Absorbing Protein

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.

As far as i'm concerned this kind of posting is most welcome so keep it coming.

In respect of something you mention above about gut size being a relevant factor to nutrient absorption - have been banging on about this for years and the differences that Sheldon found (in length of small intestine) when doing all his autopsies as part of his research on somatotyping - that those of typically ectomorphic skeletal structure with narrow hips and flat ribcages tended to have much shorter small intestines than those of more robust skeltal structure... the difference being up to 30-40% in total length even when the height of the two subjects was the same. Have been fairly convinced for a while that this simple physical difference is not just cosmetic, and creates an 'individual difference' between the optimum eating pattern between individuals of differing skeletal structures.
 
As far as i'm concerned this kind of posting is most welcome so keep it coming.

In respect of something you mention above about gut size being a relevant factor to nutrient absorption - have been banging on about this for years and the differences that Sheldon found (in length of small intestine) when doing all his autopsies as part of his research on somatotyping - that those of typically ectomorphic skeletal structure with narrow hips and flat ribcages tended to have much shorter small intestines than those of more robust skeltal structure... the difference being up to 30-40% in total length even when the height of the two subjects was the same. Have been fairly convinced for a while that this simple physical difference is not just cosmetic, and creates an 'individual difference' between the optimum eating pattern between individuals of differing skeletal structures.

This is interesting to me because I have narrow hips and a very flat rib cage.
I will research this a little now, thanks.
 
Great to see sense in here.

I recently got into a debate on UKM about high protein.

Someone stated Kai Greene was eating 1000g a day of protein, which i then went on to say was either not true, or unessecery.

I was told i was stupid and that "of course he needs that much..."

Great posts @RickMiller

Haha, i remember modding that thread and laughing at some of the comments.

IMO it's important to make a distinction between how much protein is 'needed' and how much is 'optimal'.

I would personally define 'need' as the minimum amount required to prevent catabolism of proteins from the organs and to allow for anabolic adaptation to skeletal muscle to occur if stimulated through exercise. The amount of protein required for this is fairly consistent between individuals (on a g protein/kg bodyweight basis), and is fairly modest in amount.

'Optimal' however is something that is different depending upon the goal of the individual, be the goal intestinal health, maximum accretion of muscle mass, performance in sport, body composition goals, getting maximum out of PED use etc, and the optimal amount may well be different between all those circumstances.

Kai Green may not need all that protein, but for his particular combination of PED's, training, and personal goals it may well be a very efficient way for him to achieve what he wants to. Too many factors, and not enough knowledge about this subject for me to say if what he is doing is optimal, but I doubt he'd be doing it if he didn't see some kind of advantage from it compared to other approaches.
 
sheldon's work is great, and something that really has gone under the radar somehow! it's undeniable, even increased surface area through regular distension over time will increase nutrient uptake. the trophic changes that go on in the epithelium of the gut as it increases surface area increase the number of recpetors and channels for nutrient uptake. the cells are now on the exposed surface have to be just as specialised and vascularised as any other, and they are, autopsies of morbidly obese diabetics have shown huge trophic changes in the gut. Research was carried out as the poor diet control and high trophic changeover increased the rate of polyps and adenomas.

that aside, the bigger your gut, the bigger the surface area, and the greater the concentration gradient can be, leading to faster more complete absorption. combine that with a perfect somatotype and you are proabably going to be that guy in the gym who puts on a stone with a bit of whey and a good diet! lol
 
As far as i'm concerned this kind of posting is most welcome so keep it coming.

In respect of something you mention above about gut size being a relevant factor to nutrient absorption - have been banging on about this for years and the differences that Sheldon found (in length of small intestine) when doing all his autopsies as part of his research on somatotyping - that those of typically ectomorphic skeletal structure with narrow hips and flat ribcages tended to have much shorter small intestines than those of more robust skeltal structure... the difference being up to 30-40% in total length even when the height of the two subjects was the same. Have been fairly convinced for a while that this simple physical difference is not just cosmetic, and creates an 'individual difference' between the optimum eating pattern between individuals of differing skeletal structures.

