Protein powder vs Meat

Kingdude

New member
Ok, I get the majority of my protein from Whey powders. I have meat in my daily lunch and also cottage cheese as a snack. Is it bad for fat loss or overrall diet if I get the majortiy of my protein from powder?
 
Use isolate post workout if you can, other than that most will advise you to stick to solid foods as much as possible.

If you're getting a majority of your protein from powder I'd say you're being inefficient in more than one way. Is it the end of world if you do so? No, but it's expensive and unnecessary.
 
Kingdude said:
Ok, I get the majority of my protein from Whey powders. I have meat in my daily lunch and also cottage cheese as a snack. Is it bad for fat loss or overrall diet if I get the majortiy of my protein from powder?
Click to expand...

Protein powder is a supplement. Therefore, it should just be a supplemental protein source. Get 80%+ of your protein from whole foods.
 
Thanks for the input guys. With my job its hard to get in all food but I will try harder. Besides powder being expensive, is there any benifit to meat... Like slower digesting? Im just curious.
 
Benefits of meat are as follows:

1) Slower digesting
2) Full of healthy fats (depending on what meat we're talking about)
3) Contains plenty of essential minerals
4) A wide variety of proteins in meat, poultry, and fish. Where as, if you just take whey, you are only getting one form of protein.
5) Not all protein is created equal. Whey is fast absorbing, best used upon waking or post workout.

I'm sure there are more but I'm too lazy to do a search. If you can take protein powder to your work, you can cook and take meat, poultry, and/or fish to your work.
 
Definitely get as much protein from whole foods as possible, all the below are complete sources of protein, and everyting listed underneath is not something whey is high in, or has any at all.

red meat contains:
b vitamins
cholesterol (in moderation is helpful for testosterone levels)
saturated fat
potassium
creatine (not much)
iron
CLA, conjugated linoleic acid (only the top notch fed beef have an appreciable amount of this)

fattier fish (salmon)
omega 3s

pork contains:
creatine

chicken contains:
i dont think chicken has nething spectacular besides a complete source of protein

eggs:
omega 3s, omega 6s
saturated fats

whey benefits:

-fast digesting
-convenient
-high protein density meaning you can get say 24 grams of protein in practically no volume (great if you can't stomach too much food)
-whey protein concentrate can be very high in calcium, which none of the meats above are very high in. However, whey protein isolate is going to be nearly devoid of calcium.. Isolate is faster digesting, and good for lactose intolerant people, but in the greater scheme of things if you can digest concentrate, get that, it's cheaper.
 
On a cut right now, 50% from meat(tuna, chicken and beef) and 50% from WPI............not a big deal.
 
whey may have more Melamine than meat. Depending on the source of your milk or meat. But all things being equal, I am guessing that a cow fed on Melamine-enriched feed would still have less melamine than a milk that has melamine added to it to bump up its nitrogen content. :(
 
Omen said:
On a cut right now, 50% from meat(tuna, chicken and beef) and 50% from WPI............not a big deal.
Click to expand...
I have a monopoly on the Wanderlei nut-hugging here.

Also, WPI digests quickly and leads to acidosis which can cause a negative nitrogen balance. Not ideal for a cut; mix it with casein or egg powder for a longer supply of AAs.
 
Rodja said:
I have a monopoly on the Wanderlei nut-hugging here.

Also, WPI digests quickly and leads to acidosis which can cause a negative nitrogen balance. Not ideal for a cut; mix it with casein or egg powder for a longer supply of AAs.
Click to expand...

I'm about to buy 25lbs of ATW WPI @ $155, which is one helluva a deal, I'm trying to save money and other than tuna(only low fat protein, others are cornish hens and beef patties) the WPI is the only other source that's easy to ingest.

Can't the acidity be offset by drinking lime juice and sodium bicarbonate?
 
Omen said:
I'm about to buy 25lbs of ATW WPI @ $155, which is one helluva a deal, I'm trying to save money and other than tuna(only low fat protein, others are cornish hens and beef patties) the WPI is the only other source that's easy to ingest.

Can't the acidity be offset by drinking lime juice and sodium bicarbonate?
Click to expand...
You could also add in calcium carbonate, potassium gluconate, or glutamine.
 
Rugger said:
Use isolate post workout if you can, other than that most will advise you to stick to solid foods as much as possible.

