Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Protein Misconceptions
- Thread starter 2Thick
- Start date
D
Debaser
Guest
This is fun.
v. skirt·ed, skirt·ing, skirts
v. tr.
To evade, as by circumlocution: skirted the controversial issue
v. skirt·ed, skirt·ing, skirts
v. tr.
To evade, as by circumlocution: skirted the controversial issue
i've known 2thick since i first registered and became a member in July of 2000.
he knows what he's talking about and he's a good guy. if you come back with any response to his statements, as long as it's done in a respectful, intelligent way, he always listens.
i've even seen him concede to a few ideas before..but of course this was a long time ago..long ago..before he was an asshole LOL j/k bro
kak
he knows what he's talking about and he's a good guy. if you come back with any response to his statements, as long as it's done in a respectful, intelligent way, he always listens.
i've even seen him concede to a few ideas before..but of course this was a long time ago..long ago..before he was an asshole LOL j/k bro
kak
Rio 2001
New member
Ahhnnn, sorry to interrupt, but is the protein debate over?
If not, I´d like to say just a few words if I may..
First, as for the amount of protein I agree most people take far too much, there is suficient evidence to not go over 1g/lb/day when off and I´m adding 30% to that when on, so 1,3g/lb/day, but that is not scientifically based, it´s just my oppinion that when "on" you get more muscle out of an even more positive nitrogen balance.
As for veggies being a better protein source that would not be true, if you consider it specifically from the protein quality/bioavaiability/point of view.For that sake, animal protein is better.But a good diet plan is not all about protein,and eating veggies, crucyphers, green leafs, are ESSENTIAL to a healthy body.I just never thought of veggies as " muscle proteins", but they sure are essential in the anabolic process.
I dug up some related articles for those who can´t go to the library...
Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes
M. A. Tarnopolsky, S. A. Atkinson, J. D. MacDougall, A. Chesley, S. Phillips and H. P. Schwarcz
Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1, moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1 for 13 days for each dietary treatment. NBAL was measured and whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) and leucine oxidation were determined from L-[1-13C]leucine turnover. NBAL data were used to determine that the protein intake for zero NBAL for S was 0.69 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.41 g.kg-1.day-1. A suggested recommended intake for S was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S. These results indicated that the MP and HP diets were nutrient overloads for S. There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.
Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass
M. A. Tarnopolsky, J. D. MacDougall and S. A. Atkinson
Department of Physical Education and Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The present study examined the effects of training status (endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance, body composition, and urea excretion during periods of habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders
P. W. Lemon, M. A. Tarnopolsky, J. D. MacDougall and S. A. Atkinson
School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Ohio 44242.
This randomized double-blind cross-over study assessed protein (PRO) requirements during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training and determined whether supplemental PRO intake (PROIN) enhanced muscle mass/strength gains. Twelve men [22.4 +/- 2.4 (SD) yr] received an isoenergetic PRO (total PROIN 2.62 g.kg-1.day-1) or carbohydrate (CHO; total PROIN 1.35 g.kg-1.day-1) supplement for 1 mo each during intensive (1.5 h/day, 6 days/wk) weight training. On the basis of 3-day nitrogen balance (NBAL) measurements after 3.5 wk on each treatment (8.9 +/- 4.2 and -3.4 +/- 1.9 g N/day, respectively), the PROIN necessary for zero NBAL (requirement) was 1.4-1.5 g.kg-1.day-1. The recommended intake (requirement + 2 SD) was 1.6-1.7 g.kg-1.day-1. However, strength (voluntary and electrically evoked) and muscle mass [density, creatinine excretion, muscle area (computer axial tomography scan), and biceps N content] gains were not different between diet treatments. These data indicate that, during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training, PRO needs are approximately 100% greater than current recommendations but that PROIN increases from 1.35 to 2.62 g.kg-1.day-1 do not enhance muscle mass/strength gains, at least during the 1st mo of training. Whether differential gains would occur with longer training remains to be determined.
If not, I´d like to say just a few words if I may..
First, as for the amount of protein I agree most people take far too much, there is suficient evidence to not go over 1g/lb/day when off and I´m adding 30% to that when on, so 1,3g/lb/day, but that is not scientifically based, it´s just my oppinion that when "on" you get more muscle out of an even more positive nitrogen balance.
As for veggies being a better protein source that would not be true, if you consider it specifically from the protein quality/bioavaiability/point of view.For that sake, animal protein is better.But a good diet plan is not all about protein,and eating veggies, crucyphers, green leafs, are ESSENTIAL to a healthy body.I just never thought of veggies as " muscle proteins", but they sure are essential in the anabolic process.
I dug up some related articles for those who can´t go to the library...
Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes
M. A. Tarnopolsky, S. A. Atkinson, J. D. MacDougall, A. Chesley, S. Phillips and H. P. Schwarcz
Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1, moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1 for 13 days for each dietary treatment. NBAL was measured and whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) and leucine oxidation were determined from L-[1-13C]leucine turnover. NBAL data were used to determine that the protein intake for zero NBAL for S was 0.69 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.41 g.kg-1.day-1. A suggested recommended intake for S was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S. These results indicated that the MP and HP diets were nutrient overloads for S. There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.
Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass
M. A. Tarnopolsky, J. D. MacDougall and S. A. Atkinson
Department of Physical Education and Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The present study examined the effects of training status (endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance, body composition, and urea excretion during periods of habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders
P. W. Lemon, M. A. Tarnopolsky, J. D. MacDougall and S. A. Atkinson
School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Ohio 44242.
This randomized double-blind cross-over study assessed protein (PRO) requirements during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training and determined whether supplemental PRO intake (PROIN) enhanced muscle mass/strength gains. Twelve men [22.4 +/- 2.4 (SD) yr] received an isoenergetic PRO (total PROIN 2.62 g.kg-1.day-1) or carbohydrate (CHO; total PROIN 1.35 g.kg-1.day-1) supplement for 1 mo each during intensive (1.5 h/day, 6 days/wk) weight training. On the basis of 3-day nitrogen balance (NBAL) measurements after 3.5 wk on each treatment (8.9 +/- 4.2 and -3.4 +/- 1.9 g N/day, respectively), the PROIN necessary for zero NBAL (requirement) was 1.4-1.5 g.kg-1.day-1. The recommended intake (requirement + 2 SD) was 1.6-1.7 g.kg-1.day-1. However, strength (voluntary and electrically evoked) and muscle mass [density, creatinine excretion, muscle area (computer axial tomography scan), and biceps N content] gains were not different between diet treatments. These data indicate that, during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training, PRO needs are approximately 100% greater than current recommendations but that PROIN increases from 1.35 to 2.62 g.kg-1.day-1 do not enhance muscle mass/strength gains, at least during the 1st mo of training. Whether differential gains would occur with longer training remains to be determined.
c3bodybuilding
New member
I had a nice post before on the other thread, I post and it was locked already!
Okay, to the matter at hand, I find that more carbs are more important to my gains than more protein. 2thick brings an interesting point to the table, health. Or rather the quality of life. I was scared with the 20 years down the line comment. With so many bodybuilders having kidney problems, maybe we should all look a little further into his advice here.
Tomorrow I am going to do more research on this. I can't wait to read the full report 2thick has prepared on this. Hopefully it is posted soon.
ps. 2thick, I am going to give cleans a try next week. When you say you follow three days on, one day off, how do you break your body parts down?
Okay, to the matter at hand, I find that more carbs are more important to my gains than more protein. 2thick brings an interesting point to the table, health. Or rather the quality of life. I was scared with the 20 years down the line comment. With so many bodybuilders having kidney problems, maybe we should all look a little further into his advice here.
