PDA

View Full Version : protein being flushed out?



Eric Cartman
02-09-2008, 02:59 PM
A lot of trainers have told me recently that if I eat more then 20 grams of protein per meal, that my body will just "flush it out"...

I thought maybe their advice was bull, but I have noticed that if I eat a lot of protein, say 30-40 grams, I am going to the toilet a lot and urinating many more times per day...


Is protein being flushed out of my body? Are they right about 20 grams or protein per meal?

I'm trying to bulk, and need between 180-200 grams of protein per day, so that would mean I would have to eat 10 meals per day, according to their advice...

What is the solution to this problem?


EC

dxiw
02-09-2008, 03:35 PM
I've always gone by the 50g limit per meal. 20g is a little ridiculous.. that would mean that 240lb bodybuilder would have to eat 12-15 times a day lol..

caseymajor
02-09-2008, 03:42 PM
There is no information or fact that your body can absorb so much protein at once, I am always safe with 35grams per. meal, but once again there is no proven tests to show how much your body can digest at once.

BFGUITAR
02-09-2008, 06:37 PM
If we couldnt digest more than 20 grams of protein in a meal the human race wouldnt have lasted long. Think of cavemen... eating meals with 100+ grams of protein from a kill. Our bodies are just as efficient either way. Naturally we dont absorb everything we eat. But if you increase the amount of food its just going to take longer to digest/absorb but you will get the most out of it.

el_Mariachi
02-09-2008, 06:57 PM
Who are these "trainers"? You can easily handle much more than 20g.

Paul Stagg
02-09-2008, 07:00 PM
There isn't a limit.

Stop talking to 'trainers'.

schmitty199
02-09-2008, 07:10 PM
A lot of trainers have told me recently that if I eat more then 20 grams of protein per meal, that my body will just "flush it out"...

I thought maybe their advice was bull, but I have noticed that if I eat a lot of protein, say 30-40 grams, I am going to the toilet a lot and urinating many more times per day...


Is protein being flushed out of my body? Are they right about 20 grams or protein per meal?

I'm trying to bulk, and need between 180-200 grams of protein per day, so that would mean I would have to eat 10 meals per day, according to their advice...

What is the solution to this problem?


EC

Considering theres about that in a tall glass of milk, I highly doubt thats true.

RhodeHouse
02-09-2008, 07:11 PM
If we couldnt digest more than 20 grams of protein in a meal the human race wouldnt have lasted long. Think of cavemen... eating meals with 100+ grams of protein from a kill. Our bodies are just as efficient either way. Naturally we dont absorb everything we eat. But if you increase the amount of food its just going to take longer to digest/absorb but you will get the most out of it.

Brilliant! Eat dead animals all day long and you'll be fine. If the protein isn't used to rebuild/grow muscle, it'll just be used as an energy source.

Eric Cartman
02-09-2008, 11:20 PM
How do we know how many grams of protein cave men used to eat? :)

These "trainers" are professional personal trainers that I've encountered at gyms such as Ballys, Golds Gym, etc... One recently told me "your body can handle 30 grams of protein if you drink more water and take vitamins"...

Is there ANY evidence as to the amount of protein we should eat per meal? I think 35 grams sounds pretty reasonable actually, but wondering if there is any research about this topic..

Also, do my frequent trips to the bathroom have anything to do with the amount of protein im eating?

EC

Paul Stagg
02-10-2008, 08:58 AM
Seriously. Think for just a minute.

How could anyone tell you how many grams of anything you use/dont use given the infinate variations of people and situations? Learn how the body works, and you'll learn the answer to your question is 'no limit'.

Trainers at commercial gyms, generally speaking, know less about training and nutrition than most of the 17 year olds posting here.

Worry about how much you squat.

Slim Schaedle
02-10-2008, 09:14 AM
These "trainers" are professional personal trainers that I've encountered at gyms such as Ballys, Golds Gym, etc... One recently told me "your body can handle 30 grams of protein if you drink more water and take vitamins"...


Who also do not hold professional degrees in nutrition, I am assuming.

Does that fact make them wrong?

No.

But, they are.




(about half the amino acids you absorb are assembled back into enzymes that contribute to the digestion of proteins......think about that for a minute)

Slim Schaedle
02-10-2008, 09:17 AM
Also, do my frequent trips to the bathroom have anything to do with the amount of protein im eating?

