Plus Lyle McDonald suggests that anything more than 1.2g/lb of lean mass is a waste, and he as well is quite a reputable figure, and there are others.
Poliquin and those others are training guys at or really close to genetic max too. it may make more of a difference there. You can't compare the average 170lb 22 year old person here with the line backers and wide receivers etc he trains. Also its a case of other carefully tweaked supplements, some of which may aide in protein use. From what I understand training with poliquin entails weekly blood tests, and he tweaks supplementation based on those.
I just question whether the difference in gains between the 1g a day and 2g a day is significant.
This space for rent
Come visit my log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-up-level.html
I've heard there is such a thing as overkill with protein but also read somewhere that while on a cycle your body can use more protein. This is when I try to spike my protein levels.
It takes discipline to eat what you need to eat, and for those with small stomachs, the discipline to push the limits of what the stomach can handle to increase what you can eat. Look at Sumo wrestlers. They don't pick fat kids to do this sport--they pick kids with discipline. It takes discipline for them to always eat more than before so that they eventually can take a race of small thing people and turn them into giants that can eat ridiculous amounts of food.
The problem with these theories that "bodybuilders" like to cite so often, is that there is not a shred of evidence based empirical research being performed here. Protein consumption for exercise and muscle building is something that has been studied for years, with many works published in peer reviewed medical and nutrition journals.
If you're not familiar with what a peer reviewed journal is... here's a brief explanation.
A researcher performs a scientific experiment utilizing various methods to ensure both validity and reliability in the design, performance, and outcome of the experiment. The researcher submits all information; from how the experiment was formulated, to every detail regarding its execution, and finally to the results of the experiment - to a committee of certified and credentialed peers in the specialty of the topic of the research. These peers review and scrutinize every detail of information contained in the report and validate or invalidate the findings based on current knowledge, the research itself (and any issues with it) and many other factors. If the paper is found to pass the peer review, it is then and only then granted publication into the journal.
Is science ALWAYS right? Obviously the answer is no. That being said, would I trust hundreds of peer reviewed papers on a particular subject over the "opinion" of a bodybuilder, purported guru or not? Absolutely not.
Can you gain muscle taking in 2 or more grams of protein per lb of bodyweight? Sure, that much is evident. Is it necessary? All evidence points to it being overkill and likey no more than an expensive case of gastrointestinal upset.
In the case of increased protein consumption while taking AAS... yes this can be a benefit. AAS's increase protein synthesis and therefore more protein can be utilized by the body for recovery and muscle building.
I haven't done so yet myself, but I encourage any doubter out there to look at some of the more reputable sources on the topic of training for strength and size. NCSA comes to mind.
Actually, I did some brief research. NCSA has a good article on this vary topic.
Quoting directly from the article
"Too Much Protein
There is no evidence to suggest that protein supplements are more effective than consumption of high-quality protein from standard dietary sources (7). A suggested maximum protein intake based on bodily needs, weight control evidence, and avoiding protein toxicity is approximately 25% of energy requirements at approximately 2 to 2.5 g per kg, corresponding to 176g protein per day for an 80kg individual on a 12,000kJ/diet (2). This is well below the theoretical maximum safe intake range for an 80kg person (285 g/d) (2). See Table 2 for potential risks of excessive protein consumption."
"Bottom line: What is the right amount?
To date, the best guide is still the joint position statement from the ACSM and the Dietitians of Canada. This position statement suggests 12% to 15% of energy from protein or 1.2 to 1.4g/kg for endurance athletes and 1.4 - 1.8 g/kg for strength athletes (1) as illustrated in various research studies (4)."
I sincerely hope I am not coming off as rude or arrogant, because that is far from how I hope to be received. If anything, I hope to be no more than a different opinion from the traditionally held views of bodybuilder's on what amount of protein is necessary for muscle building. I'm lucky enough to learn under some of the brightest and experienced professors in Nutrition education and I enjoy being able to spread that knowledge when possible. Thanks for listening
Hate to break it to you, but most nutrition courses are VERY dated. I asked a prof about metabolic acidosis and she gave me a very blank stare (and I chuckled inside).
I'd suggest getting out of the ****ing books and actually talking to real strength coaches that are on the firing lines of experience. The sh1t you spout is utter bullsh1t.
I don't really give two sh1ts about what medical and nutrition journals say when there are real world results out there in trained athletes.
