# Limit Protein to 20g Per Meal?



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Old debate, but a nice article from John Berardi on recent research - with some sensible conclusions I think.



> *Limit Protein to 20g Per Meal?*
> 
> by John M Berardi, November 4th, 2009.
> 
> ...


----------



## dixie normus (May 11, 2008)

Interesting article.

I think it also depends on on whether the protein is slow acting or fast acting.

I have a tendancy to agree with his assertion of regular small feedings if using a fast acting protein. This means you will have more spikes in protein synthesis.

However if eating a slow acting protein I would favour a higher amount per sitting and leaving longer between them. You will get a lower spike in synthesis but the peak will be over an extended period of time.

Its interesting that 20g is quoted. Most 20g portions of whole proteins have around 6g EAA. This is the magic figure quoted in most of Tipton's research into protein synthesis from EAA feedings.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

dixie normus said:


> Interesting article.
> 
> I think it also depends on on whether the protein is slow acting or fast acting.
> 
> ...


Had forgotten about this thread. Have recently come back to training after a fairly long lay off and decided this time to focus on increased protein as well as more generous calories altogether. Have adopted exactly the approach you mention of repeated small feeds of EAA high/fast acting proteins and progress is great so far. Find this much easier to stick to than just three or four large meals per day, which tend to shut down my appetite.

Of course regaining mass I've had before is a lot easier then gaining it the first time, so the real test will be in a couple of months when into new growth territory.


----------



## Trenzyme (May 4, 2008)

were the people he tested on aas at the time , i imagine a gram of test would help protien uptake some what ..lol


----------



## rodrigo (Jun 29, 2009)

i am roughly taking 30- 40 grams at the moment every 2.5 to 3 hours so i am doin something right


----------



## Ken Hutchinson (May 29, 2009)

I remember reading in mick harts the laymans guide to steroids, something about receptor sites and he likened them to sea anemones, when your not on gear the receptors just sit there watching the protein float past, they might reach out and grab some as it floats pasts but then again they might not, but when your on the gear they go mental grabbing everything that goes past, so to some up if you are on steroids the more protein the better, but if you are natural any more than 20-25 grams is a waste of time because your body does not use it.


----------



## Joshua (Aug 21, 2008)

There will be some limits to the rate of uptake of pro through the gut.

When food types are mixed they can change the time it takes to process food considerably, and thus the uptake. I suspect that the addition of fibres or fats will increase the uptake.

I do not know how universally valid the 20g rule is, as intestine lengths can vary substantially between people.

Finally, I believe [iME] that I do better when on pro intakes >300g.d-1 than 250g.d-1, and that this is increase cannot be replaced by CHO.

J


----------



## Andrikos (Sep 10, 2008)

Berardi is a high protein advocate , still the study he mentioned is not supporting that in any way.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Andrikos said:


> Berardi is a high protein advocate , still the study he mentioned is not supporting that in any way.


I think it's more accurate to say 'was' a high protein advocate - his view has changed somewhat with his recent experiments gaining well on the vegetarian diet he followed.

I didn't post the article to encourage high protein intake, just put it there to remind everyone of effects that protein intake has above simple protein synthesis.


----------



## Phez (Sep 2, 2009)

What about if you take in 30g of protein from chicken and have it with a further 20g of protein which comes from some pasta you have with it, will your body use the better quality, higher BV chicken protein as opposed to the protein in the pasta?


----------



## Andrikos (Sep 10, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> I think it's more accurate to say 'was' a high protein advocate - his view has changed somewhat with his recent experiments gaining well on the vegetarian diet he followed.
> 
> I didn't post the article to encourage high protein intake, just put it there to remind everyone of effects that protein intake has above simple protein synthesis.


Do you actually believe that he gained 2kg of lean tissue in 8(think it was 8) weeks  ? If that was actually true that was surely not caused by the diet he followed :whistling:


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

Phez, it will attempt to use protein from both sources, but per gram of protein from each source it will make better use of the chicken - that's what biological value means, it is a measure of how much of the digested protein i actually incorporated into the proteins (muscle etc) in your body. BV is NOT a measure of how well a protein is digested, it only takes into account the ratio of digested "available" protein to the amount actually incorporated into the body, it is a measure of nitrogen retention not absorption or digestion rate.

Re: Dixies post regarding "speeds" and protein feeding timing to maximise PS thugh diet alone her is my thoughts from the UHT blog, purely hypothetical and no i don't have a study using this meal pattern I can point anyone to...

"If you want to spike protein synthesis with every whole food (ie slow digested protein) meal you will need to leave about 4-5 hours between meals. Obviously this is not ideal as for a number of metabolic reasons it is easier to maintain a favourable body composition with greater meal frequency than this - most athletes and Bodybuilders eat every 2-3 hours. So, how to remedy this and constantly elevate PS through diet alone?

Stagger the absorption speeds, carb and leucine / EAA content of your meals like this...

0 Hrs - Whole food mixed meal.

90mins later - 15g Protein powder blend, low GI carbs, EFA's.

60 mins later - 15g Whey Protein + high GI carbs

60 mins later - 10g EAA powder OR BCAA + L-glutamine, no carbs

30 mins later - 10g BCAA, no carbs.

30 mins later - Whole Food Mixed Meal 2.

You will end up with 3-4 large mels per day, and a series of much smaller shakes etc supplying 10-20g protein and 0-30g carbs each.

In this way the absorption speed and Leucine content content increases with each meal, and the large insulin spike from the next large whole food meal will be enough to push it up once again, allowing you to repeat the process."

cheers,

G


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

Andrikos said:


> Do you actually believe that he gained 2kg of lean tissue in 8(think it was 8) weeks  ? If that was actually true that was surely not caused by the diet he followed :whistling:


2kg or pure muscle weight gain maturally, in 8 weeks would be very hard, difficult enough gaining that on gear.


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

eh?

Im sorry but peoples ideas of what can be gained on gear seem to be a wee bit "off" around here.

For instance in one study guys receiving 600mg / week of test enanthate gained 6KG of lean body mass in 10 weeks. These were experienced weight trainers who weighed between 90 and 115% of "normal" weight for their height.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/335/1/1

Note also in the same study that the guys on the exercise protocol with NO DRUGS gained 1.9Kg fat free mass in 10 weeks.

these are just "normal" gains - if you are not doing this (unless after many cycles / edging up against end point etc) then something is wrong with your training or nutrition.


----------



## Dezw (May 13, 2009)

Wee G said:


> eh?
> 
> Im sorry but peoples ideas of what can be gained on gear seem to be a wee bit "off" around here.
> 
> ...


I haven't seen anybody gain nearly a stone of pure lean muscle in one 10 week cycle, ever.


----------



## Andrikos (Sep 10, 2008)

Wee G said:


> eh?
> 
> Note also in the same study that the guys on the exercise protocol with NO DRUGS gained 1.9Kg fat free mass in 10 weeks.


I 've trained 10 years naturally ,only time I had gains of 2 lean kilos were in my teens. Other than that I had gains of 3 lean kilos a year at best , 2 lean kilos in 10 weeks for someone that is natural and already trained is not realistic.

If someone trained can add 2 kilos of muscle naturally in 10 weeks he is nothing less than Olympia material imo


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Andrikos said:


> Do you actually believe that he gained 2kg of lean tissue in 8(think it was 8) weeks  ? If that was actually true that was surely not caused by the diet he followed :whistling:


Found the article where he gave the results: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/sexy-vegetarian

In four weeks he gained seven pounds, of which an estimated 2.1lbs was fat and 5.9lbs lean gains. It does sound a lot but consider that he hadn't bulked for over two years and had only been training and eating to maintain rather than gain during that time. I also seem to remember reading his comments after the diet stating he'd been a lot bigger than his starting weight in the past, so it was a case of regaining rather than making new gains.

Have had several long layoffs myself over the last few years and coming back to training from a skinny, underweight state I've pretty much matched that rate of re-gain for the first couple of months each time - unassisted and without spectacular genetics. As soon as it gets into new growth territory however the rate of gain approximately halves - normal lean bulking gains for me are around 3lbs a month (lean and fat gain combined) with calipers keeping me at a pretty stable bodyfat of just over 12%.

As for Berardi again I can't comment upon whether he was honest or not, or whether he was hiding use of assistance.... but since the experiment he certainly seems to be more of an advocate for a broader range diet than the mostly protein approach he was previously so vocal about.


----------



## Andrikos (Sep 10, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> Found the article where he gave the results: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/sexy-vegetarian
> 
> In four weeks he gained seven pounds, of which an estimated 2.1lbs was fat and 5.9lbs lean gains. It does sound a lot but consider that he hadn't bulked for over two years and had only been training and eating to maintain rather than gain during that time. I also seem to remember reading his comments after the diet stating he'd been a lot bigger than his starting weight in the past, so it was a case of regaining rather than making new gains.


In four weeks 6 lbs of muscle:lol: Imagine if he was taking drugs, he would be like Jay or Ron in a year


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Bumping for later


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

I am glad that he mentioned not only that hyperprotein diets do not increase gains beyond a still hefty 20gprotein per sitting but that the excess protein was consumed for more than just this reason alone.

He put quite a few positive reasons to eat more protein than your body can synthesise into hormones and muscle, not all I think have much evidence to support them.

He didnt put any of the negatives of such a diet either, for example, hypercholestreimia, osteoporosis and acidiosis.

I did an article on how much protein you need on this forum a while back. You dont need much for hypertrophy and to maintain homeostasis but I symapthise with how else are you going to achieve the calories.

I would say increase good fats and wholegrain carbs, it will be cheaper and healthier even if it wont give you a contest prepped body, but that isnt the goal of everyone here anyway so stop eating like pro bodybuilders folks!

SD


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Good points raised SD, especially on the potential negatives of high protein - acidosis and osteoporosis are both problems with high protein and fat diets with low natural carb foods, as the lack of bicarbonate and alkaline minerals doesn't provide enough base nutrients to buffer the acidity, so calcium from the bones gets used instead.

If going for a high protein diet it's still vital to get plenty of green veg too to help prevent the body doing undesirable things to buffer the acidosis. Not so much a bodybuilding aid but definitely one for good health.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

A few things stood out at me.



Dtlv74 said:


> 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).


I feel many people eat too many carbs and proteins, especially processed ones, and not enough good fats.

Big!Joe will love this post.



Dtlv74 said:


> (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.)


So true, I have been saying forever that guys eat too many shakes and actually think shakes are better than whole foods.

I never believed that shakes were anything but a supplement, and not a requirement for hypertrophy.



SD said:


> II did an article on how much protein you need on this forum a while back. You dont need much for hypertrophy and to maintain homeostasis but I symapthise with how else are you going to achieve the calories.
> 
> SD


I have said this for years too SD, many focus on protein as the main staple.

Thanks man for posting this, it was a fun read.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

It's always a good idea to read original text carefully.