If you're getting a majority of your protein from powder I'd say you're being inefficient in more than one way. Is it the end of world if you do so? No, but it's expensive and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting meat that it's cheaper than powder? I use powder because it's slightly cheaper than beef/chicken and I don't know where you'd get meat that cheap unless you hunt
 
Protein powder = supplement.

Simple formula in 3 words. keyword is 'supplement'.

it should fill in the gaps to help you achieve your daily intake requirements without needing to eat crap loads of food... (depending how u look at it).

whey is great pre/post workout cause it absorbs so fast which is needed especially after heavy lifting sessiosn to help muscle recovery
 
Whey protein Isolate is very healthy.

Rare meat is still the best hands down, but for cost efficiency WPI can be used to meet no more than 50% of your protein needs.

My order was 400 servings of 25g WPI at the door price $155, which makes my serving $0.38 per 25g of protein, with a tbsp of butter, that's

-4 more grams of protein
-6 less grams of fat
-40 less calories

So with the butter, it'll come out to $.50 (32 servings @ 0.9/serving $3 total) vs the patty (21g protein, 17 fat) which is for $0.81X12 $9.76 total)

In those 400 servings, I save $120.

Since I double up the shake, that's $120 in 200 days, the more you eat, the more you save, not a lot of money (only $0.60) per day, but a long with other reductions you can save up to $100/month.

50/50 is the whey to go for max benefit in cost/nutrition.
 
Guys, there have been a LOT of vague answers here based simply on what you do as opposed to the factual science of it. Got it, meat has more nutrients, oils, etc. But my question is, can anyone link me to any "scientific data" that shows eating meat increases muscle growth more/faster than the equivalent amount of protein taken via WPI. I don't want to hear any anecdotal data about what you do and how it helps, Im just curious if there's a link to a scientific study that compares the two - that is all that matters.
 
Since this thread is about five years old and you probably wont get an answer from them here is a link that should clear it up for you in easy answers.
:wave2:Invalid Link Removed
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Guys, there have been a LOT of vague answers here based simply on what you do as opposed to the factual science of it. Got it, meat has more nutrients, oils, etc. But my question is, can anyone link me to any "scientific data" that shows eating meat increases muscle growth more/faster than the equivalent amount of protein taken via WPI. I don't want to hear any anecdotal data about what you do and how it helps, Im just curious if there's a link to a scientific study that compares the two - that is all that matters.
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone would actually volunteer for a study where all they consumed was protein shakes for 8-12 weeks? The reality is that what you're looking for would be nearly impossible to design and have a decent sample size.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Guys, there have been a LOT of vague answers here based simply on what you do as opposed to the factual science of it. Got it, meat has more nutrients, oils, etc. But my question is, can anyone link me to any "scientific data" that shows eating meat increases muscle growth more/faster than the equivalent amount of protein taken via WPI. I don't want to hear any anecdotal data about what you do and how it helps, Im just curious if there's a link to a scientific study that compares the two - that is all that matters.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the ultra necro bump.
 
Yes, there are 7 billion people in the world. Many signing up for stranger more invasive studies with less important results - so, no it's not far fetched by any means. It's a very simple study. Feed 50 people pure protein shakes for a month. And feed the other 50 only sources of food protein (no vegetables, carbs or any other food that would interfere with the results) just meats/eggs, etc. Take accurate muscle mass measurements before during and after, place them on identical workout regimens using body weight percentage to account for how much weight they use. See who gains more. And there's your study.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Yes, there are 7 billion people in the world. Many signing up for stranger more invasive studies with less important results - so, no it's not far fetched by any means. It's a very simple study. Feed 50 people pure protein shakes for a month. And feed the other 50 only sources of food protein (no vegetables, carbs or any other food that would interfere with the results) just meats/eggs, etc. Take accurate muscle mass measurements before during and after, place them on identical workout regimens using body weight percentage to account for how much weight they use. See who gains more. And there's your study.
Click to expand...

There is literally no person in the world that would volunteer for this kind of study. How would you account for the energy difference from the fats within the flesh? Do you honestly expect someone to be in a constant state of ketosis for 50 days?
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Yes, there are 7 billion people in the world. Many signing up for stranger more invasive studies with less important results - so, no it's not far fetched by any means. It's a very simple study. Feed 50 people pure protein shakes for a month. And feed the other 50 only sources of food protein (no vegetables, carbs or any other food that would interfere with the results) just meats/eggs, etc. Take accurate muscle mass measurements before during and after, place them on identical workout regimens using body weight percentage to account for how much weight they use. See who gains more. And there's your study.
Click to expand...

