PDA

View Full Version : New study coming on recomping / high protein



Pages : [1] 2

Mrpb
06-29-2015, 12:14 PM
There was some data leaked from an upcoming study about high protein intakes. I understand they'd like to keep the exact details confidential so I will not post it here, but I will say this: recomping looks a lot more attractive than it's usually portrayed here on the forums. And so does eating 1.5 gram protein per lb in this scenario.

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 12:27 PM
looking forward to details. Glad I kept the recomp approach/ very slight surplus with 2.5-3g of protein per lb

Mrpb
06-29-2015, 12:37 PM
looking forward to details. Glad I kept the recomp approach/ very slight surplus with 2.5-3g of protein per lb

You're eating 390 gram protein????

1.5 gram per lb would be 180 gram if you weigh 130....

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 12:40 PM
You're eating 390 gram protein????

1.5 gram per lb would be 180 gram if you weigh 130....
yeah yesturday in myfitness pal it was 400g

Mrpb
06-29-2015, 12:45 PM
yeah yesturday in myfitness pal it was 400g

Why on earth would you do that? That's so much protein that it may have adverse effects.

PS. "recomping" is not an option if you're as lean as you look in your avi. You just need a surplus. Eating >300 gram protein will likely make it hard to gain weight.

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 12:51 PM
Why on earth would you do that? That's so much protein that it may have adverse effects.

PS. "recomping" is not an option if you're as lean as you look in your avi. You just need a surplus. Eating >300 gram protein will likely make it hard to gain weight. no that was when i was like 114-116 like november of 2013. Plus how would eating more protein make it hard, its more calories and i enjoy it

GING3R
06-29-2015, 12:51 PM
in for later

TypeNirvash
06-29-2015, 12:54 PM
yeah yesturday in myfitness pal it was 400g

Dude, I barely get 180g on a good day.

What are you eating, srs? Are you downing shovels of protein powder? lol

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 12:55 PM
Dude, I barely get 180g on a good day.

What are you eating, srs? Are you downing shovels of protein powder? lol
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/superhippo95?date=2015-06-28

Mrpb
06-29-2015, 12:57 PM
how would eating more protein make it hard, its more calories and i enjoy it

Super high TEF will means you'll need more calories. This study confirmed it and the old one did also. See: http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/19

"the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80 kg person is 285 to 365 g/d"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16779921

SuffolkPunch
06-29-2015, 12:58 PM
In for this

sevenhm
06-29-2015, 01:00 PM
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/superhippo95?date=2015-06-28
Your profile is private brah

GING3R
06-29-2015, 01:14 PM
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/superhippo95?date=2015-06-28

dear god.

29g of fat with 33% coming from packaged meat? goodnight sweet hormones.

sonnydfrizzy
06-29-2015, 01:16 PM
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/superhippo95?date=2015-06-28
This is probably the most disordered eating I have seen in a while.

sevenhm
06-29-2015, 01:18 PM
dear god.

29g of fat with 33% coming from packaged meat? goodnight sweet hormones.
Your name scares me. Its big and angry and ginger.


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/superhippo95?date=2015-06-28
Why is your fat so low? no fruits no veg

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 01:20 PM
Your name scares me. Its big and angry and ginger.


Why is your fat so low? no fruits no veg i dont trac all the oil i cook with, so its probably 20g more. there is veg

sonnydfrizzy
06-29-2015, 01:20 PM
Your name scares me. Its big and angry and ginger.


Why is your fat so low? no fruits no veg
He has an eating disorder bro

GING3R
06-29-2015, 01:22 PM
Your name scares me. Its big and angry and ginger.



yay :)

MrM27
06-29-2015, 01:24 PM
So you started a thread to tell us you have good information that you can't share with us. How kind of you.

TypeNirvash
06-29-2015, 01:29 PM
i dont trac all the oil i cook with, so its probably 20g more. there is veg

You chew 45 pieces of gum a day...? You track your gum?

I hate to give you flack, but your diet is all over the place, man. Serious, I hope it's not like that on a daily basis... Because it looks like you've got a whole lot of revision to do. Would really take a step back, and try to get more whole foods in as well as more fat.

Definitely looks borderline ED.


So you started a thread to tell us you have good information that you can't share with us. How kind of you.

Mrpb always delivers, don't worry.

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 01:34 PM
You chew 45 pieces of gum a day...? You track your gum?

I hate to give you flack, but your diet is all over the place, man. Serious, I hope it's not like that on a daily basis... Because it looks like you've got a whole lot of revision to do. Would really take a step back, and try to get more whole foods in as well as more fat.

Definitely looks borderline ED.



. i actually dont count calories, mrpb asked how i ate that much protein yesturday, so i went on mfp to see for myself.

Mrpb
06-29-2015, 01:35 PM
So you started a thread to tell us you have good information that you can't share with us. How kind of you.

I shared the two most important take aways from it. For people attempting to recomp that should be useful infomation.

TypeNirvash
06-29-2015, 01:38 PM
i actually dont count calories, mrpb asked how i ate that much protein yesturday, so i went on mfp to see for myself.

Well, there's that, at least.

How did you arrive at your measurements, then? Do you weigh your food? Because it looks like the results are over-estimated... Even then, though, I'd say that there are not enough greens, and definitely not enough fats going into your diet (and if it was over-estimated, that's an entirely different set of worries).

Either way, it's not an accurate enough screenshot, but I can already see some sever deficiencies. It's well worth giving your current dietary practices a review. I'm not trying to knock you down, or insult you, just attempting to provide some useful insight.

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 01:43 PM
Well, there's that, at least.

How did you arrive at your measurements, then? Do you weigh your food? Because it looks like the results are over-estimated... Even then, though, I'd say that there are not enough greens, and definitely not enough fats going into your diet (and if it was over-estimated, that's an entirely different set of worries).

Either way, it's not an accurate enough screenshot, but I can already see some sever deficiencies. It's well worth giving your current dietary practices a review. I'm not trying to knock you down, or insult you, just attempting to provide some useful insight.
the only thing i weighed was the meat to ensure my portions were correct, and lie i said i dont normally track and forgot to input the cooking oil which was probably 20+g worth. No i dont eat like this regularly, but my family grocery shops on mon or tuesday and this was literally all the food we had left. My parents, especially my dad are trying to lose weight so they have all that fat free garbage and 40 calorie bread. All of my usual food was gone, so i had to use what was avaliable

DAaaMan64
06-29-2015, 01:44 PM
in for later.

And how do you afford that protein intake? lol

ErikTheElectric
06-29-2015, 05:01 PM
Sonny already touched on it, but you need to get help. ASAP.

MetilHed
06-29-2015, 05:21 PM
Tracks 45 pieces of gum . . . . but not cooking oil.

MrM27
06-29-2015, 06:41 PM
Any specific time frame on when they will release the study to the public?

determined4000
06-29-2015, 06:43 PM
There was some data leaked from an upcoming study about high protein intakes. I understand they'd like to keep the exact details confidential so I will not post it here, but I will say this: recomping looks a lot more attractive than it's usually portrayed here on the forums. And so does eating 1.5 gram protein per lb in this scenario.in on thread
already a member of 1.5g/lb crew

determined4000
06-29-2015, 06:45 PM
hippo
that is probably unhealthy (minus the probably)

SuperHippo
06-29-2015, 06:50 PM
hippo
that is probably unhealthy (minus the probably)
refer to post #24

determined4000
06-29-2015, 06:52 PM
refer to post #24saw it
doesnt change my opinion
Just saying I would advise you to try to "normally" diversify your macro distribution

EjnarKolinkar
06-29-2015, 07:02 PM
saw it
doesnt change my opinion
Just saying I would advise you to try to "normally" diversify your macro distribution


I've qft a lot of your posts over the years but not that you are a mod it seems dirty :p


I've a strange feeling low body mass folks were not used in the trial. Most folks still need only consume sensible macros and make steady gains. Recomp is a game for the heavy folks, JMO.






So you started a thread to tell us you have good information that you can't share with us. How kind of you.


My reputator button will not function.

jonnicola
06-29-2015, 07:31 PM
in for details

/always been a bigger fan of recomping than bulk/cut, will be interesting to read


So you started a thread to tell us you have good information that you can't share with us. How kind of you.

mrpb always delivers

McLarenGTR
06-29-2015, 07:47 PM
so... when do we find out the details

ErikTheElectric
06-29-2015, 07:59 PM
refer to post #24

Rather than try to act like a rude and condescending teenager. You should at least try and accept advice from people that are simply trying to help you beat something that's obviously keeping you from living your life to the fullest.

MrM27
06-29-2015, 08:07 PM
in for details

/always been a bigger fan of recomping than bulk/cut, will be interesting to read



mrpb always delivers

I guess I'll just wait patiently.

FaroukNaas
06-29-2015, 08:39 PM
in on thread
already a member of 1.5g/lb crew

i want to be a part of this crew.

i don't find any added benefits to consuming 500g of carbs vs 600g, so maybe ill switch some macros to protein

DannPM
06-29-2015, 08:54 PM
You talking about the follow-up study to this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24834017

ErikTheElectric
06-29-2015, 10:00 PM
i want to be a part of this crew.

i don't find any added benefits to consuming 500g of carbs vs 600g, so maybe ill switch some macros to protein

400 kcals, won't really make too much of a difference. ;)

Mrpb
06-29-2015, 10:17 PM
You talking about the follow-up study to this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24834017

Yep.


Any specific time frame on when they will release the study to the public?

I'm not sure but by the looks of it I'd say within weeks to 2 months, unless the review process takes longer than expected.

backisassuk
06-29-2015, 10:36 PM
400 kcals, won't really make too much of a difference. ;)

Might be the difference of gaining 0.8 pounds a week and not ;)

ErikTheElectric
06-29-2015, 10:45 PM
Might be the difference of gaining 0.8 pounds a week and not ;)

We're talking about "added benefits" in relation to performance. Not weight gain.

backisassuk
06-29-2015, 11:14 PM
We're talking about "added benefits" in relation to performance. Not weight gain.

sound mate

jamesD1988
06-30-2015, 02:02 AM
0.8g/lb is already 2 standard deviations above the amount of protein seen to have beneficial effects on body composition in all credible studies.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

Mrpb
06-30-2015, 02:11 AM
0.8g/lb is already 2 standard deviations above the amount of protein seen to have beneficial effects on body composition in all credible studies.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

That article is pretty outdated. Several recent additions to the literature suggest benefits of higher intakes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/29/jn.114.208371.abstract
http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/19
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25028958

The upcoming study will be another example.

burnetet
06-30-2015, 06:32 AM
What is recomp?

Domicron
06-30-2015, 06:38 AM
What is recomp?

Body Recomposition is burning fat and gaining muscle at the same time, as opposed to alternating cutting and bulking, which is the most often recommended strategy for improving body composition.

my opinion, fwiw, is that recomping works and is preferable in more advanced lifters, but that cutting/bulking is the simpler way for most people to begin.

jr4
06-30-2015, 06:57 AM
Getting atleast 1.5g per lbs of bodyweight atm, I thought I was overdoing it at 1.5g so I dropped it back down to 1g per lbs, I honestly felt diminished afterwards in comparison, that's just my personal experience anyway.

People say if you want to gain muscle you have to bulk, if you want to lose body fat you have to cut, that you can't gain strength whilst losing body fat, again in my personal experience I've found that to be untrue, I've definitely lost body fat and added muscle in the 2 cuts that I've done, with that said, that has been from points in my life where I had lost motivation, put on body fat and did no lifting for a long period of time to training again 6 days a week again, whether or not that could be confused with a gain in neural strength gains or not is questionable, I do however believe the mirrors told different.

I'd also assume there's many other people here that have found their experiences to be the same or along the same lines.

melDorado
06-30-2015, 01:10 PM
I've been doing this for 18 months and I'm really pleased with my gains. Just ate a ton of protein and trained my ass off. I don't usually mention it because folk might think I'm lying cos y'all seem to say recomps don't work. I'm not saying I wouldn't have gained faster doing cycles but I'm in this for the long term and its fast enough for me and so much easier to do. I've no idea how much I've recomped which is kind of annoying but ive been the exact same weigh right through and look completely different now.

Domicron
06-30-2015, 01:12 PM
imo cutting and bulking is the vehicle by which people learn to recomp.

meaning you go from one extreme to the other and hopefully test different macro ratios (based on performance and preference) and realize how to eat for the best performance.

in the end, no one keeps cutting and bulking forever; the rate of diminishing returns is too high. starting that way makes sense unless you have someone to lead you through the process

FaroukNaas
06-30-2015, 01:21 PM
400 kcals, won't really make too much of a difference. ;)

it can, just not in my situation. 100g of carbs can also make a huge difference, just not in my situation

VinBin
06-30-2015, 01:49 PM
If we as a community react to this study as we do with all "new information," it will be to drastically swing to the opposite camp. Remember when the studies showing 0.8g/lb to be the upper limit of usefulness in a caloric surplus came out, everyone started hammering on low protein as the new way to be. ANYONE posting anything even near to 1g/lb was bashed for wasting money/time/life/etc. Now when 1.5g/lb is shown in a couple studies (and this one I assume) to show statistically significant (although real world usefulness remains to be seen) gains in lean mass, everyone comes out of the forest claiming high protein is the way to be. Already we see posters who have stated massive gains and energy from high protein.

Remember that when there are multiple well conducted studies showing opposite or marginally beneficial results from a given protocol, the real world application generally lies in the middle, one of moderation. I urge everyone to not react to this study like we do with all others (with adherence to extremes and almost religious preaching of studies) and focus on a moderate approach. I sometimes feel these studies (often opposing and changing in conclusion ever few months) are the worst thing for the neurotic, OCD tendencies among those into fitness.

digistp
06-30-2015, 02:31 PM
in.gif

tucci420
06-30-2015, 02:41 PM
i wanna know now

im2small
06-30-2015, 02:43 PM
If we as a community react to this study as we do with all "new information," it will be to drastically swing to the opposite camp. Remember when the studies showing 0.8g/lb to be the upper limit of usefulness in a caloric surplus came out, everyone started hammering on low protein as the new way to be. ANYONE posting anything even near to 1g/lb was bashed for wasting money/time/life/etc. Now when 1.5g/lb is shown in a couple studies (and this one I assume) to show statistically significant (although real world usefulness remains to be seen) gains in lean mass, everyone comes out of the forest claiming high protein is the way to be. Already we see posters who have stated massive gains and energy from high protein.

