Is 200g protein enough?
- 01-16-2013, 01:03 PM
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.
- 01-16-2013, 01:43 PM
01-16-2013, 02:27 PM
01-16-2013, 02:56 PM
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.
01-16-2013, 03:06 PM
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.
01-16-2013, 03:58 PM
01-16-2013, 11:27 PM
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.
01-16-2013, 11:28 PM
01-18-2013, 09:28 AM
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.
01-18-2013, 09:56 AM
01-18-2013, 11:32 AM
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.
01-18-2013, 11:41 AM
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.
01-18-2013, 11:47 AM
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.
01-18-2013, 12:12 PM
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.
01-18-2013, 12:13 PM
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.
01-18-2013, 12:20 PM
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.
01-18-2013, 12:41 PM
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
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
01-18-2013, 12:55 PM
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...
01-18-2013, 12:59 PM
01-18-2013, 01:31 PM
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).
http://www.livestrong.com/article/35...e-fat-storage/ (This one is a good supporting write-up)
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
01-18-2013, 06:51 PM
I have shown scientific evidence for the benefit of "excess" protein being more effective. So has Jiigz, inadvertently. Hopefully he will realize that angle is one that should be studied with an open mind instead of taking on a personally argumentative and defensive stance. Hell, with his professional ambition, he could make some bad ass discovery and we will all be paying Jiigzz a **** ton of money for developed products catering to BB specific science. But anyways I then gave better detail for my anecdotal beliefs that are continually called in to question, this is not a middle finger to science by any means.
I would love to see better conducted follow up studies on bodybuilders. High volume, high intensity, high frequency, two a days.... tons of unanswered questions although the indication is that yes, bodybuilding routines ellicit a physiological response much differently than documented "others" in the weight room.
All I ever get in reply is "OMG, this is just ridiculous. I can't believe it's so ridiculous I'll just ignore it", then if a reply is actually given it's off topic or winds up supporting me anyways.
I'm not dismissing science, I'm discussing better science on top of good science where optimal gains are concerned.
01-18-2013, 07:13 PM
No worries man. You have to take it all with a grain of salt. I have a hard time doing that myself. I have to remember that when others don't want to consider experience as something to value more than the latest and greatest pseudo study...it's their loss!
Besides, internet boards tend to worship science like its absolute and perfect in nature. They forget that science is built around imperfect people, lol. Either way, it comes off offensive when you challenge what others have been practicing.
01-18-2013, 07:16 PM
Excess protein intakes are so 1970's bodybuilding
01-18-2013, 07:24 PM
01-18-2013, 07:33 PM
Because HFCS is essentially fructose/glucose mixed into one molecule.
01-18-2013, 07:35 PM
In any case, you have your anecdotal evidence and can of course continue to live by that reasoning. I have mine with other BBers and strength athletes who show no difference in body compostition or recovery times with varying protein intakes.
In the end the decision is yours to make and this debating is going nowhere with neither side conceiving so instead i'll leave it there. Others reading this thread can decide on whose advice to follow.
01-18-2013, 09:26 PM
One last post what I must say is that this debating has lead me to re-read certain notes and make things far more apparent than they previously were (typically you may read a textbook with already ingrained ideologies about what you expect to find, so you tend to ignore everything else- or at least I do); in any case, fueledpassion is right on the money about nutrient partitioning and the likes, the only part I do not agree with is the Fructose- HFCS part which made to seem as though HFCS is the primary monosaccaride found in fruit, which isn't the case.
His points on CHO and protein and nutrient partitoning are in-line with my own views however I still do not advise increasing protein intake above 1.8g/kg of BW per day unless the requirements of the other macronutrients are met; post exercise I always advise drining gatorade type drinks (as insulin infusion decreases protein degradation) while also supplementing with BCAA's (which I do not include as a part of protein intake as these on their own will not transcript into proteins) as BCAA's increase the sensitivty of the muscle to the protein stimulatory effects of insulin. BCAAs also seem to slow down protein degradation. One more point on this is that hyperaminoacidemia has been shown to increase protein synthesis and amino acid transport.
01-18-2013, 11:27 PM
Layne norton has some good information on this subject. Check him out on youtube.
______________________________ ______________________________ _________________
Follow my first cycle! http://anabolicminds.com/forum/steroids/210154-first-cycle-gonna.html
01-19-2013, 01:37 PM
Adressing to the OP intial question: it depends on one's diet and personal response to macros ratio.
I do ingest 2,5-3gr per kg, because I can see that's what suites me better, above that and I get fat, lower and I can't gain weight. Also I do not respond to high carb diet, so my carbs never go above 40% of the macros wich also makes my body need more protein to convert into glycogen.
So it all depends on how do you react to the macros ratio and your goal weight. There may be generic scientific research but that what it is: an average number that a scientific study gets from a research. For exemple, there are many scientific studies that show that an healthy men's body can only digest 25-30gr of protein per meal and all above that goes to fat. So, acording to that logic, someone of my size wich the healthy weight is around 220lbs, to get enough protein for muscle building purposes, acording also with many studies that 2,5gr per kg is the upper limit that one should take, I would have to take 250gr of protein dailly divided in more than 8 meals with 30gr of protein each! C'mon guys, that just isn't realistic despite being stated on scientific research. Not saying that it's worthless data but rather that is more a general guideline for someone starting to explore this world of nutrition from wich each one should find it's own measures For me is 300gr of protein daily, spreaded throughout 4-5 meals, for you those 200gr might be enough, too much or not enough
01-19-2013, 03:41 PM
this thread has gotten way outa hand with "science" based facts. does every post have to break down into paragraphs every time?
Similar Forum Threads
- By iDShaDoW in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 2Last Post: 02-13-2008, 05:13 PM
- By goyard in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 01-09-2005, 10:50 AM
- By julius kelp in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 4Last Post: 06-11-2003, 11:36 AM
- By JohnGafnea in forum Weight LossReplies: 4Last Post: 04-04-2003, 01:42 AM
- By windwords7 in forum SupplementsReplies: 15Last Post: 12-19-2002, 07:27 PM