Tomorrow I am going to do more research on this. I can't wait to read the full report 2thick has prepared on this. Hopefully it is posted soon.
ps. 2thick, I am going to give cleans a try next week. When you say you follow three days on, one day off, how do you break your body parts down?
If you don´t need more than 1,5 grams protein / lb, then, me being 158 pounds, dieting at 2000 kcal/day, would have about 32% of calories coming from protein, correct?
My question is, if I have less protein, then I´ll need the carbs (or fats) to replace it, which gets me to the question:
What´s a good DIET ratio, given that you don´t need a lot of protein? 40 carbs/ 32 protein / 28 fat? Or more like 50c/32p/18f??
Wouldn´t that be to much carbs to cut?
thanx
My question is, if I have less protein, then I´ll need the carbs (or fats) to replace it, which gets me to the question:
What´s a good DIET ratio, given that you don´t need a lot of protein? 40 carbs/ 32 protein / 28 fat? Or more like 50c/32p/18f??
Wouldn´t that be to much carbs to cut?
thanx
sk* said:
That is subject to speculation.
Considering that enhanced protein synthesis is a property of AAS, then I could see how 2-2.5g/pound could be plausible. But there is only so much protein your body can synthesis, so the difference between 500mg and 1000mg of test should be negligible.
nEwSkIn said:
Cutting the carbs out should be your last option. Carbs are essential for fuel so you can use all of the protein for muscle building. You should raise your omega-3 fatty acids instead of reducing the carbs. Flax seed oil would be a great example.
You should be looking at about 30% protein, 40-45% carbos, and 25-30% fat.
Best mod, good mod, helpful mod, call him what you like, but when you abuse your mod power by deleting posts you don't like and posts which argue with you, members will lose respect for you. Saying a member's opinion doesn't matter because he only has X amount of posts doesn't help either.
Do you care? Probably not. But you should, since a mod is supposed to be a leader, which inexperienced lifters and AS users look up to.
my 2 cents.
Do you care? Probably not. But you should, since a mod is supposed to be a leader, which inexperienced lifters and AS users look up to.
my 2 cents.
drveejay11
New member
http://www.lose-body-weight.com/food-guide-pyramid.html
IMO: NOPE !!!
Gotta go to work.....will explain later.....
IMO: NOPE !!!
Gotta go to work.....will explain later.....
this is completely innaccurate for two reasons. carbs put glycogen in muscles, and glycogen holds 7 grams of water per gram of glycogen. therefore, bloat comes from the added glycogen holding more water, not because it has more water init. if your statement were true drinking water would cause the most bloat. secondly, meat has more water in it than carbs. dehydrate a piece of steak and what do you get? beef jerky...
kerry
serge
New member
drveejay11 said:http://www.lose-body-weight.com/food-guide-pyramid.html
IMO: NOPE !!!
Gotta go to work.....will explain later.....
i agree, the food pyramid will not yeild best muscle density
OMG If this is true, my liver`s gonna explode.
Who wants my checker board?
Let`s say I take in 400 grams Pro and 300 g Carbs, What is recommended? To gradually increase carbs WHILE decreasing pro? In the same increments?
Who wants my checker board?
Let`s say I take in 400 grams Pro and 300 g Carbs, What is recommended? To gradually increase carbs WHILE decreasing pro? In the same increments?
drveejay11
New member
gonelifting said:
I got dibs
drveejay11 said:
I got dibs
3 pieces are missing and there`s stickers on the back, but you won`t see them when you`re playing though. cool?
D
Debaser
Guest
You mean this post?
Now if i may ask a question about your protein post.
I have for some weeks now included low carb pasta made with soy flower. I combine it with some lean turkey/chicken meat to complete to amino acid profile. This is a really convenient way to get A LOT more protein in as 3/4 of a cup has about 30 grams of protein. So basically i do agree with the notion of ingesting more plant based protein. incidentally i do include tofu burgers and they are great.
But is there a problem with Soy causing estrogenic sides, like bloat or estrogenic fat deposits in men? Or is this just speculation. Because Nolvadex looks like an estrogen too but has totally different effects.
I have for some weeks now included low carb pasta made with soy flower. I combine it with some lean turkey/chicken meat to complete to amino acid profile. This is a really convenient way to get A LOT more protein in as 3/4 of a cup has about 30 grams of protein. So basically i do agree with the notion of ingesting more plant based protein. incidentally i do include tofu burgers and they are great.
But is there a problem with Soy causing estrogenic sides, like bloat or estrogenic fat deposits in men? Or is this just speculation. Because Nolvadex looks like an estrogen too but has totally different effects.
gwl9dta4 said:
I will have to try that.
There have been some studies that I recall (somewhat) that have claimed that those fat deposits were indirectly attributed to soy consumption, but they were not conclusive.
There is probably another factor that has not yet been identified that triggers the soy to cause estro fat distribution in men, but we do not know what they are yet.
drveejay11
New member
MAcro, Andy13, Huck, Zyg, Kronk, Fonz.........any thoughts????
2Thick....I understand your "MO" here and I can appreciate several points made......but I gotta be honest, most credible science-based literature DOES infact support much higher protein intakes for "OUR" bb'ing lifestyles. Maybe NOT to the degree we bb'ers have taken it; but definitely more than you suggest.
I agree with lowering protein intake when OFF, and conversely...increasing while ON (taking full advantage of AS ability to ramp up protein synthesis).
Interesting thread..........definitely a thought-provoker. I'm just not 100% in accord.
2Thick....I understand your "MO" here and I can appreciate several points made......but I gotta be honest, most credible science-based literature DOES infact support much higher protein intakes for "OUR" bb'ing lifestyles. Maybe NOT to the degree we bb'ers have taken it; but definitely more than you suggest.
I agree with lowering protein intake when OFF, and conversely...increasing while ON (taking full advantage of AS ability to ramp up protein synthesis).
Interesting thread..........definitely a thought-provoker. I'm just not 100% in accord.
Last edited:
For all of those who STILL want to complain and whine about 2Thick,
Stop whining people- 2Thick did what he did in an attempt to keep things civil on this board.
If anything, far TOO much whining and drama are tolerated.
If any of you have:
- as much "gear" experience,
- as much lifing experince,
- have spent as much time on this board as 2thickhas
- have spent as much time being a Mod and being responsible as he has
... then kindly put together a letter to George and nominate yourself for Mod-ship.
Until then, get over it.
(Bunch of whining school kids.)
Drama, drama, and more fucking drama, and once again - where did it all start? Regardless of right or wrong, who did what, who said what, who did what first, when this person said that and when that person said whatever (this sounds like a damned playground), regardless of any of that crap - who was a party that was involved? Nelson.
No one's expertise is worth this much Drama. I hope, I sincerely hope, that Nelson is making George a goddamned boatload of money, because that the only reason we should have to put up with this (and I mean that, I do hope its worthwhile for George).
And please SPARE ME THE DETAILS as to what happened - I don't care. The bottom line is that 90% of the time we see drama and all of this bullshit lately, its because somehow, someway, Nelson is involved.
This is like watching fucking 90210 and Nelson plays the part of "Brenda". LOL
I would love to see and get the benefit of his knowledge, but nothing is worth THIS MUCH DRAMA.
Stop whining people- 2Thick did what he did in an attempt to keep things civil on this board.
If anything, far TOO much whining and drama are tolerated.
If any of you have:
- as much "gear" experience,
- as much lifing experince,
- have spent as much time on this board as 2thickhas
- have spent as much time being a Mod and being responsible as he has
... then kindly put together a letter to George and nominate yourself for Mod-ship.
Until then, get over it.
(Bunch of whining school kids.)
Drama, drama, and more fucking drama, and once again - where did it all start? Regardless of right or wrong, who did what, who said what, who did what first, when this person said that and when that person said whatever (this sounds like a damned playground), regardless of any of that crap - who was a party that was involved? Nelson.
