Reply
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Registered User tkdnj's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2008
    Location: United States
    Age: 59
    Posts: 802
    Rep Power: 2780
    tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    tkdnj is offline

    Protein: Do bodybuilders need less than we think? Cancer link? Take a look..thoughts?

    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    In search of V-Taper ectoBgone's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2007
    Age: 52
    Posts: 4,222
    Rep Power: 55352
    ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) ectoBgone has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    ectoBgone is offline
    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.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Bootless Errand ironwill2008's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Posts: 85,695
    Rep Power: 1679789
    ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz
    ironwill2008 is offline
    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
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Powerlifting in disguise induced_drag's Avatar
    Join Date: Jan 2009
    Age: 51
    Posts: 11,950
    Rep Power: 212604
    induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) induced_drag has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    induced_drag is offline
    Originally Posted by ironwill2008 View Post
    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.

    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
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User tkdnj's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2008
    Location: United States
    Age: 59
    Posts: 802
    Rep Power: 2780
    tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    tkdnj is offline
    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.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User Gabbar99's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2014
    Age: 61
    Posts: 1,252
    Rep Power: 43329
    Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Gabbar99 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Gabbar99 is offline
    He has a website, sixpackabs.com, so that makes him a higher authority than any MD or PhD.
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User tkdnj's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2008
    Location: United States
    Age: 59
    Posts: 802
    Rep Power: 2780
    tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    tkdnj is offline
    Originally Posted by Gabbar99 View Post
    He has a website, sixpackabs.com, so that makes him a higher authority than any MD or PhD.
    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"
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Bootless Errand ironwill2008's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Posts: 85,695
    Rep Power: 1679789
    ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz ironwill2008 has the mod powerz
    ironwill2008 is offline
    Originally Posted by tkdnj View Post
    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.
    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.


    YMMV
    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
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Crawling back under rock OldFartTom's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2017
    Posts: 7,420
    Rep Power: 104122
    OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) OldFartTom has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    OldFartTom is offline
    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 !
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Banned LactoseTolerant's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,521
    Rep Power: 0
    LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) LactoseTolerant is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    LactoseTolerant is offline
    Originally Posted by tkdnj View Post
    Ah, that guy. He has a video on IF where he mentioned that leucine is an essential amino acid (correct) but that the human body synthesizes the leucine it needs while in a fasting state (very not correct),
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Registered User AD1985's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2007
    Location: Thailand
    Age: 38
    Posts: 1,046
    Rep Power: 1044
    AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    AD1985 is offline
    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!)
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Registered User tkdnj's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2008
    Location: United States
    Age: 59
    Posts: 802
    Rep Power: 2780
    tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) tkdnj is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    tkdnj is offline
    Originally Posted by AD1985 View Post
    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!)
    Very interesting; this is the first time in a while that I've heard/read that 1 gram per pound had no incremental benefit while in a calorie deficit as compared to .8 grams per pound
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Registered User RK42's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Location: San Jose, California, United States
    Posts: 1,448
    Rep Power: 17151
    RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) RK42 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    RK42 is offline
    Originally Posted by AD1985 View Post
    -- .8g/lb is after adding a couple standard deviations of buffer. The actual upper limit of effect was about .73g/lb
    Below is a recent interview with Brad Schoenfeld. Based on their latest meta-analysis, he says that 1.6g/kg (0.73g/lb) covers the average person. To hit the 95% confidence interval, you need about 2.2g/kg (1g/lb). The specific topic starts about 12 minutes into the video.

    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    Registered User AD1985's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2007
    Location: Thailand
    Age: 38
    Posts: 1,046
    Rep Power: 1044
    AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500) AD1985 is a jewel in the rough. (+500)
    AD1985 is offline
    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
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts