PDA

View Full Version : Protein



AJ_11
10-21-2002, 06:54 AM
How much protein can the body digest in one sitting? And how long does it take, what is the least amount of time that you should wait to eat you next meal.

AJ

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-21-2002, 07:01 AM
No one knows for sure.

All we can do is theorticize. if that is even actually a word.

LAM
10-22-2002, 01:45 PM
AJ...you should know the answer to that question

Saint Patrick
10-22-2002, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
No one knows for sure.

All we can do is theorticize. if that is even actually a word.

I think "Theorize" is the word you're looking for :)

AJ_11
10-23-2002, 11:39 AM
AJ...you should know the answer to that question

I have heard so many theory on this one that I wanted to see if there was a correct answer. I guess it wont kill you if you have a bit to much. I was curious becasue right after a Workout I have approx 40 in a shake and then I eat a meal and have another 40-50 an hour later. But I guess after a workout you body will be able to use more of it because it is in an anabolic state. -- Is this correct.

Thanks For all the advise. I was hoping to get more input from other in this group.

The Calvinator
10-23-2002, 12:59 PM
I read on a thread before that you shouldhave protein every 3-4 hours, obviously your body digests protein and carbs faster than fats, so some one like you who works out often, the 3-4 hour rule should apply to you. Plus it is better to keep feeding yourself protein throughout the day than having one huge protein meal. good luck

duque21
10-23-2002, 01:10 PM
I would tell you what I think, but I would get flammed so I am not going to tell you, that the idea I hold to be more true is that digestively, your body can break down about 40g per sitting. But I did not say that and no I don't have an "concrete evidence" to support my ideas. Send Lyle McDonald an e-mail and ask him.

Paul Stagg
10-23-2002, 01:18 PM
You get flamed because you don't know what you are talking about. The 40g number is poppycock.

There is no evidence that there is a limit, no reason for a limit, and no way to come up with one number that would emcompass all individuals.

duque21
10-23-2002, 01:42 PM
Paul , how did you become a mod? Wow...This blows me away. This is why I stopped posting so much here, but any ways.

Just ignore what ever bodybuilding wisdom you think you have, now make those same statments again and try to establish there validity.

Spare the effort in trying to provoke me into a flame war, cause I have been through too many.

Shao-LiN
10-23-2002, 01:49 PM
If 40 g is the limit (and I'm just going off common sense here), and assuming most bodybuilders get in around 1.5 - 2 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight per day, you'd get no sleep...or would have to wake up every 3 hours while you sleep in order to eat.

This is assuming a bodyweight of close to 200 or so, just for argument's sake. I'm just curious where you came up with the number.

Paul Stagg
10-23-2002, 01:54 PM
We discussed this before in another thread, where duque established that I would have to eat 13 meals a day, one meal every two hours, in order to get adequate protein without going over the absorbtion limit.

Do that math.

Come up with one physiological process, reason, or even logic that would explain an absorption limit, and I'll listen.

duque21
10-23-2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Shao-LiN
If 40 g is the limit (and I'm just going off common sense here), and assuming most bodybuilders get in around 1.5 - 2 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight per day, you'd get no sleep...or would have to wake up every 3 hours while you sleep in order to eat.

This is assuming a bodyweight of close to 200 or so, just for argument's sake. I'm just curious where you came up with the number.

well your assumiong and thats the first thing your doing wrong so you might want to be a lil more specific. I tend to get around 1.5g per pound of "lbm" so that would equate to something like 263g of protein per day. This is actually what I would eat for a bulking diet. now lets do some simple math here 263/40= 6.5

so I need to eat at least 6 meals containing 40g (+/-) a couple of grams for 6.5 meals.

How do you find this so impossible.....you should think about what your saying before you say it.

By the way most competitive BB'ers do wake up in the middle of the night to chug down protein shakes...

Paul Stagg
10-23-2002, 02:08 PM
Again:


Come up with one physiological process, reason, or even logic that would explain an absorption limit, and I'll listen.

duque21
10-23-2002, 02:10 PM
absorbtion? who ever said anythig about absorbtion, if you had pure amino...fine, but you need to break down the proteins, and thats where the problem is incured.

Paul Stagg
10-23-2002, 02:20 PM
Explain how, please.

