Grr's Protein Recommendations

After reading ptavv's protein thread I was distraught.

From my own experience in the past the only way I've been able to maintain a low fat, muscular form is from a large amount of protein consumption. Around 1g protein / lb bodyweight / day which is 30% larger than ptavv's reported limitation of ~.7g / lb / day.

But, here in my face was scientific evidence saying that I was consuming too much protein during that time.

My results didn't support the science.

I've never considered myself genetically weird. In fact I consider my bodytype an average ecto with traits of meso and endo for a little balance. So, I had to rule out that it was just me because overall I believe myself to be average. Note that since the census doesn't record bodytypes I have to go with my personal experience to back up this claim.

I looked at ptavv's sources' credibility. They are very reliable! What was I to do?

After hours of research I found a good source to combat the ACSM, ADA, DC, APS, and ptavv's conclusions.

PROTEIN OVEREATING
In the end, you've gotta stop thinking of protein as "something I need to get the bare minimum of without going into deficiency" OR "something that I have to take enough of to build muscle - and no more." You need to start thinking of as "the nutrient that stimulates the metabolism, increases rate of turnover and adaptation, and can displace some dietary carbs and fats that might lead to fat gain."

If you were to overeat any nutritient, it should be protein (assuming you've got fully functional kidneys).

TMAGNUM FORUMS - Berardi on Protein - Again (http://www.t-nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1238681)
--
So, for those of you who staunchly believe that you're only required to eat enough protein to meet your needs,go right ahead and reduce your protein intake from 2.0g/kg to 0.65g/kg. In the meantime, I'll be encouraging everyone else to actually increase his or her protein intake beyond the current 2.0g/kg recommendation.

John Berardi - Protein Prejudice (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/proprejudice.htm)

1 lb = ~ .45 kg so he's recommending more than 1 g / 1 lb / day.
--
But regardless of the choice of the "optimal" definition, both are pretty damn
hard to test and with the current literature there's very little evidence as to
what is the optimal intake for either definition. Of course, there's some
evidence, but as Dr. Phillips rightfully pointed out, it’s based on some old N
balance data that’s probably not valid anyway. So we’re back to square one. Not much evidence.

So what do we do in these circumstances? Dr. Phillips gets back to the lab and begins measuring this stuff with some cool measurement techniques he’s got at his disposal. Me, since I don’t have my own lab yet, I wait for Dr. Phillips to publish his work. But, in the meantime, I experiment with my athletes. And here's what I've seen.

1) Improvements in body composition
Now, I concede that protein intakes above what the typical North American
lacto-ovo, meat eating male gets are probably not going to pack on additional muscle mass directly from the additional amino acid load. However, as stated in the article, perhaps the other components of the protein foods are making an impact with respect to muscle mass.

But even more importantly, muscle mass isn't the only endpoint I choose when measuring body composition. For most performance (aerobic or anaerobic) and physique athletes, the relationship between fat mass and lean mass is critical — not just the absolute amount of muscle mass. Consider this: some of the athletes with the highest absolute amounts of lean mass on the earth are sumo wrestlers. Need I say more?

IIf I have an athlete that needs to continue to train hard and perform at a high
level yet needs to lose body mass/body fat to achieve the right body comp for his sport, would I alter his macronutrient recommendations or would I keep them the same as I would with an athlete who has no fat to lose? It’s a toughie…

Of course, we don’t want to put this athlete on a calorie restricted diet (or,
at least, in a large calorie deficit) as that might compromise performance
ability and/or recovery. So how do we get the fat off?

Here’s what I’d do. My solution (and it’s worked time and time again) is to
replace some carbohydrates from the diet with protein. The thermic effect of the protein may allow for more energy expenditure while still taking in a large amount of total energy and, importantly, micronutrients. Perhaps the balance of glucagon to insulin may alter nutrient partitioning. Or there might be something else at work (perhaps something on the neurochemical/neurohormonal level) that we don’t even have enough evidence to speculate on.

r. John M. Berardi is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human performance and nutrition. In addition to being a prolific author, Dr. Berardi is also a sought-after speaker and a consultant to Olympic, professional and elite athletes, as well as executives and recreational weightlifters serious about achieving optimal results. For more information about John, his team and the services he offers, visit Dr. John Berardi, Ph.D. (http://www.johnberardi.com).

^ Linked from the original post at t-nation: John Berardi - The Protein Debate - Do Athletes Need More Protein (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/protein_debate.htm)
--

Now, I'm not going to lie. My source is selling something: Mainly books with training and diet recommendations. However, I believe non-profit organizations are just as suspect due to their ability to receive income from anyone who wants to donate. That combined with a theoretical motive that ptavv himself mentions: Protein is more expensive than carbs; combined with our current struggle to feed the world is enough for me to move on to other questions about each sources' respective credibility.