Remember that when there are multiple well conducted studies showing opposite or marginally beneficial results from a given protocol, the real world application generally lies in the middle, one of moderation. I urge everyone to not react to this study like we do with all others (with adherence to extremes and almost religious preaching of studies) and focus on a moderate approach. I sometimes feel these studies (often opposing and changing in conclusion ever few months) are the worst thing for the neurotic, OCD tendencies among those into fitness.

Yep. Everyone always says the science doesn't lie, well guess what, science changes its mind every other month. That's why I don't listen to a lot of the crazy crap they say, like how it's okay to eat all the egg yolks you want now. No thanks.

Personally, I think that dietary/exercise studies are extremely difficult to perform accurately. There are just too many factors that go into this stuff.

Domicron
06-30-2015, 03:48 PM
There's a big difference between the advice given out in the main Nutrition forum vs the advice given out, by those same people, in nutrition and workout logs.

most of the questions in the main nut are just the same generic question asked 100s of times a day. can you expect people to go into the specifics of a subject when most of the people asking just want validation that their own stupid program actually works?

whenever subjects like this come up, the people who know their stuff tend to fall into the middle, rather than the extremes.

psalms1441
06-30-2015, 04:18 PM
There was some data leaked from an upcoming study about high protein intakes. I understand they'd like to keep the exact details confidential so I will not post it here, but I will say this: recomping looks a lot more attractive than it's usually portrayed here on the forums. And so does eating 1.5 gram protein per lb in this scenario.

lol....here we go.....anyways, by the advice of most of you, i reduced my protein intake, form 375g a day to 225g a day, and have seen a huge reduction in....strength, muscle hardness,and muscle fullness....this is over a 3 month period. SO, could it be, that, MY, body, seems to do very good on a very high protein diet?

Mrpb
06-30-2015, 08:55 PM
lol....here we go.....anyways, by the advice of most of you, i reduced my protein intake, form 375g a day to 225g a day, and have seen a huge reduction in....strength, muscle hardness,and muscle fullness....this is over a 3 month period. SO, could it be, that, MY, body, seems to do very good on a very high protein diet?

Yep. And the study shows positive effects too.

SuffolkPunch
07-01-2015, 12:23 AM
lol....here we go.....anyways, by the advice of most of you, i reduced my protein intake, form 375g a day to 225g a day, and have seen a huge reduction in....strength, muscle hardness,and muscle fullness....this is over a 3 month period. SO, could it be, that, MY, body, seems to do very good on a very high protein diet?
Yes, in retrospect it would have been better to recommend reducing it gradually.

In his latest podcast, Layne talks about your body adapting to high protein intakes, since excess nitrogen excretion is critically important, the way your body deals with protein varies depending on how much you usually consume.

Zmeister
07-01-2015, 12:31 AM
In for full details, it looks interesting...

Luca2
07-01-2015, 04:09 AM
Perma-bulker/wannabe recomper checking in. Subbed!

Gen1GT
07-01-2015, 07:04 AM
I've been "recomping" for a year now, so I agree that the bulk and cut cycle is not necessary. My strength and hypertrophy have both gone up in the past year, and I've lost 153 lbs of fat on top of it.

I love the previous study on protein overfeeding, so I'm interested to see what this one is about. Where did you get preliminary access to it, Mrpb? From Stuart?

Mdenatale
07-01-2015, 07:51 AM
I've been "recomping" for a year now, so I agree that the bulk and cut cycle is not necessary. My strength and hypertrophy have both gone up in the past year, and I've lost 153 lbs of fat on top of it.

I love the previous study on protein overfeeding, so I'm interested to see what this one is about. Where did you get preliminary access to it, Mrpb? From Stuart?

First, good job on the weight loss.


The bulk/cut cycle is necessary even if an efficient way to recomp is found. Recomp may be able to work for someone with a significant amount of fat, but how do you recomp if you are already lean? You have to bulk and then cut. I suppose you could recomp after bulking, but unless you went wild with the bulk a nice easy cut would be much more effcient. Take SupperHippo for example. How could he possibly recomp at what appears to be a BF well below 10%. There is no fat to exchange for muscle.

So my point is that regardless of the details of this pending study it can't possibly reveal anything that eliminates the need for bulk and cut cycles in lean individuals.

Mrpb
07-01-2015, 08:09 AM
Yeah an alternative to cut & bulk cycles would be to alternate between bulking and recomping phases. I haven't really been satisfied with cut & bulk cycles so this is what I'm trying now.

ironwill2008
07-01-2015, 08:10 AM
FWIW, my opinion on "bulk/cut" versus "recomp" has changed since I've been on this site. I used to tout the "eat at a small surplus to keep fat gain to a minimum." Now, I advise those looking to build mass/strength to eat a bit more, and allow a moderate amount of fat gain, which can then be dealt with quite effectively at some point down the road by running a proper bodybuilding cut.


The linchpin to my change of philosophy has been the thousands of posts in multiple forums on this site, from skinny trainees, desperate to add some muscle, but also scared ****less of losing their "abs." As a result, most of these people never get away from having twig arms, chicken legs, and an upper back that looks like a pencil. The endgame for these people is that most often, they become discouraged due to lack of any real mass/strength increase, quit training, and disappear from both this site and the gym.


Yes, I'm aware that different people have different goals, but as long as the masthead says, "BODYBUILDING.com," I'll continue to offer advices to help people to actually start looking like bodybuilders rather than skinny underwear models.

digistp
07-01-2015, 09:00 AM
Yes, I'm aware that different people have different goals, but as long as the masthead says, "BODYBUILDING.com," I'll continue to offer advices to help people to actually start looking like bodybuilders rather than skinny underwear models.
Yeah but.... that would make sense

sonnydfrizzy
07-01-2015, 09:01 AM
FWIW, my opinion on "bulk/cut" versus "recomp" has changed since I've been on this site. I used to tout the "eat at a small surplus to keep fat gain to a minimum." Now, I advise those looking to build mass/strength to eat a bit more, and allow a moderate amount of fat gain, which can then be dealt with quite effectively at some point down the road by running a proper bodybuilding cut.


The linchpin to my change of philosophy has been the thousands of posts in multiple forums on this site, from skinny trainees, desperate to add some muscle, but also scared ****less of losing their "abs." As a result, most of these people never get away from having twig arms, chicken legs, and an upper back that looks like a pencil. The endgame for these people is that most often, they become discouraged due to lack of any real mass/strength increase, quit training, and disappear from both this site and the gym.


Yes, I'm aware that different people have different goals, but as long as the masthead says, "BODYBUILDING.com," I'll continue to offer advices to help people to actually start looking like bodybuilders rather than skinny underwear models.

So. Much. This.

From a guy who has "recomped" his whole career essentially... It requires a lot of patience and you DO NOT add more size (since something cannot be created out of nothing). You just get leaner without losing weight.

99% of the young guys on this forum looking to get jacked need to allow for a moderate surplus and fat gain in order to put on as much muscle as physiologically possible.

Sure, guys like mrpb (I think he is a tad older) or other older trainees might not be in a physiologically optimal state to add a lot of new muscle tissue so a recomp makes sense.

But if you are young and want to get bigger, you must eat in a surplus and allow for fat gain.

Let IronWill and Sonny save you all from years of wheel spinning. The only reason why I feel obliged to say this, is because I have made no gains in 2 years because my weight has barely changed (well VERY SLOWLY gone up).

Surplus, maintain, cut, repeat until you are happy with size.

With love,

Sonny AKA King Wheelspinner

SuffolkPunch
07-01-2015, 09:22 AM
Yeah, I agree with IW, recomping is for peeps who can only gain muscle in small amounts and only need to lose small amounts of bodyfat. For newbies who a) have the potential to make big changes in composition and b) lack the discipline to properly control their days nutrition, I would not recommend recomping.

boo99
07-01-2015, 09:35 AM
Yeah an alternative to cut & bulk cycles would be to alternate between bulking and recomping phases. I haven't really been satisfied with cut & bulk cycles so this is what I'm trying now.

mrpb, sounds interesting, interested in your results on this as you go along

psalms1441
07-01-2015, 09:38 AM
Yep. And the study shows positive effects too.


Yes, in retrospect it would have been better to recommend reducing it gradually.

In his latest podcast, Layne talks about your body adapting to high protein intakes, since excess nitrogen excretion is critically important, the way your body deals with protein varies depending on how much you usually consume.so basically, when i said good things happened when i increased my protein intake to a very high intake , was not in fact broscience, like everyone said it was, and by them telling me it was broscience, was actually broscience on their part?????


also, from the above post, at this point, after 18+ years, i should consider recomping instead of cutting?

Mrpb
07-01-2015, 10:06 AM
so basically, when i said good things happened when i increased my protein intake to a very high intake , was not in fact broscience, like everyone said it was, and by them telling me it was broscience, was actually broscience on their part?????

Keep in mind it's only this study showing these effects, the large majority of the studies have not found such pronounced effects.

And also keep in mind that the average body fat % was around 17%. For someone at higher body fat that would mean less than 1,5 gram per kg.

psalms1441
07-01-2015, 10:18 AM
Yep. And the study shows positive effects too.


Keep in mind it's only this study showing these effects, the large majority of the studies have not found such pronounced effects.

And also keep in mind that the average body fat % was around 17%. For someone at higher body fat that would mean less than 1,5 gram per kg.i read in burn the fat feed the muscle, that 30% of protein calories are burned during the digestion process. is this true?

Mrpb
07-01-2015, 10:19 AM
i read in burn the fat feed the muscle, that 30% of protein calories are burned during the digestion process. is this true?

I'm not sure about it but this study does seem to suggest a similar effect.

psalms1441
07-01-2015, 10:21 AM
I'm not sure about it but this study does seem to suggest a similar effect.hmmmmm interesting, does all the protein you eat get digested? what about my recomp question?

Mrpb
07-01-2015, 10:26 AM
hmmmmm interesting, does all the protein you eat get digested? what about my recomp question?

Going by 5'10", 224 lbs and your march 1 photo I would opt for a slow cut, losing 1 to 1.5 pound per week. Keeping protein high around 300 gram seems like a good idea.

psalms1441
07-01-2015, 10:27 AM
Going by 5'10", 224 lbs and your march 1 photo I would opt for a slow cut, losing 1 to 1.5 pound per week. Keeping protein high around 300 gram seems like a good idea.that march 1 photo i was about 229lbs so im 5 lbs lighter mostly fat id say, Ill get a new photo ASAP



EDIT: also my back and legs are alot leaner than my front :( lol

SuffolkPunch
07-01-2015, 10:50 AM
so basically, when i said good things happened when i increased my protein intake to a very high intake , was not in fact broscience, like everyone said it was, and by them telling me it was broscience, was actually broscience on their part?????


It's not a binary switch between broscience and not broscience.

There is some evidence/conjecture that more protein is better but subject to diminishing returns. The kind of levels you are talking about were way above what's worth doing - and your body adapted to your intake so that when you came back down, it was like someone else going from (say) 200g a day to only 100g a day.

You could probably have achieved most or all of what you did on less protein in my opinion.

psalms1441
07-01-2015, 10:54 AM
It's not a binary switch between broscience and not broscience.

and your body adapted to your intake so that when you came back down, it was like someone else going from (say) 200g a day to only 100g a day.

yeah that makes sense

melDorado
07-01-2015, 01:12 PM
So. Much. This.

From a guy who has "recomped" his whole career essentially... It requires a lot of patience and you DO NOT add more size (since something cannot be created out of nothing). You just get leaner without losing weight.

99% of the young guys on this forum looking to get jacked need to allow for a moderate surplus and fat gain in order to put on as much muscle as physiologically possible.

Sure, guys like mrpb (I think he is a tad older) or other older trainees might not be in a physiologically optimal state to add a lot of new muscle tissue so a recomp makes sense.

But if you are young and want to get bigger, you must eat in a surplus and allow for fat gain.

Let IronWill and Sonny save you all from years of wheel spinning. The only reason why I feel obliged to say this, is because I have made no gains in 2 years because my weight has barely changed (well VERY SLOWLY gone up).

Surplus, maintain, cut, repeat until you are happy with size.

With love,

Sonny AKA King Wheelspinner

I agree if you don't have any fat to lose and are young and skinny then a recomps not for you.
I was older with 10lbs of unwanted fat and already quite solidly built. I think ive converted that 10lb to muscle this last year and a half and soon gonna be trying a long slow bulk.

sonnydfrizzy
07-01-2015, 01:15 PM
I agree if you don't have any fat to lose and are young and skinny then a recomps not for you.
I was older with 10lbs of unwanted fat and already quite solidly built. I think ive converted that 10lb to muscle this last year and a half and soon gonna be trying a long slow bulk.

It is physiologically impossible to convert fat to muscle.

MrM27
07-01-2015, 01:37 PM
I agree if you don't have any fat to lose and are young and skinny then a recomps not for you.
I was older with 10lbs of unwanted fat and already quite solidly built. I think ive converted that 10lb to muscle this last year and a half and soon gonna be trying a long slow bulk.

Hypertrophy is an anabolic process while Beta oxidation is a catabolic process. Fat cells and muscle cells cannot turn into each other.


i read in burn the fat feed the muscle, that 30% of protein calories are burned during the digestion process. is this true?

Yes, it's called Thermogenic effect of food, Protein 20-30, Carb 5-6 and Fat 2-3.

Gxp23
07-01-2015, 01:43 PM
Interesting.

psalms1441
07-01-2015, 01:54 PM
Hypertrophy is an anabolic process while Beta oxidation is a catabolic process. Fat cells and muscle cells cannot turn into each other.



