Well that's what will infact hinder your gains. Now I'm not saying you CAN'T grow from that, as it is an extra 4cals/g but it isn't necessary. Protein intake should be determined by LBM rather than bodyweight. When hypercaloric, heaps of protein is just no necessary, an expensive source of calories/glucose.
^^^^ This goes against everything that myself and my friends have experienced.
Interview: Peter Lemon, Ph.D.
The World's Primary Protein Assimilation Expert
[email protected]
Peter Lemon Ph.D. is considered one of- often the- leading authority on protein intake and its effects on athletes and performance. His seminal research, widely published in respected academic journals, has been used as the launching pad for numerous expert opinions, studies, and observations. He is Chairman of the Exercise Nutrition Department at The University of Western Ontario (Canada).
Question:In looking over a number of the pieces of research regarding optimal protein intake, I've noticed that's there's been a gradual increase in protein intake recommendations. Perhaps the most quoted piece for protein intake has been your piece for the American Physiological Society, Protein Requirements and Muscle Mass/Strength Changes During Intensive Training in Novice Bodybuilders (Journal of Applied Physiology, 1992; 73[2]: p767-775). The funny thing I've noticed is that even the people opposed to higher protein for athletes may take out selected portions of your research to support their arguments. But you're clear about recommended protein intakes for both beginning body builders and advanced bodybuilders, which are rather high compared to what many others have suggested, even when they use you as a resource. You've suggested 1.4 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day (.6 to .73 grams of protein per pound) as an overall template. Your friend and sometime research partner Tarnopolsky, suggests that even higher amounts seem useful for elite weightlifters when he studied advanced lifters who were taking 2.2 to 3.5 protein grams per kilogram of bodyweight per day (editor's note: using this as an example, abbreviations hereafter will be 2.2 - 3.5 pg/k [protein grams per kilogram of bodyweight]; to get the grams of protein per pound, divide the number of grams of protein per kilogram by the 2.2 pounds contained in each kilogram. For example, 2.2 to 3.5 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight equals 1 to 1.6 grams per pound [2.2 divided by 2.2 =1; 3.5 divided by 2.2 = 1.5909, or 1.6]). So what we're getting is that the latest research seems now to support anecdotal information related by elite bodybuilders and powerlifters: That somewhere in excess of a gram per pound of body weight is substantiated and optimal.
Dr. Lemon: Well, yes. We have collaborated with Mark Tarnopolsky, and our data clearly suggests that protein requirements are greater for active individuals ---whether they're bodybuilders or other athletes ---than the official dietary recommendations in either Canada or The United States. But, if you look at these requirements, they were derived from people who were essentially sedentary. In other words, the existing requirements were derived from a different population than we're talking about now. We need to look at the data for active people that has come out recently, and that's what both Mark and I have been doing. We've used a couple of different techniques. One is the nitrogen balance technique, which is what's used to determine the requirements classically, and also some newer techniques that involve metabolic tracers which allow you to follow where a labeled amino acid goes when you give it to an individual, either through injection or through diet. You can then make estimates of the rate muscle is developing by measuring protein synthesis. It's kind of interesting, because if you give more amino acids or more protein in the diet than is necessary what happens is the excess is not stored in the body as muscle, but is oxidized: used by the body as energy, and so you can tell when you have exceeded the amount that an individual needs. When we do those studies with bodybuilders we come up with numbers that exceed existing recommendations by about 100%. The current recommendation is .8 grams per kilo of bodyweight for all adults, but we're coming up with 1.5 -1.7, depending on the study and the technique used. So, I think at this point there will be some debate, relative to the exact amount required, but there is a greater need for protein for these types of individuals. A few years ago I visited McMaster University, where Mark Tarnopolsky is, and we conducted several experiments. One involved giving differing amounts of protein and studying the amount of protein synthesis using these metabolic tracers. The athletes received .9 pg/k bodymass; 1.4 pg/k; and 2.4 pg/k. The interesting thing was when the bodybuilders went from .9 to 1.4 there was actually an increase in their rate of protein syntheses. So, in other words, their muscle development was adversely affected by the .9 pg/k.
