Is 200g protein enough?

Page 2 of 7 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Do you know how to read bro?

    I was making a comment about him saying no one on here does 2 a day training, which is why I quoted it.
    I'm agreeing with you, bro, and using your post to add to the conversation.

  2. Re: Is 200g protein enough?


    Yes it is an interestig theory but there doesn't exist a single study that demonstrates a lbm gain with supplemental leucine over control. In fact that evidence we have refutes his claim by demonstrating supplemental leucine does exactly nothing for increasing overall lbm.

    " Until now, there is no evidence that chronic leucine supplementation is efficient in promoting muscle mass "

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110810

    leucine in three divided doses through the day made no difference in LBM in healthy exercising men
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321567

    And of I remember correctly there exist research that supports the notion the isoleucine and valine need to be present on free form in a 2:1:1 ratio with ff-leucine in order for leucine to be effective but I can't seem to find it at this time.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    Yes it is an interestig theory but there doesn't exist a single study that demonstrates a lbm gain with supplemental leucine over control. In fact that evidence we have refutes his claim by demonstrating supplemental leucine does exactly nothing for increasing overall lbm.

    " Until now, there is no evidence that chronic leucine supplementation is efficient in promoting muscle mass "

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110810

    leucine in three divided doses through the day made no difference in LBM in healthy exercising men
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321567

    And of I remember correctly there exist research that supports the notion the isoleucine and valine need to be present on free form in a 2:1:1 ratio with ff-leucine in order for leucine to be effective but I can't seem to find it at this time.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    Yet again, if you would read the essay, you would see he recommends a complete protein source high in leucine content, along with carbs in a 2:1 carbrotein ratio, with the effect of "excess", leucine rich protein positively initiating supraphysical levels of MPS as demonstrated in a lab setting, outlined in the article and referenced. Leucine supplementation alone does not apply though you keep throwing it out there.

    Not only that, "healthy, exercising men" is a pretty broad statement. There are severe limitations to most studies out there regarding application to bodybuilding. I'm not sure why this is ignored repeatedly. Surely you understand the signficance of limitations.

    It makes zero sense to argue blindly. Read it. Read the referenced studies. Don't just blindly post random studies based on key words in a discussion forum that have no bearing to the essay in question.

    Edit: evidently ratios turn in to smileys. That is carb to protein

  4. This debating is pointless. The body is not a textbook. Study results will not apply to every individual. The only way to figure out how much protein you need is to experiment with different diets and macro splits and find the one that works best for achieving your goals. Don't blindly follow broscience or academic science. Learn all you can, do real life trial and error, and eventually you'll find what's best for you.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by danieltx13 View Post
    This debating is pointless. The body is not a textbook. Study results will not apply to every individual. The only way to figure out how much protein you need is to experiment with different diets and macro splits and find the one that works best for achieving your goals. Don't blindly follow broscience or academic science. Learn all you can, do real life trial and error, and eventually you'll find what's best for you.
    The sweet spot.


    This is what I'm saying, and do have scientifically based information to boot. Limiting people to one gram per pound across the board is going to short change a number of trainees, as can be seen in scientific literature as well as anecdotally across decades of trainees feeling out best practice for personal recovery.
    •   
       


  6. I've always fallen to the trap of the usual bro-science of shooting for 1.5g/lb of protein and upwards of 2g/lb. I've tried diets to account for these values, but often times would come up short. Worse, I was mainly filling in the gaps with whey and other protein shakes and having read the various threads on this forum, I've realized how much better whole food is for you. Then I realized how much carbs have in regards to gaining mass and once I dialed those in better, I saw some gains. I looked a tad soft, but my weight was increasing which at the time, was my primary goal. When I only concentrated on shooting for that 1.5g/lb, I didn't have much success, and my muscles certainly did not feel fuller.

    On my new cycle, I'm shooting for at least 1g/lb. This is more economical (which was stated in one of the posts) and for me, easier to ingest. I'm dialing in my macros as I continue, trying to get more dietary fat via whole foods and trying to limit my use of shakes. One, they get pricey and two, food-food is better for you. Too soon to tell is I'm prospering from the 1g/lb, but at least I don't feel sick to my stomach.
  7. Re: Is 200g protein enough?