Yes, it's called Thermogenic effect of food, Protein 20-30, Carb 5-6 and Fat 2-3.lol yeah i know i was being a smartelic, sorry

banjoman23
07-01-2015, 01:59 PM
You talking about the follow-up study to this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24834017


Yep.

Must be the one covered in the AARR that came out today then, right? Since the basic results were shown at both a ISSN conference and now Alan's review, I assume it's okay to post cliffs at this point, no?

1) Subjects were "healthy individuals" most of whom had a few years of training, some less some more, but overall I'd call them Intermediates.
2) 8 weeks progressive resistance training.
3) Normal Protein group (1.1-2.2 g/kg/day) vs High Protein group (3.3 g/kg/day)
4) Both groups gained same amount of LBM.
5) Both groups lost bodyfat, but HP lost significantly more (by almost a full 2% BF), and HP was leaner to start too.
6) No negative health effects of HP in numerous measures.
7) Study into review within 2 months and will be published by end of year.

It wasn't a bulk/cut vs recomp study per se, comparing the two protocols to find if there's a difference and if so the scale of it. More of another "recomp is possible" study, but tbh we pretty much already knew that.

Alan's AARR has an interview with one of the researchers with more details and graphs and whatnot, well worth a subscription and read!

MrM27
07-01-2015, 02:17 PM
lol yeah i know i was being a smartelic, sorry

No I'm sorry for being the dummy to post it even after I read it and laughed knowing it had to be sarcasm. Alas, lesson learned.

themonkay
07-01-2015, 02:46 PM
Wow
Recomp
Wow

Brozef
07-01-2015, 05:06 PM
This thread makes me want to bulk/cut/repeat for life.

Canadiantuxedo
07-01-2015, 07:15 PM
So for somebody who is on a tradition slow cut or lean bulk, would .6g per lb of bodymass still be optimal?

determined4000
07-01-2015, 08:55 PM
So for somebody who is on a tradition slow cut or lean bulk, would .6g per lb of bodymass still be optimal?.6?
no, I would say you should be at 1g/lb minimum

Canadiantuxedo
07-01-2015, 09:06 PM
.6?
STRENGTH training -> 1.4 to 2g per KG bodyweight (about .6 / pound)
ENDURANCE training -> 1.2 to 1.8g per KG bodyweight (about .8 / pound)
ADOLESCENT in training -> 1.8 to 2.2g per KG bodyweight (about 1g / pound)
Is this information outdated then?

jonnicola
07-01-2015, 09:17 PM
Is this information outdated then?

Depends what you mean by outdated.

Is it 'wrong'? No; follow those parameters and you'll still see results.

Is there a more 'optimal' range/threshold? Perhaps- this is what we are trying to discern.

Science constantly revises itself but I doubt we will see a complete U turn on any of the major, well understood processes. Much more likely to see tweaks and adjustments to marginal theories.

Canadiantuxedo
07-01-2015, 09:20 PM
Depends what you mean by outdated.

Is it 'wrong'? No; follow those parameters and you'll still see results.

Is there a more 'optimal' range/threshold? Perhaps- this is what we are trying to discern.

Science constantly revises itself but I doubt we will see a complete U turn on any of the major, well understood processes. Much more likely to see tweaks and adjustments to marginal theories.
I end up getting about 140g a day so I don't break the bank. Too early to tell if my results have been sub par though

jonnicola
07-01-2015, 09:32 PM
I end up getting about 140g a day so I don't break the bank. Too early to tell if my results have been sub par though

I think most of us are in the same boat- we are seeing results with whatever we are doing currently, but as this is a lifestyle for us, even small benefits on a consistent, daily basis will yield noticeable results over time.

Hence why all the interest when something like this comes along.

DannPM
07-01-2015, 09:32 PM
So for somebody who is on a tradition slow cut or lean bulk, would .6g per lb of bodymass still be optimal?

I think the biggest thing these all these studies show is the need for more protein during a hypo-caloric conditions (like a cut) in order to maintain or possibly even build (a very small amount of ) muscle mass. Personally I'd run 1.5g/lb if I was eating under maintenance, for satiety alone it does wonders, then you have the (some) studies above showing benefits on top of that.

The tried and true old standard of 1g/lb for a 'slow bulk' works and is easy to remember (no calculator needed.) Yes 0.8g/lb is the latest wide-spread recommendation, but rounding up to cover your bases never hurt anyone.

Not to mention it doesn't even feel like bodybuilding if you're not eating at least 1g/lb!

Mrpb
07-01-2015, 11:16 PM
The information has been shared online now so I guess it's fine to share.

http://i609.photobucket.com/albums/tt179/Vantage72/res.jpg

The normal protein group consumed 2.2 gram per kg, the high protein group 3.3. Average training experience in the normal protein group was 2.4 years. In the high protein group 4.9 year.

So similar FFM gains, more fat loss in the high protein group who consumed more calories.

Mrpb
07-01-2015, 11:24 PM
Is this information outdated then?

Pretty much.

These are the numbers for cutting: Protein needs for energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes are likely 2.3–3.1g/kg of FFM scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.

During bulking I'd go with a minimum of 0.8 gram per lb.


More of another "recomp is possible" study, but tbh we pretty much already knew that.

I agree but there's still a large number of people saying recomping isn't possible for people with several years training experience.

SuffolkPunch
07-02-2015, 12:18 AM
The information has been shared online now so I guess it's fine to share.



The normal protein group consumed 2.2 gram per kg, the high protein group 3.3. Average training experience in the normal protein group was 2.4 years. In the high protein group 4.9 year.

So similar FFM gains, more fat loss in the high protein group who consumed more calories.
Right, so similar mass gains despite losing more weight in the high protein group. Do we know anything about the differences between the groups other than protein and training age? Looks like net calories were lower in HP unless that's just down to higher TEF of more protein. I assume same training protocol?

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 12:46 AM
Right, so similar mass gains despite losing more weight in the high protein group. Do we know anything about the differences between the groups other than protein and training age? Looks like net calories were lower in HP unless that's just down to higher TEF of more protein. I assume same training protocol?

Well they were instructed to keep eating the same amounts of carbs and fat as before the study. Going by their self reported intake the calories in the HP were significantly higher.

They were all instructed to follow the same periodized heavy resistance training for 8 weeks. Training was not supervised.

The higher TEF is indeed the most likely explanation.

Amoxicillin
07-02-2015, 12:51 AM
Right, so similar mass gains despite losing more weight in the high protein group. Do we know anything about the differences between the groups other than protein and training age? Looks like net calories were lower in HP unless that's just down to higher TEF of more protein. I assume same training protocol?

Actually, the carbs and fat were higher in the HP group.

http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AjFMx7yU-9I/VZTsuHpyqZI/AAAAAAAAfGg/e-U5Nx3ST4Y/w1172-h879-no/IMG_20150702_154752.jpg

Identical training protocol. They also enforced subjects don't do any cardio.

determined4000
07-02-2015, 12:55 AM
HP group was eating more at Pre and post assessment
Overall all macros were higher in both pre and post, wth the exception of fat in the pre (= between groups)

wonder why they didn't split the groups so they were the same pre???

Amoxicillin
07-02-2015, 01:06 AM
wonder why they didn't split the groups so they were the same pre???

37 males, 11 females, randomly assigned. Easily explains the pre/post.

The study was checking for liver/kidney damage, not for fat loss. It was a followup to this study: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-11-19.pdf

Edit: Important takeaway from the first study (which didn't show the fat loss)

"Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat."

The second study had a ~400cal increase per day which showed a fat loss, while the first study showed a ~800cal increase with no fat gain.

SuffolkPunch
07-02-2015, 01:35 AM
This is good stuff.

Did they ask the subjects to control their meal timing or protein distribution?

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 01:45 AM
"Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen.

No change is a bit of a loose term. The changes didn't come out as statically significant but the actual data reveals that the high protein group gained ~4.2 pounds of fat free mass on average while losing a bit of fat.

I'll happily sign for this variant of "no change in body composition" in 8 weeks.

And yes I'm aware of the large SD in the results.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 01:46 AM
This is good stuff.

Did they ask the subjects to control their meal timing or protein distribution?

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere so i assume they didn't.

MosToorani
07-02-2015, 01:51 AM
Just to pull your leg here .. Did Dr. atkins know a thing or two more than his peers then?

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 02:00 AM
Just to pull your leg here .. Did Dr. atkins know a thing or two more than his peers then?

I'll react seriously. The high protein group consumed about 230 gram carbs per day. I'd say this style diet may be optimal for achieving positive changes in body composition.

Although the Wilson ketogenic study showed even more positive changes on a sort of Atkins style diet, but thus study hasn't made it through peer review and I don't know if it ever will.

MosToorani
07-02-2015, 02:14 AM
I'll react seriously. The high protein group consumed about 230 gram carbs per day. I'd say this style diet may be optimal for achieving positive changes in body composition.

Although the Wilson ketogenic study showed even more positive changes on a sort of Atkins style diet, but thus study hasn't made it through peer review and I don't know if it ever will.

That's very interesting .. Just to add to my initial point .. I did diet down from 180 KG to around 110-115 KG following the atkins diet as well as doing an hour of cycling a day .. Now whether the weightloss was simply due to overall calories in vs calories out or MAINLY attributed to the TEF effect of protein I'll never know as i never counted calories during that weightloss phase ..

SuffolkPunch
07-02-2015, 02:19 AM
That's very interesting .. Just to add to my initial point .. I did diet down from 180 KG to around 110-115 KG following the atkins diet as well as doing an hour of cycling a day .. Now whether the weightloss was simply due to overall calories in vs calories out or MAINLY attributed to the TEF effect of protein I'll never know as i never counted calories during that weightloss phase ..
It amounts to the same thing. The higher TEF of protein can be compensated for by using something like 3.2 calories per gram instead of 4 when counting protein calories.

So it's the calorie deficit doing the work.

Plus you can have a high protein diet that is not low carb. The HP test group also had higher carb than the MP group.

jonnicola
07-02-2015, 02:28 AM
And yes I'm aware of the large SD in the results.

I was just musing over this..

MosToorani
07-02-2015, 02:30 AM
It amounts to the same thing. The higher TEF of protein can be compensated for by using something like 3.2 calories per gram instead of 4 when counting protein calories.

So it's the calorie deficit doing the work.

Plus you can have a high protein diet that is not low carb. The HP test group also had higher carb than the MP group.

Yes, definitely agree to that ..

Would this study favor a high protein intake for someone who's already cutting at like 1600 - 1800 calories? This would basically mean changing to a sort of atkins diet as the carb intake would then be quite low.

Interesting to see how the new way of 'cutting' would happen .. I think we'll see a new trend of LOW carb diets coming up in the near future.

SuffolkPunch
07-02-2015, 02:34 AM
Yes, definitely agree to that ..

Would this study favor a high protein intake for someone who's already cutting at like 1600 - 1800 calories? This would basically mean changing to a sort of atkins diet as the carb intake would then be quite low.

Interesting to see how the new way of 'cutting' would happen .. I think we'll see a new trend of LOW carb diets coming up in the near future.
I would say an typical adult male cutting at those levels has problems - and needs to either prioritise mass gain or at least take a diet break.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 02:40 AM
Yes, definitely agree to that ..

Would this study favor a high protein intake for someone who's already cutting at like 1600 - 1800 calories? This would basically mean changing to a sort of atkins diet as the carb intake would then be quite low.

On the contrary. It suggests that you can eat at your 'maintenance' (and possibly higher) with 1.5 gram protein per lb and follow a good periodized program with the purpose of gaining muscle and dropping fat.

And keep in mind this is just one (or two) study suggesting this.

MosToorani
07-02-2015, 03:02 AM
I would say an typical adult male cutting at those levels has problems - and needs to either prioritise mass gain or at least take a diet break.

This would be under the "skinny-fat" ageold conundrum. Whether one should continue cutting to lose the bulging stomach or accept the "ugly" bulge and bulk..


On the contrary. It suggests that you can eat at your 'maintenance' (and possibly higher) with 1.5 gram protein per lb and follow a good periodized program with the purpose of gaining muscle and dropping fat.

And keep in mind this is just one (or two) study suggesting this.

would that be more effective than a lean bulk with 1.5g of P per lb?

Come at me bro
07-02-2015, 03:12 AM
In.

Amoxicillin
07-02-2015, 04:16 AM
This is good stuff.

Did they ask the subjects to control their meal timing or protein distribution?


I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere so i assume they didn't.

It was mentioned in the interview with one of the researchers. Points from that are:

* The extra protein was beef protein, which not all subjects were happy with
* Subjects logged with MyFitnessPal, nothing fancy or controlled
* They didn't enforce any other dietary changes, as they were concerned about compliancy

As mentioned before, since it appears the goal of the study was kidney/liver health, the fat loss matter was a side thought.

Interestingly (and possibly irrelevant) the original study was whey and cassein protein, versus beef protein in new one.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 05:28 AM
would that be more effective than a lean bulk with 1.5g of P per lb?

Depends on the individual and what their end goal is.

Simply said though, if your goal is to gain weight you'll need a surplus.

snorkelman
07-02-2015, 05:51 AM
Where are you guys getting these screen shots? It literally looks like you took out your smart phone and snapped a pic of your computer screen. Is it from a presentation that you watched? I confess that I haven't read this whole thread yet.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 06:28 AM
Where are you guys getting these screen shots? It literally looks like you took out your smart phone and snapped a pic of your computer screen. Is it from a presentation that you watched? I confess that I haven't read this whole thread yet.

I had downloaded it from a facebook discussion in Lyle McDonald's group. Worth following if you're into this stuff, like I know you are.


It was mentioned in the interview with one of the researchers.

Just to be clear, I had read the interview in AARR but my point was that the timing aspect wasn't specifically mentioned. And I'm happy to assume they left that untouched too.

About the beef protein, afaik all they said was 'many were on beef protein'.

Interestingly, according to the interview several had to drop their protein intake tot 3.3 gram per kg.