How is there a limit on how much protein you can 'break down'.

duque21
10-23-2002, 02:22 PM
it is all dependant on your digestive system...go to med school and figure it out. I don't think nor have I ever said that there is a "golden number" but I think for the average person that 40g of protein is what is generaly accepted, by most people....except here I guess

Relentless
10-23-2002, 02:24 PM
generally accepted by whom?

could ya point us at some other site/article/journal that references this generally accepted "limit"

duque21
10-23-2002, 02:26 PM
Man I have been through this same thing about 3 different times on this forum, and has never gone any where so I am just going to let it sit where it stands and thats it, either agree or disagree.

Yanick
10-23-2002, 02:40 PM
Duque,

you have made a claim it is up to you to provide evidence and prove your claim to us. You can't just say "go to med school" because if you could, i could just say, "well i listen to ATB while doing cardio, therefore i am losing fat, if you don't believe me go to med school and find out how listening to trance will help you burn cals."

What Paul is asking for, and i'm interested in this to, is:

what is the limiting factor, that brings the number to 40g of protein per sitting?

is it that we don't have enough enzymes or what not, or the amount of aminos that can diffuse through the intestine. What?

How long do you truly need to wait before this factor is ready to digest more protein?

Because lets face it, some people eat every 2 hours, others eat every 3, 4, 5 hours.

One study, mechanism, article will be appreciated. If not then do make random claims, that you can't back up. Otherwise i will start telling everyone to start listening to trance while working out and lose more bodyfat.

Paul Stagg
10-23-2002, 02:45 PM
That generally accepted number is a myth, much like high reps get you cut and preacher curls work the peak of the bicep.

This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing, and it isn't about beliefs... it's about facts. Give us some facts.

What is the limiting factor?

duque21
10-23-2002, 02:45 PM
Go ahead tell every one to listen to trance I listn to Paul Van Dyke....every now and then I will throw in some D-fuse....I realy like to listen to some progressive dark trance like C-lawrence. I know a lot of good german trance if you like that sort of stuff, they can validate my protein theroy, I hope to win the nobel prize for my work in "convincing WBB members"

Paul Stagg
10-23-2002, 02:48 PM
Why would you want to convince people that a myth is a fact?

Just one little tiny shred of fact, anything?

duque21
10-23-2002, 02:50 PM
okay ...lets make this a dual effort...since I have been over this ..how many times? Well i don't know any more.....But if you want me to prove my self right....can you prove me worng?

Yanick
10-23-2002, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by duque21
Go ahead tell every one to listen to trance I listn to Paul Van Dyke....every now and then I will throw in some D-fuse....I realy like to listen to some progressive dark trance like C-lawrence. I know a lot of good german trance if you like that sort of stuff, they can validate my protein theroy, I hope to win the nobel prize for my work in "convincing WBB members"

lol, that was pretty funny. I myself like fast, hard beats. Hard house is ace.

But we're getting off topic...

Yanick
10-23-2002, 02:59 PM
Its not exactly a study or anything, but we should agree that Lyle is a reliable source.

MFW thread start it from the beginning to understand everything (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=38DD1503.524DB854%40onr.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DLyle%2BMcdonald%2Bprotein%2Bmeal%2Bgroup:misc.fitness.weights%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3D UTF-8%26selm%3D38DD1503.524DB854%2540onr.com%26rnum%3D2)

Paul Stagg
10-23-2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by duque21
okay ...lets make this a dual effort...since I have been over this ..how many times? Well i don't know any more.....But if you want me to prove my self right....can you prove me worng?

No, and that's actually a big part of the point.

There are no limiting mechanisms... and no one has ever shown a lack of a limit (since there really isn't a need to show it.)

It's also a HUGE sign of a weak argument when asked to prove something to counter with 'prove me wrong'... but being so smart, you already know that.

Shao-LiN
10-23-2002, 03:05 PM
Well, until you provide fact for your argument, which I didn't see in the other thread where you made your claims as well, you seem to be going off some assumption as well.

I'm no genius and I made mathematical assumptions which is generally accepted in mathematics for the sake of making an argument. I guess what Paul and I are asking for is the scientific proof to your statements. Any sort of study that was done to show that human and/or animal was only able to digest around 40 grams of protein at a time.

And to take it even further, what would be the limit to the amount of carbohydrates and fat that one is able to consume per sitting? I'm just curious is all.

orbital
10-23-2002, 05:04 PM
Its seem rather ironic that when someone comes in here claiming things that nobody has heard of and then they are asked for some evidence then all of the sudden it's "how many times have I been over this" or "I will just get flamed."