Note the it says: "Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis *after resistance exercise* in young men...

...when college-aged weight-trainers drink 0g, 5g, 10g, 20g, or 40g of protein *after a weight training session*, muscle protein synthesis is stimulated maximally at the 20g dose."

There's no apparent information on how frequently this maximal synthesis can occur.

How much time must one wait between 20 gms doses?

What is the relative synthesis without exercise?

It may be that no greater synthesis occurs if you consume more than 20 gms immediately after exercise, but this does not mean that any extra protein is not gradually metabolized.

Indeed this is very likely the case, as we regularly eat more than 20 gms in normal meals, and our hunter-gatherer alimentary canals have evolved to make use of meat gorged during a glut after a kill.

And none of this contradicts the nutritionists' findings of the minimum protein intakes necessary to maintain or increase muscle mass in athletes and bodybuilders.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> It's always a good idea to read original text carefully.
> 
> Note the it says: "Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis *after resistance exercise* in young men...
> 
> ...


There's a good study discussing some of those questions here - http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/283/4/E648?ijkey=a6f4a1df3c33f2590fda06a9ae506937e10a1de3#B17

In the case of net protein synthesis rate after resistance training without protein supplementation, it's been shown in a few studies that both muscle protein synthesis and protein catabolism increase, but the net effect is not anabolic in the first three hours at least.

I have huge list of studies saved on this topic, and if anyone is interested I'll happily put links to some of them on here.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

So the consensis is what?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> So the consensis is what?


Well my own view on protein intake patterns can be summed up as this:

Protein after or immediately before resistance training equals more growth than no protein.

The amount of protein in a single feed doesn't have to be high (20-30g) but there may be hormonal and metabolic advantages from getting extra calories also from more protein rather than fats or carbs.

Higher frequency of protein feeds does not affect metabolic rate but may result in greater anti-catabolism, especially when calorie restricted.

Protein synthesis is strongly linked to EAAs, so each protein feed has to have all the essential amino acids.

...

IMO protein is best taken every four hours or so during the day (so in three-four meals), but there's no detriment to taking it more frequently, and less frequently (every five hours or so) isn't going to make you shrivel either provided dose is high enough.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> Well my own view on protein intake patterns can be summed up as this:
> 
> Protein after or immediately before resistance training equals more growth than no protein.
> 
> ...


Brilliant summary - thanks! :thumb:


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Nice, now I dont have to get brain fog from reading a bunch of studies. :lol:

On a similar note, is there anyone besides me that thinks many bodbuilders put too much emphysis on protein and prioritize that macro?

For the longest time I have felt and still do that bodybuilders eat too much protein.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> Nice, now I dont have to get brain fog from reading a bunch of studies. :lol:


Lazy sod  :lol:



hackskii said:


> On a similar note, is there anyone besides me that thinks many bodbuilders put too much emphysis on protein and prioritize that macro?
> 
> For the longest time I have felt and still do that bodybuilders eat too much protein.


I think that sometimes there is too much emphasis on protein for sure, but many people don't like very high fat or very high carb diets so protein becomes the only option as they have to get calories from somewhere. I suppose alcohol is another option too though, lol... :beer:

There's also the question of optimal for bodybuilding vs optimal for health... I like a roughly equal split of fats, carbs and protein because I think this is pretty healthy with the right selection of foods, but is it necessarily optimum for bodybuilding? Am not sure I know the answer to be honest!


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

hackskii said:


> Nice, now I dont have to get brain fog from reading a bunch of studies. :lol:
> 
> On a similar note, is there anyone besides me that thinks many bodbuilders put too much emphysis on protein and prioritize that macro?
> 
> For the longest time I have felt and still do that bodybuilders eat too much protein.


Well, as you know, I don't think that bodybuilders need as much protein for growth as some on here advocate, but I do think protein is THE most important macro.

The more I read, the more I'm convinced by the hunter-gatherer diet: humans ate very little carbs - certainly no processed simple carbs - only meat and fat, eggs, milk, cheese, fish, nuts, berries and fruit and occasional roots and honey for millennia, but have only eaten cultivated grains and pulses for about 10,000 years, which in evolutionary terms is negligible.

Everyone I know who adopts a higher protein, limited carb diet feels fitter and healthier and makes lean muscle gain without putting on flab.

There's evidence too that such a diet results in lower LDL and higher HDL levels and greater protein synthesis. Some believe it's actually anti-cancer and anti-ageing too.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Nice responces and I do agree with both of you.

Sorry, I should have posted that diffrent than the way it read.

Protein is the most important macro, and we can live without carbs, but not fat and not without protein.


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

I agree with the hunter/gatherer (HG) comparison but the HG ate meat because 1lb of meat contained the nutriton of 10lb of vegetables. It was simple economy of effort making Protein (& fat) an easier way to consume the maximum nutrition in the shortest available time. It doesnt necessarily mean that eating that way is any better for your health.

Whilst starvation is still the leading cause of death on a world wide level, modern society doesnt have to worry about where the next meal comes from or how much energy will be expended sourcing it. As such there are healthier/cheaper alternatives to protein that are easily available.

Comparing us to a HG is understandable, we evolved from them and we evolved to be able to process an omnivorous diet and survive on whatever was available and I still believe that many of those other food options are better for your whole body health. The HG too ate plenty of vegetables when they were available.

Balance is required to any diet, many diets here, including my own, have included more protein than necessary to the exclusion of other foods. Foods work symbiotically so it is important to maintain that balance and spectrum of foods in order to remain healthy enough to train and grow.

