Absorbing Protein

Nice post Papa Lazarou!


Anyone know where the like buttons have gone though! Can't find it on some of teh posts here :sad:
 
Nice post Papa Lazarou!


Anyone know where the like buttons have gone though! Can't find it on some of teh posts here :sad:

some times if you take time to post and in the meantime a series of post have been made the like buttons for those posts wont show till you refresh the page...

but I do notice that the like count thing and the link to your journal under the avi are gone...
 
Not so - see here -



Notice who the participants were - bbers and athletes. Shown to be save up to 2.8g per lb of body weight. Some people then go on about osteoporesos caused by high proteinand so on, again, shown not to be true -







Pons M, Plante I, LeBrun M et al. Protein-rich diet attenuates cyclosporin A-induced renal tubular damage in rats. J Renal Nutr 2003; 13: 84–92

great post and good to have u here PAPA

looks like the board is starting to get more competitors etc which is a good thing.
 
If these reference ranges are suitable for a non-assisted athlete, why would an individual's requirements for protein increase with AAS?

This is the reason they are administered to patients with chronic skeletal tissue wastage, the amino acids taken onboard are utilised more effectively and new tissue forms. There's simply no need for additional protein.

Because AAS can increase the muscular protein synthesis at least two fold (5 days after intramuscular injection of 200 mg of testosterone enanthate). Together with an increased Basal Metabolic Rate from AAS, I would assume that the body can utilise greater amounts of protein in order to repair and grow faster?
 
Yeah lots of good points there...the ice cream sales thing was a bit silly but it was illustrating a more general point that people (even with a quantifiable evidence base) will attribute causality without necessarily looking at other possible factors. This is of course - the very reason why we shouldn't panic when yet another study is published showing some dire something or other. They are often based on correlations and correlations are not "proof" of anything - whether they are statistically derived or just the cause and effect assumptions we all make.

I wholeheartedly agree about the studies and PIED users. When i deliver training it's a little awkward because I have to start by saying "We don't have a huge evidence base for the harms associated with PIED use...in fact we have alomost no evidence base...". Definitely more "real world" focussed studies needed but I suspect that is starting to change.

When it comes to what works for you - especially for people who have been in the game a few years...then obviously, people who take a measured approach to tweaking things will know what works for them personally. High protein works extremely well for me (just not REALLY high). However...you mentioned telling people to increase protein and that has always resulted in a bigger, harder physique. Just to play devils advocate; you essentially reccommend a higher calorie intake (by increasing one macro) so that would surely lead to a bigger physique? You also refer to peopel who come to you for advice on gaining muscle...have you simultaneously tweaked their training programme at the same time as their diet? If so - how much effect did that have on the final outcome?

These are wholly rhetorical questions really - i'm just thinking out loud. And to be honest it's partly to increase my own understanding plus I'm always aware that these threads are read by many more people than those that contribute so I think it's worth covering a range of questions and opposing ideas. Otherwise they tend to end up a bit one-sided which isn't necessarily any help to people who really don't have a clue to start with.

Really enjoying the thread though I have to say...definitely food for thought. (No pun intended..... :D)

increasing the macro yes be it carbs or prot will inevitabley result in a bigger physique,but generally unless cards were stupidly low (which if raised will result in a fuller look )then by and large it will result in a 'softer bigger' physique rather than 'harder bigger' physique raising the protein generally achieves :)

I usually dont have much input on mosts actual training as i find that part especially falls on deaf ears a lot of the time,tho most of the time their training is fine in the grand scheme of things,its reall yhte easiest part of themuscle building process i think we will all agree there,tho lol i do admit you will get the odd person who trains abysmally and then yes i would offer suggestions and that in conjuction with altered macros will result in a much bigger difference.

Also i dont know if this is secluded to where i live or more widespread but guys seem to be over protective about their training here where i live lol almost to the point of take it as an insult on their very character if you were to suggest they do something differently or that they arent training intensely enough etc,myself i couldnt give a toss,i'll listn to anyone and take it on board,try it out,every day a school day etc but i do find a lot of peoples attitude towards commenting on how they train quite humorous lol so for that reason also i tend to stay out of their training and just give nutrition/ped advice :)
 
Awesome Papa, so essentially the talk of high protein diets being in some way 'unhealthy' has no basis?

Interesting! Guess i can keep eating as much as i can handle when i'm going for it then, although the study only goes up to 2.8g per kg so that's essentially 280g of protein for a 100kg athlete?

Still.... Shows it's not at all as dangerous in the long term as some would have us believe

Having discussed this at length before elsewhere and with my Dr, as far as I can conclude that high protein diets are good to go unless you are suffering with renal failure and even then, protein becomes a problem when you eat difficult to digest types of protein (e.g. not all types of protein are difficult for the body to digest).
 
I actually agree with all the stuff you inserted into the quote there...especially about "good studies". In fact I think we're probably not as opposite as it may have appeared to be honest.

The gr/lb gr/kg thing - you're right it is a pedantic point. However it's a point worth making I think. I've seen lots of posts where people state that the evidence base around protein utilisation in athletes is based on Xgr per lb bodyweight...when in fact it's based on Xgr per kilo. That's a substantial difference and more importantly it's touting something as "fact" when it actually isn't. So that's why I raise it. Because I see it time and time and time again but have yet to find anything other than forum posts and subjective blogs/articles that use gr/lb. To say it still gets the point across is a little misleading if the point you're trying to get across is that an evidence base exists for optimal protein utilisation at 2gr per kilo....but you're actually saying 2gr per lb. (By 'you' there I obviously don't mean you personally!!).

