protein needs fat to be digested?

[sirbadass]

okay, this may be a stupid question if you know a lot about nutrition, but i don't so here goes....

is it true that the body (the liver i guess) requires fat to properly digest protein and convert it into amino acids? if there's no fat, it just gets converted to sugar? in other words, if you just take straight protein like whey isolate or other powders without fat then you will gain weight but not muscle weight.

if that's true, that's a very important bit of info to know and could dramatically change the way I take my protein. for example, i know a lot of people take protein powder or eat just the white part of eggs without the yolk. isn't it also true that it is cholesterol that creates all endogenous hormones in the body? so if you have a low HDL, then you're sol....

any info appreciated. thanks.

 

[sirbadass]

^ bump for some info....

 

[biogeared]

Bump.

 

[OXANDRIN]

nelson montana made that claim..... your body should have fatty acids available at all times

 

[sirbadass]

Nelson wasn't the first... Vince Gironda made this claim, too.

Paraphrased from http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/guru.htm

"If you separate the white and yolk of the egg, you get an isolated protein. Any time you
separate the white and the yolk of an egg, you get an isolated protein. Any time you
separate protein from fat you're left with an incomplete food. The manufacturers of protein
powders tell you to mix them with juice or water.

Well, let me tell you, folks - you can't digest protein without fat. Vince taught me that and
he was right. When you swallow an egg white, it goes into your stomach and your
stomach says, "Hey, where's the fat?" The white, which is protein, has no vehicle for
conversion, so it's converted to sugar."

This could have a huge impact on my diet and I think it's worth finding out if the above statement has any validity or not.

 

[OXANDRIN]

Nelson wasn't the first... Vince Gironda made this claim, too.

Paraphrased from http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/guru.htm

"If you separate the white and yolk of the egg, you get an isolated protein. Any time you
separate the white and the yolk of an egg, you get an isolated protein. Any time you
separate protein from fat you're left with an incomplete food. The manufacturers of protein
powders tell you to mix them with juice or water.

Well, let me tell you, folks - you can't digest protein without fat. Vince taught me that and
he was right. When you swallow an egg white, it goes into your stomach and your
stomach says, "Hey, where's the fat?" The white, which is protein, has no vehicle for
conversion, so it's converted to sugar."

This could have a huge impact on my diet and I think it's worth finding out if the above statement has any validity or not.

maybe.....

honestly.... i take in flax and fish oils all day. i don't specifically take them with protein........ tonight for dinner i had 1lb of grilled chicken breasts. there isn't much fat in there.....does that mean all i ate was sugar? i don't know

 

[sirbadass]

you don't know? i think it would be worth finding out, don't you? that's a big difference.

also, a whole lb of chicken? is it worth eating more protein than your body can digest and use in one meal? i was always under the assumption that your body can't make adequate use of more than 40-50 grams of protein per 2-3 hours ... ???

 

[sirbadass]

i should also mention that my doc backed up this claim by stating that protein is converted into glucose. i didn't ask him to elaborate .... don't know why i didn't ask that, d'oh!

 

[OXANDRIN]

is it worth eating more protein than your body can digest and use in one meal? i was always under the assumption that your body can't make adequate use of more than 40-50 grams of protein per 2-3 hours ... ???

133 grams of protein and maybe around 600 calories in that meal...

explain to me why i can't take in more than 50 grams of protein in a 2-3 hour period?


maybe it will take 9 hours to digest that meal..... in that case i don't have to worry about taking in protein before i go to bed

 

[OXANDRIN]

i should also mention that my doc backed up this claim by stating that protein is converted into glucose. i didn't ask him to elaborate .... don't know why i didn't ask that, d'oh!

everything i converted into glucose for the most part bro..... fats 15% protein up to 50% and carbs 100%

 

[sirbadass]

perhaps you are right, i don't know, that's why i asked.

But even if protein intake is increased it means eating multiple meals throughout the day
since the experts have said we can only digest 25-30 grams of protein per sitting. The
small intestines can digest as much as 500-700 grams of protein (5) keeping in mind
proteins functions do include other things other than soft tissue repair. New research has
shown now that the body may in fact be able to handle much more protein in a sitting (6).
This obviously shows us that individuals of varying bodyweights can take in much more
than the 25-30 gram figure the experts have held us to for so long.

