-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Supplements don't matter
- Thread starter TheGiftToLift
- Start date
-
- Tags
- matter supplements
0ni
Registered Rustler
What is "adequate" protein? I don't remember seeing any studies showing that anything above 150g a day provides any benefit. I did see this study though but I would have liked to of seen a 3rd control group that received half the amount of protein and seen what the difference would have been:
Whey protein isolate attenuates strength decline a... [J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2010] - PubMed result
MaxBrenner
New member
Don't know what studies you have been looking at, and going on the one you have posted is a sign that you have not read many credible studies. Maybe you can post the PubMed study on the Gaspari product that showed higher results on the EXACT SAME ingredients and same ratios of a non branded supplement. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21162744
All studies that have been done on athletes and active people suggest and show much higher needs that typically range from 1.25grms/ lbs to 1.5grms/ lbs. So a person who has 75kgs of LBM would need 200g protein to stop LBM losses and maintain hormonal functions etc.
Read -
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15798080
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1763249
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11023001
5. http://sportsci.org/jour/9901/rbk.html
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15212752
7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/685881
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
Study headed by Tarnopolsky, strength training males with at least 2 months of weight lifting experience served as the trainees.
The average age of the 7 strength training participants was 21.6 years. The workout routine was executed 4 times/week yielding a weekly physical activity duration of 9.7 hours/week.
All subjects was involved in three different experiments, each of 13 days. Each experimental period was preceded by an ad libitum washout diet period of at least 8 days.
A low-protein group consumed the Canadian RNI of 0.86 g protein/kg/day. A moderate-protein group received 1.4 g/kg/day while a high-protein group ingested 2.4 g/kg/day. Energy was consumed in the amount of approximately 43 kcal/kg/day. Sweat losses of nitrogen were estimated based upon other studies.
The low-protein group was shown to be in a negative nitrogen balance of -2.4 g N/day/day. The moderate-protein group had a modest positive balance of 0.7 g N/kg/day. Finally, the high-protein group revealed the highest retention of 3.8 g N/kg/day.
Using linear regression analysis, the research team calculated an appropriate protein intake ("requirement" plus 1SD) to be 1.76 g protein/kg/day. They noted a discrepancy between the nitrogen balance method and other techniques they employed, and they recommended that future studies utilize nitrogen balance in conjunction with additional techniques (Tarnopolsky, Atkinson, MacDougall, Chesley, Phillips, and Schwarcz, 1992).
The average age of the 7 strength training participants was 21.6 years. The workout routine was executed 4 times/week yielding a weekly physical activity duration of 9.7 hours/week.
All subjects was involved in three different experiments, each of 13 days. Each experimental period was preceded by an ad libitum washout diet period of at least 8 days.
A low-protein group consumed the Canadian RNI of 0.86 g protein/kg/day. A moderate-protein group received 1.4 g/kg/day while a high-protein group ingested 2.4 g/kg/day. Energy was consumed in the amount of approximately 43 kcal/kg/day. Sweat losses of nitrogen were estimated based upon other studies.
The low-protein group was shown to be in a negative nitrogen balance of -2.4 g N/day/day. The moderate-protein group had a modest positive balance of 0.7 g N/kg/day. Finally, the high-protein group revealed the highest retention of 3.8 g N/kg/day.
Using linear regression analysis, the research team calculated an appropriate protein intake ("requirement" plus 1SD) to be 1.76 g protein/kg/day. They noted a discrepancy between the nitrogen balance method and other techniques they employed, and they recommended that future studies utilize nitrogen balance in conjunction with additional techniques (Tarnopolsky, Atkinson, MacDougall, Chesley, Phillips, and Schwarcz, 1992).
MaxBrenner
New member
Protein Requirements for Strength and Power Athletes
Introduction
Possibly one of the longest standing debates in sports nutrition (not that people don’t argue about stuff constantly) is over protein requirements for athletes. Traditionally, there have been two primary and opposing views to this topic.
