How much protein can the body absorb?

[ArchangelEST]

Edited the hell out of this. Trying to discuss this level of nutrition while working is not easy. And I probably suck at it.

I do not have the time to read them all right now - but I read a few and wrote what I think. Now I'm not an expert and I doubt very many here are the highest level of experts. So I'm not going to say I'm right and you're wrong or anything silly like that. I'm just throwing out my ideas and thoughts. For the sake of argument and to improve both mine and perhaps some-one's elses knowledge on the subject.

^ Perhaps then you should not assert what you asserted above.

Anyway, here's a bit of balanced reading on the topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.

Interesting. Though the meal frequency along only accounts for some the argument. What it consist of makes a large difference too. But my argument was, that 3 meals a day would cause 3 basic spikes in Protein Synthesis and Insulin levels while One Big meal would only result in one big spike and constant lower levels for hours afterwards. And very high MF would cause several smaller spikes. And those smaller spikes would eventually de-sensitize the body. Some research stated that constant influx of AA-s did not increase Protein Synthesis at all, after the initial spike. Though together with the insulin it did help to reduce muscle breakdown somewhat. With the conclusion being that One Big spike is good, more is better, but too much is detrimental to muscle growth - though it may help to prevent muscle loss during dieting. (So I'm not arguing that high MF may not help with muscleloss prevention, but I am saying that Medium MF is better for muscle gains that either very low MF or very high MF)

So I know I'm only spitting out assumptions here. But It seems to me that Very low MF - 1 meal a day, would cause optimal Protein Synthesis and Insulin levels for some time, after which the levels would drop to more normal as the slower acting foods keep getting digested and nutrients sent to the blood.
The middle-ground of 3 meals a day, would cause 3 such spikes in your blood, with the intermittent time being once again standard as the some digestion still takes place.
The very high MF would provide more spikes in the blood, but those spikes would probably be somewhat lower(maybe not), but with the issue being that constant high levels of Amino Acids in the blood, no longer increase Protein Synthesis as the muscles no longer recognize their presence due to the level in the blood never dropping to "normal" levels. As in the protein synthesis takes place based on the AA concentration in the blood. After the synthesis is complete, the extra levels in the blood no longer promote growth. However if you allow those levels to drop, any further intake would once again cause this spike in Synthesis.

But the difference between 3vs6 meals a day may not really be that big with muscle-loss in mind. So the above article seems solid too to an extent.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
Evidence supports that meal frequency has nothing to do with energy in the subjects.


"Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation."

I never actually said that higher MF would result in better weight loss. Though I did mention that it's possible that with high MF, you will experience lower muscle loss when dieting. And that medium MF would result in the greatest muscle gain, not weight gain.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
Yet again, no difference in energy in the subjects compared to 2 meals/d to 6 meals/d.

I think you are arguing that energy levels in the subject are what makes or breaks the levels of muscle growth/breakdown

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.Links
Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism.

This study basically shows that high MF provides constant levels of energy and use of nutrients. Low MF has variables, where in the morning - fat use for energy is higher (We all know this anyway), and carb use is higher after a meal. I don't see the argument here.
Protein oxidation remained the same - that doesn't mean that higher muscle building isn't going on. My arguments were that the goal is to maximize protein Synthesis and lower Breakdown by providing the body with as many periods of these as possible - something a Low MF usually simply cannot do. These studies show little info we need. I saw no exercise put into the equation, which is what we need. Also the Study is over only 2 days. Too short for any significant results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.Links
Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter.

Not surprised here. But once again I just don't see the relevance here. If your point is to show that the energy the body has doesn't change no matter when we consume and how much protein - Then that's cool and all. But I'm talking about promoting protein Synthesis and lowering the breakdown. With one huge meal the protein will be made into some muscle and the excess either taken out of the body as urea, stored in the fat cells or made into sugars in the liver (Glyconeogenesis). With "My" proposed theory, the protein is more evenly spaced out and during these spikes where you consume fast acting sources, the muscle synthesis increases to higher levels due to more AA-s being in the bloodstream and breakdown lowers(due to higher insulin spike in the reaction to the higher protein [and possible carb] intake). But both values are going to be too small to have any significant effect on the over-all energy levels, weight changes or whatnot over short-term studies. We need to go for long period studies with high groups of people in very strict lab settings. And unfortunately I have not heard of many such studies made, though I'll keep looking
However the general theory behind it seems solid to my mind. You might all disagree

[festeri]

Yet's try a Socratic method.

How long do you think it takes, on average, to fully digest 100 grams of protein?

Maybe around 6 hours

[brendbro]

great thread, had an argument about just this with my friend last night... great to see some studies to provide evidence behind said knowledge!

