain for me what you mean when you say carbohydrates are protein sparing...
Here is an example:
During starvation we get our blood sugar primarily from our muscles. Just as adipose (fat) tissue is the reservoir for energy, muscle is the reservoir for blood sugar. We get some sugar from the breakdown of fat, but not much. Triglycerides-- (stored fat), are made of three fatty acids attached to a glycerol backbone. When the fatty acids that we are burning for energy are stripped away from the glycerol, the liver converts these left-over glycerol molecules into glucose. Most of our sugar, however, comes from the breakdown of muscle tissue. The liver converts certain amino acids that make up muscle into sugar in a process called gluconeogenesis.
If we starve, our fat stores gradually ‘melt’ away as we use the stored fat for energy and our muscle mass say's "SEE YA!" as we breakdown muscle tissue to provide sugar.
Let’s say that during our period of starvation we find a bag of sugar. If we eat that sugar in amounts small enough to provide sugar to all the cells that need it, we won’t have to break down muscle tissue. We’ll be getting our energy from the fat we’re breaking down and we’ll get our sugar from the sugar, so we’ll retain, or spare, our muscle tissue. From this fact of biochemistry has arisen the notion that carbohydrates are muscle or protein sparing, which they indeed are under starvation conditions.
I know what yer gonna ask next... ;)
-
you do huh???....well if carbs are muscle or protein sparing when starving ourselves (be it a caloric deficiency) the proper timing of carbs would help to spare our muscle tissue.....? from what you said all of the ketogenic diets and atkins diets are all ass backwards? and i can say from personal experience those no carb diets or low carb diets work you melt the pounds off (but physcologically when you see the scale drop 20 pounds in 7-8 weeks you get excited and you dont think about the loss of strength) BUT i melted alot of muscle mass (well alot for my body) but it seems like it is so ridiculously hard to gain muscle size WITHOUT putting on even if its just a little pudge in the middle....i havent been able to figure that out youd say up the cardio but then thats burning the caloric surplus that you need in order to grow...FFS WTF
-
you do huh???....well if carbs are muscle or protein sparing when starving ourselves (be it a caloric deficiency) the proper timing of carbs would help to spare our muscle tissue.....? from what you said all of the ketogenic diets and atkins diets are all ass backwards? and i can say from personal experience those no carb diets or low carb diets work you melt the pounds off (but physcologically when you see the scale drop 20 pounds in 7-8 weeks you get excited and you dont think about the loss of strength) BUT i melted alot of muscle mass (well alot for my body) but it seems like it is so ridiculously hard to gain muscle size WITHOUT putting on even if its just a little pudge in the middle....i havent been able to figure that out youd say up the cardio but then thats burning the caloric surplus that you need in order to grow...FFS WTF
QFT..I have the same problem...when I make good muscle and strength gains it's when I eat my ass off which then also results in the pudge in the middle....if I try to go low carb to lose weight I lose muscle mass and strength plus I can't get through a full workout because I run out of energy and I'm exhausted..really frustrating
-
QFT..I have the same problem...when I make good muscle and strength gains it's when I eat my ass off which then also results in the pudge in the middle....if I try to go low carb to lose weight I lose muscle mass and strength plus I can't get through a full workout because I run out of energy and I'm exhausted..really frustrating
ive been able to figure out what and how much i need to eat on a rough scale to maintain and i know how to add quality calories coming from good protein sources (lean beef chicken and fish) along with carbs and my efas but as clean or healthy as i eat even while trying to gain i still get a pudge with more muscle size...but god i love to workout when im trying to add cause workouts feel good with lots of energy for lots of heavy lifting for me and then i get done working out and i have that nice full feeling and look to my muscles (not bloated) just full..i love that feeling of fullness its almost a denseness feeling...hard to explain...
-
Now I'm not sure where to begin... ;D I guess I'll adress the "pudge" first.
I'll change direction a bit.
If a pound of muscle contains roughly 600 calories... (I am not saying it takes that many calories to build, I am talking about it's caloric content) -
and you would like to gain 10lbs. of solid mass in a year...
Theoretically you could take 6000 (600 x 10) and divide by 365 (days in a year) and come up with a figure of around 16.4.
If all you had to do was eat 16.4 extra calories a day to add these 10 lbs. --
Couldn't you just take an extra bite of an apple each day?
Of course, now you could say... but, but, but, what about the extra calories burned in exercise it took to gain each pound? Food for thought?
-
well of that holds true then i could just take an extra bite of somehting to put me into a surplus for gaining...and since i was already maintaining with my weight lifting and nutritional plan then if i only add 16 cals then i wouldnt put any pudge on but would gain 10 lbs of solid muscle because if i didnt do anything more or anything less than what i was doing before i added the 16 cals then i wouldnt be burnign anymore then i was....2 questions where did you come up with 600 cals makeup of a muscle is that muscle relative to my size or to jay cutlers size?....and from before would you agree with me when i say that the atkins and ketogenic diets are ass backwards?
-
well of that holds true then i could just take an extra bite of somehting to put me into a surplus for gaining...and since i was already maintaining with my weight lifting and nutritional plan then if i only add 16 cals then i wouldnt put any pudge on but would gain 10 lbs of solid muscle because if i didnt do anything more or anything less than what i was doing before i added the 16 cals then i wouldnt be burnign anymore then i was....2 questions where did you come up with 600 cals makeup of a muscle is that muscle relative to my size or to jay cutlers size?....and from before would you agree with me when i say that the atkins and ketogenic diets are ass backwards?
A pound is a pound regardless. If you go to the store to buy a pound of beef- and the butcher puts it on the scale, Jay Cutler is not going to get a heavier pound than you...
As far as the Atkins diet, or ketogenic diets, you can lose a lot of weight due to the loss of water. Supposedly, each gram of carbohydrate carries an additional 4 grams of water in its makeup. If you deplete all of the carbs out of your system, theoretically all of the extra water would follow. This is where the sudden weight loss occurs. For many non-bodybuilding folks, sudden weight loss is all they care about. For a big woman on the "Biggest Loser" or a fem who needs to get into a bridesmaids dress real quick, this could be a temporary fix. A bodybuilder on the other hand, would be extremely concerned as to exactly what kind of mass he was losing.
For all of the hard work that it takes to gain muscle, you wouldn't think one would be too happy just to lose it in a ketogenic quick-loss plan. If you were burning an exceptional ammount of fat, the keto diet would be great. Again, we keep going off topic, and each topic is deserving of exhaustive study and empirical (experimental) data.
