t-491975 The truth about how much protein you need & Other science articles [Flat] - TribalWar Forums

The truth about how much protein you need & Other science articles

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ptavv
06-13-2007, 05:15 PM
Selected and editted by ptavv.

As a preface I've long believed/thought/known that the amount of protein commonly recommended by those on TW is too high. Before I get into the science of it, I'd like to point out that eating too much protein is probably the best of the three food groups to overindulge in. Your body can convert excess protein into glucose (via gluconeogensis) and at a significantly slower rate, your body can convert excess protein into fat (it first converts it to glucose, then to adipose tissue). The caveat to this is that a high ratio of glucagon:insulin is requied to make this conversion, so if your blood sugar (insulin) levels remain high throughout the day, the only real time for this process to occur is while you're sleeping (which is good if you're looking to lose body fat, bad if you're not eating enough carbohydrates).

The reason not to overindulge in protein is pretty simple: High protein foods cost more than high carbohydrate foods. There's no sense in throwing money away if your body isn't going to use that protein. Furthermore, it's significantly more work for your kidneys if they have to excrete more protein (the wasted protein). It's also more work if your liver needs to continually be converting protein into glucose because of carbohydrate shortages.

On to some interesting articles, I'll provide cliffs after each article. Also, most articles come out of the same lab at McMaster University in Canada (they do lots of physiology research about protein synthesis/uptake). One other note before hand, to convert grams per kilogram into grams per pound simply divide the number by 2.2.

Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders -- Lemon et al. 73 (2): 767 -- Journal of Applied Physiology (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/2/767)
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders

P. W. Lemon, M. A. Tarnopolsky, J. D. MacDougall and S. A. Atkinson
School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Ohio 44242.

This randomized double-blind cross-over study assessed protein (PRO) requirements during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training and determined whether supplemental PRO intake (PROIN) enhanced muscle mass/strength gains. Twelve men [22.4 +/- 2.4 (SD) yr] received an isoenergetic PRO (total PROIN 2.62 g.kg-1.day-1) or carbohydrate (CHO; total PROIN 1.35 g.kg-1.day-1) supplement for 1 mo each during intensive (1.5 h/day, 6 days/wk) weight training. On the basis of 3-day nitrogen balance (NBAL) measurements after 3.5 wk on each treatment (8.9 +/- 4.2 and -3.4 +/- 1.9 g N/day, respectively), the PROIN necessary for zero NBAL (requirement) was 1.4-1.5 g.kg-1.day-1. The recommended intake (requirement + 2 SD) was 1.6-1.7 g.kg-1.day-1. However, strength (voluntary and electrically evoked) and muscle mass [density, creatinine excretion, muscle area (computer axial tomography scan), and biceps N content] gains were not different between diet treatments. These data indicate that, during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training, PRO needs are approximately 100% greater than current recommendations but that PROIN increases from 1.35 to 2.62 g.kg-1.day-1 do not enhance muscle mass/strength gains, at least during the 1st mo of training. Whether differential gains would occur with longer training remains to be determined.
The most important part of the abstract here is the second to last sentence. Increasing protein intake from 0.61 grams/lb to 1.19 grams/lb showed no increase in muscle mass or strength gains. It should be noted this study only focused on novice body builders and not experienced ones.

On to tackle that lack of coverage:
Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes -- Tarnopolsky et al. 73 (5): 1986 -- Journal of Applied Physiology (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/5/1986)
Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes

M. A. Tarnopolsky, S. A. Atkinson, J. D. MacDougall, A. Chesley, S. Phillips and H. P. Schwarcz
Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1, moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1 for 13 days for each dietary treatment. NBAL was measured and whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) and leucine oxidation were determined from L-[1-13C]leucine turnover. NBAL data were used to determine that the protein intake for zero NBAL for S was 0.69 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.41 g.kg-1.day-1. A suggested recommended intake for S was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S. These results indicated that the MP and HP diets were nutrient overloads for S. There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.
For the most part, if you've gotten this far in reading, you're probably not part of the S group so we can ignore that crap. For trained strength athletes the high protein diet (1.1 g/lb) did not increase whole body protein synthesis versus the medium protein diet (0.64 g/lb), but it did increase leucine oxidation. This is a solid measure of whether leucine is being used for muscle synthesis, or heading down the gluconeogensis pathway. Since the HP diet resulted in elevated leucine oxidation levels, and no increase in WBPS, you may as well have just eaten carbohydrates.