[synthetic]

Edited the hell out of this. Trying to discuss this level of nutrition while working is not easy. And I probably suck at it.

I do not have the time to read them all right now - but I read a few and wrote what I think. Now I'm not an expert and I doubt very many here are the highest level of experts. So I'm not going to say I'm right and you're wrong or anything silly like that. I'm just throwing out my ideas and thoughts. For the sake of argument and to improve both mine and perhaps some-one's elses knowledge on the subject.

reps for good responses

[adean1989]

Do you have any background in physiology or biochemistry?

[alan aragon]

Edited the hell out of this. Trying to discuss this level of nutrition while working is not easy. And I probably suck at it.

I do not have the time to read them all right now - but I read a few and wrote what I think. Now I'm not an expert and I doubt very many here are the highest level of experts. So I'm not going to say I'm right and you're wrong or anything silly like that. I'm just throwing out my ideas and thoughts. For the sake of argument and to improve both mine and perhaps some-one's elses knowledge on the subject.

No need to concern yourself with levels of expertise. I just want to see evidence for your assertions. Thus far you've been on a massive speculation spree - minus the research evidence.

[x-ray vision]

Thus far you've been on a massive speculation spree - minus the research evidence.

That's nothing. See post #131:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...6763821&page=3

[adean1989]

That's nothing. See post #131:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...6763821&page=3

I am FURIOUS with the ignorance being displayed.

[ArchangelEST]

No need to concern yourself with levels of expertise. I just want to see evidence for your assertions. Thus far you've been on a massive speculation spree - minus the research evidence.

I have looked into the argument a bit more and found some studies to back my claims. Some of these are a bit old. But I'm not that proficient yet in finding studies online. I asked my friend to provide some of these, and it's in his opinion, that MF, protein consumption and optimal MPS are related very heavily - suggesting that additional gains can be made with correct Meal Timing and selecting correct nutrients.
Just as a note - I have no medical, biochemical or any education whatsoever. (Only high-school) So what I conclude from these is completely based on my limited knowledge and understanding. However I have read articles that suggest this approach.
However I have no doubt that you Alan will be able to set me straight as far as drawing conclusions go. I might be completely missing the point here or I might simply be misguided by the lack of research on this subject - that I have not read.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...469.x/abstract - this study shows that 2x meals a day caused a greater level of LBM loss while 6x a day caused less muscle breakdown to occur.

https://ecss2007.cc.jyu.fi/schedule/...s/pdf/1796.pdf - This shows that 6x meals a day vs 3x meals a day - Lower MF resulted in greated levels of LBM gain.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/1/264S.long - This study shows that providing the body with AA-s in intermittent doses, can increase MPS. Also that constant AA concentrations will "de-sensitize" the muscle to further MPS until the AA values in the blood drop to lower levels before the next dose. It's effect on providing actual increased muscle mass gain is something that needs heavier long-term research.
But the theory seems solid that imitating actual meal patterns by consuming EAA-s, can result in higher MPS and coupled with the insulin response can also lower Muscle Breakdown.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12368422 - This study shows that the actual amount of MPS that occurs is limited in a single meal sitting. With no further MPS taking place after the initial spike in AA levels in the blood. So by that theory - eating with a very low MF is not going to optimize muscle protein synthesis. Also this would mean that extremely high MF is also going to be detrimental to optimizing muscle growth due to high concentrations in AA levels in the blood - which offer no additional value as far as MPS is concerned.


All these put together suggest that for optimal MPS and lowest breakdown levels, the AA-s work most effectively with the standard(the levels cited in this forum) levels of Insulin of around 15 µU/mL. Also that for optimal MPS the body would need to be put through several "spikes" of increased AA and insulin levels. On average MPS values started to drop to basal levels after 2-3h. However due to standard meals providing a somewhat steady spikes in these levels for a longer period of time - it would instead make more sense to consume 3 Basic meals a day in timed intervals, so that MPS and Insulin levels drop to basal levels before the next meal - otherwise a somewhat large level of Overlap would cause constant elevation of AA-s and insulin in the blood, which can stunt MPS.

However this still leaves a possible window to consume small doses of EAA, which would spike the MPS to max. levels between meals, yet would not cause over-lap with previous or later meals, due to the small concentrated doses which would not remain in the blood after high levels of MPS takes place.

[Joseph1990]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...469.x/abstract - this study shows that 2x meals a day caused a greater level of LBM loss while 6x a day caused less muscle breakdown to occur.

Twelve boxers were divided between a two meals day−1 group (the 2M group) and a six meals day−1 group (the 6M group). Both groups ingested 5.02 MJ (1200 kcal) day−1 for 2 weeks.