DazzaMUFC
07-02-2015, 07:15 AM
Haven't read all of the posts but do we know the main sources of protein or is it irrelevant?

snorkelman
07-02-2015, 07:20 AM
I had downloaded it from a facebook discussion in Lyle McDonald's group. Worth following if you're into this stuff, like I know you are.


^^ Thanks. He sure is into Batman

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 07:20 AM
Haven't read all of the posts but do we know the main sources of protein or is it irrelevant?

As long as the bulk of your protein comes from high quality protein sources this shouldn't matter.

Mdenatale
07-02-2015, 07:33 AM
The data seems really confusing to me from a body composition stand point. The HP group lost weight in spite of a caloric increase and the increase is greater the offset from the increased TEF of the higher protein intake. The NP group gained weight even though they had a very insignificant caloric increase. Am I reading that right?

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 07:43 AM
^ what it shows IMO is that 'a calories is a calorie' doesn't really work when protein isn't matched.

The NP group slightly decreased protein, increased calories and gained weight. The HP group increased protein and calories and lost weight.

psalms1441
07-02-2015, 07:59 AM
Hmmmmmmm INTERESTING!!!

EjnarKolinkar
07-02-2015, 08:07 AM
Is this information outdated then?

Not at all, especially when its not cut out of context of the entire sticky post, which needs to be read in entirety to formulate a sensible intake.

You are posting one little slice of the whole pie. Which is a bad idea.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 08:30 AM
Not at all, especially when its not cut out of context of the entire sticky post, which needs to be read in entirety to formulate a sensible intake.

I'd argue several parts of it are somewhat outdated, but I get what you're saying.

Gen1GT
07-02-2015, 08:50 AM
Haven't read all of the posts but do we know the main sources of protein or is it irrelevant?

All the posts? You only have needed to read the past 10

psalms1441
07-02-2015, 08:50 AM
I'd argue several parts of it are somewhat outdated, but I get what you're saying.so, Im not into all the scientific stuff like ive stated numerous times, but tell me if i atleast partially understand, I can increase my protein significantly, eat at maintenance and lose fat?

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 09:03 AM
so, Im not into all the scientific stuff like ive stated numerous times, but tell me if i atleast partially understand, I can increase my protein significantly, eat at maintenance and lose fat?

Your situation isn't really comparable to the situation of these athletes. Main difference being that your body fat is significantly higher.

Also keep in mind that their training was periodized heavy resistance training and they were not allowed to do any cardio.

You've asked me for advice before, it stays the same. Try to lose 1 to 1.5 pounds per week. Nothing wrong with 300 gram protein per day if you prefer it that way. It may offer benefits.

EjnarKolinkar
07-02-2015, 09:15 AM
I'd argue several parts of it are somewhat outdated, but I get what you're saying.


And I would argue again, that taken as a whole its sensible.

If you cant find a protein intake that aligns with your goals and personal bias in that thread....

We must be reading different threads.

banjoman23
07-02-2015, 09:16 AM
Thing is, just because successful recomposition is possible doesn't mean that
1) It's optimal, or even "just as good", as bulk/cut
2) It should be generally recommended to most posters here.

It'd be very interesting to see some well-controlled interventions truly comparing the two protocols for the same time period and finding the scope of any difference, but we don't have that yet.

And regarding 2), for most posters progress is already too slow for them and they're a flash in the pan. In bulk/cut ostensible in-the-mirror progress is more apparent, even if on a bulk there's more fat than they think. Hopefully that keeps them around long enough to get hooked.

PS - Currently recomping despite saying this.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 09:18 AM
And I would argue again, that taken as a whole its sensible.


I'm pretty sure were both reading the same Emma Leigh sticky. And yeah I think some parts are somewhat outdated.

Sensible advice? sure, for the most part it is.

digistp
07-02-2015, 09:21 AM
Maybe I missed this somewhere.. just to clarify, the protein intake was based on BW and not LBM?

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 09:21 AM
Maybe I missed this somewhere.. just to clarify, the protein intake was based on BW and not LBM?

BW yes.

banjoman23
07-02-2015, 09:26 AM
^ what it shows IMO is that 'a calories is a calorie' doesn't really work when protein isn't matched.

The NP group slightly decreased protein, increased calories and gained weight. The HP group increased protein and calories and lost weight.

We should also keep in mind the lack of truly controlled diets, coupled with possible extra satiety in the HP group, leading to the reported intakes potentially being a big confounding variable. Sure the study's still a strong data point for higher protein anyways, but that's an awful lot of BF change to attribute solely to TEF.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 09:37 AM
We should also keep in mind the lack of truly controlled diets, coupled with possible extra satiety in the HP group, leading to the reported intakes potentially being a big confounding variable. Sure the study's still a strong data point for higher protein anyways, but that's an awful lot of BF change to attribute solely to TEF.

I agree we need to be careful with those issues.

And I agree self reporting is a limitation. One of the researchers mentioned that they did their best to pick reliable participants. Going by their strength measures and their protein intake prior to the study, I would think they were pretty experienced with tracking their intake.

This is not to say that I have perfect faith in their self reporting, but I do rate it more reliable than the typical self reporting of average people.

Amoxicillin
07-02-2015, 09:41 AM
About the beef protein, afaik all they said was 'many were on beef protein'.

Interestingly, according to the interview several had to drop their protein intake tot 3.3 gram per kg.

FWIW the original study had Muscletech and Adept Nutrition provide the whey/casein protein. The more recent study had Essentia Metabolic Proteins providing beef based protein (check the slide from conference, bottom right).

Why that may be of relevance is that from a compliance perspective. Subjects didn't like it for some reason (taste perhaps?) so they may have overestimated usage of it, or substituted it without reporting it, which is possibly why the interview emphasized difficulty in finding trustworthy subjects.

That may explain the median drop from 4.4g to 3.3g between studies.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 09:49 AM
^ Interesting. Seems like the sponsor ties indeed explain it.

Seeing the results of this study got me thinking, could this be a more efficient way to reduce body fat? Let's compare this to another study that showed recomp effects in trained athletes but who were eating a planned deficit.

That study is Garthe 2011. And there are some interesting parallels and differences.

Keep in mind that all studies carry limitations in them and comparing groups between studies even more.

Both studies were done with trained athletes and both groups spent about 8 weeks in the intervention.

The Garthe study had relatively far more women in the SR group than the High Protein group of the current study. This will reflect in strength measures and body fat % for example.

Although both studies were done with people experienced in resistance training, it's fair to assume that the athletes in the current study were significantly more experienced with hypertrophy training than the athletes in the Garthe study. The difference was likely largest when it came to upper body.

High protein group current study
Males/females: 24/7
Average weight pre, post: ~75.8, ~75.1
Average body fat %, pre, post: 18.3%, 15.9% (-2.4%)
FFM gained 1.5kg
Fat mass lost 1.6 kg
Protein per kg 3.3 g/kg
Average calories: ~2614 kcal
Average bench press: ~88, ~94
Average squat: ~112, ~121

Slow rate weight loss group Garthe 2011
Males/females: 6/7
Average weight pre, post: ~72, ~68
Average body fat % pre, post: 21.5%, 15.5% (-5%)
LBM gained 1.0 kg
Fat mass lost 4.9 kg
Protein per kg 1.6 g/kg
Average calories: ~1940 kcal
Average bench press: ~59, ~67
Average squat: ~97, ~106

My take away:
-when fat loss is the goal, a significant calorie deficit still pays off to prioritise fat loss.
-during a (small to moderate) deficit 3.3 gram per kg might be more than necessary or even optimal.
-optimal rate of weight loss is probably around 0.7% of body weight per week.

Gxp23
07-02-2015, 10:12 AM
Well, im heading to Vegas in 8 weeks and was pretty much planning on maintaining, gonna give this a go to see how things go compared to what I usually go through while maintaining, or, "recomping" so to speak.

psalms1441
07-02-2015, 10:15 AM
You've asked me for advice before, it stays the same. Try to lose 1 to 1.5 pounds per week. Nothing wrong with 300 gram protein per day if you prefer it that way. It may offer benefits.i guess i worded that wrong, I was say me, i was saying "a person could" my bad

Gxp23
07-02-2015, 10:59 AM
This would be interesting also
"Future research should examine very long term consumption of a high protein diet" (e.g. 1 year)

klaximilian
07-02-2015, 11:00 AM
I was planning on recomping on a high protein diet (personal preference) - pretty much forever and on - before I saw this study. Now I'm feeling pretty damn good about recomping.

Mdenatale
07-02-2015, 11:18 AM
^ what it shows IMO is that 'a calories is a calorie' doesn't really work when protein isn't matched.

The NP group slightly decreased protein, increased calories and gained weight. The HP group increased protein and calories and lost weight.


Or it could be tracking inaccuracy.

If your right what would explain the difference? TEF can't explain it all.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 11:32 AM
This would be interesting also
"Future research should examine very long term consumption of a high protein diet" (e.g. 1 year)

Yep and Jose Antonio is currently working on that. 1 year 14 well trained athletes.


Or it could be tracking inaccuracy.

If your right what would explain the difference? TEF can't explain it all.

There probably was some inaccuracy in tracking but going by the fact that they were experienced athletes with likely experience in tracking their macros, the chances of major inaccuracies are relatively small I'd say.

If I was to speculate on the difference in fat loss I'd say the higher protein intake changed things on the expenditure side. This could be that the higher protein group pushed more weight for more reps, recovered better and/or had higher NEAT.

VinBin
07-02-2015, 01:14 PM
37 males, 11 females, randomly assigned. Easily explains the pre/post.

The study was checking for liver/kidney damage, not for fat loss. It was a followup to this study: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-11-19.pdf

Edit: Important takeaway from the first study (which didn't show the fat loss)

"Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat."

The second study had a ~400cal increase per day which showed a fat loss, while the first study showed a ~800cal increase with no fat gain.

Please realize the initial study that is being followed up by this one did not clearly show that at all.

I look forward to fully reading the entire study (including disclosures and conflicts of interest) but Mrpb has already stated some problems that would warrant a closer look. I want everyone to please stop running with these small studies that are not really well controlled, and using them to conclude things that involve so many complex physical, biochemical and hormonal influences. The initial study was so badly done I was shocked that they concluded the things they did. The study was discussed in detail when it came out and most people who actually read it and comprehended it found it appalling the conclusions they came to. I posted a couple critiques of it if you don't know the problems with it:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=161878403&p=1245455073&viewfull=1#post1245455073
Major issues with the first study include:
1. Assuming excess calories are somehow taken in set periods by the body (authors used an "overfeeding" period)
2. All of the excess protein came from protein powder ONLY
3. Both groups were instructed to maintain same training and dietary habits (not controlled)
4. Told to maintain fat/carb as before (not controlled)
5. On average, those in the control group GAINED 0.8 kg (~2lb) while REPORTING a decrease in calorie intake of 250/d and those in the high protein group GAINED 1.7kg (~4lb) after REPORTING an average increase in calories of 800/d. None of these values were statistically significant for DIFFERENCES pre and post 8 weeks!
6. Huge variations among individuals *YOU CANT NOT HAVE THIS IN A STUDY OF <50 PEOPLE AND DRAW SWEEPING CONCLUSIONS FROM IT* THIS IS ABSURD!*
7. High attrition rate

I will hold my conclusions on the methods used on this study until I can fully read it but just food for thought. Understand that most well controlled studies in medicine analyzing complex biochemical situations have thousands of participants, and even then they are concerned with power and generalizing their conclusions to everyone. All these studies on protein synthesis and nutrition have absurdly low amounts of participants (someone mentioned this one has less than 50?) and are very confident in making sweeping generalizations. Why is this? A p value <0.05 does not give you some secret power to say your conclusions are correct regardless of what the actual data/methods show.

I somehow feel that these studies are trying to take advantage of the tendency of all of us to just pick out the headlines/conclusions and assume because it was a "scientific study" that everyone was done by the books. In my experience so far, compared to most research in medicine, studies on nutrition especially relating to dietary protocols have been poorly done.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 01:23 PM
While I think it's good to be very sceptical of these studies I think it's also important to understand the constraints that these researchers have to deal with.

We're talking about researchers of the ISSN. They have limited budgets. Ideally you'd want them to take say 100 people divide them equally, lock them in compounds, prepare all their food, supervise every move they make in the gym, measure all expenditure etc. But running a study like that would be extremely expensive. A study like that would likely not fit their budgets.

Instead of running the perfect study, they decided to run the study as they did. And I think it offers some pretty interesting insights.

But it shouldn't be seen as 'evidence' that 1.5 gram protein is now the way to go because it's not.

psalms1441
07-02-2015, 01:26 PM
Please realize the initial study that is being followed up by this one did not clearly show that at all.

I look forward to fully reading the entire study (including disclosures and conflicts of interest) but Mrpb has already stated some problems that would warrant a closer look. I want everyone to please stop running with these small studies that are not really well controlled, and using them to conclude things that involve so many complex physical, biochemical and hormonal influences. The initial study was so badly done I was shocked that they concluded the things they did. The study was discussed in detail when it came out and most people who actually read it and comprehended it found it appalling the conclusions they came to. I posted a couple critiques of it if you don't know the problems with it:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=161878403&p=1245455073&viewfull=1#post1245455073
Major issues with the first study include:
1. Assuming excess calories are somehow taken in set periods by the body (authors used an "overfeeding" period)
2. All of the excess protein came from protein powder ONLY
3. Both groups were instructed to maintain same training and dietary habits (not controlled)
4. Told to maintain fat/carb as before (not controlled)
5. On average, those in the control group GAINED 0.8 kg (~2lb) while REPORTING a decrease in calorie intake of 250/d and those in the high protein group GAINED 1.7kg (~4lb) after REPORTING an average increase in calories of 800/d. None of these values were statistically significant for DIFFERENCES pre and post 8 weeks!
6. Huge variations among individuals *YOU CANT NOT HAVE THIS IN A STUDY OF <50 PEOPLE AND DRAW SWEEPING CONCLUSIONS FROM IT* THIS IS ABSURD!*
7. High attrition rate

I will hold my conclusions on the methods used on this study until I can fully read it but just food for thought. Understand that most well controlled studies in medicine analyzing complex biochemical situations have thousands of participants, and even then they are concerned with power and generalizing their conclusions to everyone. All these studies on protein synthesis and nutrition have absurdly low amounts of participants (someone mentioned this one has less than 50?) and are very confident in making sweeping generalizations. Why is this? A p value <0.05 does not give you some secret power to say your conclusions are correct regardless of what the actual data/methods show.