For non strength trained athletes but endurance trained:
ScienceDirect - Nutrition : Protein requirements for endurance athletes*1 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TB0-4CNGSWR-C&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d507f3db73fa8555f00fd ae7997378d9)
Abstract

Acute endurance exercise results in the oxidation of several amino acids. The total amount of amino acid oxidation during endurance exercise amounts to only 1***8211;6% of the total energy cost of exercise. The branched chain amino acid, leucine, has been most often studied in relation to endurance exercise. Leucine is oxidized by the enzyme, branched-chain oxo-acid dehydrogenase (BCOAD). BCOAD is relatively inactive at rest (not, vert, similar4***8211;7%) and is activated at the onset of exercise by dephosphorylation (to about 25%). After a period of endurance exercise training, the activation of BCOAD and amino acid oxidation are attenuated, however the total amount of BCOAD enzyme is up-regulated. A low energy and/or carbohydrate intake will increase amino acid oxidation and total protein requirements. With adequate energy and carbohydrate intake, low to moderate intensity endurance activity has little impact on dietary protein requirements and 1.0 gPRO/kg/d is sufficient. The only situation where dietary protein requirements exceed those for relatively sedentary individuals is in top sport athletes where the maximal requirement is not, vert, similar1.6 gPRO/kg/d. Although most endurance athletes get enough protein to support any increased requirements, those with low energy or carbohydrate intakes may require nutritional advice to optimize dietary protein intake.
The maximum required protein intake for endurance athletes was 0.72 g/lb. Again, far below the recommended 1 g/lb.

With that out of the way I'd like to tackle some other bits of wisdom posted here that I would like to clarify.

How long is long enough to wait between bouts of strength training? (This applies to all muscles)
The time course for elevated muscle protein synthe...[Can J Appl Physiol. 1995] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8563679&dopt=Citation)
The time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis following heavy resistance exercise.

MacDougall JD, Gibala MJ, Tarnopolsky MA, MacDonald JR, Interisano SA, Yarasheski KE.

Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

It has been shown that muscle protein synthetic rate (MPS) is elevated in humans by 50% at 4 hrs following a bout of heavy resistance training, and by 109% at 24 hrs following training. This study further examined the time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis by examining its rate at 36 hrs following a training session. Six healthy young men performed 12 sets of 6- to 12-RM elbow flexion exercises with one arm while the opposite arm served as a control. MPS was calculated from the in vivo rate of incorporation of L-[1,2-13C2] leucine into biceps brachii of both arms using the primed constant infusion technique over 11 hrs. At an average time of 36 hrs postexercise, MPS in the exercised arm had returned to within 14% of the control arm value, the difference being nonsignificant. It is concluded that following a bout of heavy resistance training, MPS increases rapidly, is more than double at 24 hrs, and thereafter declines rapidly so that at 36 hrs it has almost returned to baseline.
Cliffs:
4 hours after exercise your muscle protein synthetic rate (a measure of how much protein is being synthesized in your muscles) is elevated 50% above baseline.
24 hours after exercise your MPS is 109% above baseline.
36 hours after exercise your MPS is 14% above baseline.'

Exercising a muscle group while it's engaged in a high level MPS isn't going to do much for your gains. That study indicates seperating bouts of training by 36 hours. Pretty simple really.