5.Guyton M.D., Arthur C. Human Physiology and Mechanisms of Disease; 1992.
6.Arnal MA, Mosoni L, Boirie Y, Houlier ML, Morin L, Verdier E, Ritz P, Antoine JM,
Prugnaud J, Beaufrere B, Mirand PP. Protein pulse feeding improves protein
retention in elderly women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999
un;69(6):1202-8.

More from http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/hst3.htm--

Speaking of high intakes of protein, people have been perpetuating the myth that you can
only assimilate about 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.


So according to the above infomation, you can easily digest that 133 g of chicken (with what efficiency I don't know). I am still curious about the conversion to glucose. Anyone know the answer to that?

 

[sirbadass]

everything i converted into glucose for the most part bro..... fats 15% protein up to 50% and carbs 100%

thanks for the update. where did you get that info?

 

[dr0832]

protein is converted to carbs (sugars), through gluconeogenesis. From there it can be converted to fat or used as energy. This usually only takes place when a carb source is not present.

 

[sirbadass]

dr0832, thanks for the update. are you saying then that it is necessary to supplement protein with some carbs in order for the protein to be converted to amino acids? would it be better to eat a source of fat instead of carbs?

 

[faller]

Lets see.... first off, your body does NOT need fat to digest protein. I have a degree in dietetics and can go into full detail if you wish. If your body is low on carbs, it will burn protein to form glucose, which renders the protein useless for tissue repair. You can overcome this by consuming a small amount of carbohydrate, or a large amount of protein. Your body will go through a lot of protein to produce a small amount of glucose, hence the larger need for protein (again, I can explain in detail). Also, the carbs don't have to be in the same meal as the protein, as long as you have some stored carbs (glycogen), you're fine.

 

[sirbadass]

great, thanks faller. that's the info i was looking for. so the body does not require fat as a vehicle for conversion to amino acids, but perhaps it does aid in digestion to some degree, i.e. efficiency?

i assume that the body needs more protein for both energy and tissue repair (i.e. building muscles) because protein can only be converted to glucose at a rate of 50%, wheras carbs is more like 100%. is that right?

is it a good idea to consume sugar or dextrose and protein in a 2:1 ratio immediately following training? i am under the impression that the muscles are glycogen depleted at this moment and in a catabolic state without it.

also, it is possible to increase body fat by taking in too many protein calories than the body needs, right? wouldn't this debunk the atkins diet?

would the ideal diet for a bodybuilder then to be composed of nothing but protein? if you ate a high calorie diet of nothing but protein, it would still be possible to raise insulin levels to a point where burning fat would be difficult?

i have a million questions.... an advice about where i can get some hard answers for someone who doens't have a degree in dietetics? thanks, bro.

 

[sirbadass]

one more question, faller.... you said that

"If your body is low on carbs, it will burn protein to form glucose, which renders the protein useless for tissue repair."

but don't your metabolically active cells adapt to burning fat instead of glucose in times of glycogen shortage? how else would the body burn WAT (white adipose tissure), i.e. body fat? how else do bodybuilders burn more fat than average people? isn't it because they have more muscle tissue and more metabolically active cells? what would be the ideal diet to burn body fat and retain muscle? thanks again.

 

[faller]

Personally, I am a big fan of EFA's for general health, however they actually don't aide with protein digestions at that level. Consuming flax and fish oil daily may help your body use protein at the cellular level by modulating inflammation and other factors, but in that case one dose per day is fine, and you won't need to add fat to your meals. Adding fat WILL add calories (which is helpful if you are bulking), and can help you feel fuller if you are dieting (just use a little in that case).

I'm not sure that the rate of protein to glucose is 50%, but that is probably pretty close, and your reasoning is correct.

Adding dextrose can do a few things. It can help replenish glycogen, it causes an insulin spike which can drive creatine (if you take it) into cells, and it blunts the rise in cortisol associated with training. So good for muscle repair and growth, but a "no-no" if you follow a carb-restricted diet.

You can add bodyfat by consuming too many calories of anything. Portion control is supposed to be a part of atkins, a lot of people go low carb without reading the book. Plus its hard to eat a lot of high protein, fatty foods, especially day after day.

