Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
Protein Misconceptions
- Thread starter 2Thick
- Start date
Fukkenshredded
New member
It is interesting that this is even debated at this point. Doggcrap has presented some of the applicable literature, there is other literature corroborating what he has posted...in any event, there is much more evidence supporting higher protien intake for increased muscle mass than lower protien intake.
As far as plant protien being superior to animal protien...I'm afraid that is not entirely correct either. Most (if not all) plant protiens are incomplete, as mentioned by several of the people on this thread already, and this leaves the only argument one of bioavailability, which can be improved by several means.
Even the study showing that absorption rates do not negatively impact the efficacy of protiens has been posted in this thread.
The evidence is in, people, and in abundance. Plant protien is NOT superior to animal protien, and high protien is more effective for gaining muscle than low protien intakes.
As far as life extension (the old cholesterol argument), well, the fact is that the percentage of people with heart disease that have high cholesterol, IN THE ABSENSE OF OBESITY, is fifty percent. Half.
Obesity is the key issue here, and cholesterol readings themselves are the single most overrated indicator of overall cardiovascular health. Cholesterol levels are more of a genetic issue than a dietary one. Case in point: my own family. My great grandfather lived to be 101, my great aunt, 106, and her mother's sister, 109, one of the oldest in Tennessee. My grandfather is 88 and has survived malaria, colon cancer, eighteen months of chemo, and still outworks men forty years his junior in the physical labor of constructing a church in their area. His cholesterol was around 400 before medication, which he started in his eighties. My father's cholesterol was around 300 before medication, as is mine. I am roughly 6% bodyfat in the summer, 7% year round, never more than 8% at my fattest. I am in excellent health and my diet is clean, primarily fish and spinach, plenty of oats, plenty of niacin, etc. My triglycerides are almost 300 as well. I am only 35.
No one in my family has ever had a heart attack that we know of, and everyone who has had there cholesterol checked has found it to be way high. My father, who is a doctor, has elected to go on some statins, and this has reduced his cholesterol to just over 200.
The whole cholesterol issue is one that is significantly lacking in actual proof in the absence of obesity.
Not only that, but there is very little evidence supporting the notion that cholesterol levels are primarily a result of diet. Diet is a factor, to be sure, but genetics are more of a factor, just like muscular potential. Genetics are everything, in the end.
Where I will absolutely agree with 2thick is with the assertion that vegetable consumption is essential to proper nutrition, and that vegetable consumption is less harmful to the body over the long haul than meat consumption. This is from a carcinogenic standpoint, however, rather than a cholesterol standpoint.
That being said, it is a well known and documented fact that a strictly vegan diet is anything but healthy. It lacks in many areas, one significant area being in the precursors to specific neurotransmitters. There are many other such examples, but it would seem that Doggcrap has already posted the germain literature with regard to the inital thread starter.
Those of you about to post here who have not read the references that he posted are well advised to read this entire thread before posting. His information is invaluable.
As far as plant protien being superior to animal protien...I'm afraid that is not entirely correct either. Most (if not all) plant protiens are incomplete, as mentioned by several of the people on this thread already, and this leaves the only argument one of bioavailability, which can be improved by several means.
Even the study showing that absorption rates do not negatively impact the efficacy of protiens has been posted in this thread.
The evidence is in, people, and in abundance. Plant protien is NOT superior to animal protien, and high protien is more effective for gaining muscle than low protien intakes.
As far as life extension (the old cholesterol argument), well, the fact is that the percentage of people with heart disease that have high cholesterol, IN THE ABSENSE OF OBESITY, is fifty percent. Half.
Obesity is the key issue here, and cholesterol readings themselves are the single most overrated indicator of overall cardiovascular health. Cholesterol levels are more of a genetic issue than a dietary one. Case in point: my own family. My great grandfather lived to be 101, my great aunt, 106, and her mother's sister, 109, one of the oldest in Tennessee. My grandfather is 88 and has survived malaria, colon cancer, eighteen months of chemo, and still outworks men forty years his junior in the physical labor of constructing a church in their area. His cholesterol was around 400 before medication, which he started in his eighties. My father's cholesterol was around 300 before medication, as is mine. I am roughly 6% bodyfat in the summer, 7% year round, never more than 8% at my fattest. I am in excellent health and my diet is clean, primarily fish and spinach, plenty of oats, plenty of niacin, etc. My triglycerides are almost 300 as well. I am only 35.
No one in my family has ever had a heart attack that we know of, and everyone who has had there cholesterol checked has found it to be way high. My father, who is a doctor, has elected to go on some statins, and this has reduced his cholesterol to just over 200.
The whole cholesterol issue is one that is significantly lacking in actual proof in the absence of obesity.
Not only that, but there is very little evidence supporting the notion that cholesterol levels are primarily a result of diet. Diet is a factor, to be sure, but genetics are more of a factor, just like muscular potential. Genetics are everything, in the end.
Where I will absolutely agree with 2thick is with the assertion that vegetable consumption is essential to proper nutrition, and that vegetable consumption is less harmful to the body over the long haul than meat consumption. This is from a carcinogenic standpoint, however, rather than a cholesterol standpoint.
That being said, it is a well known and documented fact that a strictly vegan diet is anything but healthy. It lacks in many areas, one significant area being in the precursors to specific neurotransmitters. There are many other such examples, but it would seem that Doggcrap has already posted the germain literature with regard to the inital thread starter.
Those of you about to post here who have not read the references that he posted are well advised to read this entire thread before posting. His information is invaluable.
Last edited:
D
Debaser
Guest
jubei said:
I`m really sorry , but if I`m not gonna die, Can I please have my checkerboard back?
S
Spartacus
Guest
spinach2Thick said:
Similar threads
