Recent protein scuffles involving a recurrent quote of mine

[SumDumGoi]

Once again, I am merely disputing the claim that NO DATA EXISTS showing the benefit of >1g/kg. I whole heartedly agree with you that the majority of the available evidence shows an upper threshold of effectiveness that's below this dose. But once again, we there is a painful paucity of research in lean, trained subjects in sustained hypoenergetic conditions.

Cool, I can dig that. And once again, this is why I would present ranges, i.e., roughly 1.2-1.8 g/kg for maintenance or surplus, & 1.8-2.7 for deficit conditions). this at least gives people the option to view what might hypothetically benefit them give the individual situation.

So I can give someone a range of within "30 minutes" or "within 1 hour" to pound down their protein supplement and you would be cool with that? That would also hypothetically benefit them give the individual situation as well.

The point that I am making is this. Less evidence has shown that protein intakes greater than the current recommendations have any additional benefit on either increasing or maintaining LBM in either a hyper/hypocaloric state than exists for this mythological "anabolic window". However, given the scarcity of evidence that supports this anabolic window you go out of your way to dispel that myth. However, with even less evidence supporting the need for increased protein intakes you seem to have no problem advocating for this increased protein need above the current recommendations.

Keep in mind that the point that I am disputing with you here is from the mechanistic side of either the accretion or maintenance of LBM in association with protein intake. There are certainly other benefits that perhaps consuming > 1.8 g/kg of protein might have, such as its affect on satiety. Since increased protein intake does increase satiety it can have a very beneficial impact on maintaining one's diet. However, this does not make the increased protein intake a need, as much as it makes it an individual choice. By presenting it as a need you do nothing more than create a bunch of neurotic bros who believe they must pound down the protein.

[alan aragon]

So I can give someone a range of within "30 minutes" or "within 1 hour" to pound down their protein supplement and you would be cool with that? That would also hypothetically benefit them give the individual situation as well.

The point that I am making is this. Less evidence has shown that protein intakes greater than the current recommendations have any additional benefit on either increasing increasing or maintaining LBM in either a hyper/hypocaloric state than exists for this mythological "anabolic window". However, given the scarcity of evidence that supports this anabolic window you go out of your way to dispel that myth. However, with even less evidence supporting the need for increased protein intakes you seem to have no problem advocating for this increased protein need above the current recommendations.

I think you're misrepresenting my position here in a subtle but important way. I have not gone out of my way to "dispel the myth" of the anabolic window - rather, I've attempted to put it into its proper perspective, which has everything to do with framing its importance within the specific contexts. I took great pains to explain this here: http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5

As for the protein issue, I have not disagreed that the majority of the evidence is what it is, and the minority I presented was done so to correct the false claim that NO DATA EXISTS in that direction.

Keep in mind that the point that I am disputing with you here is from the mechanistic side of either the accretion or maintenance of LBM in association with protein intake. There are certainly other benefits that perhaps consuming > 1.8 g/kg of protein might have, such as its affect on satiety. Since increased protein intake does increase satiety it can have a very beneficial impact on maintaining one's diet. However, this does not make the increased protein intake a need, as much as it makes it an individual choice. By presenting it as a need you do nothing more than create a bunch of neurotic bros who believe they must pound down the protein.

^Per the bold, I think you are once again misrepresenting my position. I never framed it as a requirement. I framed it as a hypothetical possibility that shouldn't be denied given a small set of data (among other gaps in the literature which I already mentioned).

[SumDumGoi]

Alan is more than able to comment on this issue, but as an observer, I just wanted to say that at some point when the evidence is not as lopsided, as say, whether creatine is helpful on athletic performance, you just have to cull through what is there, exclude the studies that do not fall within your parameters (i.e., rodent studies) and make a conclusion based on what the rest show you.

You must agree that you will NEVER find studies that are entirely limited to trained lean athletes all ingesting optimal levels of protein, and just tinkering with the amounts of protein. Why? Because the funding is just not that big for this target audience. There will always be fat people being studied because of the world-wide obesity epidemic, and the massive money to be made from marketing stuff to that group.

Similarly there will increasingly be a market for old geezers (seen the boost ads?), especially in this area of increased protein intake for minimizing LBM loss.

The point I am making with that study is there are two possible conclusions; 1) nutrient timing caused the benefit or 2) increased protein intake caused the benefit. Which one of those conclusions is true? You can't tell from the available data. However, the findings of the study fly in the face of a pretty well-established volume of research on either side.

However, the point of contention in this particular debate appears to resolve around the issue of increased protein requirements for lean individuals following a hypocaloric diet. Given that this is the argument, that particular study does nothing to support this notion as the subjects used were untrained individuals consuming a caloric surplus.

Other than that, yes, you are correct. There might be a pause in the data in regards to the specified population. However, there is a difference between acknowledging the pause in the data and manipulating the results of other studies to confirm to pre-conceived notions.

[BULLandTERRIER]

You are simply picking and chooses which arena you want to present it in and you are basing this on nothing other than what agrees with your preconceived notion.

Oh, the irony ...

What is your point ?

That there are flaws and drawbacks in the research showing benefit of protein intakes above 1g/lbs. ?

Well, no sh!t ... How much flaws is in the studies showing 0.8g/lbs. to be optimal ?

The whole purpose of this thread is to present the research showing benefit of >1g/lbs. not to recommend 2.7-3.0 g/kg as optimal or more beneficial than 1g/lbs.

After all, the whole topic is still a grey area and making any kind of final recommendation is unwise.

[alan aragon]

PS -- I cannot thank all of you enough for providing intelligent discussion. As of late my debates have been with Paleos who worship at the Altar of Fred Flintstone.

[SumDumGoi]

I think you're misrepresenting my position here in a subtle but important way. I have not gone out of my way to "dispel the myth" of the anabolic window - rather, I've attempted to put it into its proper perspective, which has everything to do with framing its importance within the specific contexts. I took great pains to explain this here: http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5

As for the protein issue, I have not disagreed that the majority of the evidence is what it is, and the minority I presented was done so to correct the false claim that NO DATA EXISTS in that direction.

^Per the bold, I think you are once again misrepresenting my position. I never framed it as a requirement. I framed it as a hypothetical possibility that shouldn't be denied given a small set of data (among other gaps in the literature which I already mentioned).

Let's make this simple. You are trying to say that there is a small amount of research that indicates protein intakes > the current recommendations may have added benefit. Out of all the studies you provided, there is only ONE that indicates this (Willoughby et al.) Even then, if you were to use this study you have to admit that there is quite a stretch in regards to it suggesting that protein intakes above the current recommendations have any added benefit. In fact it would have to suggest that the current recommendations are so far off the mark that the study was in fact able to show not only an increased benefit of protein intakes above the current recommendation, but that there is even further benefit of consuming an extra 0.5 g/kg above a dose that is already 0.5 g/kg above the current recommendation. This is in a population of individuals who has already been well studied in regard to protein requirements (untrained males in a caloric surplus). So yes, if that is where you are going a single, yet highly questionable study exists.

[alan aragon]

Let's make this simple. You are trying to say that there is a small amount of research that indicates protein intakes > the current recommendations may have added benefit. Out of all the studies you provided, there is only ONE that indicates this (Willoughby et al.) Even then, if you were to use this study you have to admit that there is quite a stretch in regards to it suggesting that protein intakes above the current recommendations have any added benefit. In fact it would have to suggest that the current recommendations are so far off the mark that the study was in fact able to show not only an increased benefit of protein intakes above the current recommendation, but that there is even further benefit of consuming an extra 0.5 g/kg above a dose that is already 0.5 g/kg above the current recommendation. This is in a population of individuals who has already been well studied in regard to protein requirements (untrained males in a caloric surplus). So yes, if that is where you are going a single, yet highly questionable study exists.

I'll make this even more simple. We are now both in agreement that the claim of there being no research showing the benefit of >1g/kg under any circumstance (yes, that's the claim) = false. And this was my point all along, perhaps you read too far into it.

[SumDumGoi]

Oh, the irony ...

What is your point ?

That there are flaws and drawbacks in the research showing benefit of protein intakes above 1g/lbs. ?

Well, no sh!t ... How much flaws is in the studies showing 0.8g/lbs. to be optimal ?

The whole purpose of this thread is to present the research showing benefit of >1g/lbs. not to recommend 2.7-3.0 g/kg as optimal or more beneficial than 1g/lbs.

After all, the whole topic is still a grey area and making any kind of final recommendation is unwise.

The point is that there are two possible conclusions; 1) protein timing or 2) protein intake. I haven't chosen a specific side on the issue. I think the study is more of an outlier, because it goes against the established research for either side. However, the is much more evidence supporting protein timing to have a benefit. Most likely, this study has the same methodological flaws as those other studies in this area. I would take the study with a huge grain a salt unless other supporting evidence can be brought to light.

[SumDumGoi]

I'll make this even more simple. We are now both in agreement that the claim of there being no research showing the benefit of >1g/kg under any circumstance (yes, that's the claim) = false. And this was my point all along, perhaps you read too far into it.

I will alter the statement in that no "credible" research indicates this to be true. Certainly not enough to make a recommendation that is nearly twice as high as the current recommendation.

[alan aragon]

HOwever, the is much more evidence supporting protein timing to have a benefit. Most likely, this study has the same methodological flaws as those other studies in this area.

I disagree that there is "more evidence supporting protein timing to have a benefit." Out of 25 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 2 had to be discarded due to incomplete data provision for calculating effect size (ES). Only 3 studies that matched protein intake between conditions met our inclusion criteria for this analysis. 2 of the 3 studies that matched protein intake between conditions showed no benefits from timing. Furthermore, another matched study actually found greater increases in strength & LBM from a time-divided protein dose (i.e. morning and evening) vs. the same dose provided near the resistance training bout. However, this study had to be excluded from our analysis because it lacked adequate data to calculate an ES. Once again, when this gets accepted, I'll be happy to send it over to you.

I will alter the statement in that no "credible" research indicates this to be true. Certainly not enough to make a recommendation that is twice as high as the current recommendation.

You're ignoring, or at least downplaying the fact that I always present context-based ranges.

[SumDumGoi]

I disagree that there is "more evidence supporting protein timing to have a benefit." Out of 25 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 2 had to be discarded due to incomplete data provision for calculating effect size (ES). Only 3 studies that matched protein intake between conditions met our inclusion criteria for this analysis. 2 of the 3 studies that matched protein intake between conditions showed no benefits from timing. Furthermore, another matched study actually found greater increases in strength & LBM from a time-divided protein dose (i.e. morning and evening) vs. the same dose provided near the resistance training bout. However, this study had to be excluded from our analysis because it lacked adequate data to calculate an ES. Once again, when this gets accepted, I'll be happy to send it over to you.



You're ignoring, or at least downplaying the fact that I always present context-based ranges.

What do you think would be the effect of someone's outcome measurements if they were to only consume 80 Calories of carbohydrate 1 hour prior to exercise, then had a 1 hour training session and then were to only consume 80 Calories of carbohydrate an hour after exercise? This is compared to other individuals who have consumed 160 Calories of protein within this time. We are talking about a minimum of a 3 hour window in which the participants only had carbohydrates in their diet. Keep in mind, this was the MINIMUM time frame incluidng the supplementation and training periods. We don't know when these participants ate any of there other meals.

This is speculation on my part, but I would venture a guess that many of these subjects had their training sessions in the morning and could have consumed the CHO or PRO supplement as their breakfast. So there is a potential that the supplement was consumed following an 8 hour fast. Would this have fit your inclusion criteria in your lit review? If that is the case, what do you always say the limitations of the nutrient timing research are again? I forget!

[alan aragon]

What do you think would be the effect of someone's outcome measurements if they were to only consume 80 Calories of carbohydrate 1 hour prior to exercise, then had a 1 hour training session and then were to only consume 80 Calories of carbohydrate an hour after exercise? This is compared to other individuals who have consumed 160 Calories of protein within this time. We are talking about a minimum of a 3 hour window in which the participants only had carbohydrates in their diet. Keep in mind, this was the MINIMUM time frame incluidng the supplementation and training periods. We don't know when these participants ate any of there other meals.

This is speculation on my part, but I would venture a guess that many of these subjects had their training sessions in the morning and could have consumed the CHO or PRO supplement as their breakfast. So there is a potential that the supplement was consumed following an 8 hour fast. If that is the case, what do you always say the limitations of the nutrient timing research are again? I forget!

Not sure whether you're being rhetorical, satirical, or sincere with this question, but in any case I have to go lift & get some work done. It's been great discussing this topic with you - and I mean that sincerely.

[SumDumGoi]

Not sure whether you're being rhetorical, satirical, or sincere with this question, but in any case I have to go lift & get some work done. It's been great discussing this topic with you - and I mean that sincerely.

Kind of a combination of the three. Regardless, it is a scenario that is very likely in the Willoughby study. The took the supplement 1 hour prior to training, the training session lasted ~ 45 minutes and then they took the second supplement 1 hour post training. Although it is a very plausible explanation for the results, my guess is that if that were the scenario that particular study would not have fit your inclusion criteria in your lit review.

[alan aragon]

Kind of a combination of the three. Regardless, it is a scenario that is very likely in the Willoughby study. The took the supplement 1 hour prior to training, the training session lasted ~ 45 minutes and then they took the second supplement 1 hour post training. Although it is a very plausible explanation for the results, my guess is that if that were the scenario that particular study would not have fit your inclusion criteria in your lit review.

Willoughby et al. was included in the analysis. And it, along with the vast majority of 'timing' research didn't match total protein intake between conditions. Separate analyses were done for the protein-matched & unmatched studies; it's a killer paper, can't wait to see it hit publication. Okay, I really gotta go. I'll throw in an extra set of squat rack curls for the bros.

[ummme]

PS -- I cannot thank all of you enough for providing intelligent discussion. As of late my debates have been with Paleos who worship at the Altar of Fred Flintstone.

let's be honest... Fred Flinstone is pretty damn legit...


On a more serious note, very interesting and eye opening debate... thanks to all involved.

[alan aragon]

Question for SumDumGoi, and this is not in the spirit of antagonism or snarky rhetoric. You have dismissed all of the research I've presented for various reasons, yet you haven't specified the evidence basis of your position, let alone identify its methodological limitations. I have said repeatedly that there's a scarcity of research on protein needs in lean/trained subjects in hypocaloric conditions. All we have to go on in this area (in terms of experimental designs) is Walberg et al, Mettler et al, & now Helms et al once it gets published. Willoughby et al is amusing since the results occurred despite both groups consuming ample protein & non-deficit conditions, we have differing speculations about why, yet you're choosing to chalk it up to timing, which is fine. We can place that on the speculation shelf.

If you believe that the case is closed on the upper limit of protein dosing for imparting performance or body composition benefits being 1.8 g/kg for all conditions - regardless of energy balance, training status, or body comp status of the subjects, which studies are you basing this on? Let's pick them apart. If there are incorrect assumptions or misinterpretations of your position on my part, let me know.

[cumminslifter]

Question for SumDumGoi, and this is not in the spirit of antagonism or snarky rhetoric. You have dismissed all of the research I've presented for various reasons, yet you haven't specified the evidence basis of your position, let alone identify its methodological limitations. I have said repeatedly that there's a scarcity of research on protein needs in lean/trained subjects in hypocaloric conditions. All we have to go on in this area (in terms of experimental designs) is Walberg et al, Mettler et al, & now Helms et al once it gets published. Willoughby et al is amusing since the results occurred despite both groups consuming ample protein & non-deficit conditions, we have differing speculations about why, yet you're choosing to chalk it up to timing, which is fine. We can place that on the speculation shelf.

If you believe that the case is closed on the upper limit of protein dosing for imparting performance or body composition benefits being 1.8 g/kg for all conditions - regardless of energy balance, training status, or body comp status of the subjects, which studies are you basing this on? Let's pick them apart. If there are incorrect assumptions or misinterpretations of your position on my part, let me know.

[Quelly]

If whole foods were used rather than protein powders and maltodextrin, for example, those subjective indicators might aligned with the objective findings.

I bet you're right, but the irony is that the use of whole foods rather than the supplements (protein powders and maltodextrin) use in the protocol might have aligned the subjective findings with the objective findings.

I used whole foods + powders, not just powder, for reference, mean intake was ~1850 or so, and like 475kcals was from powder. More importantly, I also analyzed the results using the amount of carbs from maltodextrin as a covariate to see if the source of the carbohydrate vs % of calories from carbohydrate impacted the results, and it did not.

^^ Eric, after that sucker gets published, wanna bet your research will be quote by supp companies for the claim that their product (either protein or BCAAs) enhances recovery?

Wouldn't surprise me

As far as Eric's research it was already pointed out that the specific outcome measures, such as changes in LBM, strength, etc, were unaffected. I don't think this represents your point at all. Yes, there were other factors that were beneficial, such as diet satisfaction, but this doesn't mean that the increased protein intake is going to help preserve LBM, as it appears as though you are suggesting. It just means that there is room for a lot of personal choices with the diet.

Don't want to get into too much depth as this is not published yet....BUT, I did see slightly more loss of LBM in the 1.6g/kg group, .4% more LBM lost by three different anthro equations. Only talking .6lbs and non-reliable measures, but remember the length of the intervention period: 2 weeks. Didn't point out these results as they are statistically trivial in the context of a 2 week intervention, but how would that play out over a 12 week diet? And for those thinking "that could just be measurement error", you're 100% right it could be, as anthro equations have a ton of error.
BUT, the 1.6g/kg group also lost more bodyweight, .6% more actually, which comes out to about .9lbs more weight loss over the two week period, this is also statistically trivial in the context of a 2 week diet, BUT, the measure of bodyweight is highly reliable, we have a lab scale that you can step on and off and you'll be weighing the same to the gram. I would bet on the fact that had this been a 12 week intervention the weight loss would have reached a non trivial significance.
But I'm sure you're wondering, "why should we care about bodyweight???" Well, the other highly reliable measurement we took: amount of skin folds lost over 8 sites was nearly exactly the same, talking .07% different, or .05mm (practically no difference and well within the .4mm technical error of measurement of the tester).
So if fat loss (or more specifically skinfold losses) was nearly exactly the same, and the 1.6g/kg group lost slightly more bodyweight...where is the weight coming from? Well...the energy content of muscle is half that of fat for the same weight and glycogen is 45% the energy content of fat for the same weight. So, if a greater percentage of weight is lost from LBM (which could include LBM, glycogen or bodywater) under isocaloric conditions (which this was), you would expect to see more weight lost the more that LBM contributes to this weight loss...which I observed in the 1.6g/kg group, even it it was very slight and statistically trivial.

Now, I don't want to overstate my findings...these differences in the diets ARE statistically trivial...but you have to remember that's within the context of a 2 week intervention. The discussion of the paper/masters will go into this more, but I think I'll leave it at that.

More importantly, I wanted to address a point someone made about Maestu 2010 not having a control group and not specifically looking at protein intake and rather just having protein intake quantified and tracking LBM changes along with their other measures.
Sure, that study can't be looked at in isolation and have it tell you much...but that's EXACTLY the type of data that can be put into a meta analysis. If the population groups are similar, and the relevant variables are tracked, it can be used as a data point in a meta analysis.
So you can't just dismiss Maestu or you'd be dismissing the idea that you can compare data across studies. Of course you can compare data across studies if the subject characteristics and study designes are comparable, if you dismissed that concept you would be dismissing the entire idea of meta analyses...which I think is a flawed position. Really, you just have to take it at face value...limited, but not dismissed.

[SumDumGoi]

Question for SumDumGoi, and this is not in the spirit of antagonism or snarky rhetoric. You have dismissed all of the research I've presented for various reasons, yet you haven't specified the evidence basis of your position, let alone identify its methodological limitations. I have said repeatedly that there's a scarcity of research on protein needs in lean/trained subjects in hypocaloric conditions. All we have to go on in this area (in terms of experimental designs) is Walberg et al, Mettler et al, & now Helms et al once it gets published. Willoughby et al is amusing since the results occurred despite both groups consuming ample protein & non-deficit conditions, we have differing speculations about why, yet you're choosing to chalk it up to timing, which is fine. We can place that on the speculation shelf.

If you believe that the case is closed on the upper limit of protein dosing for imparting performance or body composition benefits being 1.8 g/kg for all conditions - regardless of energy balance, training status, or body comp status of the subjects, which studies are you basing this on? Let's pick them apart. If there are incorrect assumptions or misinterpretations of your position on my part, let me know.

The reason that I haven't presented the evidence for the basis of my position is because my position is currently inline with the current recommendations. In other words, I am not the one who is making the claim. Is is upon the person making the claim to provide the evidence. I have presented the evidence supporting my position on here many times in the past. I used to have several posts that I wrote up myself stating the evidence. For convenience sake, I am going to refer to this post that WonderPug put together a few days ago:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1122426823

If we are to move on with this debate I am going to suggest that we frame the question in a more specific manner. I am not questioning the existence of studies that have shown protein intakes > 1g/lb to be beneficial or not. I am questioning the existence of studies that have shown that protein intakes greater than the current recommendation (1.2-1.8 g/kg) to have an increased ergogenic effect in regards to muscle protein accretion or the maintenance of LBM in either a hypo or hypercaloric state. Any study that has only compared protein requirements that are below the current recommendation to those that are excessive in regards to the recommendation cannot show this and are disqualified.

In regards to the Willoughby study do you honestly think that the differences observed were caused by differences in protein intake? Keep in mind that the subjects were untrained males in a HYPERcaloric diet. This population has shown that time and time again in multiple studies to have no further benefit from protein above the current recommendation. However, protein timing HAS shown to be of benefit in this group, particularly if the individuals in the study were in a fasted state. That argument should sound familiar because it is one that you currently make in regards to the practicality of nutrient timing studies. Given the very large time frame in which these individuals would have minimally been fasting they could have missed the theoretical anabolism window even if in reality it is the size of a "bay window". (once again, your words). Just apply Occum's razor to the situation and what do you believe is the truth? Do you honestly think that so many other studies regarding protein intake were that far off the mark when they showed no affect on further increases in protein intake? These other studies have included subjects at various stages of training experience including untrained up to highly trained athletes (some of them even bodybuilders specifically).

Also, I have never said the case is closed on this issue. What I am saying is that no credible research exists indicating this to be true. Even given the multiple studies you provided,not a single one of them provided a shred of evidence to the contrary. I shouldn't need to explain why comparing protein intakes below the current recommendations against intakes above the recommendations does not provide evidence to the contrary. I shouldn't need to explain why studies that involved no control groups are not evidence of your position. Although I usually respect your views, I find your research to be severely off the mark on this one almost to the point where I find you to be creating a dishonest argument.

[SumDumGoi]

I used whole foods + powders, not just powder, for reference, mean intake was ~1850 or so, and like 475kcals was from powder. More importantly, I also analyzed the results using the amount of carbs from maltodextrin as a covariate to see if the source of the carbohydrate vs % of calories from carbohydrate impacted the results, and it did not.

Wouldn't surprise me

Don't want to get into too much depth as this is not published yet....BUT, I did see slightly more loss of LBM in the 1.6g/kg group, .4% more LBM lost by three different anthro equations. Only talking .6lbs and non-reliable measures, but remember the length of the intervention period: 2 weeks. Didn't point out these results as they are statistically trivial in the context of a 2 week intervention, but how would that play out over a 12 week diet? And for those thinking "that could just be measurement error", you're 100% right it could be, as anthro equations have a ton of error.
BUT, the 1.6g/kg group also lost more bodyweight, .6% more actually, which comes out to about .9lbs more weight loss over the two week period, this is also statistically trivial in the context of a 2 week diet, BUT, the measure of bodyweight is highly reliable, we have a lab scale that you can step on and off and you'll be weighing the same to the gram. I would bet on the fact that had this been a 12 week intervention the weight loss would have reached a non trivial significance.
But I'm sure you're wondering, "why should we care about bodyweight???" Well, the other highly reliable measurement we took: amount of skin folds lost over 8 sites was nearly exactly the same, talking .07% different, or .05mm (practically no difference and well within the .4mm technical error of measurement of the tester).
So if fat loss (or more specifically skinfold losses) was nearly exactly the same, and the 1.6g/kg group lost slightly more bodyweight...where is the weight coming from? Well...the energy content of muscle is half that of fat for the same weight and glycogen is 45% the energy content of fat for the same weight. So, if a greater percentage of weight is lost from LBM (which could include LBM, glycogen or bodywater) under isocaloric conditions (which this was), you would expect to see more weight lost the more that LBM contributes to this weight loss...which I observed in the 1.6g/kg group, even it it was very slight and statistically trivial.

Now, I don't want to overstate my findings...these differences in the diets ARE statistically trivial...but you have to remember that's within the context of a 2 week intervention. The discussion of the paper/masters will go into this more, but I think I'll leave it at that.

More importantly, I wanted to address a point someone made about Maestu 2010 not having a control group and not specifically looking at protein intake and rather just having protein intake quantified and tracking LBM changes along with their other measures.
Sure, that study can't be looked at in isolation and have it tell you much...but that's EXACTLY the type of data that can be put into a meta analysis. If the population groups are similar, and the relevant variables are tracked, it can be used as a data point in a meta analysis.
So you can't just dismiss Maestu or you'd be dismissing the idea that you can compare data across studies. Of course you can compare data across studies if the subject characteristics and study designes are comparable, if you dismissed that concept you would be dismissing the entire idea of meta analyses...which I think is a flawed position. Really, you just have to take it at face value...limited, but not dismissed.

All I am seeing is that you have unreliable measures indicating that there are VERY small and statistically insignificant differences between your groups in an unpublished paper that has not undergone peer review. I am not holding on for hope that you found the golden goose here to be honest. In regards to the other study, was that paper placed into a meta-analysis? What other studies that were presented had a similar population group that also studied similar variables? Without those conditions being met the issue is a non-starter. In fact, the ONLY thing that particular study showed was that pre-contest diets of bodybuilders are detrimental to the "anabolic state" of the muscle. I file that under "non-exciting research data".

[Quelly]

All I am seeing is that you have unreliable measures indicating that there are VERY small and statistically insignificant differences between your groups in an unpublished paper that has not undergone peer review. I am not holding on for hope that you found the golden goose here to be honest. In regards to the other study, was that paper placed into a meta-analysis? What other studies that were presented had a similar population group that also studied similar variables? Without those conditions being met the issue is a non-starter.

I didn't use null hypothesis testing for my results, so we can't state whether or whether not my findings were statistically significant, nor would I want to as I think that's a very flawed approach to uncovering practical information from research in an applied field such as sports and exercise (see here for more details http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092709). BUT, I completely concur that my measures specifically related to LBM are unreliable (not bodyweight or skinfolds, those are highly reliable) and the effects, as would be expected in 2 weeks, are very small. And yes the paper is unpublished and yet to undergo the rigors of peer review. 100% agreed.
Once my masters has been reviewed and accepted it will have undergone peer review (both reviewers are experts in my field and external to my university, or so I am told, don't get to know who they are), and once/if it gets published it will have gone through peer review again for the journal, and at that point we can certainly discuss it further, but the data will remain the same.

And the point about Maestu being dismissed, I brought that up because it could certainly be included in a meta analysis, no reason why not, and once again whether it is or isn't included in one doesn't change the data. But really I brought it up because it seemed like it was discussed in a very binary way: either it can be considered or it's fully dismissed. Only two options, nothing in between. Kind of the same way one could look at my data: it has not gone through peer review yet, therefore it is dismissed (this is also the issue with null hypothesis testing btw).

I would think in an area with limited data, if the goal is to advance knowledge, it might be best to analyze what is available and make the best conclusions we can vs. find ways to dismiss the data that exists examining the area of interest.

The reason I brought up "if the goal is advancing knowledge", is that I feel like this thread has taken a turn towards becoming a debate, which is not the same. In debate you are trying to prove and disprove points; actively looking for ways to be right and ways to prove the other person wrong. It might be more constructive if we look at new data and the body of knowledge that currently exists, and discuss them in a way that adds to our knowledge in this area.

In debate, the goal is to try to disprove the other person and discredit their points so you win. That's something I am not interested in, as I think that actually detracts from the goal of advancing knowledge.

EDIT Also, not sure why you suggested that you aren't holding out for my research to be the golden goose, it seems that you are implying I see it that way? I did specifically state this earlier

Before I get into it let me put my research, and truly all research in perspective: my study at best will only carve out a small piece of the puzzle, add context and create more questions than we began with. It's not the end to the discussion.

[SumDumGoi]

I didn't use null hypothesis testing for my results, so we can't state whether or whether not my findings were statistically significant, nor would I want to as I think that's a very flawed approach to uncovering practical information from research in an applied field such as sports and exercise (see here for more details http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092709). BUT, I completely concur that my measures specifically related to LBM are unreliable (not bodyweight or skinfolds, those are highly reliable). And yes the paper is unpublished and yet to undergo the rigors of peer review. 100% agreed.
Once my masters has been reviewed and accepted it will have undergone peer review (both experts in my field and external to my university I am told), and once/if it gets published it will have gone through peer review again for the journal, and at that point we can certainly discuss it further, but the data will remain the same.

And the point about Maestu being dismissed, I brought that up because it could certainly be included in a meta analysis, no reason why not, and once again whether it is or isn't included in one doesn't change the data. But really I brought it up because it seemed like it was discussed in a very binary way: either it can be considered or it's fully dismissed. Only two options, nothing in between. Kind of the same way one could look at my data: it has not gone through peer review yet, therefore it is dismissed (this is also the issue with null hypothesis testing btw).

I would think in an area with limited data, if the goal is to advance knowledge, it might be best to analyze what is available and make the best conclusions we can vs. find ways to dismiss the data that exists examining the area of interest.

The reason I brought up "if the goal is advancing knowledge", is that I feel like this thread has taken a turn towards becoming a debate, which is not the same. In debate you are trying to prove and disprove points; actively looking for ways to be right and ways to prove the other person wrong. It might be more constructive if we look at new data and the body of knowledge that currently exists, and discuss them in a way that adds to our knowledge in this area.

In debate, the goal is to try to disprove the other person and discredit their points so you win. That's something I am not interested in, as I think that actually detracts from the goal of advancing knowledge.

Let's be clear, the goal here is to present any current data that indicates protein intakes above the current recommendations to have any further benefit. Does any of the current data indicate so? Other than that, as I said previously , I am not holding on for hope that you found the golden goose.

[Quelly]

Let's be clear, the goal here is to present any current data that indicates protein intakes above the current recommendations to have any further benefit. Does any of the current data indicate so? Other than that, as I said previously , I am not holding on for hope that you found the golden goose.

If we use the current/only recommendations during hypocaloric conditions for resistance trained folks of Phillips and Van Loon for 1.8-2.7g/kg, I'd say no
However, If we work with the traditional 1.4-2g/kg figure being the only ranges for all athletic populations regardless of context, then sure I would say yes. If we take the best controlled studies only on hypocaloric resistance trained folks, and compare Walberg to Mettler, instead of rigidly looking at each study independently, you'll see a decrease in LBM loss as you increase from 0.8 to 1.0 to 1.6 to 2.3. And I would put forth this is a valid comparison as the populations are the same, undergoing comparable training and are undergoing the same level of caloric restriction. Happy to ignore my data if we'd like since it's not peer reviewed yet. The next closest thing is the recent Pasiakos study, great study, but if we want to really just look at the most relevant, best controlled studies of the appropriate population, it can only tell us so much as these weren't resistance trained folks performing comparable resistance training to Mettler or Walberg.

And we have blips on the radar all the way back in the 70's when Celejowa and Homa saw that among the weighlifters in their study who were in a negative energy balance that 2g/kg resulted in a negative energy balance, and same thing with Butterfield in the late 80's, athletes at negative nitrogen balance consuming 2g/kg running 5-10 miles daily during a very slight hypocaloric intake.

[SumDumGoi]

If we use the current/only recommendations during hypocaloric conditions for resistance trained folks of Phillips and Van Loon for 1.8-2.7g/kg, I'd say no
However, If we work with the traditional 1.4-2g/kg figure being the only ranges for all athletic populations regardless of context, then sure I would say yes. If we take the best controlled studies only on hypocaloric resistance trained folks, and compare Walberg to Mettler, instead of rigidly looking at each study independently, you'll see a decrease in LBM loss as you increase from 0.8 to 1.0 to 1.6 to 2.3. And I would put forth this is a valid comparison as the populations are the same, undergoing comparable training and are undergoing the same level of caloric restriction. Happy to ignore my data if we'd like since it's not peer reviewed yet. The next closest thing is the recent Pasiakos study, great study, but if we want to really just look at the most relevant, best controlled studies of the appropriate population, it can only tell us so much as these weren't resistance trained folks performing comparable resistance training to Mettler or Walberg.

And we have blips on the radar all the way back in the 70's when Celejowa and Homa saw that among the weighlifters in their study who were in a negative energy balance that 2g/kg resulted in a negative energy balance, and same thing with Butterfield in the late 80's, athletes at negative nitrogen balance consuming 2g/kg running 5-10 miles daily during a very slight hypocaloric intake.

You have to actually perform the stats on this before you start throwing out claims. This is what I refer to as playing fast and loose with the data. Second, you have me at an extreme disadvantage here. You are throwing out names without providing supporting references. For example, I just combed through the entire thread looking for the reference to "Walberg" and I cannot find it. A pubmed search using the terms "Walberg Protein" and "Walberg diet" also yielded no results. Please learn how to use a proper citation. The same can be said for "Pasiakos". However, I did turn up this article on Pubmed; perhaps it is the one you are referring to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23739654

If this is the article you are referring to it should be pointed out that the RDA for protein is set below what is recommended for athletes. Although higher protein intakes (vs. the RDA which is too low) did show an increased preservation of LBM, there was no difference between the groups who consumed either 2x or 3x the RDA for protein. In other words, there appears to be a plateauing affect that occurs. Both of these groups would have to be used to represent an individual sample group if you were to perform a meta-analysis of the data. Because of this plateau the "potential" findings you are proposing would start to be negated.

[WonderPug]

I used whole foods + powders, not just powder, for reference, mean intake was ~1850 or so, and like 475kcals was from powder.

One quick point that I think hasn't been addressed:

The energy deficit was acute, at 40% below TDEE. That means the subjects were consuming calories about equal to BMR or, perhaps, below BMR.

Clearly, this would not be an advisable cutting deficit and, frankly, the outcome of subjective measures might be dramatically different if a rational energy deficit was used as opposed to an extreme deficit.

What is compelling, in my opinion, is that, even with such an acute energy deficiency, you found functionally no different in lean body mass or strength between intake of ~0.72g/pound and intake of ~1.27g/pound.

[EmperorRyker]

One quick point that I think hasn't been addressed:

The energy deficit was acute, at 40% below TDEE. That means the subjects were consuming calories about equal to BMR or, perhaps, below BMR.

Clearly, this would not be an advisable cutting deficit and, frankly, the outcome of subjective measures might be dramatically different if a rational energy deficit was used as opposed to an extreme deficit.

How is that an extreme deficit? 40% below TDEE is pretty normal for someone that maintains on, say, 2500 kcal. ~1850 kcal doesn't sound extreme by any stretch of imagination. Besides, what difference does it make how big the deficit was? If the argument is that in some circumstances greater amounts of protein are desirable, then this doesn't disprove or invalidate anything. It just means that someone in what you would consider a rational energy deficit perhaps wouldn't yet see the benefits. But if going 500 kcal below maintenance is irrational, what is rational?

What is compelling, in my opinion, is that, even with such an acute energy deficiency, you found functionally no different in lean body mass or strength between intake of ~0.72g/pound and intake of ~1.27g/pound.

I think he addressed the fact that the study was just too short, and that there was a tendency towards a difference. So you can't just discard it. An absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That does make me wonder, however, why do a study on such a short time scale in the first place, almost knowing no difference will be detectable or statistically significant. Or was there reason to believe such changes could be detected?

[alan aragon]

The reason that I haven't presented the evidence for the basis of my position is because my position is currently inline with the current recommendations. In other words, I am not the one who is making the claim. Is is upon the person making the claim to provide the evidence. I have presented the evidence supporting my position on here many times in the past. I used to have several posts that I wrote up myself stating the evidence. For convenience sake, I am going to refer to this post that WonderPug put together a few days ago:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1122426823

Quickly scanning that list, it does not address or acknowledge the scarcity of research examining lean/trained subjects in an energy deficit beyond the studies I previously addressed (aside from Walberg et al). To quote myself (since you apparently don't carefully read my posts): "All we have to go on in this area (in terms of experimental designs) is Walberg et al, Mettler et al, & now Helms et al once it gets published."

If we are to move on with this debate I am going to suggest that we frame the question in a more specific manner. I am not questioning the existence of studies that have shown protein intakes > 1g/lb to be beneficial or not.

Well then you have created a sh!tstorm out of your own assumptions. From the beginning of this discussion, I have asserted that, "Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb." <--- I backed this up with data. You proceeded to make further assumptions.

In regards to the Willoughby study do you honestly think that the differences observed were caused by differences in protein intake? Keep in mind that the subjects were untrained males in a HYPERcaloric diet. This population has shown that time and time again in multiple studies to have no further benefit from protein above the current recommendation. However, protein timing HAS shown to be of benefit in this group, particularly if the individuals in the study were in a fasted state. That argument should sound familiar because it is one that you currently make in regards to the practicality of nutrient timing studies. Given the very large time frame in which these individuals would have minimally been fasting they could have missed the theoretical anabolism window even if in reality it is the size of a "bay window". (once again, your words). Just apply Occum's razor to the situation and what do you believe is the truth? Do you honestly think that so many other studies regarding protein intake were that far off the mark when they showed no affect on further increases in protein intake? These other studies have included subjects at various stages of training experience including untrained up to highly trained athletes (some of them even bodybuilders specifically).

You're claiming that nutrient timing was the crucial factor despite an abundance of total daily protein? Think about this for a second. Why would protein timing particularly matter when total daily protein is high? Logically speaking, the higher the total daily protein intake, the less timing would matter.

Also, I have never said the case is closed on this issue. What I am saying is that no credible research exists indicating this to be true. Even given the multiple studies you provided,not a single one of them provided a shred of evidence to the contrary. I shouldn't need to explain why comparing protein intakes below the current recommendations against intakes above the recommendations does not provide evidence to the contrary. I shouldn't need to explain why studies that involved no control groups are not evidence of your position. Although I usually respect your views, I find your research to be severely off the mark on this one almost to the point where I find you to be creating a dishonest argument.

You are completely missing my point, which hinges upon the lack of investigation of protein needs under certain circumstances which I have reiterated endlessly. To reiterate, there is a lack of research done in lean/trained subjects in hypocaloric conditions. To quote Mettler et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027):

"Whereas there is ample evidence for amelioration of lean body mass loss during hypoenergetic weight loss in overweight and obese populations consuming high-protein diets (18,19,21,24,28), there is little information available on athletic population. [...] Nevertheless, in the only study to date to address this issue, Walberg et al. (40) showed that negative N balance was substantially ameliorated with a high-protein diet compared with a normal protein diet in a hypoenergetic situation in weight lifters. [...] These results do not seem to match those of the earlier study or fit with those from studies on obese individuals (18,19,21,24,28). Taken together, these limited—and apparently conflicting—data make it difficult to form solid conclusions on the effectiveness of high-protein intake during weight loss in athletes."

[WonderPug]

How is that an extreme deficit? 40% below TDEE is pretty normal for someone that maintains on, say, 2500 kcal. ~1850 kcal doesn't sound extreme by any stretch of imagination. Besides, what difference does it make how big the deficit was? If the argument is that in some circumstances greater amounts of protein are desirable, then this doesn't disprove or invalidate anything. It just means that someone in what you would consider a rational energy deficit perhaps wouldn't yet see the benefits. But if going 500 kcal below maintenance is irrational, what is rational?

I think he addressed the fact that the study was just too short, and that there was a tendency towards a difference. So you can't just discard it. An absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That does make me wonder, however, why do a study on such a short time scale in the first place, almost knowing no difference will be detectable or statistically significant. Or was there reason to believe such changes could be detected?

There is an enormous amount wrong with your post, but let's focus on your first assertion, which is bolded above.

A 40% energy deficit for someone with a TDEE of 2,500 calories is not ~1,850 calories, as you state. Rather, it's 1,500 calories.

The rest of the logic in your post is similarly flawed.

[Gxp23]

What is going on in this thread then?

[germaine07]

What is going on in this thread then?

Lots of fun