I actually thought the same thing about nothing but protein and ate almost just that for almost a year! Problems are: you need some fat for things such as nerves, cell membranes, and hormone synthasis. Carbs make your protein MUCH more effective for muscle repair. Plus the method your body uses to make glucose from protein (gluconeogenesis) can be too slow sometimes, resulting in low energy levels. Oh, on a similar note, you may have heard of something called the "kerbs cycle". This is a major source of ATP for your body. Long story short, too few carbs and it slows to a crawl, resulting in less ATP for your body, and generally less energy for solid workouts.

Hope that helped!

 

[sirbadass]

faller, that helped a lot, thanks bro. i think i may set up an appt with a dietitian or nutritionist to help answer a few of my many questions (faster that way).

in the meantime, i have one more for you if you don't mind:

you say that a serving of carbs with protein is advantageous for muscle repair. my current goal is to burn as much body fat as possibly without sacrificing any muscle. with this goal in mind, would it then be best to limit my carb intake only to the meal following training? or to spread it out over the entire day?

in other words, is there any way to promote insulin resistance in fat cells without promoting it in muscle cells? less insuling = fat loss, but it also means less protein synthesis.

 

[faller]

That last one is actually a pretty good question! I would say have some carbs with your post workout meal, and spread the remainder throughout the day. Some people like to take their carbs early, with fewer to none late in the day. I'm not sure this helps, but I don't see how it could hurt. I think the main factor will be how many carbs you plan on eating for the whole day. The smaller the number, the more I would concentrate them post workout. Say, if you were to eat 100 grams of carbs per day (not much), I would try to get around 50 post workout. If you are going to eat 500 grams, you could up it to 100 post workout and have a lot to spread around. And everyone is different, so you may have to try a few things out before you come up with one that works best.

 

[Ulter]

You have enough insulin in a FASTING state for protein synthesis. The body actually requires very little insulin for this.
There is no one on the planet that can answer your last question. If they could they'd win a Nobel Prize. No one knows what actually causes insulin resistance. They only know what the results are when it happens.
You may become insulin resistant through poor diet and no exercise but you may not. An indian from the subcontinent for instance only needs to gain 5 pounds of excess weight and they will become insulin resistant. While a European will gain 100 extra pounds and not become insulin resistant even if they both do so eating the same food. So it's not "weight" related and not necessarily carb related. So the answer is no you can't make one cell insulin resistant while unaffecting the other.
People don't eat carbs at night because they won't be burning them for many hours and while they are present your body will be producing insulin. If insulin is present your body stops burning fat. So if you eat carbs at night they will likely become fat while you sleep.
faller makes a great point about you taking protein away from your muscle growth potential if you convert it to glucose, so eat some carbs. But just as important is the fact that if you train you burn fat in the fire of the carbs you eat. So it's important to have carbs while training if you want to train well and burn more fat.
Also, your brain is happier.

 

[Ulter]

BTW that's the whole purpose of Glucorell R

 

[biogeared]

You have enough insulin in a FASTING state for protein synthesis. The body actually requires very little insulin for this.
There is no one on the planet that can answer your last question. If they could they'd win a Nobel Prize. No one knows what actually causes insulin resistance. They only know what the results are when it happens.
You may become insulin resistant through poor diet and no exercise but you may not. An indian from the subcontinent for instance only needs to gain 5 pounds of excess weight and they will become insulin resistant. While a European will gain 100 extra pounds and not become insulin resistant even if they both do so eating the same food. So it's not "weight" related and not necessarily carb related. So the answer is no you can't make one cell insulin resistant while unaffecting the other.
People don't eat carbs at night because they won't be burning them for many hours and while they are present your body will be producing insulin. If insulin is present your body stops burning fat. So if you eat carbs at night they will likely become fat while you sleep.
faller makes a great point about you taking protein away from your muscle growth potential if you convert it to glucose, so eat some carbs. But just as important is the fact that if you train you burn fat in the fire of the carbs you eat. So it's important to have carbs while training if you want to train well and burn more fat.
Also, your brain is happier.

