30g of Whole Protein per Feeding - max usable for protein synth

[mc-]

Overview here of recent research looking at max usable amount of protein at one feeding for absorption for muscle sythesis.

http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g-of-protein-per-meal-for-optimal.html

Also situated in context of pretty recent protein absorption work, and context of caloric deficit/surplus, just fyi

best
mc

[tagun]

Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

Oh yeah, they also say "starchy carbs only post workout". Well I'm really sorry, but I eat starchy carbs at least 6 times per day. Yes, when I wake up and 5 minutes before I go to sleep. It's just not practical for me to eat all my 450 grams of starchy carbs post workout, sorry.

[rickymartinn]

Overview here of recent research looking at max usable amount of protein at one feeding for absorption for muscle sythesis.

http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g-of-protein-per-meal-for-optimal.html

Also situated in context of pretty recent protein absorption work, and context of caloric deficit/surplus, just fyi

best
mc

I know this is advanced nutrition so I shouldn't be posting in topics on this section as I am not a certified nutrition nor have done studies on anything but I have been reading a lot of studies and articles about protein absorption - so I want to just disclaim that this is my opinion not facts or statements with backing so I don't get bad rep as I did for posting this information in a thread about wasting protein in nutrition - I will address both questions because I was wondering about the same thing with the IF diet and protein intake - seems contradictory to studies but they do get results - so I will separate facts from my opinion

Facts:
-there are a couple studies that show 30g of lean beef is the max protein that will cause protein synthesis stimulation, and any amount of protein absorbed after that does not promote muscle buiilding
-these studies have been done on sedentary test subjects - not people on weight lifting programs
-different types of protein get absorbed at different rates
-they only used lean beef protein in the studies I saw
-people who have used warrior and IF diets have gotten results
-I know very little about the science of IF or Warrior Diets and will attempt to explain my theory in my opinion down below

Opinions:
-This opinion is supported by others but a lot of modern nutritionists think high protein diets are a waste of money
-is this because of the amount of protein absorbed at a time? or because you don't need that much protein? both? not sure to be honest, for this scenario and hypothesis lets say it's a combination of both
-So say you only need 100-125g of protein per day to build muscle
-You can only absorb 30g at a time apparently
-From reading articles and about I/F / Warrior diets you have 4-8 hour window to eat. I have seen articles that say you absorb and digest nutrients better in your sleep as well. (not supported by hard document just from memory reading on non-supported articles/posts)
-Opinions have speculated max protein synthesis occurs after, and 24hrs after workout.

My opinion / hypothesis:
So, even if you have a 4 hour window to eat in this scenario, and say you can only absorb 30g of protein in 'one sitting.' How long is the time needed between sittings? For this scenario I am going to say 1 hour because I have not seen any studies or information on the length needed in between.

Let's say subject A is on the warrior diet and has a 4 hour window to eat. He worked out before he ate, had a 25g whey shake before and after. Let's say for a modern nutrition opinion they only need 125g of protein per day. They already have 50g of protein possibly absorbed and now have 4 hours to eat. Since whey protein is supposedly the fastest absorbed protein, assume its absorption will not interfere with later protein ingestion. One hour after the shake, 3 hours left in the window, this person has a salad and a chicken breast. 30g more of protein have been ingested. An hour later, this person has another source of meat or whole food protein of about 30g. With an hour left in the eating window, subject A, assuming 1 hour intervals between optimal absorption, has begun to absorb / absorbed 110g of protein. He then has 30g of another protein source, and then 30g of casein protein at the same time. Now that person has consumed 170g of protein, with appropriate intervals for absorption.

This is my point, cliff notes basically.
Even over a 4 hour window you can absorb 170g of protein because of different rates of absorption of the proteins and the timing between eating them. The unsupported parts of this are the interval between absorption periods and the amount of protein you need to intake. Does a high protein diet work because you aren't absorbing all of it - but you are still getting at least 125g that you actually need? I think it would be very easy to conduct a study on this and I wonder why it hasn't been done yet.

Once again - I have no accreditation in this area so I hope someone who does can help explain this a bit more. Most people just simply throw out those 30g studies when they talk about protein in these forums but I am just trying to explain - if they are true - how it could possibly work. Also not mentioned - people in an anabolic state may absorb more at a time? I don't know? and does the body absorb more when sleeping? and does the body adjust to absorb more protein at a time if it continually ingests high amounts in one sitting? I don't know the answers to any of those questions but I think those - if they could be answered - would help shed some light on this subject.

and to both the posters above - I tried explaining how the 30g could be incorporated in an IF diet not trying to disprove either of your statements, just to help add unbiased opinion to this subject.

[mc-]

Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...


define "great results"

ANd IF like brad pilon's eat stop eat is way different than the wd's grazing.

best
mc

[mc-]

I know this is advanced nutrition so I shouldn't be posting in topics on this section as I am not a certified nutrition nor have done studies on anything but I have been reading a lot of studies and articles about protein absorption - so I want to just disclaim that this is my opinion not facts or statements with backing so I don't get bad rep as I did for posting this information in a thread about wasting protein in nutrition - I will address both questions because I was wondering about the same thing with the IF diet and protein intake - seems contradictory to studies but they do get results - so I will separate facts from my opinion

Facts:
-there are a couple studies that show 30g of lean beef is the max protein that will cause protein synthesis stimulation, and any amount of protein absorbed after that does not promote muscle buiilding


could you point to more than the one cited?




-these studies have been done on sedentary test subjects - not people on weight lifting programs
-different types of protein get absorbed at different rates


that's not really a player within a given window



-they only used lean beef protein in the studies I saw


again, one study, and if you look at the post (it doesn't seem you read it? it's quite detailed) that's discussed



-people who have used warrior and IF diets have gotten results

as above, define results?


-I know very little about the science of IF or Warrior Diets and will attempt to explain my theory in my opinion down below


opinion isn't particularly relevant, is it? i mean who cares what a person's opinion is? what's the basis of the opinion? that could be interesting



Opinions:
-This opinion is supported by others but a lot of modern nutritionists think high protein diets are a waste of money

again, what do you mean? what's high protein? and in what context? for how long?


-is this because of the amount of protein absorbed at a time? or because you don't need that much protein? both? not sure to be honest, for this scenario and hypothesis lets say it's a combination of both
-So say you only need 100-125g of protein per day to build muscle
-You can only absorb 30g at a time apparently
-From reading articles and about I/F / Warrior diets you have 4-8 hour window to eat. I have seen articles that say you absorb and digest nutrients better in your sleep as well. (not supported by hard document just from memory reading on non-supported articles/posts)
-Opinions have speculated max protein synthesis occurs after, and 24hrs after workout.


you know if you'd check the above post, maybe follow some of the links to work about absorption and issues there in, a lot of your queries might actually be addressed



My opinion / hypothesis:
So, even if you have a 4 hour window to eat in this scenario, and say you can only absorb 30g of protein in 'one sitting.' How long is the time needed between sittings? For this scenario I am going to say 1 hour because I have not seen any studies or information on the length needed in between.


???


Let's say subject A is on the warrior diet and has a 4 hour window to eat. He worked out before he ate, had a 25g whey shake before and after. Let's say for a modern nutrition opinion they only need 125g of protein per day.

what's teh basis for 125? no one credible in nutrition arbitrarily says you there, only eat 125g of protein



They already have 50g of protein possibly absorbed and now have 4 hours to eat. Since whey protein is supposedly the fastest absorbed protein, assume its absorption will not interfere with later protein ingestion. One hour after the shake, 3 hours left in the window, this person has a salad and a chicken breast. 30g more of protein have been ingested. An hour later, this person has another source of meat or whole food protein of about 30g. With an hour left in the eating window, subject A, assuming 1 hour intervals between optimal absorption, has begun to absorb / absorbed 110g of protein. He then has 30g of another protein source, and then 30g of casein protein at the same time. Now that person has consumed 170g of protein, with appropriate intervals for absorption.

where did you get 1hr for optimal absorption?


This is my point, cliff notes basically.
Even over a 4 hour window you can absorb 170g of protein because of different rates of absorption of the proteins and the timing between eating them.

you may be mistaking absorption for use for protein synthesis



Once again - I have no accreditation in this area so I hope someone who does can help explain this a bit more. Most people just simply throw out those 30g studies when they talk about protein in these forums but I am just trying to explain - if they are true - how it could possibly work.

why not read either the study or the detailed discussion linked above to get some insight into that query?



Also not mentioned - people in an anabolic state may absorb more at a time?

maybe - and that's acknolwedged - but it's not going to be that much more - even if it were doubled for that particular period.



I don't know? and does the body absorb more when sleeping? and does the body adjust to absorb more protein at a time if it continually ingests high amounts in one sitting? I don't know the answers to any of those questions but I think those - if they could be answered - would help shed some light on this subject

again, differences between absorption and utilization.


and to both the posters above - I tried explaining how the 30g could be incorporated in an IF diet not trying to disprove either of your statements, just to help add unbiased opinion to this subject.

there's no such thing as an unbiased opinion, tho, is there really; opinion, by it's nature a particular view.

I'm not sure how IF comes into this - it doesn't dispute the findings made in the above cited study. and as pointed to in the post, there's several key differences between IF and WD's day-long grazing and evening feast -but again, not sure of the issue.

mc

[rickymartinn]

Originally Posted by tagun View Post
Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

first the way I read this was that he was saying the study wasn't as reliable because people on warrior/IF diets couldn't possibly utilize that much protein in that short period of time and get results so I was just trying to show how it could be possibly to consume enough protein over a 4 hr span given that you could do it in hour intervals, which I just picked because I did not see any information on that.

Here are the other studies not really as in depth but I don't really have the time to go into anything else you responded to, I will re read the study tomorrow probably as I just skimmed through it and it looked basically the same as these two below so I shouldn't have assumed.


http://www.find-health-articles.com/...s-skeletal.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/168876.php

other related threads
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=451735041
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=117126241

[buzzbomb138]

what about the whole protein synthesis refractory period studies by layne norton? following this, i was under the assumption that protein synthesis is greater following larger protein boluses less often, and the whole eat protein/meal every 3 hours 6x a day has been disproven regarding better assimilation. ive been eating only 3 large meals a day about 5-6 hours apart for a while, and while i cant quite say muscle growth has been better or worse than when i followed the 6 small meals a day, but i can say its much more conducive to my social life and such.

[buzzbomb138]

^^^http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/protein_size_&_frequency.pdf

read this

[mc-]

what about the whole protein synthesis refractory period studies by layne norton? following this, i was under the assumption that protein synthesis is greater following larger protein boluses less often, and the whole eat protein/meal every 3 hours 6x a day has been disproven regarding better assimilation. ive been eating only 3 large meals a day about 5-6 hours apart for a while, and while i cant quite say muscle growth has been better or worse than when i followed the 6 small meals a day, but i can say its much more conducive to my social life and such.

thanks for the link
Layne norton only kinda guesses that protein synthesis won't recur in tightly packed repeated feedings; he doesn't test that. in fact the lab findings he shows support the opposite. Indeed, he is suggesting 4-6 feedings a day (as opposed to 6-8). That's pretty normal in BB circles. and pretty much what "multiple feedings" in a program like say precision nutrition uses.

As to the study cited above:
It is looking at both whole foods protein and previous work with eaa's for acute protein sythesis of resting muscle.
it's looking at these amounts across age and gender.
that's it.

