Well, it is the Supplement Science section; not the share your personal, subjective anecdote section. Perhaps you should post research demonstrating the superiority of a high-fat, low-carb diet compared to a low-fat, high-carb diet with equal amounts of protein between groups. As always, getting some results by doing something most certainly does not mean you're getting the best results and that everyone else should follow your methods.
|
-
06-20-2014, 10:41 AM #301
-
06-20-2014, 03:00 PM #302
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Fairfield, Iowa, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 2,446
- Rep Power: 3145
My methods?? Go to the keto section and read dude. I provided a link. There's a whole freaking section on keto with stickies. I linked you to the freaking krebs cycle.
Obviously, keto is medium protein. If you increase protein on a keto diet you won't be in ketosis and your body will store it as fat.
Keep eating your bro diet though and your 3 pounds of protein per pound. More power to you.The journey toward perfection is ALWAYS a path of successes AND failures.
NO REPS LEFT BEHIND!!!
-
06-20-2014, 04:23 PM #303
Just to be clear, I'm not attacking or insulting you or your eating habits. I was just wondering why you were recommending a low-protein diet. It sounds like lack of carbs could be adversely affecting your mood and emotional state . After all, it has been reported that ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets are associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects, as well as lower energy levels, and there is no apparent metabolic advantage associated with ketosis during dieting [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046].
-
06-20-2014, 04:59 PM #304
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Fairfield, Iowa, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 2,446
- Rep Power: 3145
-
-
06-20-2014, 05:01 PM #305
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Fairfield, Iowa, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 2,446
- Rep Power: 3145
-
06-22-2014, 05:00 PM #306
Wow this thread should have been smashed into the ground a long time ago.
BetterThanLife: If he's retaining muscle mass and not losing strength, even gaining muscle, then there is nothing wrong with protein being that low. The study you cited even says that 1.3-1.8 per kg will maximize muscle protein synthesis. 1.3 kg=.588 lb. Going up to 1.8 or even 2.0 is the beyond safe way to ensure optimal protein synthesis. So to say that's not optimal, when for some people .588 per lb is optimal, is misinformation.
He could probably go with less protein and not notice much of a change at all.
-
06-22-2014, 11:16 PM #307
First of all, his personal story of getting results with his current protein intake is irrelevant, because there is no way of knowing if he would be getting better results with a higher intake. Second, going with the lowest amount of protein that a person can possibly get away with consuming before losing muscle or hindering training adaptations is foolish. Keeping protein intake a little higher might confer an anabolic advantage, and at worst, you will simply oxidize the extra protein for energy. It is far wiser to err on the side of too much protein rather than too little.
"For athletes desiring muscle hypertrophy, there is little reason to limit protein intake and relatively high intakes might be the best recommendation... Even if 2.5–3.0 g protein/kg/BW/day is consumed and this amount of protein is more than the synthetic machinery can process, the excess will simply be oxidized. As long as the intake of other nutrients important to the success of an athlete is not compromised, there appears to be little harm in ingesting these high amounts." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434
-
06-22-2014, 11:20 PM #308
-
-
06-23-2014, 01:43 PM #309
I think you're completely missing the point...You questioned his "low protein diet", I told you that even with the study you quoted he is in a safe zone of protein intake. I think you misunderstand the word optimum as well, or at least in this reference. 1.3g/kg of bodyweight is not the lowest you can possibly get away with. It's considered the lowest amount that will give you the best results. If you're not hitting the OPTIMAL amount of protein that does NOT mean your muscles are catabolizing themselves at all. It means you could be doing better. In this study it suggests that 1.3g/kg of body weight COULD be the optimal amount, so when you tell him that is way too low, you are wrong. How do you know exactly what is optimal for him? Maybe instead of telling him he's wrong, suggest he try upping his protein intake as it MIGHT be slightly beneficial to his progress. What you told him was his "low protein" diet is foolish despite the fact that he is MAKING GAINS.
Sure, I'll concede that it is possible he could have better results by consuming more protein. Key word is possible. I'm all for testing the waters to find what works best for people on an individual basis. Show me a valid study that demonstrates that 1.3g/kg of bodyweight will cause catabolism and I'll change my mind, but I haven't seen it.
-
06-23-2014, 02:34 PM #310
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Fairfield, Iowa, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 2,446
- Rep Power: 3145
I'm just going to throw in that before I did the .6 - .8 grams/lb of protein per day, I did the 1.5-2 grams per lb per day and I'm seeing better results now. I started body building in 2003 and this is what everyone told me to do, so I did it. Here in 2014, I've done my research and realized I don't need that much protein and it would be far better for me to consume calories consisting of fats.
The other thing I do is drink an amino drink about 2 times per day.
Like I said, I did that for 10 years and now I'm growing more with less protein. To each is there own. Find something that works and keep doing it, that's the whole idea of body building, correct?The journey toward perfection is ALWAYS a path of successes AND failures.
NO REPS LEFT BEHIND!!!
-
06-23-2014, 03:48 PM #311
-
06-23-2014, 04:20 PM #312
-
-
06-24-2014, 06:14 AM #313
1.3 g/kg was the MINIMUM average for that population, and that was not even based on individuals in a caloric deficit. Additionally, more research has been revealed in the past few years since that publication showing that higher protein intakes are necessary for some athletes. For instance, the estimated mean requirement in endurance-trained women was 1.63 g per kg/day (.74 g/lb) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476478]. However, the 95% confidence interval shows that protein requirements in this population ranged from 1.1-3.8 g/kg or 0.5-1.72 g/lb (i.e. with 95% confidence, every endurance-trained athlete should theoretically fall within this range). You can see how much individual protein requirements can vary between individuals based on nitrogen balance, and even those with the LOWEST requirements still needed to consume 1.1 g/kg as the MINIMUM amount of protein to avoid losing nitrogen (body protein). However, the minimum protein requirements for some athletes will be around 3 g/kg. Given the high degree of variability between individuals, it is incredibly foolish to suggest that 1.3 g/kg is perfectly sufficient for everyone.
-
06-24-2014, 08:45 AM #314
-
06-24-2014, 11:49 AM #315
Wasn't talking to you anymore since you've brought nothing to the table besides your personal anecdote. As I mentioned before, if you have any evidence in support of your recommendations, feel free to present it. I'm always open to learning about research that I'm unaware of, as I seek to hold as few false beliefs as possible. Otherwise, I would keep your subjective opinions to yourself if you're going to give advice in the Supplement Science section.
-
06-24-2014, 12:22 PM #316
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Fairfield, Iowa, United States
- Age: 39
- Posts: 2,446
- Rep Power: 3145
Every study you've brought to the table is subjective and provides little, if any conclusion.
Had the subjects been ingesting protein before? At what rate? Did they drastically increase their protein consumption to get said results? Did they even exercise before or were they new to the gym? How many years did they have of weight training under their belt? Did they have a low body fat % or a high body fat %?
I could go on and on the point is you can throw your "science" in the trash because it's not conclusive. My "personal anecdote" is just as good as the studies you're throwing out.The journey toward perfection is ALWAYS a path of successes AND failures.
NO REPS LEFT BEHIND!!!
-
-
06-24-2014, 03:27 PM #317
-
06-26-2014, 01:52 PM #318
Again, I feel guilty keeping this thread alive but I thought I'd tie this together. I never meant to suggest that it is the golden standard for everyone because that's far too broad of a statement, and I know it's not true. I even respond better to higher than 1.3g/kg and I never doubted that some people would benefit from much higher intakes. What I meant to point out is that there shouldn't be blanket statements such as calling his diet a "low protein diet"when it may very well be perfectly sufficient for him in particular. The fact that he claims to be making gains with his current intake would suggest he is, at the very least, close to his optimal protein intake. I didn't mean questioning his protein intake isn't wrong because like I said, he may very well benefit from a higher intake.
I think we're on the same page here as far as protein intake goes, but I don't think you can accurately tell him his protein intake is certainly too low because you don't know that. Like I said in a previous post, it would have come across better and been much more accurate to suggest he test the waters with higher protein intake because he might benefit from it, as opposed to telling him it is certainly too low. Maybe I'm just too nitpicky or I misunderstood your post somehow, cheers to actually posting science either way.
-
06-28-2014, 06:00 AM #319
Touché. I have no issue with the amount of protein he personally chooses to consume. What I take issue with is the blanket recommendation that others who choose to consume more are going "way overboard", based on nothing besides the fact that he consumes .6 per lb and is "growing like never before." There's no shame in keeping the debate over protein requirements or partitioning of daily protein intake alive, because far more useless conversations carry on endlessly every day in this forum haha.
-
07-20-2014, 09:46 PM #320
-
-
07-22-2014, 04:02 PM #321
-
03-20-2016, 12:35 AM #322
-
04-01-2016, 08:33 PM #323
There are a number of factors that contribute to the absorption of protein from our diet. The first is the source—whole food or stand-alone supplement. The difference between these two factors is that whole food genuinely provides natural enzymes that help in the digestion of protein. Most stand-alone protein supplements do not. These enzymes are very important to the digestion of protein. Why? Because protein is simply so complex, and for that reason naturally puts a lot of strain on our digestive system. Akin to that fact, the type of protein you're taking in is the second factor in the absorption of protein. Not all proteins are created equally, some are more complex than others. And this itself means two major things, that it can naturally take longer for the body to break it down, and that if offers a greater nutritional benefit overall.
By the most general standards, protein is so complex, that the average person isn't likely to be absorbing more than 30 grams per serving. This volume is measured in the complexity of Whey, and is generally going to take the body about 3 to 5 hours to complete this process. Casein protein is slightly more complex than Whey, clocking in at about 1.5 the protein value of Whey. This means that less is more, yet is accompanied by the same nutritional window of about 3 to 5 hours. Egg Albumin is the most complex form of protein. It is insanely complex, clocking in at about 2.5 the protein value of Whey. Meaning, that when you're adding up your protein intake, you're going to need to adjust the measure for each type of protein respectively—totaling somewhere in the ballpark of 30 grams.
If you add Hydrolyzed protein into the equation, you can increase that amount by anywhere from 20 to 30 grams. Why? Because Hydrolyzed protein is a form of protein that has already been broken down into its amino acid counterparts. This means that it's available for direct absorption and prioritization, without the latency of the digestive process, or the poor absorption rate that our digestive system might be suffering from. Why do you need to add more protein? Well, it depends on your dietary goals and the type of exercise you're doing. Some people want to dramatically cut carbs, and this naturally done through and uptake of protein—but whole protein is simply too complex to stack on top of what's already a full measure—and that's genuinely where Hydrolyzed protein would come into play.
That about sums it up in whole, I hope this helps to solves your curiosity.Last edited by xLostxAngelx; 04-01-2016 at 08:40 PM.
.. ... [Red Bar Crew] ... ..
──▄█▀█▄─────────██
▄████████▄───▄▀█▄▄▄▀
██▀▼▼▼▼▼─▄▀──█▄▄
█████▄▲▲▲─▄▄▄▀───▀▄
██████▀▀▀▀─▀────────▀▀
-
04-17-2016, 05:31 PM #324
-
-
04-26-2016, 12:52 PM #325
-
05-02-2016, 04:36 PM #326
Just because you drink it, this does not mean that your body will absorb it. You can drink 200g in one sitting, but you will not absorb it all, you body will take what it needs and either store or evacuate the rest.
Based on this knowledge of how the body works, common sense dictates to spread it out and also take protein when it is believed that the body needs if most.
The 1g or whatever per body weight unit is a general guidance to give an idea of how much to ingest but there is no one mould that fits all, some people will need 1.5 some others only .5 without doing extensive tests one cannot know hence the general guide.
-
05-19-2016, 10:38 PM #327
Bookmarks