I dont think you need every EAA at every sitting either, the body stores amino acids so meals of differing protein sources, some not containing all the EAA's are not going to cause any deleterious effect.

SD

Forgot to add, the HG never ate any wheat, a subject close to my heart now as I am Gluten intolerant!! So they definately had that right, wheat is the devils food! ha ha


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

There are some interesting isotopic studies on hair samples from paleolithic remains taken from various sites around the world showing that diet was not necessarily high protein/animal content at all... it very much depends upon the region and which food sources were available with some populations near vegan in diet.

Agreed that from a health point of view there is no 'need' to make sure all feeds are EAA balanced, but studies do show that muscle protein synthesis, the interest of the bodybuilder, is not stimulated to increase by non essential amino acids and that the effect will always be limited by one or more missing EAAs.

Leucine and the other two BCAAs are a slight exception in that the branched chain essential aminos can activate various growth pathways (both insulin and non insulin dependent), but the magnitude of effect is still limited by the presence of the other EAAs in subsequent feeds.

Overall though we are only talking small differences, and it's certainly the case that not taking EAA complete meals at every protein feed isn't going to do anything to make health suffer.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I think it might be needed to say that grass fed hunted animals had a better EFA profile and had stuff like CLA in it whereas now days that would be something of a problem with store bought meats.

Eggs for instance that are free range have 19 times the Omega 3's than store bought eggs.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> I think it might be needed to say that grass fed hunted animals had a better EFA profile and had stuff like CLA in it whereas now days that would be something of a problem with store bought meats.
> 
> Eggs for instance that are free range have 19 times the Omega 3's than store bought eggs.


Damn right, huuuge difference between both the amino acid and EFA profiles of natural living animals and intensively farmed ones.

Problem is the cost of organic meats and products, here in the UK there's a huge increase in price above the less nutritious stuff.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm just going to wade in on the HG debate where, I think most people are saying the same things.

Millions of years of natural selection to survive in the harshest conditions of the wild made us pretty much able to eat anything, but from a pure economic POV (as SD said), the preference was animal. The whole animal. Lots of protein and fat. During those times when fruit was available our bodies developed an ingenious energy storage system built around insulin.

The past 10,000 (as Prodiver says) years is not enough time for the human body to adapt to the pancreatic abuse that it gets from processed carbs, therefore diseases of 'civilization' such as Type II Diabetes and obesity, etc....

Bodybuilding is also an unnatural state. Why keep this metabolically expensive muscle when you don't 'need' it? Therefore, higher protein requirement than that needed for survival can lead to other issues in the bone and kidney.

IMO, for minimum health risk, as little protein as you can grow with (20 - 30g frequently), and the remainder of the calories from fat sources (as unprocessed as possible). Occasionally, stuff your face with carbs.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Nice post.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Good post Spaynter... thread is getting interesting :thumb:

Personally I've always had an instinct that the body might work best with seasonal eating... pretty much all protein and fat from animal sources in the winter autumn/fall, and a higher inclusion of fruit and veg in the warmer seasons. Calories would also vary with seasons with higher intake in the spring and summer.

They do this to a degree in southern european countries and the developing world, but not generally in the likes of the UK and the US... and possibly this is an additional factor that contributes to the range of modern illnesses that are more prevalent in those countries than anywhere else.

Some hormones definitely do follow annual variation patterns (melatonin, vit d, cortisol, thyroid... possibly more) based on temperature and daylight/darkness hours, and so I'd suspect that those changes are best optimised by the same seasonal nutritional variance that we evolved with too.

In the modern world we typically work 9-5, 48 weeks a year and largely ignore the seasons in terms of how long we sleep, what we eat and how active we are... we no longer follow the patterns of the environment which we evolved in. All biologically inappropriate behaviour to my mind.

Getting back to bodybuilding or eating for optimum exercise performance, it may well be that seasonal eating isn't optimum for that anyway... but as already mentioned, bodybuilding goes against the norms of what the body does anyway, and while it doesn't have to be unhealthy, am doubtful that it would ever be optimally healthy.


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

Good post Spaynter, nice summary.

Yes Dtlv74, I see what you are saying but complicating diets with seasonal patterns as well as perhaps carb cycling and I think we would do nothing else but worry about what we are eating (any more than we do already!) ha ha but its definately an interesting concept! I remember when I was younger, my mum telling me she was always fed more fat in the winter when she was growing up (40's-50's) and I guess more carbs in Summer.

With so much choice its easy to not be seasonal with our eating, as out of season products are available year round, it just comes down to making the right food choices as always.

From your post I gather you agree with the fact that the more we go against our natural design, the worse the effects on health can be? The arguements may centre around what that natural design actually is lol!

I love the HG/Paleo theory, its a good place to start a diet as it encourages the use of a wide range of meats, veg and fruit and cuts out processed carbs and fats.

Love this thread, in fact it has prompted me to buy the paleo diet from Amazon to learn more!

SD


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

SD said:


> From your post I gather you agree with the fact that the more we go against our natural design, the worse the effects on health can be? The arguements may centre around what that natural design actually is lol!


Yes that's pretty much exactly how I feel. As for what is the natural design or diet, well there is no one set diet as, as already said, humans evolved and thrived in different places with different foods available... the two best evolutionary characteristics of the human i think are intelligence and adaptability.

The commonalities in dietary terms between paleolithic man wherever he was in the world seems to be lack of processed sugars, a relatively low total glycemic load but enough plant foods to provide a broad range of phytonutrients from foraging, and the core diet of the diet being (organic) meat and seafood.