As the authors (and post) acknowledge, there's more to eating and amino acids than this singular condition. Indeed, the post kinda states that while the authors extrapolate that multiple meals (they don't say six they're more implicitly at three) would likely be better than one feeding of protein a day, they don't test this either.
other work (also cited) seems to suggest that that mayn't be the case when explored more globally and longitudinally. In fact the only thing that might matter is just getting enough in, in a day for a daily requirement.

And the biggest kicker in the above post (for me anyway) is that for muscle growth (not just resting muscle protein synthesis but going for mass), protein may be a very small player. THe exercise itself - without additional protein - or the addition of creatine - may be bigger factors than pumping up protein.

and that's rather the main point of the article. Less may well be more. 85g of protein a day (or between 70-120 depending on size) may be all it takes for getting the usual 2-5 pounds of muscle over a 12 week cycle. Only adding creatine to that effort - not pumping up protein - seems to break that limit and get it to pump up the mass.

That's fascinating, no?

more details here
http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g-of-protein-per-meal-for-optimal.html

mc

[elmariachii]

i didnt see where this study was published, in which journal ?
so it's not something very credible.

[buzzbomb138]

bump. i wanna hear more opinions on this.

[mc-]

i didnt see where this study was published, in which journal ?
so it's not something very credible.

i'm not sure what you're saying.

if you go to the above post,

(here's the ref again http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/30g-of-protein-per-meal-for-optimal.html)

you'll see all the articles referenced with links either to pubmed or to the journal source.

mc

[Murderfox]

Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

Oh yeah, they also say "starchy carbs only post workout". Well I'm really sorry, but I eat starchy carbs at least 6 times per day. Yes, when I wake up and 5 minutes before I go to sleep. It's just not practical for me to eat all my 450 grams of starchy carbs post workout, sorry.

This.

Stop posting random stuff you find on the internet, so many factors are taken into consideration when consuming protein (i.e the individual/how hard you train or the other macro nutrients it is consumed with & so on).

[BRO_RESULTS]

Is muscle the only reason we eat protein? (http://www.precisionnutrition.com/protein-limit)

This oughta shut you fools up.

[Fire8085]

This somewhat coincides with the study Layne did.

His conclusion was that MPS achieved a maximum when Leucine was 3.2-4.4g which roughly translates into 133g of beef (close to 113g, no?).

However, don't other questions come into the factor? Such as meal timing and if the body behaves differently after fasting for a specific period of time? Would MPS have a higher ceiling cap say if you took Norton's approach of boulous dosings of meals and extended it a bit further?

Does digestion timing come into play as well? Types of protein sources? Other amino acids?

[mc-]

Is muscle the only reason we eat protein? (http://www.precisionnutrition.com/protein-limit)

This oughta shut you fools up.

I'm not sure who's being told to shut up.

The point of the work - and the post - was not that eating more protein is bad or wrong (up to its toxic limit) but that ACUTE protein synthesis has a limit. Hence why the wonderful article you mention above points to gosh 20-30g of protein spread out over the day many times.

The other point of the above post is to say what else might be going on if one meal a day'ers are able to maintain (not necessarily gain) their lean mass? how do we put these two observations together?


Also, i'd just point out that the studies that have shown
"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)."

To the best of my knowledge, these differences haven't lasted over time. Over time it hasn't mattered what the mix is for fat loss. This is an initial experience it seems, not a sustained one.

Again, not saying protein bad; just that we might think it does more for what most folks here want - building mass - than it does.

To that end, volume and load in exercise along with creatine, seem to be more potent than protein. The research to those points is listed in the post.

To the person who carbs up any old time of day? good for you.
Glad you can handle that. YOu're training hard; it makes a difference.
So consider the context of where that heuristic is taught:
for folks who are struggling to lose weight, aren't necessarily athletes at all, and who may have been overdoing it in the starchy carb space, and so have already set up lower insulin sensitivity.
SO for these folks (most of the population: remember you're not the norm), getting a handle on their carb tolerance, getting at a healthy mix of foods for caloric deficit is important.

We tend to generalize out from our own point experience, and that just doesn't always work when one is so distinct from the majority. You may feel normal here, but look around once you leave the forum.

best
mc

[BRO_RESULTS]

I'm not sure who's being told to shut up.

The point of the work - and the post - was not that eating more protein is bad or wrong (up to its toxic limit) but that ACUTE protein synthesis has a limit. Hence why the wonderful article you mention above points to gosh 20-30g of protein spread out over the day many times.

The other point of the above post is to say what else might be going on if one meal a day'ers are able to maintain (not necessarily gain) their lean mass? how do we put these two observations together?


Also, i'd just point out that the studies that have shown
"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)."

To the best of my knowledge, these differences haven't lasted over time. Over time it hasn't mattered what the mix is for fat loss. This is an initial experience it seems, not a sustained one.

Again, not saying protein bad; just that we might think it does more for what most folks here want - building mass - than it does.

To that end, volume and load in exercise along with creatine, seem to be more potent than protein. The research to those points is listed in the post.

To the person who carbs up any old time of day? good for you.
Glad you can handle that. YOu're training hard; it makes a difference.
So consider the context of where that heuristic is taught:
for folks who are struggling to lose weight, aren't necessarily athletes at all, and who may have been overdoing it in the starchy carb space, and so have already set up lower insulin sensitivity.
SO for these folks (most of the population: remember you're not the norm), getting a handle on their carb tolerance, getting at a healthy mix of foods for caloric deficit is important.

We tend to generalize out from our own point experience, and that just doesn't always work when one is so distinct from the majority. You may feel normal here, but look around once you leave the forum.

best
mc
Your entire post was a non-sequitur.

[CoQ10]

define "great results"

ANd IF like brad pilon's eat stop eat is way different than the wd's grazing.

best
mc

Martin Berkhan has produced some phenomenal results with IF. Check out his site for some research reviews as well.

www.leangains.com .

-C10

[RealMenDeadLift]

I don't know why anyone would be surprised with these results. This was an acute study and of course the human body will have natural limits to protein synthesis within a given window. This does NOT suggest that the rest of the protein goes to waste. Your body(while relatively inefficient) is not that wasteful. Full scale muscle repair goes far beyond five hours(the window in this study) which of course will require amino acids drawn from pools which are filled through sufficient levels of protein in one's diet.

[CoQ10]

Here's a recent article by Alan you may find interesting:

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

-C10

[liammccarthy]

Go eat a 2lbs steak and tell me your body has digested, synthesised 30g and spat the other 220g of protein out... it in 4 hours..............

[BRO_RESULTS]

Hehehehehe, Aragon is awesome!


Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.

If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.

[wmac222]

Hehehehehe, Aragon is awesome!

Aragon either didn't understand the study or is purposefully misleading. RealMenDeadLift already touched on this: The study showed that additional ingestion after 30 grams had no effect protein synthesis in muscles.

[mc-]

Aragon either didn't understand the study or is purposefully misleading. RealMenDeadLift already touched on this: The study showed that additional ingestion after 30 grams had no effect protein synthesis in muscles.

i'd have to agree.
it's not that the body can't make a whole TON of use of the calories of any kind it ingests.
it's just that in that window, it seems, for muscle synthesis, adding in more protein had no effect - for that particular physiological function.


now what difference that makes in the long hall in terms of body comp over time, not so clear.

thanks for coming back on that wmac222.

mc

[mc-]

Go eat a 2lbs steak and tell me your body has digested, synthesised 30g and spat the other 220g of protein out... it in 4 hours..............

as above i think that may be missing the point.

As detailed in the blog post, what can't be used for muscle protein synthesis is deaminated and used as fuel or in other capacities, and what can't be used or discarded gets stored.

mc

[mc-]

I don't know why anyone would be surprised with these results. This was an acute study and of course the human body will have natural limits to protein synthesis within a given window. This does NOT suggest that the rest of the protein goes to waste. Your body(while relatively inefficient) is not that wasteful. Full scale muscle repair goes far beyond five hours(the window in this study) which of course will require amino acids drawn from pools which are filled through sufficient levels of protein in one's diet.

well said
nicely put

and all the more reason to get lots of good quality z's.

mc

[wmac222]

i'd have to agree.
it's not that the body can't make a whole TON of use of the calories of any kind it ingests.
it's just that in that window, it seems, for muscle synthesis, adding in more protein had no effect - for that particular physiological function.


now what difference that makes in the long hall in terms of body comp over time, not so clear.

thanks for coming back on that wmac222.

mc

No problem.

I've read quite a few blogs buy Alan. He does have a lot of useful information, definitely worth the time reading it...here comes the butt! He does post some crap like this. Not sure his motivation for doing so or if he just didn't read the study close enough. Even well informed people have blinders on if something contradicts their opinion.

Just looking at hypertrophy in general.....

Some concepts.

A. The human body can make it's own amino acids and mines dying cells for protein.
B. The human body cannot store amino acids.
C. The catabolism of muscle tissue is markidly higher in endurance exercise then resistance training.
D. animal protein is only partially digested.

If a seasoned lifter gains 4 kilos per year of muscle, that is incredible. 1st time lifters who are genetically gifted and those on anabolics or other hormones are exceptions. If you divide 4000 grams by days in a year you get 11 grams of protein per day used for hypertrophy. And that is huge! Most experienced lifters are only capable of putting on 2.5 kilos or so at most per year.

Obviously everything here is over simplified. The human engine is far more complicated. With that being said, this study may the pillar that ends up showing that the average person need far less protein then is currently recommended for optimal hypertrophy.

[icall]

In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're stating mc/wmac, but the above quote from Aragon's article regarding an IF group vs a control group seems to indicate the human body can in fact synthesize more than 30g at a sitting.

If the human body could not, how could the IF group increase their lean body mass.

I read another article by Aragon where he seems to indicate he doesn't like IF or at least not think it optimal. I believe he's just using this as an exteme to debunk something he believes is a misconception.

As for him having blinders on, I enjoy reading Aragon's posts/blogs because I believe he looks to the research as opposed to his own personal views and changes his views if necessary. A point to this was an older thread I found with Aragon mentioning IF. Berkham claimed he was talking with Aragon on writing a book about it. Later, it appears Aragon was discrediting IF and no book came out.

Lastly, maybe you are all correct, but everyone is talking about something different. I believe what Aragon's article was trying to show was that eating multiple meals in an attempt to increase the body's absorption of protein is not necessary and in the case of the IF group increasing lean body mass over the control group, not possible. Perhaps 30grams is all the human body can use for muscle synthesis which points to the limitations on adding lean body mass.

I think to just be clear about why you are posting this is necessary. If you are saying more meals of 30grams of protein or less is more effective for muscle protein synthesis over single feeds, I believe Aragon's article and the studies he sites disproves this. If you're claiming 30grams per day is the maximum the human body can use for muscle synthesis with the remainder being used for other functions, that's something different that I don't believe Aragon's article addresses.

[wmac222]

If you're claiming 30grams per day is the maximum the human body can use for muscle synthesis with the remainder being used for other functions, that's something different that I don't believe Aragon's article addresses.

The later. The original study took biopsies of muscle.

[kimmypoohx3]

hmmm...why don't we find a way to do the study? c'mon guys, we're all smart. (this is the advanced nutrition forum, right?!) I'm sure some of us ::he hem:: have access to university or lab equipment of some sort? it's not too hard to get a grant for this kind of stuff. This is interesting enough to make leaps and bounds in the industry and to be honest it would definitely be worth publishing. :) -K

[BRO_RESULTS]

i'd have to agree.
it's not that the body can't make a whole TON of use of the calories of any kind it ingests.
it's just that in that window, it seems, for muscle synthesis, adding in more protein had no effect - for that particular physiological function.


now what difference that makes in the long hall in terms of body comp over time, not so clear.

thanks for coming back on that wmac222.

mc
John Berardi's article takes care of that issue.