EC

Number 2 I am guessing?

Is it solid or liquid? (serious question)

BFGUITAR
02-10-2008, 09:38 AM
Number of trips to the bathroom have to do with how much your eating in general.

The consistency of your poop has to do with how much water your getting, fiber...

Slim Schaedle
02-10-2008, 09:43 AM
Number of trips to the bathroom have to do with how much your eating in general.

The consistency of your poop has to do with how much water your getting, fiber...

Not always.

BFGUITAR
02-10-2008, 10:41 AM
How so? (aside from allergies/lactose intolerance and such)

Eric Cartman
02-10-2008, 02:18 PM
Im urinating many times after a meal, not taking a dump...

Sorry to put it like that, but I dont know the code words for this stuff :)

The trainers I know are very strong and have decent amount of lean muscle, so they must know SOMETHING, right? You have to become a certified trainer by taking tests, I assume...


EC

BBB
02-10-2008, 04:12 PM
There is no information or fact that your body can absorb so much protein at once, I am always safe with 35grams per. meal, but once again there is no proven tests to show how much your body can digest at once.

Actually, that's not true. They do know how quickly different types of protein are digested. Raw egg whites are absorbed at a rate 1.3 grams per hour, cooked eggs are absorbed at a rate of 2.8 grams per hour, casein isolate is absorbed at a rate of 6.1 grams per hour, and whey isolate at a rate of 8-10 grams per hour.

International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2006, 16, 129-152
2006 Human Kinetics, Inc. A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein
Intake in Humans. Shane Bilsborough and Neil Mann.

The full text is available on line.

However, "excess" protein is not "flushed out" - it just takes a long time to absorb it all.

Paul Stagg
02-10-2008, 05:03 PM
Really? For every person, under every circumstance? That makes no sense.

Something tells me the study is flawed. Perhaps it's useful in comparing the rates to each other?

Slim Schaedle
02-10-2008, 05:48 PM
Im urinating many times after a meal, not taking a dump...

Sorry to put it like that, but I dont know the code words for this stuff :)

The trainers I know are very strong and have decent amount of lean muscle, so they must know SOMETHING, right? You have to become a certified trainer by taking tests, I assume...


EC

Trust me.

They are wrong.


Besides, how are whole proteins going to get to your kidneys and the peed out?

Eric Cartman
02-10-2008, 07:15 PM
Well, to be honest, I dont understand how the body works...

Let us say you eat a meal of about 600 calories, and 40 grams of protein. The body digests the food, some gets used for energy.. where does the rest go? Is it stored somewhere, and just used later?

Does the body decide at the end of the day what to do with the food you've stored up? If you over-eat by 500 calories during a single meal, does that become fat instantly, or can you still burn those calories later in the day? Is muscle recovery constantly going on, or just when you sleep?

I guess these questions arent really that important, but I've often wondered what happens to the food we eat..

EC

BBB
02-11-2008, 12:19 PM
Really? For every person, under every circumstance? That makes no sense.

Something tells me the study is flawed. Perhaps it's useful in comparing the rates to each other?

They are AVERAGES.

McVein
02-12-2008, 08:00 AM
How do we know how many grams of protein cave men used to eat? :)

These "trainers" are professional personal trainers that I've encountered at gyms such as Ballys, Golds Gym, etc... One recently told me "your body can handle 30 grams of protein if you drink more water and take vitamins"...

Is there ANY evidence as to the amount of protein we should eat per meal? I think 35 grams sounds pretty reasonable actually, but wondering if there is any research about this topic..

Also, do my frequent trips to the bathroom have anything to do with the amount of protein im eating?

EC

i am in the final months of my studies to become one of these trainers, trust me, they know nothing, Im just doing it to get an easy part time job for college, I know more than the instructors because Ive made it my business to go out and read about it.

To work in a gym, you just need a basic qualification and a safety cert.

Paul Stagg
02-14-2008, 08:30 AM
They are AVERAGES.

Then it's useless, isn't it?

BBB
02-14-2008, 09:44 AM
Then it's useless, isn't it?

Why would it be?

Paul Stagg
02-14-2008, 11:21 AM
Because you can't apply an average rate of absorbtion to a population.