In the first camp are mainstream nutrition types, usually registered dieticians who maintain that the RDA for protein is sufficient for all conditions, including individuals involved heavily in sports. Their bible, the RDA Handbook mirrors this stance. So what is the RDA? Currently it’s set at 0.8 g/kg (0.36 g/lb) protein per day. For a 200 lb individual that’s a mere 72 grams of protein per day. I bet most of the people reading this eat that at a meal.
As a sub-argument to what I wrote above, some will point out that, even if protein requirements in athletes are higher, since most strength athletes already eat more protein than the supposed requirements, there is no need to worry about it in the first place. That is, strength athletes already consume enough protein and needn’t focus on trying to get more.
At the other extreme are the athletes themselves who have long felt (and therefore argued) that high proteins are absolutely necessary for optimal results. Bodybuilders have traditionally used 1 g/lb (2.2 g/kg) as a baseline recommendation with others taking this level to 2 g/lb (4.4 g/kg) or sometimes even higher. Muscle magazines, usually with a vested interest in moving protein powder tend to promote high protein intakes with claims of athletes eating 800-1000 grams protein per day (a level only achievable with supplementation) being claimed by top bodybuilders.
Who’s Right?
Science nerds like me always want to see the research on the topic. Of course, if you know me at all, you know that I’ve read it all. To say that it’s a bit mixed is an understatement and even researchers can’t make up their damn minds, preferring to hold polite arguments with one another for months in scientific journals.
Some research seems to clearly indicate an increased requirement for protein. But it uses a methodology (nitrogen balance) that is questionable at best, so the low-protein folks will shoot it down.
Other research (done with low intensity aerobic work) suggests that training improves protein retention; that is, as athletes become more trained, their protein requirements may actually go down. But does research with lower intensity aerobic work apply to the kind of training a strength/power athlete is doing? Probably not, so the high protein researchers will shoot that down. Around and around it goes.
Some research (again using a questionable methodology) suggests that athletes need more protein when they start a new or intensified training program but after a couple of weeks, protein requirements go back down. What happens if you’re always pushing your limits day in, day out, week in, week out? Nobody knows.
Of course the impact of anabolic steroids on protein requirements is almost a complete unknown although, empirically, most who would argue that a natural bodybuilder only needs 1 g/lb daily would also argue that someone using anabolics needs about double that to maximize the effects of the drugs.
A final problem is what’s being measured. Athletes want to know what will maximizes their performance, strength, power, speed, throwing, etc. Researchers invariably measure stuff of less relevance to athletes and coaches. Nitrogen balance, amino acid uptake, sometimes actual muscle growth is measured over the length of the study. Is the amount of protein needed to optimize performance different than what’s needed to maximize some aspect of muscular physiology?
An added issue is that solely looking at skeletal muscle may be missing pathways of importance to athletes. Immune system, connective tissue synthesis and a host of other pathways use amino acids; presumably athletes will upregulate those pathways. Meaning that true protein requirements, if you only look at what’s going on in the muscle, may be under-estimating what athletes truly need to maximize every aspect of performance.
The debate rages on and on and I’m not going togo into much more detail here about it. If you want to read about it in seemingly endless detail, I spent an entire chapter addressing both sides of the controversy in The Protein Book.
Sufficed to say that, as is always the case, both sides have their research, both ends of the research can be criticized on some methodological grounds or another and I don’t think researchers are going to stop arguing with one another any time soon.
Reaching a Consensus
And yet, I’m going to tell you how to rationalize all of the above stuff that I imagine most of you skimmed in the first place. Two researchers, named Tipton and Wolfe wrote a cool paper about this argument. In it they first detailed all of the stuff I just bored you with. At the end they gave their recommendations where they basically argued that
We don’t know how much protein is required to optimize all of the potential pathways important to athletes.
We know that a protein intake of 1.4 g/lb (3.0 g/kg) isn’t harmful and may have benefits that are too small to be measured in research
As long as eating lots of protein doesn’t keep an athlete from eating too few of the other nutrients (carbs/fats), there’s no reason to not eat a lot. And there may be benefits.
