ICE CREAMS and calorie is a calorie and Haha Apenis - all three threads merged.

[Alex23]

BMR at 6.5 cal per lb of bodymass says I require about 1450 cal at rest plus 450 per workout. So at about 1700 I'm defficient and should get ripped soon. Calories being calories and proteins, supplements being all a scam, I decided to get my 1700 cals on Cap n' Crunch and Cocopuffs, both will only bring me 4g of protein so I should be fine.

3 weeks later I'm wasting like there's no tomorow, my insulin is all fucked up and glucose to glucagon ratio is off the roof.

Where did I go wrong with my great application of those so called "Principles"?

Breaking out of that madness, I remembered something from biochemistry called PTOR (protein turn over rate). That scientifically proven rule says that my LBM x 1.818 is what I need to prevent from going catabolic. so that's about 310g of protein.


I come to the conclusion that the fucking idiots who think that "calories are calories" are misleading the goodhearted getbiggers.

Discuss 

[Army of One]

BMR at 6.5 cal per lb of bodymass says I required about 1450 cal at rest plus 450 per workout. So at about 1700 I'm defficient and should get ripped soon. Calories being calories and proteins, supplements being all a scam, I decided to get 1800 cals on Cap n' Crunch and Cocopuffs, both will only bring me 4g of protein so I should be fine.

3 weeks later I'm wasting like there's no tomorow, my insulin is all fucked up and glucose to glucagon ration if off the roof.

Where did I go wrong with my great application of those so called "Principles"?

Breaking out of that madness, I remembered something from biochemistry called PTOR (protein turn over rate). That scientifically proven rule says that my LBM x 1.818 is what I need to prevent from going catabolic. so that's about 310g of protein.


I come to the conclusion that the fucking idiots who think that "calories are calories" are misleading the goodhearted getbiggers.

Discuss 

Agreed Alex, its getting a bit out of hand now, you have to wonder how many "new" trainers are eating it up like its gospel.

[benjamin pearson]

BMR at 6.5 cal per lb of bodymass says I required about 1450 cal at rest plus 450 per workout. So at about 1700 I'm defficient and should get ripped soon. Calories being calories and proteins, supplements being all a scam, I decided to get my 1700 cals on Cap n' Crunch and Cocopuffs, both will only bring me 4g of protein so I should be fine.

3 weeks later I'm wasting like there's no tomorow, my insulin is all fucked up and glucose to glucagon ratio is off the roof.

Where did I go wrong with my great application of those so called "Principles"?

Breaking out of that madness, I remembered something from biochemistry called PTOR (protein turn over rate). That scientifically proven rule says that my LBM x 1.818 is what I need to prevent from going catabolic. so that's about 310g of protein.


I come to the conclusion that the fucking idiots who think that "calories are calories" are misleading the goodhearted getbiggers.

Discuss 

Agreed spot on Alex

[Krusader]

BMR at 6.5 cal per lb of bodymass says I required about 1450 cal at rest plus 450 per workout. So at about 1700 I'm defficient and should get ripped soon. Calories being calories and proteins, supplements being all a scam, I decided to get my 1700 cals on Cap n' Crunch and Cocopuffs, both will only bring me 4g of protein so I should be fine.

3 weeks later I'm wasting like there's no tomorow, my insulin is all fucked up and glucose to glucagon ratio is off the roof.

Where did I go wrong with my great application of those so called "Principles"?

Breaking out of that madness, I remembered something from biochemistry called PTOR (protein turn over rate). That scientifically proven rule says that my LBM x 1.818 is what I need to prevent from going catabolic. so that's about 310g of protein.


I come to the conclusion that the fucking idiots who think that "calories are calories" are misleading the goodhearted getbiggers.

Discuss 

One of the most brutal scientific ownage ever see on this board, pretty...

Did you get that Hoist smith machine for your sunroom yet  ?  

[Ozzy]

Nothing to discuss.

"A calorie is a calorie" is about the dumbest statement I've ever heard. The human body needs amino acids (from protein OMG!), vitamins, and minerals to even function.

Great post btw, Alex.

[Alex23]

Thanks guys, trying to shed some light over that misinformation in a more pacific way.