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    As I became more advanced in bodybuilding style training after athletics, I experimented with routines coupling diets calling for 2-3 grams per pound. Scale weight changed noticeabley quicker, though my routines were also geared for growth as opposed to athleticism, I had more recovery time with athletic conditioning and drills out of the picture et cetera, so it is hard to say exactly what led to better muscle gain, or how big an impact more accurately.

    I can say, however, that after experimenting with a variety of routines and protein intake levels post football, I recover much, much faster at around 1.5 to 2 grams per pound than less. I personally don't feel any difference at over two grams but then I'm a natural lifter, and my "sweetspot" is somewhere in the natural range of physiological responses.

    You sure the extra recovery isn't just from increased total calories?
    CELTIC LABS REP

  8. Quote Originally Posted by tnubs View Post
    You sure the extra recovery isn't just from increased total calories?
    yes.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by ricroc View Post
    I've always fallen to the trap of the usual bro-science of shooting for 1.5g/lb of protein and upwards of 2g/lb. I've tried diets to account for these values, but often times would come up short. Worse, I was mainly filling in the gaps with whey and other protein shakes and having read the various threads on this forum, I've realized how much better whole food is for you. Then I realized how much carbs have in regards to gaining mass and once I dialed those in better, I saw some gains. I looked a tad soft, but my weight was increasing which at the time, was my primary goal. When I only concentrated on shooting for that 1.5g/lb, I didn't have much success, and my muscles certainly did not feel fuller.

    On my new cycle, I'm shooting for at least 1g/lb. This is more economical (which was stated in one of the posts) and for me, easier to ingest. I'm dialing in my macros as I continue, trying to get more dietary fat via whole foods and trying to limit my use of shakes. One, they get pricey and two, food-food is better for you. Too soon to tell is I'm prospering from the 1g/lb, but at least I don't feel sick to my stomach.
    I'm glad you are happy with your diet however your previous problem wasn't 1.5 grams of protein but your lack of whole food and carbs.

    Again, the essay and it's referenced studies demonstrating positive MPS effects with "high" levels of protein ingested frequently is there to read. You can ignore it if you want but it would be pretty bro to ignore science you simply don't like.

    If it's a money issue, that is another story altogether. Get by the best you can I guess. Generally speaking, I'm not interested in others finances and the inability to afford quality protein doesn't negate the positive benefits of ingesting high levels of quality protein frequently, as discussed in the linked yet completely ignored studies and essay.

    I am interested in the data demonstrated by the study posted by Jiigz showing bodybuilders do, in fact, require more protein than "others" (though I would like to see more variables under the microscope as it is a pretty weak study, though it does demonstrate a higher need for protein for bodybuilders) and the essay with its corresponding references I posted.

    You can all argue with me anecdotally if you'd like but don't go throwing bro science around when you just simply ignore the available science contradicting your personal anecdotes. The problem is, most studies people are using to base their protein guidelines around do not even involve bodybuilders. This is a giant limitation,especially considering a study in this very thread demonstrating bodybuilders requiring more protein than other "weight trained" individuals.

    I'm getting tired of playing Pete and Repeat. So far, any argument to the science backing protein intake over what seems to be the common protocol on this website has either been off topic, loosely discusses "weight training" in general without acknowledging severe limitations where bodybuilding is concerned or, oddly, is supportive of increasing protein above "others" where bodybuilding is concerned.


    Read it or don't, I don't care. If you choose to ignore various physiological responses brought on by different training styles, scientific evidence pointing to benefits of protein over and above the seemingly popular amount and would rather let off topic studies ride.... by all means, knock yourself out.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    You can all argue with me anecdotally if you'd like but don't go throwing bro science around when you just simply ignore the available science contradicting your personal anecdotes. The problem is, most studies people are using to base their protein guidelines around do not even involve bodybuilders. This is a giant limitation,especially considering a study in this very thread demonstrating bodybuilders requiring more protein than other "weight trained" individuals.

    I'm getting tired of playing Pete and Repeat. So far, any argument to the science backing protein intake over what seems to be the common protocol on this website has either been off topic, loosely discusses "weight training" in general without acknowledging severe limitations where bodybuilding is concerned or, oddly, is supportive of increasing protein above "others" where bodybuilding is concerned.