I personally do not like the way I feel on a very low carb diet. Some people can "adjust" to them, but others just fade in the gym. The workouts go to shit and the energy levels drop to unbearable levels. You can't get much of a pump either.
And I really don't like the "flat" appearance that comes with the keto diet.
Would any of this information (or these theories) have a different application (or aquire different results) for a juiced bodybuilder?
Of course they would.
-
no carvb low carb diets work very wel for losing body fat. and if yuo do it properly, you wont lose any muscle.
carbs are protein sparing. yes. carbs increase blood sugar, which causes the body to release insulin to store the extra sugar and get blood sugar back to normal. the insulin not only puches sugar into muscle, but it also inhibits cells from breaking down protein. usually, without elevated insulin, your body is constantly breaking down and building up protein. when you stop the breakdown with carbs/insulin... you dont need as much protein.
now., without elevated insulin or carbs, you will have protein breakdown, and also once glycogen is fully depleted you will start using amino acids from the blood to regulate blood sugar. if your not eating enough protein, you will break down muscle tissue to keep blood sugar stable. BUT, if you increase your protein intake above what it would normally be, you can avoid any muscle loss when not eating carbs.
that being said,, bodybuilders are hard training people who generally dont have any problem handling carbohydartes...and with constant glycogen depleteion, carbs are a good thing to eat, even when dieting. not to mention carbohydrates effect on leptin, thyroid, cortisol, test, gh(igf)...etc.
a bodybuilder incorporating carbs will end up a fuller harder body when the diet is done. not because a diet without carbs would result in losses of muscle, but because byou can probably build a little bit of muscle while dieting if your eating carbvs regularly.
-
A pound is a pound regardless. If you go to the store to buy a pound of beef- and the butcher puts it on the scale, Jay Cutler is not going to get a heavier pound than you...
As far as the Atkins diet, or ketogenic diets, you can lose a lot of weight due to the loss of water. Supposedly, each gram of carbohydrate carries an additional 4 grams of water in its makeup. If you deplete all of the carbs out of your system, theoretically all of the extra water would follow. This is where the sudden weight loss occurs. For many non-bodybuilding folks, sudden weight loss is all they care about. For a big woman on the "Biggest Loser" or a fem who needs to get into a bridesmaids dress real quick, this could be a temporary fix. A bodybuilder on the other hand, would be extremely concerned as to exactly what kind of mass he was losing.
For all of the hard work that it takes to gain muscle, you wouldn't think one would be too happy just to lose it in a ketogenic quick-loss plan. If you were burning an exceptional ammount of fat, the keto diet would be great. Again, we keep going off topic, and each topic is deserving of exhaustive study and empirical (experimental) data.
I personally do not like the way I feel on a very low carb diet. Some people can "adjust" to them, but others just fade in the gym. The workouts go to shit and the energy levels drop to unbearable levels. You can't get much of a pump either.
And I really don't like the "flat" appearance that comes with the keto diet.
Would any of this information (or these theories) have a different application (or aquire different results) for a juiced bodybuilder?
Of course they would.
i understand that a pound is a pound is a pound i was asking about the 600 cals to makeup a muscle...and yes i suppose the ketogenic diets have their appeal to the right group but as you and i have both said if left me feeling flat and depleted and my workouts suffered...i dont have any expeience or know much about what works for a juiced lifter since i havent crossed that bridge yet...im just trying to figure the right equation up to be able to gain size without the pudge......i know some of my quesitons and such have been somewhat off topic im just trying to figure this complex machine out
no carvb low carb diets work very wel for losing body fat. and if yuo do it properly, you wont lose any muscle.
carbs are protein sparing. yes. carbs increase blood sugar, which causes the body to release insulin to store the extra sugar and get blood sugar back to normal. the insulin not only puches sugar into muscle, but it also inhibits cells from breaking down protein. usually, without elevated insulin, your body is constantly breaking down and building up protein. when you stop the breakdown with carbs/insulin... you dont need as much protein.
now., without elevated insulin or carbs, you will have protein breakdown, and also once glycogen is fully depleted you will start using amino acids from the blood to regulate blood sugar. if your not eating enough protein, you will break down muscle tissue to keep blood sugar stable. BUT, if you increase your protein intake above what it would normally be, you can avoid any muscle loss when not eating carbs.
that being said,, bodybuilders are hard training people who generally dont have any problem handling carbohydartes...and with constant glycogen depleteion, carbs are a good thing to eat, even when dieting. not to mention carbohydrates effect on leptin, thyroid, cortisol, test, gh(igf)...etc.
a bodybuilder incorporating carbs will end up a fuller harder body when the diet is done. not because a diet without carbs would result in losses of muscle, but because byou can probably build a little bit of muscle while dieting if your eating carbvs regularly.
the keto diets work but according to what you posted earlier about maximal protein consumption and use in a body conflicts with what you just said about upping the protein amounts to spare the muscle...if one is already consuming an ideal/maximum amount of protein which according to the article was roughly 240 grams so going anything higher then that is not only wasteful but can also be harmful to your helath per the raised nitrogen levels...so again i am perplexed with the question just how much protein is beneficial and what is the minimal amount of calories to go into surplus to gain muscle size without the pudge
-
i understand that a pound is a pound is a pound i was asking about the 600 cals to makeup a muscle...and yes i suppose the ketogenic diets have their appeal to the right group but as you and i have both said if left me feeling flat and depleted and my workouts suffered...i dont have any expeience or know much about what works for a juiced lifter since i havent crossed that bridge yet...im just trying to figure the right equation up to be able to gain size without the pudge......i know some of my quesitons and such have been somewhat off topic im just trying to figure this complex machine out
the keto diets work but according to what you posted earlier about maximal protein consumption and use in a body conflicts with what you just said about upping the protein amounts to spare the muscle...if one is already consuming an ideal/maximum amount of protein which according to the article was roughly 240 grams so going anything higher then that is not only wasteful but can also be harmful to your helath per the raised nitrogen levels...so again i am perplexed with the question just how much protein is beneficial and what is the minimal amount of calories to go into surplus to gain muscle size without the pudge
well optimal protein intake is relative to intake of other nutrient-specifically carbs. id venture to guess those studies were done on people eating fairly high carbs/calories(the majority of people do). it isnt taking into considerationm someone who will be using a bit of that protien for other purpouses.
as for the calories to gain. you can gain muscle eating be.ow maintanence calories. and you can gain muscle eating maintanence calories. but you will never grow as fast as possible without putting on fat at the same time. you need to be hypercaloric to acheive the fastest possible gains in muscle. and that means you are going to gain fat
start your bulking phase from a lean starting point. then once you are done, you wont be so fat. then do a cutting phase. dont worry about putting on fat when yoru trying to build muscle. youll take care of that when you diet down.