[Chick]

Thanks guys, trying to shed some light over that misinformation in a more pacific way.

As opposed to a more "atlantic" way..?

[Ozzy]

As opposed to a more "atlantic" way..?

I see what you did there.

[benjamin pearson]

brutal trying to throw people off of the fact that you are a gimmick

who the fuck are you again? 

[flexingtonsteele]

Dont be an Ahole BOB! 

As opposed to a more "atlantic" way..?

[The True Adonis]

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cabi/pns/1999/00000058/00000002/art00027

Optimal intakes of protein in the human diet
Author: Millward D.J.*

Source: Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Volume 58, Number 2, 1999, pp. 403-413(11)

Publisher: CABI Publishing

< previous article | next article > | View Table of Contents 

 

       
Key:  - Free content  - New Content  - Subscribed Content  - Free Trial Content
 

Abstract:

For protein, progress is slow in defining quantifiable indicators of adequacy other than balance and growth. As far as current requirements are concerned, only in the case of infants and children is there any case for revision, and this change is to lower values. Such intakes would appear to be safe when consumed as milk formula. In pregnancy, notwithstanding the concern that deficiency may influence programming of disease in later life, there is little evidence of any increased need, and some evidence that increased intakes would pose a risk. For the elderly there is no evidence of an increased requirement or of benefit from increased intakes, except possibly for bone health. For adults, while we now know much more about metabolic adaptation to varying intakes, there would appear to be no case for a change in current recommendations. As far as risks and benefits of high intakes are concerned, there is now only a weak case for risk for renal function. For bone health the established views of risk of high protein intakes are not supported by newly emerging data, with benefit indicated in the elderly. There is also circumstantial evidence for benefit on blood pressure and stroke mortality. With athletes there is little evidence of benefit of increased intakes in terms of performance, with older literature suggesting an adverse influence. Thus, given that a safe upper limit is currently defined as twice the reference nutrient intake, and that for individuals with high energy requirements this value (1·5 g/kg per d) is easily exceeded, there is a case for revising the definition of a safe upper limit.

[flexingtonsteele]

But Alex is that is a researched owning of galatic proportions. I congratulate you! Keep it up my intelectually advanced brother!

[The True Adonis]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=6571233&dopt=Citation

1: Clin Sports Med. 1984 Jul;3(3):595-604. Links
Protein nutrition for the athlete.Dohm GL.
Endurance exercise results in a protein catabolic state characterized by decreased protein synthesis, increased amino acid oxidation, and increased conversion of amino acids to glucose. The adaptive response to performance of strength exercise, on the other hand, results in an anabolic state in hypertrophying muscles, and the accretion of protein is the result of increased protein synthesis. Because of changes in protein metabolism there is an increased dietary requirement for protein in both endurance and strength exercise. However, the normal dietary intake of protein is adequate for athletes as long as the energy intake is sufficient to maintain body weight. There is little scientific evidence that consumption of large protein supplements will have any beneficial effect on muscle hypertrophy, muscular strength, or physical performance.PMID: 6571233 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[The True Adonis]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1844991&dopt=Citation

Lemon PW.
Applied Physiology Research Laboratory, Kent State University, OH 44242.

The debate regarding optimal protein/amino acid needs of strength athletes is an old one. Recent evidence indicates that actual requirements are higher than those of more sedentary individuals, although this is not widely recognized. Some data even suggest that high protein/amino acid diets can enhance the development of muscle mass and strength when combined with heavy resistance exercise training. Novices may have higher needs than experienced strength athletes, and substantial interindividual variability exists. Perhaps the most important single factor determining absolute protein/amino acid need is the adequacy of energy intake. Present data indicate that strength athletes should consume approximately 12-15% of their daily total energy intake as protein, or about 1.5-2.0 g protein/kg.d-1 (approximately 188-250% of the U.S. recommended dietary allowance). Although routinely consumed by many strength athletes, higher protein intakes have not been shown to be consistently effective and may even be associated with some health risks.

