AMINO ACIDSYou said:
- Quote :
- - if it was all about amino acids, people would just take amino acid supplements and swerve protein
Amino acid is simply a building block, it will not carry out the function a specific protein does on its own. Your definitely not the first person to make that mistake though.
The only way protein that you eat can be used by the body is by first being broken down into amino acids, then absorbed into the blood from where it goes out to whatever needs it and is used. Whether to build various proteins or to be burned as energy.
The body will not lift a protein out of a chicken breast and insert it right into a muscle. The only other function it can be said to have is the time it takes for it to be broken down. Anything between 30 minutes to 4 hours depending on the protein.
- Quote :
- http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/yrdd/
Foods such as meat, eggs, and beans consist of giant molecules of protein that must be digested by enzymes before they can be used to build and repair body tissues. An enzyme in the juice of the stomach starts the digestion of swallowed protein. Then in the small intestine, several enzymes from the pancreatic juice and the lining of the intestine complete the breakdown of huge protein molecules into small molecules called amino acids. These small molecules can be absorbed through the small intestine into the blood and then be carried to all parts of the body to build the walls and other parts of cells
- Quote :
- The hydrochloric acid in the stomach is required to break the protein bonds. The protein-containing foods are broken apart, separating out the protein, then the proteins are broken into their constituent parts, the amino acids.
Amino Acids Put To Use
Once in the blood, the amino acids are carried by both the red blood cells and by the liquid part of the blood, called the plasma. The amino acids are thereby distributed to all the body tissues, where the various body cells take what they need to repair and reform the protein structures they need.
The blood contains amino acids at all times. Fasting does not clear them, and a high protein diet does not materially increase them. The body has a constant need for protein amino acids, and it keeps a fairly uniform balance.
http://www.carbsmart.com/pdigestion.html
- Quote :
- Protein Products
bodybuilding.com
Protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are the basic building blocks of muscle. Therefore, protein is an essential ingredient for muscle building. You can't build muscle without it! You will want to take in about 1-2 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight throughout the day. So an average person who weighs 150 lbs would want to consume between 150 and 300 grams of protein in a day. Protein shakes and bars are convenient and provide high quality protein.
Everywhere you go. Amino acids. When they say "high quality protein" they refer to the amino acid composition of the protein.
You said this earlier:
- Quote :
- http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/the-great-protein-myth/
he mentions two "myths" one that plants dont have that much protein in
thats not a myth thats a fact, how much lettuce would I need to eat a day to stay as strong and heavy as I am now for fcuks sake
two that protein from vegs is incomplete... erm... thats NOT part of the "great protein myth"
if people want to go veggie or vegan, more power to them but IT PISSES ME OFF when people try and tell me you can stay just as muscular on those diets when you clearly, observably can NOT
Which I can agree with. Remember, I never promoted vegetarianism. And the reason you're right is:
- Quote :
- http://www.vegsoc.org/info/protein.html
Different foods contain different proteins, each with their own unique amino acid composition. The proportions of essential amino acids in foods may differ from the proportions needed by the body to make proteins. The proportion of each of the essential amino acids in foods containing protein determines the quality of that protein. Dietary proteins with all the essential amino acids in the proportions required by the body are said to be a high quality protein. If the protein is low in one or more of the essential amino acids the protein is of a lower quality. The amino acid that is in shortest supply is called the limiting amino acid.
Protein quality is usually defined according to the amino acid pattern of egg protein, which is regarded as the ideal. As such, it is not surprising that animal proteins, such as meat, milk and cheese tend to be of a higher protein quality than plant proteins. This is why plant proteins are sometimes referred to as low quality proteins. Many plant proteins are low in one of the essential amino acids.
Amino acids. Meat protein simply is composed of more of the right amino acids. And protein for muscle growth isn't about amino acids?
THE STEROID STUDY:You said:
- Quote :
- the study you cited was absolutely NOT about protein consumption it was actually about whether steroids were really effective or not. The study is called: The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men
Did you figure that out all by yourself?
Here are the first four words in the box you quote me in before saying that.
- Quote :
- Now, the steroid study.
Brad Pilon's opening line in the part about that study is:
- Quote :
- Testosterone and Muscle Growth Studies
Granted, that does not explicitly state, "steroid study" but he also says this:
- Quote :
- So what does a study on steroids have to do with protein? Well, all four groups
were on the same diet. They were all consuming about 0.7 grams of protein per
pound of body weight (roughly 120 grams of protein per day) and about 16
Calories per pound of body weight.