[kimmypoohx3]

what time frame though? what type of protein? these are definitely questions that I would love to have data to back up. Is there a more efficient type of protein for the general population that would work better than another...is eating every hour and forty-five minutes bad for us? do we have to wait longer or are we just taking in excess calories and the amino acids from the proteins will take other pathways(gluconeogenesis) and be stored as fat. To be honest I am anal when calorie counting before a contest and all of this matters.

[BlueFenix13S]

http://www.biolayne.com/Optimal%20protein%20intake%20and%20meal%20frequenc y%20to%20support(2003).ppsx

Check out the powerpoint, and read the research by Layne. Basically, aim for between 3-4 grams of leucine to maximize protein synthesis, which is dependent on the food source, such as whey versus chicken (33g of protein from whey, versus 54g of protein from chicken). Less protein from whey is required than from chicken because the whey is a higher percentage of leucine per gram than the chicken.

[Awestin]

great articles posted by several people here.

[aelunyu]

Studies like this are just too narrowly focused. The body is a greatly adaptive unit. It will basically respond to what you tell it to..over time. So if you eat 50g every meal, every day for several meals a day, eventually in my opinion, the body will start using more than 30g per meal provided you give it intense exercise, and put it into the danger zone of catabolism.

I think people that are too focused on the science forget that the body is only concerned with survival. So if more than 30g of protein are needed to blunt any possible danger the body perceives, it will use more than 30g.

Although the elderly and young who are sedentary only synthesize protein to maintain mass, we as bodybuilders must condition the body to synthesize protein to increase mass. Therefore, it would speak to reason, that we could also condition the body to utilize more than 30g of protein a meal.

It's speculative, and anecdotal...but lets face it, modern medicine is not really interested in advanced muscle building principles! So we, the community, must provide the foundation of knowledge through experience...not stubborn scientific hear-say.

[VegasPumped]

Protein is good for you. 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.

[Insight]

Studies like this are just too narrowly focused. The body is a greatly adaptive unit. It will basically respond to what you tell it to..over time. So if you eat 50g every meal, every day for several meals a day, eventually in my opinion, the body will start using more than 30g per meal provided you give it intense exercise, and put it into the danger zone of catabolism.

I think people that are too focused on the science forget that the body is only concerned with survival. So if more than 30g of protein are needed to blunt any possible danger the body perceives, it will use more than 30g.

Although the elderly and young who are sedentary only synthesize protein to maintain mass, we as bodybuilders must condition the body to synthesize protein to increase mass. Therefore, it would speak to reason, that we could also condition the body to utilize more than 30g of protein a meal.

It's speculative, and anecdotal...but lets face it, modern medicine is not really interested in advanced muscle building principles! So we, the community, must provide the foundation of knowledge through experience...not stubborn scientific hear-say.

Another common theory is that as the body adapts more and more to resistance training, the amount of protein NEEDED goes DOWN, rather than the amount being utilized going up.

The body also certainly doesn't treat catabolism as a "danger" zone. There are going to be several mini-anabolic and catabolic cycles going on throughout the day.


Protein is good for you. 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.

So protein causes both insulin and glucagon secretion?

Where's in10city at?

Either way I would imagine that the more glucagon = more fat loss connection is tenuous at best. Isn't that basically saying the same thing as less insulin = more fat loss? which was just heavily discussed in the other thread.

[zpm]

I ain't no expert in these type of situations,but i can say the following : I consume around 150-220 grams of protein (keto WD style) in one meal post workout out and i`ve went from few chin-ups to 7-8 chin-ups while having a 20lbs weight hanged from my belt.

don't want to say that it's better than eating 20g of protein 500 times a day,but it sure isn't worse.

And i do not believe that the body is so retarded that it can't use more than 20-30g in one sitting.

Therefor,my theory is that the body uses everything if you tell/force it to do so.Either it does or it dies.(and as you know,the body has a ****load of ideas that can and will work before deciding to die)

[DriftMonster]

mc, how much more research have you done into this theory? I have not looked at the full study (just the abstract), and the causality between this study and max protein that can be absorbed by the body is circumstantial at best. Has anyone tried other forms of protein with other BV and amino acid structures to verify this (whey, eggs, milk, chicken, soy, etc)?

These are also based on non-exercising individuals (which I noticed you stated in the blog). So, all this is telling me is that the RDA may be right on with their 50g/day recommendation for protein (assuming a large portion of the population is sedentary: an assumption I am willing to take...).



In summary, I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove here, other than self-promotion of your blog. This has almost nothing to do with the bodybuilding or exercising community. I can probably find 1 study proving almost anything in the world and blog about it. Not to sound like an a-hole or anything...

[Insight]

just pointing out - if the body could only utilize 30g of protein in one sitting, it wouldn't mean that you'd have to go to absurd lengths to get your 150g or whatever per day. it might also mean decreased protein requirements for everyone, and an increase in protein frequency requirements.

the argument is that if the body could only utilize 30g of protein in one meal, we'd all run into protein deficiency problems. it might also actually mean that protein requirements are actually just set too high, and that they assume that a significant amount of the protein you eat will be wasted because of this supposed metabolic inefficiency.

so if the RDA for protein for a certain individual is 60g a day, and studies have shown that they're fine on 60g a day, but when you look under the microscope you realize that 20g of that is being wasted... they would really only need 40g a day, but spaced out.

so it would only be a good thing for people if this was determined to be true. that would mean that the studies showing that xxx g/lb of protein per acts as a ceiling for strength gain/hypertrophy aren't taking into account the "protein wasting" effect going on here. so 1g/lb LBM per day might end up giving the same effect as 0.5g/lb LBM spread out in 30g increments or whatever.

just a thought.