Essentially, a high protein intake won’t hurt an athlete (basically everything you may have read about the dangers of high protein intakes is nonsense), it may provide small benefits of importance to elite athletes and, at the end of the day athletes and coaches don’t give a shit about pedantic scientific debates over amino acid metabolism that gives researchers and nerds like me a giant hardon. Admittedly, they didn’t put it in exactly those terms but that’s the gist of it.
So here’s my recommendation, strength/power athletes should aim for 1.5 g/lb protein per day (again, this is about 3.3 g/kg for the metrically inclined). So for a 200 lb strength/power athlete, that’s 300 grams of protein per day. For a 300 lber, that’s 450 grams per day. If you’re Jeff Lewis, I imagine your protein requirements are basically ‘All of it’ or perhaps ‘A cow’. Per day.
Since most strength/power athletes have plenty high caloric requirements, this will still leave plenty of room for the other macros and, if nothing else, will ensure that protein intake is not limiting in any way. I’d note that female athletes often restrict calories heavily (for both good and bad reasons) and it is possible for them to get into situations where protein ends up making up damn near all of their daily food intake. There is some evidence that female athletes can get by with less protein but I’m not going to get into that here; perhaps a later article for Elite Fitness can address that.
I’d add that athletes who are using anabolics may wish to take this even higher, 2 g/lb (4.4 g/kg) or possibly higher. Again, very little research here.
I should address one other issue that always seems to come up about now which is whether to set protein requirements relative to lean body mass or total weight. There are some good arguments for both. In theory, using lean body mass probably makes the most sense, fat cells don’t have a huge protein requirement. At the same time, problems in measuring LBM and the fact that a little bit too much protein is arguably superior to too little make total bodyweight more tenable. Or at least easier to use. I’d only note that, for athletes carrying tremendous amounts of body fat (you know who you are), scaling protein intake back to take that into account may no be a bad idea. It may not be necessary but it can still be done.
Introduction
Possibly one of the longest standing debates in sports nutrition (not that people don’t argue about stuff constantly) is over protein requirements for athletes. Traditionally, there have been two primary and opposing views to this topic.
In the first camp are mainstream nutrition types, usually registered dieticians who maintain that the RDA for protein is sufficient for all conditions, including individuals involved heavily in sports. Their bible, the RDA Handbook mirrors this stance. So what is the RDA? Currently it’s set at 0.8 g/kg (0.36 g/lb) protein per day. For a 200 lb individual that’s a mere 72 grams of protein per day. I bet most of the people reading this eat that at a meal.
As a sub-argument to what I wrote above, some will point out that, even if protein requirements in athletes are higher, since most strength athletes already eat more protein than the supposed requirements, there is no need to worry about it in the first place. That is, strength athletes already consume enough protein and needn’t focus on trying to get more.
At the other extreme are the athletes themselves who have long felt (and therefore argued) that high proteins are absolutely necessary for optimal results. Bodybuilders have traditionally used 1 g/lb (2.2 g/kg) as a baseline recommendation with others taking this level to 2 g/lb (4.4 g/kg) or sometimes even higher. Muscle magazines, usually with a vested interest in moving protein powder tend to promote high protein intakes with claims of athletes eating 800-1000 grams protein per day (a level only achievable with supplementation) being claimed by top bodybuilders.
Who’s Right?
Science nerds like me always want to see the research on the topic. Of course, if you know me at all, you know that I’ve read it all. To say that it’s a bit mixed is an understatement and even researchers can’t make up their damn minds, preferring to hold polite arguments with one another for months in scientific journals.
Some research seems to clearly indicate an increased requirement for protein. But it uses a methodology (nitrogen balance) that is questionable at best, so the low-protein folks will shoot it down.
Other research (done with low intensity aerobic work) suggests that training improves protein retention; that is, as athletes become more trained, their protein requirements may actually go down. But does research with lower intensity aerobic work apply to the kind of training a strength/power athlete is doing? Probably not, so the high protein researchers will shoot that down. Around and around it goes.
