# Great blog on the myths around protein consumpti



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

This is fantastic reading. Whether or not you agree 100%, it's got a lot of food for though that you may well be eating too much proteinhttp://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

http://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

I'd rather have the bulk of my calories coming from protein, so I will just eat more than I need which I don't think will have any negative effects.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

rectus said:


> I'd rather have the bulk of my calories coming from protein, so I will just eat more than I need which I don't think will have any negative effects.


Okay. That made a lot of sense :confused1:


----------



## xpower (Jul 28, 2009)

1.8g/kg

presuming the above doesn't take into account AAS use


----------



## Sku11fk (Aug 28, 2012)

xpower said:


> 1.8g/kg
> 
> presuming the above doesn't take into account AAS use


It does mention people with higher anabolic hormones could probably intake more protein.


----------



## Monkey skeleton (Jul 8, 2012)

Good read, cheers.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

the quality and source of protein is more essential than amount imo .


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

simonthepieman said:


> Okay. That made a lot of sense :confused1:


It didn't? Damn. I'll try again: Protein is satiating, slow to digest (if we're talking about meat). As long as I hit the minimum numbers it doesn't really matter to me. The minimum I try to hit is based on Lyle McDonald's recommendations (2.2g/kg) which is easily done. Now that may be regarded as too much by some, but I'm just trying to hit a certain total calorie intake goal and I just prefer the bulk of my calories to come from protein sources.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

At the end of the day protein is just a carbohydrate that has an extra hydrogen atom added.

Unless you are working towards being mr universe it really does not matter how much you eat.

It is far more important to concentrate on your day job rather than if you are eating 0.81 or 1 gram.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Blinkey said:


> At the end of the day protein is just a carbohydrate that has an extra hydrogen atom added.
> 
> Unless you are working towards being mr universe it really does not matter how much you eat.
> 
> It is far more important to concentrate on your day job rather than if you are eating 0.81 or 1 gram.


Ur day job?


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

simonthepieman said:


> Okay. That made a lot of sense :confused1:


http://www.precisionnutrition.com/protein-limit

Actually it does lol


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

Blinkey said:


> At the end of the day protein is just a carbohydrate that has an extra hydrogen atom added.
> 
> Unless you are working towards being mr universe it really does not matter how much you eat.
> 
> It is far more important to concentrate on your day job rather than if you are eating 0.81 or 1 gram.


I think the point is more than people are taking in more like 1.5-2g per lb. This study is recommending half, thats a massive difference.

Good article, but you can f*ck off if you think I'm eating less eggs and chicken though.


----------



## bayliss (Aug 12, 2010)

i did try that 1.8gr kg protein theory.normaly i eat betven 2 and 2.5gr kg.i upped carbs and fat so i got to the same calories. started to gain fat pretty fast,and was more bloated.so i just went back to my normal diet.cant se the harm in eating more protein that you need, then eating more carbs or fat then you need.and to hit the 1.8gr/kg limit by eating 20gr protein pr sitting i would eat like 8 meals a day.i say fukc it.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

rectus said:


> It didn't? Damn. I'll try again: Protein is satiating, slow to digest (if we're talking about meat). As long as I hit the minimum numbers it doesn't really matter to me. The minimum I try to hit is based on Lyle McDonald's recommendations (2.2g/kg) which is easily done. Now that may be regarded as too much by some, but I'm just trying to hit a certain total calorie intake goal and I just prefer the bulk of my calories to come from protein sources.


I'm with you now.

The key thing that ****es me off (not about you, but by many of the masses). Is that people obsess about hitting protein quotas without being concerned about their fat and carb quotas being hit.

There is certainly no issue in eating more than 0.82g per lb BW of protein. So long as your body has sufficient energy to fuel it. As protein. I definitely agree it's great for satiety whilst cutting.