    Read it or don't, I don't care. If you choose to ignore various physiological responses brought on by different training styles, scientific evidence pointing to benefits of protein over and above the seemingly popular amount and would rather let off topic studies ride.... by all means, knock yourself out.
    Wow! I was just adding my own experience. I was not challenging anyone on anything about what had been stated. I'm not sure how that got misconstrued. I thought these forums were a way to express our own individual paths, to share in our own experiences. I know there are those that have this approach and that was my aim, to join in on the discussion.

    I didn't think I was arguing in any sense, and I am not. I felt that others perusing this thread might see that someone is following another path, nothing more. And my reference to bro-science should have been clarified to state from the usual BB mags that are out there.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by ricroc View Post
    Wow! I was just adding my own experience. I was not challenging anyone on anything about what had been stated. I'm not sure how that got misconstrued. I thought these forums were a way to express our own individual paths, to share in our own experiences. I know there are those that have this approach and that was my aim, to join in on the discussion.

    I didn't think I was arguing in any sense, and I am not. I felt that others perusing this thread might see that someone is following another path, nothing more. And my reference to bro-science should have been clarified to state from the usual BB mags that are out there.
    My mistake then.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by danieltx13 View Post
    This debating is pointless. The body is not a textbook. Study results will not apply to every individual. The only way to figure out how much protein you need is to experiment with different diets and macro splits and find the one that works best for achieving your goals. Don't blindly follow broscience or academic science. Learn all you can, do real life trial and error, and eventually you'll find what's best for you.
    Science can understand how the body works because most peoples bodies respond in similar ways; a protein molecule does the same job in my body as it does for yours. Blindly ignoring science because you think your way is better without testing yourself your own NBAL, Urea excretion etc. is worth nothing in real world application.

    Chances are the amount of protein you are consuming far exceeds your bodies capability or need to synthesize it; yet by some placebo effect you think it helps further enhance recovery.

    If you disregard nutrition as science worth following, then I suggest you do the same with all other sciences. Including the advice given by M.D's as, like you said, the body is not a textbook.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    yes.
    Can be sure sure of this? Can you attribute it to protein alone given that this was not the only variable that changed?

    I highly doubt it.

  14. There should be more considered than just "how much" protein. For instance, an equally important question is "what type". I for one believe 1 -1.5g per lb of body weight is sufficient for 95% of lifters out there. This is assuming that u r taking BCAA's throughout the day and that u r also eating a high carb, low fat diet. Protein to carb ratios are important in controlling the insulin-glucagon axis. Hit ur target caloric level with high quality proteins and carbs, while keeping fat minimal and you'll see results. For instance, to burn fat, lower the carbs and raise the protein. To build muscle, less protein is needed bt more carbs will be necessary for the added insulin secretion.

    The most important aspect of protein is not its "muscle building properties", but rather that it takes more energy and a longer amount of time to break down proteins than it does carbs. If I eat a 1:1 ration of protein to carbs, and it 200-400kcals above maintenance everyday, I wont necessarily wind up bigger than had I chosen to eat a 1:2 ratio of prot to carbs. It just means that I'd wind up mich, much leaner in the process which is why olympia lifters generally have juch higher protein requirements.

    Also, consider that nitrogen retention is ultimately what ur trying to do. And you lose nitrogen when u sweat, therefore, hih intensity training demands more protein. This also holds true with Trenbolone, since it makes u sweat TONS, it also requires lots of protein to be effective.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by hvactech View Post
    off topic, does anyone break there macros down on a weekly scale vs daily?
    I figure tdee over the course of a week then figure my daily macros based on that so that my higher calorie workout days and my lower calorie off days add up to total tdee for the week

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Can be sure sure of this? Can you attribute it to protein alone given that this was not the only variable that changed?

    I highly doubt it.
    Within a routine, after previous changes, the only variable I changed was the roughly 1 gram per pound to 2 grams.

    To be more clear with a timeline of dietary and routine changes:

    I played football as a kid. In the seventh grade, if you made the cut for an athletics team in my Jr. High, you were pulled from regular PE to athletics which is when I started my first "real" weight training. I ate like any kid. Breakfast and dinner were whatever mom served, a tray lunch at school, something for a snack after.