[Insight]

also just wanted to say that alan's review basically handles the subject very well and goes extremely into depth, touching on the two studies mentioned in the OP as well.

i suppose the research on this issue isn't quite clear, and at least one of the studies that alan cites mentions that the idea of just giving an amount per day might be too simplistic.

it would be nice to see how the research on this plays out so i don't have to keep spending so much god damn money on protein.

[mc-]

mc, how much more research have you done into this theory? I have not looked at the full study (just the abstract), and the causality between this study and max protein that can be absorbed by the body is circumstantial at best. Has anyone tried other forms of protein with other BV and amino acid structures to verify this (whey, eggs, milk, chicken, soy, etc)?

These are also based on non-exercising individuals (which I noticed you stated in the blog). So, all this is telling me is that the RDA may be right on with their 50g/day recommendation for protein (assuming a large portion of the population is sedentary: an assumption I am willing to take...).



In summary, I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove here, other than self-promotion of your blog. This has almost nothing to do with the bodybuilding or exercising community. I can probably find 1 study proving almost anything in the world and blog about it. Not to sound like an a-hole or anything...


actually the blog posts looks at a bunch of studies that worked with body builders too about adding mass - that showed that the only real big boost was not varying protein amounts, but was doing creatine.

work since then shows that's mainly as well for an initial boost, not something that's been sustained over time. Seems that without juice there's really a limit to how much mass we can build. Makes sense. In nature, unconstrained growth is really a trait of disease not health.

Interesting comment that you don't see the relevance of this post, and that's fine, but it seems like it's engaged quite a number of our peers here who think the question of protein amounts are pretty relevant to body building.

as for what i'm trying to say?

I think that's in the last two paragraphs - mainly about being careful to look at exactly what's in a study - what it claims - and not overgeneralizing from that result, tho it's tempting to do:


So what can we say? well, what the authors also say is of note is that there's been concern that elderly eating low protein diets, mixed with other nutrients may have a blunted protein synthesis. This study suggests that there's no age related effect of upping protein to a certain point, regardless of age. Ok. So both elderly and younger types respond the same to acute protein intake when just eating protein. Good to know.

But once again a lovely finding of an acute response and a seeming logical conclusion (spread protein out over the day) doesn't seem to hold on its own in the larger context as a prescription for action. We may find though that benefits of protein supplementation have other functions than just mass related - like recovery and immune function (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20048505). More food for future thought.

dang.



mc

[Insight]

actually the blog posts looks at a bunch of studies that worked with body builders too about adding mass - that showed that the only real big boost was not varying protein amounts, but was doing creatine.

work since then shows that's mainly as well for an initial boost, not something that's been sustained over time. Seems that without juice there's really a limit to how much mass we can build. Makes sense. In nature, unconstrained growth is really a trait of disease not health.

LOL, i dunno about that logic. note that there's nothing in nature evolutionarily stopping us from becoming morbidly obese.

but mc-, what is your response to alan's article? he posts a lot of long-term studies conflicting with the short-term results.

[mc-]

LOL, i dunno about that logic. note that there's nothing in nature evolutionarily stopping us from becoming morbidly obese.

well while we are remarkably adaptable
1) eventually overeating will kill you and
2) in the meantime - obesity is being treated like a disease because of its effects - so that is like cancer or tumour or uncontrolled growth - http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n6/full/oby2008246a.html
3) the process of becoming obese (unnatural/unhealthful growth) has disease effects on the system - such as the buggering up of insulin response, heart, joints, related.

so i think the thesis holds?

i'm not sure how many folks here, even, haven't responses to a juiced physique with the words "that's just not natural"

- we're now starting to hit a generation of BB'ers who've been on gear long enough to see the systemic effects of this push for "unnatural" levels of growth. So perhaps the thesis holds here as well.

(i don't necessarily mean arnie's - that's largely a T nation only, though he's got wicked arthritis...)



but mc-, what is your response to alan's article? he posts a lot of long-term studies conflicting with the short-term results.

i think that was done in a few posts on page one, if i recall?

nice posts from you by the way. thanks for the thoughtful engagment

best
mc

[Insight]

well while we are remarkably adaptable
1) eventually overeating will kill you and
2) in the meantime - obesity is being treated like a disease because of its effects - so that is like cancer or tumour or uncontrolled growth - http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n6/full/oby2008246a.html
3) the process of becoming obese (unnatural/unhealthful growth) has disease effects on the system - such as the buggering up of insulin response, heart, joints, related.

so i think the thesis holds?

sure, but you were saying that there is a limit to how much lean mass we can put on because uncontrolled growth in nature isn't healthy. i'm saying - why isn't there a limit to how much fat mass we can put on? why didn't that end up happening? why the lean mass barrier?


i think that was done in a few posts on page one, if i recall?

well, the post i see where you address it is here


now what difference that makes in the long hall in terms of body comp over time, not so clear.

thanks for coming back on that wmac222.

mc

what are your thoughts on the long term studies that alan posted? there was one, if i recall, where after a couple of weeks, it was shown to make no difference on nearly any health marker if people ate ~75% of their daily protein requirements in one sitting or spread out.

[DriftMonster]

actually the blog posts looks at a bunch of studies that worked with body builders too about adding mass - that showed that the only real big boost was not varying protein amounts, but was doing creatine.

work since then shows that's mainly as well for an initial boost, not something that's been sustained over time. Seems that without juice there's really a limit to how much mass we can build. Makes sense. In nature, unconstrained growth is really a trait of disease not health.