We could say, "Well, your source is only one man whereas these organizations have many more people to verify their claims." I consider this but I think it balances out with the fact that this one man has experience being an actual physical trainer whereas the experiments ran were from scientists who have far less experience with physical training. They're more interested in testing assumed, static limitations than they are testing a much more dynamic thought: What's actually possible? What not only satisfies the needs of a low bodyfat muscle-heavy athlete, but enhances their results?

You must also consider that many trainers you can find on the Internet actually recommend overeating protein by the ASCM and APS's standards, also. I won't put the sources, but they're everywhere and easy to find. Just go to some other fitness forums.

From the above conclusions I believe these sources to objectively have equal credibility to rule out any "My source is obviously better than your source" questions and let one decide for themselves whom they believe based on the data, their own experiences, and the experiences of the people around them.

----
Cliffs:

-Because I have some past experience with this that supports Dr. John's data I support a somewhat arbitrary recommendation of 1 g / 1 lb / day minimum and 2 g / 1 lb / day maximum as a guideline for protein intake for an athlete.

-It mainly comes down to "overeating" protein making your body more thermogenic which increases your metabolism, allowing you to maintain lower body fat while still gaining muscle.

-Drink more milk and eat more eggs, cottage cheese, almonds, red meats, etc.!

edit: will reply sober

im in ur bloodstreemz makin u big

ptavv doesn't give a shit about empirical data, only what can be worked out on paper

How do you even pronounce "ptavv"? It has stumped me for the last several weeks :(

im in ur bloodstreemz makin u big

:lol:

Uh, a guy selling something is totally different than a bunch of researchers who have no motive. The motivation behind not overeating (that protein costs more than carbohydrates) was injected by me.

Furthermore, none of that is scientific, it's all just one "Ph.D." hawking a book and explaining some stuff that's (while true) not very helpful. When he decides to publish some articles that are peer reviewed, let me know. Until then it's just some guy who is justifying overeating by saying, "Well if you over eat this it's not as bad." You shouldn't be overeating any of your macronutrients, that's dumb.

The reason his system is bad is that it trains our body to turn protein into glucose in the event of a glucose shortage, or when glucose metabolism reaches a certain threshold. Habituating your body to this response is bad, because when you don't have enough nutritional protein, or you go for a long run, or try to exercise for an entire day, your body will say, "Well we need to get some protein to make up for the carbs we're not getting, so we gotta start breaking down muscle fiber." Oops.
From the above conclusions I believe these sources to objectively have equal credibility to rule out any "My source is obviously better than your source" questions and let one decide for themselves whom they believe based on the data, their own experiences, and the experiences of the people around them.
That's because you don't know anything about scientific research. You equate research published in a peer reviewed journal to some guy hawking shit on the internet.

This is why the car-reliability fallacy is so fucking common.
Say you want to buy a car, you have a friend who has a Lexus that breaks down all the time. So you decide, "Lexus must be unreliable, I'm not going to buy one." Instead, you buy an equivalently priced Mercedes. Sure, you've got a car that will get you from A-to-B and it will do that quite well. What you have done is (statistically and scientifically speaking) wasted money, a Mercedes is less reliable than a Lexus, and will cost you more money over the course of its ownership. Sure, you won't notice it, or even really think of it, but that's exactly what you've done because you chose to believe in an anecdotal story instead of objective scientific proof. It's pretty common, but also pretty fucking stupid.
So lets modify that to incorporate what Grr has added in this thread.

Say you want to buy a car, you have a friend who has a Lexus that breaks down all the time. Not only that, but the guy at the Mercedes dealership, as well as the one at the BMW dealership you visited both told you that their car is more reliable, so you've chosen to go with their opinion (after all, these guys have maintence shops and are surely able to figure out car reliability). Although objective, scientific studies of car reliability have found that Lexus' are the most reliable. So you decide, "Lexus must be unreliable, I'm not going to buy one." Instead, you buy an equivalently priced Mercedes. Sure, you've got a car that will get you from A-to-B and it will do that quite well. What you have done is (statistically and scientifically speaking) wasted money, a Mercedes is less reliable than a Lexus, and will cost you more money over the course of its ownership. Sure, you won't notice it, or even really think of it, but that's exactly what you've done because you chose to believe in an anecdotal story instead of objective scientific proof. It's pretty common, but also pretty fucking stupid.

I will make a challenge to anyone on Tribalwar who keeps a detailed diet and exercise journal and consumes >= 1g protein/lb.

Change your consumption to .7g/lb, and monitor your diet and exercise logs for two weeks to a month. The excess calories you're not getting, get them from carbohydrates.

Tell me if you gain weight, if your body fat % goes up, if your threshold decreases, etc etc.

I'm genuinely interested, since it semes that having anecdotes like that would be the only way to convince people who are more interested in what the huge guy at the gym is doing to get huge, rather than the most physiologically efficient way to get huge or get fit.

How many g protein/lb do you eat a day, ptavv?

between 100 and 115 g

Uh, a guy selling something is totally different than a bunch of researchers who have no motive. The motivation behind not overeating (that protein costs more than carbohydrates) was injected by me.

Furthermore, none of that is scientific, it's all just one "Ph.D." hawking a book and explaining some stuff that's (while true) not very helpful. When he decides to publish some articles that are peer reviewed, let me know. Until then it's just some guy who is justifying overeating by saying, "Well if you over eat this it's not as bad." You shouldn't be overeating any of your macronutrients, that's dumb.

The reason his system is bad is that it trains our body to turn protein into glucose in the event of a glucose shortage, or when glucose metabolism reaches a certain threshold. Habituating your body to this response is bad, because when you don't have enough nutritional protein, or you go for a long run, or try to exercise for an entire day, your body will say, "Well we need to get some protein to make up for the carbs we're not getting, so we gotta start breaking down muscle fiber." Oops.

That's because you don't know anything about scientific research. You equate research published in a peer reviewed journal to some guy hawking shit on the internet.

This is why the car-reliability fallacy is so fucking common.

So lets modify that to incorporate what Grr has added in this thread.

Say you want to buy a car, you have a friend who has a Lexus that breaks down all the time. Not only that, but the guy at the Mercedes dealership, as well as the one at the BMW dealership you visited both told you that their car is more reliable, so you've chosen to go with their opinion (after all, these guys have maintence shops and are surely able to figure out car reliability). Although objective, scientific studies of car reliability have found that Lexus' are the most reliable. So you decide, "Lexus must be unreliable, I'm not going to buy one." Instead, you buy an equivalently priced Mercedes. Sure, you've got a car that will get you from A-to-B and it will do that quite well. What you have done is (statistically and scientifically speaking) wasted money, a Mercedes is less reliable than a Lexus, and will cost you more money over the course of its ownership. Sure, you won't notice it, or even really think of it, but that's exactly what you've done because you chose to believe in an anecdotal story instead of objective scientific proof. It's pretty common, but also pretty fucking stupid.

Quit cussing. You have no tact.

I think your comment about habituated to protein is very short-sited because you are thinking of a 2000 calorie diet instead of a ~2700+ calorie diet. If you eat bigger portions and more often the chances of that happening would obviously be lower.

That analogy with the cars is ridiculous... We build cars from the ground up, casting the metal, mixing the paint, etc. With our bodies we just eat some stuff that our parents fed us, we don't design our bodies from the ground up, we're stuck with what our genes give us. Physiology is a very infantile school, still. I can't believe you act so confident when we only mapped the human genome less than fourteen years ago.

The point is that nitrogen balance isn't the only limit to test, and you've put all your stock in those couple of experiments based on it.

You might be right and there are fewer benefits to 1g+ / lb / day of protein than this Dr. and I recommend, but I wouldn't be so defensive about it when there is just as strong of a chance you're wrong!

Wow. Your ignorance is truly boundless.
Quit cussing. You have no tact.
I didn't use profanity, and I was quite reserved in explaining to you why what you wrote was incorrect. Comparing the delcarations of a person selling something on his website to peer reviewed scientific evidence is comparing apples to baseballs.

I think your comment about habituated to protein is very short-sited because you are thinking of a 2000 calorie diet instead of a ~2700+ calorie diet. If you eat bigger portions and more often the chances of that happening would obviously be lower.
Please explain how this is the case. Clearly you aren't understanding what I'm saying. If you're eating a diet such that 30% of your calories come from protein, but your body can only utilize 50% of those, that 15% is going to be converted from protein into glucose. If this is the normal state, and occurs regularly, your body will become habituated and more able to turn protein into glucose more efficiently. Which leads to the problems I spoke of (preferential protein utilization via gluconeogensis rather than muscle building).

That analogy with the cars is ridiculous... We build cars from the ground up, casting the metal, mixing the paint, etc. With our bodies we just eat some stuff that our parents fed us, we don't design our bodies from the ground up, we're stuck with what our genes give us. Physiology is a very infantile school, still. I can't believe you act so confident when we only mapped the human genome less than fourteen years ago.
Physiology isn't infantile. The human genome and our understanding of DNA and genetics has nothing to do with our understanding of physiological function and efficiency. Furthermore, the point is completely apt. Lexus' are more reliable than Mercedes. Any individual car may not adhere to this rule, but statistically, fewer Lexus' will break down than Mercedes. Thus what I said holds true absolutely.

The point is that nitrogen balance isn't the only limit to test, and you've put all your stock n those couple of experiments based on it.
If you bothered to read the articles I posted (or even the abstracts!) you'd see that few-to-none of those studies used nitrogen balance as their testing method. They tested leucine oxidation, muscle protein synthesis, and other objective measures. Just because your salesman told you that measure A is incorrect doesn't mean the studies I posted use it.

You might be right and there are fewer benefits to 1g+ / lb / day of protein than this Dr. and I recommend, but I wouldn't be so defensive about it when there is just as strong of a chance you're wrong!
I am right. I'm not being overly defensive, I'm simply maintaining a dialogue. You made this entire thread because you thought that the science I posted attacked your nutrition and exercise program. Sure, what you're doing works, could it be more efficient and could you realize better gains? Absolutely.

And there isn't "just as strong a chance that I'm wrong". My evidence is based firmly in objective, repeatable, measured science. Your evidence is the word of a salesman who has given us none of the things I listed above. All he's given is his opinion.

Finally, what are your qualifications for judging the scientific merit here? I have a degree in biochemistry and work in biotech. I know what I'm reading and what I'm looking at when I read a website giving scientific claims (but no evidence). I can even surmise why he has reached those conclusions. I also know the relative value of a journal article which has been peer reviewed in a major, and respected, physiology journal. Do you recognize any of these characteristics of what you're reading? Why is it that we've cyclically gone through high protein/low carb diet and high carb/low protein diet fads? Why is it that someone who claims to be a scientist would be hawking something without verifiable science behind his claims?

Anyway, from your posts here, and your posts in other threads, it's clear that a) you have a rudimentary understanding of physiology and b) you went looking for evidence to back up a claim (which is the worst possible thing you can do in a scientific debate). You should have gone looking for claims backed up by evidence.

But..

but..

..you did cuss.

You're good at flaming, I give you that. I just don't care to interact with someone who has no room for intelligent discourse.

But..

but..

..you did cuss.

You're good at flaming, I give you that. I just don't care to interact with someone who has no room for intelligent discourse.


Oh, you mean you're giving up because I've pointed out how wrong you are?

Good show. Good show.

That last comment was troll-tastic!!!

You missed my entire point.

I'd rather trust a world renowned physical trainer than a bunch of out-of-shape scientists working in a field that is largely unknown.

You'd rather trust the latter. Great for you. Go get 'em!

Apparently, the physical attributes of the messenger are king in your mind.

Go talk to some triathletes then. Ask them about their diets.

Anyway, this thread as a well thought out response to a wealth of scientific evidence was a total failure. As a way of telling us all what nutrition plan you are sticking to, you did a bang up job. As for making yourself look intelligent...

In fairness, Triathletes and body builders have very different fitness goals.

Triathletes need more protein than body builders. They don't eat as much protein as the OP is advocating.

1: Meat is dirtier than vegitables, fruits and grains. Namely, because persistant toxins tend to build up in the meat and therefor, in you. Think of what happens to heavy metals or dioxin; small animals consume it, it builds up, they get eaten by a larger predator and so on. Eventually it reaches the top or the animal dies of poisoning.

There tends to be a buildup of less persistant toxins in animal fats, since they tend to store most of it since fat soluble toxins can get stored perminantly in fat.

That is the only reason, I can think of, in addition to indigestion, to not eat lots of protien and that can be taken care of by a few detox diets.

1: Meat is dirtier than vegitables, fruits and grains. Namely, because persistant toxins tend to build up in the meat and therefor, in you. Think of what happens to heavy metals or dioxin; small animals consume it, it builds up, they get eaten by a larger predator and so on. Eventually it reaches the top or the animal dies of poisoning.

There tends to be a buildup of less persistant toxins in animal fats, since they tend to store most of it since fat soluble toxins can get stored perminantly in fat.

That is the only reason, I can think of, in addition to indigestion, to not eat lots of protien and that can be taken care of by a few detox diets.

lol what

where did you read that?

I would be more concerned about a plant that sits in one spot absorbing all kinds of shit from the ground and water than an animal that has an active immune system. Besides the huge majority of animals that we eat are not living in the wild eating field mice that ate some piece of metal by accident. They eat genetically engineered feed.