No one's expertise is worth this much Drama. I hope, I sincerely hope, that Nelson is making George a goddamned boatload of money, because that the only reason we should have to put up with this (and I mean that, I do hope its worthwhile for George).
And please SPARE ME THE DETAILS as to what happened - I don't care. The bottom line is that 90% of the time we see drama and all of this bullshit lately, its because somehow, someway, Nelson is involved.
This is like watching fucking 90210 and Nelson plays the part of "Brenda". LOL
I would love to see and get the benefit of his knowledge, but nothing is worth THIS MUCH DRAMA.
macrophage69alpha
New member
drveejay11
New member
LMAO...........responded in typical Macro fashion 
sk* said:
Technically speaking, your body should treat the shakes and bars the same as protein from food, but the big difference is that food has many other essential and non-essential nutrients including fiber, water, vitamins and minerals.
Also, real food contains co-enzymes that help break down food and absorb the nutrients at a higher rate.
Bulldog_10
New member
sk* said:
Protein shakes are digested faster than protein from foods...it's just the micronutrient density is not very high in protein shakes...at least not in comparison to whole foods.
Bulldog_10
New member
2Thick said:
Not correct about the speed of digestion? Wouldn't your body have an easier time digesting protein from protein shakes because they're micronized...making the molecules smaller and more easily absorbed? Of course, it will all be absorbed in the end, but I just figured it would be faster when drinking a protein shake...and that's why shakes are better after workouts, because it will get into the bloodstream quicker. Right?
It is interesting to note that Consolazio et al. (1975) Marabel et al. (1979), and Dragan et al. (1985) all reported larger increases in strength, lean body mass (LBM) and nitrogen with much higher protein intakes (3.3, 2.8, and 3.5 g/kg/d respectively). These reports tend to corroborate the more anecdotal beliefs of weight lifters that extremely high dietary protein intakes are essential for optimal muscular development.
Ill be back to join this debate a lil later tonite Im hungry and I have to go eat some more protein honestly. Oh trust me I have alot im going to throw on this thread--my favorite places folder should take me about 6 hours to get thru
Ill be back to join this debate a lil later tonite Im hungry and I have to go eat some more protein honestly. Oh trust me I have alot im going to throw on this thread--my favorite places folder should take me about 6 hours to get thru
Will Brink
Myth #2 "High protein diets are bad for you"
So the average person reads the above information on the protein needs and benefits of a high protein diet but remembers in the back of their mind another myth about high protein intakes. "I thought high protein diets are bad for the kidneys and will give you osteoporosis! " they exclaim with conviction and indignation. So what are the medical facts behind these claims and why do so many people, including some medical professionals and nutritionists, still believe it? For starters, the negative health claims of the high protein diet on kidney function is based on information gathered from people who have preexisting kidney problems. You see one of the jobs of the kidneys is the excretion of urea (generally a non toxic compound) that is formed from ammonia (a very toxic compound) which comes from the protein in our diets. People with serious kidney problems have trouble excreting the urea placing more stress on the kidneys and so the logic goes that a high protein diet must be hard on the kidneys for healthy athletes also. Now for the medical and scientific facts. There is not a single scientific study published in a reputable peer - reviewed journal using healthy adults with normal kidney function that has shown any kidney dysfunction what so ever from a high protein diet. Not one of the studies done with healthy athletes that I mentioned above, or other research I have read, has shown any kidney abnormalities at all. Furthermore, animals studies done using high protein diets also fail to show any kidney dysfunction in healthy animals. Now don't forget, in the real world, where millions of athletes have been following high protein diets for decades, there has never been a case of kidney failure in a healthy athlete that was determined to have been caused solely by a high protein diet. If the high protein diet was indeed putting undo stress on our kidneys, we would have seen many cases of kidney abnormalities, but we don't nor will we. From a personal perspective as a trainer for many top athletes from various sports, I have known bodybuilders eating considerably more than the above research recommends (above 600 grams a day) who showed no kidney dysfunction or kidney problems and I personally read the damn blood tests! Bottom line? 1-1.5 grams or protein per pound of bodyweight will have absolutely no ill effects on the kidney function of a healthy athlete, period. Now of course too much of anything can be harmful and I suppose it's possible a healthy person could eat enough protein over a long enough period of time to effect kidney function, but it is very unlikely and has yet to be shown in the scientific literature in healthy athletes.
So what about the osteoporosis claim? That's a bit more complicated but the conclusion is the same. The pathology of osteoporosis involves a combination of many risk factors and physiological variables such as macro nutrient intakes (carbs, proteins, fats), micro nutrient intakes (vitamins, minerals, etc), hormonal profiles, lack of exercise, gender, family history, and a few others. The theory is that high protein intakes raise the acidity of the blood and the body must use minerals from bone stores to "buffer" the blood and bring the blood acidity down, thus depleting one's bones of minerals. Even if there was a clear link between a high protein diet and osteoporosis in all populations (and there is not) athletes have few of the above risk factors as they tend to get plenty of exercise, calories, minerals, vitamins, and have positive hormonal profiles. Fact of the matter is, studies have shown athletes to have denser bones than sedentary people, there are millions of athletes who follow high protein diets without any signs of premature bone loss, and we don't have ex athletes who are now older with higher rates of osteoporosis. In fact, one recent study showed women receiving extra protein from a protein supplement had increased bone density over a group not getting the extra protein! The researchers theorized this was due to an increase in IGF-1 levels which are known to be involved in bone growth. Would I recommend a super high protein diet to some sedentary post menopausal woman? Probably not, but we are not talking about her, we are talking about athletes. Bottom line? A high protein diet does not lead to osteoporosis in healthy athletes with very few risk factors for this affliction, especially in the ranges of protein intake that have been discussed throughout this article.
Myth #2 "High protein diets are bad for you"
So the average person reads the above information on the protein needs and benefits of a high protein diet but remembers in the back of their mind another myth about high protein intakes. "I thought high protein diets are bad for the kidneys and will give you osteoporosis! " they exclaim with conviction and indignation. So what are the medical facts behind these claims and why do so many people, including some medical professionals and nutritionists, still believe it? For starters, the negative health claims of the high protein diet on kidney function is based on information gathered from people who have preexisting kidney problems. You see one of the jobs of the kidneys is the excretion of urea (generally a non toxic compound) that is formed from ammonia (a very toxic compound) which comes from the protein in our diets. People with serious kidney problems have trouble excreting the urea placing more stress on the kidneys and so the logic goes that a high protein diet must be hard on the kidneys for healthy athletes also. Now for the medical and scientific facts. There is not a single scientific study published in a reputable peer - reviewed journal using healthy adults with normal kidney function that has shown any kidney dysfunction what so ever from a high protein diet. Not one of the studies done with healthy athletes that I mentioned above, or other research I have read, has shown any kidney abnormalities at all. Furthermore, animals studies done using high protein diets also fail to show any kidney dysfunction in healthy animals. Now don't forget, in the real world, where millions of athletes have been following high protein diets for decades, there has never been a case of kidney failure in a healthy athlete that was determined to have been caused solely by a high protein diet. If the high protein diet was indeed putting undo stress on our kidneys, we would have seen many cases of kidney abnormalities, but we don't nor will we. From a personal perspective as a trainer for many top athletes from various sports, I have known bodybuilders eating considerably more than the above research recommends (above 600 grams a day) who showed no kidney dysfunction or kidney problems and I personally read the damn blood tests! Bottom line? 1-1.5 grams or protein per pound of bodyweight will have absolutely no ill effects on the kidney function of a healthy athlete, period. Now of course too much of anything can be harmful and I suppose it's possible a healthy person could eat enough protein over a long enough period of time to effect kidney function, but it is very unlikely and has yet to be shown in the scientific literature in healthy athletes.
