The link I posted above discusses a study demonstrating greater protein needs by athletes over average, sedentary lifestyles.
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
The link I posted above discusses a study demonstrating greater protein needs by athletes over average, sedentary lifestyles.[/quote]
Who was that study done on? What were the parameters? Just finding an abstract somewhere and ignoring these important issues isn’t helping anyone make more progress. That really goes for anything you look for studies on.
It is useless unless you know this.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Most people could not handle that much protein on a long term basis with out that. I know I tried and failed miserably.[/quote]
Random question did you go from one day eating 100grams to the next day eating 200?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
The link I posted above discusses a study demonstrating greater protein needs by athletes over average, sedentary lifestyles.[/quote]
Who was that study done on? What were the parameters? Just finding an abstract somewhere and ignoring these important issues isn’t helping anyone make more progress. That really goes for anything you look for studies on.
It is useless unless you know this.[/quote]
Did you read it?
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
The link I posted above discusses a study demonstrating greater protein needs by athletes over average, sedentary lifestyles.[/quote]
Who was that study done on? What were the parameters? Just finding an abstract somewhere and ignoring these important issues isn’t helping anyone make more progress. That really goes for anything you look for studies on.
It is useless unless you know this.[/quote]
Did you read it?[/quote]
Most of it and it isn’t a study. It is a “write up”. I am asking about what the study involved…which is what this discussion seems to involve.
You may be able to find a study that supports just about anything. That is why who the study was done on, when and why, are the most important factors.
The TRUTH is that there are very few studies actually done on people looking to build the most muscle humanly possible. That is why finding a study on “strength athletes” and assuming they were all trying to gain as much muscle as possible is baseless.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
The link I posted above discusses a study demonstrating greater protein needs by athletes over average, sedentary lifestyles.[/quote]
Who was that study done on? What were the parameters? Just finding an abstract somewhere and ignoring these important issues isn’t helping anyone make more progress. That really goes for anything you look for studies on.
It is useless unless you know this.[/quote]
Did you read it?[/quote]
Most of it and it isn’t a study. It is a “write up”. I am asking about what the study involved…which is what this discussion seems to involve.
You may be able to find a study that supports just about anything. That is why who the study was done on, when and why, are the most important factors.
The TRUTH is that there are very few studies actually done on people looking to build the most muscle humanly possible. That is why finding a study on “strength athletes” and assuming they were all trying to gain as much muscle as possible is baseless.[/quote]
It quotes research and cites searchable studies discussing nitrogen balance and protein synthesis for strength trained athletes, a category bodybuilders, powerlifters and even crossfitters fall under.
That is exactly what I just responded to. “Strength athlete” does NOT mean “guy trying to build as much muscle as possible”. Do you understand that? Every strength athlete isn’t eating pounds of beef to gain pounds of muscle and reducing activity levels to promote even more growth.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is exactly what I just responded to. “Strength athlete” does NOT mean “guy trying to build as much muscle as possible”. Do you understand that? Every strength athlete isn’t eating pounds of beef to gain pounds of muscle and reducing activity levels to promote even more growth.[/quote]
I don’t believe strength athlete is denoting powerlifter vs bodybuilders feuds in the research which I understand is your point.
However, the research does demonstrate a level of protein required for a ‘weight trained individual’ to achieve the nitrogen balance and protein synthesis necessary for muscle recovery, which was the OP’s question.
How a muscle adapts to training stimuli is another topic altogether.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]09greenj wrote:
I couldn’t seem to find anything about increasing intakes for bodybuilding.
[/quote]
Because these studies are never done on weight trained individuals (or at least I have never seen it). That is why those who weight train should take the results with a grain of salt.[/quote]
I posted this before in an other thread but it must have went ignored.
The take-away:
“There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.”[/quote]
A) What the hell is “body density”?
B) It was a 13 day trial. Of course you aren’t going to see noticeable differences in muscle mass (that exceed standard error bounds) in 13 days of training.[/quote]
Yes but they were able to measure how much protein was wasted by oxidation meaning that the excess was not being utilized for tissue maintenance.
Long term the results would have been the same because one’s ability to metabolize protein is not going to change except by an increase in muscle mass itself.
This experiment shows that strength athletes do indeed need more protein - but not that much more.
1.4g - 1.8g/kg-LBM is sufficient and any more is wasted.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Most people could not handle that much protein on a long term basis with out that. I know I tried and failed miserably.[/quote]
Random question did you go from one day eating 100grams to the next day eating 200?[/quote]
No it was gradual and planned because it took me a long time to wrap my head around the idea of eating 2g per pound of LBM. I just added a shake or five between normal meals - and I was eating five time a day with protein at every meal. It still hurts me to think about it now.
I got huge eating this way but not huge in the way I wanted - I just tried to convince myself that I was “powerlifter big”. 
I the last 6 months have shed most of it and have gained some appreciable muscle by eating less protein and way more fat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]09greenj wrote:
I couldn’t seem to find anything about increasing intakes for bodybuilding.
[/quote]
Because these studies are never done on weight trained individuals (or at least I have never seen it). That is why those who weight train should take the results with a grain of salt.[/quote]
I posted this before in an other thread but it must have went ignored.
The take-away:
“There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.”[/quote]
Do you understand that “strength trainer” does NOT mean the same as “guy trying to build as much muscle as humanly possible”?
They rarely do studies on BODYBUILDERS or what they need to grow.[/quote]
Teach me how to win at life. I promise to try harder this time.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]09greenj wrote:
I couldn’t seem to find anything about increasing intakes for bodybuilding.