Question:But not by the 1.4 pg/k ?
Dr. Lemon: Exactly. Their protein synthesis rate was higher at the 1.4 pg/k level. This would indicate 1.4 pg/k was closer to what they need to consume than the .9 pg/k, which has been the universal recommendation. So this would clearly suggest that if you consume the current recommendation and you're a bodybuilder, your results are going to be sub-optimal.
Question:What happened when the consumption went from 1.4 pg/k to 2.4 pg/k?
Dr. Lemon: That's really interesting, because protein synthesis did not increase further. This suggests that at least in that population, the 2.4 pg/k exceeded the optimal amount of protein. So, we concluded that somewhere between 1.4 pg/k and 2.4g/k would be optimal. That fits in with some of the other work we've done with other measures, such as the nitrogen balance technique that indicates an intake of about 1.6 pg/k to 1.7 pg/k is optimal. If that's all correct ---and you'll get a debate from some people because some of this work is fairly new ---then it means that bodybuilders may be correct in their interpretation that their protein needs are higher, but they're not as high as they think they are. As you mentioned earlier, many of them consume diets in excess of 2 grams per kilogram, which would appear to be excessive. I'm not sure exactly why that would be the case, but I have 2 possible explanations. One is that if you were taking other substances that were anabolic ---and certainly some bodybuilders do that, taking substances and drugs that might enhance protein synthesis ---then the higher protein intakes may be advantageous under those conditions. That's one possibility. Another possibility is that there is some sort of feed forward system if you're on a high protein diet for a longer period of time than we've studied. Then that stimulates muscle growth. These studies that we do are typically over a few weeks or perhaps a month, That's because the controls we need are difficult to maintain for that time or longer. But athletes clearly train for years. But you put some one on a 3 pg/k diet per day for years and there may be some long-term changes, so it's going to take a while to sort all of this out. But I'm convinced that these individuals benefit from higher than recommended intakes. Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think that's optimal, based on what we've seen so far. Also, protein is expensive, and if you're simply excreting the excess, there's no need to take in so much. Until we get data suggesting that 2.5 pg/k or 2.7 pg/k is beneficial, I'm not going to make that recommendation.
Question:You talk about wondering why they would perhaps increase their protein intake, and what has been demonstrated to be optimal, and I think you hit on 2 really interesting points: One is the use of steroids, or prohormones or androgens to up the muscle mass. The second, which I see as going hand in hand with many bodybuilders, is that we're almost in an obsessive compulsive disorder where we would prefer to err on the "safe" side; the "safe" side being taking in enough protein to handle our muscle-building needs. This may not be safe at all.
Dr. Lemon: You have to remember that this response may be linear, as many bodybuilders assume. Increasing dietary protein may improve muscle growth up to some point, and then there may be a ceiling point or plateau. Beyond that there may actually be some adverse effects. I know what you mean: if 1.6 pg/k or 1/.7 pg/k is good, then 2.5 pg/k or 3.0 pg/k must be better. Right? In fact, it may not be. It may be good to go from .9 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k or so ---whatever that optimum is ---but after that there may be no more gain, with this possible exception: Unless you're ingesting another anabolic agent that may allow you to benefit from more protein. But we have not done those types of studies. However, some of the studies from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have shown some benefits from very high protein intakes.
Question:Just how high are we talking about?
Dr. Lemon: We're talking about going from 2 grams to over 3 grams. Some of these studies are not translated very well, and some are almost anecdotal in their style, so we don't know how accurate they are. But that's where a lot of the bodybuilders get their information, because that's where strength athletes were very, very successful. I'm not sure all of that is factual; certainly we haven't seen benefits to protein intakes that high in individuals training and consuming a normal diet.
Question:That seems to be almost a universal lament, that these reports tend to be so heavily anecdotal, or using samples groups that are either very small or leave out the influences of many variables, and are really anecdotal in methodology.
Dr. Lemon: A lot of it was secretive. They were obviously using it for their own benefit. But I think they also used it as a technique to confuse people in the West. Rumors would intentionally or unintentionally surface, and they would make no attempt to refute them. They just let you believe that. There's no reason to believe their science is any better than ours; in fact, ours is much better than theirs ever was, because we have devoted so much more money to this research and technology. But they certainly applied the knowledge that either they obtained, or we obtained, to their athletes much better than we did ---perhaps to the detriment of the individual athletes themselves.