    This went on til high school when the only real change was sneaking a protein/creatine shake in my locker somewhere between lunch and football practice, and maybe a snickers from a vending machine directly before (oddly not against the rules where protein was). I probably didn't even get a gram per pound but did grow, like any kid of course and in the weight room.

    Then came college football. A much better lifting program, special cafeteria food et cetera. Nutrition was discussed but general guidelines were to eat, try to get your vegetables in and don't get fat. I did some reading and coupled with our "guidelines" came up with roughly one gram per pound myself. I broke 200 pounds lean (considering an athlete, not a stage ready BBer) and loved it. This was no doubt a combo of better coaching along with more regular, protein rich nutrition as opposed to a public school lunch and maybe like three scambled eggs with toast from dear mom at breakfast.

    I wasn't good enough to continue to the NFL unfortunately but I still had a passion for lifting, so I checked out bodybuilding style training. I noticed excellent muscle gains with the only real change at this time being routine design for hypertrophy as the primary goal as opposed to athletic performance.

    The more I read, the more I got curious about substituting some non-protein foods for protein instead and went up to about 2 grams per pound, where I noticed markedly better recovery times and consequently faster gains within an existing routine and all else the same at this point. They certainly weren't newb gains nor did they come at the beginning of a body shocking new routine but after I'd been doing it a while and as a secondary tweak. I went higher and didn't notice any real difference but definitely found roughly 2 grams per pound to be far superior to 1.

    That is my personal anecdotal story.

    The research and it's write up on "excess" protein (leucine rich and combined with carbs in a specific ratio) positively affecting MPS at supraphysical levels, regardless of oxidation, is out there too.

  17. I agree that 1g to 1.5g is enough for most people to grow, but if they were capable of 2-3g per lb of mass, I'd certainly encourage it. 2g is better than 1g, but 1g is good for slow growth nonetheless. However, I also reserve a special place for carbs since they are the preferred energy source for muscle contractions and high-intensity activity. I just cant believe that this board still holds strongly to their high fat diets - that is so 1970's bodybuilding.

    At Texas, ur last paragraph I believe is referring to an insulin-glucagon axis. The ratio of protein to carbs affects this hormone balance, which is the main factor in body composition. The other factors are fat intake and activity, of course.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    There should be more considered than just "how much" protein. For instance, an equally important question is "what type". I for one believe 1 -1.5g per lb of body weight is sufficient for 95% of lifters out there. This is assuming that u r taking BCAA's throughout the day and that u r also eating a high carb, low fat diet. Protein to carb ratios are important in controlling the insulin-glucagon axis. Hit ur target caloric level with high quality proteins and carbs, while keeping fat minimal and you'll see results. For instance, to burn fat, lower the carbs and raise the protein. To build muscle, less protein is needed bt more carbs will be necessary for the added insulin secretion.

    The most important aspect of protein is not its "muscle building properties", but rather that it takes more energy and a longer amount of time to break down proteins than it does carbs. If I eat a 1:1 ration of protein to carbs, and it 200-400kcals above maintenance everyday, I wont necessarily wind up bigger than had I chosen to eat a 1:2 ratio of prot to carbs. It just means that I'd wind up mich, much leaner in the process which is why olympia lifters generally have juch higher protein requirements.

    Also, consider that nitrogen retention is ultimately what ur trying to do. And you lose nitrogen when u sweat, therefore, hih intensity training demands more protein. This also holds true with Trenbolone, since it makes u sweat TONS, it also requires lots of protein to be effective.
    I really like this post. Unfortunately a conversation has already happened where TEF values and their efficacy on a physique have been discarded as scientific trash, though studies were posted in favor there, too. The conversation became a dead horse and switched to protein synthesis, where it is continuing in a different vein.

    But yes, manipulating macros for their thermal effect is effective and smart.

    As a general rant, the science shows it, people who have manipulated it and have been doing so for decades show it but essentially leangains doesn't include it as an aspect of its particular diet and for some reason some people seem to treat leangains like it is the end all, be all diet. Not just the current fad diet utilizing and marketing the **** out of a particular metabolic pathway.