However if you are doing it at the expense of fueling optimum athletic performance and providing the energy to facilitate growth and repair it's cutting your nose to spite your face.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> http://www.precisionnutrition.com/protein-limit
> 
> Actually it does lol


did you read that properly and evaluate the studies they reference? Truly awful stuff.

The first one is correlation study relating to purely post workout nutrition. Which i'm sure we all agree on sits somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant when not taken the context of total nutrition and overall macronutrient sufficiency.

The second one was a test of old people and kids. Sweet.

A well written and presented piece, but not something I would compare the blog I posted in terms of merit and not something I would use to advise others


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

simonthepieman said:


> did you read that properly and evaluate the studies they reference? Truly awful stuff.
> 
> The first one is correlation study relating to purely post workout nutrition. Which i'm sure we all agree on sits somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant when not taken the context of total nutrition and overall macronutrient sufficiency.
> 
> ...


I meant more about the other protein benefits at the bottom of the page :-

Other protein benefits

In an article I wrote a few years back, I listed some of the benefits of eating more protein. And although the article is a few years old, nothing's really changed since then. Here's the list:

Increased thermic effect of feeding - While all macronutrients require metabolic processing for digestion, absorption, and storage or oxidation, the thermic effect of protein is roughly double that of carbohydrates and fat. Therefore, eating protein is actually thermogenic and can lead to a higher metabolic rate. This means greater fat loss when dieting and less fat gain during overfeeding/muscle building.

Increased glucagon - Protein consumption increases plasma concentrations of the hormone glucagon. Glucagon is responsible for antagonizing the effects of insulin in adipose tissue, leading to greater fat mobilization. In addition, glucagon also decreases the amounts and activities of the enzymes responsible for making and storing fat in adipose and liver cells. Again, this leads to greater fat loss during dieting and less fat gain during overfeeding.

Metabolic pathway adjustment - When a higher protein (20-50% of intake) is followed, a host of metabolic adjustments occur. These include: a down regulation of glycolysis, a reduction in fatty acid synthesis enzymes, increase in gluconeogenesis, a carbohydrate "draining" effect where carbons necessary for ridding the body of amino nitrogen is drawn from glucose.

Increased IGF-1 - Protein and amino-acid supplementation has been shown to increase the IGF-1 response to both exercise and feeding. Since IGF-1 is an anabolic hormone that's related to muscle growth, another advantage associated with consuming more protein is more muscle growth when overfeeding and/or muscle sparing when dieting.

Reduction in cardiovascular risk - Several studies have shown that increasing the percentage of protein in the diet (from 11% to 23%) while decreasing the percentage of carbohydrate (from 63% to 48%) lowers LDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations with concomitant increases in HDL cholesterol concentrations.

Improved weight loss profile -Research by Layman and colleagues has demonstrated that reducing the carbohydrate ratio from 3.5 - 1 to 1.4 - 1 increases body fat loss, spares muscle mass, reduces triglyceride concentrations, improves satiety, and improves blood glucose management (Layman et al 2003 - If you're at all interested in protein intake, you've gotta go read the January and February issues of the Journal of Nutrition. Layman has three interesting articles in the two journals).

Increased protein turnover - All tissues of the body, including muscle, go through a regular program of turnover. Since the balance between protein breakdown and protein synthesis governs muscle protein turnover, you need to increase your protein turnover rates in order to best improve your muscle quality. A high protein diet does just this. By increasing both protein synthesis and protein breakdown, a high protein diet helps you get rid of the old muscle more quickly and build up new, more functional muscle to take its place.

Increased nitrogen status - Earlier I indicated that a positive nitrogen status means that more protein is entering the body than is leaving the body. High protein diets cause a strong positive protein status and when this increased protein availability is coupled with an exercise program that increases the body's anabolic efficiency, the growth process may be accelerated.