In terms of how to apply this personally and in a modern context, I just like to follow the rules of selecting unprocessed foods, avoiding heavy reliance on any one thing, and getting as much variety as possible. Am not a total obsessive, and enjoy a bit of processed junk now and again (guilt free :thumb: ), but figure that so long as I'm active and my core diet is healthy my body can cope with the odd unhealthy feed with no issues at all.


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

Yes I like that, variety is very important so as not to rely too heavily on Protein for example. I also like the idea of food combining to facilitate digestion of those meals as much as possible. I am sure Paleolithic man didnt sit with his plate and a nicely arranged meat & two veg lol.

I aim as you do, to eat a varied unprocessed diet, rich in Protein, fruit and vegetables too! I also aim to seperate fats/starches/protein in those meals as much as possible so that they can be fully digested.

SD


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Throwing something else into the mix, I often wonder whether the human body has truly 'caught up' in evolutionary terms from our ability to cook the food we eat. The cooking process, which is reponsible for our rapid progress from our common ancestor with chimps, replaced the energy taken to digest food with firewood and allowed us to use more energy for brain development.

You have to think paleo man gorged on raw meats and whilst the quantites would have been great, the release of this energy and other nutrients would have been a lot slower due to the load on the digestive system.

God knows what 40g of whey would equate to in raw meat.

Very interesting Horizon program on this maybe still available on BBC iPlayer.


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

We have adapted to cooked food just not processed food although some believe that enough generations have passed to assume an adaptation of some sort.

SD


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

The adaption to processed foods should be very much quicker than that of cooked foods because those genes that are barely effected are already prevalent in the gene pool. Ecto and meso, etc. Over time these people should reap the advantages over those highly effected by processed foods because of better overall health.

Cooked foods must have been a hell of a jolt although undoubtedly some genes would have been better able to cope than others.


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

so guys for a healthy approach do you feel eating balanced meals throughout the day such as 40p/40c/15f is better or seperating meals to pro/fat and pro carbs for digestion purposes is a better approach out if interest?

both have the attractions for me at the moment i just cnt decide which i feel is better than the other and im at the stage in contest prep were critical thinking and reading is becoming difficult


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Excellent posts, Dtlv, SD and Spaynter! This is indeed interesting.

Just like to support much of what's been said by pointing out I didn't emphasize the paleo diet but the HG one - there's much evidence that HGs thrived precisely because they did cook their food, as they do today.

Also that they tended to gorge in times of glut, suggesting that our digestive systems still have huge capacity to even out feast and famine.

I certainly remember my farmer's wife Ma feeding us more meaty and fatty stews and joints and suet puddings in the winter. But now central heating makes some of that superfluous! All the cold meats and salads and fruit and cream in the summer seem to have done us no harm either...

I don't know how good "ordinary" milk and meat are compared with organic generally in big towns in the UK, and even less in Europe and the US.

But here in E Anglia we're still surrounded by grazing milk-cows, bullocks, lambs and free-range pigs that go to the local supermarkets and butchers, so I don't think the nutritional quality can be at all bad.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Lets not forget that cooking food raises the glycemic index and destroys some of the enzymes.

I cant remember the guys name but more than 100 years ago they treated scurvy with raw meat.

I think his name was Henry Hudson, or was it a guy named Stefansson?

I cant remember, I read that like 6 years ago or something.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

hackskii said:


> Lets not forget that cooking food raises the glycemic index and destroys some of the enzymes.
> 
> I cant remember the guys name but more than 100 years ago they treated scurvy with raw meat.
> 
> ...


Scurvy's caused by a Vit C deficiency (Vit C: ascorbic acid: from a against, and scorbutus, Latin for scurvy).

The classic antidote is citrus fruit: it was a surgeon in the British Royal Navy, James Lind, who first proved it could be treated with citrus fruit in experiments he described in his 1753 book, A Treatise of the Scurvy.

Hence we Brits are called "Limeys".


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

God said:


> Sorry for the hijack however all you diet gurus are together and I wanted to know once and for all:
> 
> Do you really have to cook eggs in order for all of the protein/nutrients to be digested?


There's slightly less bioavailability from raw eggs but the difference is not a large one. Moderate cooking of eggs is the key - cook them too much and you actually reduce bioavailability and the biological value to less than uncooked eggs.

When overcooked, eggs start to form sulphur dioxide and give that horrid eggy smell and the main protein in the egg white (ovalbumen) becomes too malformed to provide as much benefit as otherwise.

In practical terms just don't cook them until the yoke gets hard... keep the yoke a bit soft and you have the best bioavailability


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hilly said:


> so guys for a healthy approach do you feel eating balanced meals throughout the day such as 40p/40c/15f is better or seperating meals to pro/fat and pro carbs for digestion purposes is a better approach out if interest?
> 
> both have the attractions for me at the moment i just cnt decide which i feel is better than the other and im at the stage in contest prep were critical thinking and reading is becoming difficult


I don't have a huge level of certainty or strong view on separating macros... especially in relation to what to do in respect of pre contest conditioning never having done it! Am sure the others will have better input than myself on this.

Personally Itend to combine fats and protein and carbs and protein, but not do too much fat and carb together... although will still have low carb/high nutrient veg with fatty foods.