Interesting comment that you don't see the relevance of this post, and that's fine, but it seems like it's engaged quite a number of our peers here who think the question of protein amounts are pretty relevant to body building.

as for what i'm trying to say?

I think that's in the last two paragraphs - mainly about being careful to look at exactly what's in a study - what it claims - and not overgeneralizing from that result, tho it's tempting to do:


mc

I noticed the blog post you linked to had a study that just compared the effectiveness of protein/carb/creatine. I would imagine that the increase in muscle energy (from ATP and glycogen) should increase muscle strength/endurance, therefore increased weight/reps and in turn hypertrophy. I don't really see what that has to do with the claim of the protein myth.

As for the other study (I don't know how I missed it when I was reviewing your blog), I wish I could comment on. I do not have an in depth knowledge of how they're measuring protein synthesis, so it's hard to comment on. I did notice that it says excess protein will simulate irreversible oxidation. Any idea what that means here? Just gluconeogenesis, ammonia and what not?

On a side note, isn't the optimum window for nutrition no immediately after a work, but beginning about 3 hours and going on for anywhere between 8-24 (depending on who you ask). What about studies showing protein consumption throughout other parts of the day after a workout?

I did not mean to sound condescending about the relevance here, but the main study you posted on seems to just state what the RDA recommends. I don't see any groundbreaking information here. While it is interesting enough to stir up a debate, I'm just not sure there's nearly enough studies on the topic. Hopefully this will be looked into in more detail and this thread will be visited by one of the resident thinkers on nutrition.

I wish I could post more and do a little more research, but it's date night with the wife...

[mc-]

sure, but you were saying that there is a limit to how much lean mass we can put on because uncontrolled growth in nature isn't healthy. i'm saying - why isn't there a limit to how much fat mass we can put on? why didn't that end up happening? why the lean mass barrier?

nice question. i dunno. so

just a guess: something to do with lean mass is a more familiar adaptation and in such cases like height say there are natural limits in healthy organisms; height can be impacted to a certain point by nutrition; strength can be adapted to a certain point by load.

we can only get *so strong* within natural parameters before we start to break the system - perhaps.

Now, that said, it takes a lot for a person to hit genetic potential, and it's not been my experience that athletes who juice say "well now that i've hit my genetic potential i'll use gear" - a great number seem to start as soon as possible.

Also, we know when we hit overload in workouts - push beyond what the CNS can handle for instance, we can hit overtraining and break there, too. I love looking at the difference between athletes on juice doing a bench press and athletes not doing a bp. the whole effort thing is not there nearly as much - something's taking the breaks off somewhere, to be sure. what's going on with the nervous system??

And we also know that - for our design - carry a lot of muscular bulk is not efficient for creatures designed to run, so likewise, in a healthy person, bulk will get to a certain point. Healthy growth in any organism seems to be gaited. Hence gear to break the gate.

Fat storage as an adaptation to input, it seems, breaks in different ways.

We haven't evolved to cope with abundance.
i mean, geeze, look at the cover of the book manthropology - or the humans as blimps in wallie - that's us in abundance - in the research i do, i talk about us as designing work environments for brains, where bodies are just kinda inconvenient brain carriers. i digress.

It seems we were more designed to cope with scarcity, and be on the go. So, we don't have the same mechanisms to flush excess nutrients, do we? I mean look what happens to insulin sensitivity in the presence of a constant glucose stream: it freaks out, shuts down; diabetes is a response from pancreatic inability to cope. THis seems similar to me when a cell breaks - like cancer - and keeps mutating and growing because there aren't sufficiently adapted cells in the environment to kill it.

just guessing. great great question, tho: why these different adaptations?





what are your thoughts on the long term studies that alan posted? there was one, if i recall, where after a couple of weeks, it was shown to make no difference on nearly any health marker if people ate ~75% of their daily protein requirements in one sitting or spread out.


you know i think i did mention that study in the blog post too - let me check (and it's kind of you to ask my views ):



Though there is a 2007 8 week trial that shows that lean mass didn't change to any statistically significant degree, whether people got all their daily protein in one meal or three a day. Whether folks were training or not was not considered. So the question comes up: are acute responses (measures taken at time of ingestion) related to longitudinal responses?


so i guess i'd say gee that's interesting; the picture isn't clear; protein has lots going for it; AND

i guess my further question would be: what's the mechanism here?

since we DO undeniably see this acute limit of 30g in this very particular condition on the one hand, but seem to see the one sitting of mega protein working seemingly similarly on the other - how can this be? what's happening with the protein? is there something to do with a semi-fasted state if you're doing one meal a day that changes protein absorption? no, because that's what the 30g study tested. So what's going on? gosh isn't that interesting. we sure do have a lot to learn about us and food.


i guess that's rather my thoughts. We see these cool responses; we tend to generalize. My initial response was: cool, great news for multiple feedings; looking at other research it's like wow - no not so clear; can't make that claim

In fact i wrote about this the next day in a post called "curb my protein enthusiasm"
http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/02/curb-my-protein-enthusiasm.html

i like the comment by mike t nelson at the end of the post that pretty much says protein: not considered harmful - and heck it's a great nutrient.

so, again, cool - we work in interesting ways and when these seemingly conflicting results show up it's like well, we need to do work to unpack the differences and we're not there yet.

v. nice chatting with you.

mc

[tamintl]

cool

[ewitte]

sure, but you were saying that there is a limit to how much lean mass we can put on because uncontrolled growth in nature isn't healthy. i'm saying - why isn't there a limit to how much fat mass we can put on? why didn't that end up happening? why the lean mass barrier?


There most likely is but when those chemicals that promote it are still present in the food supply the body doesn't get the message.

[RyouBakua]

I usually aim for 50 grams per meal

ive read many articles and have talked to many different people
(a lot of the people saying 30 grams are college people and not bodybuilders)


what ive learned is that its all relative



you guys are free to do as you please

[louifaeth2010]

Your entire post was a non-sequitur.