Its a very picky point I know and frankly i'm gettign as bored of writing it as you probably are of reading it :D - but for me...making the point that using that measure is broscience not actual science is - I think - important. However I'm happy to be proved wrong on anything; in fact I'd welcome it. The first rule of good science....look for evidence that you're wrong!! :D


I see were you're coming from now, make a very good point. If used interchangably can cause mistakes, eg ironically in the post below by Papa who quoted 2.8g per lb bw when the study was 2.8g per kg bw!! Certainly proved your point, lol!!
 
I see were you're coming from now, make a very good point. If used interchangably can cause mistakes, eg ironically in the post below by Papa who quoted 2.8g per lb bw when the study was 2.8g per kg bw!! Certainly proved your point, lol!!

To be fair, its simply as I'm used to the g/lb as used per usual in the BBing world.
 
To be fair, its simply as I'm used to the g/lb as used per usual in the BBing world.


Sorry mate, didnt mean it as a dig at you, more that like @kugu said it makes it easy to mix things up. Im sure you know exactly what you meant but someone who didnt read the abstract is likely to remember and quote the 2.8 g.lb pro as mentioned in your post- sure ive done similar in the past!!
 
some times if you take time to post and in the meantime a series of post have been made the like buttons for those posts wont show till you refresh the page...

but I do notice that the like count thing and the link to your journal under the avi are gone...

I've got a journal??? Oooh - I wonder what I said in it....


Good spot as well...seems there's little bits missing all over the place. Fvck me...even my thread posts are falling apart :D
 
Sorry mate, didnt mean it as a dig at you, more that like @kugu said it makes it easy to mix things up. Im sure you know exactly what you meant but someone who didnt read the abstract is likely to remember and quote the 2.8 g.lb pro as mentioned in your post- sure ive done similar in the past!!

Yep! That's was basically my original point abotu the kg vs lb thing. I'm just not very good at being concise...... :D
 
lol, it oftens gives me a headache on forums... most people talk in terms "g's per lb/bodyweight" of how many g's of protein/carbs/fat to eat, completely mixing up different measurement scales... I tend to think only really in g's and kg's but find myself doing mental arithmatic when i want to post something so i can write it in 'g's per lb'... seems less confusing overall to adopt the bb'ing convention everyone else uses.
 
AA absorption in the gut isnt carried out by one pathway from what i know (am a junior doctor) one pathway is carried by basic principles of concentration gradients and cell receptors. This pathway and the receptors do become saturated at around 30-50g of protein intake for the average guy, but the larger you GI tract the more receptors and channels available etc. so as long as the AAs hang around in the right area for long enough your body will absorb as much as it can.

a second pathway for protein absorption is ATP driven and obviously requires energy, often recruited after workout (when demand is placed on the body and your body recognises the need for more protein) you can evoke this response outside of this window by ensuring your body has excess ATP to burn up. This is all down to carb intake and having carbs before/during protein intake. with this process you can increase your body's normal protein absorption limit (depends on surface area of gut) by up to 2/3 as ATP is so powerful at shooting substances across cell membranes. however one thing to note is that this process can only be evoked around 2-3x a day as the body has to move the AAs on from the cells again and also regenerate the spent ATP.

I know i'm knew guys, but just thought a bit of extra science might help. feel free to disagree.
 
Just catching up on this thread - some awesome points made and am gonna have to go on a repping spree.

My understanding in simple terms of some random points (positive and negative) in this debate are:

a) protein absorption is limited by the amount you eat not a flat limit.

b) protein utlilisation for MPS is as much dependent upon the quality as the quantity of the protein you eat (a 1000g daily protein intake of 900g of NEAAs + 100g EAAs would result in less muscle protein synthesis than a 250g daily protein intake of 125g EAAs + 125g NEAAs)

c) the refractory rate that limits the amount of protein synthesis in response to resistance exercise is way higher when using AAS or slin, so assisted athletes would almost be silly not to experiment with high protein intakes to try to take advantage.

d) high protein is safe for the kidneys if you are otherwise healthy, but if you have impaired kidney function in the first place it is not a good idea

c) although high protein low carb diets show increased osteoclast activity and de-mineralisation of bone calcium levels, the cause is not so much the high protein but the relative absence of carbs in diet - fruit and veg are the only food groups which significantly provide sodium bicarbonate and high levels of alkalising minerals in diet and these offset the acidosis of high protein - 500g a day of protein may well have an osteoporosis type effect if carbs are low, but if you also eat higher (healthy) carbs then the effect is likely to be offset and negligable.

Exercise also helps lower the effect on bone de-mineralisation, but without carbs also relying on exercise alone to protect bone mass isn't necessarily a good thing long term as what is effectively happening is an increased turnover of calcium and magnesium in bone tissue during the high protein+exercise phase, and the cells that help mineralise the bones (osteoblasts) have limited abaility to replicate and will be burnt out at a younger age risking later life osteoporosis more greatly.


d) very high protein diets have a statistically significant increase in IGF's.

e) high protein diets generally affect insulin sensitivity differently between healthy and diabetic/pre diabetic individuals... no impact if healthy, but a positive influence on insulin management from high protein if already insulin insensitive (even where protein increase is at the expense of dietary fat and carbs remain the same).

f) high protein at the expense of other macros commonly causes constipation and can negatively disrupt the balance of intestinal bacteria.
 
Awesome dtlv. I owe u a rep when I'm on the comp
 
Back
Top