[The True Adonis]

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/3/511

Effect of protein source on resistive-training-induced changes in body composition and muscle size in older men1,2,3 Mark D Haub, Amanda M Wells, Mark A Tarnopolsky and Wayne W Campbell
1 From the Department of Human Nutrition, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS (MDH); the Nutrition, Metabolism, and Exercise Laboratory, Donald W Reynolds Center on Aging, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, North Little Rock, AR (MDH and AMW); the Department of Medicine, Division of Neurology, McMaster University Medical Centre, Hamilton, Canada (MAT); and the Department of Foods and Nutrition, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (WWC).


Background: Aging is associated with reductions in muscle mass and strength, but nutrition and exercise interventions can delay this progression and enhance the quality of life.

Objective: We examined whether the predominant source of protein consumed by older men influenced measures of muscle size and strength, body composition, resting energy expenditure, and skeletal muscle creatine concentrations in response to 12 wk of resistive training.
Design: After consuming a lactoovovegetarian (LOV) diet for 2 wk, 21 men aged 65 ± 5 y were randomly assigned to either consume a beef-containing (BC) diet (n = 10) or to continue the LOV diet (n = 11) throughout resistive training. The BC diet included 0.6 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 from beef and the LOV diet included 0.6 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 from textured vegetable protein (soy) sources. The remaining protein in the diets came from self-selected LOV sources.

Results: The mean total protein intake for both groups ranged from 1.03 to 1.17 g · kg-1 · d-1 during the intervention. Men in both groups had improvements (14–38%) in maximal dynamic strength of all the muscle groups trained with no significant difference between groups. With resistive training, cross-sectional muscle area of the vastus lateralis increased in both groups (4.2 ± 3.0% and 6.0 ± 2.6% for the LOV and BC groups, respectively) with no significant difference between groups. Body composition, resting energy expenditure, and concentrations of muscle creatine, phosphocreatine, and total creatine did not differ significantly between groups or change over time.

Conclusions: These data suggest that increases in muscle strength and size were not influenced by the predominant source of protein consumed by older men with adequate total protein intake.

Key Words: Vegetarian • omnivore • meat • beef • soy • textured vegetable protein • protein source • aging • elderly men • muscle strength • strength training • resistive training • exercise • muscle hypertrophy • creatine

[Ozzy]

With athletes there is little evidence of benefit of increased intakes in terms of performance, with older literature suggesting an adverse influence. Thus, given that a safe upper limit is currently defined as twice the reference nutrient intake, and that for individuals with high energy requirements this value (1·5 g/kg per d) is easily exceeded, there is a case for revising the definition of a safe upper limit.

The statement in bold suggests that there is actually LIMITED EVIDENCE of benefit, as opposed to no evidence.

=/

[The True Adonis]

A CALORIE WILL ALWAYS BE A CALORIE no matter what.

This is an absolute and can never change.

A Macronutrient is not a macronutrient.

[Peptide Wizard]

Hahahahahahahaha another brutal ownage by the dynamo known as Alex23

[The True Adonis]

The statement in bold suggests that there is actually LIMITED EVIDENCE of benefit, as opposed to no evidence.

=/

The evidence is overwhelmingly NOT in favor of High Protein.

It has simply NEVER been demonstrated to be necessary, efficient or worthwhile.

All that money you guys have been wasting could have been spent elsewhere.

[SteelePegasus]

Thanks guys, trying to shed some light over that misinformation in a more pacific way.

1700 cals is probably a mid morning snack for you

[Ozzy]

A CALORIE WILL ALWAYS BE A CALORIE no matter what.

This is an absolute and can never change.

A Macronutrient is not a macronutrient.

Hahaha, so calories I get from eating a salad are used by my body the same way as calories from, say, a can of Coke?


Oh brother.

[The True Adonis]

http://www.essentialnutrition.org/pdf/alert_myths.pdf


www.essentialnutrition.o rg

[Alex23]

1700 cals is probably a mid morning snack for you

Hahahahahahahaha you little shit... yea it used to be

[Ozzy]

The evidence is overwhelmingly NOT in favor of High Protein.

It has simply NEVER been demonstrated to be necessary, efficient or worthwhile.

All that money you guys have been wasting could have been spent elsewhere.

Actually, nevermind. I don't really feel like getting into this.

[Alex23]

So where did I go wrong in your misinformative opinion?