It's lots of long chain saturated fat with highly insulinic carbs that are the only combo I actively avoid.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Prodiver said:


> Scurvy's caused by a Vit C deficiency (Vit C: ascorbic acid: from a against, and scorbutus, Latin for scurvy).
> 
> The classic antidote is citrus fruit: it was a surgeon in the British Royal Navy, James Lind, who first proved it could be treated with citrus fruit in experiments he described in his 1753 book, A Treatise of the Scurvy.
> 
> Hence we Brits are called "Limeys".


Hey Pat;

A Vilhjalmur Stefansson, cured scurvy with raw meat when he was doing his expeidtions as a polar explorer.

Fresh raw meat contains very small quantities of vitamin C

Snip:

Vitamin C's role in collagen formation is to transfer a hydroxyl group to the amino acids lysine and proline. Meat, however, already contains appreciable quantities of hydroxylysine and hydroxyproline, bypassing some of the requirement for vitamin C. In other words, your vitamin C requirement is dependent upon how much meat you do not eat.

Another snip:

On the expedition on board the Belgica from 1897-1898, the leader and ship's captain both became ill with scurvy. Roald Amundsen (later to be the first to reach the South Pole) and Frederick Cook (later to claim to be the first to reach the North Pole), rallied the crew and forced them to eat a diet of raw seal meat to overcome scurvy. It worked and no-one else fell ill because of it.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dtlv74 said:


> I don't have a huge level of certainty or strong view on separating macros... especially in relation to what to do in respect of pre contest conditioning never having done it! Am sure the others will have better input than myself on this.
> 
> Personally Itend to combine fats and protein and carbs and protein, but not do too much fat and carb together... although will still have low carb/high nutrient veg with fatty foods.
> 
> It's lots of long chain saturated fat with highly insulinic carbs that are the only combo I actively avoid.


Dr. Barry Sears has done probably the most reseach on macro's and their combinations.

Other books like "Eat right for your blood type" and stuff is around the net.

I feel that due to certain ethnic groups that you probably can figure out what your main diet would be.

People at the equator are darker, people twards the north are lighter, im sure that diet would be changed as well as tropical places that eat coconut for instance have a diffrent fat in the diets as colder climates like the swiss or what have you that perhaps have more animal fats.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

I tend not to mix carbs and fat. I'm now thinking about it, and I can't think of a natural food source with equal amounts of carbs and fat. I except milk, which has an equal spilt of the 3, but can anyone think of a natural food with little protein and equal grams of carbs and fat?

If you can't, that may answer the question of whether to eat them together.....


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

spaynter said:


> I tend not to mix carbs and fat. I'm now thinking about it, and I can't think of a natural food source with equal amounts of carbs and fat. I except milk, which has an equal spilt of the 3, but can anyone think of a natural food with little protein and equal grams of carbs and fat?
> 
> If you can't, that may answer the question of whether to eat them together.....


Nuts....... :lol:

Hey, fats lower the glycemic load of a carbohydrate if added in with the meal.

No problems adding that in to lower the glycemic load, one reason why nuts are so low in the glycemic index yet have all 3 macro's present.


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Too much protein to qualify for my competition. I'm looking for little protein and equal grams of carbs and fat........


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

spaynter said:


> Too much protein to qualify for my competition. I'm looking for little protein and equal grams of carbs and fat........


Well, diffrent nuts have diffrent macro profiles, cashews have more fat than peanuts, but then again macadamia nuts have the most fat.

Almonds or walnuts might have diffrent profiles, but I have not looked at the numbers.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

spaynter said:


> I tend not to mix carbs and fat. I'm now thinking about it, and I can't think of a natural food source with equal amounts of carbs and fat. I except milk, which has an equal spilt of the 3, but can anyone think of a natural food with little protein and equal grams of carbs and fat?
> 
> If you can't, that may answer the question of whether to eat them together.....


Equal carbs and fats by grams or by calories?

Irrelevant question anyway as either way I can't think of one :lol: , certainly not a natural food anyway. Milk may well be the closest... possibly some nuts too as hacks says (don't know).


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Jumbo olives!

And a bloke in my office suggested Mars Bars. PMSL.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Semen....... Gotta be close.........

Just kidding.

Milk is nice.

But depending on age, energy expedeture, type of training, can't say.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

My 9 year old daughter can eat pasteries all day and not get fat.


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

hackskii said:


> My 9 year old daughter can eat pasteries all day and not get fat.


id give anything to swap with her  , i smell a pastry and gain fat. danish cinnamon whirls are my fave


----------



## mick_the_brick (Oct 29, 2008)

hilly said:


> id give anything to swap with her  , i smell a pastry and gain fat. *danish cinnamon whirls are my fave*


Same here buddy with raisens for the win :thumbup1:


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

mmmmmmmmm, dam i hate dieting, u ever had a cinnabon mick unreal


----------



## mick_the_brick (Oct 29, 2008)

Yes mate I was eating them daily when working in Dubai..

Along with chicken sausages for breakfast LOL

Never seen them around the NE TBH


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

they arnt mate, there is a cinnabon shop in edinburgh last place i had them

Tesco actually do a similar one. they do the normal cinnamon whirls then a thicker one which is similar to a cinnabon. not as good but ill be smashing a few post show thats for sure. if you hit tesco early doors you get em fresh


----------



## spaynter (Jul 6, 2009)

Is there 20g of protein in them? ;o)


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

hackskii said:


> My 9 year old daughter can eat pasteries all day and not get fat.


Yet...


