|
-
03-07-2018, 08:10 AM #1
-
03-07-2018, 08:37 AM #2
My thoughts are that I am not convinced he is qualified to interpret whatever studies he is referencing. For starters, his first proof cites a 4-week study on bodybuilders. I assume this means people who are trained and at least intermediate level. So ... no muscle mass difference in 4 weeks from already trained individuals? No big surprise there as four weeks is too little time for trained individuals to have significant muscle growth. Also, no difference can mean different things in statistics. There could still be a trend with no statistical difference according to the technical definition.
I much prefer the work being done by the actual scientists out there like Schoenfeld, Aragon, Helms, etc. Here is a good read from Schoenfeld published recently:
How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle-building
While this is set in the context of per meal, it deals with the overall intake issues as well.
-
03-07-2018, 08:50 AM #3
Topic is covered almost daily in the 'nutrition' forum, usually to ad nauseam levels. Nothing new in that vid, but the shtick about "excess" protein harming kidneys has been debunked many, many times in the past; there is no clinical evidence that any amount of protein intake is harmful to normally healthy kidneys. Eating large amounts of protein might put a big dent in one's wallet though.
As far as the risk of cancer (from eating meat?) is concerned, the studies usually cited are epidemiological; correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.
BTW, the link provided by the vid guy as his citation about kidney problems and cancer make no mention at all of those two factors. I always recommend that people shy away from YT gurus (especially the shirtless ones), and instead, go to sources such as those cited by Mr. Ecto, above.No brain, no gain.
"The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
03-07-2018, 09:44 AM #4
Yep....he mentions elevated BUN. What he fails to mention is that the ranges for "normal" kidney function are formulated from looking at people with "normal" intakes. Of course taking in higher levels of protein will elevate BUN. Couple that with hard training (which products of muscular breakdown enter the blood as well) and you get elevated levels.
That is why it is important to look at the BUN:Creatinine ratio. I flag every physical for elevated BUN, but it is the ratio that is the important indicator of organ stress. Just the singular number does not tell the whole story in guy that trains. Now if you look at the general population, a person that has elevated BUN and does not take in high protein, nor weight train, then yes....their doc sould be concerned.
This is why it is important to find a good GP who is familiar with people who weight train. Same goes for liver values btw.....RAW lifts
635 Dead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mATRBZ0gwdg
585x7 Dead reps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yf2ZkdNNNQ
420 Bench (paused) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ2_Q-TLIB8
535 Squat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdgVaiTi4-8&feature=youtu.be
-
-
03-07-2018, 09:58 AM #5
all good points guys... thanks.... by the way, I know there a million places to discuss this (both in these forums and elsewhere), but my concern is always maximizing gains while making sure I am doing it in a healthy way. Those studies that came out a couple years ago regarding the link between high protein diets and cancer in middle age men really made me consider every gram I ingest. And although they were epidemiological studies, and not necessarily causal, the conversation around increased amount of dietary protein and higher levels of IGF-1 hormone, and IGF-1's effect on tumor growth, made sense. It's a paradox we have to deal with in that IGF-1 is beneficial for muscle growth, but also seems to be related to tumor growth. So, based on that, I am eternally in search of the protein sweet spot; the amount that will maximize my gains while not negatively impacting my health.
-
03-07-2018, 10:07 AM #6
-
03-07-2018, 10:38 AM #7
See my post above (and copied below), don't focus on this YouTuber (it was just an example). But this is a serious topic....
"I know there a million places to discuss this (both in these forums and elsewhere), but my concern is always maximizing gains while making sure I am doing it in a healthy way. Those studies that came out a couple years ago regarding the link between high protein diets and cancer in middle age men really made me consider every gram I ingest. And although they were epidemiological studies, and not necessarily causal, the conversation around increased amount of dietary protein and higher levels of IGF-1 hormone, and IGF-1's effect on tumor growth, made sense. It's a paradox we have to deal with in that IGF-1 is beneficial for muscle growth, but also seems to be related to tumor growth. So, based on that, I am eternally in search of the protein sweet spot; the amount that will maximize my gains while not negatively impacting my health"
-
03-07-2018, 11:33 AM #8
The most current research indicates that there isn't any advantage in consuming more than about .8 gms/pound of body weight of protein. It has been suggested that a bit more may be beneficial in helping to preserve muscle mass during an extended period of calorie deficit (as in a cut). Most trainees, especially those of us who have been training since the days of the dinosaurs, tend to stick to eating more; FWIW, I've always consumed at least 1 gm/pound, and will continue to do so.
YMMVNo brain, no gain.
"The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
-
03-07-2018, 01:50 PM #9
Research? doctor? Phah... They just want to cover up the truth.
This YT guy had excellent credentials, he is an eminent broscientist.
In broscience having big guns is equivalent to a bachelor's degree. A six pack is worth a master's. A big bench.. well that's worth a PhD at least. But this guy had his own YT channel he's like a @#£*^ng bro professor!
Less of this statistical study meta analysis researchy nonsense taken in correct context, can you pout while you curl in the mirror like a true bro professor? no I didn't think so. Please keep your informed factual opinions to yourselves, I'm going with this guy, protein is bad bro ! Protein is bad !
-
03-07-2018, 02:22 PM #10
-
03-07-2018, 04:45 PM #11
There was a recent meta-analysis of more than 100 studies that backed the .8g/lb mark. 2 things I found interesting:
-- .8g/lb is after adding a couple standard deviations of buffer. The actual upper limit of effect was about .73g/lb
-- Studies tracking people on a cut showed no benefit to raising protein either (Thank god for this one, my cut has been so much easier now that I have more carbs!)
-
03-07-2018, 08:28 PM #12
-
-
03-07-2018, 09:32 PM #13
- Join Date: Aug 2016
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Posts: 1,448
- Rep Power: 17151
-
03-07-2018, 11:45 PM #14
I saw that interview too. I immediately raised my protein after. Then I read a page by Dr. Greg Nichols of stengththeory on what the best way to measure volume is. He concluded volume load, effective reps etc each have their weak points and there is no winner. Then he sidetracked a bit and mentioned the reason he found different results from Brad regarding volume load. Basically he said Brad's data was before some newer studies showing that volume load didn't matter (in those particular studies).
He cited 11 sources. Some of them were too confusing for me to understand, but others clearly stated that volume load didn't elicit more growth across different rep schemes.
In general I notice that Brad focuses on his own work more, while Dr. Nichols does more meta-analysis work. I decided to go back to .8g/lb although not with full confidence for the reason you bring up. But I guess I just like lots of carbs too much
Bookmarks