Duque, if you want to throw out unproven claims then at least do us the favour of not whining when people ask you for some evidence. Arguments need proof to be effective. You may not like it but thats just the way it is.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-23-2002, 05:07 PM
What amazes me is why this idea come from? And why no one applies it to carb or fat digestion.

_-_v_-_
10-23-2002, 05:31 PM
Sorry, Duque, but the burden of proof in ANY debate is always on the affirmative position (that would be you, by the way.) In other words: you made the claim, and claims require evidentiary support. So...do you have any?

Blood&Iron
10-23-2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
What amazes me is why this idea come from? And why no one applies it to carb or fat digestion.
Consider that the average protein shake has about 30g of protein in it. Coincidence? You decide.

PowerManDL
10-23-2002, 05:40 PM
I don't think that there is a limit. There's no reason to be. Protein will be digested and absorbed by the body just like carbs and fat will. If you can fit it in your stomach physically, it WILL be digested and absorbed.

How much of that goes to "good use," ie tissue growth, is a different matter.......

AJ_11
10-23-2002, 05:45 PM
Where does the term 1 - 1.5g X Bodyweight come from then. That is something that I have been hearing alot. Does this have any research behind or is it just another myth. What happens if you eat too much protein. Would it not just get stored as fat if it is not used. :scratch:

gettinjackT
10-23-2002, 05:54 PM
lol, this argument is hilarious. Even if there was a limit(which there could be), how could someone say a specific number for one individual? Doesn't bodyweight, LBM, genetics, and drug usage all come to play in this? I understand we are talking about utilization here, not digestion, because it's pretty obvious ANYTHING you eat will surely be digested(if not, there's a problem). Also, duque, how long would you say one has to wait between "sittings"? 40g an hour? 2? 3? 4?

LAM
10-23-2002, 05:56 PM
I will have to search through some files but there is a reason why to much protein post workout can have a very negative effect...

so there is some truth to the 40 grams but obviously that number would not apply to all trainers

AJ_11
10-23-2002, 06:02 PM
Consider that the average protein shake has about 30g of protein in it. Coincidence? You decide

I don't know about that one; Myoplex has 42g per serving, most of the stuff that I see has between 20-25g per serving. I think 30g and 40g comes from the way a "balanced meal" should be 50/40/10 or is it 40/40/20, no wait 50/30/10, the point that I trying to make is that there are so many people with different opinions on this subject. There are so many different theories. Some even backed by research. It all confusing becasue you read one thing one day and then the opposite the next.

That is why I posted this question. I wanted to see if there actually was a magic number or if it was possible to have to much. So far from what I have concluded is that there is no magic number. Just eat the stuff. BTW what would the proper ratios be for a good caloric breakdown.

duque21
10-23-2002, 07:54 PM
Okay...let me first say a few things

1- In my first post I stated that I did not have anything to back this up, so most of you who keep asking me to "back it up" need to learn to read "the whole post"

2-For the few who mearly want to see evidence, not sor the reason of disbelief, but rather for there own personaly satisfaction, I understand that and respect it. For those who want to see proof simply because you hold an oposing view, well your views need to be analyzed also, and I expect you to supply something refuting my point.

3- I base all this on verbal information i have gathered from pro BB'ers, physiologist, dieticians....ect I find there information to be much more valid than the "hobby weight lifter"

4-And just for the amusment for pondering it....if the body could make use of, well lets stick with 40g of protein...dont you think, seeing the way supp' companies are today, dont you think they would be producing 100g mrp's and making the servings of there shakes upwards of 40g's....just think of that lil idea for a second.....it is not scientific at all, but it's just a lil something to toy over. I have never know a supp' company that has wanted their customers to be "sparing" with their products.


But as I have said this is one argument that has come up way too many times, so I AM GOING TO SUPPLY MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE MY FIGURES.

So until I get back to you with my info, feel free to flame me all that you want.......I can not believe there is such a large colective of people who have it so wrong. As I said I will dig it up......maybe I will get some sort of award for this. I can see it now .."the man who changed WBB forever".....LOL!!! (yes that is three exclimations marks as Dante would say)

TreeTrunks
10-23-2002, 08:00 PM
If theres a limit then it would vary from person to person amd the source of the protein. A lot of it would have to do with the time it takes the protein to go through the digestive system. some people are faster some are slower. And if you had your protein is coming from a liquid it would digest quicker than if it came from a chicken breast or a steak.

TreeTrunks
10-23-2002, 08:02 PM
Oh btw I do not agree that lyle is a reliable source

duque21
10-23-2002, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
Oh btw I do not agree that lyle is a reliable source
either do I but it seems as though every one here thinks he is god, so I figured i would have every one here ask there own god.

