[quote]Null wrote:
whogivsadamn wrote:
Alright guys, I wasn’t trying to be annoying, and Bricknyce, I appreciate the long response(I’ve read all the posts completely), and the lifters I know and lift with all have their strengths and weaknesses, one guy benches 350, another deads 530, and the strongest of us squats 540 and benches well over 300, were not world-class or anything like that so no need to mock those numbers. I think we are having a lively discussion though. This thread may be annoying, but its interesting too.
And why dont many of you guys have pics of yourselves in your avatars? You are all giving me good info(which I agree completely with, you guys have done your research), then shouldn’t you have physiques worthy of showing off? Maybe its a privacy thing, so I’m not criticizing, just curious.
And one final thing. Can I get some personal experience testimonials about when you changed your nutrition? What happened? Did your lifts skyrocket, or was the change much more subtle? I’m just wondering. I lift with average guys who don’t really have time or the money to afford all the good foods and supplements that are required for optimal performance, so I have no experience with it, only what I’ve read in books. If I’m still annoying you guys, I apologize, it is not my goal.
Studies show high protein diets are optimal for recovery. 1g to 1.7g with decreasing returns (for non-augmented individuals)… Old farts are less sensitive and need more per pound… Any metabolic sub optimizations such as insulin resistance or low T increase requirements. Also many formulas use 1g per pound lbm, some per pound body weight… Huge difference… These statements are from replicated studies.
This is a hard core site.
Some of these guys MP your bench (not me), many have avoided injury over the long haul. Give due respect to those who have tried to help. Some of these guys are elite, 3 standard deviation in accomplishment (not me).
[/quote]
1 to 1.7 is a wide range. 1.7 is 170% of 1. Yes, simple math you already know, but it just goes to show.
There aren’t decreasing returns just because you can only synthesize only so much. There are other benefits of a high protein intake besides protein synthesis: satiety, high TEF, intake of minerals and vitamins, better blood sugar control. So even if someone can only synthesize a certain amount, there are other benefits to get by consuming a high protein amount. In some cases, people can consume up to 2 grams per pound.
It also depends on caloric amount. I don’t only go by grams per pound. I take percentage of diet into consideration. Perhaps someone, because a raging metabolism and high workload (full-time athlete with a tremendous workload) needs 6,000 calories per day and weighs 220 pounds. If we go with the paltry amount of 220 grams per day (making up 880 calories), that leaves 5,120 calories left for fat and carb intake, a high amount. So you’re left with a diet that’s 14% protein, and 96% fat and carbs.
For a person that needs far less calories and has a smaller workload, the 1-gram-per-pound setup might be just fine. I’m just making an example of how things aren’t so cookie-cutter all the time. Dave Tate is an example of someone who NEEDED 10,000 calories to perform at a high level of powerlifting. Unfortunately, he got most of those calories from pure junk and a paltry amount of protein, fruits, and vegetables.
It also depends on how insulin-sensitive someone is. Most people don’t tolerate carbs too good. They sit around ALL DAY in cars, at desks, or on a bed. They exercise far too little. And they have ordinary genetics. Then you have guys like Mike Francois and Dorian Yates who consumed a very-high carbohydrate, low-fat diet in their primes: 60% carb, 10% fat, 30% protein. They’re just set up to handle that amount of carbs.

