Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
November 28, 2014, 10:16:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Protein - Info - If you REALLY want to know!  (Read 33342 times)
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2009, 04:27:31 PM »

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.



Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11295


« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2009, 12:00:09 PM »

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...
Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2009, 09:44:49 PM »

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.


Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11295


« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2009, 09:40:59 AM »

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??



Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2009, 11:21:21 AM »





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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19169

Psalms 150


« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2009, 05:52:02 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tapeworm
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19101


Yonder


« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2009, 11:01:23 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2009, 11:17:26 AM »

Man that post is worthy of some "cliff notes" Tbombz!  Grin



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???)

Report to moderator   Logged
ngm21084
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1010


D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.


« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2009, 11:48:30 AM »

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....
Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2009, 01:43:47 PM »

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  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
ngm21084
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1010


D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.


« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2009, 02:18:00 PM »

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...
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19169

Psalms 150


« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2009, 03:04:42 PM »

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.




Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19169

Psalms 150


« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2009, 03:22:49 PM »

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]
Report to moderator   Logged
Nasty Nate
Competitors II
Getbig IV
******
Posts: 1510


« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2009, 03:27:09 PM »

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 ?
Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2009, 10:44:51 PM »

...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...  Wink

Report to moderator   Logged
ngm21084
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1010


D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.


« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2009, 07:39:54 AM »


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

Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11295


« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2009, 07:45:04 AM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
ngm21084
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1010


D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.


« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2009, 07:52:51 AM »

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...
Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2009, 08:00:59 AM »

Now I'm not sure where to begin...  Grin  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?


Report to moderator   Logged
ngm21084
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1010


D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.


« Reply #44 on: September 12, 2009, 08:09:34 AM »

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?
Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2009, 08:31:46 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19169

Psalms 150


« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2009, 10:15:35 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
ngm21084
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1010


D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.


« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2009, 11:18:46 AM »




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
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19169

Psalms 150


« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2009, 12:32:16 PM »


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.
Report to moderator   Logged
dyslexic
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7456


baddoggy


« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2009, 12:47:16 PM »

Sorry bout' that NGM.. I was being facetious  Grin


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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!