Some research (again using a questionable methodology) suggests that athletes need more protein when they start a new or intensified training program but after a couple of weeks, protein requirements go back down. What happens if you’re always pushing your limits day in, day out, week in, week out? Nobody knows.
Of course the impact of anabolic steroids on protein requirements is almost a complete unknown although, empirically, most who would argue that a natural bodybuilder only needs 1 g/lb daily would also argue that someone using anabolics needs about double that to maximize the effects of the drugs.
A final problem is what’s being measured. Athletes want to know what will maximizes their performance, strength, power, speed, throwing, etc. Researchers invariably measure stuff of less relevance to athletes and coaches. Nitrogen balance, amino acid uptake, sometimes actual muscle growth is measured over the length of the study. Is the amount of protein needed to optimize performance different than what’s needed to maximize some aspect of muscular physiology?
An added issue is that solely looking at skeletal muscle may be missing pathways of importance to athletes. Immune system, connective tissue synthesis and a host of other pathways use amino acids; presumably athletes will upregulate those pathways. Meaning that true protein requirements, if you only look at what’s going on in the muscle, may be under-estimating what athletes truly need to maximize every aspect of performance.
The debate rages on and on and I’m not going togo into much more detail here about it. If you want to read about it in seemingly endless detail, I spent an entire chapter addressing both sides of the controversy in The Protein Book.
Sufficed to say that, as is always the case, both sides have their research, both ends of the research can be criticized on some methodological grounds or another and I don’t think researchers are going to stop arguing with one another any time soon.
Reaching a Consensus
And yet, I’m going to tell you how to rationalize all of the above stuff that I imagine most of you skimmed in the first place. Two researchers, named Tipton and Wolfe wrote a cool paper about this argument. In it they first detailed all of the stuff I just bored you with. At the end they gave their recommendations where they basically argued that
We don’t know how much protein is required to optimize all of the potential pathways important to athletes.
We know that a protein intake of 1.4 g/lb (3.0 g/kg) isn’t harmful and may have benefits that are too small to be measured in research
As long as eating lots of protein doesn’t keep an athlete from eating too few of the other nutrients (carbs/fats), there’s no reason to not eat a lot. And there may be benefits.
Essentially, a high protein intake won’t hurt an athlete (basically everything you may have read about the dangers of high protein intakes is nonsense), it may provide small benefits of importance to elite athletes and, at the end of the day athletes and coaches don’t give a shit about pedantic scientific debates over amino acid metabolism that gives researchers and nerds like me a giant hardon. Admittedly, they didn’t put it in exactly those terms but that’s the gist of it.
So here’s my recommendation, strength/power athletes should aim for 1.5 g/lb protein per day (again, this is about 3.3 g/kg for the metrically inclined). So for a 200 lb strength/power athlete, that’s 300 grams of protein per day. For a 300 lber, that’s 450 grams per day. If you’re Jeff Lewis, I imagine your protein requirements are basically ‘All of it’ or perhaps ‘A cow’. Per day.
Since most strength/power athletes have plenty high caloric requirements, this will still leave plenty of room for the other macros and, if nothing else, will ensure that protein intake is not limiting in any way. I’d note that female athletes often restrict calories heavily (for both good and bad reasons) and it is possible for them to get into situations where protein ends up making up damn near all of their daily food intake. There is some evidence that female athletes can get by with less protein but I’m not going to get into that here; perhaps a later article for Elite Fitness can address that.
I’d add that athletes who are using anabolics may wish to take this even higher, 2 g/lb (4.4 g/kg) or possibly higher. Again, very little research here.