So what about the osteoporosis claim? That's a bit more complicated but the conclusion is the same. The pathology of osteoporosis involves a combination of many risk factors and physiological variables such as macro nutrient intakes (carbs, proteins, fats), micro nutrient intakes (vitamins, minerals, etc), hormonal profiles, lack of exercise, gender, family history, and a few others. The theory is that high protein intakes raise the acidity of the blood and the body must use minerals from bone stores to "buffer" the blood and bring the blood acidity down, thus depleting one's bones of minerals. Even if there was a clear link between a high protein diet and osteoporosis in all populations (and there is not) athletes have few of the above risk factors as they tend to get plenty of exercise, calories, minerals, vitamins, and have positive hormonal profiles. Fact of the matter is, studies have shown athletes to have denser bones than sedentary people, there are millions of athletes who follow high protein diets without any signs of premature bone loss, and we don't have ex athletes who are now older with higher rates of osteoporosis. In fact, one recent study showed women receiving extra protein from a protein supplement had increased bone density over a group not getting the extra protein! The researchers theorized this was due to an increase in IGF-1 levels which are known to be involved in bone growth. Would I recommend a super high protein diet to some sedentary post menopausal woman? Probably not, but we are not talking about her, we are talking about athletes. Bottom line? A high protein diet does not lead to osteoporosis in healthy athletes with very few risk factors for this affliction, especially in the ranges of protein intake that have been discussed throughout this article.
2thick, I wanna get back to the red meat thing for a sec. It would seem logical that since vegetarian's need protien sups because they don't eat red meat, would indicate a lack of the total protiens required or entire range of protiens rather, would be an indication that red meat is required in a diet in order to ingest the proper range of protiens. Hence, a diet of both veggies and red meat..what are your thoughts on this?
R
revexrevex
Guest
Can you please post full title of the research study?
from peter lemon interview: Your friend and sometime research partner Tarnopolsky, suggests that even higher amounts seem useful for elite weightlifters when he studied advanced lifters who were taking 2.2 to 3.5 protein grams per kilogram of bodyweight per day
But we have not done those types of studies. However, some of the studies from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have shown some benefits from very high protein intakes.
MM: Just how high are we talking about?
Dr. Lemon: We're talking about going from 2 grams to over 3 grams. Some of these studies are not translated very well, and some are almost anecdotal in their style, so we don't know how accurate they are. But that's where a lot of the bodybuilders get their information, because that's where strength athletes were very, very successful
Doggcrapp:: Tarnopolsky has gone up and down with his protein recommendations--acknowledging and agreeing with the Russians and then agreeing with Peter Lemon at 1.8-2.0 gram per kilo-so I guess he cant make up his mind-but most studies are done on novice bodybuilders anyway(gee thats relative)
But we have not done those types of studies. However, some of the studies from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have shown some benefits from very high protein intakes.
MM: Just how high are we talking about?
Dr. Lemon: We're talking about going from 2 grams to over 3 grams. Some of these studies are not translated very well, and some are almost anecdotal in their style, so we don't know how accurate they are. But that's where a lot of the bodybuilders get their information, because that's where strength athletes were very, very successful
Doggcrapp:: Tarnopolsky has gone up and down with his protein recommendations--acknowledging and agreeing with the Russians and then agreeing with Peter Lemon at 1.8-2.0 gram per kilo-so I guess he cant make up his mind-but most studies are done on novice bodybuilders anyway(gee thats relative)
not true,
"some nutrition faddists fail to realize that most proteins are broken down to amino acids before absoprtion. they urge consumers to 'eat enzyme a. it will help you digest your food.' or 'don't eat food b. it contains enzyme c, which will digest cells in your body.' in erality, though, enzymes in foods are digested just as all proteins are. only the digestive enzymes, whose designe prevents them from being denatured or digested, can work in such an environment."
there's a little bit of "fluff" in the exert, but the point is made.
understanding normal and clinical nutrition, fifth edition
kerry
Common Myths
about Protein
by Bryan Haycock M.Sc., CSCS
Myth #1: High protein intakes will not affect muscle protein synthesis.
Fact: Greater availability of amino acids means more protein synthesis within muscle cells.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
I will concede that experiments have been performed that indicate that a lab animal can survive on a very limited protein intake assuming that fat and carbohydrate intake is adequate. Simply put, the body begins to reduce that amount of amino acid oxidation in order to spare nitrogen containing compounds. Yet can we really apply this kind of example to adult humans trying to build muscle? I think not.
When the body begins getting stingy with amino acids because of low protein intake, non essential functions, such as skeletal muscle protein synthesis, drop to minimal levels. Other functions within the body such as the immune system, which uses glutamine primarily of muscle origin for fuel, also begins to suffer.9
This cripples the body's ability to cope with the stress and tissue damage induced by intense training. Researchers even believe that currently recommended protein intakes may actually predispose people to illness because of the limited reserve of amino acids. Here's what they have to say about current recommendations for protein intake:
"...It seems reasonable to conclude that the lowered rate of whole-body and perhaps muscle protein turnover that appears to occur in healthy adult subjects when intakes of indispensable amino acids approximate the current international figures, would probably diminish the individuals capacity to withstand successfully a major stressful stimulus. Again, for those reasons, we view the significant reduction in the rate of body protein turnover in healthy adults, which permits them to more closely approach or even achieve amino acid balance at currently accepted amino acid requirement intakes, as an accommodation. Thus we further conclude that these international requirement intakes are probably not sufficient to maintain a desirable or adapted state."(Young VR., Marchini JS. Mechanisms and nutritional significance of metabolic responses to altered intakes of protein and amino acids, with reference to nutritional adaptation in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:270-89) Emphasis added.
Research clearly shows that by increasing blood levels of amino acids you increase protein synthesis in skeletal muscle. It has also been shown that you can maintain a positive nitrogen balance for extended periods of time and that nitrogen accretion will tend to continue as long as protein intake is high.10 Clearly if you want to maximize your gains in the gym you gotta get more protein than the average Joe.
Myth #2: You can only assimilate 30 grams of protein at one sitting.
Fact: The body has the ability to digest and assimilate much more than 30 grams of protein from a single meal.
Speaking of high intakes of protein, people have been perpetuating the myth that you can only assimilate ~30 grams of protein at a time, making protein meals any greater than a 6 oz. chicken breast a waste. This is anything but true. For example, the digestibility of meat (i.e. beef, poultry, pork and fish) is about 97% efficient. If you eat 25 grams of beef, you will absorb into the blood stream 97% of the protein in that piece of meat. If, on the other hand, you eat a 10 oz steak containing about 60 grams of protein, you will again digest and absorb 97% of the protein. If you could only assimilate 30 grams of protein at a time, why would researchers be using in excess of 40 grams of protein to stimulate muscle growth?1
Critics of high protein intakes may try to point out that increased protein intake only leads to increased protein oxidation. This is true, nevertheless, some researchers speculate that this increase in protein oxidation following high protein intakes may initiate something they call the "anabolic drive".13 The anabolic drive is characterized by hyperaminoacidemia, an increase in both protein synthesis and breakdown with an overall positive nitrogen balance. In animals, there is a correspondent increase in anabolic hormones such as IGF-1 and GH. Though this response is difficult to identify in humans, an increase in lean tissue accretion does occur with exaggerated protein intakes.14,15
The take home message is that, if you are going to maximize muscle growth you have to minimize muscle loss, and maximize protein synthesis. Research clearly shows this is accomplished with heavy training, adequate calories, and very importantly high protein consumption. This means that meals containing more than 30 grams of protein will be the norm. Not to worry, all that protein will certainly be used effectively by the body.
Myth #3: Protein must be rapidly digested to build muscle.