-
Sorry bout' that NGM.. I was being facetious ;D
The scientific data for the caloric content of muscle has been around for quite some time, as has the caloric content of a pound of fat (3500 calories)
Fully hydrated human skeletal muscle is no more than 20-25% protein, 4-8% fat and minimal glycogen. the rest is water (70-75%) and minerals. This makes 800-1000 cals per kilogram (divide by 2.2 for lb.) MAX. This is why it's so easy to lose LBM if you your cutting diet up, but much harder to lose the same amount of fat. Adipose tissue has 300+g of fat per pound which makes it more than 3 times as calorie dense as muscle. The positive side is that you only need an extra 200g of protein deposited as muscle to gain a pound of LBM! Of course getting it deposited is the hard part....
Before you can determine how much protein you need each day to gain 10 pounds of muscle per year, you must know how many calories you need for maintenance. This can be done by writing down everything you eat for a week. At the end of a week sit down with a calorie counting book and total the day’s total intake. Then add the seven daily totals and divide by 7, that will give you the daily average calorie intake. If you haven’t gained or lost weight during the seven day period this is the daily average maintenance calorie requirement.
-
yea i get that and thats probthe one thing i havent dont yet is sit down and write down everything that i eat and get an exact count of all my numbers protein, carbs, and fat, and cals...right now i have been wanting size and eating like a fat whore with the munchies and ive already put on a little pudge but other then the pudge i feel good look better fulller thicker more dense almost so this is where im gong to be for a while...but in the meantime ill be trying to tweak it so i don thave to cut
-
tbomz are you only taking in 10g of whey an hour ?
-
In line with this thread this is pretty good
http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/six_things_you_need_to_know_about_protein
-
all i know and from my experience it takes time to figure out your body and you have to try bunch of different diets to see which one is best for you high protein +high carb+low fat or low protein+high carb and fat and so on you got the picture
-
just re-read this thread.
dyslexic knows his stuff 8)
-
just an update for anyone interested.
the full paper for 'A review of issues of dietary protein intake in human' can be found here:
http://hk.humankinetics.com/eJournalMedia/pdfs/5642.pdf
enjoy.
-
just an update for anyone interested.
the full paper for 'A review of issues of dietary protein intake in human' can be found here:
http://hk.humankinetics.com/eJournalMedia/pdfs/5642.pdf
enjoy.
OUTSTANDING!!!
Thanks for posting
This needs to be a reference point for a lot of questions and debates that happen around here.
-
OUTSTANDING!!!
Thanks for posting
This needs to be referred to as an "answer" to a lot of questions and debates that happen around here.
i agree, it makes very interesting reading :)
-
Please keep stickys free of junk.
Thank you
;)
-
So after reading the article, I've determined that going a bit above 1 g per lb is sufficient. i had one more interesting bit of information in the article which was 150 g of carbs is SUFFICIENT?! Can someone please explain? Also, why are we messing with meat protein intake if studies have only been done with egg, whey, casein, pea, and soy?
Lastly, now that research is getting pretty close to solving protein intake, have we found the answer to calorie intake for both optimal fat loss and optimal muscle gain? When i say optimal fat loss, im talking as fast as possible and as much fat oxidization with as much muscle retention as possible. With muscle gain, as fast and as much muscle with as minimal fat gain as possible. I only ask this question because they never clarify which CALORIE INTAKE with protein intake yielded the best results. I'm sorry if I'm asking any dumb or answered questions, but i'm trying to learn as much about this subject as possible.
-
Those are good questions.
However there is a few other studies that need consideration in regards to the 1g per pound recommendation.
Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anabolic effect of resistance exercise is enhanced by the provision of dietary protein.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the ingested protein dose response of muscle (MPS) and albumin protein synthesis (APS) after resistance exercise. In addition, we measured the phosphorylation of candidate signaling proteins thought to regulate acute changes in MPS.
DESIGN: Six healthy young men reported to the laboratory on 5 separate occasions to perform an intense bout of leg-based resistance exercise. After exercise, participants consumed, in a randomized order, drinks containing 0, 5, 10, 20, or 40 g whole egg protein. Protein synthesis and whole-body leucine oxidation were measured over 4 h after exercise by a primed constant infusion of [1-(13)C]leucine.
RESULTS: MPS displayed a dose response to dietary protein ingestion and was maximally stimulated at 20 g. The phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6 kinase (Thr(389)), ribosomal protein S6 (Ser(240/244)), and the epsilon-subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2B (Ser(539)) were unaffected by protein ingestion. APS increased in a dose-dependent manner and also reached a plateau at 20 g ingested protein. Leucine oxidation was significantly increased after 20 and 40 g protein were ingested.
CONCLUSIONS: Ingestion of 20 g intact protein is sufficient to maximally stimulate MPS and APS after resistance exercise. Phosphorylation of candidate signaling proteins was not enhanced with any dose of protein ingested, which suggested that the stimulation of MPS after resistance exercise may be related to amino acid availability. Finally, dietary protein consumed after exercise in excess of the rate at which it can be incorporated into tissue protein stimulates irreversible oxidation.
and
A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects.
Abstract
Ingestion of sufficient dietary protein is a fundamental prerequisite for muscle protein synthesis and maintenance of muscle mass and function. Elderly people are often at increased risk for protein-energy malnutrition, sarcopenia, and a diminished quality of life. This study sought to compare changes in muscle protein synthesis and anabolic efficiency in response to a single moderate serving (113 g; 220 kcal; 30 g protein) or large serving (340 g; 660 kcal; 90 g protein) of 90% lean beef. Venous blood and vastus lateralis muscle biopsy samples were obtained during a primed, constant infusion (0.08 mumol/kg/min) of L-[ring-(13)C(6)] phenylalanine in healthy young (n=17; 34+/-3 years) and elderly (n=17; 68+/-2 years) individuals. Mixed muscle fractional synthesis rate was calculated during a 3-hour postabsorptive period and for 5 hours after meal ingestion. Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance with Tukey's pairwise comparisons. A 113-g serving of lean beef increased muscle protein synthesis by approximately 50% in both young and older volunteers. Despite a threefold increase in protein and energy content, there was no further increase in protein synthesis after ingestion of 340 g lean beef in either age group. Ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly.