I should address one other issue that always seems to come up about now which is whether to set protein requirements relative to lean body mass or total weight. There are some good arguments for both. In theory, using lean body mass probably makes the most sense, fat cells don’t have a huge protein requirement. At the same time, problems in measuring LBM and the fact that a little bit too much protein is arguably superior to too little make total bodyweight more tenable. Or at least easier to use. I’d only note that, for athletes carrying tremendous amounts of body fat (you know who you are), scaling protein intake back to take that into account may no be a bad idea. It may not be necessary but it can still be done.
davidb0312
New member
That'll do MaxBrenner, that'll do. LOL
0ni
Registered Rustler
None of these studies, or anything in the posts below stated that an athlete or someone strength training has any benefit eating more than 150g of protein a day. Also loss of nitrogen does not equate to less muscle building.
When a person is transferred from a high protein diet to a low protein diet there is a delay before the body comes into balance, and during this time there is a net loss of nitrogen from the body, which people believe indicates a loss of muscle mass. However, this loss is only transient and represents a change in proteins that are easily lost or gained when intake is altered, but doesn’t necessarily represent a permanent change in muscle mass [Munro et al, 1964].
In other words the temporary negative or positive nitrogen balances which occur when the intake of dietary protein is drastically altered reflect a lag in metabolic adaptation [Waterlow et al, 1968].
Research has found that it takes weeks to adapt to a low protein diet, with some nitrogen loss, however it is lost preferentially from the liver and gut (not your muscles) [Adds et al, 1936].
There are no studies that show increased muscle gain from eating more than 150g of protein when compared to a diet of around 150g of protein
Last edited:
0ni
Registered Rustler
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength chan... [J Appl Physiol. 1992] - PubMed result
Researchers measured both the nitrogen balance and gains in muscle mass in young men who were eating either a high-protein or low-protein diet while following a resistance training workout program.
These subjects were performing an intensive hour and a half of resistance training 6 days a week for 4 weeks. This research is very important because it measured both acute markers measurements (nitrogen balance) AND actual long-term gains in muscle mass.
After 4 weeks the people on the high protein diet (1.2 grams per pound of bodyweight) had a significantly higher nitrogen balance than the people on the lower protein diet (0.61 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight). Based on our scientific interpretation of nitrogen balance measurements, these people should have gained muscle mass.
The low-protein diet resulted in a nitrogen balance that was actually NEGATIVE, suggesting losses in muscle mass. Despite these nitrogen balance findings neither the high or low protein diet made a significant difference on the amount of muscle mass increased.
Researchers measured both the nitrogen balance and gains in muscle mass in young men who were eating either a high-protein or low-protein diet while following a resistance training workout program.
These subjects were performing an intensive hour and a half of resistance training 6 days a week for 4 weeks. This research is very important because it measured both acute markers measurements (nitrogen balance) AND actual long-term gains in muscle mass.
After 4 weeks the people on the high protein diet (1.2 grams per pound of bodyweight) had a significantly higher nitrogen balance than the people on the lower protein diet (0.61 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight). Based on our scientific interpretation of nitrogen balance measurements, these people should have gained muscle mass.
The low-protein diet resulted in a nitrogen balance that was actually NEGATIVE, suggesting losses in muscle mass. Despite these nitrogen balance findings neither the high or low protein diet made a significant difference on the amount of muscle mass increased.
Fadi
...
With all due respect to Mr Lyle McDonald, the above statement may not be accurate.
Please check page #26 of a book called Nutrient Timing written by doctor John Ivy, PhD and doctor Robert Portman, PhD. Here's the link: Nutrient timing: the future of ... - Google Books
Here'sa copy and paste of the passage in question:
INSULIN INCREASES PROTEIN SYNTHESIS
Insulin has a number of actions that increases protein synthesis. Insulin stimulates DNA and RNA, thereby increasing the enzymes responsible for protein synthesis. Proof of insulin's effect on protein synthesis has come from many studies. Investigators from Penn State University Medical School showed that insulin stimulated the cellular machinery (ribosomes) involved in the manufacture of protein. In another study, researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Galveston found that, following an insulin infusion, protein synthesis in the muscle cell increased almost 67 percent.
Fadi.
