-
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.
Canning the 6 meals, 'clean' eating, the Post Workout Anabolic Window and GI myths
MaxBrenner
New member
Protein Requirements for Strength and Power Athletes
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.
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.
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.
(care of www.bodycomposition.com )
Studies -
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
__________________
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.
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.
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.
(care of www.bodycomposition.com )
Studies -
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
Not sure why some are done in the g/kg as a posed to g/lb. I'm sure it can be confusing.
I've simply pasted the exact text that is available. With that said 70% of the studies are done in the g/lb form.
I've simply pasted the exact text that is available. With that said 70% of the studies are done in the g/lb form.
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
More on Nutrient Timing
The book on nutrient timing, and while it sounds good and 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. So the recommendations don't apply to 99% of the population.
A number of the studies relied on this that book, you will note something that the authors neglected to tell the reader: Most of those studies were conducted on subjects who underwent overnight fasting and then they were later subjected to training protocols that were specifically designed to deplete glycogen. Plus the book sight a study on amino acid infusion ( Enhanced amino acid sensitivity of myofibrillar pr... [J Nutr. 2011] - PubMed result ), suggest that resistance exercise performed until failure confers a sensitizing effect on human skeletal muscle for at least 24 h that is specific to the myofibrillar protein fraction. Which in a nutshell goes against the whole nutrient timing aspect.
(articulated by Alan Aragon)
The book on nutrient timing, and while it sounds good and 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. So the recommendations don't apply to 99% of the population.
A number of the studies relied on this that book, you will note something that the authors neglected to tell the reader: Most of those studies were conducted on subjects who underwent overnight fasting and then they were later subjected to training protocols that were specifically designed to deplete glycogen. Plus the book sight a study on amino acid infusion ( Enhanced amino acid sensitivity of myofibrillar pr... [J Nutr. 2011] - PubMed result ), suggest that resistance exercise performed until failure confers a sensitizing effect on human skeletal muscle for at least 24 h that is specific to the myofibrillar protein fraction. Which in a nutshell goes against the whole nutrient timing aspect.
(articulated by Alan Aragon)
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
Protein Requirements
Study on protein requirements for athletes -
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Advanced_Sport_Nutrition/protein_intake.pdf
In my view, the best solution to this problem comes from protein researches Kevin Tipton and Robert Wolfe (Tipton KD and Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. (2004) 22 (1): 65-79).
Getting into recommendations, the paper points out that daily protein intake of 2.5-3.0g/kg (1.1-1.4 g/lb) for strength/ power athletes is not harmful, may give small but important performance improvements over the long term, and will more than cover any needs for protein synthesis (it’s conceivable but understudied that anabolic steriods will increase protein needs to 4g/kg).
Study on protein requirements for athletes -
http://www.uni.edu/dolgener/Advanced_Sport_Nutrition/protein_intake.pdf
In my view, the best solution to this problem comes from protein researches Kevin Tipton and Robert Wolfe (Tipton KD and Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. (2004) 22 (1): 65-79).
Getting into recommendations, the paper points out that daily protein intake of 2.5-3.0g/kg (1.1-1.4 g/lb) for strength/ power athletes is not harmful, may give small but important performance improvements over the long term, and will more than cover any needs for protein synthesis (it’s conceivable but understudied that anabolic steriods will increase protein needs to 4g/kg).
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
The 'Protein Book' from Lyle McDonald outlines and breakdowns all the studies and comes to the end conclusion for protein intake for both endurance athletes and strength/power athletes. Most of the content is on his website also.
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
From Lyle's site on dieting needs -
Under conditions of a slight caloric deficit, consuming protein at the high end of the above recommendations or perhaps slightly higher should be more than sufficient. A protein intake of 3.0-3.3 g/kg (1.4-1.5 g/lb) should generally suffice. As mentioned, bodybuilders and other physique-oriented individuals (figure/fitness) will often go to 4.4 g/kg (2.0 g/lb) towards the end of their competition preparation due to the extreme nature of those activities and the extreme levels of leanness that is being sought. Without anabolic steroids, it seems unlikely that any athlete would need more than 4.4 g/kg (2.0 g/lb) of protein even under dieting conditions.