I also used the reference Pilon gave for that study to google up the study itself. Which, as you are aware of, said:
- Quote :
- The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men
Imagine that! It is a study on steroids. The steroid study.
But fair enough, maybe you are busy and lacked the opportunity to give it a proper read.
You say the study has
- Quote :
- NOTHING to do with testing protein consumption -/- The protein stats are incidental -/- Secondly NOWHERE in that study does it mention 120g, not once
This is from the study: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/335/1/1 Below the abstract.
- Quote :
- Studies of the effects of such steroids on muscle strength have been inconclusive,16-33 and several reviews have emphasized the shortcomings of the studies.1-5,8-10 Some of the studies were not randomized; most did not control for intake of energy and protein; the exercise stimulus was often not standardized; and some studies included competitive athletes whose motivation to win may have kept them from complying with a standardized regimen of diet and exercise.
We sought to determine whether supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, administered alone or in conjunction with a standardized program of strength-training exercise, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men. To overcome the pitfalls of previous studies, the intake of energy and protein and the exercise stimulus were standardized.
You quote from the conclusion:
- Quote :
- from the conclusion:
Conclusions Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men
And here is the other half of that very same paragraph, not even separated by as much as a comma:
- Quote :
- when potentially confounding variables, such as nutritional intake and exercise stimulus, are standardized.
In other words, that each man, regardless of weight recieved 0.7 g of protein per pound of his own bodyweight. So that even if he weighed 10 pounds or 500 metric tonnes, he would still recieve 0.7 g protein per pound.
Just to be clear, they point out that they've locked down the variables again:
- Quote :
- The exercise was standardized in all the men, and therefore the effects of testosterone on muscle size and strength cannot be attributed to more intense training in the groups receiving the treatment. Careful selection of experienced weight lifters, the exclusion of competitive athletes, and close follow-up ensured a high degree of compliance with the regimens of exercise, treatment, and diet, which was verified by three-day food records (data not shown) and the values obtained for serum testosterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone.
If a normal man is the average man, he weighs about 75 kg 0.7 g per pound rises above 120 g when the man weighs over 80 kg. So saying 120 g is crude of Pilon, it assumes they are at or close to 80 kg's max. Who knows what they weighed. But the ratio of 0.7 g per pound remains the same regardless of weight.
That variable is, "standardized" which is why it DOES have something to say about protein conssumption. Even though that wasn't what the study was about. The study was a success. Steroids did turn out to work well.
The control group, taking no steroids, eating 0.7 g protein per pound following the same individual intensity of training (the other standardized variable) as the steroid group. Control group gained normal amounts of muscle. They hit that expected ceiling. again, normal gains. 0.7 per pound was sufficient.
You might argue that it could have been barely so. Only just sufficient to achieve that. but how do you then explain the almost three times greater muscle gain that the steroid taking group had?
That steroids enable muscles to grow WITHOUT sufficient protein?
Or that protein barely matters at all?
I can't imagine you'd make any of
those claims. It only leaves one conclusion. 0.7 per pound was sufficient.
You commented on the steroid taking group:
- Quote :
- they were given 600 mg of testosterone ethanate a week!!! they werent tickling these chaps with a feather, (depending on the brand) thats a pretty hefty dose and if they have not juiced before the 13.5 lean mass starts to look quite reasonable
And STILL the protein in those 0.7 g per pound were sufficient. If not,
where else did the muscle come from?And 0.7 per pound isn't sufficient for NORMAL non-steroid taking muscle growth?
HIGH PROTEINYou said:
- Quote :
- That study as a peice of evidence to build the case that people "dont need that much protein" to build muscle is utterly meaningless, 1.4 grammes per KG of bodyweight is definitely a "high protein" diet by modern western standards...
Yes, as said before.
Pilon: from earlier in the thread.
- Quote :
- If we look at our current recommendation of 70-120 grams of protein per day (on
average) we see that we could meet the needs of a 220 pound man (100 kg*1.2 g
protein =120 grams per day) and the needs of a 110 pound woman (50 kg*1.4
grams of protein = 70 grams of protein per day) while still falling within the ranges
of what scientists consider to be ‘high’ protein.