0ni
Registered Rustler
67% for how long? Considering muscle mass will ‘turn over’ at a rate of 2 to 8 times per year [Smith et al, 2010] I don't know if a 67% increase in protein synthesis would even make a difference in the long term. Also how much insulin was infused? How much sugar would you have to consume to get a similar insulin response and would doing so make you fat-as-fatass?
MaxBrenner
New member
They meant well, but the book is outdated, and most of the nutrient timing recommendations are completely irrelevant to athletes who do not train to glycogen depletion in an overnight fasted state. And no, postW carbohydrates are not "absolutely needed" unless you have just a few hours to replenish glycogen before the next event.The link provided were simply there to imply that adequate protein requirements are necessary for maintaining and sparing LBM as well as general health and hormonal responses.
The amount of protein required is determined by a number of factors - calorie state, activity type and level, gender, lean body mass and so I think you may be missing the point a little.
While 150 grams of protein MAYBE adequate for some populations, saying that over 150 grams of protein is unnecessary is simply misguided. With all the data provided, how can 150 grams of protein be adequate for both a) 70kg female endurance athlete or b) 90kg male powerlifter? See what I am getting at
Also trying to correlate studies done in 1968 & 1936 into today's world is of little relevance. Science, knowledge, technology etc has move forward and all recent data shows a much different story. Also a study done over 4 weeks is hardly going to have much relevance in a long term situation. Also what was the calorie variants etc for that study?
When I have more time, I will go through my protein text book (all 500 pages with 200 references) and put down all the referenced studies on protein intakes etc
Fadi, Yes I agree with you on the insulin and protein synthesis connection - The major responsibility of insulin in the human body is to lower the blood levels of free glucose, fatty acids, and amino acids by storing them as glycogen, triglycerides, and protein. Insulin does this by altering the enzymatic activity involved in transporting blood-borne nutrients through their own metabolic pathways - forcing them into storage. Normal humans rely on insulin, most importantly, for the storage/release of glucose serious bodybuilders increase their insulin levels for its effects on protein synthesis. What insulin does is promote active transport of amino acids from the blood into the cells and tissues (provides building blocks for protein synthesis to occur). Increased insulin also stimulates the rate of protein synthesis in the body (growth/repair much faster). Finally the increased insulin also inhibits the degredation of protein when in a fasted state making the body use stored gylcogen and fatty acids for energy. As an overall effect insulin exhibits anabolic properties (especially when in increased levels) for human growth. So in a nutshell, Insulin effects protein synthesis but doesn't cause protein synthesis on its own. I think that may have been the point Lyle was trying to make.
The amount of protein required is determined by a number of factors - calorie state, activity type and level, gender, lean body mass and so I think you may be missing the point a little.
While 150 grams of protein MAYBE adequate for some populations, saying that over 150 grams of protein is unnecessary is simply misguided. With all the data provided, how can 150 grams of protein be adequate for both a) 70kg female endurance athlete or b) 90kg male powerlifter? See what I am getting at
Also trying to correlate studies done in 1968 & 1936 into today's world is of little relevance. Science, knowledge, technology etc has move forward and all recent data shows a much different story. Also a study done over 4 weeks is hardly going to have much relevance in a long term situation. Also what was the calorie variants etc for that study?
When I have more time, I will go through my protein text book (all 500 pages with 200 references) and put down all the referenced studies on protein intakes etc
Fadi, Yes I agree with you on the insulin and protein synthesis connection - The major responsibility of insulin in the human body is to lower the blood levels of free glucose, fatty acids, and amino acids by storing them as glycogen, triglycerides, and protein. Insulin does this by altering the enzymatic activity involved in transporting blood-borne nutrients through their own metabolic pathways - forcing them into storage. Normal humans rely on insulin, most importantly, for the storage/release of glucose serious bodybuilders increase their insulin levels for its effects on protein synthesis. What insulin does is promote active transport of amino acids from the blood into the cells and tissues (provides building blocks for protein synthesis to occur). Increased insulin also stimulates the rate of protein synthesis in the body (growth/repair much faster). Finally the increased insulin also inhibits the degredation of protein when in a fasted state making the body use stored gylcogen and fatty acids for energy. As an overall effect insulin exhibits anabolic properties (especially when in increased levels) for human growth. So in a nutshell, Insulin effects protein synthesis but doesn't cause protein synthesis on its own. I think that may have been the point Lyle was trying to make.