Because of the nature of endurance sports, increasing protein slightly while dieting, by perhaps 20% seems a reasonable recommendation (I’m aware of no research on this topic). This would increase protein intake from a habitual level of 1.7-2.0 g/kg (0.7-0.9 g/lb) to 2.0-2.2 g/kg (0.9-1.0 g/lb). Coupled with either a moderate caloric deficit or slight increases in energy expenditure, this should still allow endurance athletes to consume sufficient carbohydrate and fat calories to sustain performance while still limiting muscle or performance losses.
Under conditions of a slight caloric deficit, consuming protein at the high end of the above recommendations or perhaps slightly higher should be more than sufficient. A protein intake of 3.0-3.3 g/kg (1.4-1.5 g/lb) should generally suffice. As mentioned, bodybuilders and other physique-oriented individuals (figure/fitness) will often go to 4.4 g/kg (2.0 g/lb) towards the end of their competition preparation due to the extreme nature of those activities and the extreme levels of leanness that is being sought. Without anabolic steroids, it seems unlikely that any athlete would need more than 4.4 g/kg (2.0 g/lb) of protein even under dieting conditions.
Because of the nature of endurance sports, increasing protein slightly while dieting, by perhaps 20% seems a reasonable recommendation (I’m aware of no research on this topic). This would increase protein intake from a habitual level of 1.7-2.0 g/kg (0.7-0.9 g/lb) to 2.0-2.2 g/kg (0.9-1.0 g/lb). Coupled with either a moderate caloric deficit or slight increases in energy expenditure, this should still allow endurance athletes to consume sufficient carbohydrate and fat calories to sustain performance while still limiting muscle or performance losses.
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
Protein turnover & Insulin: The link between protein synthesis and breakdown
If synthesis exceeds breakdown, there will be an increase in the amount of that protein. If breakdown exceeds synthesis, there will be an overall loss in the amount of that protein. If breakdown equals synthesis, there will be no long term change in the amount of that protein.
Unless an athlete is specifically trying to lose muscle mass (a rare but not unheard of situation), they either want skeletal muscle protein synthesis to be equal to or greater than protein breakdown. This means either increasing protein synthesis, decreasing protein breakdown, or doing both at the same time.
The process of protein synthesis requires that AAs be pulled out of the free pool for incorporation into the protein being synthesized; protein breakdown releases AAs back into the free pool. The specific pathways and mechanisms of protein breakdown and synthesis aren’t ultimately that important from a practical standpoint. Rather, it is important to note that those pathways are separate and, as you’ll see shortly, regulated by different factors.
Protein synthesis is not simply the reverse process of protein breakdown; nor is protein breakdown simply the reverse process of protein synthesis. They are distinct physiological pathways that are regulated by different factors in the body. Note that, while protein synthesis and breakdown are separate processes mechanistically, they are also interrelated to some degree; under many circumstances; such as growth; increases in protein synthesis are accompanied by increases in protein breakdown as well (JC Waterlow. Protein turnover with special reference to man. Q J Exp Phys (1984) 69: 409-438).
If synthesis exceeds breakdown, there will be an increase in the amount of that protein. If breakdown exceeds synthesis, there will be an overall loss in the amount of that protein. If breakdown equals synthesis, there will be no long term change in the amount of that protein.
Unless an athlete is specifically trying to lose muscle mass (a rare but not unheard of situation), they either want skeletal muscle protein synthesis to be equal to or greater than protein breakdown. This means either increasing protein synthesis, decreasing protein breakdown, or doing both at the same time.
The process of protein synthesis requires that AAs be pulled out of the free pool for incorporation into the protein being synthesized; protein breakdown releases AAs back into the free pool. The specific pathways and mechanisms of protein breakdown and synthesis aren’t ultimately that important from a practical standpoint. Rather, it is important to note that those pathways are separate and, as you’ll see shortly, regulated by different factors.