Question:You mentioned the downside of excess protein intake, and foremost in my mind is kidney damage. Let's say that a bodybuilder wants to err ---if indeed it is erring ---on the side of increased protein intake. What can they do to protect or minimize potential adverse effects of excess protein?
Dr. Lemon: Most of the adverse effects cited routinely, and kidney damage is certainly near the top of the list, I believe is overstated in the healthy individual. Certainly, if you look at research literature that deals with people with abnormal renal function or disease, high protein intakes can be hazardous. But I'm not aware of any data ---and I've looked throughout the literature ---suggesting that a healthy kidney cannot handle the type of protein loads we're talking about. The major concern (of excessive protein intake) would be from a dehydration standpoint. In order to metabolize, say, 2 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day, a lot more nitrogen needs to be excreted from the body. And that gets excreted primarily in the urine. Typically, what happens when you dramatically increase your protein intake, is that the urine volume goes up substantially. We've measured increases of 2 to 4 times on a high protein diet. If increased water loss goes on routinely and one doesn't attempt to compensate for it, one would become progressively dehydrated. This could become a problem, particularly for athletes who have excessive fluid losses due to sweating. One of the things that you commonly see recommended for individuals on high protein diets is increased fluid intake. There's also concern about calcium losses, and it's affect on osteoporosis, which is a serious bone debilitating disease, primarily in women. But there have been some studies that have shown protein supplements in high dosages can increase calcium loss in the urine, and that calcium loss will come, eventually, from bones and affect bone density. So I think the jury is still out on the potential of that problem. However, this concern may also be overemphasized, because the studies that showed this seemed to involve people who took protein supplements, rather than those who increased protein intake via food sources. So it may have something to do with the composition of the protein that was consumed. Certainly, because of the problem of osteoporosis, which is huge in the older population, we need to study this, because I would hate to see 20 or 30-year-old bodybuilders in 2 or 3 decades having bone problems due to high protein intake.
Question:What about offsetting this by taking in additional calcium in the diet?
Dr. Lemon: Possibly. Certainly it's something that should be investigated. But we should make sure it's actually a problem related to high protein supplementation. High protein foods may differ from protein supplements, because you may end up with micronutrient imbalances. This could be what caused this calcium loss, and perhaps other imbalances as well. One thing we need to keep in mind with supplementation is that we can get large amounts of single nutrients that it's difficult to do with food. Creatine is a good example of this. I don't see a lot of adverse effects from taking creatine, based on our work so far. However, the point I'm trying to make is that you can consume creatine on a daily basis in amounts that would be impossible to consume from food. You could get the amount of creatine contained in 10 pounds of meat fairly easily. We're having people do some things that they couldn't do in the past, and many of these products hit the market before there are clinical trials to determine exactly whether they're safe or not. Worst case scenario? We could have large numbers of people in North America suffering from adverse effects years after because we haven't done any long-term studies. That's the problem I have, not only with protein, but with any of these products. Even beneficial compounds taken in large quantities could potentially lead to problems.
Question:You mentioned the amount of protein for elite bodybuilders, as opposed to beginners. I'm wondering, if there isn't a relationship as well, between the lean muscle mass of elite bodybuilders and the increased percentage of bodyfat in beginning bodybuilders, as well as the general population. Wouldn't it appear, that while the bodyweights of 2 240-pound men would appear on the surface to be similar, that the person with 22% bodyfat and the guy with 3% bodyfat may have different protein requirements because they carry enormously different amounts of muscle mass that need to be maintained.