----------



## mick_the_brick (Oct 29, 2008)

hilly said:


> they arnt mate, there is a cinnabon shop in edinburgh last place i had them
> 
> Tesco actually do a similar one. they do the normal cinnamon whirls then a thicker one which is similar to a cinnabon. not as good but ill be smashing a few post show thats for sure. if you hit tesco early doors you get em fresh


Cool I'll check them out at some point although Tesco is normally too pricey for me mate :laugh:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I don't get on with pastries... breads and pastry are two things I avoid most as much as possible - they give me bloat and fat gain. Don't really miss em... although do like danish pastries :drool:


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

Dtlv74 said:


> I don't get on with pastries... breads and pastry are two things I avoid most as much as possible - they give me bloat and fat gain. Don't really miss em... although do like danish pastries :drool:


same here mate, i have come to realise i am very insulin sensitive and anything sugary just makes me fat unfortunatly as i love pastries etc. I basically have to avoid sugary ****e completely as even 1 or 2 cheats of ****y food a week and the rest being good increases my bodyfat.

if i cheat on a sat night wether dieting or not i dont drop all the water off till bloody friday or say


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

Has anyone got access to the full transcripts of those two cited studies please? Would be interested to see the variance of the results. There seems to be quite a few issues with them - duration was limited to only a few hours, only one protein source, no indication of the state of the participants (are they even in the 'fed' state?) etc.

I'd want:

to test for longer,

with different protein sources,

ensure all participants are in the fed state

multiple ingestions of protein

provision of other macro nutrients - i.e. does significant fat levels along with the protein reduce the protein synthesis rate, and hence show that the rate-limiting factor is digestion / absorption?

Test different lean body mass groups - i.e. is the max rate linked to affected lean body mass

Training load / intensity - does this affect the max rate

So much missing from the studies, very frustrating!

I would bet that it is:

pre-workout nutrition and recovery state

digestion / absorption rate

affected lean body mass (i.e. more muscle, more recovery machinery = higher synthesis rate)

exercise-load/intensity induced muscular damage

that dictates maximum synthesis rate.

In my opinion stating '20g is the maximum protein in a meal required' is not helpful as it will vary from individual to individual and from meal to meal and workout to workout.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Which studies are you after defdaz?

There's this one on pre vs post-



> *Timing of amino acid-carbohydrate ingestion alters anabolic response of muscle to resistance exercise.*
> 
> Tipton KD, Rasmussen BB, Miller SL, Wolf SE, Owens-Stovall SK, Petrini BE, Wolfe RR.
> 
> ...


Then there's this one which identifies a maximal amount of protein synthesis occurring somewhere around 20g of EAAs (as 40g of EAAs do not allow any more protein synthesis than 40g of mixed EAAs and NEAAs in a blend containing a total of 21.4g of EAAs... with NEAAs already ruled out as contributing to PS):



> *Postexercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids*
> 
> Kevin D. Tipton, Arny A. Ferrando, Stuart M. Phillips, David Doyle Jr., and Robert R. Wolfe
> 
> ...


From the discussion for that study:



> A secondary purpose of our study was to determine whether nonessential amino acids were necessary in an oral solution designed to stimulate muscle protein anabolism. Because the release of alanine and other nonessential amino acids is increased by exercise (9, 14), the availability of nonessential amino N is not greatly diminished by exercise. Thus we hypothesized that providing only essential amino acids in a supplement would provide all the amino acids necessary to increase net muscle protein synthesis. Our subjects consumed either 40 g of mixed amino acids or 40 g of only essential amino acids. Both trials resulted in similar positive muscle protein balance that was significantly different from the PLA trial. Because EAA resulted in similar muscle protein anabolism to MAA, it appears that nonessential amino acids are not necessary to elicit an anabolic response after exercise. However, when we compared the calculation of net N uptake across the leg from phenylalanine, leucine, and lysine for the EAA trial, as was done for MAA, the results were not identical. Whereas the estimate of net N uptake is similar for EAA and MAA (220 vs. 214 mg), when the amount available in the respective drinks is considered, dissimilar results are obtained. Only ~18% of the available N from the three measured amino acids is taken up across both legs in the EAA trial, whereas ~32% of available N is taken up in the MAA trial. There are two interpretations of this discrepancy. It is possible that some nonessential amino acids are necessary to create the greatest level of efficiency for net N uptake after exercise. However, because EAA results in an equivalent amount of net protein synthesis as when a balanced mixture is provided, this does not seem likely. Smith et al. (24) provided further evidence that nonessential amino acids are unnecessary to stimulate muscle protein synthesis. In their study, a bolus of essential amino acids stimulated muscle protein synthesis, but there was a lack of stimulation when only nonessential amino acids were given (24). The alternative explanation is that there is a maximum rate of net synthesis attainable during hyperaminoacidemia after exercise. Thus, despite the higher arterial amino acid values with EAA (Table 2), the translational machinery in the cell is not capable of increasing protein synthesis past a maximal level. The essential amino acids available in MAA were sufficient to stimulate the protein synthetic mechanisms to the maximum level, and not all of the available amino acids were utilized for muscle protein synthesis. This is supported by the fact that the ratio of the model-derived value of protein synthesis to the arterial concentration is higher with MAA than with EAA (0.81 ± 0.24 vs. 0.50 ± 0.08, respectively). Furthermore, the muscle intracellular pool of amino acids was expanded with EAA but not with MAA (Table 2), suggesting that whereas the amino acids were being transported into the cell, they were not being utilized for protein synthesis. It would be necessary to give smaller doses of essential amino acids to determine how much is necessary to maximize the muscle anabolic response.


It doesn't actually mention in the discussion the 21.4g figure for EAAs in the mixed AA drink, but you can get this info from the pop out box detailing the amino acid breakdown from each drink.