And that ignores, still, the certain flaws in the study. For example, how did they define 'digested'? How many people were in the study? What did they eat with the various sources of proteins? How did they correct for hydration levels? How did they correct for food volume? Liquid vs solid?

Just for starters.

Knowing I 'digest' egg whites faster than cooked whole eggs is meaningless in the context of this discussion, and as far as I can tell, pretty meaningless in the context of any discussion.

BBB
02-14-2008, 01:28 PM
Actually, 68% of the population will be within 1 standard deviation of the average. So you can apply it to the general population...or at least, 68% of the general population and the last time I checked that was "most" people.

Did you actually bother to read the article? I posted the reference and it's available to the general public.

Paul Stagg
02-14-2008, 01:59 PM
So knowing the standard deviation might be kinda important, huh?

No I didn't read the study, although if I have time, I may hunt it down. You could also post it. I can usually pick up on the value of a study, and this one isn't something I'm going to spend an hour trying to find when I could be trying to find something useful, like lolcats or something.

My (valuable) point is that the study isn't applicable. Basic understanding of physiology and nutrition is enough to tell me that the information you posted from the study is virtually meaningless in this context, because of the questions in my previous post.

The OP is worried that if he eats 37 grams of protein 'at once' (whatever that means) that he will 'flush it out' (whatever that means). Basic physiology answers that question. There is no way that anyone can tell you how fast you digest a certain food at a given point in time. That rate will differ based on what you ate with it, how much of it you ate, how often you eat, how much you drink, along with countless other factors. Further, even if you COULD tell me how fast I 'digest' something, given what happens to food after you digest it, how fast it was 'digested' isn't really applicable to the discussion at hand.

My final point: we need to change the culture of the iron game away from this overcomplication bull****, and get down to what really matters.

Paul Stagg
02-15-2008, 01:25 PM
So I'm reading the paper.

It's not a study, it's a research paper. There's a huge difference.

The paper gives a recommendation for maximum protein intake based on a 30 year old study done on 10 "healthy" individuals, and admittedly doesn't include the conversion of protein to anything other than nitrogen in urea (which is not exactly how the old body works).

They go on to reference a study someone did on himself (that's n=1, for you statistics folks out there), which is so meaningless it shouldn't be mentioned by anyone doing serious research.

The protein absorbtion study they reference for milk was done on 25 people with a mean BMI of 22.4. We can immediately ignore the rest because the sample size is too small for any statistical relevance. They don't mention if the sample is random, making it (if it's even possible) less relevant.

The pea study was done on 7 people.

The Egg and Soy studies were not measured the same way as the milk and pea.

None of the measurements addressed stored amino acids. Many times they don't mention the number of subjects or anything about them.

According to the 'study': "Amino acid from pork steak was determined crudely by comparison..."

I skimmed the rest, and got to the conclusion, where they yet again quote someone else, this is from a workshop held in 2002:

"The amounts of protein... consumed by humans vary over a wide range. When dietary nitrogen and essential amino acid intakes are above the requirement levels, healthy individuals appear to adapt well to highly variable dietary protein intakes, because frank signs or symptoms of amino acid excess are observed rarely, if at all, under usual dietary conditions. Thus, definition of tolerable ranges of amino acid intake in healthy people will require approaches that identify deviations from normal pysiological and biochemical adaptive processes at the subclinical level..."

In short, this research paper is on the level of a decent college student, and brings nothing of value to our discussion. And it makes me wonder a little: did YOU read the 'study'?

Slim Schaedle
02-15-2008, 02:00 PM
year old study done on 10 "healthy" individuals

Bingo!

There is one of the most glaring issues right there.

Aside from everything Paul just said, here are some more thoughts.

Lyle's new protein book uses the same absorption figuers, but he goes on to point out that "these measurements should be considered as the roughest estimates, as the studies used indirect measurements of protein digestion."

Again, Paul already mentioned that.

Let's get back to the subjects of the study.

Trained? Untrained? What kind of activity? Etc.....

The estimates outlined in Lyle's book and in that research paper fail to recognize that the human digestive system can adapt in terms of gastric emptying, as well as in maximum transport capacity of nutrients.

What the hell does that mean?

Simply that the more calories an athlete routinely consumes, the faster those nutrients are digested.