I'm not sure what University you attend but it would be a shame if their nutrition department were sub par. It might say a lot about the other departments there, including the education you're receiving. There are many wonderful, cutting edge research oriented programs out there. As I have mentioned previously, I am lucky to attend such a University. I won't waste much time defending Rodja's vastly overstated assumption other than to say this. Every peice of literature we utilize is from the most current resources available. Much of the time, it is based on emperical, evidenced based research done on campus by one of the leading researchers in the nutrition research field. In our studies, we are not permitted to use any source older than 4 years from date of first publication.
Again, you can gain muscle at 2 g/lb of body weight. Science has shown it is absolutely unnecessary to take in this much. The same results can be found at 1.2-2.0 g/kg of body weight. If you have success with they way you've formulated your diet, more power to you.
I'm just amazed at the intensity with which some of you guys defend your idols opinions which are often based on little more than "we ate this much protein and got this big" type evidence. I'm sorry, but I'll take research backed, peer reivewed information every time over the opinion of a "guru".
I'd be interested to hear Bobo's take on this....
Science has always been years and years behind actual real world evidence and always will be, unless there is an easily visible monetary reward within sight for conducting the research. Just because something has or hasn't been proven yet conclusively doesn't mean that it is or isn't true.
And if there's one thing that science HAS proven it is that each and every person has a unique genetic makeup, including more metabolic differences and nuances than we may ever know and understand, so to simply lambaste folks for a dietary approach that HAS WORKED because a bunch of lab coats tested some wankers on leg extension strength with two dietary approaches as the only variables doesn't entirely nullify the idea of 2g protein/lbs.
Finally, don't try to wrap yourself in a shroud of superiority because your field chooses what is and isn't so on behalf of we the sheeple; the medical can't even decide if I should be eating eggs and if cholesterol actually does affect heart disease (we THINK it does so take this lipitor, you dont need your liver anyway!). We're just over 100 years out from a Nobel Peace prize being given for the idea of lobotomies and you presume to tell folks with experience in something that they are wrong and bull headed for not accepting your absolute scientific truths because your field says so something is so?
Sorry, but I will take both sides of this with a grain of salt and discover what works best for ME. Thank you, come again.
you attend which university? It makes sense that you would make such a sweeping generalization about a program based on such little actual knowledge about it. If I had to guess, I'd bet you are a member of a fraternity and an exercise sports science major. Am I right? It would make perfect, halarious sense.
You probably still think glutamine is an effective muscle building supplement. Continue buying into the mythical theories of your bodybuilding gods. I'll continue making just as much physical progress as you with they key difference being that I'm not wasting food, time or money feeding myself with irrelevant calories
Ps. Post count is not a substitute for intelligence.
Lets not jump the gun here. Stick to what you know. You're schooled in training. Don't make rediculous assumptions like you having superior nutrition knowledge than me. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I take extreme offense when someone insults my education. I can assure you we have a top notch nutrition program at our school. I'm not sure who you "questioned", but you need to consider the source here. Were they adjunct or tenured? Does their education and teaching background have anything to do with sports nutrition? Probably not. Our school is one of the top Dietic undergraduate programs in the Southwest. No need to argue with me on this one, take it up with the agencies that do their ratings. Your major is based almost entirely on methods that having been proven scientifically based on results from studies on human performance and weightlifting in an experimental environment. Spare me the BS on not caring what science says.
I agree wholeheartedly that every individual is unique. The training and exercise that works best for you, may not lead to any improvements for me or anyone else. What science has established is recommendations that are appropriate for the majority of the population. Whether that population is the elderly or competitive weightlifters, nutrition guidelines have been formed by evidence, not assumptions and eyeball measurements.
After realizing who you are, I take back most of what I said in my PM. I really have very little respect for you, especially the things that have gone on in your personal life. You may think you are some hero on these boards, a far cry from reality..
You do realize that there is huge difference between diatetic nutrition and performance nutrition, right? It is also VERY foolish to try to give a one-size-fits-all recommendation without knowing their heritage, training experience, body type, etc. There are many that use very low carbohydrates in their diets (<30g/day) and replace the majority of these calories with fats and protein. Get off your pedestal, remove your head from your ass, and stop spouting off crap from outdated textbooks.
I absolutely understand their is huge difference between dietetics and sports nutrition. I qouted an article take directly from nsca website. Is this an outdated source? I'd be surprised if you werent a member of that organization. I have no pedestal to come down from. Ive trained at close to to 2 g/lb of bw and also at 2 g/kg per on of bw. Maybe you should try the same. I'm open to any new possibility which is exactly why I tried training with high pro intake. When I did not find a difference in muscle stregnth, endurance, or size when compared to previous intake I concluded all the studies I've read likely hold true.
I like protein, it builds stuff.