It sounds easy on paper but you do understand how the body works right? There are many other things that your entire system needs besides protein. To get down to the technicality of it all the body breaks protein down whey or meat into branch chain amino acids to create the building blocks for more muscles, but needs many other essentials to run and be healthy. When the body does not have these other essentials it will find them. And where will it find them? Bum da da dum! Your muscles! And why does it go to your muscles aka your meat because it is rich in nutrients. If you look at the back of some powders you will see sometimes that the company has included other vitamins and essential minerals which are naturally found in some meats, and why do they do that? So your body can better repair it self and hopefully create... You guessed it more muscle. So they dont have to do a study because the answer is simple, if a person only consumes whey you go catabolic due to the lack of other nutrients.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Yes, it's called Atkins
Click to expand...

Atkins encourages high amounts of vegetables. Again, how would you make up for the energy balance from the fats within, for example, whole eggs in the protein shake only group? What do you propose doing to account for the inevitable GI distress from no fiber?
 
The study is not about only consuming whey or only consuming meat, obviously in the real world people can eat salads, carbs, etc. but as their main protein source, can choose to only eat WPI. that's what this whole topic is about, meat vs. WPI - obviously you need other nutrients to live, this is just comparing the muscle growth benefits between only the WPI and meat. So in order to do that, you need a clean test. People verrrry frequently run all sorts of crazy metabolic, anabolic studies that are far more complex than this. Now, I don't have the answer regarding WPI and food protein regarding which is better for protein synthesis, but I haven't read anything on here that shows anyone else does definitively either. It's all anecdotal evidence, which in the scientific world, amounts to nothing. Also, not to say the participants in the study could be given a daily vitamin to make sure they're receiving some of what they need.
 
First of all, no eggs in protein shakes, Im talking about pure whey isolate only. And n, for a month, there would be no vegetables. Atkins doesn't encourage vegetables, you can have a tinnnnny amount of green lettuce before you breach your 20 carbs a day rule. But many people skip veggies all together, and you would have to for this.
 
Re: fiber - maybe each participant would be allowed some beneful (fiber mix drink) - youd obviously have to work out the fine details, but on the macro, there's no problem with this study for a month.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
First of all, no eggs in protein shakes, Im talking about pure whey isolate only. And n, for a month, there would be no vegetables. Atkins doesn't encourage vegetables, you can have a tinnnnny amount of green lettuce before you breach your 20 carbs a day rule. But many people skip veggies all together, and you would have to for this.
Click to expand...

I didn't say eggs in protein shakes; I said that there would be a large caloric difference in 30g of protein from whole eggs vs 30g protein from WPI. You can eat over a pound of broccoli per day and not exceed 20g of carbs.

Your idea is far from practical and you have to realize that what you want is impossible to design in a study. There are a myriad of variables that you'd have to account for and the adherence rate would be so low that it would negate the results. Nobody is encouraging only using WPI as their sole protein source as that makes no sense. A huge part of the reason for protein shakes is practicality in that it is difficult for most to consume the protein they need from just whole foods.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Re: fiber - maybe each participant would be allowed some beneful (fiber mix drink) - youd obviously have to work out the fine details, but on the macro, there's no problem with this study for a month.
Click to expand...

Did you read the link that I posted at the begining of this thread?
 
Rodja said:
I didn't say eggs in protein shakes; I said that there would be a large caloric difference in 30g of protein from whole eggs vs 30g protein from WPI. You can eat over a pound of broccoli per day and not exceed 20g of carbs.Your idea is far from practical and you have to realize that what you want is impossible to design in a study. There are a myriad of variables that you'd have to account for and the adherence rate would be so low that it would negate the results. Nobody is encouraging only using WPI as their sole protein source as that makes no sense. A huge part of the reason for protein shakes is practicality in that it is difficult for most to consume the protein they need from just whole foods.
Click to expand...
20g of Carbs in one stock of brocolli, regardless, veggies are not required in Atkins. And I know there would be a large caloric difference between eggs and WPI same with steak and WPI - that's what the study is about, to see if that actually effects the rate/size of muscle growth. We're measuring only muscle mass, not overall mass, so if you gain fat, it's irrelevant. It's absurd to call a simple study like the impossible to design. You need to read the complexity of most modern studies, this is child's play comparatively. And I know nobody is encouraging only WPI, but that is because everyone blindly thinks they MUST use it only as a supplement instead of a primarily because they hear enough people saying it - but there's no study (that I've seen) - and if there is, great, I have no horse in the race. Just curious about the results, and I don't take information from anecdotal sources and heresay.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
20g of Carbs in one stock of brocolli, regardless, veggies are not required in Atkins. And I know there would be a large caloric difference between eggs and WPI same with steak and WPI - that's what the study is about, to see if that actually effects the rate/size of muscle growth. We're measuring only muscle mass, not overall mass, so if you gain fat, it's irrelevant. It's absurd to call a simple study like the impossible to design. You need to read the complexity of most modern studies, this is child's play comparatively. And I know nobody is encouraging only WPI, but that is because everyone blindly thinks they MUST use it only as a supplement instead of a primarily because they hear enough people saying it - but there's no study (that I've seen) - and if there is, great, I have no horse in the race. Just curious about the results, and I don't take information from anecdotal sources and heresay.
Click to expand...
Let me try this again: what would you propose to make up for the caloric difference? You can't make comparisons amongst groups with different caloric consumption.
 