Dr. Lemon: In the study we talked about earlier, in addition to the bodybuilding group that went from .9 pg/k to 2.4 pg/k, there was also a control sedentary group that ingested the same protein intakes, and as you might guess, when the sedentary group went from .9 pg/k to 1.4 pg/k they did not increase their protein synthesis. They simply oxidized the increased protein. So you can't simply increase your muscle mass by ingesting more protein. It would be nice if it were possible, but clearly people that are active in exercise are different from those who are sedentary. Likewise, people who have different body compositions, whether they are sedentary or active, have different metabolic rates and may use any food source differently. If I'm an athlete, training regularly, and I'm consuming a certain amount of carbohydrate, I'm going to store that in my body as carbohydrate. If I'm sedentary I'm going to store that as fat because I haven't been using the carbohydrates in my body and don't need to replenish those stores. Any nutrient we eat can be stores as fat in the body if we eat enough of it and are sedentary enough.
Question:You mentioned the amino acid uptake, and one of the trends we're seeing now in elite bodybuilders is the reliance on L-Glutamine. The argument for L-Glutamine centers on its being the amino acid with the highest concentrations in human muscle, and that because of this, ingesting additional amounts might assist in both protein syntheses and faster repair of the muscle. This is something we hear anecdotally all the time. We hear that ingesting 2 to 10 grams of L-Glutamine per day helps repair and prevents muscle soreness. What's your take on this?
Dr. Lemon: I haven't actually studied L-Glutamine myself, but I have studied some of the literature, and theoretically what you're saying is possible. There are not a lot of good studies that have shown that, though. This is simply a problem of the anecdotal reports being ahead of the science. The problem with anecdotal reports is that there is a number of things that could cause those effects. Just because you're taking L-Glutamine and these things happen doesn't mean that it's due to L-Glutamine. You need controlled studies to investigate that. But there is some interesting information about the immune system. Glutamine is an important fuel for the immune system. And there is some indication that the immune system may be weakened in athletes that exercise on a regular basis. This may be a symptom of overtraining, but a lot of athletes get upper respiratory infections and it may be that there is competition for the amount of Glutamine that is available for the muscle and the immune system.
Question:That's a fascinating point for me, because I see otherwise healthy bodybuilders that do seem to have a fairly high incidence of common colds and longer recovery periods. David Johns still sticks in our minds: here was an otherwise healthy bodybuilder at the peak of his game who died from Valley Fever, which usually strikes down only the old or weak. And he succumbed rather quickly. This begs the question of how hard we push the repair of our bodies when we subject it to long-term intensive weight-training.
Dr. Lemon: It's an interesting problem that needs to be pursued, but we can't make the connection now, to say we have to supplement certain amounts of Glutamine, but certainly there's the possibility it may be beneficial. I'm concerned that severe exercise may affect the immune system. There are individuals who suggest that even very severe health problems may occur in athletes who train and come into this overtraining zone. People point out the incidence of cancer in some very elite athletes. It seems to be higher than you would expect. There's certainly no causal relationship as yet, but it's interesting. Perhaps there is some connection, and we need to find that if it's the case, but there's been a fair number of athlete athletes who have succumbed. I don't know if there's any connection ---there's certainly no evidence of that ---but it's crazy to believe that exercise is good in all situations. It may be that here's a downside too. Certainly, there are many bodybuilders out there who train harder than they need to. And maybe taking some supplements or drugs that have adverse effects contributes as well.
Question:You touched upon that there can be differences between athletes, and that one of these differences may be their ability to absorb and utilize protein. One of the things that intrigues me most about these studies is the magic number: that over a period of about 2 hours the body can digest 42 grams of protein. I'm wondering where that came from, and if it isn't really a continuing enzymatic process that varies widely.
Dr. Lemon: My guess is that this comes from some theoretical calculations. Frequently people will make calculations about how quickly you can develop muscle and their divided that into an hourly basis and how much dietary protein would need to be absorbed to provide that. I think that's where that comes from.
Question:Then there are theories about what types of proteins you should take at what time of day.
Dr. Lemon: If there is a window of time following a weight-training session, then there needs to be studies where individuals are fed during that time period and get evaluated, instead of reporting theoretically what might be the best. Wee need to get that data.
Question:Well, one of the big things now is to ingest high protein and high carbohydrates shortly after working out.
Dr. Lemon: I suspect that's advantageous, because the carbohydrate and protein would stimulate insulin production, the most anabolic steroids you have. And we know that following weight training there is a period of increased protein synthesis, so one would speculate that additional protein and energy during that time period would enhance the process. However, there is not a lot of data in support of that. There is some, and it's starting to come in now, but again the theories are out there and are being tried by athletes, in the hope that they might work.