basically they both show that 20-30g of protein maximally stimulates protein synthesis, and that any more than this is burned off as energy. Also from other studies done on constant infusion of bcaa, we know there is a refractory period involved that limits the frequency of meals.
so in theory - the most efficient intake of protein in terms of maximal synthesis and absorbsion is 20g of whey every 2 hours. so over the course of the day this amounts to around 140g a day. that's assuming you are awake for 14 hours a day. if you want to waken up throughout the night and drink shakes all night as well its 240g.
i don't think its practical for most, but interesting none the less. :)
regarding your question of maximal fat loss - protein sparring modified fasts have been scientifically proven to reduced fat the fastest. they are not easy however. i have tried it. i lost just over 50lbs i think over 4 months last year using this method, and i even included pig out weekends where i would eat anything i wanted ( which i did). i wasn't working out during this time, i did however do pushups and bodyweight squats a few times a week. This was also while i was working a physically tiring job and on my feet all day.
i was tired a lot, but not as bad as you would think, but the weight rebound was very fast though :(
in regard to muscle gain - once your protein requirements are met, any extra calories from fat or carbs will produce muscle gain ( assuming your exercise is up to par).
Effects of high-calorie supplements on body composition and muscular strength following resistance training.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Seventy-three healthy, male subjects randomly divided into 3 groups participated in a study to determine the effects of 2 high-calorie nutritional supplements on body composition, body segment circumferences, and muscular strength following a resistance-training (RT) program.
METHODS: In addition to their normal diets group 1 (CHO/PRO; n=26) consumed a 8.4 Mj x day(-1) (2010 kcal) high calorie, high protein supplement containing 356 g carbohydrate and 106 g protein. Group 2 (CHO; n=25) consumed a carbohydrate supplement that was isocaloric with CHO/PRO. Group 3 (CTRL; n=22) received no supplement and served as a control. All subjects were placed on a 4-day x week(-1) RT program for 8 weeks.
RESULTS: Dietary analysis revealed no significant differences in total energy consumption or nutrients at any time in the non-supplemented diets of the 3 groups. Significant (p= or <0.05) increases in body mass (BM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were observed in CHO/PRO and CHO compared to CTRL. Mean (+/- SD) increases in BM were 3.1+/-3.1 kg and 3.1+/-2.2 kg, respectively. Fat-free mass significantly (p= or <0.05) increased 2.9+/-3.4 kg in CHO/PRO and 3.4+/-2.5 kg in CHO. Muscular strength, as measured by a one-repetition maximum in the bench press, leg press, and lat-pull down increased significantly (p= or <0.05) in all groups. No significant differences in strength measures were observed among groups following training.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that high-calorie supplements are effective in increasing BM and FFM when combined with RT. However, once individual protein requirements are met, energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition.
extra carbs and or fats may be better than more protein due to their ability to provide efficient energy. Carbs also has the advantage to stimulate excess insulin with has an effect on reducing protein breakdown rates.
regarding calories - small increases in calories are advisable rather than pig out/ bulking type diets. this works both for fat loss/muscle retention and muscle gain/minimum fat gain. 500cals extra a day until your strength stalls and or the scales do not change, then increase again, etc etc
hopefully this has helped you. :)
-
Those are good questions.
However there is a few other studies that need consideration in regards to the 1g per pound recommendation.
Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anabolic effect of resistance exercise is enhanced by the provision of dietary protein.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the ingested protein dose response of muscle (MPS) and albumin protein synthesis (APS) after resistance exercise. In addition, we measured the phosphorylation of candidate signaling proteins thought to regulate acute changes in MPS.
DESIGN: Six healthy young men reported to the laboratory on 5 separate occasions to perform an intense bout of leg-based resistance exercise. After exercise, participants consumed, in a randomized order, drinks containing 0, 5, 10, 20, or 40 g whole egg protein. Protein synthesis and whole-body leucine oxidation were measured over 4 h after exercise by a primed constant infusion of [1-(13)C]leucine.
RESULTS: MPS displayed a dose response to dietary protein ingestion and was maximally stimulated at 20 g. The phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6 kinase (Thr(389)), ribosomal protein S6 (Ser(240/244)), and the epsilon-subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2B (Ser(539)) were unaffected by protein ingestion. APS increased in a dose-dependent manner and also reached a plateau at 20 g ingested protein. Leucine oxidation was significantly increased after 20 and 40 g protein were ingested.
CONCLUSIONS: Ingestion of 20 g intact protein is sufficient to maximally stimulate MPS and APS after resistance exercise. Phosphorylation of candidate signaling proteins was not enhanced with any dose of protein ingested, which suggested that the stimulation of MPS after resistance exercise may be related to amino acid availability. Finally, dietary protein consumed after exercise in excess of the rate at which it can be incorporated into tissue protein stimulates irreversible oxidation.
and
A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects.
Abstract
Ingestion of sufficient dietary protein is a fundamental prerequisite for muscle protein synthesis and maintenance of muscle mass and function. Elderly people are often at increased risk for protein-energy malnutrition, sarcopenia, and a diminished quality of life. This study sought to compare changes in muscle protein synthesis and anabolic efficiency in response to a single moderate serving (113 g; 220 kcal; 30 g protein) or large serving (340 g; 660 kcal; 90 g protein) of 90% lean beef. Venous blood and vastus lateralis muscle biopsy samples were obtained during a primed, constant infusion (0.08 mumol/kg/min) of L-[ring-(13)C(6)] phenylalanine in healthy young (n=17; 34+/-3 years) and elderly (n=17; 68+/-2 years) individuals. Mixed muscle fractional synthesis rate was calculated during a 3-hour postabsorptive period and for 5 hours after meal ingestion. Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance with Tukey's pairwise comparisons. A 113-g serving of lean beef increased muscle protein synthesis by approximately 50% in both young and older volunteers. Despite a threefold increase in protein and energy content, there was no further increase in protein synthesis after ingestion of 340 g lean beef in either age group. Ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly.
basically they both show that 20-30g of protein maximally stimulates protein synthesis, and that any more than this is burned off as energy. Also from other studies done on constant infusion of bcaa, we know there is a refractory period involved that limits the frequency of meals.
so in theory - the most efficient intake of protein in terms of maximal synthesis and absorbsion is 20g of whey every 2 hours. so over the course of the day this amounts to around 140g a day. that's assuming you are awake for 14 hours a day. if you want to waken up throughout the night and drink shakes all night as well its 240g.
i don't think its practical for most, but interesting none the less. :)
regarding your question of maximal fat loss - protein sparring modified fasts have been scientifically proven to reduced fat the fastest. they are not easy however. i have tried it. i lost just over 50lbs i think over 4 months last year using this method, and i even included pig out weekends where i would eat anything i wanted ( which i did). i wasn't working out during this time, i did however do pushups and bodyweight squats a few times a week. This was also while i was working a physically tiring job and on my feet all day.
i was tired a lot, but not as bad as you would think, but the weight rebound was very fast though :(
in regard to muscle gain - once your protein requirements are met, any extra calories from fat or carbs will produce muscle gain ( assuming your exercise is up to par).