What type of food is best to ingest after exercising? (Note: this article mainly deals with the most effective way to replenish intramsuclar glycogen stores, not with the most effective way to build muscle (we already tackled that above, and ingesting protein immediately following strength training isn't going to be incredibly effective anyway [see article about when MPS is highest])
Postexercise protein-carbohydrate and carbohydrate supplements increase muscle glycogen in men and women -- Tarnopolsky et al. 83 (6): 1877 -- Journal of Applied Physiology (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/1877)
M. A. Tarnopolsky1, M. Bosman2, J. R. Macdonald2, D. Vandeputte2, J. Martin2, and B. D. Roy2

Departments of 1 Medicine and 2 Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1

Received 29 May 1997; accepted in final form 28 July 1997.

Tarnopolsky, M. A., M. Bosman, J. R. MacDonald, D. Vandeputte, J. Martin, and B. D. Roy. Postexercise protein-carbohydrate and carbohydrate supplements increase muscle glycogen in men and women. J. Appl. Physiol. 83(6): 1877-1883, 1997.---We have previously demonstrated that women did not increase intramuscular glycogen in response to an increased percent of dietary carbohydrate (CHO) (from 60 to 75% of energy intake) (M. A. Tarnopolsky, S. A. Atkinson, S. M. Phillips, and J. D. MacDougall. J. Appl. Physiol. 78: 1360-1368, 1995). CHO and CHO-protein (Pro) supplementation postexercise can potentiate glycogen resynthesis compared with placebo (K. M. Zawadzki, B. B. Yaspelkis, and J. L. Ivy. J. Appl. Physiol. 72: 1854-1859, 1992). We studied the effect of isoenergetic CHO and CHO-Pro-Fat supplements on muscle glycogen resynthesis in the first 4 h after endurance exercise (90 min at 65% peak O2 consumption) in trained endurance athletes (men, n = 8; women, tested in midfollicular phase, n = 8). Each subject completed three sequential trials separated by 3 wk; a supplement was provided immediately and 1-h postexercise: 1) CHO (0.75 g/kg) + Pro (0.1 g/kg) + Fat (0.02 g/kg), 2) CHO (1 g/kg), and 3) placebo (Pl; artificial sweetener). Subjects were given prepackaged, isoenergetic, isonitrogenous diets, individualized to their habitual diet, for the day before and during the exercise trial. During exercise, women oxidized more lipid than did men (P < 0.05). Both of the supplement trials resulted in greater postexercise glucose and insulin compared with Pl (P < 0.01), with no gender differences. Similarly, both of these trials resulted in increased glycogen resynthesis (37.2 vs. 24.6 mmol · kg dry muscle-1 · h-1, CHO vs. CHO-Pro-Fat, respectively) compared with Pl (7.5 mmol · kg dry muscle-1 · h-1; P < 0.001) with no gender differences. We conclude that postexercise CHO and CHO-Pro-Fat nutritional supplements can increase glycogen resynthesis to a greater extent than Pl for both men and women.
Subjects who took the carbohydrate + protein + fat supplement after working out restored their intramusclar glycogen levels slower than those who ingested a carbohydrate only supplement after exercise. Both supplements were far better than placebo.

It should further be noted that replenishment of muscle glycogen stores becomes more and more important the longer you exercise. It takes 2-3 hours depending on fitness level of exercise at 60-75% max heart rate for glycogen levels to be exhausted. So if you're going running for 30 minutes, it isn't likely to make a giant difference what you eat after exercising.

Another article showing that carbohydrate supplementation after an exercise is a very good thing:
Effect of glucose supplement timing on protein metabolism after resistance training -- Roy et al. 82 (6): 1882 -- Journal of Applied Physiology (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/6/1882)
Effect of glucose supplement timing on protein metabolism after resistance training

B. D. Roy1, M. A. Tarnopolsky1,2, J. D. Macdougall1, J. Fowles1, and K. E. Yarasheski3

1 Department of Kinesiology and 2 Department of Neurology and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1; and 3 Metabolism Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110

Received 16 September 1996; accepted in final form 10 February 1997.