I somehow feel that these studies are trying to take advantage of the tendency of all of us to just pick out the headlines/conclusions and assume because it was a "scientific study" that everyone was done by the books. In my experience so far, compared to most research in medicine, studies on nutrition especially relating to dietary protocols have been poorly done. is there anyway to do a completely controlled study in nutrition and supplementation?

VinBin
07-02-2015, 01:48 PM
is there anyway to do a completely controlled study in nutrition and supplementation?

In a perfect hypothetical situation, sure. But like Mrpb alluded to above there are severe constraints in financing (why a lot of these studies are sponsored by fitness/supplement companies and raise issues with conflicts of interest), participants, manpower, facilities, etc. Compared to billion dollar drug studies or those funded by major universities, these studies have nothing to work with.

So it is easier in general with more financial backing and support, as these studies are not the most popular to the general population. It is a bit easier in a pharmaceutical drug situation since you have a target audience and are trying to see if a medication works in that group. The problem with fitness/nutrition is that your audience is so vast and different. It is not like saying you are going to only target people with high blood pressure with a medication. You have people with different metabolic differences, age, sex, years of training, current or past anabolic/steroid/drug use, training regimen, nutrition outside of whatever supplement you are testing, etc. Further these studies cannot really monitor people outside of their appointments with follow up in the study, so there is a huge lack of consistency and adherence to whatever criteria the study puts out.

So I agree that it is more difficult to conduct "good" studies in the area of fitness, but that isn't an excuse to put out weak studies and conclude things you shouldn't. I am not saying the authors have some intent to deceive but they should realize that their studies have major limitations and clearly state that in the abstract, conclusion, etc. This is my biggest issue. Even if they just reiterated that their studies are mostly to create further interest and warranted more research, I would be ok. I just hate seeing their "conclusions" applied to the general population of individuals in fitness, because that is most definitely incorrect.

So to address Mrpb, I don't fault them for working with what limited resources they have. I fault them for their presentation of the data in a way that is inaccurate.

ss4vegeta1
07-02-2015, 02:03 PM
I am lost can someone please restate whats going on?

I know I am off track but is this only about recomp, cutting or bulking?

Bulking lower protein intake, cutting higher protein intake? So lost.

sonnydfrizzy
07-02-2015, 02:33 PM
We should not make conclusions off of one study.

The stickies and guidelines for protein intake are there for a reason... They are determined by a META ANALYSIS of hundreds of studies (not just one) to ensure the most accurate information as possible.

I would have to see further research to make any conclusions.

Also, let's not forget individual variances in each study. Everyone responds differently to different intakes.. so n=1 and see what works.

DazzaMUFC
07-02-2015, 02:39 PM
All the posts? You only have needed to read the past 10
My attention span doesnt stretch that far.

grouchyjarhead
07-02-2015, 06:14 PM
There was some data leaked from an upcoming study about high protein intakes. I understand they'd like to keep the exact details confidential so I will not post it here, but I will say this: recomping looks a lot more attractive than it's usually portrayed here on the forums. And so does eating 1.5 gram protein per lb in this scenario.

I'm in for it. I've been eating this way ever since I started reading Mauro DiPasquale's works and have seen far better benefits eating higher protein than I did for the first several years of training I did.

EjnarKolinkar
07-02-2015, 07:43 PM
is there anyway to do a completely controlled study in nutrition and supplementation?

IDK, I think it makes sense to keep the cart in front of the horse though. Picking at studies is just a way to keep from getting all goo goo eyes at something shiny :p, or letting one's bias (mine) make all the decisions without fair consideration.

Lots of study out there that does not really deliver much in the way of actionable data, but still may gather some interesting data. Thing is if you want me to change off of generally accepted norms to something else, you need to have some persuasive power. If your persuasive power is low, don't expect me to sign up, especially as the protocols deviation from the norm increases and the perceived potential benefit remains on the smaller side or is very difficult to prove, or observe. If it starts to look like gambling, it really isn't a very strong argument to change.


JMO, just how I look at this stuff in general, and has nothing really to do with the study ITT.

Mrpb
07-02-2015, 10:39 PM
I am lost can someone please restate whats going on?

I know I am off track but is this only about recomp, cutting or bulking?

Bulking lower protein intake, cutting higher protein intake? So lost.

If you're trying to gain muscle mass (assuming you're lean enough) bulking is likely the fastest way to do it, at the expense of some fat gain. During a bulk, 0.8 gram protein per lb is likely enough. More may be useful.

If you're trying to reduce body fat, cutting is the fastest way to do it. Protein should be 2.3–3.1g/kg of fat free mass scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.

If you're trying to gain muscle while reduce body fat, the study at hand suggests you could do so by eating somewhat above maintenance* and ~1.5 gram protein per lb.

Now whether you want to trust a single study you'll have to decide for yourself. But you can test the recomp option for yourself to see if it works. If you notice your weight consistently going up then you're more in the 'bulking zone' than in the 'recomping zone'. And even in the bulking zone recomp effects can happen of course. While you're doing the recomp option you should be seeing consistent progress on your lifts. If not, it's likely you're not gaining muscle.

* what your maintenance was with ~1 gram protein per lb.

benh2
07-03-2015, 12:48 AM
If you're trying to gain muscle while reduce body fat, the study at hand suggests you could do so by eating somewhat above maintenance* and ~1.5 gram protein per lb.

* what your maintenance was with ~1 gram protein per lb.

I'm coming off a cut, so count me as a test subject for this.

Gen1GT
07-03-2015, 04:14 AM
I know it's tempting to look at studies like this and the previous, and to judge them based on poor control, but let's use some common sense. Results are results, and if studies like these were all over the map, one could easily question the results of individual studies. But when there are trends in studies that correlate to the same effect, it makes me notice.

Just as with Alan Aragon's meta-analysis of protein timing for the benefit of MPS, where he brushed off myriad studies showing positive correlation between meal-timing and MPS because the results were statistically small, but any time studies show positive correlations, we should take notice. In Alan's study, the vast majority of the studies showed at least some positive correlation between meal-timing and muscle gain, however little. That can't be ignored.

Just as with these past two studies. Even with the poor control of the study, with it's self-reported nature of the nutritional information, the results are both trending towards positive correlation. I agree that more larger studies need to be done before this concept is written in stone, but I'm content to err on the side of high-protein. What's the harm? Most of you are aware of the convoluted metabolic pathway of turning protein into fat (near impossible) or urea (the most likely and most thermogenic pathway), so why is it so hard to believe a hyper-caloric, high-protein diet would result the same as these studies?

Mrpb
07-03-2015, 05:03 AM
I agree that it's interesting to look for trends. The important take away IMO from the first and second Antonio study is that it seems we can increase protein from ~1.0 gram per lb to ~1.5 gram per lb without gaining fat (while keeping carbs and fat the same).

My limited experience with bulking at ~1.5 gram protein per lb seems to confirm this. I did not gain weight on my normal bulking calories. When I dropped protein to my normal ~1.0 gram per lb I started gaining weight again.

muruku
07-03-2015, 05:05 AM
I agree that it's interesting to look for trends. The important take away IMO from the first and second Antonio study is that it seems we can increase protein from ~1.0 gram per lb to ~1.5 gram per lb without gaining fat (while keeping carbs and fat the same).

My limited experience with bulking at ~1.5 gram protein per lb seems to confirm this. I did not gain weight on my normal bulking calories. When I dropped protein to my normal ~1.0 gram per lb I started gaining weight again.

u dropped protein but kept cals the same and started gaining weight?

Mrpb
07-03-2015, 05:10 AM
u dropped protein but kept cals the same and started gaining weight?

Yep 3400 calories with 1.5 gr/lb protein seems to affect my body differently than 3400 calories with 1 gr/lb protein. No weight gain with the former, weight gain with the latter.

Just like the study suggests.

muruku
07-03-2015, 05:22 AM
Yep 3400 calories with 1.5 gr/lb protein seems to affect my body differently than 3400 calories with 1 gr/lb protein. No weight gain with the former, weight gain with the latter.

Just like the study suggests.

which macro did u increase to make up the calories?

could it be that protein helps with satiety > less prone to snacking > better adherence to diet?

is this the first study - http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/new-study-on-protein-overfeeding-a-critical-analysis/ ?

edit; reading the discussion @ bodyrecomposition group now, seems like you had the same conclusion as me

the study differs slightly from your scenario though, from my understanding, they dropped protein but did not make up for the difference in calories?

Mrpb
07-03-2015, 05:26 AM
which macro did u increase to make up the calories?

Both carbs and fat, no fixed ratio.



could it be that protein helps with satiety > less prone to snacking > better adherence to diet?


In general that's true but doesn't really apply to me because I track everything meticulously.



is this the first study - http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/new-study-on-protein-overfeeding-a-critical-analysis/ ?

yes.

benh2
07-03-2015, 05:35 AM
Just done a calculation for my maintenance period. By increasing protein from 1g to 1.5g, my maintenance rises from ~2657kcal to ~3014kcal.

I like that.

Mrpb
07-03-2015, 05:43 AM
Just done a calculation for my maintenance period. By increasing protein from 1g to 1.5g, my maintenance rises from ~2657kcal to ~3014kcal.


Hopefully you realize this is in theory. Whether it holds true for you is something you'll need to test.

Please share your results here after a few weeks.

benh2
07-03-2015, 06:05 AM
Hopefully you realize this is in theory. Whether it holds true for you is something you'll need to test.

Please share your results here after a few weeks.

Oh yes I know that. I will be certain to share results.

EjnarKolinkar
07-03-2015, 06:42 AM
Just done a calculation for my maintenance period. By increasing protein from 1g to 1.5g, my maintenance rises from ~2657kcal to ~3014kcal.

I like that.




































I've got an idea, why don't you just eat more and make some gainz? Hopefully this maintenance period is very short, and you don't feel the need to load up on protein just to feel full.

benh2
07-03-2015, 06:48 AM
I've got an idea, why don't you just eat more and make some gainz? Hopefully this maintenance period is very short, and you don't feel the need to load up on protein just to feel full.

I'm making the transition from cut to bulk. I stop at maintenance for a week anyway so I might as well extend that to a few weeks for the purposes of (dis)proving this study.

EjnarKolinkar
07-03-2015, 06:56 AM
I'm making the transition from cut to bulk. I stop at maintenance for a week anyway so I might as well extend that to a few weeks for the purposes of (dis)proving this study.

1 week won't (dis)prove anything my friend, just focus on yourself and your goals. Good luck with the mass gain.

benh2
07-03-2015, 06:59 AM
1 week won't (dis)prove anything my friend, just focus on yourself and your goals. Good luck with the mass gain.

I may have typed that badly. When moving cut>bulk or bulk>cut, I transition slowly week to week (takes about 6 weeks to fully cycle from one to the other). Within that six weeks, one of those weeks happens to be at maintenance. I meant that while I'm in the process of transitioning anyway, when I hit that maintenance week I'll stick to it for about 4 weeks to see if this theory works, then carry on to my bulk after that.

ss4vegeta1
07-03-2015, 07:25 AM
If you're trying to gain muscle mass (assuming you're lean enough) bulking is likely the fastest way to do it, at the expense of some fat gain. During a bulk, 0.8 gram protein per lb is likely enough. More may be useful.

If you're trying to reduce body fat, cutting is the fastest way to do it. Protein should be 2.3–3.1g/kg of fat free mass scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.

If you're trying to gain muscle while reduce body fat, the study at hand suggests you could do so by eating somewhat above maintenance* and ~1.5 gram protein per lb.

Now whether you want to trust a single study you'll have to decide for yourself. But you can test the recomp option for yourself to see if it works. If you notice your weight consistently going up then you're more in the 'bulking zone' than in the 'recomping zone'. And even in the bulking zone recomp effects can happen of course. While you're doing the recomp option you should be seeing consistent progress on your lifts. If not, it's likely you're not gaining muscle.

* what your maintenance was with ~1 gram protein per lb.

That's a good view point. I remember Alan reviewing the research of Eric Helms and coming to terms with the notion of the leaner you are the more protein you need to sustain that muscle mass. The other thing that calls attention is genetics. The rate that ones body progresses. There is def more than one way to skin a cat. But I would say your advise is worth a try. Still I am gathering info and digesting this information.

Mrpb
07-03-2015, 08:19 AM
Found some additional information; subjects consumed beef or whey protein powder. They followed a daily undulating periodization program training 5 days per week alternating between upper and lower days.

I'd speculate maybe half their muscle gain was caused by following a high frequency properly periodized program.

Gen1GT
07-04-2015, 02:07 AM
I agree that it's interesting to look for trends. The important take away IMO from the first and second Antonio study is that it seems we can increase protein from ~1.0 gram per lb to ~1.5 gram per lb without gaining fat (while keeping carbs and fat the same).

My limited experience with bulking at ~1.5 gram protein per lb seems to confirm this. I did not gain weight on my normal bulking calories. When I dropped protein to my normal ~1.0 gram per lb I started gaining weight again.

I think I might try upping my protein for my next Losing Fat log, which starts in a month. It will be interesting to see if I keep the remaining fat and carb macros the same, if adding about 700 cal/day of protein powder will make a different on either fat loss or muscle mass. You should sub into that one, Mrpb. ;)

Mrpb
07-04-2015, 05:04 AM
I think I might try upping my protein for my next Losing Fat log, which starts in a month. It will be interesting to see if I keep the remaining fat and carb macros the same, if adding about 700 cal/day of protein powder will make a different on either fat loss or muscle mass. You should sub into that one, Mrpb. ;)

Did you notice that the athletes in the slow rate weight loss group in the Garthe study dropped 4.9kg of body fat in 8 weeks, while improving their LBM % by 5%?