Effects of high-calorie supplements on body composition and muscular strength following resistance training.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Seventy-three healthy, male subjects randomly divided into 3 groups participated in a study to determine the effects of 2 high-calorie nutritional supplements on body composition, body segment circumferences, and muscular strength following a resistance-training (RT) program.
METHODS: In addition to their normal diets group 1 (CHO/PRO; n=26) consumed a 8.4 Mj x day(-1) (2010 kcal) high calorie, high protein supplement containing 356 g carbohydrate and 106 g protein. Group 2 (CHO; n=25) consumed a carbohydrate supplement that was isocaloric with CHO/PRO. Group 3 (CTRL; n=22) received no supplement and served as a control. All subjects were placed on a 4-day x week(-1) RT program for 8 weeks.
RESULTS: Dietary analysis revealed no significant differences in total energy consumption or nutrients at any time in the non-supplemented diets of the 3 groups. Significant (p= or <0.05) increases in body mass (BM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were observed in CHO/PRO and CHO compared to CTRL. Mean (+/- SD) increases in BM were 3.1+/-3.1 kg and 3.1+/-2.2 kg, respectively. Fat-free mass significantly (p= or <0.05) increased 2.9+/-3.4 kg in CHO/PRO and 3.4+/-2.5 kg in CHO. Muscular strength, as measured by a one-repetition maximum in the bench press, leg press, and lat-pull down increased significantly (p= or <0.05) in all groups. No significant differences in strength measures were observed among groups following training.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that high-calorie supplements are effective in increasing BM and FFM when combined with RT. However, once individual protein requirements are met, energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition.
extra carbs and or fats may be better than more protein due to their ability to provide efficient energy. Carbs also has the advantage to stimulate excess insulin with has an effect on reducing protein breakdown rates.
regarding calories - small increases in calories are advisable rather than pig out/ bulking type diets. this works both for fat loss/muscle retention and muscle gain/minimum fat gain. 500cals extra a day until your strength stalls and or the scales do not change, then increase again, etc etc
hopefully this has helped you. :)
Oy, it's mixed info. Helpful for knowledge, but both Layne Norton and Alan Aragon tore apart the 30 g per meal thing. It makes absolutely no sense to me that fat and carbs build more muscle for body comp purposes than protein itself. If that were true, most of us wouldn't bother messing with protein. I'd probably just get in one piece of meat and one shake and the rest splurge on fat and carbs provided they don't have too much sugar or salt per item and my calories are lower than maintenance. Natural bodybuilders of last year and now stick to 250, some closer to 300. I'm not saying they're right, but since bodybuilding is basically body science, how come some of the things they follow aren't backed up by science yet seem to be working for them?
-
I have to repost this since nobody got to it and I think it's a very good and possibly hard question: Why are we messing with meat protein intake if studies have only been done with egg, whey, casein, pea, and soy? I realize it's better to eat natural foods but I have only heard of one study with makeshift item that mimicked the macros of pork tenderloin, but that's it. All the other complete and credible studies are done with the items said above. So why?
-
Oy, it's mixed info. Helpful for knowledge, but both Layne Norton and Alan Aragon tore apart the 30 g per meal thing. It makes absolutely no sense to me that fat and carbs build more muscle for body comp purposes than protein itself. If that were true, most of us wouldn't bother messing with protein. I'd probably just get in one piece of meat and one shake and the rest splurge on fat and carbs provided they don't have too much sugar or salt per item and my calories are lower than maintenance. Natural bodybuilders of last year and now stick to 250, some closer to 300. I'm not saying they're right, but since bodybuilding is basically body science, how come some of the things they follow aren't backed up by science yet seem to be working for them?
where has layne and alan tore apart the 30g per meal study ?
i think you may be mistaken about the study i posted, it doesn't say carbs and fats are better than protein, it says that once protein requirements are met then energy content of the diet is all that matters.
also there have been studies done on other protein sources - beef like the study above.
-
Well, not torn, but disproved. here's the link: http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/ I'm trying to find the Layne one, but no luck. Awesome, so you're saying that 150 g of protein is plenty, and if done as the study recommends, will result in good muscle gain?
-
Well, not torn, but disproved. here's the link: http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/ I'm trying to find the Layne one, but no luck. Awesome, so you're saying that 150 g of protein is plenty, and if done as the study recommends, will result in good muscle gain?
i like alan aragons work, and have learned many things from him that i didn't know, however he does not disprove those studies i posted in that article.
he does argue via logic that we need more protein than that study recommends - mostly due to the other studies that show 1g per pound being more effective. Again though he does not say that those studies i posted are wrong - they are not. but clearly more studies need to be done to explain the discrepancies between these and the 1g per lb ones.
however what i find interesting about alans article is he uses the examples of intermittent fasting to prove the body can use more protein than 20g in 1 sitting these studies do seem to show the body can use more than 20g in a sitting, but if you look closely they also show subjects participating in these studies show maintenance of lean muscle mass despite low intakes of 86g and 101g of protein once a day.
actually less protein that the studies i posted claim would/could maximise synthesis response.
so in effect is he actually supporting the same studies he is trying to disprove with his own logic :D
-
Current research has conclusively proven that exercise increases protein needs. Hence, bodybuilders need protein in amounts that are quite different from other athletes. In the same article published in the Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, it was shown that strength athletes need up to 1.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight to maintain positive nitrogen balance. The positive nitrogen balance is the optimal environment for muscle growth. This environment should also come with complete proteins every meal. Complete proteins are those that come from animal sources such as eggs, milk and meat. As a dedicated body builder, you must be able to eat meals with complete proteins to get the job done right.
-
the 20g study i posted about was done on bodybuilders - immediately after weight training ???
-
Sorry fellas, haven't been on here in a while. After researching a while again, although most bodybuilders, even those that are natural, take in 1.5, I've found one getting his name out there that stays between 1-1.2 g: kelechi opara, alan's client. The guy is ripped the hell out.
