- 05-03-2013, 02:26 AM
Hey guys! I'm preparing myself for a half marathon and I've been going to gym to workout everyday, been running about 2 to 3 miles everyday and been lifting weights. I want to get toned but I've been told I must take protein. I'm 21 female and weight about 124 pounds. What brands and types of proteins do you recommend??
- 05-03-2013, 02:28 AM
- 05-03-2013, 04:40 AM
Been told you must take protein? Don't have to supplement with protein if you get enough through the diet. Just so you know.
05-03-2013, 04:45 AM
You're weight plays a huge role here. Rule of thumb is .75-1 gram per lb of body mass. Through diet you can easily achieve your specific needs. There is no reason you must take a protein supp. I acquire my protein needs through diet, and I take in around 4500 + calories a day, look great, and do this with only 4 meals a day
05-03-2013, 06:48 PM
Thanks guys! But what if I don't eat too many meats...should I take protein everyday ? I got powdered protein called "whey", I'm suppose to take it 20 minutes after a workout to help recover and build muscle...was that a waste of money?
05-03-2013, 07:29 PM
05-04-2013, 01:41 AM
05-04-2013, 10:21 AM
05-04-2013, 03:57 PM
I will not claim to be an expert on female nutrition, nor of nutrition in general. I just know what worked for me. .75-1 gram per lb of bw is a good start. I gained 25 pounds my first year of lifting by going up to 1.5 grams or more. Basically, when I got between 270 to 300 grams, I had good results. So if you are wanting lean mass, I would start at 1 gram and work from there. Just monitor your progress in the mirror. The scale can tell you where you are at, but the mirror tells you if you are where you want to be.
05-04-2013, 03:58 PM
05-04-2013, 11:52 PM
Not to fuel an argument, but studies show that increasing protein intake beyond 1.8g/kg/BW is pointless and a waste. The body has a limited capacity (which is WELL understood, despite what you may hear) and above that capacity, the body will deaminate or transaminate aminos.
Studies that show this 'ceiling'if you will are both isotope markers and simple protein turnover anaylsis which INCLUDE muscle biopsies with both trained and untrained athletes across various sports.
Also 3-MH studies can be useful.
05-04-2013, 11:58 PM
05-05-2013, 12:08 AM
The 37-40g at one time rule is not true; just a heads up. Extra calories would increase mass and allow for optimal recovery (by way of ensuring adequete substrates for repair) but this isn't solely the role of protein.
05-05-2013, 12:38 AM
Ha. My meals usually consist of anywhere from 20-120 grams of protein. Around 40-120 grams of carbs. And 5-50 grams of fat. I am not six pack shredded but that's not my goal either. Regardless I look focking awesome
05-05-2013, 09:01 AM
I feel like this thread has already happened with science in general demonstrating inconclusive implications.
Just as last time, I tend to experience greater gains around 1.5-2g protein per pound myself and without making the protein an extra source of calories but working it in to my intake level.
If I could remember the previous thread I would link it here but studies have also shown "high" protein intake to induce supraphysical levels of protein synthesis. And now we are looping back to an old argument so I'll leave it there.
05-05-2013, 07:33 PM
When protein intake increased beyond a certian level, leucine oxidation increased at the rate of ingestion and because all aminos constitute the building blocks required for hormonal transport and muscle repair, the fact that leucine oxidation increased is a pretty good conclusion that the body no longer needed those aminos which indicates the upper ceiling.
I read your studies posted a while ago, but I felt as though we wouldnt reach a common ground and so I left the discussion as it was. Of course extra protein is not harmful and so it doesnt really matter what your intake is
05-06-2013, 08:30 AM
One factor that you guys ^^^^ are neglecting is the role of protein in satiety.
Some people (myself unfortunately not included) find that protein blunts hunger more than do the other two macros. For those people, an "excess" of protein may be preferable to extra quantities of the other two -- even if the extra protein doesn't ultimately contribute to muscle building/repair past a certain point -- simply because it serves as a safeguard against overeating.
There are also some studies on the efficiency with which the body uses calories of the different macros. I don't remember everything exactly (I will look them up again when I have more time), but some studies purport to show that the body only avails itself of 0.7-0.8 calorie of actual food energy per 1 calorie of protein consumed. By contrast, those studies say, the body is very efficient at using (and not wasting) the whole 1 calorie of carbohydrate and/or fat.
This totally looked like junk science to me when I read it, but it's borne out by my food diary. Specifically, when I go back to Uruguay, I eat absurd amounts of protein (sometimes north of 400 grams on workout days) and a lot less carbohydrate. And sure enough, according to the diary, I can consume an extra 300-350 cal/day (= about 20% of those protein calories) and still be at long-term maintenance.
So, even if protein doesn't particularly blunt your appetite, you may come out ahead of the curve by eating more of it, even on an isocaloric diet.
Of course, anecdotes are not data, and so YMMV.
And for you lucky bastards (aka "hardgainers") who don't have to worry about keeping your appetites in check, well, you may want to do the opposite. Proportionally less protein, more carbs and fats.
05-06-2013, 09:04 AM
Oh, and, three responses to the OP if you are still reading this:
If you are training for a 13.1-mile race, you should definitely be running more than 2-3 miles a day. Probably about twice that much (if your goal is just to *finish* the half marathon), say 25 to 35 miles/week. If you're just starting, build up to it.
If you are varying your tempo -- some fartlek/speedwork, some normal tempo running, and occasional sprints on the track (a couple times a month) -- then you can knock the mileage down a bit.
Your two goals (being "toned" and running a 13.1-mile road race) are going to butt heads after a while.
Endurance work, if you get too serious about it, will have pernicious effects on the "toned"/"full" look of muscles. (Long story short: More cortisol, fewer androgenic and estrogenic hormones.) It'll make you long, lean, sinewy, and whip-like -- take a look at some marathon runners -- but it's not the best route to a beach bod.
For women, the best route to a beach bod is disciplined (your diet should be on point), but lazy (you honestly don't need to work out very much). Lazy is always a good thing, if you ask me.
Make sure you're getting monthly bloodwork, especially thyroid tests (t3, tsh, and t4).
Basically, endurance training can f*** with thyroid function in women, a LOT more than in men. Who knows why -- it's probably an evolutionary adaptation, to keep you from losing too much fat to have the bebehs -- but, it is what it is.
If your thyroid levels are tanking, cut back the training, and/or find a doctor who is far-seeing enough to write you a temporary rx for some thyroid meds. Or else you risk turning into a zeppelin as soon as you cut back the mileage.
05-06-2013, 10:30 PM
05-06-2013, 11:24 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By CDB in forum Training ForumReplies: 9Last Post: 12-01-2012, 12:31 PM
- By massmonster in forum Weight LossReplies: 4Last Post: 05-12-2006, 10:52 AM
- By Beowulf in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 11Last Post: 03-13-2006, 08:06 AM
- By guyfromkop in forum Weight LossReplies: 4Last Post: 05-26-2005, 04:34 PM
- By Syr in forum Weight LossReplies: 9Last Post: 02-27-2005, 02:50 AM