There have been studies with fats and carbohydrates showing a 25% (fat)and 30% (protein) increase in absorption rate simply by increases intake for 2 weeks (fat) and 3 days (carbs).

Throw in the fact that meals overlap eachother, training is known to upregulate many metabolic processes, and athletes have protein requirements far above what is needed only to maximize muscle protein synthesis, and you can start to see why the 30g/meal myth is just plain silly.



PS: Lyle specifically states that no studies looking specifically at protein intake and absorption rates have been conducted on humans. He went well beyond what was required for his "homework" on that book in terms of evidence so I am prety sure he would know if a good study existed.

Eric Cartman
02-15-2008, 02:15 PM
I've started a cat fight!!

Slim Schaedle
02-15-2008, 02:18 PM
I've started a cat fight!!

I don't believe Paul and I are women.

KoolDrew
02-15-2008, 02:24 PM
A lot of trainers have told me recently that if I eat more then 20 grams of protein per meal, that my body will just "flush it out"...

So according to those trainers I'm gonna lose 75g out of the 95g I just ate? :rolleyes:

Stop talking to trainers.

Eric Cartman
02-15-2008, 08:26 PM
Well, Im working with a personal trainer right now... I have to say, the workouts he is putting me through are really tough, like 2 supersets back to back, then made me do push-ups in front of this hot chick, and I was so tired I couldnt do one!!!

But yeah, he told me about the 20 grams of protein...

oh well... life goes on :)

EC

Paul Stagg
02-16-2008, 09:39 AM
I've started a cat fight!!

No, but you did give me an opportunity to point out one of the biggest issues there is when it comes to bodybuilding/lifting/nutrition.

Lots of people get wrapped up in finding the paper or study that proves this or that. They get emotionally attached to those findings.

Instead of lifting heavy ****.

We've got a huge membership base, and most of them are little guys who want to get big and strong. They get wrapped up in 'eating too much protein', or 'overtraining', or 'bicep peaks' or whatever else, instead of focusing on the what really gets you big and strong.

It's an epedemic of people trying to train at levels way above where they are, using routines out of magazines that are based on (and limited by) only the creativity of the writer. These same 5'10" 150 pound boys are worried about the difference between 20g of whey after training and 30g.

These same people are using PSMF diets to 'cut'. Cut? To what? 145? These same people are worried about a 'clean bulk'. WTF?

Stop it.

Focus on the basics. Focus on what works. Recognize the truths.

And fire your ****ing trainer.

ddegroff
02-16-2008, 10:28 AM
No, but you did give me an opportunity to point out one of the biggest issues there is when it comes to bodybuilding/lifting/nutrition.

Lots of people get wrapped up in finding the paper or study that proves this or that. They get emotionally attached to those findings.

Instead of lifting heavy ****.

We've got a huge membership base, and most of them are little guys who want to get big and strong. They get wrapped up in 'eating too much protein', or 'overtraining', or 'bicep peaks' or whatever else, instead of focusing on the what really gets you big and strong.

It's an epedemic of people trying to train at levels way above where they are, using routines out of magazines that are based on (and limited by) only the creativity of the writer. These same 5'10" 150 pound boys are worried about the difference between 20g of whey after training and 30g.

These same people are using PSMF diets to 'cut'. Cut? To what? 145? These same people are worried about a 'clean bulk'. WTF?

Stop it.

Focus on the basics. Focus on what works. Recognize the truths.

And fire your ****ing trainer.

Well said. Keep it, simple stupid.

EricF
02-16-2008, 11:38 AM
Im urinating many times after a meal, not taking a dump...

Sorry to put it like that, but I dont know the code words for this stuff :)

The trainers I know are very strong and have decent amount of lean muscle, so they must know SOMETHING, right? You have to become a certified trainer by taking tests, I assume...


EC

Here's my unprofessional, empircal $.02...

I find that if I take Aminogen, then I almost immediately have to pee. Lots of protein powders have Aminogen in them, and if I take any of THOSE I almost immediately have to pee. If you're peeing a lot and not using Aminogen or protein powder with Aminogen, then something else is going on.

Of course, I also pee a lot when I'm drinking a lot of water (which I do).

Just thought I'd toss that in FWIW...