sheldon's work is great, and something that really has gone under the radar somehow! it's undeniable, even increased surface area through regular distension over time will increase nutrient uptake. the trophic changes that go on in the epithelium of the gut as it increases surface area increase the number of recpetors and channels for nutrient uptake. the cells are now on the exposed surface have to be just as specialised and vascularised as any other, and they are, autopsies of morbidly obese diabetics have shown huge trophic changes in the gut. Research was carried out as the poor diet control and high trophic changeover increased the rate of polyps and adenomas.

that aside, the bigger your gut, the bigger the surface area, and the greater the concentration gradient can be, leading to faster more complete absorption. combine that with a perfect somatotype and you are proabably going to be that guy in the gym who puts on a stone with a bit of whey and a good diet! lol
 
Juan Morel and Akim Williams Train Chest at Bev Francis Powerhouse Gym! - RX Muscle MagListen from 8:15....also note that this guy put on circa 2 stone in the year and then turned pro in his next show...
That's a really interesting video...but it still doesn't offer any evidence that a massively high protein intake is either necessary or optimal. He packed on muscle etc etc...but do we know for sure that wouldn't have happened with less protein and more fats/carbs? Do we have any indicators to show a truly healthy digestive system? Do we have evidence his renal function is unimpaired? Again i'm playign devil's advocate here - if only to make the poitn that...just because some massive guy did "X and Y" and took large doses of several PIEDs etc etc.....doesn't mean it was healthy, or optimal or ..and this is the more important point here I think....it doesn't mean it's a protocol that's in any way whatsoever appropriate for others to follow. I think if poeople spent more time listenign to and understanding their own bodies and less time directly following the protocols of others then more peopel would get better results.Which is not to say there's nothing to be learned form the protocols others follow........ but to follow them slavishly without seeing how they really apply to your own body is, I think, potentially cheating yourself.However - as ever....I could be very wrong here :)
 
The main point for me is science is great and it's we're we should look first to build a foundation of an idea.

However in bodybuilding we then need to use people's experiences coupled with this foundation to devise a direction or several and then find which one works best.

For me if I eat more carbs than protein I become a water baby n a fat one at that.

My metabolism sucks n this is just the way it is so higher protein is best for me.

However as my muscle mass increases and this my bmr I am able to eat more carbs and total food as a whole.

Then look at Jordan. He eats more dieting than I do on a bulk.

We can toss this round till were blue In the phase.

No science will ever investigate if bodybuilders need such large amounts of protein but the majority seem to eat a fair wack n personally I think reducing it down just doesn't make sense.

However there is some unreal info in here as I've said and I enjoy reading n debating it greatly.

Especially with such knowledgable guys as we have in this thead.
 
Hilly you make a good point about research - there is very little out there that is specific to the kinds of diets bodybuilders follow, and even less that look at how PED use might optimise such diets and/or how best to achieve very low bodyfat levels and super high levels of muscle mass that bodybuilder aim for... those kinds of studies are expensive and just don't get sponsored.

In the absence of such research all people can do is use what is know about studied non bodybuilding populations and diets extrapolate it... but with the recognition at the same time that effects may not be exactly the same in people which 'abnormal' lifestyles like bodybuilders. In this situation subjective and personal experience should never be dismissed even where it seems to contradict the conventional wisdom.

The danger though is making absolute assumptions based on personal experience only, as in this case its all too easy to attribute a particular effect to something different to that which is causing it (and also to be swayed a lot by personal preference and bias... kind of inflicting placebo effect upon ourselves when we try something we are expecting to work).

IMO with a lot of things the highest level of established scientific knowledge we actually have is "dunno really, but it look likely to be X, Y or Z from what we can see so far".
 
I saw this article and thought it fitted with this thread.

Credit to Alan ARAGON

Link:

Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal? | Wannabebig

Copy and Paste:

Introduction
A longstanding belief in fitness circles is that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal, and the excess is either oxidized or excreted. The ballpark range thrown around is 20-30 grams, with 30 grams being perhaps the most common figure.
This guideline has led many trainees to go through the pains of consuming multiple doses of protein throughout the day, banking that it will maximize muscle anabolism or muscle retention.
Well, true or not, this concept fits in nicely with another longstanding fitness “rule” that you have to eat at least six times per day in order to keep the body’s metabolism revving high. Since the meal frequency and metabolism dogma has been thoroughly debunked [1-5], it’s time to dig into the topic of whether there’s a limit to effective protein dosing, and if so, what that limit might be.
Looking at simple logic first
Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.