Fact: Both rapidly and slowly digested proteins offer significant benefits to athletes.
Recent research has brought up the notion of "fast" and "slow" proteins.11 They are designated as such according to the rate at which they raise blood levels of amino acids after they are consumed. Whey protein for example is considered a fast protein and causes a rapid increase in amino acid levels. Casein on the other hand is considered a slow protein.
Both rapid and slow proteins offer benefits to someone trying to build muscle. Research has shown that proteins that enter the blood stream rapidly significantly increase protein synthesis. Proteins that enter the blood stream slowly have a pronounced effect on protein breakdown, significantly inhibiting it even at low quantities.
By using a combination of proteins that exhibit both fast and slow properties one should be able not only to jump-start protein uptake into muscle cells during a grueling workout, but also ensure that protein synthesis is jump started and that protein break down is kept at a minimum during the hours following their workout. Take the fast protein before training, and a slow protein after for maximum anabolic effect.
In summary, it is a mistake to say that a "fast" protein is better than a "slow" protein. Both types of protein should be used in strategic fashion to alter protein metabolism in favor of net protein deposition (i.e. muscle growth).
Myth #4: A protein must have added peptides of specific molecular weights to effectively build muscle.
Fact: The body's digestive tract makes its own variable molecular weight peptides from the whole proteins you eat.
As soon as protein hits the stomach it is attacked by powerful stomach acids. This acid, along with an enzyme called pepsin, serves to change or denature the proteins structure preparing it for further digestion in the small intestine. In the small intestine several other enzymes work to break down the protein into various molecular weight peptides and free amino acids. Each enzyme acts on a specific part of the amino acid chain cleaving it in the appropriate place. Whether you've just eaten a steak, scrambled eggs or a glass of whey protein, the end result of digestion is the same, a full spectrum of molecular weight peptides and a moderate amount of free amino acids perfectly suited for absorption into the body.
The small intestine has special transporters which actively pull peptides across the brush border membrane and into intestinal cells. All the various peptide transporters have yet to be clearly identified. As a result of these transporters, peptides can be actively absorbed faster than free amino acids. Within intestinal cells, peptides are further broken down into individual amino acids by enzymes called protease (prote = protein, ase = to split or cleave). It has been shown that a very small percent of digested peptides can enter the blood stream by squeezing between intestinal cells. Even though some peptides make it into the blood stream intact, they are quickly broken down by proteases on the surface of liver and muscle cells. If by some small chance peptides actually make it all the way into these cells, they are rapidly broken down by proteases within the cell.
So you see, all this talk about adding various molecular weight peptides simply means that they predigested an already easily digestible protein. This simply adds to the expense of manufacturing the protein. The added cost, of course, is passed on to the consumer.
References:
1. Tipton K., Ferrando A., Phillips S., Doyle, JR D., Wolfe R. Post exercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids. Am. J. Physiol. 276: E628-E634, 1999
2. Bennet, W. M., A. A. Connacher, C. M. Scrimgeour, and M. J. Rennie. The effect of amino-acid infusion on leg protein turnover assessed by L-[15N]phenylalanine and L-[1-13C]leucine exchange. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 20: 37-46, 1989
3. Castellino, P., L. Luzi, D. C. Simonson, M. Haymond, and R. A. DeFronzo. Effect of insulin and plasma amino acid concentrations on leucine metabolism in man. J. Clin. Invest. 80: 1784-1793, 1987
4. Fryburg, D. A., L. A. Jahn, S. A. Hill, D. M. Oliveras, and E. J. Barrett. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I enhance human skeletal muscle protein anabolism during hyperaminoacidemia by different mechanisms. J. Clin. Invest. 96: 1722-1729, 1995
5. McNulty, P. H., L. H. Young, and E. J. Barrett. Response of rat heart and skeletal muscle protein in vivo to insulin and amino acid infusion. Am. J. Physiol. 264 (Endocrinol. Metab. 27): E958-E965, 1993
6. Mosoni, L., M. Houlier, P. P. Mirand, G. Bayle, and J. Grizard. Effect of amino acids alone or with insulin on muscle and liver protein synthesis in adult and old rats. Am. J. Physiol. 264 (Endocrinol. Metab. 27): E614-E620, 1993
7. Newman, E., M. J. Heslin, R. F. Wolf, P. T. W. Pisters, and M. F. Brennan. The effect of systemic hyperinsulinemia with concomitant infusion of amino acids on skeletal muscle protein turnover in the human forearm. Metabolism 43: 70-78, 1994
8. Watt, P. W., M. E. Corbett, and M. J. Rennie. Stimulation of protein synthesis in pig skeletal muscle by infusion of amino acids during constant insulin availability. Am. J. Physiol. 263 (Endocrinol. Metab. 26): E453-E460, 1992
9. Newsholme, A.E., Parry-Billings M. Properties of glutamine release from muscle and its importance for the immune system. JPEN. 14 (4) supplement S63-67
10. Oddoye EA., Margen S. Nitrogen balance studies in humans: long-term effect of high nitrogen intake on nitrogen accretion. J Nutr 109 (3): 363-77
11. Boirie Y, Dangin M, Gachon P, Vasson M-P, Maubois J-L, and Beaufrère B. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion (amino acid turnover / postprandial protein anabolism / milk protein / stable isotopes) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 14930-14935, December 1997
12. Sarwar G. The Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score method overestimates quality of proteins containing antinutritional factors and of poorly digestible proteins supplemented with limiting amino acids in rats. J. Nutr. 127: 758-764, 1997
13. Millward, D.J. Metabolic demands for amino acids and the human dietary requirement: Millward and Rivers (1988) revisited. J. Nutr. 128: 2563S-2576S, 1998
14. Fern EB, Bielinski RN, Schutz Y. Effects of exaggerated amino acid and protein supply in man. Experientia 1991 Feb 15;47(2):168 72
15. Dragan, GI., Vasiliu A., Georgescu E. Effect of increased supply of protein on elite weight-lifters. In:Milk Protein T.E. Galesloot and B.J. Tinbergen (Eds.). Wageningen The Netherlands: Pudoc, 1985, pp. 99-103
about Protein
by Bryan Haycock M.Sc., CSCS
Myth #1: High protein intakes will not affect muscle protein synthesis.
Fact: Greater availability of amino acids means more protein synthesis within muscle cells.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
I will concede that experiments have been performed that indicate that a lab animal can survive on a very limited protein intake assuming that fat and carbohydrate intake is adequate. Simply put, the body begins to reduce that amount of amino acid oxidation in order to spare nitrogen containing compounds. Yet can we really apply this kind of example to adult humans trying to build muscle? I think not.
When the body begins getting stingy with amino acids because of low protein intake, non essential functions, such as skeletal muscle protein synthesis, drop to minimal levels. Other functions within the body such as the immune system, which uses glutamine primarily of muscle origin for fuel, also begins to suffer.9
This cripples the body's ability to cope with the stress and tissue damage induced by intense training. Researchers even believe that currently recommended protein intakes may actually predispose people to illness because of the limited reserve of amino acids. Here's what they have to say about current recommendations for protein intake:
"...It seems reasonable to conclude that the lowered rate of whole-body and perhaps muscle protein turnover that appears to occur in healthy adult subjects when intakes of indispensable amino acids approximate the current international figures, would probably diminish the individuals capacity to withstand successfully a major stressful stimulus. Again, for those reasons, we view the significant reduction in the rate of body protein turnover in healthy adults, which permits them to more closely approach or even achieve amino acid balance at currently accepted amino acid requirement intakes, as an accommodation. Thus we further conclude that these international requirement intakes are probably not sufficient to maintain a desirable or adapted state."(Young VR., Marchini JS. Mechanisms and nutritional significance of metabolic responses to altered intakes of protein and amino acids, with reference to nutritional adaptation in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:270-89) Emphasis added.