BFGUITAR
02-16-2008, 11:54 AM
Drinking liquid and having to pee are connected. Its not that its aminogen itself that does it. Perhaps you've conditioned yourself to pee when you taste it? lol

EricF
02-16-2008, 12:22 PM
Drinking liquid and having to pee are connected. Its not that its aminogen itself that does it. Perhaps you've conditioned yourself to pee when you taste it? lol

LOL! I don't think so... even when I was drinking a lot LESS water, taking anything with Aminogen in it made me have to pee pretty quickly. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or anything... peeing is good!:)

Eric Cartman
02-16-2008, 02:24 PM
No, but you did give me an opportunity to point out one of the biggest issues there is when it comes to bodybuilding/lifting/nutrition.

Lots of people get wrapped up in finding the paper or study that proves this or that. They get emotionally attached to those findings.

Instead of lifting heavy ****.

We've got a huge membership base, and most of them are little guys who want to get big and strong. They get wrapped up in 'eating too much protein', or 'overtraining', or 'bicep peaks' or whatever else, instead of focusing on the what really gets you big and strong.

It's an epedemic of people trying to train at levels way above where they are, using routines out of magazines that are based on (and limited by) only the creativity of the writer. These same 5'10" 150 pound boys are worried about the difference between 20g of whey after training and 30g.

These same people are using PSMF diets to 'cut'. Cut? To what? 145? These same people are worried about a 'clean bulk'. WTF?

Stop it.

Focus on the basics. Focus on what works. Recognize the truths.

And fire your ****ing trainer.


What is wrong with doing a routine from a magazine, or working with a trainer?

You seem to know what works, so can you explain what you mean by "sticking to basics" ?

My philosophy right now is to do about 9-12 sets, Usually 6-15 reps...mostly compound lifts, eat a lot afterwards.

Anything you would add to that formula?


EC

BFGUITAR
02-16-2008, 02:40 PM
What is wrong with doing a routine from a magazine, or working with a trainer?

You seem to know what works, so can you explain what you mean by "sticking to basics" ?

My philosophy right now is to do about 9-12 sets, Usually 6-15 reps...mostly compound lifts, eat a lot afterwards.

Anything you would add to that formula?


EC

Magazines use fad workouts. They try and make money and compile what ever they can so people can keep buying them to think "they are up to date". Most of the workouts suck and have titles like "How to get bulging biceps in 12 days". As well, you dont know who wrote that routine. Is is some bum off the street? A half assed trainer?

And working out with a trainer is a waste of money personally. I would rather get a coach or someone who really knows what they are doing in terms of lifting to teach me the basics (technique and such). Trainers charge ridiculous amounts of money and hardly know the technique themselves. This is of course a generalization but from my experience (and others) trainers arent the most knowledgeable people.

9-12 sets? Per body part?

And when he says "sticking to the basics" he means stop worrying about "how much protein I can absorb" and just eat. Our bodies are extremely efficient at taking in nutrients. Honestly... think about it. How could our body only absorb 30 grams of protein at a time? There is no logic behind that. If our bodies sucked at absorbing nutrients that much the US would be skinnier.

Paul Stagg
02-16-2008, 06:20 PM
If you even know the basics, you wouldn't ask what I mean.

Find the search function. Type "rippetoe" into it. Then type "McCallum" into it. Then type "Berardi" into it.

Search my posts, go back about a year or two, and read them all.

You'll find what you need to know.

Eric Cartman
02-16-2008, 10:07 PM
Yeah, 9-12 sets per body part...

With all due respect, just telling me to google or search the forum for the names of 3 authors is a bit general... those guys have written tons of articles, on different topics...

Anyhow, you can critique this routine and tell me why I'm an idiot, today I did shoulders and arms:

military press press: 3 sets
dumb bell press: 3 sets
front lifts: 2 sets
shoulder fly: 3 sets
tricep pulldown: 3 sets
hammer curls: 3 sets

rep ranges 8-15

ok, what was wrong with this?

Paul Stagg
02-17-2008, 08:43 AM
If you aren't willing to spend some time learning, I'm sure as hell not wasting my time teaching.

Good luck.

Eric Cartman
02-17-2008, 11:09 AM
I have already read many articles written by those authors!

You are being so general, that I have no idea what point you are even trying to make here...