[/quote]
Because these studies are never done on weight trained individuals (or at least I have never seen it). That is why those who weight train should take the results with a grain of salt.[/quote]
I posted this before in an other thread but it must have went ignored.
The take-away:
“There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.”[/quote]
A) What the hell is “body density”?
B) It was a 13 day trial. Of course you aren’t going to see noticeable differences in muscle mass (that exceed standard error bounds) in 13 days of training.[/quote]
Yes but they were able to measure how much protein was wasted by oxidation meaning that the excess was not being utilized for tissue maintenance.
Long term the results would have been the same because one’s ability to metabolize protein is not going to change except by an increase in muscle mass itself.
This experiment shows that strength athletes do indeed need more protein - but not that much more.
1.4g - 1.8g/kg-LBM is sufficient and any more is wasted.[/quote]
You have no idea how hard the subjects trained. If training can change the body’s response to protein, then it makes sense that HARDER training would change the body even more.
All I could read from your link was the abstract. I certainly hope you had access to the full study if you were drawing conclusions from that link, and not just the abstract.
I have never, ever seen someone who looks impressive (or is impressively strong) say that they eat less than 1g/lb of protein. The only people I’ve ever seen who say that is enough to gain muscle optimally are relatively small.
MAYBE it’s possible to build crazy muscle with less protein, but why not just do what has already worked for countless people? Why exchange a process with a known result for one with an unknown result?
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/protmyth.htm[/quote]
This thing you’ve quoted is just some guy I’ve never heard of talking about how he interpreted a bunch of studies… that’s your definitive source?
[quote]scj119 wrote:
You have no idea how hard the subjects trained. If training can change the body’s response to protein, then it makes sense that HARDER training would change the body even more.
All I could read from your link was the abstract. I certainly hope you had access to the full study if you were drawing conclusions from that link, and not just the abstract.
I have never, ever seen someone who looks impressive (or is impressively strong) say that they eat less than 1g/lb of protein. The only people I’ve ever seen who say that is enough to gain muscle optimally are relatively small.
MAYBE it’s possible to build crazy muscle with less protein, but why not just do what has already worked for countless people? Why exchange a process with a known result for one with an unknown result?[/quote]
You make some valid points.
I just want to promote the idea that more isn’t necessarily useful for everyone. Someone like me who is trying to make muscle gains at the same time as lose fat does not need more protein. To a bodybuilder already in competition shape more protein may not hurt.
Too much protein slows down fat loss because it reduces ketosis. In ketosis it is possible for me to still add muscle mass because ketone bodies spare protein - therefore I will need far less of it to rebuild muscle. Obviously in order for me to make quicker gains I could eat more protein but at the expense of fat loss - even still there is a limit to how fast it can happen.
I would love to see: how long a person can make gains for eating a high protein diet and at what point gains stop - how much is necessary to maintain it?
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/protmyth.htm[/quote]
This thing you’ve quoted is just some guy I’ve never heard of talking about how he interpreted a bunch of studies… that’s your definitive source?[/quote]
I searched out the Lemon study and other than an abstract found the article with greater explanation. You could always check his sources.
And I’ll take it over “well that dude is big and he eats 300 grams daily”.
As if you need an entire bottle of lighter fluid to light a grill.
Where would you definitively put the line of diminishing returns?
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
As if you need an entire bottle of lighter fluid to light a grill.
Where would you definitively put the line of diminishing returns?[/quote]
I would say it depends on how big the grill is.
And I’m actually sticking with the analogy, not being sarcastic.
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
http://www.timinvermont.com/fitness/protmyth.htm[/quote]
This thing you’ve quoted is just some guy I’ve never heard of talking about how he interpreted a bunch of studies… that’s your definitive source?[/quote]
I searched out the Lemon study and other than an abstract found the article with greater explanation. You could always check his sources.
And I’ll take it over “well that dude is big and he eats 300 grams daily”.
As if you need an entire bottle of lighter fluid to light a grill.
Where would you definitively put the line of diminishing returns?[/quote]
What exactly is the negative to erring high on protein intake? So I take 300g when optimal is really 227.5g. I could spend 4 years experimenting on finding the exact right amount (spending presumably half that time on the “under” side, shorting my gains) or I could just err on the safe side.
Say you have a glass of water with a small leak. Your job is to keep it full. Do you spend time calculating the exact rate at which the water is leaving the glass, and turn on the sink to produce exactly that amount of water… or do you just leave the water on full blast, let it run over the top and be confident that the glass is always full?
There is a downside to under-eating protein (shorting your hard-earned gains), no downside to overeating (no health risk to high protein has ever been established), so why not overeat it and make sure your tank is full?
I dunno, until I see ONE SINGLE person who has an impressive physique or deadlifts 600lbs eating less than 1-1.5g/lb protein, I will keep doing that myself. If someone else wants to be the guinea pig, be my guest… I’ll stick with what has worked for thousands.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
I dunno, until I see ONE SINGLE person who has an impressive physique or deadlifts 600lbs eating less than 1-1.5g/lb protein, I will keep doing that myself. If someone else wants to be the guinea pig, be my guest… I’ll stick with what has worked for thousands.[/quote]
The study I posted recommends 1.8 grams…
[quote]CargoCapable wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
I dunno, until I see ONE SINGLE person who has an impressive physique or deadlifts 600lbs eating less than 1-1.5g/lb protein, I will keep doing that myself. If someone else wants to be the guinea pig, be my guest… I’ll stick with what has worked for thousands.[/quote]
The study I posted recommends 1.8 grams…[/quote]
per KILOGRAM. Which is less than 1g/lb.