Shao-LiN
10-23-2002, 08:06 PM
I have a shake that has 55g protein per serving if you want to go by that.

Blood&Iron
10-23-2002, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by duque21

either do I but it seems as though every one here thinks he is god, so I figured i would have every one here ask there own god.
And he would have said, as the thread Yanick linked proves, that you are utterly and completely wrong.

Oh yeah, this might also be of help:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/their.html

orbital
10-23-2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by duque21
Okay...let me first say a few things

1- In my first post I stated that I did not have anything to back this up, so most of you who keep asking me to "back it up" need to learn to read "the whole post"

Duque, stop kidding yourself. You knew damnwell that if you threw your unsupported claim on this issue out on this board again that you were going to be asked to provide some proof for it. If you didn't want to be "flamed," as you call it, then you should have heeded your own advice and said nothing.

3- I base all this on verbal information i have gathered from pro BB'ers, physiologist, dieticians....ect I find there information to be much more valid than the "hobby weight lifter"

You find it to be more useful than us "hobby weight lifter[s]."
The facts are that your verbal conversations with these people do not provide any kind of proof of your claim. Again, you may not like it, but thats the way it is.

But as I have said this is one argument that has come up way too many times, so I AM GOING TO SUPPLY MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE MY FIGURES.

Excellent. That is all that has been asked. Why do you make things so hard on yourself?

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-24-2002, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by duque21
, so I AM GOING TO SUPPLY MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE MY FIGURES.


But i thought you didn't have any "concrete evidence"?

By the way, you seem to respect Dante, I see (and maybe some others off the AL forums), but if you were to go and ask him who he respects you'll find yourself staring at the name that you don't think is "a reliable source".

Paul Stagg
10-24-2002, 07:58 AM
TT - You've got it, my friend.

So simple.

A - there is no defined limit, as there is no limiting mechanism other than how much food you can cram in your pie hole. (ref PMDL's post)

B- Even if there IS a limiting mechanism, it will vary significantly among individuals and among food types and combinations. So NO ONE could EVER say there is an absolute limit that applies to everyone. If someone makes that claim, they have no understanding whatsoever of how the human body works.

OK?

LAM
10-24-2002, 10:10 AM
AJ...this is the answer that I got from Terry Giles regarding to much protein post workout.

"too much protein immediatley following workout will slow cellular rehydration and this would then impede glycogen replenishment, replinshment of vital fluids and would slow the protein metabolsim process.....however - 16 to 20 grams of protein immediatley following workouts taken with carbs (about a 3:1 ratio) has shown greater and faster cellular rehydration - more efficient glycogen restoration and tests have indicated a "kick start" to protein synthesis. One hour to one and a half hours after this initial ingestion of a small amount of protein and carbs - it is then recommended to eat a meal higher in protein (little to no carbs) for sustained protein metabolism and to provide adequate supply of "longer term" protein (amino acids) for continued protein metabolism. "

Paul Stagg
10-24-2002, 10:14 AM
I wonder of Terry can explain why that is. I'd also like to see the studies that 'show' this.

What is the relationship between protein intake and cellular rehydration?

Stray
10-24-2002, 10:48 AM
The only thing I can see limiting how much protein you take in would be the size of your plate.

GonePostal
10-24-2002, 10:48 AM
It is not so much as how much protien you can absorb in one sitting. I personally think you can absorb any amount of protien in 1 sitting (reasonable that is not liek 1000g of protien per sitting) The problem there lies in the use of the protiens that are absorbed. The body decides when and how much protien is used at any time. So far I dont know a way to measure this so that is what really limits your protien "intake" the rest is just shot out of your little fireman as amonia (i think thats the one)...

PowerManDL
10-24-2002, 10:52 AM
I think PowerManDL said that a few posts up.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-24-2002, 11:50 AM
Who the hell is Terry Giles?

Paul Stagg
10-24-2002, 12:25 PM
The 'pro trainer' at mm.com

Maki Riddington
10-24-2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by LAM
AJ...this is the answer that I got from Terry Giles regarding to much protein post workout.