Roy, B. D., M. A. Tarnopolsky, J. D. MacDougall, J. Fowles, and K. E. Yarasheski. Effect of glucose supplement timing on protein metabolism after resistance training. J. Appl. Physiol. 82(6): 1882-1888, 1997.---We determined the effect of the timing of glucose supplementation on fractional muscle protein synthetic rate (FSR), urinary urea excretion, and whole body and myofibrillar protein degradation after resistance exercise. Eight healthy men performed unilateral knee extensor exercise (8 sets/~10 repetitions/~85% of 1 single maximal repetition). They received a carbohydrate (CHO) supplement (1 g/kg) or placebo (Pl) immediately (t = 0 h) and 1 h (t = +1 h) postexercise. FSR was determined for exercised (Ex) and control (Con) limbs by incremental L-[1-13C]leucine enrichment into the vastus lateralis over ~10 h postexercise. Insulin was greater (P < 0.01) at 0.5, 0.75, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, and 2 h, and glucose was greater (P < 0.05) at 0.5 and 0.75 h for CHO compared with Pl condition. FSR was 36.1% greater in the CHO/Ex leg than in the CHO/Con leg (P = not significant) and 6.3% greater in the Pl/Ex leg than in the Pl/Con leg (P = not significant). 3-Methylhistidine excretion was lower in the CHO (110.43 ± 3.62 µmol/g creatinine) than Pl condition (120.14 ± 5.82, P < 0.05) as was urinary urea nitrogen (8.60 ± 0.66 vs. 12.28 ± 1.84 g/g creatinine, P < 0.05). This suggests that CHO supplementation (1 g/kg) immediately and 1 h after resistance exercise can decrease myofibrillar protein breakdown and urinary urea excretion, resulting in a more positive body protein balance.
Not only does ingesting carbohydrates after exercise prevent muscle fiber breakdown (as your muscles will break protein down in order to replenish glycogen stores) but it decreases urea excretion (meaning your body is excreting less nitrogenous waste, ergo using more protein rather than excreting it).

One other article here:
Changes in human muscle protein synthesis after resistance exercise -- Chesley et al. 73 (4): 1383 -- Journal of Applied Physiology (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/4/1383)

Basically was a study to prove that muscle regeneration is not a process that has anything to do with RNA. Interesting academically, not very useful.

So, the final cliffs:
Ingesting more than 0.7 g protein/lb per day is a waste of protein.
Eat lots of carbohydrates (preferably ones heavy in simple carbs like glucose and fructose) immediately following exercise and 1 hr after.
After working out a muscle group, wait 36 hours before working it again.

Hopefully someone gets something out of this.

Indica
06-13-2007, 05:25 PM
Keep telling yourself this all I know is when I changed my diet from 175grams (approx 1g:1lb) of protein a day to 250+grams per day (1.5g:1lbratio), my muscle mass and recovery time changes were beyond belief.

You can post as many articles as you wish, but Ill stick to what works best for myself.

ptavv
06-13-2007, 05:27 PM
Yeah, because your body is making up for the decrease in carbohydrates (presuming you kept the total calorie level the same, otherwise your times went down because now you're getting enough calories) by turning protein into glucose.

You probably had too much fat in your diet.

Your anecdotal feelings about the way things are, when you have no control over how your body utilizes the protein you ingest means absolutely dick.

But, by all means, believe your anecdotes about protein rather than hard science.

Indica
06-13-2007, 05:35 PM
Yeah, because your body is making up for the decrease in carbohydrates (presuming you kept the total calorie level the same, otherwise your times went down because now you're getting enough calories) by turning protein into glucose.

You probably had too much fat in your diet.

Your anecdotal feelings about the way things are, when you have no control over how your body utilizes the protein you ingest means absolutely dick.

But, by all means, believe your anecdotes about protein rather than hard science.


I've upped everything in my diet, protein to about 250ish, total calories to 4000... At one point I was taking in a gross amount of fats and carbs for bulking, but i've slowed that down significantly, without decreasing my protein intake, thereby cutting down to 8% bf

I'm not saying the protein itself is the only thing that I've been taking which might have contributed to my muscles gains and recovery times (BCAAS, glutamine, creatine), But there is no way every gram of protein i've taken in over the .65g:1lb limit has gone to waste, the changes in my body can attest to that.

ptavv
06-13-2007, 05:43 PM
I'd wager you're just excreting the excess protein.