I disagree

[ewitte]

Couple things about IF. The longer periods without food and ESPECIALLY the protocol on warrior increase the efficiency of normal digestion.

It states in the book 60% better protein absortion. Plus your eating food with live enzymes (if anything is eaten during the day it is RAW and the afternoon meal starts with veggies) and possibly even taking enzyme supplements.

[FrosteaTT]

i could reppz this thread a million times ... thanks for the insights guys.

[Roniboney]

I know this is advanced nutrition so I shouldn't be posting in topics on this section as I am not a certified nutrition nor have done studies on anything but I have been reading a lot of studies and articles about protein absorption - so I want to just disclaim that this is my opinion not facts or statements with backing so I don't get bad rep as I did for posting this information in a thread about wasting protein in nutrition - I will address both questions because I was wondering about the same thing with the IF diet and protein intake - seems contradictory to studies but they do get results - so I will separate facts from my opinion

Facts:
-there are a couple studies that show 30g of lean beef is the max protein that will cause protein synthesis stimulation, and any amount of protein absorbed after that does not promote muscle buiilding
-these studies have been done on sedentary test subjects - not people on weight lifting programs
-different types of protein get absorbed at different rates
-they only used lean beef protein in the studies I saw
-people who have used warrior and IF diets have gotten results
-I know very little about the science of IF or Warrior Diets and will attempt to explain my theory in my opinion down below

Opinions:
-This opinion is supported by others but a lot of modern nutritionists think high protein diets are a waste of money
-is this because of the amount of protein absorbed at a time? or because you don't need that much protein? both? not sure to be honest, for this scenario and hypothesis lets say it's a combination of both
-So say you only need 100-125g of protein per day to build muscle
-You can only absorb 30g at a time apparently
-From reading articles and about I/F / Warrior diets you have 4-8 hour window to eat. I have seen articles that say you absorb and digest nutrients better in your sleep as well. (not supported by hard document just from memory reading on non-supported articles/posts)
-Opinions have speculated max protein synthesis occurs after, and 24hrs after workout.

My opinion / hypothesis:
So, even if you have a 4 hour window to eat in this scenario, and say you can only absorb 30g of protein in 'one sitting.' How long is the time needed between sittings? For this scenario I am going to say 1 hour because I have not seen any studies or information on the length needed in between.

Let's say subject A is on the warrior diet and has a 4 hour window to eat. He worked out before he ate, had a 25g whey shake before and after. Let's say for a modern nutrition opinion they only need 125g of protein per day. They already have 50g of protein possibly absorbed and now have 4 hours to eat. Since whey protein is supposedly the fastest absorbed protein, assume its absorption will not interfere with later protein ingestion. One hour after the shake, 3 hours left in the window, this person has a salad and a chicken breast. 30g more of protein have been ingested. An hour later, this person has another source of meat or whole food protein of about 30g. With an hour left in the eating window, subject A, assuming 1 hour intervals between optimal absorption, has begun to absorb / absorbed 110g of protein. He then has 30g of another protein source, and then 30g of casein protein at the same time. Now that person has consumed 170g of protein, with appropriate intervals for absorption.

This is my point, cliff notes basically.
Even over a 4 hour window you can absorb 170g of protein because of different rates of absorption of the proteins and the timing between eating them. The unsupported parts of this are the interval between absorption periods and the amount of protein you need to intake. Does a high protein diet work because you aren't absorbing all of it - but you are still getting at least 125g that you actually need? I think it would be very easy to conduct a study on this and I wonder why it hasn't been done yet.

Once again - I have no accreditation in this area so I hope someone who does can help explain this a bit more. Most people just simply throw out those 30g studies when they talk about protein in these forums but I am just trying to explain - if they are true - how it could possibly work. Also not mentioned - people in an anabolic state may absorb more at a time? I don't know? and does the body absorb more when sleeping? and does the body adjust to absorb more protein at a time if it continually ingests high amounts in one sitting? I don't know the answers to any of those questions but I think those - if they could be answered - would help shed some light on this subject.

and to both the posters above - I tried explaining how the 30g could be incorporated in an IF diet not trying to disprove either of your statements, just to help add unbiased opinion to this subject.



don't know if this has been answered for you but after a fast your body's ability to utilise protein increase by i think 30 to 50% .Also the amount of protein you need to improve strength isderated

[rbt]

so.....nobody knows.

Ive been reading alot about nutrition and every where their is a study
that says this or that, but no real answers, only guesses

[Iceman1800]

so.....nobody knows.

Ive been reading alot about nutrition and every where their is a study
that says this or that, but no real answers, only guesses

exactly :) The only way to tell is each person needs to monitor their diet and see if and when they make gains.

[bloodsimple1234]

Whenever someone posts sth like this I just get so curious as to how do people that are intermittent fasting or are on the warrior diet get such great results. Let alone results, how the heck do they stay alive if all that protein isn't getting synthesized...

Oh yeah, they also say "starchy carbs only post workout". Well I'm really sorry, but I eat starchy carbs at least 6 times per day. Yes, when I wake up and 5 minutes before I go to sleep. It's just not practical for me to eat all my 450 grams of starchy carbs post workout, sorry.


so.....nobody knows.

Ive been reading alot about nutrition and every where their is a study
that says this or that, but no real answers, only guesses

well if you really study nutrition and bio you can see for sure that 30 g universally is just not true,trust me.

[gixxer0.6g]

So it isn't broscience. I knew it

[DoubleJointed]

I was under the impression meals were absorbed over time, not immediately completely absorbed. If you eat 100g of slow absorbing protein with fat and complex carbs to further slow absorbtion, only ~40g of protein are utilized over hours of absorbtion?