Protein synthesis is not simply the reverse process of protein breakdown; nor is protein breakdown simply the reverse process of protein synthesis. They are distinct physiological pathways that are regulated by different factors in the body. Note that, while protein synthesis and breakdown are separate processes mechanistically, they are also interrelated to some degree; under many circumstances; such as growth; increases in protein synthesis are accompanied by increases in protein breakdown as well (JC Waterlow. Protein turnover with special reference to man. Q J Exp Phys (1984) 69: 409-438).
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
Reduced protein turnover might compromise the body’s ability to rapidly deal with stressful stimuli (Waterlow, JC. Metabolic adaptations to low intakes of energy and protein. Ann Rev Nutr (1986) 6: 495-526). For example, the enhanced rate of muscle breakdown seen in burn and trauma patients occurs to provide sufficient AAs (especially glutamine and its precursors) to sustain the immune system (Young, V. 1987 McCollum lecture. Kinetics of human amino acid metabolism: nutritional implications and some lessons. Am J Clin Nutr (1987) 46: 709-725). Of course, this occurs at the expense of muscle tissue, explaining the muscle wasting seen in such situations.
Protein turnover is mediated by a number of factors. This includes hormonal factors (testosterone, thyroid, insulin, cortisol., GH, glucagon), caloric intake, and AA availability (Milward, DJ and Rivers, JPW. The needfor indispensable amino acids: the concept of the anabolic drive. Diabetes/ Metabolism Rev (1989) 5: 191-211). The impact of specific hormones (except for insulin) is beyond the scope of this book. Of course, training has a profound impact on both protein synthesis and breakdown which I’ll examine below.
How eating affects protein synthesis and breakdown
Although other factors are certainly involved, it turns out that the primary factors affecting protein breakdown and synthesis following a meal are the concentrations of insulin and blood AAs (McNurlan, MA and Garlick, PJ. Influence of nutrient intake on protein turnover. Diabetes/ Metabolism Rev (1989) 5: 165-189) which turn out to play independent but interacting roles (Tessari P et. al. Differential effects of hyperinsulinemia and hyperaminoacidemia on leucine-carbon metabolism in vivo. Evidence for distinct mechanisms in regulation of net amino acid deposition. J Clin Invest. (1987) 79: 1062-9).
Protein turnover is mediated by a number of factors. This includes hormonal factors (testosterone, thyroid, insulin, cortisol., GH, glucagon), caloric intake, and AA availability (Milward, DJ and Rivers, JPW. The needfor indispensable amino acids: the concept of the anabolic drive. Diabetes/ Metabolism Rev (1989) 5: 191-211). The impact of specific hormones (except for insulin) is beyond the scope of this book. Of course, training has a profound impact on both protein synthesis and breakdown which I’ll examine below.
How eating affects protein synthesis and breakdown
Although other factors are certainly involved, it turns out that the primary factors affecting protein breakdown and synthesis following a meal are the concentrations of insulin and blood AAs (McNurlan, MA and Garlick, PJ. Influence of nutrient intake on protein turnover. Diabetes/ Metabolism Rev (1989) 5: 165-189) which turn out to play independent but interacting roles (Tessari P et. al. Differential effects of hyperinsulinemia and hyperaminoacidemia on leucine-carbon metabolism in vivo. Evidence for distinct mechanisms in regulation of net amino acid deposition. J Clin Invest. (1987) 79: 1062-9).
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
Thermic Effect of Food (TEF)The thermic effect of food (TEF, also known as specific dynamic action or SDA or Dietary Induced Thermogenesis or DIT) refers to the slight bump in metabolic rate that occurs after eating, due to processing and utilization of the ingested nutrients. For example, protein has to be broken down and processed in the liver which requires energy. As well, the simple act of eating protein stimulates protein synthesis in various tissues (organs, liver, muscle) as well. All of which takes energy. Carbohydrates get broken down to glucose, which goes through the liver, some processing, etc. Fat undergoes the least processing. There are exceptions such as medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) which undergo quite a bit of processing in the liver, causing a slight bump in metabolic rate (via TEF) in the process.