For comparison the high protein group in the Antonio study only dropped 1.6kg of body fat while improving their LBM % by 2.4%.

Here's the kicker, the athletes in Garthe's study only consumed 1.6 gram protein per kg. They might have done even better with 1.8-2.0 gram per kg.

I consider the protocol followed in the Garthe study far superior for your situation.

Last but not least, several men in the high protein group were in single digits body fat with ~4 years lifting experience and impressive strength stats. In their case 1.5 gram protein per lb makes sense. For someone at 30% or higher consuming 1.5 gram protein per lb of bw doesn't make any sense in my opinion. Also because, assuming you want to achieve steady weight loss, it will cut into your caloric budget for carbs and fat.

Mrpb
07-08-2015, 10:12 AM
Thanks to Alan.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ISSNPoster2015-Anya-Ellerbroek.pdf

TheWaffleIron
07-09-2015, 09:01 AM
Thanks to Alan.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ISSNPoster2015-Anya-Ellerbroek.pdf

The results appear to be intriguing at first glance, but access to the full text would be preferable before any further discussion.

Chicago1287
07-09-2015, 09:23 AM
If you're trying to gain muscle mass (assuming you're lean enough) bulking is likely the fastest way to do it, at the expense of some fat gain. During a bulk, 0.8 gram protein per lb is likely enough. More may be useful.

If you're trying to reduce body fat, cutting is the fastest way to do it. Protein should be 2.3–3.1g/kg of fat free mass scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.

If you're trying to gain muscle while reduce body fat, the study at hand suggests you could do so by eating somewhat above maintenance* and ~1.5 gram protein per lb.

Now whether you want to trust a single study you'll have to decide for yourself. But you can test the recomp option for yourself to see if it works. If you notice your weight consistently going up then you're more in the 'bulking zone' than in the 'recomping zone'. And even in the bulking zone recomp effects can happen of course. While you're doing the recomp option you should be seeing consistent progress on your lifts. If not, it's likely you're not gaining muscle.

* what your maintenance was with ~1 gram protein per lb.

It's tough to know what study/advice to go with.

This isn't from personal experience because I'm still a fat ****...but I have seen plenty of people lose a ton of fat (down to single digits or close) with their protein levels very low. There are actually some on this forum that have done it which really surprised the hell out of me. One guy in the fat loss forum about a year ago didn't get more than 100g a day and his results were crazy. I tried it myself after seeing his pictures and I did for a few months with no strength or muscle loss. Although I have to mention that I did stop once I got down 25lb (halfway through my cut) for personal reasons so I don't know what would have happened if I continued.

Mrpb
07-09-2015, 09:28 AM
The results appear to be intriguing at first glance, but access to the full text would be preferable before any further discussion.

What's the information you're looking for? Having participated in conversations with some of the researchers, I'm not expecting much new information in the full text.

One thing I'm hoping for is the exact training protocol. So far all I know is 5 days a week, alternating between upper and lower days, daily undulating periodization.

TheWaffleIron
07-09-2015, 10:13 AM
What's the information you're looking for? Having participated in conversations with some of the researchers, I'm not expecting much new information in the full text.

One thing I'm hoping for is the exact training protocol. So far all I know is 5 days a week, alternating between upper and lower days, daily undulating periodization.

I, as well, am interested in the training protocol.

More importantly, I would need to see a more comprehensive description of the diet. The description given on the poster, "Both groups ... were also instructed to maintain the same dietary habits (e.g. maintain the same dietary fat and carbohydrate intake)", begets several questions for me. Is the total caloric intake the same between the two groups? Are the dietary fat and carbohydrate intakes the same? If either is not the case, then the normal-protein (NP) group consumed a diet that was neither isocaloric nor isonitrogenous, as compared to the high-protein (HP) group.

Additionally, the study references that 48 healthy individuals participated: 37 males and 11 females. If subjects were "randomly" divided, how can the authors account for the fact that males gain muscle more readily than females as they measure fat-free mass, pre- and post-trial? The differences in gains in lean body mass may be attributable to the inherent differences in hormone levels of men and women.

These questions are not an affront to the research team, and they should not be seen as such; posters can only offer so much information, and I think the poster is solid, given constraints in space and in the nature of, well, poster sessions. But, I do think that one can expect additional valuable information in the full text that would help in assessing the results and/or conclusions.

Mrpb
07-09-2015, 10:37 AM
More importantly, I would need to see a more comprehensive description of the diet. The description given on the poster, "Both groups ... were also instructed to maintain the same dietary habits (e.g. maintain the same dietary fat and carbohydrate intake)", begets several questions for me. Is the total caloric intake the same between the two groups? Are the dietary fat and carbohydrate intakes the same? If either is not the case, then the normal-protein (NP) group consumed a diet that was neither isocaloric nor isonitrogenous, as compared to the high-protein (HP) group.

Post # 100 answers some of these questions. The high protein group consumed more calories.

Gen1GT
07-09-2015, 12:38 PM
Thanks to Alan.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ISSNPoster2015-Anya-Ellerbroek.pdf

Interesting. My next log will have a reduced deficit with increased protein, so you should sub that thread in the Losing Fat Section (start in August).

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 12:44 PM
My recomp starts in August. It will be logged in the weight loss section and will have a starting and final body scan.

I plan to recomp for a year before I go on a 2nd cut.

Cut 1 was from 370 to 280ish (just about done). Cut 2 will be down to 210, but slowly. In the middle I want to push the weights as hard as I can for 1 solid year with the goal of not adding anything to my scale weight.

psalms1441
07-09-2015, 12:47 PM
My recomp starts in August. It will be logged in the weight loss section and will have a starting and final body scan.

I plan to recomp for a year before I go on a 2nd cut.

Cut 1 was from 370 to 280ish (just about done). Cut 2 will be down to 210, but slowly. In the middle I want to push the weights as hard as I can for 1 solid year with the goal of not adding anything to my scale weight. so your going to recomp at 280lbs? what is your bodyfat now?

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 01:02 PM
so your going to recomp at 280lbs? what is your bodyfat now?

Log so far is here : http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=167350491&page=1

I wont have a body fat % scan result until I start my recomp. I will have a 2nd scan at the end, should provide great data for this thread.

I will have a new set of before and after pics posted on August 1st, I should be 285 by then, maybe a little less.


The question is going to come up so Ill just answer it. I am stopping my cut here because that was the plan from the start. I do not want to cut for 1.5 to 2 years in a row, its too much. I want to take advantage of my higher weight and recomp while it will still be very effective.

MrM27
07-09-2015, 01:05 PM
so your going to recomp at 280lbs? what is your bodyfat now?

Same thing I said.

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 01:09 PM
You have the right to ask, its a forum, I answered you there as well.

I will have before and after pics as well as scan results. What's your prediction MrM27? 2 lbs LBM ?, 1? Go on record, I would really appreciate it.

EDIT TO ADD:

I am open to predictions from everyone.

psalms1441
07-09-2015, 01:15 PM
You have the right to ask, its a forum, I answered you there as well.

I will have before and after pics as well as scan results. What's your prediction Mem27? 2 lbs LBM ?, 1? Go on record, I would really appreciate it.here is my predicition if you try to recomp, assuming your bodyfat is still high, like 29-33%.......you will gain a substantial amount of fat and have to cut even harder. My advice, eat at your new maintenance for awhile, lift heavy like you have been and plan to keep doing, and then resume your cut. Just my dimes worth of advice;)

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 01:16 PM
here is my predicition if you try to recomp, assuming your bodyfat is still high, like 29-33%.......you will gain a substantial amount of fat and have to cut even harder. My advice, eat at your new maintenance for awhile, lift heavy like you have been and plan to keep doing, and then resume your cut. Just my dimes worth of advice;)

So we have one vote for failure, noted.

psalms1441
07-09-2015, 01:24 PM
So we have one vote for failure, noted.im not saying you will fail, Im saying you are setting yourself up to fail. Im not telling you not to try, you may have great success, Im just saying, your setting yourself up to fail. How about posting a current pic since your open to predictions? we will have way more odds of a more accurate prediction knowing where your starting from. My prediction is assuming your currently at a high BF after cutting, just a blind perdiction

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 01:29 PM
im not saying you will fail, Im saying you are setting yourself up to fail. Im not telling you not to try, you may have great success, Im just saying, your setting yourself up to fail. How about posting a current pic since your open to predictions? we will have way more odds of a more accurate prediction knowing where your starting from. My prediction is assuming your currently at a high BF after cutting, just a blind perdiction

A prediction is a prediction. Your gut tells you that it wont work, and that's cool. I have no problem with people not being 100% on board with something unorthodox, I was not expecting that at all.

I will succeed though, that is kind of my thing. Single father of 2 with no degree to comfortably semi-retired at 40 happened because I did a few things that everyone told me were crazy and would not work.


Also you should have actually read my thread, current pics are going up at the end of the group project, end of this month.

EDIT TO ADD:

Here is a link to our group : http://bit.ly/1Dy00qX

I posted pics on 5/1 5/29 6/26 and the final one will be coming at the end of the month to coincide with the end of our project.

psalms1441
07-09-2015, 01:33 PM
A prediction is a prediction. Your gut tells you that it wont work, and that's cool. I have no problem with people not being 100% on board with something unorthodox, I was not expecting that at all.

I will succeed though, that is kind of my thing. Single father of 2 with no degree to comfortably semi-retired at 40 happened because I did a few things that everyone told me were crazy and would not work.true man, do it man!!! Im 100% on board with you! Why your taking it as Im against you im not sure. DO IT DO IT DO IT! take pics and show everybody that this is your thing!

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 01:36 PM
true man, do it man!!! Im 100% on board with you! Why your taking it as Im against you im not sure. DO IT DO IT DO IT! take pics and show everybody that this is your thing!

I am sorry if I came off that way, there are a 'few' people taking issue with my plans.

I am going to do my best, there sure as hell wont be anything left on the table at the end of a year.

psalms1441
07-09-2015, 01:47 PM
I am sorry if I came off that way, there are a 'few' people taking issue with my plans.

I am going to do my best, there sure as hell wont be anything left on the table at the end of a year.looked at your pics, good progress.....now here is why i suggested what i suggested.

after cutting, you would eat at your new maintenance, while continuing to lift hard and heavy, your body will naturally recomp itself. If you try to recomp by messing with your diet and all the tricks that go into recomping, it could ultimately destroy what youve worked so hard to achieve. Im suggesting this, because this is what i REALLY do, and live for, for the last 18+ years, BUT, Ive made a living, at doing things differently than everyone else, so do what you do!

MrM27
07-09-2015, 01:49 PM
You have the right to ask, its a forum, I answered you there as well.

I will have before and after pics as well as scan results. What's your prediction MrM27? 2 lbs LBM ?, 1? Go on record, I would really appreciate it.

EDIT TO ADD:

I am open to predictions from everyone.

Predictions on what? Your plan? Well, you are planning to recomp while being morbidly obese which isn't smart. You think that your body will be primed to gain more muscle as you stated previously but you'll come to realize how off that thought process is and you'll accumulate more fat that you think, and you'll still be morbidly obese. You think you'll be able to control things so easily but you fail to realize that you can't will your hormones to do what you want them to do and that will be one of your biggest issues.

Keep using me as motivation for you to succeed but like I've told you before you shouldn't be using some stranger on a website as your motivation to succeed. That's your job to do. Go ahead and cry about how I say your plan sucks but don't turn around and say that I've been saying that I hope you fail. If you want go ahead and try to sh** talk me as if I'm cheering you on to fail and you're the victim then I will happily cut and paste all the ridiculous things you've said about weight loss in the Fat Loss forum as well as your criticizing of people that have lost the weight and kept it off. You've tried to get into debates about how the body works and every single time it turns into you talking about how you are a millionaire, have a wife are successful and blah blah blah. Go ahead and try to play the victim here.


A prediction is a prediction. Your gut tells you that it wont work, and that's cool. I have no problem with people not being 100% on board with something unorthodox, I was not expecting that at all.

I will succeed though, that is kind of my thing. Single father of 2 with no degree to comfortably semi-retired at 40 happened because I did a few things that everyone told me were crazy and would not work.


Also you should have actually read my thread, current pics are going up at the end of the group project, end of this month.

EDIT TO ADD:

Here is a link to our group : http://bit.ly/1Dy00qX

I posted pics on 5/1 5/29 6/26 and the final one will be coming at the end of the month to coincide with the end of our project.

Well I hadn't seen that reply above but exactly as I said, turning it into some story about what you have while playing the emotional card.

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 01:53 PM
looked at your pics, good progress.....now here is why i suggested what i suggested.

after cutting, you would eat at your new maintenance, while continuing to lift hard and heavy, your body will naturally recomp itself. If you try to recomp by messing with your diet and all the tricks that go into recomping, it could ultimately destroy what youve worked so hard to achieve. Im suggesting this, because this is what i REALLY do, and live for, for the last 18+ years, BUT, Ive made a living, at doing things differently than everyone else, so do what you do!

Way ahead of you, I have done my research. I will be reverse dieting up to sustained maintenance before I do consider the clock started for the recomp. I have absolutely no idea what my new maintenance calories will be, will be interesting to find out, I am actually really curious about that.

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 01:54 PM
Predictions on what? Your plan? Well, you are planning to recomp while being morbidly obese which isn't smart. You think that your body will be primed to gain more muscle as you stated previously but you'll come to realize how off that thought process is and you'll accumulate more fat that you think, and you'll still be morbidly obese. You think you'll be able to control things so easily but you fail to realize that you can't will your hormones to do what you want them to do and that will be one of your biggest issues.

Keep using me as motivation for you to succeed but like I've told you before you shouldn't be using some stranger on a website as your motivation to succeed. That's your job to do. Go ahead and cry about how I say your plan sucks but don't turn around and say that I've been saying that I hope you fail. If you want go ahead and try to sh** talk me as if I'm cheering you on to fail and you're the victim then I will happily cut and paste all the ridiculous things you've said about weight loss in the Fat Loss forum as well as your criticizing of people that have lost the weight and kept it off. You've tried to get into debates about how the body works and every single time it turns into you talking about how you are a millionaire, have a wife are successful and blah blah blah. Go ahead and try to play the victim here.