Last edited:
Fadi
...
Thank you Max, I really appreciate your response.So in a nutshell, Insulin effects protein synthesis but doesn't cause protein synthesis on its own. I think that may have been the point Lyle was trying to make.
So now, if A stimulates B into manufacturing something, would A then be the cause or the main cause of the end product, or would A simply be classified as an initiater into action? If it sounds like I’m playing verbal gymnastics here Max then I’m sorry mate, that was and is not my intention. My intention is to understand the real meaning of “insulin stimulated the cellular machinery (ribosomes) involved in the manufacture of protein.” Would the word “stimulated” here be synonymous with “cause” or not. That is my question. Thank you for your time Max.
Fadi.
MaxBrenner
New member
Hahaha @ verbal gymnastics. Very good Fadi
Check out this link which may give a better indication and explain it in much more depth than I could articulate.
Modulation of molecular mechanisms involved in protein synthesis machinery as a new tool for the control of cell proliferation - Caraglia - 2002 - European Journal of Biochemistry - Wiley Online Library
0ni
Registered Rustler
They meant well, but the book is outdated, and most of the nutrient timing recommendations are completely irrelevant to athletes who do not train to glycogen depletion in an overnight fasted state. And no, postW carbohydrates are not "absolutely needed" unless you have just a few hours to replenish glycogen before the next event.The link provided were simply there to imply that adequate protein requirements are necessary for maintaining and sparing LBM as well as general health and hormonal responses.
The amount of protein required is determined by a number of factors - calorie state, activity type and level, gender, lean body mass and so I think you may be missing the point a little.
While 150 grams of protein MAYBE adequate for some populations, saying that over 150 grams of protein is unnecessary is simply misguided. With all the data provided, how can 150 grams of protein be adequate for both a) 70kg female endurance athlete or b) 90kg male powerlifter? See what I am getting at
Also trying to correlate studies done in 1968 & 1936 into today's world is of little relevance. Science, knowledge, technology etc has move forward and all recent data shows a much different story. Also a study done over 4 weeks is hardly going to have much relevance in a long term situation. Also what was the calorie variants etc for that study?
When I have more time, I will go through my protein text book (all 500 pages with 200 references) and put down all the referenced studies on protein intakes etc
Fadi, Yes I agree with you on the insulin and protein synthesis connection - The major responsibility of insulin in the human body is to lower the blood levels of free glucose, fatty acids, and amino acids by storing them as glycogen, triglycerides, and protein. Insulin does this by altering the enzymatic activity involved in transporting blood-borne nutrients through their own metabolic pathways - forcing them into storage. Normal humans rely on insulin, most importantly, for the storage/release of glucose serious bodybuilders increase their insulin levels for its effects on protein synthesis. What insulin does is promote active transport of amino acids from the blood into the cells and tissues (provides building blocks for protein synthesis to occur). Increased insulin also stimulates the rate of protein synthesis in the body (growth/repair much faster). Finally the increased insulin also inhibits the degredation of protein when in a fasted state making the body use stored gylcogen and fatty acids for energy. As an overall effect insulin exhibits anabolic properties (especially when in increased levels) for human growth. So in a nutshell, Insulin effects protein synthesis but doesn't cause protein synthesis on its own. I think that may have been the point Lyle was trying to make.
I agree about timing, also the 150g mark was to cover the majority of athletes (The mark where I fail to see any added benefit was 0.7g/lb of lean mass in men, I have no idea about women because I haven't seen anything regarding that)
Also if you're going to link a whole load of studies, please just don't dump a crapload and expect me to read them all lol. I'd only really need to see studies that show different levels of protein intake (high, medium and low) and muscle mass gained over a month or more when a half decent resistance training program is followed. Some studies on creatine would do also if you have time, you got anything where athletes were on creatine for more than 2 months showing mass gained? Everything I've seen is under 3 months and I'd like to see when dem der creatine gains taper out, and if they taper out do you still get better gains than the none-creatine group. I have a feeling that you may only need to do creatine intermittently to get the full benefits but can't find anything supporting or disproving this
I also linked together the studies of different dates because they were the only studies I could find on the subject (not being a librarian and all!)
Fadi
...
Hahaha @ verbal gymnastics. Very good Fadi
Check out this link which may give a better indication and explain it in much more depth than I could articulate.
Modulation of molecular mechanisms involved in protein synthesis machinery as a new tool for the control of cell proliferation - Caraglia - 2002 - European Journal of Biochemistry - Wiley Online Library
Thank you Max. The study you have presented me talks about how protein synthesis is one of the most complicated biochemical processes undertaken by the cell, requiring approximately 150 different polypeptides and 70 different RNAs. The scientists have identified seven polypeptides (eIF-2, eIF-2Bε, eIF-4E, eIF-4G, S6, eEF-1, and eEF-2) as targets for regulatory pathways to date.
What I’m presenting you Insulin stimulates protein synthesis in skeletal muscle by enhancing the association of eIF-4E and eIF-4G is another piece of the puzzle if you like (in the form of an abstract) whereby protein synthesis in gastrocnemius muscle was stimulated by insulin through a mechanism involving increased binding of eIF-4G to eIF-4E.
It seems I’m back to square one (which I’m quite happy with by the way).
Fadi.
MaxBrenner
New member
I agree about timing, also the 150g mark was to cover the majority of athletes (The mark where I fail to see any added benefit was 0.7g/lb of lean mass in men, I have no idea about women because I haven't seen anything regarding that)
Also if you're going to link a whole load of studies, please just don't dump a crapload and expect me to read them all lol. I'd only really need to see studies that show different levels of protein intake (high, medium and low) and muscle mass gained over a month or more when a half decent resistance training program is followed. Some studies on creatine would do also if you have time, you got anything where athletes were on creatine for more than 2 months showing mass gained? Everything I've seen is under 3 months and I'd like to see when dem der creatine gains taper out, and if they taper out do you still get better gains than the none-creatine group. I have a feeling that you may only need to do creatine intermittently to get the full benefits but can't find anything supporting or disproving this
I also linked together the studies of different dates because they were the only studies I could find on the subject (not being a librarian and all!)
Here is the peer reviewed study on protein intake -
Tipton KD and Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. (2004) 22 (1): 65-79
See link - http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Advanced_Sport_Nutrition/protein_intake.pdf
I'm not going to clog up this thread and move off topic
any further.I will post this text in the Nutrition Section from Lyle's site that explains it to the point
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
Fadi, I will post in the Nutrition section a fantastic overview of insulin and protein synthesis with a number of studies you can look into further
It is, like most processes in the body, much more complicated than they typical generalizations that are assumed. I guess we can blame the health, fitness & supplement industry for most of the poor assumptions and lack luster 'information' they promote.
Fadi, I will post in the Nutrition section a fantastic overview of insulin and protein synthesis with a number of studies you can look into further
It is, like most processes in the body, much more complicated than they typical generalizations that are assumed. I guess we can blame the health, fitness & supplement industry for most of the poor assumptions and lack luster 'information' they promote.
Max, if you keep all these posts up you are likely going to win all the free tickets we are giving away this month!
I was going to give my 2 cents on the subject but think you guys have summed it up well.
MaxBrenner
New member
Hahaha, Thanks Bioflex. I did my best (LOL) and I'm glad that it provided a great insight and was informative etc.
I do however think there are many deserving winners of the Tickets and love Bodybuilding for what it is just as much as myself