-
Sorry fellas, haven't been on here in a while. After researching a while again, although most bodybuilders, even those that are natural, take in 1.5, I've found one getting his name out there that stays between 1-1.2 g: kelechi opara, alan's client. The guy is ripped the hell out.
::) he is also juiced to the gills on steroids
(http://www.obiobadike.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Kelechi1Physique-Large.jpg)
-
it says that once protein requirements are met then energy content of the diet is all that matters.
However, once individual protein requirements are met, energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition.
the 20g study i posted about was done on bodybuilders - immediately after weight training ???
What were the bodyweights of the individuals? How much muscle did each individual have? What constitutes an "intense bout of leg-based resistance exercise"? What were their ages? What were their levels of fitness? What were their goals?
-
However, once individual protein requirements are met, energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition.
what is your point in highlighting what i've already said ???
What were the bodyweights of the individuals? How much muscle did each individual have? What constitutes an "intense bout of leg-based resistance exercise"? What were their ages? What were their levels of fitness? What were their goals?
bodyweight = 86kg +/- 7.6kg
weight lifting experience = 4months to 8 years
ages = 22 +/- 2 years
muscle mass of subjects = unknown.
resistance exercise = 4 sets each of leg press, knee extension, and leg curl using a predetermined load designed to elicit failure within 8–10 repetitions.
the full paper is here:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/89/1/161
however all the info you requested is meaningless as the other study showed the same results thing with a totally different demographic i.e. young and old normal people.
what this means in simple terms is that the amount of exercise, age, experience, muscle mass levels, fitness levels etc none of it matters. All that matters is protein ingestion, and any more than 20-30g per meal is burned off.
So you have the option of reading the full text above but you have already made up your mind, so why bother reading it? in fact why bother stalking me to this thread when we both know you will contribute nothing of value.
-
what is your point in highlighting what i've already said ???
You conveniently stated that energy content of diet is all that matters......in reality it says that energy content has the largest effect on body composition.
In simple terms, eat like shit = look like shit.
what this means in simple terms is that the amount of exercise, age, experience, muscle mass levels, fitness levels etc none of it matters. All that matters is protein ingestion, and any more than 20-30g per meal is burned off.
I find it very hard to believe that EVERY BODY uses the same amount of protein in the same amount of time, regardless of fitness, muscle, age, sex, athletic endeavors.
in fact why bother stalking me to this thread when we both know you will contribute nothing of value.
This is the first time I have addressed you since you quit like a spoiled brat from the challenge with disturbia, not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you have a sugar buzz from the chunky kit kats?
-
Haven't read the whole study yet, but they only traced Leucine......... "Leucine was chosen as a tracer, because it is an essential amino acid that is primarily metabolized within
the lean tissues of the body."
"Participants reported to the laboratory at 0700 after an overnight fast, having refrained from all resistance exercise and any strenuous physical activity for at least 3 d."
Yeah, that describes people who work out seriously. ::)
"A polytetrafluoroethylene catheter was inserted in
the medial vein of each arm, one for tracer infusion and the other
for arterialized blood sampling."
"Baseline blood samples were drawn, and
then participants received priming doses of NaH13CO2 (2.35 lmol/
kg) and [1-13C]leucine (7.6 lmol/kg, 99 atom percent; Cambridge
Isotopes, Andover, MA) before beginning a constant [1-13C]leucine
infusion (7.6 lmol kg21 h21) (Figure 1). Immediately
after the onset of the infusion, participants consumed a drink
containing 0, 5, 10, 20, or 40 g whole-egg protein dissolved in
400 mL water." Now if they are injecting an essential amino acid into the body, wouldn't that affect affect the study since the whole egg protein "On the basis of a leucine content of ’8% in egg
protein"
Seems flawed in the aspect of building muscle and consistant workouts. I don't think a study of 6 people fives times can or will dictate my protein intake.
-
You conveniently stated that energy content of diet is all that matters......in reality it says that energy content has the largest effect on body composition.
In simple terms, eat like shit = look like shit.
no you are wrong it does not mean that. energy content simply means calories from fats and/or carbs weather they are saturated fats, mono sat fats, simple carbs, or complex carbs, fructose, sucrose etc etc
I find it very hard to believe that EVERY BODY uses the same amount of protein in the same amount of time, regardless of fitness, muscle, age, sex, athletic endeavors.
the 20g study when taken alone does not show that everybody uses the same amount of protein. however when you add the 30g beef study - it all becomes clear.
Participants reported to the laboratory at 0700 after an overnight fast, having refrained from all resistance exercise and any strenuous physical activity for at least 3 d."
Yeah, that describes people who work out seriously
perhaps they were asked to refrain from exercise to highten the response to exercise and hence effect protein requirements - regardless of the reason, i don't work out every day with weights and often wait 72-96 hours between workouts, yet i can incline 110lb dumbbells ::) so what are you getting at ? if they did workout every day or every 2nd day the results would be totally different ? well i suppose it is possible, if not for the 30g study too ;)
A polytetrafluoroethylene catheter was inserted in
the medial vein of each arm, one for tracer infusion and the other
for arterialized blood sampling."
"Baseline blood samples were drawn, and
then participants received priming doses of NaH13CO2 (2.35 lmol/
kg) and [1-13C]leucine (7.6 lmol/kg, 99 atom percent; Cambridge
Isotopes, Andover, MA) before beginning a constant [1-13C]leucine
infusion (7.6 lmol kg21 h21) (Figure 1). Immediately
after the onset of the infusion, participants consumed a drink
containing 0, 5, 10, 20, or 40 g whole-egg protein dissolved in
400 mL water." Now if they are injecting an essential amino acid into the body, wouldn't that affect affect the study since the whole egg protein "On the basis of a leucine content of ’8% in egg
protein"
no it is different as it was a tracer infusion - this is not the same as an ingested eaa.
Seems flawed in the aspect of building muscle and consistant workouts. I don't think a study of 6 people fives times can or will dictate my protein intake.
taken on its own yes you may have a point, however as i stated before the 30g beef study backs up this one, with normal folks too.
i commend you on trying to have a rational discussion though, it was really quite surprising.
-
no you are wrong it does not mean that. energy content simply means calories from fats and/or carbs weather they are saturated fats, mono sat fats, simple carbs, or complex carbs, fructose, sucrose etc etc
I took the quote from the study you posted, how can I be wrong ??? Re-read it and see if you get my point. The key words in that statement I quoted........"largest effect on body composition"
You're saying injecting and eaa is different than ingesting one? I would imagine injecting it would get it into the blood/muscles much quicker.......maybe giving a false reading on tests since leucine is what they used to measure for the whole study?