    It's like weight trainers who have started in the last three years or so, or at least started paying attention to their diets, "came up" in the leangains era and are so dogmatic about it they just simply ignore anything else that worked before it. Sometimes at the gym I feel like I'm stuck in a conversation with my parents and their old friends about the magic Atkins diet ten years ago. Yeah, it works. Mostly you just got motivated to use a diet after this particular diets marketing hooked you. The other diets have worked too, and so will future diets.

    /rant.

  19. Haha good words, Texas! Well, I've been thinking personally that if LeanGains coupled the pro-bodybuilders style of eating clean, tons of carbs, tons of protein, TONS of BCAA's...it miht be a realy awesome recomping/maintenance diet. The reason I havent gone back to LeanGains is because I cant eat enough caloric requirements in an 8hr window. Period. That diet is for beginners due to that fact. Someone who has been training 10+ years needs higher and more quality caloric intake to see results. So I left that beginner bandwagon and am on to the quest for professionalism.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    I agree that 1g to 1.5g is enough for most people to grow, but if they were capable of 2-3g per lb of mass, I'd certainly encourage it. 2g is better than 1g, but 1g is good for slow growth nonetheless. However, I also reserve a special place for carbs since they are the preferred energy source for muscle contractions and high-intensity activity. I just cant believe that this board still holds strongly to their high fat diets - that is so 1970's bodybuilding.

    At Texas, ur last paragraph I believe is referring to an insulin-glucagon axis. The ratio of protein to carbs affects this hormone balance, which is the main factor in body composition. The other factors are fat intake and activity, of course.
    Yeah it's weird. The argument is always "well they make gains on X diet and X research supports it!" and nobody really disagrees but suggestions are made for more effective protocols, supported by research and reams of anecdotal evidence and some people cry bloody murder because hey, their chosen routines gets gains bro. It's like it becomes a personal challenge to their intelligence instead of general observations or something. I don't know. I guess if you put all your eggs in one basket and then run around using that "basket" as a club in a forum that's what happens.

    Regarding the glucagon axis, I've been pretty excited to see some research on nutrient repartitioning compounds optimizing insulin responses in supplements. I think they will be the new prohormones as the research develops, and rightly so IMO.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Haha good words, Texas! Well, I've been thinking personally that if LeanGains coupled the pro-bodybuilders style of eating clean, tons of carbs, tons of protein, TONS of BCAA's...it miht be a realy awesome recomping/maintenance diet. The reason I havent gone back to LeanGains is because I cant eat enough caloric requirements in an 8hr window. Period. That diet is for beginners due to that fact. Someone who has been training 10+ years needs higher and more quality caloric intake to see results. So I left that beginner bandwagon and am on to the quest for professionalism.
    Yes.

    And I don't like to get on a box but I've lifted weights for roughly 18 years, touched the elite level of athletics (though I'll always wish I could've competed in them), expirimented with more training and dietary styles than most and simply know what I know, plus the research that does back it.

    My hope is that these mickey mouses will outgrow the entry level and broaden their horizons. Be vulnerable to look at science that may be excluded from the marketing machine of a particular diet using a particular metabolic pathway. Not to disregard this particular diet but to know there are more, and better, out there. (This is a general comment after pages and pages of arguments and not directed at any particular poster, I realize there are accomplished lifters of all stripes)


    Edit, and I'm glad you mention nutrient absorption, it's been simply ignored previously. I don't know why, for all the "scientific soundness" of the debators but what ever.
  22. Re: Is 200g protein enough?


    Reading your post are gonna give me aneurysm. I have never seen someone so dismissive to science and at the same time attempts to use science as a basis for their brolore. Sigh...

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  23. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Yes.

    And I don't like to get on a box but I've lifted weights for roughly 18 years, touched the elite level of athletics (though I'll always wish I could've competed in them), expirimented with more training and dietary styles than most and simply know what I know, plus the research that does back it.