As it turns out, different nutrients have different individual TEF’s. Protein turns out to have the highest, to the tune of 20-30%. Meaning that of the total protein calories you eat, 20-30% is lost in processing. Carbohydrate stored as glycogen requires about 5-6% of the total calories. Carbohydrate converted to fat (which generally doesn’t happen in very significant amounts) uses up ~23% of the total calories as TEF. Most fats have a tiny TEF, maybe 2-3% (because they can be stored as fat in fat cells with minimal processing).
Since it’s usually impractical to sit and figure out the individual TEFs for each nutrient, the normal estimate used is 10% of total caloric intake. So if you consume 3000 calories per day of a relatively ‘normal’ mixed diet, you can assume that your TEF is about 300 calories per day or so. You also generally find that, with the exception of extreme diets (such as all protein), shuffling macronutrients has a pretty minimal overall impact on metabolic rate via TEF.
For example, consider the difference in TEF for carbs versus fat: 5-6% vs. 3%. That means that, for every 100 calories of each you ate, you’d burn 5-6 or 3 calories. So if you replaced 100 calories of fat with 100 calories of carbohydrates, you’d burn a whopping 2-3 extra calories via TEF. If you replaced 1000 calories of fat with 1000 calories of carbohydrates, you’d burn 20-30 more calories. If you were able, by some means, to replace 2000 calories of fat with carbohydrates, you would burn 40-60 more calories via TEF. One study found that metabolism was about 4% higher (100 calories per day or so) for the higher carb versus the higher protein diet. That still only amounts to an extra pound lost per month or so. Nothing to write home about to be sure.
About the only time that TEF can become considerable is when you replace carbohydrates or fat with protein. For every 100 calories of carbs/fat replaced with protein, you’d expect to burn about 25 calories more (30 cal for protein vs. 3-6 for carbs/fat). So a doubling of protein from 60 to120 grams/day might increase TEF by 80 calories/day. Triple it to 180 grams/day and TEF could increase by 150 calories. The 20-30% TEF of protein can become even more significant at extreme intakes. However, for the most part, such extreme intakes aren’t practical or used outside of the bodybuilding subculture. In all but the most extreme diets, protein stays fairly static and carbs and fats are shuffled around; the effect is typically minimal in terms of TEF.
Finally, I should mention that some research has found that insulin resistant individuals may have an impaired TEF response to eating, with a rough 50% reduction occurring. This could conceivably become significant. For example, on a 3000 cal/day diet, the estimated TEF would be 300 calories. Cut that in half and you only get a 150 cal/day increase in energy expenditure via TEF. Over a month’s time that would amount to 4,500 calories or about 1.5 lbs difference. I’d assume that correcting the insulin resistance by losing fat, lowering insulin and various other interventions would correct this defect and allow TEF to work normally.
Information care of -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-overview.html
Explanation in simple Layman's terms: There is such thing as TEF (thermic effect of feeding). It's different for all macronutrients.
Protein has the highest TEF, followed by carbs and then fat. Meaning it changes the "net" caloric balance in accordance to what is ingested.
Meaning simply: 10 calories from protein =/= 10 calories from fat.
Fat has a lesser thermic effect when ingested and therefore has a greater "net" caloric impact at the end of digestion/processing by the body.
As it turns out, different nutrients have different individual TEF’s. Protein turns out to have the highest, to the tune of 20-30%. Meaning that of the total protein calories you eat, 20-30% is lost in processing. Carbohydrate stored as glycogen requires about 5-6% of the total calories. Carbohydrate converted to fat (which generally doesn’t happen in very significant amounts) uses up ~23% of the total calories as TEF. Most fats have a tiny TEF, maybe 2-3% (because they can be stored as fat in fat cells with minimal processing).