What I'm getting at is bodybuilders and powerlifters and strongmen do not wait 3 days between workouts, so 3 days of rest is going to affect the outcome.
I haven't read the 30g beef study, but I'm sure I could pick apart the details of that one as well as it pertains to bbers, plers and strongmen training. What they really need to do is a study with actually bbers/plers/strgmn, and do these studies on how these people really train vs a controlled training experiment and check the results of both.
Reality is not lived out in a scientific lab with hand chosen specimens and humans are not the same across the board, way too many variables. ;)
But if you chose to believe specific studies that only support your point of view then so be it. I'm sure that with little effort I could find studies that support a different way of thinking.
Will I? I don't have the desire to go back and forth with you about this, so I will not.
-
I took the quote from the study you posted, how can I be wrong ??? Re-read it and see if you get my point. The key words in that statement I quoted........"largest effect on body composition"
You're saying injecting and eaa is different than ingesting one? I would imagine injecting it would get it into the blood/muscles much quicker.......maybe giving a false reading on tests since leucine is what they used to measure for the whole study?
What I'm getting at is bodybuilders and powerlifters and strongmen do not wait 3 days between workouts, so 3 days of rest is going to affect the outcome.
I haven't read the 30g beef study, but I'm sure I could pick apart the details of that one as well as it pertains to bbers, plers and strongmen training. What they really need to do is a study with actually bbers/plers/strgmn, and do these studies on how these people really train vs a controlled training experiment and check the results of both.
Reality is not lived out in a scientific lab with hand chosen specimens and humans are not the same across the board, way too many variables. ;)
But if you chose to believe specific studies that only support your point of view then so be it. I'm sure that with little effort I could find studies that support a different way of thinking.
Will I? I don't have the desire to go back and forth with you about this, so I will not.
i do not recall seeing the line eat shit look shit in that study ::) thats why you are wrong.
tell me how 1 food is shit and another isn't for fat loss, if both have the same calorie content ?
regarding your claim i pick and choose studies, nonsense. as i posted earlier there needs to be more studies done to explain how other studies show 1g per lb being optimum. how is that picking and choosing ???
the fact that you think a tracer infusion is the same as ingesting eaa's shows that you do not understand the study at all. so the chances of you 'picking apart' the other study is very very slim if your picking of that study is anything to go by.
-
i do not recall seeing the line eat shit look shit in that study ::) thats why you are wrong.
tell me how i food is shit and another isn't for fat loss, if both have the same calorie content ?
regarding your claim i pick and choose studies, nonsense. as i posted earlier there needs to be more studies done to explain how other studies show 1g per lb being optimum. how is that picking and choosing ???
the fact that you think a tracer infusion is the same as ingesting eaa's shows that you do not understand the study at all. so the chances of you 'picking apart' the other study is very very slim if your picking of that study is anything to go by.
Maybe you don't have a grasp on what "largest effect on body composition" means?
You pick and choose the studies you post to fit your low protein a calorie is a calorie theory, it's that simple.
The fact that you don't see the tracer infusion as something that would affect the readings of the eaa that is being traced as the staple in finding the optimum protein intake in the muscle, shows a blatant lack of common sense. Like I said, I won't keep arguing with you, you have a retarded, one dimensional way of thinking and have an agenda that you are trying to push on people with your ideas about protein and calories.
If people choose to follow your way of thining by the studies you post, then they deserve what they get, as do you.
-
Maybe you don't have a grasp on what "largest effect on body composition" means?
You pick and choose the studies you post to fit your low protein a calorie is a calorie theory, it's that simple.
The fact that you don't see the tracer infusion as something that would affect the readings of the eaa that is being traced as the staple in finding the optimum protein intake in the muscle, shows a blatant lack of common sense. Like I said, I won't keep arguing with you, you have a retarded, one dimensional way of thinking and have an agenda that you are trying to push on people with your ideas about protein and calories.
If people choose to follow your way of thining by the studies you post, then they deserve what they get, as do you.
energy content of the diet means calories you moron.
the studies i choose for a calorie is a calorie are metabolic ward studies - the only valid studies on the topic.
i won't even get into your confusion regarding the 20g study. i'd be here all day trying to explain it.
-
energy content of the diet means calories you moron.
Since your fat fucking bloated ass doesn't get it, let me explain it in retard for you.........
the study says......."energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition."
You say.........."energy content of the diet is all that matters"
So, you fat fucking retarded piece of shit, ENERGY CONTENT = CALORIES = HAVE THE LARGEST EFFECT ON BODY COMPOSITION..........eat another chunky kit kat and think about it you retarded, hairless baboon.
-
wow...extreme protein owning by chaos....fatpanda should be banned from the nutrition and training board due to stupidity.....he could get someone hurt...
bench
-
let me explain it in retard for you...
That one's going in the book.
:D
-
I mean really......how do studies like that apply to the real world? They don't. There is no comparison of a lifters "real world" protein intake/uptake vs a control.
It's a scientific experiment that proved nothing IMO, because it did not compare itself to real world lifting/diets, just some lab experiment. Hooray! ::)
-
I mean really......how do studies like that apply to the real world? They don't. There is no comparison of a lifters "real world" protein intake/uptake vs a control.
It's a scientific experiment that proved nothing IMO, because it did not compare itself to real world lifting/diets, just some lab experiment. Hooray! ::)
what gets me is fatpanda knows how he got fat.....but since he reads this stuff he thinks the same habits that made him fat....will now get him ripped........what kind of logic is that?
bench
-
Since your fat fucking bloated ass doesn't get it, let me explain it in retard for you.........
the study says......."energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition."
You say.........."energy content of the diet is all that matters"
So, you fat fucking retarded piece of shit, ENERGY CONTENT = CALORIES = HAVE THE LARGEST EFFECT ON BODY COMPOSITION..........eat another chunky kit kat and think about it you retarded, hairless baboon.
::)
you are a fool, plain and simple.
explain to me how a calorie from a kitkat is different than a calorie from a potato.
i also like how you have had to muster the troops for moral support here - each one dumber than the last ;D
-
::)
you are a fool, plain and simple.
explain to me how a calorie from a kitkat is different than a calorie from a potato.
i also like how you have had to muster the troops for moral support here - each one dumber than the last ;D
your stupidity knows no bounds...
settle down JT...
bench
-
::)
you are a fool, plain and simple.
explain to me how a calorie from a kitkat is different than a calorie from a potato.
i also like how you have had to muster the troops for moral support here - each one dumber than the last ;D
Quite simple, dipshit, what makes up those calories from the kitkat vs the potato? Goes right back to the study you posted......CALORIES = HAVE THE LARGEST EFFECT ON BODY COMPOSITION. So your 2200 cal a day from kitkats isn't quite used the same by the body as 2200 cal's of a balanced diet.