And I suck at remembering sometimes, so disregard what I posted here a minute ago.

Indica
06-13-2007, 06:07 PM
Your 250 grams of protein are 2,250 calories....

isnt the ratio 1gram protein=4calories

Lynx [TKB]
06-13-2007, 06:11 PM
Your 250 grams of protein are 2,250 calories....

isnt the ratio 1gram protein=4calories

That is correct. Protein: ~4cal/g, Carbs: ~4cal/g, Fats: ~9cal/g

and by correct I mean 250g protein is 1000 calories

ptavv
06-13-2007, 06:14 PM
Oops, yeah, I remembered wrong :o

Indica
06-13-2007, 06:16 PM
So, if my protein is at about 1000 calories per day, this amounts to 25% of my daily... This may be a little higher than the average (whats that at, like 15-20?), but its still balanced pretty well.

ptavv
06-13-2007, 06:17 PM
13-15% is optimal

more is a waste, which was the point of everything I posted above

Clever
06-13-2007, 10:53 PM
13-15% is optimal

more is a waste, which was the point of everything I posted above

Ptavv,

What would you recommend then for people with poor carb tolerances? (high resting insulin levels, usually endomorph phenotypes).

My issue is this: I agree that we DO NOT NEED more then X amount of protein to optimize muscle growth but there are other reasons to eat protein. Here are some examples:

1) Protein has a higher satiety index then carbohydrates making dieters feel fuller longer

2) As you mentioned earlier, the conversion of protein to glucose is a low insulin process making it a better choice for people who are borderline diabetic which is a lot of individuals in our overweight fast food society.

3) Reducing carbohydrate intake DOES increase the relative amount of fat oxidized. This is primarily linked to insulin levels and the amount of lipids released from fat cells into the blood stream.

4) You mention the conversion of proteins to glucose or lipids. What I don't see you mention is that this is a more thermodynamically inefficient process so it increases the TEF (thermogenic effect of feeding) by a non-trivial amount. This may help people w/ weight loss as they are getting less "effective calories".

5) Finally, the research on excess protein being somehow bad for kidney function has not panned out at all in healthy individuals so for semi-reasonable intakes there will probably be no negative effects.

As you can tell most of the above things apply to dieting and this is where I would argue that eating more protein and less carbs has a benefit. If you are eating above or at maintaince caloric requirements I agree that protein intake can be more along the lines of what you suggest and that any more is wasteful. When one is dieting you shouldnt be worrying about "muscle building" anyways as your body is in a naturally catabolic state; what you should be thinking is "calorie buring" and "muscle preservation".

That isn't to say that there aren't some issues w/ a high protein diet even when dieting (like cost) but I really do think they are applicable to a certain subset of cases.

ptavv
06-13-2007, 11:27 PM
Hmmm. First, I didn't write this with a dieter in mind. I still believe that anyone who is dieting should still do so with appropriate amounts of each nutrient group. I don't believe in proclaiming "Low carb diets are great!" because people are stupid or lazy or irresponsible. If people aren't going to diet properly, watch what they eat, exercise, etc, I don't care whether they read what I write and take it the wrong way or not. Those people aren't my intended audience because I'm mostly derisive of them. For that reason I don't really think tailoring nutrition guides and diets so that lazy idiots can be successful is a good idea.

On to other things, yes, I agree that protein has a higher satiety index. See my note about idiots and the lazy. Ditto for diabetics and the slothful.

While I agree to an extent that low carb diets will increase the relative amount of oxidized fat you have to keep in mind that most of these fat stores are converted to ketones. Which is great, ketones can be transported to cells and used effectively as energy sources. Unfortunately for athletes or people trying to gain strength or endurance, ketones can't be used anaerobically as fuel.

This is why people on low carb diets can't sustain exercise beyond their intramuscular glycogen stores. It's also the reason that people on low-carb diets exhibit longer than normal exercise recovery times, and reduced muscle effectiveness (which can/does lead to increased muscle production to account for the decreased ability of existing muscle).