Increased provision of auxiliary nutrients - Although the benefits mentioned above have related specifically to protein and amino acids, it's important to recognize that we don't just eat protein and amino acids - we eat food. Therefore, high protein diets often provide auxiliary nutrients that could enhance performance and/or muscle growth. These nutrients include creatine, branched chain amino acids, conjugated linoleic acids, and/or additional nutrients that are important but remain to be discovered. And don't forget the vitamins and minerals we get from protein rich foods. (And lest anyone think I'm a shill for the protein powder industry, this last point clearly illustrates the need to get most of your protein from food, rather than supplements.)

Looking over this list of benefits, it's hard to ignore the fact that we don't just eat protein for its muscle synthetic effect. We eat protein for a bunch of other reasons too. And since a higher protein diet can lead to a better health profile, an increased metabolism, improved body composition, and an improved training response, why would anyone ever try to limit their protein intake to the bare minimum?

But what would john berardi know eh?


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> I meant more about the other protein benefits at the bottom of the page :-
> 
> Other protein benefits
> 
> ...


He knows how to sell books. Do you not worry about the science he uses to back up his claims?

The other stuff, isn't awful advice. I'd agree with a lot of it. but it's just opinion and conjecture in most cases. Just like BFFTM, it's a nice read, you will achieves following his advice, but his reasoning is often laden with broscience and selective rather than impartial scientific research.

This was the guy who has been banging on about 6 meals a day regardless in the face on science. He even backed down to Mental Martin Berkham in an online discussion. lol


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Lol have u got a link to that? Would be interesting to see.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Lol have u got a link to that? Would be interesting to see.


It was on the leangains website. It might be worth a search on there or google


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

simonthepieman said:


> I'm with you now.
> 
> The key thing that ****es me off (not about you, but by many of the masses). Is that people obsess about hitting protein quotas without being concerned about their fat and carb quotas being hit.
> 
> ...


what ****es me off (see what i did there  ) is those that use studies to prove a point when the studies are not really relevant to the masses especially those using AAS and other PEDs....

to be fair mate all but one of these studies are again using a very small duration and size of subject groups and this does matter,



> • Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload.


what this study shows is that there is no difference in a higher protein per KG for sedentary males......

from the study

*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.*



> • Walberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period.


from the study:

In conclusion, a* hypoenergetic diet providing twice the RDA for protein was more effective in retaining body protein* in WL than a diet with higher carbohydrate but the RDA for protein. However, the lower carbohydrate of this diet contributed to reduced muscular endurance in these athletes.



> • Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders.


from the study: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.

as i mentioned the amount of subjects used and the duration is not high enough by any peer review study standard to make a clear statement on the finding of this study to indicate it could apply to everyone....



> • Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb.


from the study:

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.*

i think this is pretty clear the study clearly shows in the first month of intensive exercise the PRO needs to be 100% more than current recommendations (1.6-1.8g/kg) but it did not increase MASS/Strength but there is no indication this would be the case after that month



> • Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.


this study showed the no differences in 3 groups of PRO intake (below Levels 1.0-1.4g/kg, Recommended Levels 1.6-1.8g/KG, Above Level 2.0g/KG) in 1RM bench/squat and body composition over a 12 week duration but again the issue i have with this study is that because these where college attendees chances are they where natural....so maybe relevant to naturals but not those using PED's

my point to this is not that i think an exact number is needed as i feel everyone needs to find what is best for them this applies to both Fats and Carbs as well but when you actually read these studies only 1 out of the 5 actually does what the article writes about the others do not probably the reason the full reference was not given......



simonthepieman said:


> A well written and presented piece, but not something I would compare the blog I posted in terms of merit and not something I would use to advise others


i would not say that the blog you have posted up had any merit to be fair mate, studies should fit a certain criteria for a conclusion to be applied to the masses these are and not restricted to Duration, subject amounts and variation non of the studies above use a subject group large enough to make any of these studies applicable to the masses and only the last one is anywhere near a decent duration.

on top of this non give details of the overall diet, body composition, general age and if Peds are being used and to be fair if they are not being used what relevance is it?

it is nice to read but in my opinion and from what i have seen with myself and clients holds no validity


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> what ****es me off (see what i did there  ) is those that use studies to prove a point when the studies are not really relevant to the masses especially those using AAS and other PEDs....
> 
> to be fair mate all but one of these studies are again using a very small duration and size of subject groups and this does matter,
> 
> ...


cool, thanks for responding. Will definitely follow up with you later when i am less busy with work.