If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.

The body will take all the sweet time it needs to effectively digest and absorb just about whatever dose you give it. Person A will have shorter digestion periods per meal in order to effectively absorb and utilize the small meals. Person B will have a longer digestion period in order to effectively absorb and utilize the large meal. While the truth in this logic seems self-evident, the important question is whether or not it’s supported by scientific research. Let’s look at the evidence, starting with immediate-effect (acute) studies, then move on to the longer-term trials.
Research examining speed of absorption
A thorough literature review by Bilsborough and Mann compiled data from studies by various investigators who measured the absorption rates of various protein sources [6]. Oddly, an amino acid mixture designed to mimic the composition of pork tenderloin made the top spot, at 10 g/hour, while whey took a close second at 8-10 g/hour. Other proteins fell in their respective spots below the top two, with little rhyme or reason behind the outcomes. As a matter of trivia, raw egg protein was the most slowly absorbed of them all at 1.3 g/hour.
It’s important to note that these data have some serious limitations. A major one is the variance of the methods used to determine the absorption rates (i.e., intravenous infusion, oral ingestion, ileal ingestion). Most of the methods are just too crude or far-fetched for serious consideration. Another limitation is that these figures could be skewed depending upon their concentration in solution, which can affect their rate of gastric evacuation. Another factor to consider is the timing of ingestion relative to exercise and how that might differentially affect absorption rates. Finally, short-term data leaves a lot open to question.
Short-term research supporting the magic limit
I’ve heard many folks parrot that the maximal anabolic effect of a single protein dose is limited to 20 grams, citing recent work by Moore and colleagues [7]. In this study’s 4-hour post-exercise test period, 40 g protein did not elicit a greater anabolic response than 20 g. I’d interpret these outcomes with caution. Fundamentally speaking, protein utilization can differ according to muscle mass. The requirements of a 140-lb person will differ markedly from someone who’s a lean 200. Additionally, a relatively low amount of total volume was used (12 sets total). Typical training bouts usually involve more than one muscle group and are commonly at least double that volume, which can potentially increase the demand for nutrient uptake. Finally, the conclusion of the authors is questionable. They state explicitly,
“…we speculate that no more than 5-6 times daily could one ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein synthesis to be maximally stimulated.”
So, they’re implying that 100-120 grams of protein per day is maximal for promoting muscle growth. Wait a minute, what? Based on both the bulk of the research evidence and numerous field observations, this is simply false [8,9].

In another recent study, Symons and colleagues compared the 5-hour response of a moderate serving of lean beef containing 30 g protein with a large serving containing 90 g protein [10]. The smaller serving increased protein synthesis by approximately 50%, and the larger serving caused no further increase in protein synthesis, despite being triple the dose. The researchers concluded that the ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. While their conclusion indeed supports the outcomes of their short-term study, it’s pretty easy to predict the outcomes in muscle size and strength if we compared a total daily protein dose of 90 g with 30 g over a longer trial period, let alone one involving a structured exercise protocol. This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. It’s not completely meaningless, but it’s far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects.
Longer-term research challenging the magic limit
If we were to believe the premise that a 20-30 g dose of protein yields a maximal anabolic effect, then it follows that any excess beyond this dose would be wasted. On the contrary, the body is smarter than that. In a 14-day trial, Arnal and colleagues found no difference in fat-free mass or nitrogen retention between consuming 79% of the day’s protein needs (roughly 54 g) in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals [11].
Notably, this study was done on young female adults whose fat-free mass averaged 40.8 kg (89.8 lb). Considering that most non-sedentary males have considerably more lean mass than the female subjects used in the aforementioned trial, it’s plausible that much more than 54 g protein in a single meal can be efficiently processed for anabolic and/or anti-catabolic purposes. If we extrapolated the protein dose used in this study (79% of 1.67g/kg) to the average adult male, it would be roughly 85-95 g or even more, depending on just how close someone is to the end of the upper limits of muscular size.
When Arnal and colleagues applied the same protocol to the elderly population, the single-dose treatment actually caused better muscle protein retention than the multiple-dose treatment [12]. This raises the possibility that as we age, larger protein feedings might be necessary to achieve the same effect on protein retention as lesser amounts in our youth.
IF research nailing the coffin shut?