Well I hadn't seen that reply above but exactly as I said, turning it into some story about what you have while playing the emotional card.

I see a lot of words and your favorite buzz word at the end, just going to mark that down as a "not favorable" and move on.

MrM27
07-09-2015, 01:59 PM
I see a lot of words and your favorite buzz word at the end, just going to mark that down as a "not favorable" and move on.

As usual you just deflect when facts are stated. You succeeding or failing has no affect on my life so you do as you please. But when you want to involve yourself in discussions that are being had about how things work but you want to inject nothing but emotional responses while criticizing people but at the same time complaining about people being non supportive to you then you will be called out on your crap. You want to believe that you're a snowflake and that science doesn't matter then feel free to do so but don't start spreading that around to people that don't know better.

Gxp23
07-09-2015, 02:02 PM
I see a lot of words and your favorite buzz word at the end, just going to mark that down as a "not favorable" and move on.
So I took a look at your log, well done at losing that weight so far, but I dont think you should stop just yet and start a recomp, you are just not in a position to do it effectively.

"A little more than a month ago I woke up one morning and decided that I was done with being fat"

This as you know is your opening statement in your log and after looking through and seeing the progress you have made already, is very impressive, but what you are missing IMO, is the fact you already have a fairly decent amount of mass under the fat you are carrying, your back is huge!, now while you are in this state, there is still a chance you will be gaining some lean mass as you cut.

Now while there is nothing wrong with going for a break at maintenance due to your "brutal cut", 6 months is over kill when you could be furthering your progress towards fat loss.

Just my 0.2

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 02:09 PM
So I took a look at your log, well done at losing that weight so far, but I don't think you should stop just yet and start a recomp, you are just not in a position to do it effectively.

"A little more than a month ago I woke up one morning and decided that I was done with being fat"

This as you know is your opening statement in your log and after looking through and seeing the progress you have made already, is very impressive, but what you are missing IMO, is the fact you already have a fairly decent amount of mass under the fat you are carrying, your back is huge!, now while you are in this state, there is still a chance you will be gaining some lean mass as you cut.

Now while there is nothing wrong with going for a break at maintenance due to your "brutal cut", 6 months is over kill when you could be furthering your progress towards fat loss.

Just my 0.2

I hear what you are saying and you do make a pretty good case. If things go that way this may turn from a recomp into a cut naturally, could happen, going to try like hell to avoid it.

My upper body is decent but my legs need work. I had 2 pretty bad back injuries in the past and due to not wanting to aggravate them and kill my cut, I did not push them at all. I really want to push them now.

A big part of why I had to do this is that my back problems were obviously not helped by weighing 370 lbs. I could not even squat correctly do to my leg fat forcing me out of position. I feel good now, really good. I know I have a bunch of weight to gain in my legs and I am still making gainz even on 1450 calories.

More than anything I just want to see what I am made of here. My gut tells me I can do this and make some solid gainz. If I am wrong then so be it (and MrM27 will have a blast with it).

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 02:11 PM
As usual you just deflect when facts are stated. You succeeding or failing has no affect on my life so you do as you please. But when you want to involve yourself in discussions that are being had about how things work but you want to inject nothing but emotional responses while criticizing people but at the same time complaining about people being non supportive to you then you will be called out on your crap. You want to believe that you're a snowflake and that science doesn't matter then feel free to do so but don't start spreading that around to people that don't know better.

And how does that make you feel? Emotional?

Gxp23
07-09-2015, 02:13 PM
I hear what you are saying and you do make a pretty good case. If things go that way this may turn from a recomp into a cut naturally, could happen, going to try like hell to avoid it.

My upper body is decent but my legs need work. I had 2 pretty bad back injuries in the past and due to not wanting to aggravate them and kill my cut, I did not push them at all. I really want to push them now.

A big part of why I had to do this is that my back problems were obviously not helped by weighing 370 lbs. I could not even squat correctly do to my leg fat forcing me out of position. I feel good now, really good. I know I have a bunch of weight to gain in my legs and I am still making gainz even on 1450 calories.

More than anything I just want to see what I am made of here. My gut tells me I can do this and make some solid gainz. If I am wrong then so be it (and MrM27 will have a blast with it).

Well if you feel confident enough that you have lost enough at 290 to start lifting in a sense where you want to try and gain some lean mass more effectively go for it, but I wouldnt dwell on it too long, if for example you do start to notice gains, then have at it, but if you are say 4 months down the road and are struggling to see progress then maybe you need to sit back and re-think your strategy.

The most important part it that you are making a difference in your life and thats what counts.

MrM27
07-09-2015, 02:14 PM
I hear what you are saying and you do make a pretty good case. If things go that way this may turn from a recomp into a cut naturally, could happen, going to try like hell to avoid it.

My upper body is decent but my legs need work. I had 2 pretty bad back injuries in the past and due to not wanting to aggravate them and kill my cut, I did not push them at all. I really want to push them now.

A big part of why I had to do this is that my back problems were obviously not helped by weighing 370 lbs. I could not even squat correctly do to my leg fat forcing me out of position. I feel good now, really good. I know I have a bunch of weight to gain in my legs and I am still making gainz even on 1450 calories.

More than anything I just want to see what I am made of here. My gut tells me I can do this and make some solid gainz. If I am wrong then so be it (and MrM27 will have a blast with it).

Once again, in your heart you want to believe that I am cheering for you to fail so you can use it as motivation. Don't give yourself so much credit thinking I'm going to parade around calling you a failure. As you have done many times you are making assumptions about things you have no clue about

MrM27
07-09-2015, 02:15 PM
And how does that make you feel? Emotional?

Nope, because I believe in science and don't play the victim all day.

nosirrahx
07-09-2015, 02:22 PM
Nope, because I believe in science and don't play the victim all day.

Not sure who you are talking about, I am successful. Science is a cool thing BTW, it improves and changes over time as people experiment.

MrM27
07-09-2015, 02:30 PM
Not sure who you are talking about, I am successful. Science is a cool thing BTW, it improves and changes over time as people experiment.

Riiiiight. You keep believe things that are clearly false based on that logic.

psalms1441
07-09-2015, 03:01 PM
Yeah that was bad of me. I sometimes forget the a conversation online is not the same as one in person.this is even more stupid of you!!!! NOW LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jonnicola
07-09-2015, 03:56 PM
More than anything I just want to see what I am made of here. My gut tells me I can do this and make some solid gainz. If I am wrong then so be it (and MrM27 will have a blast with it).

For what it's worth, I've been on these forums only a few months, 95% of the advice is spot on (especially from the big green posters) and nobody here roots for anyone to fail or badly. Noone has ulterior motives, and advice is given as a distillation from very widely read & knowledgeable posters.

Really it's up to you whether to heed the advice, or just go with 'what your gut tells you'.
Good luck either way.

Gxp23
07-09-2015, 03:57 PM
For what it's worth, I've been on these forums only a few months, 95% of the advice is spot on (especially from the big green posters) and nobody here roots for anyone to fail or badly. Noone has ulterior motives, and advice is given as a distillation from very widely read & knowledgeable posters.

Really it's up to you whether to heed the advice, or just go with 'what your gut tells you'.
Good luck either way.
If you cant trust the devil himself, who can you trust?

jonnicola
07-09-2015, 03:59 PM
If you cant trust the devil himself, who can you trust?

Hahaha, strong rep power somehow with that post devilhorns.jpeg

EDIT: wizards, wizards everywhere

MrM27
07-09-2015, 04:09 PM
If you cant trust the devil himself, who can you trust?

It's becomes the choice of the evil you know vs the evil you don't.

determined4000
07-09-2015, 05:30 PM
Not sure who you are talking about, I am successful. Science is a cool thing BTW, it improves and changes over time as people experiment.seriously I would not even think about doing anything but cutting if you are over 20% BF
you will do your health markers more positivies by having a BF level of 20 or lower rather than maintaining a higher amount of fat on your body for longer periods of time

SizzlingPants
07-09-2015, 06:11 PM
yeah yesturday in myfitness pal it was 400g

Such a massive waste of money.

EjnarKolinkar
07-09-2015, 06:35 PM
Well this thread seems to have covered the gambit of all those who should not be recomping. Obese people, people at low LBM but proportionally high body fat, people who are very low in body weight and need to add muscle on a significant scale.

What about advanced natural lifters that don't want to add a bunch of fat, and deal with cutting it off? I mean aren't these folks only looking to make very modest annual gains? FML that is a lot of protein to eat long term though, seems like a lot of effort for a potentially very small return. Unless folks like that level of protein anyway I suppose?

I'm just thinking here. What you think?

Gxp23
07-09-2015, 06:40 PM
Well this thread seems to have covered the gambit of all those who should not be recomping. Obese people, people at low LBM but proportionally high body fat, people who are very low in body weight and need to add muscle on a significant scale.

What about advanced natural lifters that don't want to add a bunch of fat, and deal with cutting it off? I mean aren't these folks only looking to make very modest annual gains? FML that is a lot of protein to eat long term though, seems like a lot of effort for a potentially very small return. Unless folks like that level of protein anyway I suppose?

I'm just thinking here. What you think?

Wouldnt consider myself advanced but I am going down that route.

MrM27
07-09-2015, 06:49 PM
Wouldnt consider myself advanced but I am going down that route.

I'd venture to guess that if you plugged in your numbers you'd be advanced at least in a few areas.

Gxp23
07-09-2015, 08:53 PM
I'd venture to guess that if you plugged in your numbers you'd be advanced at least in a few areas.
Skipping gym days because too tired, pretty advanced at that lol.

Mrpb
07-09-2015, 10:49 PM
If things go that way this may turn from a recomp into a cut naturally, could happen, going to try like hell to avoid it.


One thing that I noticed in the discussions is that recomping and cutting are being handled as two mutually exclusive concepts.

This is not really accurate imo. At your stats you can recomp as you cut. In other words, you can gain muscle as you lose body fat.

I've mentioned this before but the athletes in this study gained ~2.2 pounds of lean body mass and lost ~10.8 pounds of fat in 8.5 weeks dieting by eating a ~500 calorie deficit.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571

Gen1GT
07-10-2015, 03:13 AM
Such a massive waste of money.

Compared to what? A Big Mac combo? An iWatch? 20's on your Civic?

MrM27
07-10-2015, 05:38 AM
Compared to what? A Big Mac combo? An iWatch? 20's on your Civic?

Compared to 150g

Mrpb
07-10-2015, 05:41 AM
Compared to 150g

True, a lot of money and I'd add, at over 3 gram per lb possibly even unhealthy.



What about advanced natural lifters that don't want to add a bunch of fat, and deal with cutting it off? I mean aren't these folks only looking to make very modest annual gains? FML that is a lot of protein to eat long term though, seems like a lot of effort for a potentially very small return. Unless folks like that level of protein anyway I suppose?

I'm just thinking here. What you think?

Worth a try IMO.

I tried it and don't find it easy to hit 1.5 gram per lb though. I usually end up around ~1.2-1.3 gram per lb, which is fine IMO.

SuffolkPunch
07-10-2015, 06:06 AM
Trying to hit 200g of protein in 2700 calories... virtually EVERY food I eat has to be a "protein" food now, no room for any cake :(

On the plus side I'm going to be making a slowcooker beef casserole at the weekend and bringing it to work to heat in the microwave for lunch :)

ricovandel
07-10-2015, 06:20 AM
i've been eating like 0.8g per pound body weight though and 0.35g per pound body weight of fat and the rest or calories is carbs probably would try 1g per body weight of protein

ChrisMTA
07-10-2015, 06:58 AM
just making sure I understood everything correctly:

- 0.8g/lb is still the minimum for bulking
- the minimum for cutting remains 1g/lb (?)
- 1.5g/lb while cutting can help building muscle (?)
- extra protein while in a caloric surplus won't necessarily turn into more weight, disproving "calorie is a calorie" if it's ture (?)

Brdprey
07-10-2015, 07:12 AM
article:

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The consumption of dietary protein is important for resistance-trained individuals. It has been posited that intakes of 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day are needed for physically active individuals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a very high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained men and women.
METHODS:
Thirty healthy resistance-trained individuals participated in this study (mean ± SD; age: 24.1 ± 5.6 yr; height: 171.4 ± 8.8 cm; weight: 73.3 ± 11.5 kg). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: Control (CON) or high protein (HP). The CON group was instructed to maintain the same training and dietary habits over the course of the 8 week study. The HP group was instructed to consume 4.4 grams of protein per kg body weight daily. They were also instructed to maintain the same training and dietary habits (e.g. maintain the same fat and carbohydrate intake). Body composition (Bod Pod®), training volume (i.e. volume load), and food intake were determined at baseline and over the 8 week treatment period.
RESULTS:
The HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories pre vs post (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories than the CON (p < 0.05). The HP group consumed on average 307 ± 69 grams of protein compared to 138 ± 42 in the CON. When expressed per unit body weight, the HP group consumed 4.4 ± 0.8 g/kg/d of protein versus 1.8 ± 0.4 g/kg/d in the CON. There were no changes in training volume for either group. Moreover, there were no significant changes over time or between groups for body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat.


who in the hell consumes 4.4 vs the 2.0 max intake?

Mrpb
07-10-2015, 07:29 AM
article:

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The consumption of dietary protein is important for resistance-trained individuals. It has been posited that intakes of 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day are needed for physically active individuals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a very high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained men and women.
METHODS:

Different study.

The study being discussed in this thread is here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ISSNPoster2015-Anya-Ellerbroek.pdf

ChrisMTA
07-10-2015, 07:36 AM
Different study.

The study being discussed in this thread is here: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ISSNPoster2015-Anya-Ellerbroek.pdf

I'd like to hear your confirmation on my last thoughts, just above the post you quoted.

Mrpb
07-10-2015, 08:08 AM
just making sure I understood everything correctly:

- 0.8g/lb is still the minimum for bulking


Yep. Never has more than 0.8 gram per lb been proven to build more muscle. It's fine to eat more though. It could help in other areas.