I will just make one quick point. This is in the natty section aimed at natties. The article also states this wouldn't be valid for assisted users


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

simonthepieman said:


> cool, thanks for responding. Will definitely follow up with you later when i am less busy with work.
> 
> I will just make one quick point. This is in the natty section aimed at natties. The article also states this wouldn't be valid for assisted users


thats cool i was led by your title of the thread, i have re-read the blog and at the bottom they do fully reference the studies which i said they did not......but the flaws with these studies do not change in my opinion


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> thats cool i was led by your title of the thread, i have re-read the blog and at the bottom they do fully reference the studies which i said they did not......but the flaws with these studies do not change in my opinion


out of interest. What are your macro recommendations for natty trainees?

Also if you have any preferred studies saved locally on your computer/browser would you mind posting them on here or PMing me. As you can tell, i'm a junkie for this stuff :tongue:


----------



## PumpingIron (Feb 7, 2011)

L11 said:


> I think the point is more than people are taking in more like 1.5-2g per lb. This study is recommending half, thats a massive difference.
> 
> Good article, but you can f*ck off if you think I'm eating less eggs and chicken though.


It does say people using AAS can take more. :thumbup1:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

simonthepieman said:


> out of interest. What are your macro recommendations for natty trainees?
> 
> Also if you have any preferred studies saved locally on your computer/browser would you mind posting them on here or PMing me. As you can tell, i'm a junkie for this stuff :tongue:


for the natural athletes i work with it is between 1-1.25g per lb...

i have no studies that are relavant to this subject as i prefer to make my decisions based on trial and error with an individual for example i have used 1g/lb and 2g/lb but found 1.5g per pound to give me the best return


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

ewen said:


> the quality and source of protein is more essential than amount imo .


What do you mean mate interested in this? I thought protein was protein :confused1:


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Leeds89 said:


> What do you mean mate interested in this? I thought protein was protein :confused1:


soy-veg-animal-milk-egg etc

pork isnt a good protein source in comparison to eggs .

also how protein powders are extracted IE with or with heat .


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ewen said:


> soy-veg-animal-milk-egg etc
> 
> pork isnt a good protein source in comparison to eggs .
> 
> also how protein powders are extracted IE with or with heat .


Curious as to why u think pork isn't a good protein source!


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> Curious as to why u think pork isn't a good protein source!


its high in cholesterol and saturated fat.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Fatstuff said:


> Curious as to why u think pork isn't a good protein source!


Well he didn't say it wasn't a good protein source, it just wasn't as good comparatively to eggs. I'd agree with that, lots of vitamins and good fats contained in the yolk as well as quality protein.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ewen said:


> its high in cholesterol and saturated fat.


Depends on the cut though, u can get lean cuts on a pig, same as u can on a cow. I don't believe that makes it a lesser protein source than eggs.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

rectus said:


> Well he didn't say it wasn't a good protein source, it just wasn't as good comparatively to eggs. I'd agree with that, lots of vitamins and good fats contained in the yolk as well as quality protein.


That's not comparing the protein though, they are both high quality complete proteins.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> Depends on the cut though, u can get lean cuts on a pig, same as u can on a cow. I don't believe that makes it a lesser protein source than eggs.


i doubt the cut is really what you think it is , look at the horse meat carry on .

point is some proteins are better than others , my view is to not limit daily proteins but simply have a good varied protein balance daily and carbs/fats as well .