lg.php

<a href='http://www.wannabebig.com/phpadsnew/adclick.php?n=a01125df' target='_blank'><img src='http://www.wannabebig.com/phpadsnew/adview.php?what=zone:3&n=a01125df' border='0' alt=''></a>
Perhaps the strongest case against the idea of a dosing limit beyond which anabolism or muscle retention can occur is the recent intermittent fasting (IF) research, particularly the trials with a control group on a conventional diet. For example, Soeters and colleagues compared two weeks of IF involving 20-hour fasting cycles with a conventional diet [13]. Despite the IF group’s consumption of an average of 101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between groups.In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.
Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.
Conclusion & application
Based on the available evidence, it’s false to assume that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal. Studies examining short-term effects have provided hints towards what might be an optimal protein dose for maximizing anabolism, but trials drawn out over longer periods haven’t supported this idea. So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g. The long answer is, it depends on several factors. In most cases it’s not too far from a gram per pound in drug-free trainees, given that adequate total calories are provided [8,9].
In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.
In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake, and if you want to get the best bang for your buck, go for a quality protein blend such as Nitrean!
icon_wink.gif

Written By Alan Aragon
articleline.gif
Discuss, comment or ask a question
If you have a comment, question or would like to discuss anything raised in this article, please do so in the following discussion thread on the Wannabebig Forums - Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal discussion thread.
articleline.gif

alanaragon_inarticle.jpg

About Alan Aragon
Alan Aragon has over 15 years of success in the fitness field. He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. Alan is a continuing education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration, National Academy of Sports Medicine, American Council on Exercise, and National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alan recently lectured to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association.
He maintains a private practice designing programs for recreational, Olympic, and professional athletes, including the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings, and Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Alan is a contributing editor and Weight Loss Coach of Men’s Health magazine.
His book Girth Control is considered one of the most in-depth manuals for physique improvement and understanding nutrition for fitness & sports. Last but not least, Alan writes a monthly research review providing of the latest science on nutrition, training, and supplementation. Visit Alan’s blog to keep up with his latest shenanigans.
articleline.gif
References
1. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21.
2. Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.
3. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
4. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
5. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
6. Bilsborough S, Mann N. A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52.
7. Moore DR, et al. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
8. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Sep 26;4:8.
9. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
10. Symons TB, et al. A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Sep;109(9):1582-6.
11. Arnal MA, et al. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.
12. Arnal MA, et al. Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention in elderly women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1202-8.
13. Soeters MR, et al. Intermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;90(5):1244-51.
14. Stote KS, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.
 
I saw this article and thought it fitted with this thread.

Credit to Alan ARAGON

Link:

Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal? | Wannabebig

Copy and Paste:

Introduction
A longstanding belief in fitness circles is that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal, and the excess is either oxidized or excreted. The ballpark range thrown around is 20-30 grams, with 30 grams being perhaps the most common figure.
This guideline has led many trainees to go through the pains of consuming multiple doses of protein throughout the day, banking that it will maximize muscle anabolism or muscle retention.
Well, true or not, this concept fits in nicely with another longstanding fitness “rule” that you have to eat at least six times per day in order to keep the body’s metabolism revving high. Since the meal frequency and metabolism dogma has been thoroughly debunked [1-5], it’s time to dig into the topic of whether there’s a limit to effective protein dosing, and if so, what that limit might be.
Looking at simple logic first
Let’s imagine an experiment involving two relatively lean 200 lb individuals. For the purposes of this illustration, I’ll assign a daily amount of protein known to adequately support the needs of the athletic population. We’ll give Person A 150 g protein spread over five meals at 30 g each. We’ll give Person B the same amount of protein, but in a single meal. Let’s say that this meal consists of a 16 oz steak, chased with a shake containing two scoops of protein powder.

If we really believed that only 30 g protein can be handled by the body in a single meal, then Person B would eventually run into protein deficiency symptoms because he supposedly is only absorbing a total of 30 g out of the 150 g we’re giving him. At 30 g/day, he’s only getting 0.33 g/kg of bodyweight, which isn’t even half of the already-low RDA of 0.8 g/kg. If the body worked this way, the human species would have quickly become extinct. The human body is more efficient and effective than we give it credit for.