Just saying "stick to basics" could cover a million different topics, from nutrition and diet, routine creation, reps and set recommendations, plateau breakers, stretching, exercise selection, correct form, rest and recovery...

Its not cool just to blast someone without even mentioning specifics or even knowing what that person is currently doing in their workout regimen.

I'm done with this thread!!!

:hello:

Slim Schaedle
02-17-2008, 11:13 AM
His point is to:

1. ditch the trainer

2. read those authors, etc.

3. formulate your own routine based on what you have read.

4. ditch the trainer

Eric Cartman
02-17-2008, 11:48 AM
The trainer is to help with motivation, and they push me harder then I sometimes push myself... I sometimes get that extra rep because a trainer is pressuring me.. may seem dumb, but it helps me...

But yeah, I've read those authors, and a lot of my current routine comes from those authors already..

My point was just that you shouldn't criticize something without knowing the facts...

Ok, NOW Im done with the thread!

:)

BFGUITAR
02-17-2008, 12:01 PM
Yeah, 9-12 sets per body part...

With all due respect, just telling me to google or search the forum for the names of 3 authors is a bit general... those guys have written tons of articles, on different topics...

Anyhow, you can critique this routine and tell me why I'm an idiot, today I did shoulders and arms:

military press press: 3 sets
dumb bell press: 3 sets
front lifts: 2 sets
shoulder fly: 3 sets
tricep pulldown: 3 sets
hammer curls: 3 sets

rep ranges 8-15

ok, what was wrong with this?

There is no meat to this routine.
For example... Heres an upper body day

Bench 5x5
Shoulder press 3x8
Chinups 3x5
Bent over rows 3x8
Some biceps or triceps work

Here we have heavy bench pressing that his some back, shoulders, and of course chest/triceps. Than we have some direct shoulder work because of course shoulders are important. Than we have some back work that hits everywhere including your biceps. At the end we have some direct arms work to top it off. Notice how I said top it off... meaning it shouldn't be the focus of the day. Your doing plenty of arm work when you do any upper body lift. This should be coupled with another upper body day during the week with slightly different exercises that hit the same muscles.

Your example consists of lollypops and not enough steak if you catch my drift. Shoulder/arms shouldn't have its own day because shoulders and arms are small muscles that contribute to larger lifts and generally should be incorporated with those large lifts. I will admit, shoulders are very significant but dedicating a day to them? There are better ways to design a routine. Did you check out baby got back? That is a great routine.

And the fact is, you don't need a trainer. Try motivating yourself, it is a lot more rewarding.

Slim Schaedle
02-17-2008, 12:06 PM
The trainer is to help with motivation, and they push me harder then I sometimes push myself... I sometimes get that extra rep because a trainer is pressuring me.. may seem dumb, but it helps me...

But yeah, I've read those authors, and a lot of my current routine comes from those authors already..

My point was just that you shouldn't criticize something without knowing the facts...

Ok, NOW Im done with the thread!

:)

The fact is that your trainer told you what started this whole thread in the first place.

We would draw the line right there.

In you aren't doing a routine from a magazine and you are following the advice of respected writers, then why ask what is wrong with following magazines?

KoolDrew
02-17-2008, 03:42 PM
ok, what was wrong with this?

How about the fact that you have a whole day dedicated to just shoulders and arms?

I'm with Paul... stick to the basics. Look at Mark Rippetoes Starting Strength routine to get an idea of what we mean.

Eric Cartman
02-19-2008, 11:02 PM
I got the idea of a 3 day split from this website, actually! I think it was called the WBB1 workout, or something similar...

That article suggested Chest/Back, Lower Body/Abs, Shoulder/Arm split...

And the irony, I think it was written by Rippetoe or one of the authors you guys worship!!!

I guess the Upper/Lower split is also popular, but not sure what makes it superior to the 3 day split... would enjoy hearing opinions..

And yeah, I am gonna ditch the trainer soon, I only hired him for a month...

EC

Songsangnim
02-20-2008, 07:25 PM
I got the idea of a 3 day split from this website, actually! I think it was called the WBB1 workout, or something similar...

That article suggested Chest/Back, Lower Body/Abs, Shoulder/Arm split...

And the irony, I think it was written by Rippetoe or one of the authors you guys worship!!!