Research clearly shows that by increasing blood levels of amino acids you increase protein synthesis in skeletal muscle. It has also been shown that you can maintain a positive nitrogen balance for extended periods of time and that nitrogen accretion will tend to continue as long as protein intake is high.10 Clearly if you want to maximize your gains in the gym you gotta get more protein than the average Joe.
Myth #2: You can only assimilate 30 grams of protein at one sitting.
Fact: The body has the ability to digest and assimilate much more than 30 grams of protein from a single meal.
Speaking of high intakes of protein, people have been perpetuating the myth that you can only assimilate ~30 grams of protein at a time, making protein meals any greater than a 6 oz. chicken breast a waste. This is anything but true. For example, the digestibility of meat (i.e. beef, poultry, pork and fish) is about 97% efficient. If you eat 25 grams of beef, you will absorb into the blood stream 97% of the protein in that piece of meat. If, on the other hand, you eat a 10 oz steak containing about 60 grams of protein, you will again digest and absorb 97% of the protein. If you could only assimilate 30 grams of protein at a time, why would researchers be using in excess of 40 grams of protein to stimulate muscle growth?1
Critics of high protein intakes may try to point out that increased protein intake only leads to increased protein oxidation. This is true, nevertheless, some researchers speculate that this increase in protein oxidation following high protein intakes may initiate something they call the "anabolic drive".13 The anabolic drive is characterized by hyperaminoacidemia, an increase in both protein synthesis and breakdown with an overall positive nitrogen balance. In animals, there is a correspondent increase in anabolic hormones such as IGF-1 and GH. Though this response is difficult to identify in humans, an increase in lean tissue accretion does occur with exaggerated protein intakes.14,15
The take home message is that, if you are going to maximize muscle growth you have to minimize muscle loss, and maximize protein synthesis. Research clearly shows this is accomplished with heavy training, adequate calories, and very importantly high protein consumption. This means that meals containing more than 30 grams of protein will be the norm. Not to worry, all that protein will certainly be used effectively by the body.
Myth #3: Protein must be rapidly digested to build muscle.
Fact: Both rapidly and slowly digested proteins offer significant benefits to athletes.
Recent research has brought up the notion of "fast" and "slow" proteins.11 They are designated as such according to the rate at which they raise blood levels of amino acids after they are consumed. Whey protein for example is considered a fast protein and causes a rapid increase in amino acid levels. Casein on the other hand is considered a slow protein.
Both rapid and slow proteins offer benefits to someone trying to build muscle. Research has shown that proteins that enter the blood stream rapidly significantly increase protein synthesis. Proteins that enter the blood stream slowly have a pronounced effect on protein breakdown, significantly inhibiting it even at low quantities.
By using a combination of proteins that exhibit both fast and slow properties one should be able not only to jump-start protein uptake into muscle cells during a grueling workout, but also ensure that protein synthesis is jump started and that protein break down is kept at a minimum during the hours following their workout. Take the fast protein before training, and a slow protein after for maximum anabolic effect.
In summary, it is a mistake to say that a "fast" protein is better than a "slow" protein. Both types of protein should be used in strategic fashion to alter protein metabolism in favor of net protein deposition (i.e. muscle growth).
Myth #4: A protein must have added peptides of specific molecular weights to effectively build muscle.
Fact: The body's digestive tract makes its own variable molecular weight peptides from the whole proteins you eat.
As soon as protein hits the stomach it is attacked by powerful stomach acids. This acid, along with an enzyme called pepsin, serves to change or denature the proteins structure preparing it for further digestion in the small intestine. In the small intestine several other enzymes work to break down the protein into various molecular weight peptides and free amino acids. Each enzyme acts on a specific part of the amino acid chain cleaving it in the appropriate place. Whether you've just eaten a steak, scrambled eggs or a glass of whey protein, the end result of digestion is the same, a full spectrum of molecular weight peptides and a moderate amount of free amino acids perfectly suited for absorption into the body.
The small intestine has special transporters which actively pull peptides across the brush border membrane and into intestinal cells. All the various peptide transporters have yet to be clearly identified. As a result of these transporters, peptides can be actively absorbed faster than free amino acids. Within intestinal cells, peptides are further broken down into individual amino acids by enzymes called protease (prote = protein, ase = to split or cleave). It has been shown that a very small percent of digested peptides can enter the blood stream by squeezing between intestinal cells. Even though some peptides make it into the blood stream intact, they are quickly broken down by proteases on the surface of liver and muscle cells. If by some small chance peptides actually make it all the way into these cells, they are rapidly broken down by proteases within the cell.
So you see, all this talk about adding various molecular weight peptides simply means that they predigested an already easily digestible protein. This simply adds to the expense of manufacturing the protein. The added cost, of course, is passed on to the consumer.
References:
1. Tipton K., Ferrando A., Phillips S., Doyle, JR D., Wolfe R. Post exercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids. Am. J. Physiol. 276: E628-E634, 1999
2. Bennet, W. M., A. A. Connacher, C. M. Scrimgeour, and M. J. Rennie. The effect of amino-acid infusion on leg protein turnover assessed by L-[15N]phenylalanine and L-[1-13C]leucine exchange. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 20: 37-46, 1989
3. Castellino, P., L. Luzi, D. C. Simonson, M. Haymond, and R. A. DeFronzo. Effect of insulin and plasma amino acid concentrations on leucine metabolism in man. J. Clin. Invest. 80: 1784-1793, 1987
4. Fryburg, D. A., L. A. Jahn, S. A. Hill, D. M. Oliveras, and E. J. Barrett. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I enhance human skeletal muscle protein anabolism during hyperaminoacidemia by different mechanisms. J. Clin. Invest. 96: 1722-1729, 1995
5. McNulty, P. H., L. H. Young, and E. J. Barrett. Response of rat heart and skeletal muscle protein in vivo to insulin and amino acid infusion. Am. J. Physiol. 264 (Endocrinol. Metab. 27): E958-E965, 1993
6. Mosoni, L., M. Houlier, P. P. Mirand, G. Bayle, and J. Grizard. Effect of amino acids alone or with insulin on muscle and liver protein synthesis in adult and old rats. Am. J. Physiol. 264 (Endocrinol. Metab. 27): E614-E620, 1993
7. Newman, E., M. J. Heslin, R. F. Wolf, P. T. W. Pisters, and M. F. Brennan. The effect of systemic hyperinsulinemia with concomitant infusion of amino acids on skeletal muscle protein turnover in the human forearm. Metabolism 43: 70-78, 1994
8. Watt, P. W., M. E. Corbett, and M. J. Rennie. Stimulation of protein synthesis in pig skeletal muscle by infusion of amino acids during constant insulin availability. Am. J. Physiol. 263 (Endocrinol. Metab. 26): E453-E460, 1992
9. Newsholme, A.E., Parry-Billings M. Properties of glutamine release from muscle and its importance for the immune system. JPEN. 14 (4) supplement S63-67
10. Oddoye EA., Margen S. Nitrogen balance studies in humans: long-term effect of high nitrogen intake on nitrogen accretion. J Nutr 109 (3): 363-77
11. Boirie Y, Dangin M, Gachon P, Vasson M-P, Maubois J-L, and Beaufrère B. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion (amino acid turnover / postprandial protein anabolism / milk protein / stable isotopes) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 14930-14935, December 1997
12. Sarwar G. The Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score method overestimates quality of proteins containing antinutritional factors and of poorly digestible proteins supplemented with limiting amino acids in rats. J. Nutr. 127: 758-764, 1997
13. Millward, D.J. Metabolic demands for amino acids and the human dietary requirement: Millward and Rivers (1988) revisited. J. Nutr. 128: 2563S-2576S, 1998
14. Fern EB, Bielinski RN, Schutz Y. Effects of exaggerated amino acid and protein supply in man. Experientia 1991 Feb 15;47(2):168 72
15. Dragan, GI., Vasiliu A., Georgescu E. Effect of increased supply of protein on elite weight-lifters. In:Milk Protein T.E. Galesloot and B.J. Tinbergen (Eds.). Wageningen The Netherlands: Pudoc, 1985, pp. 99-103
R
revexrevex
Guest
Question. This is a bit off topic, but I figure I might get an answer.