Rodja said:
Let me try this again: what would you propose to make up for the caloric difference? You can't make comparisons amongst groups with different caloric consumption.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can. If calories in the meat are increasing muscle mass moreso than the WPI alone - then there's your answer, meat is more effective. However if the calories are only adding to the fat/overall mass as compared to WPI, then it's not relevant.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Yes, you can. If calories in the meat are increasing muscle mass moreso than the WPI alone - then there's your answer, meat is more effective. However if the calories are only adding to the fat/overall mass as compared to WPI, then it's not relevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah....if you have one group consuming more calories than the other group, then the study design is completely flawed and irrelevant. You would need to have equal caloric intakes for the results to be valid.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Yes, I read it, and all well and good, but I'd like to see a study that proves it. Right now it's just words.
Click to expand...
A study that shows meat breaks down slower then whey protein?...
read this
Invalid Link Removed
If your still arguing your point I’m going to take you for a troll who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing
 
Rodja said:
Yeah....if you have one group consuming more calories than the other group, then the study design is completely flawed and irrelevant. You would need to have equal caloric intakes for the results to be valid.
Click to expand...
What are you basing this on? You gave me no reason why it would be invalid, you just said it would be.
 
McCrew530 said:
A study that shows meat breaks down slower then whey protein?...read thisIf your still arguing your point I’m going to take you for a troll who just wants to argue for the sake of arguing
Click to expand...
Did I miss something in this article? Let me know which part of this article was making your point - not sure what you're referring to. And who said anything about a study showing meat breaking down slower than WPI, I know it does, what is your point?
 
MusclesFrogs said:
What are you basing this on? You gave me no reason why it would be invalid, you just said it would be.
Click to expand...

Study design 101: you have to make caloric intakes equal. Otherwise, you can't determine whether or not the caloric difference or the supplement is making the difference. For someone wanting scientific validation, you are severely lacking knowledge on how to properly design a study.
 
Rodja said:
Study design 101: you have to make caloric intakes equal. Otherwise, you can't determine whether or not the caloric difference or the supplement is making the difference. For someone wanting scientific validation, you are severely lacking knowledge on how to properly design a study.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're misinformed. When the point of the study is to test whether caloric intake as well as other macronutrients found in meats actually helps contribute to muscle growth/size vs WPI and its low caloric value, then there is no need for this. That's like saying I want to test a weight loss study testing high calorie diet vs a low calorie diet...but the calories need to be the same. Flawed logic.
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Did I miss something in this article? Let me know which part of this article was making your point - not sure what you're referring to. And who said anything about a study showing meat breaking down slower than WPI, I know it does, what is your point?
Click to expand...
are you Glawry reincarnate?
 
MusclesFrogs said:
Sorry, you're misinformed. When the point of the study is to test whether caloric intake as well as other macronutrients found in meats actually helps contribute to muscle growth/size vs WPI and its low caloric value, then there is no need for this. That's like saying I want to test a weight loss study testing high calorie diet vs a low calorie diet...but the calories need to be the same. Flawed logic.
Click to expand...

I give up with you.
 
McCrew530 said:
Ill take that as a yes
Click to expand...
Crew, you sent me an article that in no way discussed being able to fully substitute WPI for meat with the same result, and yet you sent it saying this answers everything and if I question that Im a troll. You can't just send irrelevant things and expect people to clap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top