I guess the Upper/Lower split is also popular, but not sure what makes it superior to the 3 day split... would enjoy hearing opinions..

And yeah, I am gonna ditch the trainer soon, I only hired him for a month...

EC

Fairly sure it was written by one of the mods on this site. NOT Rippetoe or those other authors that were mentioned.

With a upper/lower split you can do more work and hit each bodypart twice a week as opposed to the traditional 3 day split where you usually only hit each bodypart once. Now you can do a 3 day split that works each bodypart twice a week, but it requires less work and a bit more of thought put into it.

But anyway thinking about working bodyparts misses the whole point. If you focus on compound movements you are closer to the mark.

And yes, I'd ditch the trainer...doesn't sound like he knows too much that is helpful. You can get better advice here...for free.

Eric Cartman
02-20-2008, 08:06 PM
Well, maybe this is turning into a different thread...

Because I've heard from other sources that it takes 2-3 days for muscle recovery and then a few more days for the body to grow new muscle, therefore working the same body part intensely twice a week stops growth..

EC

Slim Schaedle
02-20-2008, 08:26 PM
Because I've heard from other sources that it takes 2-3 days for muscle recovery and then a few more days for the body to grow new muscle, therefore working the same body part intensely twice a week stops growth..

EC

Considering ribosomal activity and mRNA levels coding for whatever protein the muscle needs in response to training falls sharply after 36 hours...I am going to go ahead and say that is false.



Unless you want to further define and specifiy what you mean by intense training....then things might change.

ShockBoxer
02-21-2008, 11:20 AM
Personally, I get my best results with two full body days a week. One day works in the 10 rep range and the other in the 1 - 6 rep range. The 1 to 6 rep day is the day where I eat everything in sight. Hasn't been any changes in weight because I don't eat enough on non training days, 168 - 170 range, but my fiance is wondering what the hell I'm doing because my back is looking 'really muscular'.

My sessions are Wed and Sat and I feel awesome going into them. Rest does ME a world of good. No problems with hitting a part twice a week (assuming squats/deads, benches, and military presses hit the same parts each time you do them)... in fact, if I miss my 'light' day for whatever reason my heavy day sucks ass.

Eric Cartman
02-21-2008, 12:44 PM
Well the theory is that muscle growth only happens AFTER the muscle is repaired...

So lets say you damage a muscle with a good workout, and then eat enough to promote recovery and repair... at that point and time, the body only needs to repair the damaged muscle tissue, and nothing else. Once that has been accomplished, the body decides that it needs to build even more muscle, so that it can handle the additional load that it being demanded of it...

So in theory, muscles dont build until many days after recovery.. you say that is FALSE... I'm not sure who to believe!

I'm assuming you've gotten good results from the TWICE A WEEK split?

Slim Schaedle
02-21-2008, 12:52 PM
Well the theory is that muscle growth only happens AFTER the muscle is repaired...

So lets say you damage a muscle with a good workout, and then eat enough to promote recovery and repair... at that point and time, the body only needs to repair the damaged muscle tissue, and nothing else. Once that has been accomplished, the body decides that it needs to build even more muscle, so that it can handle the additional load that it being demanded of it...

So in theory, muscles dont build until many days after recovery.. you say that is FALSE... I'm not sure who to believe!

I'm assuming you've gotten good results from the TWICE A WEEK split?

I think you may need to study more of the physiology behind hypertrohy.

ShockBoxer
02-21-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm assuming you've gotten good results from the TWICE A WEEK split?

I have. Full body. So far. I'll know more in six months time.

But others get better results with four times a week splits. Or six times. Or three times. In fact, the only constant I've seen is that if you lift heavy and eat big you get stronger.

Everything else seems to be trainee specific.

So, to nab a line from my sig,

Stop thinking and go lift - Paul Stagg

Eric Cartman
02-21-2008, 08:36 PM
Well according to you, your weight has not changed when you bulk... this would actually support the theory that hitting the same body part twice in a week does not help growth...

Of course, you are just one example, but so far you haven't convinced me...

EC

Slim Schaedle
02-21-2008, 08:39 PM
Well according to you, your weight has not changed when you bulk... this would actually support the theory that hitting the same body part twice in a week does not help growth...

Of course, you are just one example, but so far you haven't convinced me...