The body will take all the sweet time it needs to effectively digest and absorb just about whatever dose you give it. Person A will have shorter digestion periods per meal in order to effectively absorb and utilize the small meals. Person B will have a longer digestion period in order to effectively absorb and utilize the large meal. While the truth in this logic seems self-evident, the important question is whether or not it’s supported by scientific research. Let’s look at the evidence, starting with immediate-effect (acute) studies, then move on to the longer-term trials.


Research examining speed of absorption
A thorough literature review by Bilsborough and Mann compiled data from studies by various investigators who measured the absorption rates of various protein sources [6]. Oddly, an amino acid mixture designed to mimic the composition of pork tenderloin made the top spot, at 10 g/hour, while whey took a close second at 8-10 g/hour. Other proteins fell in their respective spots below the top two, with little rhyme or reason behind the outcomes. As a matter of trivia, raw egg protein was the most slowly absorbed of them all at 1.3 g/hour.
It’s important to note that these data have some serious limitations. A major one is the variance of the methods used to determine the absorption rates (i.e., intravenous infusion, oral ingestion, ileal ingestion). Most of the methods are just too crude or far-fetched for serious consideration. Another limitation is that these figures could be skewed depending upon their concentration in solution, which can affect their rate of gastric evacuation. Another factor to consider is the timing of ingestion relative to exercise and how that might differentially affect absorption rates. Finally, short-term data leaves a lot open to question.
Short-term research supporting the magic limit
I’ve heard many folks parrot that the maximal anabolic effect of a single protein dose is limited to 20 grams, citing recent work by Moore and colleagues [7]. In this study’s 4-hour post-exercise test period, 40 g protein did not elicit a greater anabolic response than 20 g. I’d interpret these outcomes with caution. Fundamentally speaking, protein utilization can differ according to muscle mass. The requirements of a 140-lb person will differ markedly from someone who’s a lean 200. Additionally, a relatively low amount of total volume was used (12 sets total). Typical training bouts usually involve more than one muscle group and are commonly at least double that volume, which can potentially increase the demand for nutrient uptake. Finally, the conclusion of the authors is questionable. They state explicitly,
“…we speculate that no more than 5-6 times daily could one ingest this amount (~20 g) of protein and expect muscle protein synthesis to be maximally stimulated.”
So, they’re implying that 100-120 grams of protein per day is maximal for promoting muscle growth. Wait a minute, what? Based on both the bulk of the research evidence and numerous field observations, this is simply false [8,9].

In another recent study, Symons and colleagues compared the 5-hour response of a moderate serving of lean beef containing 30 g protein with a large serving containing 90 g protein [10]. The smaller serving increased protein synthesis by approximately 50%, and the larger serving caused no further increase in protein synthesis, despite being triple the dose. The researchers concluded that the ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. While their conclusion indeed supports the outcomes of their short-term study, it’s pretty easy to predict the outcomes in muscle size and strength if we compared a total daily protein dose of 90 g with 30 g over a longer trial period, let alone one involving a structured exercise protocol. This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. It’s not completely meaningless, but it’s far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects.


Longer-term research challenging the magic limit
If we were to believe the premise that a 20-30 g dose of protein yields a maximal anabolic effect, then it follows that any excess beyond this dose would be wasted. On the contrary, the body is smarter than that. In a 14-day trial, Arnal and colleagues found no difference in fat-free mass or nitrogen retention between consuming 79% of the day’s protein needs (roughly 54 g) in one meal, versus the same amount spread across four meals [11].
Notably, this study was done on young female adults whose fat-free mass averaged 40.8 kg (89.8 lb). Considering that most non-sedentary males have considerably more lean mass than the female subjects used in the aforementioned trial, it’s plausible that much more than 54 g protein in a single meal can be efficiently processed for anabolic and/or anti-catabolic purposes. If we extrapolated the protein dose used in this study (79% of 1.67g/kg) to the average adult male, it would be roughly 85-95 g or even more, depending on just how close someone is to the end of the upper limits of muscular size.
When Arnal and colleagues applied the same protocol to the elderly population, the single-dose treatment actually caused better muscle protein retention than the multiple-dose treatment [12]. This raises the possibility that as we age, larger protein feedings might be necessary to achieve the same effect on protein retention as lesser amounts in our youth.