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

ewen said:


> i doubt the cut is really what you think it is , look at the horse meat carry on .
> 
> point is some proteins are better than others , my view is to not limit daily proteins but simply have a good varied protein balance daily and carbs/fats as well .


Lol, u can tell if its lean or not though. But I totally agree, a wide variety is important, hence why I jumped in porks defence lol as too many ppl living on tuna and chicken when there are so many other options out there!!


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

ewen said:


> its high in cholesterol and saturated fat.


i agree with cut does effect things here. Pork loins are very lean (and tasty). Good chops are too. However pork apparently doesn't have the greatest amino profile (something i've read but not researched).

Porks not bad, it's just not as good as beef for aminos or chicken for leanness

the good thing is some pork products taste like bacon  :clap:


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Fatstuff said:


> Lol, u can tell if its lean or not though. But I totally agree, a wide variety is important, hence why I jumped in porks defence lol as too many ppl living on tuna and chicken when there are so many other options out there!!


no i agree , i have pork 3x week or more depending if i go for a fry up :laugh:


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

simonthepieman said:


> i agree with cut does effect things here. Pork loins are very lean (and tasty). Good chops are too. *However pork apparently doesn't have the greatest amino profile* (something i've read but not researched).
> 
> Porks not bad, it's just not as good as beef for aminos or chicken for leanness
> 
> the good thing is some pork products taste like bacon  :clap:


i too read that about pork however i cant be fcuked looking into it lol


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

To add something into the debate, many studies on response to protein intake may show an *average* that suggests a fairly modest intake is all that is required, but there always appear to be very wide discrepancies between individuals in these studies, with some showing a maximial benefical amount that seems avery low intake and others still responding more positively at much higher intakes.

There are two new theories to try and explain this, one called 'Protein Spread Theory' and one called 'Protein Change Theory'.

Basically both of these theories suggest that it's not so much that there is a magic number for amount of protein per body-weight that will optimally work, but that the body adapts to static unchanign protein intake and that increasing it beyond a certain percentage will result in improvements largely independently of what you started on, forcing a new adaptation after a new phase of anabolism.

I think there is an argument that is at least reasonable that can be made from these theories that protein cycling may well be more effective than any particular fixed protein to body-mass ratio -

http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/42



> *Dietary protein to maximize resistance training: a review and examination of protein spread and change theories*
> 
> Abstract
> 
> An appreciable volume of human clinical data supports increased dietary protein for greater gains from resistance training, but not all findings are in agreement. We recently proposed "protein spread theory" and "protein change theory" in an effort to explain discrepancies in the response to increased dietary protein in weight management interventions. The present review aimed to extend "protein spread theory" and "protein change theory" to studies examining the effects of protein on resistance training induced muscle and strength gains. Protein spread theory proposed that there must have been a sufficient spread or % difference in g/kg/day protein intake between groups during a protein intervention to see muscle and strength differences. Protein change theory postulated that for the higher protein group, there must be a sufficient change from baseline g/kg/day protein intake to during study g/kg/day protein intake to see muscle and strength benefits. Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria. In studies where a higher protein intervention was deemed successful there was, on average, a 66.1% g/kg/day between group intake spread versus a 10.2% g/kg/day spread in studies where a higher protein diet was no more effective than control. The average change in habitual protein intake in studies showing higher protein to be more effective than control was +59.5% compared to +6.5% when additional protein was no more effective than control. The magnitudes of difference between the mean spreads and changes of the present review are similar to our previous review on these theories in a weight management context. Providing sufficient deviation from habitual intake appears to be an important factor in determining the success of additional protein in enhancing muscle and strength gains from resistance training. An increase in dietary protein favorably effects muscle and strength during resistance training.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Just when things were starting to make sense, along comes @dtlv to blind us with science and leave us even more baffled. :lol:

Joking aside, the idea of protein cycling sounds intriguing. Would it be possible for you to maybe give us an example of how it could be done with quantities, days, etc.?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Bull Terrier said:


> Just when things were starting to make sense, along comes @dtlv to blind us with science and leave us even more baffled. :lol:
> 
> Joking aside, the idea of protein cycling sounds intriguing. Would it be possible for you to maybe give us an example of how it could be done with quantities, days, etc.?


