|
Post by Ivan Drago - aka Arny/Dolph/AM on Oct 7, 2009 10:24:35 GMT -5
Hey all (I posted this on Tim's forum but I wasn't sure if anyone read it) Regarding T. Wescott's carbohydrate cycling program: "There was a common thread throughout your contrivance I thought was helpful and simple - keep protein high. That facet of philosophy coupled with your correlating fat intake beliefs, makes the approach you authored effective and usable. My question revolves around a statement you made regarding protein assimilation and subsequent optimal nitrogen and amino pool levels. In your approximation, or better yet through any previously read journals, are you aware of the actual physiological ability of the digestive construct on the subject of protein turn over rate or effective digestion rapidity? I have heard anecdotal accounts of "no more than 30g every hour," or "anything over 40g at one sitting is a waste and will end up excreted," yet none of those purported pseudo scientists (meat heads) are able to cite any literature substantiating their claims. How long should a bodybuilder truly wait between meals; how much protein and at what rate can be digested per meal; and off topic - there are also conflicting reports circulating that claim drinking water while eating will interfere with digestion and proper hydration timing would be between meals... I'd love to hear your thoughts or any links to pub-med articles etc... Part-2: I was excited to see what research there is behind this. I remember trying to find an answer to this riddle back in 2005, and still haven't made any progress. I read an article mixed in with one of the many magazines (either HMP or Nutrex I believe) I picked up at the Olympia, and it referenced a study done that showed any single serving of protein ingestion that exceeded 23 grams, was not only wasted but would actually downgrade anabolism through some pathway - kind of like trying to fit an 8 lane highway into a 2 lane tunnel. I think I threw all the magazines away as I read them though.
|
|
|
Post by The One on Oct 9, 2009 16:21:50 GMT -5
Please show me any REAL proof that the body can only handle this amount of protein in one sitting. Show me that this is true in hard training athletes better yet!
|
|
|
Post by hossjob on Oct 9, 2009 18:45:29 GMT -5
Even it it were true...what happens when we ingest protein? Lots of things. For one, digestion and break down of protein into aminos requires more energy than break down of carbs or fat - increasing one's metabolism, secondly gluconeogenesis causes even more energy burning an even greater amount of calories. Very important for an athlete that is trying to maintain a specific conditioning level (body fat).
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Drago - aka Arny/Dolph/AM on Oct 12, 2009 7:42:01 GMT -5
I wish I could pull that article back up, I believe it was in Nutrabolix XXL magazine I ended up with after walking around at the Olympia Expo. It had stated a study was done showing that the optimal and maximal protein assimilation rates for humans was about 21-23 grams per meal. As far as frequency cited, I am going by memory here, but I believe it was every 90-120 minutes. So, at that rate you'd have to eat every 1 1/2 hours and basically never sleep, lol.
Over the years I have heard a lot of conflicting information on this... one point of interest that always bubbled up to my mind when thinking about this, is the heated discussion I had with an old girlfriend's dad about protein assimilation. It was his firm belief that no more than 25 grams (per HOUR) could be digested, to which I responded at the time (this was during the golden years of my competitive days, lol, like I'm in my 50's now. Haven't even turned 25 years old yet), that might be per hour, but the body does not instantly break down all protein at the same exact rate, it is (to my understanding) done incrementally, especially when taking protein sources into consideration.
At any rate... I am surprised with the awesome collection of experienced minds here on the proboards prrs forum, none of us can come up with any solid evidence to support either side of the argument.
I will agree with one great point Kyle made, I believe a trained athlete has an entirely different set of necessitated nutritional needs when compared to a sedentary person. *Also, I would even contend that perhaps an athlete's metabolism can even become "trained" and slightly modulated over all the years of 6-8 meals per day force feeding, since we are such well built adaptive machines by nature - if hypertrophy and hyperplasia are resultants of induced damage through resistance training, why can't the same set of specific adaptations and calibrations be made by our digestive system? An office worker's metabolic rate and expediency will not have the same efficiency or cause to digest an 8oz strip steak...
Thoughts Eric, Kyle, others?