Question:The effective protein utilization is paramount to them, which brings up HMB. You mentioned that protein is a relatively expensive energy source, and this brings up the cost effectiveness of HMB. I have this question in the back of my mind: if we're spending this money to prevent protein catabolism, why don't we just take in a little more protein, which would cost less than HMB.
Dr. Lemon: That's an interesting point, but we might think of examining the catabolic process itself as well. I think that is what stimulates the anabolic phase. I haven't tested this, but if you do something to chemically minimize the catabolic phase, you may minimize the anabolic phase and make the process counter-productive.overall.
Question:That's a unique take: What prompted that theory?
Dr. Lemon: For years. Bodybuilders have thought the process, simplistically, is that you tear the muscle down and then the body's reaction to that is to rebuild the muscle, and over enough times doing this, it rebuilds bigger and better. Then you repeat it; it's like building a wall a little bigger each time, adding brick by brick. And that may be exactly what happens. Tearing down and damage certainly occurs ---you can look microscopically at muscle and see the damage that occurs ---maybe that's the stimulus. And nobody knows exactly what stimulates muscle to grow after exercise. And then the body's reaction to compensate for that, and it's an overreaction. If that's the case and you somehow minimize the damage, you may somehow minimize the response and it could be a counterproductive strategy. People thing simplistically that's there's a breakdown phase and a buildup phase, and if you minimize the breakdown then the buildup will be better. And I'm not sure that's the case. We need to study fundamentally how muscle grows before we start making suggestions. Relative to HMB, the data's very sketchy on that. There's some data out of Iowa State and that's primarily where it's coming from. We need studies that replicate those results from other areas and lands. But again, it's being sold and people are making a lot of money. It may be beneficial, but I'm not convinced yet. These are animal studies and while there are parallel, there are limits as well. It's much more difficult to control variables in human studies. In animals you can control virtually every variable, but in humans no matter how rigorous it is they're free to do other things. It's not unusual to get great data from an animal study and get questionable data in a clinical trial. It's not easy to do that, but it needs to be done. I'm concerned about supplement studies that are done quick and dirty and conclude these fantastic results, when the results may have nothing to do with the supplements, but could be a function of the way the study was done. Because the average person doesn't know enough to interpret that; they just see the conclusions and say, "well this stuff must be great." We need to be careful, especially in the early stages of a product, that, in fact, it does what you think it does. And that there are not other possible explanations for the results that you got.
Question:When you're talking about the 1.4 to 1.7 pg/k being optimal for bodybuilding, I see studies on the web journals that cite your study and yet suggest far less protein. There seems to be some reluctance to pull these numbers up.
Dr. Lemon: We've also said we don't see a problem going up to about 2 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight. These 1.5 pg/k to 1.7 pg/k figures are not exact values. They're estimates based on the data we get, and there is room for variables here, subject to subject. We've had people who have done slightly better or slightly poorer; that's the average of the group and there is variability around that.
Question:We've also noted that the protein proportion could be influenced by lean mass weight and percentages; a larger muscular mass on a 240-pound man with 3% bodyfat might indicate a need for more protein than a 240-pound man not training who has 28% bodyfat. When meals are ingested, and how large the meals are, seems to have some effect.
Dr. Lemon: Smaller and more frequent meals are advantageous. There's probably some advantage to consuming protein and energy following the workout. Whether that's an hour to 3 hours that's probably advantageous. I've heard of people waking themselves up and eating well just before turning in. But catabolism may be part of the overall process. The idea of looking for the magic bullet...maybe here isn't anything. You can do very well with eating a variety of foods, a lot of foods, and training hard.
Question:That echoes what both the country's leading strength trainer, Boyd Epley from Nebraska, and a very successful top-level contender, Shawn Ray say: Shawn says that simply by being in close contact with his body ---the internal feedback he receives and is sensitized to ---that he has an almost instinctual awareness of what's going on, and what his needs are.
Dr. Lemon: Perhaps it's a lot simpler than we think.