To be honest that link above is baffles me a bit too :lol: ... but it's interesting. I've read a couple of articles on protein cycling but never tried it, nor researched clinical data on it at all so have no idea what to suggest.

In respect of my own personal experience I think for a natty protein intake is important but no need to go crazy at all - 2-3g per kg is fine. I do think though that there is good rationale to moving towards the higher intakes when on a cut/calorie deficit when energy intake alone will not spare muscle mass, especially during large energy deficits or at low body fat. When in an energy surplus/on a bulk the body doesn't need as much due to the muscle sparing effect of having an excess of food in general.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

dtlv said:


> To be honest that link above is baffles me a bit too :lol: ... but it's interesting. I've read a couple of articles on protein cycling but never tried it, nor researched clinical data on it at all so have no idea what to suggest.
> 
> In respect of my own personal experience I think for a natty protein intake is important but no need to go crazy at all - 2-3g per kg is fine. I do think though that there is good rationale to moving towards the higher intakes when on a cut/calorie deficit when energy intake alone will not spare muscle mass, especially during large energy deficits or at low body fat. When in an energy surplus/on a bulk the body doesn't need as much due to the muscle sparing effect of having an excess of food in general.


101% agree


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> for the natural athletes i work with it is between 1-1.25g per lb...
> 
> i have no studies that are relavant to this subject as i prefer to make my decisions based on trial and error with an individual for example i have used 1g/lb and 2g/lb but found 1.5g per pound to give me the best return


I appreciate the figure 0.82 is far too precise to prescribed for all people and I would always aim for min 1g personally (although i rarely eat the same macros daily),

I find it interesting that you wholeheartedly dismiss all the studies in that post when it seem's pretty apparent (to be me anyway) that there is lot of decent indicative data. I wouldn't take it as gospel because of durations. It's more than able supporting case that it supports that case that natty's hitting levels like 2g+ protein per lb BW LBM are overkilling it


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

simonthepieman said:


> I appreciate the figure 0.82 is far too precise to prescribed for all people and I would always aim for min 1g personally (although i rarely eat the same macros daily),
> 
> I find it interesting that you wholeheartedly dismiss all the studies in that post when it seem's pretty apparent (to be me anyway) that there is lot of decent indicative data. I wouldn't take it as gospel because of durations. It's more than able supporting case that it supports that case that natty's hitting levels like 2g+ protein per lb BW LBM are overkilling it


Where did I dismiss them? I clearly said they have flaws and because if these flaws they could not be used to make a blanket statement the subject numbers and duration is far to small to make an absolute claim that the numbers being used are the correct ones.......that is what I have said......

One of the studies (Lemon et al 92) claimed no difference in results where seen with above normal PRO intake yet the study only looked at the first 4 weeks of intense training and clearly says in the conclusion *differential gains would occur with longer training remains to be determined.* so really is this a relevant study to prove a point about higher Pro intake on a forum where 95% of the members are not in this subject group.........

Now if there was a study that was carried out on a large subject group of Men/Women who's ultimate goal was to increase muscle mass, Strength, lose fat who are experienced lifter that was carried over a period of say 6 months now that would be more relevant


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Now if there was a study that was carried out on a large subject group of Men/Women who's ultimate goal was to increase muscle mass, Strength, lose fat who are experienced lifter that was carried over a period of say 6 months now that would be more relevant


That's the holy grail there.

without pinning people in lab how possible is this?

Long term studies are rare. And when there are long term studies what are the chances of the external variables that should all be 'controlled' likely to be in sync?