Since it’s usually impractical to sit and figure out the individual TEFs for each nutrient, the normal estimate used is 10% of total caloric intake. So if you consume 3000 calories per day of a relatively ‘normal’ mixed diet, you can assume that your TEF is about 300 calories per day or so. You also generally find that, with the exception of extreme diets (such as all protein), shuffling macronutrients has a pretty minimal overall impact on metabolic rate via TEF.
For example, consider the difference in TEF for carbs versus fat: 5-6% vs. 3%. That means that, for every 100 calories of each you ate, you’d burn 5-6 or 3 calories. So if you replaced 100 calories of fat with 100 calories of carbohydrates, you’d burn a whopping 2-3 extra calories via TEF. If you replaced 1000 calories of fat with 1000 calories of carbohydrates, you’d burn 20-30 more calories. If you were able, by some means, to replace 2000 calories of fat with carbohydrates, you would burn 40-60 more calories via TEF. One study found that metabolism was about 4% higher (100 calories per day or so) for the higher carb versus the higher protein diet. That still only amounts to an extra pound lost per month or so. Nothing to write home about to be sure.
About the only time that TEF can become considerable is when you replace carbohydrates or fat with protein. For every 100 calories of carbs/fat replaced with protein, you’d expect to burn about 25 calories more (30 cal for protein vs. 3-6 for carbs/fat). So a doubling of protein from 60 to120 grams/day might increase TEF by 80 calories/day. Triple it to 180 grams/day and TEF could increase by 150 calories. The 20-30% TEF of protein can become even more significant at extreme intakes. However, for the most part, such extreme intakes aren’t practical or used outside of the bodybuilding subculture. In all but the most extreme diets, protein stays fairly static and carbs and fats are shuffled around; the effect is typically minimal in terms of TEF.
Finally, I should mention that some research has found that insulin resistant individuals may have an impaired TEF response to eating, with a rough 50% reduction occurring. This could conceivably become significant. For example, on a 3000 cal/day diet, the estimated TEF would be 300 calories. Cut that in half and you only get a 150 cal/day increase in energy expenditure via TEF. Over a month’s time that would amount to 4,500 calories or about 1.5 lbs difference. I’d assume that correcting the insulin resistance by losing fat, lowering insulin and various other interventions would correct this defect and allow TEF to work normally.
Information care of -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...-overview.html
Explanation in simple Layman's terms: There is such thing as TEF (thermic effect of feeding). It's different for all macronutrients.
Protein has the highest TEF, followed by carbs and then fat. Meaning it changes the "net" caloric balance in accordance to what is ingested.
Meaning simply: 10 calories from protein =/= 10 calories from fat.
Fat has a lesser thermic effect when ingested and therefore has a greater "net" caloric impact at the end of digestion/processing by the body.
Last edited:
MaxBrenner
New member
Diurnal Cycling
Studies on Protein Synthesis –
(9) – Biolo G et. al. Physiologic hyperinsulinemia stimulates protein synthesis and enhances transport of selected amino acids in human skeletal muscle. J Clin Invest (1995) 95 (2): 811-9.
(10) – Bell JA et. al. Short term insulin and nutritional energy provision do not stimulate muscle protein synthesis if blood amino acid availability decreases. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab (2005) 289 (6): E999-1006.
(11) – Rennie MJ et. al. Branched Chain amino acids as fuels and anabolic signals in human muscle. J Nutr (2006) 136 (1 Suppl): 264S-8S.
(12) – Kimball SR, New functions for amino acids: effects on gene transcription and translation. Am J Clin Nutr. (2006) 83 (2): 500S-507S.
(13) – May, ME and Buse, MG. Effects of branched chain amino acids on protein turnover. Diabetes/ Metabolism Rev (1989) 5: 227-245.
(14) – Kadowaki M. and Kanazawa T. Amino acids as regulators of proteolysis. J Nutr (2003) 133: 2052S-2056S.