EC

You are seriously questioning that working a bodypart twice a week is not beneficial?


I am just making sure this is what you are saying.

Songsangnim
02-21-2008, 09:21 PM
You are seriously questioning that working a bodypart twice a week is not beneficial?


I am just making sure this is what you are saying.


That would depend on volume/load parameters, diet and rest though. You are assuming though I take it that these are in check and accounted for.

Slim Schaedle
02-21-2008, 09:24 PM
That would depend on volume/load parameters, diet and rest though. You are assuming though I take it that these are in check and accounted for.

Certainly.

ShockBoxer
02-22-2008, 07:03 AM
Well according to you, your weight has not changed when you bulk... this would actually support the theory that hitting the same body part twice in a week does not help growth...

Of course, you are just one example, but so far you haven't convinced me...

EC

How could my weight change? I'm 700 calories below maintenance four or five days a week and 700 over two or three days. The over is done on days where I lift to give my body extra material for repair work and mass building, be it muscle or fat.

My weight hasn't changed but my shirts are getting tighter. Works for me for now.

Eric Cartman
02-22-2008, 12:20 PM
How could my weight change? I'm 700 calories below maintenance four or five days a week and 700 over two or three days. The over is done on days where I lift to give my body extra material for repair work and mass building, be it muscle or fat.

My weight hasn't changed but my shirts are getting tighter. Works for me for now.

The people on this forum told me you have to eat a lot of excess calories EVERY day of the week in order to bulk, otherwise you can't reach an anabolic state, or whatever... they tell you to eat a ton of food on all of your off days...

How much muscle have you gained by eating a calorie deficit 5 days a week? What kind of gains are we talking about here?

ShockBoxer
02-22-2008, 01:56 PM
I've got no before and after measurements for you and I flunked out of both chemistry and biology 15 years ago. This is just internet talk. I'll get back to you in six more months: Nine months should be enough to have produced something noticable by pictures or not. Maybe.

I'll keep with my full bodies, of course... nothing else I've tried has made me feel like I was getting somewhere like they have.

Slim Schaedle
02-22-2008, 02:13 PM
The people on this forum told me you have to eat a lot of excess calories EVERY day of the week in order to bulk, otherwise you can't reach an anabolic state, or whatever... they tell you to eat a ton of food on all of your off days...

How much muscle have you gained by eating a calorie deficit 5 days a week? What kind of gains are we talking about here?

There is a difference between being in an anabolic state and maintaining a sustained anabolic state.


If there wasn't, diets like UD2 wouldn't work as well as they have for people.

DoUgL@S
02-22-2008, 02:46 PM
The people on this forum told me you have to eat a lot of excess calories EVERY day of the week in order to bulk, otherwise you can't reach an anabolic state, or whatever... they tell you to eat a ton of food on all of your off days...

How much muscle have you gained by eating a calorie deficit 5 days a week? What kind of gains are we talking about here?

The smart people on this site would not have suggested for you to eat a ton, they would have taken your stats into account to give you a very rough estimate on what your surplus should be. Then they would have told you to track your results and adjust as necessary. Normally the recomendations center around a bear minimum of roughly 1g of protein/lb body weight and 0.5g of fat/lb body weight, then fill up the rest of your calories as you see fit. So I am not sure who you are listening to.

The whole issue of targeting a muscle group various times a week has been covered at nauseum here, and covered very well by Bryan Haycock (HST), Lyle and others already mentioned. The gist is that it is OK to workout the same muscle group twice a week. I think the consensus is that you could do it every 36 hours if you wanted to (someone correct me if I am wrong).

The moral of the story is that you could do a full body routine 2-3X per week and be in anabolic state as long as you are in a caloric surplus.

EDIT:
About the absorption on protein, your trainer talking about a subject that he obviously knows nothing about.

dougyp
02-25-2008, 12:58 AM
What the hell, so much misinformation on this thread. Such a ridiculous thread. The original question, if I'm not mistaken is; how much protein can the body absorb from one meal?... I'm a tall guy with a fast metabolism. I'm currently at the midpoint of one bulking cycle and I've gained about 12-15 lbs of LBM in one month. I don't think that would have been possible if what your trainer says is true. I've heard that "30 gram rule of thumb" before and I think it's bullcrap. There's no way to even prove that. No way...