In the same way, your correlation, anecdotal approach is just as flawed. But certainly a man of your experience and experience of delivering results has to have plenty of truth in there even if it is double blind, lab controlled, large diverse samples of the target demographic.

Thats why I read every post I can from you


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

it is possible by setting rules as all studies should for..

diet

Training

supplements

as long as these parameters are set a study like this could be carried out...

i agree my anecdotal approach would have many flaws if i was to make blanket statements, this is why i always say use it as a base and alter it to suit.....

i have no problem with studies but the belief that certain studies that are carried out with such a small number of subjects can be used as a standard is the issue i have.....


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I think bodybuilders are possibly the most well clued-up group of people on nutrition outside of researchers and those in the healthcare industry. And when it comes to studies on gaining muscle mass in healthy individuls (as opposed to those with injury, post surgery, or during muscle-wasting illness), often the science and the studies are eventually influenced by observations made in the bodybuilding world - bb'ers experiment with many protocols and the ones that work spread and get used by a lot of people. The results then intrigue researchers and then a study or two gets funded and the mechanisms on healthy people finally get some degree of testing - bodybuilding often leads the way on some things I think. Never ignore the subjective views of those with a lot of bb prepping experience imo - much of what was being done by them old generations thirty years ago is now tested and accepted in the mainstream where it wasn't back then.

I do agree though that there is a real lack of studies with large sample sizes and controls that are relevant to bodybuilding. Problem is such studies are very expensive, and funding for that kind of thing is rare in the research world, and especially rarer where there isn't a commercial interest.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

dtlv said:


> I think bodybuilders are possibly the most well clued-up group of people on nutrition outside of researchers and those in the healthcare industry. *And when it comes to studies on gaining muscle mass in healthy individuls (as opposed to those with injury, post surgery, or during muscle-wasting illness), often the science and the studies are eventually influenced by observations made in the bodybuilding world - bb'ers experiment with many protocols and the ones that work spread and get used by a lot of people. The results then intrigue researchers and then a study or two gets funded and the mechanisms on healthy people finally get some degree of testing - bodybuilding often leads the way on some things I think.* Never ignore the subjective views of those with a lot of bb prepping experience imo - much of what was being done by them old generations thirty years ago is now tested and accepted in the mainstream where it wasn't back then.
> 
> I do agree though that there is a real lack of studies with large sample sizes and controls that are relevant to bodybuilding. Problem is such studies are very expensive, and funding for that kind of thing is rare in the research world, and especially rarer where there isn't a commercial interest.


This is something which has crossed my mind on many an occasion. Not just with nutrition but also with PEDs. That study which Pscarb linked on use of exogenous GH in hard-training athletes - which incidentally I read many years ago in my university library and subsequently forgot (!) - I bet the idea for doing that study didn't originate with some pencil-necked researcher... They probably got the hint from the athletic/bodybuilding world and decided to do a nice study on it...

And that is to quote just one example. They've done other studies on potential dangers from high-protein diets (one of them done on weight training individuals on very high protein diets) - incidentally they found no evidence of negative effects. Other studies which I bet were inspired from watching what athletes/bodybuilders do.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

dtlv said:


> I think bodybuilders are possibly the most well clued-up group of people on nutrition outside of researchers and those in the healthcare industry. And when it comes to studies on gaining muscle mass in healthy individuls (as opposed to those with injury, post surgery, or during muscle-wasting illness), often the science and the studies are eventually influenced by observations made in the bodybuilding world - bb'ers experiment with many protocols and the ones that work spread and get used by a lot of people. The results then intrigue researchers and then a study or two gets funded and the mechanisms on healthy people finally get some degree of testing - bodybuilding often leads the way on some things I think. Never ignore the subjective views of those with a lot of bb prepping experience imo - much of what was being done by them old generations thirty years ago is now tested and accepted in the mainstream where it wasn't back then.
> 
> I do agree though that there is a real lack of studies with large sample sizes and controls that are relevant to bodybuilding. Problem is such studies are very expensive, and funding for that kind of thing is rare in the research world, and especially rarer where there isn't a commercial interest.