 

[sirbadass]

ulter, you and faller are geniuses. obviously, i have much to learn.

i understand your statement about eating carbs at night. that seems like common sense. however, i don't understand why you state that it is beneficial to eat some carbs while training (with the goal of losing body fat). i used to drink gatorade while training (14g sucrose), but stopped recently as my immediate short-term goal is to lose some visceral fat before bulking again. i assumed that if i drank some sugar while training it would boost my energy levels, but my body would be burning the available glucose instead of body fat. is my logic flawed?

thanks for any help.

 

[faller]

I've heard a variety of arguments on fat burning while training. Personally, I think that if you are lifting, that is NOT the time for fat burning. With cardio or HIIT, I could go either way. If I had to pick, I'd say stick with the gatoraide and have a productive workout. If you do cardio for 45 min, you will burn a tiny bit of fat at best, so why worry about it? I would use the remaing 23 hours of the day for that.

 

[ProtienFiend]

sucrose (ie.. table sugar) isnt a bad choice... but fructose is the best choice as a pre workout carb.

the thing is, you want to refill liver glycogen as that helps burn fat... fructose refills the liver directly... sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose, so yes it refills the liver, but it also spikes insulin, which is something you dont want pre/during a workout...

 

[sirbadass]

faller, you may have changed my mind. however, i still (maybe i'm just stubborn) don't understand why it's not better (for fat burning only) to use a person's body fat for energy while training when the metabolically active cells in a person's muscles are at the peak of their demand for energy? on the other hand, i do agree with your statement. i am just stuggling to get this through my brain. is there some sense to my logic or am i just being stubborn?

proteinfiend, thanks for the info. i will look for something that contains fructose to replace the gatorade. i know a lot of fruit juices found at the supermarket are supplemented with sugar. any recommendations? what about Glucorell R?

I should also mention that lately i have been using biotest's surge as a post-workout recovery drink. it contains 50g sugar and 25g whey protein. 1 hour after this i consume a high protein meal with a serving of carbs (like a small potato or half cup of brown rice). surge is rather expensive (~$5/serving) so i am planning to substitute this with my own combination of wholesale dextrose and whey protein. does this sound reasonable?

this forum is great. i don't know why more people don't spend time here. it seems to me diet can make or break a person's progress.

 

[ProtienFiend]

i was thinking more along the lines of an apple... or pear... possibly a peach?? check a GI reference table if you have any doubts... but fruit is typically a good source of fructose

to answer you question directed at faller... you can just use body FAT for the energy... but you will also use body MUSCLE for energy.... thus my reccommendation of fructose directly before a workout and maybe some sort of protein (tuna) 1-2hrs before...

and a lot of people do spend time here... the anabolic board alone broke 1 million posts recently

 

[sirbadass]

ProtienFiend, what a coincidence. an apple and a can of tuna is exactly what I have been eating 1 hr pre-workout for at least a year now. it's been working ok. i definitely do not want to burn muscle while training. what is the reason that some muscle gets burned as opposed to just adipose tissue? i mean, fat breaks down easily back into glucose, that's the point. i suppose it goes back to distinguishing b/w insulin resistance in fat and muscle cells?

i should have said "why don't people spend more time in the diet forum" i know a lot of people spend time in the anabolic forum, that was my point i guess. thanks for illustrating it so well

 

[ProtienFiend]

fat doesnt actually break down into glucose.... there is another mechanism by how it gives energy...

depending on your intensity.... fat, muscle or glycogen will be burned... its hard to use ONLY one of them thus why it is usually all three... you can minimize muscle loss by having some free aminos present in your body before lifting....

 

[sirbadass]

"depending on your intensity..."

i am getting the impression that doing ultra-low intensity stuff (along with having plenty of amino acids present in the system) is the best way to ensure that a person is burning more fat and less muscle. IOW, the higher the intensity the more the body will require glycogen, possibly even burning muscle for glycogen. is that about right? i never did like cardio.

 

[ProtienFiend]

its not that easy though.... doing high intensity will burn many calories while you are doing it many of which will be glucose... but youre metabolism will be elevated throughout the day allowing you to burn fat continuously...

low intensity will burn fat... but very little total calories... so over 2 weeks walking for 6 hours a week... you might only burn 1lb of pure fat and no muscle (im totally making that up for an example)