IF research nailing the coffin shut?
Perhaps the strongest case against the idea of a dosing limit beyond which anabolism or muscle retention can occur is the recent intermittent fasting (IF) research, particularly the trials with a control group on a conventional diet. For example, Soeters and colleagues compared two weeks of IF involving 20-hour fasting cycles with a conventional diet [13]. Despite the IF group’s consumption of an average of 101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between groups.In another example, Stote and colleagues actually reported an improvement in body composition (including an increase in lean mass) after 8 weeks in the IF group consuming one meal per day, where roughly 86 g protein was ingested in a 4-hour window [14]. Interestingly, the conventional group consuming three meals spread throughout the day showed no significant body composition improvements.
Keep in mind that bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to determine body composition, so these outcomes should be viewed with caution. I’ve been highly critical of this study in the past, and I still am. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely written off and must be factored into the body of evidence against the idea of a magic protein dose limit.


Conclusion & application
Based on the available evidence, it’s false to assume that the body can only use a certain amount of protein per meal. Studies examining short-term effects have provided hints towards what might be an optimal protein dose for maximizing anabolism, but trials drawn out over longer periods haven’t supported this idea. So, is there a limit to how much protein per meal can be effectively used? Yes there is, but this limit is likely similar to the amount that’s maximally effective in an entire day. What’s the most protein that the body can effectively use in an entire day? The short answer is, a lot more than 20-30 g. The long answer is, it depends on several factors. In most cases it’s not too far from a gram per pound in drug-free trainees, given that adequate total calories are provided [8,9].
In terms of application, I’ve consistently observed the effectiveness of having approximately a quarter of your target bodyweight in both the pre- and post-exercise meal. Note: target bodyweight is a surrogate index of lean mass, and I use that to avoid making skewed calculations in cases where individuals are markedly over- or underweight. This dose surpasses the amounts seen to cause a maximal anabolic response but doesn’t impinge upon the rest of the day’s protein allotment, which can be distributed as desired. On days off from training, combine or split up your total protein allotment according to your personal preference and digestive tolerance. I realize that freedom and flexibility are uncommon terms in physique culture, but maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.
In sum, view all information – especially gym folklore and short-term research – with caution. Don’t buy into the myth that protein won’t get used efficiently unless it’s dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake.

Written By Alan Aragon
one of the most in-depth manuals for physique improvement and understanding nutrition for fitness & sports. Last but not least, Alan writes a monthly research review providing of the latest science on nutrition, training, and supplementation. Visit Alan’s blog to keep up with his latest shenanigans.
articleline.gif
References
1. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21.
2. Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.
3. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
4. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
5. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
6. Bilsborough S, Mann N. A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52.
7. Moore DR, et al. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
8. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Sep 26;4:8.
9. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
10. Symons TB, et al. A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Sep;109(9):1582-6.
11. Arnal MA, et al. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.
12. Arnal MA, et al. Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention in elderly women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1202-8.
13. Soeters MR, et al. Intermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;90(5):1244-51.
14. Stote KS, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.

 
its a bit confusing. as i know guys who eat 6-8 meals a day solid and liquid (i do this too) of about 40-50g protein per sitting. and i know others who eat 3-4 times a day about 90-140gapprox protein a sitting. dont really notice much difference in physiques on either (natural and assisted guys). so its all a bit confusing.

but saying that ive always had best results physique wise when plowing in the protein up to 400-500g a day at times (done this both natural and whilst on gear), whilst carbs etc are kept the same. so definitely get more from more protein.

Agree with both these posts. There are fat cnuts who eat 10k cals a day and seem to absorb it all. Why would the body be able to absorb an infinite number of carbs and fats but not protein? It's bullsh1t, your intestines are ridiculously long for a reason, to absorb as many nutrients as it possibly can.
 
*******TRANSLATED**************

OUR RESEARCH PROVED FVCK ALL IS CONCLUSIVE.

references- Walt Disney (protein test done on Mickey and Minnie Mouse).:thumb:

all the money that has gone in to researching this for many years. and nobody really knows, lol. anecdotal evidence shows all methods work too.
 
Back
Top