-
Quite simple, dipshit, what makes up those calories from the kitkat vs the potato? Goes right back to the study you posted......CALORIES = HAVE THE LARGEST EFFECT ON BODY COMPOSITION. So your 2200 cal a day from kitkats isn't quite used the same by the body as 2200 cal's of a balanced diet.
bro....he is a expert.....at what?...i have no clue...
bench
-
bro....he is a expert.....at what?...i have no clue...
bench
Being wrong.
-
::)
you are a fool, plain and simple.
explain to me how a calorie from a kitkat is different than a calorie from a potato.
i also like how you have had to muster the troops for moral support here - each one dumber than the last ;D
Look fatso, "a calorie is a calorie" has effect only to people who are lean (wavelength, adonis). NOT to people who suffer from Morbid obesity.
-
Who really cares about all this shit? It is not about how much protein you eat but how much you assimilate. If you read Franco Columbu's book on nutrition you would be enlightened! Even mike mentzer said you don't need a shitload of protein. Both of those guys have done more than most of us on getbig.
-
Quite simple, dipshit, what makes up those calories from the kitkat vs the potato? Goes right back to the study you posted......CALORIES = HAVE THE LARGEST EFFECT ON BODY COMPOSITION. So your 2200 cal a day from kitkats isn't quite used the same by the body as 2200 cal's of a balanced diet.
so now 2200 calories are not 2200 calories ::)
you are embarrassing yourself with every further idiotic post.
you clearly do not even know what energy content means.
this is the last i will say to you on this matter, i will never discuss nutrition with you again as its like talking to a cow ( a dumb cow)
-
so now 2200 calories are not 2200 calories ::)
you are embarrassing yourself with every further idiotic post.
you clearly do not even know what energy content means.
this is the last i will say to you on this matter, i will never discuss nutrition with you again as its like talking to a cow ( a dumb cow)
You're a fat fucking slob that deserves to be a fat fucking slob. Discussing any matter of nutrition or dieting with you is a waste of time and it shows in your pics, you fat, sloppy gutted, disgusting pig of a human.
Good day.
-
so now 2200 calories are not 2200 calories ::)
you are embarrassing yourself with every further idiotic post.
you clearly do not even know what energy content means.
this is the last i will say to you on this matter, i will never discuss nutrition with you again as its like talking to a cow ( a dumb cow)
You wont even "discuss nutrition" with him? haha ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=348311.0;attach=382753;image)
no thanks fatty.
-
You wont even "discuss nutrition" with him? haha ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=348311.0;attach=382753;image)
no thanks fatty.
He claims to only weigh in the 250's there........I weigh 275 and am no where near that fat, not even remotely close. lol
-
You're a fat fucking slob that deserves to be a fat fucking slob. Discussing any matter of nutrition or dieting with you is a waste of time and it shows in your pics, you fat, sloppy gutted, disgusting pig of a human.
Good day.
calm down cankles - do some reading, and we can talk.
-
calm down cankles - do some reading, and we can talk.
So what all this "reading", all this lets say...... "knowledge", did to you pillsbury boy? ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=348311.0;attach=382753;image)
-
So what all this "reading", all this lets say...... "knowledge", did to you pillsbury boy? ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=348311.0;attach=382753;image)
Chunky kit kat > chicken breast
LMAO!! ;D
-
Chunky kit kat > chicken breast
LMAO!! ;D
man, look at those hairy tits. They bring disgust to me, seriously. :-X
-
Look guys, maybe he's being hard-headed. But the guy is trying to do what he needs to get done, because I'm not gonna lie, being that fat is morbidly obese, meaning I'm surprised he hasn't died yet. Let's give him some support, a reason to go on, because frankly, at his size, I would see no hope. But the guy's still on here meaning he wants to do something about it. Look, fatpanda, we're willing to help you, not me, because I'm a newb still, until I gain decent muscular size. In our books, it's do or don't, not explain this, explain that, though I do sometimes feel the need to argue why the hell we need 250 g of protein at 170 lb. At the end of the day, it's contructing your diet or setting up a good training routine, and allowing adequate rest in sleep, supplements, AND, notice I said and, food. Sure, you could try to do it without whey protein, but most of us need whey for convenience, and to lower our bill(meat is expensive and you can't eat eggs day in and day out, at least many of them) So concentrate on those, and forget the rest.
-
Look guys, maybe he's being hard-headed. But the guy is trying to do what he needs to get done, because I'm not gonna lie, being that fat is morbidly obese, meaning I'm surprised he hasn't died yet. Let's give him some support, a reason to go on, because frankly, at his size, I would see no hope. But the guy's still on here meaning he wants to do something about it. Look, fatpanda, we're willing to help you, not me, because I'm a newb still, until I gain decent muscular size. In our books, it's do or don't, not explain this, explain that, though I do sometimes feel the need to argue why the hell we need 250 g of protein at 170 lb. At the end of the day, it's contructing your diet or setting up a good training routine, and allowing adequate rest in sleep, supplements, AND, notice I said and, food. Sure, you could try to do it without whey protein, but most of us need whey for convenience, and to lower our bill(meat is expensive and you can't eat eggs day in and day out, at least many of them) So concentrate on those, and forget the rest.
I agree with this...protein is overrated...just eat and work out and sleep. Take in a few protein shakes here and there and u will be fine...if you are constantly ingesting protein you are pissing it away in the toilet
-
I agree, I think eating healthy and getting your protein sources mainly from whole foods is the best option
-
I think a 1g pre lb is right for a natural or at least close. I think someone juiced to the gills needs 1.5 or a lil higher per lb I have read almost all the studies to they will take you in a circle. Science does not even attempt to answer the question in our setting
-
Link is off?
-
I kind of figured there was a protein limit in a given time period. I usually try and space out protein intake throughout the day. So far it's been working pretty well. I obviously try and get my best meal right after working out because even my college coach says it's the best time ha.
http://www.bodyathleticsblog.com
"Fitness Through the Eyes of a Swimmer"
-
I keep seeing people saying "1gram per lb"... you telling me a 400 lb dude need 400 grams of protein >? No.
1 gram per lb of LBM is more realistic, not total body mass. Fat doesn't count for shit