In any case, yes, I agree with you that eating too much protein isn't necessarily a problem. I wrote this intending to educate the people who are pounding protein shakes morning, noon, and night in an effort to get "enough" protein, when it's likely that their diets (if well thought) are already giving them enough.

TeckMan
06-14-2007, 12:21 AM
Thanks ptavv this is a really great and useful thread and I really appreciate your taking the time to write it.

I hope you or others with this level of knowledge and expertise will make similar threads in the future on other divisive fitness topics.

SL83
06-14-2007, 12:24 AM
Thanks ptavv! You came through with the post back when I asked a while ago. :)

ptavv
06-14-2007, 12:46 AM
Glad to help guys.

I finally went and got sources and hard numbers for a lot of this stuff awhile ago, I'd just never synthesized it (outside of the inside of my head anyway) into something coherant like this. Figured it would be useful.

I've found it really useful while training (I've progressed much more rapidly than some of my friends who are gorging on protein and whatnot).

I'd also like to point out I'm not tearing apart the usefulness or place of protein shakes in any nutrition plan. I drink them regularly when I'm looking to add protein to my diet (I eat a lot of carbs [usually 65-70% of my calories come from them]) or want to add some calories and I'm out of food or whatever else.

Darkstrand
06-14-2007, 07:33 PM
Keep telling yourself this all I know is when I changed my diet from 175grams (approx 1g:1lb) of protein a day to 250+grams per day (1.5g:1lbratio), my muscle mass and recovery time changes were beyond belief.

You can post as many articles as you wish, but Ill stick to what works best for myself.

keep telling yourself you can metabolize 250+ grams of protein per day. LOL

(like a pound of muscle every 2 days rofl)

Lynx [TKB]
06-15-2007, 02:10 AM
Looks like you did a lot of research on this. Way to go!

I'm definitely not qualified to argue for or against your claims, but I'm curious as to how someone who is qualified would respond (someone who advocates 1-1.5g of protein per lb). Do you think you could present your findings on this (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=food) forum? Theres some guys on there (mainly the moderators) who would probably give some pretty good well sourced arguments (at least two of the moderators are in doctoral programs, one for exercise nutrition). If you don't want to register there I could post it for you but I want to make sure you get all the credit for your hard work.

Polus
06-15-2007, 02:28 AM
I'm at 6'2 225 at about 16% body fat right now (I'm pretty muscular). I'd like to get that down to about 9-10% BF in order to cut up a bit more. To lose weight, I've continued lifting weights regularly but I've been doing cardio after every workout.

Since I'm short on time, and frankly don't have the patience for long runs, I've been doing HIIT training for about 3 weeks, I have a track next to my apartment so it's pretty convenient to just go do my sprints and get back. I've dropped about 10 pounds (originally 235), and I'm pretty close to my ideal weight of about 215-216.

My question is, will I have to do more significant cardio workouts in order to improve my overall cardiovascular health? I've been losing weight simply because my metabolism is through the roof lately and I've been working out on a slight caloric deficit (not because I burn any fat during the actual sprints). I'm nervous that if I start doing long cardio workouts, I'll have a harder time mantaining my muscle mass. Any suggestions?

ptavv
06-15-2007, 11:02 AM
You won't have a harder time maintaining muscle mass. You need to start doing longer cardio to see better fat losses.

ptavv
06-15-2007, 11:04 AM
;11698017']Looks like you did a lot of research on this. Way to go!

I'm definitely not qualified to argue for or against your claims, but I'm curious as to how someone who is qualified would respond (someone who advocates 1-1.5g of protein per lb). Do you think you could present your findings on this (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=food) forum? Theres some guys on there (mainly the moderators) who would probably give some pretty good well sourced arguments (at least two of the moderators are in doctoral programs, one for exercise nutrition). If you don't want to register there I could post it for you but I want to make sure you get all the credit for your hard work.
If you want to post it you can just copy and paste what I wrote (or better yet quote me, and copy and paste that to preserve tags and whatnot). Just say someone else on another forum posted this, thoughts? or whatever. I'm curious what they say.