one of the bigger issues is that even if you did a long study, you have to rely on humans to stick to it for a long period of time and be diligent the whole time. which in todays world it hard to find a handful of


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

simonthepieman said:


> one of the bigger issues is that even if you did a long study, you have to rely on humans to stick to it for a long period of time and be diligent the whole time. which in todays world it hard to find a handful of


Yep, and also most large diet studies involve questionnaires as the only real food monitoring measure - loads of room for error. No exaggeration, but a large sample diet study with tight controls would run into the hundreds of thousands in respect of costs, and be a nightmare for controls.


----------



## ladcrooks (May 15, 2013)

Blinkey said:


> At the end of the day protein is just a carbohydrate that has an extra hydrogen atom added.
> 
> Unless you are working towards being mr universe it really does not matter how much you eat.
> 
> It is far more important to concentrate on your day job rather than if you are eating 0.81 or 1 gram.


Totally agree! I do not worry about protein at all. It wouldn't surprise me if I take in anymore than 60 grams a day. I can remember when I first trained and living at home all I had was the meals set by my parents. May had have seconds when it came to pudding 

It calories you need not extra protein. Years ago as an experiment I cut from 200grms to 75grms but made sure the calories remained the same. Outcome no difference, but my pockets were, no more supplements, meant less money wasted.

I am an avid raw food eater, fruit, nuts, seeds throughout the day and then have whatever I fancy as my last meal, which would be cooked with some form of salad. If you look at science rather than bodybuilding fraternity you will find the truth about protein. Steroids I would say help utilize more protein so that's another matter.

Our fastest growth rate was when we were babies - look at the ratio of fat, carbs and protein in mothers milk, it will astound you :laugh:


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

ladcrooks said:


> Totally agree! I do not worry about protein at all. It wouldn't surprise me if I take in anymore than 60 grams a day. I can remember when I first trained and living at home all I had was the meals set by my parents. May have seconds when it came to pudding
> 
> It calories you need not extra protein. Years ago as an experiment I cut from 200grms to 75grms but made sure the calories remained the same. Outcome no difference, but my pockets were, no more supplements, meant less money wasted.
> 
> ...


This is going to sound ridiculously gay but: Do you have any pictures? I'm just curious what's achievable with 75g protein a day.


----------



## ladcrooks (May 15, 2013)

I do, and I have posted my avatar but it doesn't show yet. I won the Surreys power lifting comp years ago 100kg class, came 5th in a Mr York and 3rd in the 1986 Mr Harrogate contest. I was on about 200grms of protein in them days but after giving up power lifting and reading more articles on food, I got wiser to how protein works and how it spars with other calories. I cut my protein down hell of a lot but maintained the calories I needed for my size.

I must admit though it took a lot of willpower to do so, I was so frightened I would shrink, but hey I didn't.

View attachment 121343


View attachment 121344


Those are not recent pics so I will not lie. But the fact remains

Below : I am a bit bigger now than the pic below = 2011

View attachment 121347


Had tattoo's removed yrs ago!


----------



## Justin Cider (Jul 18, 2010)

ladcrooks said:


> I do, and I have posted my avatar but it doesn't show yet. I won the Surreys power lifting comp years ago 100kg class, came 5th in a Mr York and 3rd in the 1986 Mr Harrogate contest. I was on about 200grms of protein in them days but after giving up power lifting and reading more articles on food, I got wiser to how protein works and how it spars with other calories. I cut my protein down hell of a lot but maintained the calories I needed for my size.
> 
> I must admit though it took a lot of willpower to do so, I was so frightened I would shrink, but hey I didn't.
> 
> ...


Looking good in 1986.

Looking good in 2011


----------