How is that relevant to bodybuilding or real life at all. Grown men, boxers at that consuming less then a female prepping for a contest lol.

[ArchangelEST]

How is that relevant to bodybuilding or real life at all. Grown men, boxers at that consuming less then a female prepping for a contest lol.

It all depends. Half the stuff in these studies have questionable real life applications. It's more the science we are interested in here.
I would assume that the low calorie intake in that study was done so to emphasize weight loss and get the study over with as fast as possible to save money or whatnot. I can't be sure of-course. But I can imagine these things not to be cheap.

And btw, I would not say those calorie levels are absurd. Many 250lb Men I know are prepping for contest with under 1000kcal diets. Some go as low as 500kcal. And it works. I'm not saying it's optimal, or healthy and it may well be subjective.
But I'd say 1200kcal is plenty practical.

[alan aragon]

I have looked into the argument a bit more and found some studies to back my claims. Some of these are a bit old. But I'm not that proficient yet in finding studies online. I asked my friend to provide some of these, and it's in his opinion, that MF, protein consumption and optimal MPS are related very heavily - suggesting that additional gains can be made with correct Meal Timing and selecting correct nutrients.
Just as a note - I have no medical, biochemical or any education whatsoever. (Only high-school) So what I conclude from these is completely based on my limited knowledge and understanding. However I have read articles that suggest this approach.
However I have no doubt that you Alan will be able to set me straight as far as drawing conclusions go. I might be completely missing the point here or I might simply be misguided by the lack of research on this subject - that I have not read. </snip>

Most, if not all you've presented has been covered in the following link, except much more comprehensively with a focus on the larger picture. Please take the time to read it through:

http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/cri...d-on-meal.html

Read this too (it's been linked in this thread already):

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/

[ArchangelEST]

Most, if not all you've presented has been covered in the following link, except much more comprehensively with a focus on the larger picture. Please take the time to read it through:

http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/cri...d-on-meal.html

Read this too (it's been linked in this thread already):

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/

Alright. I read it all. Very well written and definitely made sense.

So basically there is research (the one's I provided) that do state higher MPS is possible due to higher protein MF. But that realistically there is little evidence to support any actual gain in LBM following such methods.
Also many of the studies have questionable creators and methods and simply too many assumptions and not enough hard facts from human trials.

This is definitely interesting stuff and throws a real heavy spin on what a lot of people think they know of nutrition. But the weird part being that in the end - the results seem highly similar, no matter what approach a person takes. And it's mostly user preference.
I had no doubt that various political interests and huge sums of money are involved with all these things - but after reading all this, I feel that it may very well be much higher then many think.

In Any case - thank you for taking the time to outline these things and provide the links. Any discussions in forums often get so confusing and hard to make conclusions from. This thread how-ever made things very easy to understand.

[ArchangelEST]

I would like to make a little follow-up however. I'm sure it's up somewhere. But I have to ask:

Is there any need to consume any meals before a work-out? I am asking from the standpoint of providing constant energy flow to the blood, from slow digesting sources. If we consume carbs, they will often provide quick energy - but the heavy release in insulin can make us a weak by the middle of the work-out, due to blood sugar falling too low.
Is a meal eaten several hours ago going to still provide us with the needed energy - or is it imperative to consume a meal some time before a work-out or replenish energy reserves during a work-out?

It's obvious that a good work-out is very important when it comes to building muscle or strength. But what would be the best way to energize yourself for the work-out to get max results in the gym?

A lot of trainers suggest Protein/fats/carbs in order to get the energy up from the carb uptake and then get the slow flow of energy from Protein/fat sources. Is this correct or not?

[ArchangelEST]

Most, if not all you've presented has been covered in the following link, except much more comprehensively with a focus on the larger picture. Please take the time to read it through:

http://www.leangains.com/2011/04/cri...d-on-meal.html

Alan - I read some more on the leangains site. This basic guide for instance:

http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html

"Technically, training is not completely fasted - that would be detrimental. The pre-workout protein intake, with its stimulatory effect on protein synthesis and metabolism, is a crucial compromise to optimize results"

Now. My entire point for this entire discussion - was, that you could increase MPS and lower breakdown by providing the body with spikes in AA levels and Insulin several times a day.
I understand that in the above link we are talking about exercise and a fasting state before that point. But is it not conceivable that after eating a medium size meal - that after several hours we experience a state in our body that is showing similar signs in the body to a Fasting state? (we are after all not been eating for hours)?
By dosing with EAA you are removing that "catabolic" effect of fasting that comes with going without food for a longer period of time. But with no actual meal being eaten, you will not have any real digestion, nutrient flow overlap.