If a basic blood test is showing negative nitrogen balance, does it mean I do not have enough protein present in my system, or is it completely unrelated to the discussion?
If a basic blood test is showing negative nitrogen balance, does it mean I do not have enough protein present in my system, or is it completely unrelated to the discussion?
In one of the first studies to address protein needs of weightlifters, Celejowa and Homa (1970) demonstrated a negative nitrogen balance in at least four out of ten weight lifters who consumed protein in the amount of 2 g/kg/day. Another study on weight lifters suggested a protein intake of 1.3 to 1.6 g/kg/day is sufficient to create a positive nitrogen balance (Laritcheva, Yalovaya, Shubin, and Smirnov 1978). Consolazio and colleagues observed greater nitrogen retention (32.4 vs 7.1 g) in resistance-trained athletes over a forty day training regimen when protein intake was 2.8 g/kg/day versus 1.4 g/kg/day (Consolazio, Johnson, Nelson, Dramise, and Skala 1975). Tarnopolsky published an abstract reporting that a high protein diet of 1.05 g/kg/day resulted in a slightly positive nitrogen balance in body builders, while an even higher protein diet of 2.77 g/kg/day resulted in a more positive nitrogen balance (.62 g/day vs 10.9 g/day) (Tarnopolsky, MacDougall, Atkinson, Blimkie, and Sale 1986). Also supportive of these findings is a study which followed for four weeks two groups of novice weight lifters (Fern, Bielinski, and Schutz 1991). One group consumed their normal protein dietary intake of 1.3 g/kg/day while the higher protein group consumed this amount plus a protein powder supplement of 2g protein/kg/day, giving a total of 3.3 g/kg/day. Nitrogen balance was determined to be .01g N/day and 3.4g N/day, respectively. Similarly, the recent study by Lemon, Tarnopolsky, et al. found enhanced nitrogen retention at 2.62 g/kg/day as opposed to 1.35 g/kg/day (8.9 ± 4.2 and 3.4 ± 1.9g N/day, respectively). Likewise, it has been shown in heavily training body builders consuming a hypoenergetic diet that negative nitrogen balance occurred at 0.8 g/kg/day, but a positive balance was achieved at 1.6 g/kg/day (Walberg, Leedy, Sturgill, Hinkle, Ritchey, and Sebolt 1988). Under milder training conditions in older adults, it was demonstrated that a negative nitrogen balance was achieved at 0.8 g/kg/day, whereas a positive nitrogen balance resulted at 1.62 g/kg/day (Campbell, Crim, Young, Joseph, and Evans 1995).
Interestingly, Oddoye and Margen (1979) illustrated that it is possible to maintain a highly positive nitrogen balance for up to fifty days in the complete absence of resistance exercise. These researchers administered protein in the amount of 3.0 g/kg/day to three subjects, and monitored nitrogen balance for one hundred days total. Although nitrogen retention peaked at fifty days, the nitrogen balance remained positive throughout the remainder of the experiment. This phenomenon is particularly intriguing because prior to this study it was always assumed that excess dietary nitrogen would simply be excreted (Lemon 1991).
Also of interest is the Fern study, which was the first study to show a ceiling for protein intake of resistance-trained athletes by employing labeled metabolic tracers (Fern et al.). The high-protein group, consuming 3.3 g/kg/day, displayed a 150 percent increase in amino acid oxidation, which suggests that the optimal protein intake had been exceeded. Lemon later determined an overload at 2.4 g/kg/day (Lemon, Tarnopolsky, et al.).
What is the effect of a high-protein diet and resistance training on lean body mass?
Using 40K measures (an alternative to nitrogen balance assessment), Torun and his co-investigators measured a decreased cell mass during six weeks of strength training when protein consumption was equal to the RDA. In this study, it is noteworthy that two of the five subjects continued to train for an additional six weeks while consuming an increased protein intake equal to 1.6 g/kg/day, which is twice the RDA. At this increased protein intake, the cell mass of these subjects increased (Torun, Scrimshaw, and Young 1977). Surprisingly, this metabolic demand for protein was caused by isometric exercise or static contractions, which do not damage muscle tissue as severely as the negative or lowering component of isotonic or dynamic contractions. In the Consolazio study previously described, the higher protein group (2.8 g/kg/day) experienced nearly three times the increase in lean body mass as compared to the lower protein group (1.4 g/kg/day). In this study, changes in lean body mass were measured by densitometry (3.28 vs 1.21 kg). Dragan, Vasiliu, and Georgescu (1985) observed a 6 percent increase in lean body mass over several months, as assessed by skin fold measures, among Romanian weight lifters when protein consumption was increased from 2.2 to 3.5 g/kg/day. Utilizing computerized axial tomography (CAT scan), Frontera et al. reported enhanced hypertrophy in the quadriceps of participants in a twelve week study who consumed a daily protein supplement of .33g protein/kg body weight/day in addition to the RDA amount of protein. Urinary creatinine, an index of whole body muscle mass, further substantiated this increase in muscle mass. In a study consisting of two exercise bouts, Morin and Clarkson (1990) failed to find a difference in the circumference of eccentrically trained forearm muscles of females receiving a daily protein supplement containing 37.5 g of high quality protein. A study found leg hypertrophy to be similar between two groups of previously untrained males consuming protein at either 1.30 g/kg/day or 2.94 g/kg/day over the course of thirteen weeks of resistance training (Weideman, Flynn, Pizza, Coombs, Boone, Kubitz, and Simpson 1990). In agreement is the Lemon study (Lemon, Tarnopolsky, et al.) which found similar increases in muscle mass between groups consuming 1.35 g/kg/day and 2.62 g/kg/day. This study is very convincing because changes in muscle mass were assessed via three means: densitometry, creatinine excretion, and CAT scan. In sharp contrast, however, is the Fern research which reported an average of 1.5 kg in the moderate protein group (1.3 g/kg/day) and 2.8 kg in the high protein group (3.3 g/kg/day). Lean body mass was estimated through skin fold measurement and underwater weighing (Fern et al.). Most recently, a group of Brazilian researchers showed an impressive 3.28 kg muscle increase in one month using body builders consuming an average of 2.0 g/kg/day (Maestá, Cyrino, Corrêa, Bicudo, Angeleli, Tsuji, and Burini 1998).
Interestingly, Oddoye and Margen (1979) illustrated that it is possible to maintain a highly positive nitrogen balance for up to fifty days in the complete absence of resistance exercise. These researchers administered protein in the amount of 3.0 g/kg/day to three subjects, and monitored nitrogen balance for one hundred days total. Although nitrogen retention peaked at fifty days, the nitrogen balance remained positive throughout the remainder of the experiment. This phenomenon is particularly intriguing because prior to this study it was always assumed that excess dietary nitrogen would simply be excreted (Lemon 1991).
Also of interest is the Fern study, which was the first study to show a ceiling for protein intake of resistance-trained athletes by employing labeled metabolic tracers (Fern et al.). The high-protein group, consuming 3.3 g/kg/day, displayed a 150 percent increase in amino acid oxidation, which suggests that the optimal protein intake had been exceeded. Lemon later determined an overload at 2.4 g/kg/day (Lemon, Tarnopolsky, et al.).
What is the effect of a high-protein diet and resistance training on lean body mass?
Using 40K measures (an alternative to nitrogen balance assessment), Torun and his co-investigators measured a decreased cell mass during six weeks of strength training when protein consumption was equal to the RDA. In this study, it is noteworthy that two of the five subjects continued to train for an additional six weeks while consuming an increased protein intake equal to 1.6 g/kg/day, which is twice the RDA. At this increased protein intake, the cell mass of these subjects increased (Torun, Scrimshaw, and Young 1977). Surprisingly, this metabolic demand for protein was caused by isometric exercise or static contractions, which do not damage muscle tissue as severely as the negative or lowering component of isotonic or dynamic contractions. In the Consolazio study previously described, the higher protein group (2.8 g/kg/day) experienced nearly three times the increase in lean body mass as compared to the lower protein group (1.4 g/kg/day). In this study, changes in lean body mass were measured by densitometry (3.28 vs 1.21 kg). Dragan, Vasiliu, and Georgescu (1985) observed a 6 percent increase in lean body mass over several months, as assessed by skin fold measures, among Romanian weight lifters when protein consumption was increased from 2.2 to 3.5 g/kg/day. Utilizing computerized axial tomography (CAT scan), Frontera et al. reported enhanced hypertrophy in the quadriceps of participants in a twelve week study who consumed a daily protein supplement of .33g protein/kg body weight/day in addition to the RDA amount of protein. Urinary creatinine, an index of whole body muscle mass, further substantiated this increase in muscle mass. In a study consisting of two exercise bouts, Morin and Clarkson (1990) failed to find a difference in the circumference of eccentrically trained forearm muscles of females receiving a daily protein supplement containing 37.5 g of high quality protein. A study found leg hypertrophy to be similar between two groups of previously untrained males consuming protein at either 1.30 g/kg/day or 2.94 g/kg/day over the course of thirteen weeks of resistance training (Weideman, Flynn, Pizza, Coombs, Boone, Kubitz, and Simpson 1990). In agreement is the Lemon study (Lemon, Tarnopolsky, et al.) which found similar increases in muscle mass between groups consuming 1.35 g/kg/day and 2.62 g/kg/day. This study is very convincing because changes in muscle mass were assessed via three means: densitometry, creatinine excretion, and CAT scan. In sharp contrast, however, is the Fern research which reported an average of 1.5 kg in the moderate protein group (1.3 g/kg/day) and 2.8 kg in the high protein group (3.3 g/kg/day). Lean body mass was estimated through skin fold measurement and underwater weighing (Fern et al.). Most recently, a group of Brazilian researchers showed an impressive 3.28 kg muscle increase in one month using body builders consuming an average of 2.0 g/kg/day (Maestá, Cyrino, Corrêa, Bicudo, Angeleli, Tsuji, and Burini 1998).
R
revexrevex
Guest
Thank you
EL GAUCHO
New member
I think the only way to REALLY find out is to experiment on yourself.
I'm 180lbs and been eating around 200g Protein a day.
This is with a 50/30/20 to really allow me to cut down to 6-8% BF.
So: with 2Thick's theory I should be consuming 180g Protein a day. How can I achieve this with the same ratios as above without cutting back on cals too much?
Furthermore, we are not considering how much easier it is to stay "full" when on a high protein diet......
If I was to eat half a chicken breast and loads of vegetables, I would be hungry straight away.
If I eat a large chicken breast with a few vegatable I will be left more satiated and less likely to be bungry later on.
I think we should consider if a person is cutting or bulking when looking at this age old arguement?
I'm 180lbs and been eating around 200g Protein a day.
This is with a 50/30/20 to really allow me to cut down to 6-8% BF.
So: with 2Thick's theory I should be consuming 180g Protein a day. How can I achieve this with the same ratios as above without cutting back on cals too much?
Furthermore, we are not considering how much easier it is to stay "full" when on a high protein diet......
If I was to eat half a chicken breast and loads of vegetables, I would be hungry straight away.
If I eat a large chicken breast with a few vegatable I will be left more satiated and less likely to be bungry later on.
I think we should consider if a person is cutting or bulking when looking at this age old arguement?
D
Debaser
Guest
Haha what's up man...I'm cutting at a snail's pace because my appetite is insatiable, even WITH suppressants. I'm down to 10%, I think I'm actually adding muscle while losing fat (since I'm losing it so slowly).
When I say insatiable, not many people understand. Three accounts in just the past couple weeks:
1. Eating at a restaurant, getting steak on a stick appetizer (6 oz) along with a loaf of wheat bread, 14 oz ribeye steak, 8" long baked potato (loaded up), extra side of cottage cheese, and a glass of milk.
2. Chinese buffet, 6 plates of food (and we're talking stuff stacked on top of each other) and a pint of ben and jerrys for dessert.
3. Hardee's 2/3 lb thickburger. Then a Chipotle burrito (with extra chicken, we're talking like a 3 lb burrito here haha). Then another pint of ice cream.
Ice cream is my biggest weakness.
When I say insatiable, not many people understand. Three accounts in just the past couple weeks:
1. Eating at a restaurant, getting steak on a stick appetizer (6 oz) along with a loaf of wheat bread, 14 oz ribeye steak, 8" long baked potato (loaded up), extra side of cottage cheese, and a glass of milk.
2. Chinese buffet, 6 plates of food (and we're talking stuff stacked on top of each other) and a pint of ben and jerrys for dessert.
3. Hardee's 2/3 lb thickburger. Then a Chipotle burrito (with extra chicken, we're talking like a 3 lb burrito here haha). Then another pint of ice cream.
Ice cream is my biggest weakness.
I didn't read the original post as being a black and white, one vs. the other type argument. 2thick generally favors the "all things in moderation" approach, which is fine. No need to argue over the point that we could all benefit from a balance of protein types.
I just want to know who the hell let 2thick out of his cage.
If it makes you red meat eaters feel better, I'm 30 years further down the meat and taters road than most here, and feel fine, look pretty, and have good test reports.
I just want to know who the hell let 2thick out of his cage.
If it makes you red meat eaters feel better, I'm 30 years further down the meat and taters road than most here, and feel fine, look pretty, and have good test reports.
macrophage69alpha
New member
ironmaster said:
aahh, i stand corrected. i do have to agree with the coenzyme deal. though as to the importance of coenzymes, a good multivitamin can take care of b vitamins. it is also to my understanding that coenzymes are not needed to break down protein in to aa's to be assimilated into muscle tissue. but rather to break down amino acids for the manufacture of pyruvate or actye CoA. essentially deriving energy sources from protein, not aa's to build muscle from protein.
whoaa now cowboy, i said former nutrition major. i'm going to quote you when i say...
jkerry
D
DaddyX
Guest
height bro.........180lbs means nothing without hieght being posted
variation
New member
also time lifting, someone that lifted for a week can consume as much or as little protein as possible and have much less then someone that consumes as much or as little protein as they want that's been lifting for 10 years... or wait, what if the person that has been lifting for 10 years has many other factors in their lifestyle that are catabolic... hmm is this a good method... naaa... needs to be a controlled study.
Quote from 2thick
"I have always eaten about 1g/pound but I recently changed my source of protein from mostly red meat and poultry to a combination of plant protein/fish/poultry (without only minimal red meat)."
Interesting so you got big on mostly red and poultry but don`t advocate it ..............................
"I have always eaten about 1g/pound but I recently changed my source of protein from mostly red meat and poultry to a combination of plant protein/fish/poultry (without only minimal red meat)."
Interesting so you got big on mostly red and poultry but don`t advocate it ..............................
F
Frackal
Guest
2Thick said:
2thick is my boy, but the majority of this post is pure bullshit
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