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Oct 13, 2009 16:14:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Drago - aka Arny/Dolph/AM on Oct 14, 2009 0:48:46 GMT -5
RICK... YES!!! Thanks man... talk about having a brain lapse! Actually, as ironic as it might sound having 2 magazines during the same Olympia weekend finding their way into my bag... I think the article I was referring to was actually XXL mag published by Nutrabolix. What are the chances?I actually started to read this article by Layne on the flight back home, but ended up getting so sleepy I couldn't hardly function (until the airplane ran into some unreal turbulence!). I am going to have to give this a read... knowing Layne, I truly hope it is chock full of citations and references, so I can (hopefully) put this monster to rest and get this monkey off my back (insert third metaphor here, lol). I would really like if [glow=red,2,300]you (Rick), Eric, Kyle, or Taylor[/glow] could read over the article and let me know what you think. I am anxious to see how much it flies in the face of the wide ranging spectrum of theory and belief that have been constructed over the preceding six decades of fitness evolution. I will be quite disturbed if there ends up being some sort of conclusive evidence presented in Layne's writing that state anything over 25-30g of protein per meal is excreted, because that would end up being $1,000's of incalculable dollars I've sunk into 6-8 daily meals over the past 10 years of my life. I will read it soon (it is about 10 minutes til 2am here, and I know the wife isn't too fond my my ongoing late night research and forum campaigns I am so addicted to) and get back with my thoughts... THANKS AGAIN RICK!
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Drago - aka Arny/Dolph/AM on Oct 14, 2009 0:56:03 GMT -5
Even it it were true...what happens when we ingest protein? Lots of things. For one, digestion and break down of protein into aminos requires more energy than break down of carbs or fat - increasing one's metabolism, secondly gluconeogenesis causes even more energy burning an even greater amount of calories. Very important for an athlete that is trying to maintain a specific conditioning level (body fat). Hey bro! I kind of already responded to some of what you said just below your post above, but I did want to say again I am more on the side of belief that you are articulating here. My main concern with this whole question and 'quest for answers' kind of revolved around efficiency from an anabolic standpoint though, when compared to waste and the ratios therein. I understand about the heightened caloric expenditure where protein assimilation is concerned, but when strictly talking about extracting maximum anabolic advantage from each gram of ingested protein, and minimizing any accountable waste - what is the true dosage needed by athletes per meal/per day... and as I eluded to earlier, does it vary by human, or vary by activity level and tissue damage/subsequent increased need for amino acids to rebuild?I haven't read Layne's article yet, so I should give it a whirl... I'm just VERY curious to know about these unknown factors - simply because protein is the fundamental all encompassing basis for our efforts on every conceivable level. I want to make sure I can consume sufficient amounts, but I also don't want to consume so much it overloads my digestive system/organs thus degrading my overall athletic output and performance potential.
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Drago - aka Arny/Dolph/AM on Oct 18, 2009 7:53:26 GMT -5
I can't greatly or sufficiently elucidate upon my retrospective regarding Layne's article, but I did want to bring up the point it was a clever and enlightening piece. A VERY similar set of studies and subsequent accompanying papers have been authored on the subject I wanted to also share here if anyone has the necessary inquiring mind to augment your knowledge base and as a result your physique as well: www.nsca-lift.org/Perform/articles/PTJ060605.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Drago - aka Arny/Dolph/AM on Oct 18, 2009 7:55:59 GMT -5
Yet another (please also see above) www.nsca-lift.org/Perform/Issues/PTJ0606.pdfEducation is, afterall, the engine towards revolution -Bill Ayers, avowed American Terrorist and founder of the Weather Underground; replace the word " revolution" with anabolism, and TA-DA he goes from a communist confidant of B. Obama, to a hypertrophy advocating proponent! ***The gram-spread regarding the averaged collective of landmark studies between bodybuilder common suggested protein intake per/lb (1.8g per pound) and the NSCA (1.8g/KILOGRAM) when converted to correlating measurements ( I did the math) leaves a gaping 313g whole between the two varying schools of thought!
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Drago - aka Arny/Dolph/AM on Oct 30, 2009 9:01:54 GMT -5
Some time has passed since this post was made, and I've been able to read through some articles regarding the subject (all of which has their own spin on the question, and varying methods of arriving at their conclusive or inconclusive evidence and summation).
In short, the Layne N. article cites as his foundational research vertebrae as L-Leucine (due to its protein synthesizing abilities; which is in my opinion the Rosetta Stone for identifying protein turn over rate and correlated nitrogen balance longevity). After identifying Whey and Egg Whites as the head of the hierarchy for this benchmark measurement, he went on to explain that establishing and sustaining a positive nitrogen balance can be realized with a single meal, and can be prolonged for hours without a notable increase or overt advantage (at least by this isolated measurement of nit. retention) in eating every few hours, as the documented and abided by dogma within all realms of physique enhancement.
Although his finding seemed to fly directly and rebelliously in the face of our stone-carved 11th commandment of lean mass accrual, he (Layne) was quick on the trigger to offer a whiplash personal anecdotal that he did not believe it was wise to subscribe to these finding to the letter - rather to use the research as a fourth leg to a three legged bar stool (it helps to support balance, but it isn't necessary or paramount to change the entire structure to maintain that balance).
In closing, he suggested to eat larger meals, with a 4 hour window in between (filled by adding a carbohydrate/Leucine liquid drink).
What are all of your thoughts? I will be discussing another journal article that dealt with this issue shortly...
|
|