Basically - I re-read your article you provided in the quote. Your words: "So, not only was there the confounding element of unmatched macronutrition between groups, it essentially was a comparison of insufficient protein intake versus barely adequate intake."
So you are shooting down their results because they were simply not performed well enough to draw serious scientific conclusions from. I 100% agree with that.

But do you also agree that the THEORY itself is solid? That depending on our daily calorie intake and MF, we might end up with short periods where we are technically border-lining on Fasting, and are experiencing a certain level of Catabolic effects in the body. Or at the very least, experiencing sub-optimal levels of MPS. Which is something we should try to avoid when our goal is building solid muscle.

After all this is Lyle McDonald's article I'm practically rephrasing here. Someone, who you consider to be a top-notch player in this field, no?

[L4NC3]

There have been studies into this. Cant find link of the top of my head but in France they tested whether having protein in one big meal or spread through the day makes any difference. They found out there was no difference. Daily protein intake is more important than per meal protein intake.

[ArchangelEST]

There have been studies into this. Cant find link of the top of my head but in France they tested whether having protein in one big meal or spread through the day makes any difference. They found out there was no difference. Daily protein intake is more important than per meal protein intake.

I agree that the daily numbers are what matter. I'm just wondering if it is optimal. Did the study in question spread apart something like 3x vs 6x high-protein meals(was it protein only, or full meals with protein), or did they do something more in the lines what I'm talking about?

Lyle's theory is more closely talking about the fact that AA and insulin levels drop after 2-3h(Most MPS is also done at this point) and most digestion for this standard meal is done in around 5-7h. So low MF will result in lower daily MPS. So if the over-all goal is to stimulate MPS, why not do it?

"Food containing essential amino acids (EAA) signal that a meal has been consumed, and the resulting increase in systemic protein synthesis functions to store amino acids"

Now the entire point here being that separate meals all spike MPS. Why many ordinary high MF meals fail to show improvement is the constant influx of EAA-s. Which basically keep flooding the blood. Lyle's theory being that eating too often simply will not allow the AA concentrations in the blood to drop low enough. Which in turn keeps the muscle from actually recognizing the new EAA-s arriving. The muscle will not realize that a new meal has arrived and it can start the synthesis again. No signals were sent apparently, so the MPS does not improve.

This was proven here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12368422

"Amino acids appear to have a linear stimulatory effect within the range of normal diurnal plasma concentrations from postabsorptive to postprandial. Within this range, muscle protein synthesis (measured by incorporation of stable isotope tracers of amino acids into biopsied muscle protein) appears to be stimulated approximately twofold; however, little further increase occurs when very high concentrations of amino acids (>2.5 times the normal postabsorptive plasma concentration) are made available. Amino acids provided in surfeit of the ability of the system to synthesize protein are disposed of by oxidation, ureagenesis and gluconeogenesis
The stimulatory effect of amino acids appears to be time dependent; a square wave increase in the availability of amino acids causes muscle protein synthesis to be stimulated and to fall back to basal values, despite continued amino acid availability"

Also this:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/1/264S.long

"Increased availability of essential amino acids (EAAs) results in dose-related responses of MPS"

"Increases of MPS due to EAAs are associated with elevation of signaling activity in the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)/p70 ribo****l subunit S6 kinase eukaryotic initiation factor 4 binding protein 1 pathway, without requiring rises of plasma insulin availability above 10 µU/mL. However, at insulin of <5 µU/mL, AAs appear to stimulate MPS without increasing mTOR signaling. Further increasing availability of insulin to postprandial values increases signaling activity, but has no further effect on MPS.""

"We designed the study to allow us to make measurements of MPS before and during the infusion of mixed AAs over a period of 6 h. There appeared to be a latent period of about one-half hour before any increase in incorporation of AAs could be measured, but then there was a rapid and rather large stimulation of protein synthesis—somewhat larger than we had previously obtained when making measurements over periods of about 4–6 h. We also observed something that in retrospect seems obvious, i.e., that MPS turned off after about 2 h despite the continued availability of AAs, returning to basal postabsorptive values. In fact, it now seems that the behavior of muscle in the presence of exogenous AAs was similar to that predicted by Joe Millward (23) in suggesting that there was an upper limit to the amount of protein that could be contained within the muscle at a given time, determined ultimately by the muscle RNArotein ratio and the connective tissue extracellular three-dimensional network."

Somewhat of an old study. May already be disproven. Whether or not my conclusions make any sense or not... well. Doesn't matter. This forum is meant for this kinda stuff - and I'm sure some lurker might find it helpful.