(15) – Price GM et. al. Nitrogen homeostasis in man: influence of protein intake on the amplitude of diurnal cycling of body nitrogen. Clin Sci (Lond). (1994) 86:91-102.
(16) – Wagenmakers, AJ. Protein and amino acid metabolism in human muscle. Skeletal Muscle Metabolism in Exercise and Diabetes. Ed. Richter et. al. Plenum Press: New York, 1998.
(17) – Fern, EB et. al. Effects of exaggerated amino acid and protein supply in man. Experientia (1991) 47: 168-172.
(18) – Millward, DJ et. al. Physical activity, protein metabolism and protein requirements. Proc Nutr Soc (1994) 53: 223-240.
(19) – Phillips SM et. al. A critical examination of dietary protein requirements, benefits and excesses in athletes. Int J Sports Nutr Exerc Metab (2007) 17: S58-S76.
(20) – Oddoye, EA and Margen, S. Nitrogen balance studies in humans: long term effects of high nitrogen intake on nitrogen accretion. J Nutr (1979) 109: 363-377.
(21) – Phillips SM, et. al. Mixed muscle protein synthesis and breakdown after resistance exercise in humans. Am J Physiol. (1997) 273: E99-107.
This one is on the Amino L-Leucine -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110810
Leucine is not effective against catabolism without the other AA.
Studies on Protein Synthesis –
(9) – Biolo G et. al. Physiologic hyperinsulinemia stimulates protein synthesis and enhances transport of selected amino acids in human skeletal muscle. J Clin Invest (1995) 95 (2): 811-9.
(10) – Bell JA et. al. Short term insulin and nutritional energy provision do not stimulate muscle protein synthesis if blood amino acid availability decreases. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab (2005) 289 (6): E999-1006.
(11) – Rennie MJ et. al. Branched Chain amino acids as fuels and anabolic signals in human muscle. J Nutr (2006) 136 (1 Suppl): 264S-8S.
(12) – Kimball SR, New functions for amino acids: effects on gene transcription and translation. Am J Clin Nutr. (2006) 83 (2): 500S-507S.
(13) – May, ME and Buse, MG. Effects of branched chain amino acids on protein turnover. Diabetes/ Metabolism Rev (1989) 5: 227-245.
(14) – Kadowaki M. and Kanazawa T. Amino acids as regulators of proteolysis. J Nutr (2003) 133: 2052S-2056S.
(15) – Price GM et. al. Nitrogen homeostasis in man: influence of protein intake on the amplitude of diurnal cycling of body nitrogen. Clin Sci (Lond). (1994) 86:91-102.
(16) – Wagenmakers, AJ. Protein and amino acid metabolism in human muscle. Skeletal Muscle Metabolism in Exercise and Diabetes. Ed. Richter et. al. Plenum Press: New York, 1998.
(17) – Fern, EB et. al. Effects of exaggerated amino acid and protein supply in man. Experientia (1991) 47: 168-172.
(18) – Millward, DJ et. al. Physical activity, protein metabolism and protein requirements. Proc Nutr Soc (1994) 53: 223-240.
(19) – Phillips SM et. al. A critical examination of dietary protein requirements, benefits and excesses in athletes. Int J Sports Nutr Exerc Metab (2007) 17: S58-S76.
(20) – Oddoye, EA and Margen, S. Nitrogen balance studies in humans: long term effects of high nitrogen intake on nitrogen accretion. J Nutr (1979) 109: 363-377.
(21) – Phillips SM, et. al. Mixed muscle protein synthesis and breakdown after resistance exercise in humans. Am J Physiol. (1997) 273: E99-107.
This one is on the Amino L-Leucine -
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110810
Leucine is not effective against catabolism without the other AA.
Last edited:
Figjam Brah
Srs feels brah
Really 
TLDR
Whats the short on protein intake??
TLDR
Whats the short on protein intake??
MaxBrenner
New member
Really
TLDR
Whats the short on protein intake??