Pilon contrasts it with:
- Quote :
- In fact, if we look through actual scientific research what we find is that to scientists
the words ‘high protein’ generally refer to a range of 1.2 to 1.5 grams of protein per
kilogram of body weight – an amount higher than the current government
recommendations but certainly much lower that the 1-2 grams per POUND of
bodyweight that we see in most of the fitness magazines.
As said before. 70 - 120 (150) Vs. starting at 220 - 440. High and low is relative stuff. But there's the difference. When it starts at nearly double and goes up to more than three times the amount, given Pilon's protein-conclusion from the steroid study. If that was sufficient. How do these huge amounts become necessary?
You said:
- Quote :
- Using my chicken breast calculator thats 15 chicken breasts a day! Or 5 of 3 chicken breast meals throughout the day, which is damn near physically impossible.
Which I can believe. That's when supplements become necessary for it to be possible to ingest that amount. That's what it's all been about so far. 220 to 440 is the
range that 1 - 2 g per pound gives you. Granted, the highest amount of protein I've seen reccomended by your weight on a bodybuilder site was about 397 g. Which removes one whole chicken breast from the pile, but 440 g is very high, you don't like it? Let's go lower then.
Protein calculator: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/calpro.htm
For you it reccomends 330 g a day. If for argument's sake we use an 80 kg man in the calculator, because that's the limit of where 120 g remains 0.7 g per pound. The reccomended amount is 264 g. Double, in other words. That can serve as the definition of huge here. Double and upwards of 0.7 g per pound. Because 0.7 proved sufficient in supporting steroid-accelerated muscle growth that was three times greater than what you would achieve without steroids.
You present this as my argument in your last post:
- Quote :
- "I put on 6kg of muscle in 10 weeks eating only 0.5 grammes of protein per kg of my bodyweight, eating a high protein diet for muscle growth is unneccesary! protein consumption, tis a myth!"
0.5 g per kg?
That's 0.2 per pound!The argument is athat 0.7 g per pound is sufficient.
You've said yourself that
- Quote :
- 1.4 grammes per KG of bodyweight is definitely a "high protein" diet by modern western standards...
And it's true. Both
are high protein. One is normal-high and achievable with food. The other is double-high or even higher and realistically requires supplements. It is double-high protein that is being questioned.
You ask:
- Quote :
- are you SERIOUSLY trying to pass off high protein consumption in bodybuilding as a scientifically baseless "good luck ritual"?
Really?
Quote:
they do it, and I would think have confidence in it,
Oh do you really think so?? Priceless!!! 
How
dare I question that which is written!
This is a species that has been convinced of and fiercely defended that the earth was flat, the sun revolving around the earth, and many more things that make the protein issue tiny in comparison. I do not think it is out of line to question it on the basis of everything I've written so far. It is a matter of having the humility to realize we are all humans and deeply flawed.
To say it shouldn't be questioned because it would be arrogant and maybe hurt their feelings isn't an argument.
ENDYou say.
- Quote :
- Look, seriously though
What needs to be appreciated is that written Studies are only a representation of experiental/experimental first hand analysis- this is what the bodybuilding crowd are engaged in... the representation should not precede the real world results - that really is putting the cart before the horse.
Maybe so, but studies have demonstrated many times that things aren't necessarily like what our experience tells us. It wouldn't be the first time it had happened. And it isn't about results. It's about
where the line goes between getting and not getting the results. That bodybuilders get results is obvious enough. It is about
how much of what they do being necessary.
You then say:
- Quote :
- And despite what Pilon would have you believe there are studies that "prove" that high protein consumption is necessary for muscle growth...
he even cites one of them!!!
Well that's
great news!
Then you can post your argument and refute Pilon's claims.
Look, this is going nowhere. I've attempted to argue cleanly in pursuit of a conclusion in either direction. So far you've barely refuted any actual arguments and seem to have focused your efforts on trying to turn it into a flame war, but I've been civil and refrained from pointing out any of the stuff you've been trying to pull throughout the thread.
The funny thing is that you might be right in the end, but you've made no convincing argument to support that. It is beside the point now, the argument is going nowhere. If you can refute it then do so but this is the point where I say, fuck it, why bother.
You're saying that I've got a big ego and shouldn't talk about things that I don't do. I agree. There's an issue there of the "put up or shut up" variety that I'm going to respect. For now, let it suffice to say I get the distinct impression I've outstayed my welcome with you, and quite frankly vice versa, so I'm out of here without any further ado.
Goodbye.
Home 
)