- the minimum for cutting remains 1g/lb (?)

Not really. Protein during cutting: " 2.3–3.1g/kg of FFM scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness."



- 1.5g/lb while cutting can help building muscle (?)


Probably not. 1.5 gram protein while recomping may help lose more fat.



- extra protein while in a caloric surplus won't necessarily turn into more weight, disproving "calorie is a calorie" if it's ture (?)

A calorie coming from protein can have different effects than a calorie coming from carbs or fat.

When people are overfed with protein in a metabolic chamber they still gain weight. Whether this happens in real world settings, combined with heavy resistance training, no one really knows. The study at hands suggests it may not be the case.

SG91
07-10-2015, 08:49 AM
Would I benifit from doing somthing like this.

5'11 - 195

Mrpb
07-10-2015, 08:51 AM
Would I benifit from doing somthing like this.

5'11 - 195

You are a candidate for a recomp. Worth trying IMO. See if you can make consistent progress eating slightly above your normal maintenance with ~1.5 gram protein per lb. Try to keep the calories as high as possible, it should make it easier to gain muscle.

SG91
07-10-2015, 08:59 AM
So eat at maintenance + overage with the extra protein? Or just calculate 1.5 g protein into maintenance.

Mrpb
07-10-2015, 09:01 AM
So eat at maintenance + overage with the extra protein?

If you want to do what they did in the study you keep your carbs and fat as they were in your maintenance and then raise protein to 1.5 gram per lb.

See if you can do that without gaining (significant) weight. If you are gaining significant weight you should lower calories, otherwise you're just bulking.

Said in another way: see how many calories you can eat without gaining weight while eating 1.5 gram protein per lb.

SG91
07-10-2015, 09:20 AM
Will likely try option 2 as Ill be coming off of a prolonged cut / calorie deficit

jonnicola
07-10-2015, 05:24 PM
Yep. Never has more than 0.8 gram per lb been proven to build more muscle. It's fine to eat more though. It could help in other areas.


Woah, really? Time to start cutting down on the chicken breasts lol, as I'm only interested in getting the most bang from the least buck (and also I enjoy the other macros a helluva lot more).

Why do we keep hearing 1g, 1.5g, and even higher amounts? Is it purely for these other effects (satiety etc) ?

And why would a diet containing x calories suddenly have better body composition effects if including x + y (where y is additional protein calories, over and above our nominal x value?)

MrM27
07-10-2015, 05:59 PM
Woah, really? Time to start cutting down on the chicken breasts lol, as I'm only interested in getting the most bang from the least buck (and also I enjoy the other macros a helluva lot more).

Why do we keep hearing 1g, 1.5g, and even higher amounts? Is it purely for these other effects (satiety etc) ?

And why would a diet containing x calories suddenly have better body composition effects if including x + y (where y is additional protein calories, over and above our nominal x value?)

I'm trying to follow what you're asking but I do have a question. Are you talking about 2 diets where 1 is a crash diet with low calories and random maceis and the other is the same low caloric intake but we keep protein high? If it is the case and diet 1 has poor protein intake then being in a negative nitrogen balance become detrimental to lbm. That is vital then you mix in dietary fat and nutrients but that wasn't part of your question

jonnicola
07-10-2015, 06:22 PM
I'm trying to follow what you're asking but I do have a question. Are you talking about 2 diets where 1 is a crash diet with low calories and random maceis and the other is the same low caloric intake but we keep protein high? If it is the case and diet 1 has poor protein intake then being in a negative nitrogen balance become detrimental to lbm. That is vital then you mix in dietary fat and nutrients but that wasn't part of your question

Nope, assuming both diets have the same caloric intake (slight deficit or maintenance, no crash diets)

EDIT: same caloric intake before the extra protein

Let's say

Diet 1 = 300 calorie deficit (call this x)

minimum pro 0.8g/lb /fat, rest carbs (for simplicity)

Diet 2 = x calories + y (y being additional protein)

So same fat/carbs but now we have increased the protein (lets say by 50% for arguments sake) so we are no longer at a deficit, but slightly over maintenance.

The extra protein does nothing to build more muscle, however the study seems to suggest that Diet 2 will yield increased FFM and less body weight after a period of 8 weeks.

Both diets have sufficient protein intake (based on 0.8g/lb). If anything higher than 0.8g/lb has never been proven to yield additional muscle building effects, and our goal is ONLY to build muscle, why would higher protein intake be suggested for lean people, athletes, etc?

MrM27
07-10-2015, 07:11 PM
Nope, assuming both diets have the same caloric intake (slight deficit or maintenance, no crash diets)

EDIT: same caloric intake before the extra protein

Let's say

Diet 1 = 300 calorie deficit (call this x)

minimum pro 0.8g/lb /fat, rest carbs (for simplicity)

Diet 2 = x calories + y (y being additional protein)

So same fat/carbs but now we have increased the protein (lets say by 50% for arguments sake) so we are no longer at a deficit, but slightly over maintenance.

The extra protein does nothing to build more muscle, however the study seems to suggest that Diet 2 will yield increased FFM and less body weight after a period of 8 weeks.

Both diets have sufficient protein intake (based on 0.8g/lb). If anything higher than 0.8g/lb has never been proven to yield additional muscle building effects, and our goal is ONLY to build muscle, why would higher protein intake be suggested for lean people, athletes, etc?

The 2 diets can no longer be compared to each other because you've gone from a deficit in both to one having a surplus or maintenance so in comparing the differences in body composition while in the 2 it doesn't work anymore.

As far as a higher protein for the leaner individual we have to consider that the lean person does not have the available resources that an overweight person has before the body begins to look to break down muscle. But if your deficit becomes excessively large then I'm not so sure all your efforts through protein intake will work out in your favor. Also athletes will put much more stress on the muscle than the general dieter. In sure Mrpb will come along with a better explanation than I gave.

jonnicola
07-10-2015, 09:01 PM
The 2 diets can no longer be compared to each other because you've gone from a deficit in both to one having a surplus or maintenance so in comparing the differences in body composition while in the 2 it doesn't work anymore.

As far as a higher protein for the leaner individual we have to consider that the lean person does not have the available resources that an overweight person has before the body begins to look to break down muscle. But if your deficit becomes excessively large then I'm not so sure all your efforts through protein intake will work out in your favor. Also athletes will put much more stress on the muscle than the general dieter. In sure Mrpb will come along with a better explanation than I gave.

Great explanation, I think I follow. Let me try to 'cliff' it to see if I'm getting it:

-Bulking/surplus/overweight require less (0.8g/lb0 protein to build muscle as the body has sufficient fat/carb energy sources to spare the ingested protein, therefore all the protein is free to go into building muscle

-Athletes/lean/cutting, due to the nature of their diets/lifestyle, have less fat/carb energy resources to fall back on, therefore may (will?) need to utilize some of the ingested protein for energy, hence the greater importance on a higher protein intake such that we have sufficient protein 'left over' after the body's energy drain for muscle building

That... kinda makes a lot of sense (if I've summarized it correctly) (in b4MrPB lol)

Mrpb
07-11-2015, 01:39 AM
Why do we keep hearing 1g, 1.5g, and even higher amounts? Is it purely for these other effects (satiety etc) ?

In the study at hand the 1.5 gram group lost more fat.

As to the mechanism behind it we can only speculate. I'd go with the higher calories from protein leading to higher 24h expenditure.

The way I see it there are two situations where more than 1 gram protein per lb makes sense: for recomping and for lean individuals trying to get leaner.

And in general once carb and fat needs are met, protein seems a good choice to go higher in. Even when bulking.

jonnicola
07-11-2015, 03:13 AM
In the study at hand the 1.5 gram group lost more fat.

As to the mechanism behind it we can only speculate. I'd go with the higher calories from protein leading to higher 24h expenditure.

The way I see it there are two situations where more than 1 gram protein per lb makes sense: for recomping and for lean individuals trying to get leaner.

And in general once carb and fat needs are met, protein seems a good choice to go higher in. Even when bulking.

Ah ok, makes sense. Having a biomed background I'm be curious as to the exact mechanism when they eventually figure it out.

Cheers as always

Mrpb
07-11-2015, 03:37 AM
^ Yeah it's interesting.

What I find also interesting is that Stu Phillips, Alan, Lyle and Jose Antonio have been advocating higher protein intakes for quite a while even though there wasn't strong evidence for it. Their reasoning was basically 'it just seems to work well'.

What I'm particularly interested in now is whether say 160 gram 'smartly' spread protein will outperform 200 'poorly' spread protein. I believe Alan and Brad have a study in the works now that may provide further insight on the timing issue.

rick911
07-11-2015, 08:50 AM
that is ridiculous

determined4000
07-11-2015, 05:32 PM
What I'm particularly interested in now is whether say 160 gram 'smartly' spread protein will outperform 200 'poorly' spread protein. I believe Alan and Brad have a study in the works now that may provide further insight on the timing issue.for how large an individual?

DannPM
07-11-2015, 05:58 PM
I'm actually going to attempt this starting Monday I think. I'm not looking my to gain or lose weight right now anyways. I'll report back in about six months. I'll take detailed starting measurements, pics, etc.

makeitright
07-11-2015, 09:13 PM
Pretty cool stuff. Just finished up a 12 week cut myself and have been re-establishing maintenance calories. I'm not super lean, nor am interested in being so, so the idea of keeping at maintenance and seeing where it leads is intriguing to me. Totally in on this.

Mrpb
07-12-2015, 01:31 AM
for how large an individual?

Similar study as the new Antonio study. One group 4 meals with 40 gram protein 5 hours apart. Other group protein all over the day. That would be nice. Hard to control though

jonnicola
07-12-2015, 03:12 AM
^ Yeah it's interesting.

What I find also interesting is that Stu Phillips, Alan, Lyle and Jose Antonio have been advocating higher protein intakes for quite a while even though there wasn't strong evidence for it. Their reasoning was basically 'it just seems to work well'.

Many times with scientific progress, things seem to 'just work' before the mechanism is elucidated in further studies; I am sure within a few years we'll have some kind of suggested pathway/mechanism whereby further insight is given.

I highly doubt it is only due to higher energy expenditure and the thermogenic effect of protein, although I'm sure they'll play a role.




What I'm particularly interested in now is whether say 160 gram 'smartly' spread protein will outperform 200 'poorly' spread protein. I believe Alan and Brad have a study in the works now that may provide further insight on the timing issue.

In terms of interval spiking, the 160g spread should have better MPS effects than one big sitting of 200g I'd guess. Not in terms of overall normal non-athletes, but I'd expect that suffusing the body with all the essential amino acids in one sitting would provide everything a normal person would need.

I certainly can't see how a huge 200g meal of protein would outperform smart partitioning of 160g, but then again this is purely speculation on my part (and also the studies cited by Norton on MPS).

Gen1GT
07-12-2015, 03:54 AM
Many times with scientific progress, things seem to 'just work' before the mechanism is elucidated in further studies; I am sure within a few years we'll have some kind of suggested pathway/mechanism whereby further insight is given.

I highly doubt it is only due to higher energy expenditure and the thermogenic effect of protein, although I'm sure they'll play a role.



In terms of interval spiking, the 160g spread should have better MPS effects than one big sitting of 200g I'd guess. Not in terms of overall normal non-athletes, but I'd expect that suffusing the body with all the essential amino acids in one sitting would provide everything a normal person would need.

I certainly can't see how a huge 200g meal of protein would outperform smart partitioning of 160g, but then again this is purely speculation on my part (and also the studies cited by Norton on MPS).

Alan's meta-analysis leads me to conclude you're not speculating.

http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/53

Have a look at these data from the study. This chart shows the overwhelming bias towards favouring meal timing, even if the effect is not highly pronounced. (note, this chart is taken directly from the study) Even Alan tried to brush off the significance of these data, subordinating timing to overall macro-nutrient targets. I loves me some trends, and the trends are very clear about this positive correlation.

http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu77/Gen1GT/NutritionChart_zps86697ef2.jpg (http://s635.photobucket.com/user/Gen1GT/media/NutritionChart_zps86697ef2.jpg.html)



In a previous discussion on this topic, I modified the below chart to show how it would look if there was absolutely no positive correlation between meal timing and MPS:

http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu77/Gen1GT/NutritionChartModified_zps1a72719e.jpg (http://s635.photobucket.com/user/Gen1GT/media/NutritionChartModified_zps1a72719e.jpg.html)


And if there are another ten studies on the effects of crazy high protein on body composition, I suspect they will trend in the same fashion as the first chart, not the second.

Mrpb
07-12-2015, 05:04 AM
^ That's just the post workout protein if I'm not mistaking....



In terms of interval spiking, the 160g spread should have better MPS effects than one big sitting of 200g I'd guess.

There's little guessing in that one. 4 sitting of 20 gram outperforms 2 sittings of 40. The effect is only going to be more pronounced with 4 meals vs 1.

But who eats 200 gram protein in one meal? I think it's extremely uncommon.

I would find it more interesting to compare 4x40 with 5 hours in between versus a more normal pattern. For example: 20 gram breakfast, 10 gram in a snack around 10, then another 20 at lunch, a workout at 1, then 25 immediately post workout, then half an hour later a normal meal, then the rest at a big dinner. And for clarity: I don't really care about what is more optimal for MPS, I'd like to know whether it translates in actual muscle gain.

In this design it would actually make more sense to match protein intake otherwise we'd still not know if the timing or the amount was the crucial factor.

I'm curious to see what design Brad and Alan will have choosen.

Gen1GT
07-13-2015, 04:30 AM
I'm curious to see what design Brad and Alan will have choosen.

As in, how THEY consume their protein?

Mrpb
07-13-2015, 04:34 AM
As in, how THEY consume their protein?

I pretty much already know that. They aim for quite a perfect spread.

What I meant was I'm curious what design they have chosen for the study that is currently being completed. Afaik it involves well trained athletes and it should bring further insight into protein timing.

rhonaldinho5
07-13-2015, 08:04 AM
Looking forward to this new study