In short, Endurance Athletes 2g/kg & Strength Athletes 3g/kg. It is all broken down on the previous page
Im just over 80kg, and there's no way I eat 240g protein a day (3g/kg). I reckon I barely hit 160g (2g/kg) and thats on a good day with 2 shakes. It could explain why Im not huge!
On a good day I have:
- a bit of peanut butter on toast (say 10g protein), or milk with my oats (10g)
- a protein shake with milk (30g)
- a handful of almonds throughout the day (another 10g),
- maybe some 4 bean salad and hummous for lunch (10g) and some tuna (10g)
- or some left over meaty casserole (30g)
- a post workout shake (only on gym days) (30g)
- steak or chicken with dinner (50g)
On a good day I have:
- a bit of peanut butter on toast (say 10g protein), or milk with my oats (10g)
- a protein shake with milk (30g)
- a handful of almonds throughout the day (another 10g),
- maybe some 4 bean salad and hummous for lunch (10g) and some tuna (10g)
- or some left over meaty casserole (30g)
- a post workout shake (only on gym days) (30g)
- steak or chicken with dinner (50g)
MaxBrenner
New member
some_cs_student
New member
Taking an extreme example, if someone were to eat their 2500 calories a day in a single meal, the research if taken to an extreme would imply that this would not gain more weight than having 3 meals/day with the same number of overall calories.
Assuming that this were physically possible, and they were able to control their hunger levels through the day, wouldn't they're energy levels suffer?
The argument around the >3meals/day is often the energy levels, the idea is to avoid a lower energy level during the day to keep a consistent energy level.
Just interested as to your opinion on this.
Assuming that this were physically possible, and they were able to control their hunger levels through the day, wouldn't they're energy levels suffer?
The argument around the >3meals/day is often the energy levels, the idea is to avoid a lower energy level during the day to keep a consistent energy level.
Just interested as to your opinion on this.
MaxBrenner
New member
Have a read of this link - http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-...ch-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/
Consistent 'energy levels' are certainly all in the mind. See placebo.
If you have a read of the part about the digestion process, you will see that have a constant supply of nutrients through out the day
As an example, Whey protein (the fastest digesting single form of whole protein) digests at 10 grams an hour (with other nutirents that will be SLOWER). If you consumed 200 grams of protein all from Whey, that would take 20 hours minimum.
With hunger levels, that is due to Ghrelin.
Released primarily from the stomach, ghrelin goes to the brain where, predictable, there is a specific receptor. Among other functions, ghrelin raises levels of growth hormone. But that’s far from all.
Ghrelin also stimulates hunger (the only hormone so far found to do so) and appears to be a key hormone in initiating the hunger that goes along with meals; ghrelin drops prior to hunger and injection of ghrelin stimulates hunger specifically.
Even more interestingly, there is research suggesting that ghrelin levels become entrained to normal meal times.
So if you normally eat at 3pm (or whatever), you’ll likely find yourself becoming hungry at 3pm; this appears to occur from changes in ghrelin. I suspect this explains why people often have problems changing meal frequency, at least until ghrelin re-entrains itself to the new frequency.
That is, moving from a higher to lower frequency of meals is often accompanied by hunger at the previously ‘normal’ meal times. Moving from lower to higher is often accompanied by a lack of hunger until the body adjusts to the new frequency. I haven’t seen any work examining how long this takes but empirically it seems like it’s a couple of weeks or so.
Bodyweight Regulation Wrap-Up: A Few More Hormones | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Hope that explains it a little better.
Last edited:
some_cs_student
New member
Thanks for the info. At some point I'll try switch to something closer to 3 meals/day and see what happens.
MaxBrenner
New member
No problem mate. Just find what fits your daily schedule and is the least stressful to adhere to. For the most part that tends to be a lower meal frequency 
As long as you get in your Macronutrient requirements, that is all that matters for body composition.
As long as you get in your Macronutrient requirements, that is all that matters for body composition.