....

No study is perfect as, as you rightly say defdaz, there are other factors that can influence things, and my money is on the maximal amount of aminos that are useful being related to how much LBM the individual holds... the 20g figure for EAA content of protein taken might well be too small for someone with a large LBM.

Bear in mind though that just because roughly 20g of EAAs maxes out protein synthesis, it doesn't mean that 20g of whey wil do the same - whey isolates average around 45-50% EAA content by weight, so you'd need 40g of whey for the same total EAA content.... *remember it's the amount of EAAs that's important and the limiting factor, not the total amount of protein.*


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

DTLV - do you think one is better using eaa over bcaa for pre and intra shakes? from my reading when not dietin so maintaining or bulking(protein and aminos are plentifiul around 300g per day) bcaa would suffice if not be preferable as these are our main muscle builders and we will have enough of the eaa from our diet to keep ntrogen balance at an acceptable level.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hilly said:


> DTLV - do you think one is better using eaa over bcaa for pre and intra shakes? from my reading when not dietin so maintaining or bulking(protein and aminos are plentifiul around 300g per day) bcaa would suffice if not be preferable as these are our main muscle builders and we will have enough of the eaa from our diet to keep ntrogen balance at an acceptable level.


lol, on another forum about two years ago this topic was a massive thread, and we couldn't come to an absolute conclusion.

The main points seem to be this:

High plasma spikes of BCAAs are required to stimulate the important growth pathways (via insulin and non insulin dependent pathways)

High plasma spikes of EAAs are required to build muscle

The overall agreement that we came to, and I follow this still now, is to use EAAs over whey around the workout (whey at other times to reduce cost), and to bolster it with additional BCAAs.

Most EAA blends are about 40-50% BCAA anyway (leucine is always the AA in largest quantity by a long way in these blends, often 30%+ of the entire content), so EAAs are probably the better choice if just using one - IMO.

That's just my view though, and what I'd like to see is long term study comparing EAA vs BCAA for protein synthesis... there isn't one though that I've found so kind of hedge my bets.

As for the aspect of protein in diet, more muscle protein synthesis takes place over the 48 hours following the session than just after anyway, so that is of course the most important bit by a long long way.

The immediate increases in PWO protien synthesis by EAAs and BCAAs are nice, but it's their longer term anabolic stimulatory effect that's way more important I think.

All this is my interpretation of studies, chats with a few trainers, and a bit of personal experience... I still reserve the right to be corrected by superior information. Am not saying any of this absolutely definitively, just how I see it based on my understanding and knowledge base. Science has a lot more research in this area still to do.


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

cheers mate,

last one - whats ure opinion on amino quality. for instance i have been using myproteins but have just orderd sciviation extend aminos due to reading a little saying the quality of aminos is important and better to use less of a better quality one than more of a lower.

not saying myproteins is lower here just to add.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hilly said:


> cheers mate,
> 
> last one - whats ure opinion on amino quality. for instance i have been using myproteins but have just orderd sciviation extend aminos due to reading a little saying the quality of aminos is important and better to use less of a better quality one than more of a lower.
> 
> not saying myproteins is lower here just to add.


This is potentially a big topic if you want to get into looking at the effects of whole proteins in their native forms. For a pure bodybuilding perspective all you really want is a high protein content per 100g (ideally with high EAA percentage as discussed above) and easy absorption. A di or tri peptide, a hydrolyzed protein or an ion exchange isolate is ideal here, and an isolate better than a concentrate.

If you are interested in beneficial health effects beyond bodybuilding, such as glutathione response to the protein, then you want to go for proteins that are not hyrdolyzed or broken down into peptides but that have their native structures intact. The best method of protein preparation in this case is a crossflow microfiltered (sometimes called cold filtered) protein. Less aminos per 100g but greater antioxidant and positive immune response with a protein isolated this way.

Depends what you are after and what kind of detail you want to get into with these things. For most people training, a simple good quality isolate is going to be fine IMO, being the most economical choice balancing effectiveness against price.

Myprotein, Bulk Supplements Direct, Bulk Powders etc all supply good quality isolates IMO and are good value and fit for purpose. Many of the branded supps are overpriced in comparison I think.


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

that will do for me. i like to be healthy but bodybuilding is my focus. i rate myproteins isolate to be fair have been using it with no issues and the price is very fair


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

How about a nice juicy char broiled Porterhouse steak, with some garlic on it?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

hackskii said:


> How about a nice juicy char broiled Porterhouse steak, with some garlic on it?


DROOL :drool: that'd do me nicely just about now!!


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

hilly said:


> so guys for a healthy approach do you feel eating balanced meals throughout the day such as 40p/40c/15f is better or seperating meals to pro/fat and pro carbs for digestion purposes is a better approach out if interest?
> 
> both have the attractions for me at the moment i just cnt decide which i feel is better than the other and im at the stage in contest prep were critical thinking and reading is becoming difficult


Reading a book on food combining now! Its not essential to combine in the recommended way but it certainly helps digestion, which for me means less gas!! I like the way the author says that you should combine as much and as often as you want to but dont feel you HAVE to do it at every meal.

It was really interesting to read that eating some foods SUPPRESSES the enzymes which digest others!?

If food gives me less gas it must be digesting better, which means better nutrition and better results for the same amount of food!

All good but trying to eat eat a paleao diet, food combined, with an intolerance to gluten takes some diet planning wizardy!!! In fact just call me Harry Plopper :lol:

SD


----------