    My hope is that these mickey mouses will outgrow the entry level and broaden their horizons. Be vulnerable to look at science that may be excluded from the marketing machine of a particular diet using a particular metabolic pathway. Not to disregard this particular diet but to know there are more, and better, out there. (This is a general comment after pages and pages of arguments and not directed at any particular poster, I realize there are accomplished lifters of all stripes)


    Edit, and I'm glad you mention nutrient absorption, it's been simply ignored previously. I don't know why, for all the "scientific soundness" of the debators but what ever.
    yeah nutrient partitioning has been forgotten in the weight-lifting society at this point. Yet, it is the very thing that makes some diets more effective than others, make some steroids more powerful than others, and is ultimately what makes success or failure out of ur routine. Different foods have different metabolic pathways which means they have different outcomes in the metabolism. Case in point - MCT oil vs. Dietary fats. Or maybe a sweet potato vs. a donut. Or even vegetable protein vs. a slab of steak...they all maybe differ in the time taken to process as well as where they go.

    For instance, Fructose, widely known as the "healthy" sugar found in fruits, is actually a surefire way to get fat, AND lose energy at the same time. Because of its structure, the liver immediately converts it to a fatty acid and puts it into the blood stream. The surplus amounts go to glycogen storage in the liver, filling up the glycogen reserves without repleneshing the muscles first. To top that off, if u follow a large fruit serving with starches, they have a greater chance of being stored as fat since there isnt any room in the liver for extra glycogen. Once the muscle glycogen is topped off, the rest of the carbs get stored as fat by insulin. So with fruit you walk away with depleted muscle glycogen and a little more fat...

  24. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post

    yeah nutrient partitioning has been forgotten in the weight-lifting society at this point. Yet, it is the very thing that makes some diets more effective than others, make some steroids more powerful than others, and is ultimately what makes success or failure out of ur routine. Different foods have different metabolic pathways which means they have different outcomes in the metabolism. Case in point - MCT oil vs. Dietary fats. Or maybe a sweet potato vs. a donut. Or even vegetable protein vs. a slab of steak...they all maybe differ in the time taken to process as well as where they go.

    For instance, Fructose, widely known as the "healthy" sugar found in fruits, is actually a surefire way to get fat, AND lose energy at the same time. Because of its structure, the liver immediately converts it to a fatty acid and puts it into the blood stream. The surplus amounts go to glycogen storage in the liver, filling up the glycogen reserves without repleneshing the muscles first. To top that off, if u follow a large fruit serving with starches, they have a greater chance of being stored as fat since there isnt any room in the liver for extra glycogen. Once the muscle glycogen is topped off, the rest of the carbs get stored as fat by insulin. So with fruit you walk away with depleted muscle glycogen and a little more fat...
    Gonna need to see some science on that.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Gonna need to see some science on that.
    Sure.

    Shafrir E. Fructose/sucrose metabolism, its physiological and pathological implications. Sugars and sweeteners, Kretchmer N & Hollenbeck CB, Eds. CRC Press, 1991, p 63-98

    Paige DM, Clinical Nutrition. C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, 1988 p 703-704

    the embarrassing thing about it is that this information has been around for 20 years. It also doesnt surprise me that the largest bodybuilders came up in the era of GH and good nutritional information. Now everyone tells u something to sell a product rather than help u get lean and healthy...

    Furthermore, I recommend u research fructokinase and its metabolic pathway as well as how detrimental "high fructose corn syrup" has been on our society since food companies started using the cheap sweetener in place of other sweeteners like maltodextrin and sucrose (which is cheap, too).

    And more...

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/29...cose-fructose/

    http://www.livestrong.com/article/35...e-fat-storage/ (This one is a good supporting write-up)

    and more...http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...thers-fat.aspx

    while this guy tries to defend fruit just a little, he actually supports my earlier post claiming that fructose either stores as liver glycogen or gets converted into tricglycerides (fats) and released into the bloodstream. Neither of these processes take the glycogen to the muscle right away, which makes fruit less useful in sports activities such as running and weight-lifting. It also steals room for other glycogen form starches to be stored in the liver, which further increases the likelihood of causing fat storage via insulin. http://weightology.net/?p=434
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Am I getting enough calories? And is my protein shake OK?
    By iDShaDoW in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 05:13 PM
  2. Is one bottle enough?
    By goyard in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-09-2005, 10:50 AM
  3. is 4 weeks enough?
    By julius kelp in forum Cycle Logs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2003, 11:36 AM
  4. When else besides PW is whey protein okay to consume?
    By JohnGafnea in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-04-2003, 01:42 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-19-2002, 07:27 PM
Log in
Log in