"too much protein immediatley following workout will slow cellular rehydration and this would then impede glycogen replenishment, replinshment of vital fluids and would slow the protein metabolsim process.....however - 16 to 20 grams of protein immediatley following workouts taken with carbs (about a 3:1 ratio) has shown greater and faster cellular rehydration - more efficient glycogen restoration and tests have indicated a "kick start" to protein synthesis. One hour to one and a half hours after this initial ingestion of a small amount of protein and carbs - it is then recommended to eat a meal higher in protein (little to no carbs) for sustained protein metabolism and to provide adequate supply of "longer term" protein (amino acids) for continued protein metabolism. "

*** I believe I've read this there. He had a blurb on protein and why you should take certain ones.
I'm curious how too much (what constitutes) protein will "slow cellular rehydration" If an adequate amount of liquids are used post workout and you have been taking enough liquids throughout your workout I can't see how this becomes a problem.

Basically he is suggesting something that is not a fact, merely a theory.

Yanick
10-24-2002, 01:47 PM
Even if what LAM posted is fact or has been proven, it does not directly relate to what we are talking about. He is talking about optimal recovery/rehydration post workout, not the limit of protein absorption for one sitting.

In LAM's own quote the guy says something to the tune of, have a high protein meal after your post w/o shake.

Conclusion, still no evidence what so ever...

And TreeTrunks,

i do not regard Lyle as a god. But unlike others he does not give biased answers and doesn't bullsh*t his way out of things. Ask him to prove something and he'll give you ten studies. I don't agree with him on all issues, but i do respect him and if he says something i will listen and come to my own conclusions.

EDIT: One more thing.

B&I,

that link was ****in hilarious!

duque21
10-24-2002, 03:07 PM
Post again in this thread when you have some substantive facts.

hemants
10-24-2002, 03:26 PM
1. From what I have seen, the 40-60g per sitting number is thrown around a lot in bodybuilding circles but I have never seen any studies to verify it.

2. Your body will digest and absorb 200g at one sitting but much of it will probably be converted into carbs so the real question is not how much protein can be digested/absorbed at one sitting, it is how much can be digested/absorbed and used for muscle building.

3. We do know that the body doesn't store excess protein (only a nominal amount in free amino acid pools in the body) and if we ASSUME that any more than 200g for a 200lb weight lifter will be converted to carbs, that would make for a maximum absorption rate of 12.5g per waking hour. But that is not a meaningful number until we know....drumroll please..... :)

(i) how long does the protein in question take to digest?
(ii) how long does it take to get converted to amino acids and transported to amino acid pools
(iii) how long does it spend there being metabolized into muscle tissue
(iv) is muscle building limited by time? by available materials? etc.

So let's all take a step back and figure this out shall we? :)

TreeTrunks
10-24-2002, 03:28 PM
My problem regarding lyle McDonald is why I should believe him. I never said people regard him as a God.

give duque a break he said earlier he had no proof, it was just his opinion, he gave his opinion like everyone else did. Just because his idea is different from us theres no need to go out and blast him for it. Since no one knows his idea is just as valid as ours.

Paul Stagg
10-24-2002, 03:29 PM
No it isn't, because it lacks an understanding of physiology.

AJ_11
10-24-2002, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by LAM
AJ...this is the answer that I got from Terry Giles regarding to much protein post workout.

"too much protein immediatley following workout will slow cellular rehydration and this would then impede glycogen replenishment, replinshment of vital fluids and would slow the protein metabolsim process.....however - 16 to 20 grams of protein immediatley following workouts taken with carbs (about a 3:1 ratio) has shown greater and faster cellular rehydration - more efficient glycogen restoration and tests have indicated a "kick start" to protein synthesis. One hour to one and a half hours after this initial ingestion of a small amount of protein and carbs - it is then recommended to eat a meal higher in protein (little to no carbs) for sustained protein metabolism and to provide adequate supply of "longer term" protein (amino acids) for continued protein metabolism. "

Are there studies towards this. LAM I am not challenging you but I would like to start doing things right as I have been doing them wrong all this time.

This is what I currently do.

Immediatley after a workout I would have 60 - 70g of Dextrose with creatine, water and a little OJ concentrate(for taste). Then I walk home (10min) and then I make a shake. I usually stick one banana in the blender, have about half right away and then half a 30min later. Roughly 30 min after that I will have a meal with about 40 - 80g of Complex carbs and 40 - 50 grams of protein. Fat is kept low. Usually I will eat something 30 min to 1 h after that. Usually a 40/40/20 breakdown. Is this the wrong way of doing it. What is everyone take on this or what would you suggest.

:help:

Paul Stagg
10-24-2002, 03:45 PM
I'd have some protein with the dextrose, and don't worry too much about it.

Protein is good.

GonePostal
10-24-2002, 06:50 PM
Sorry DL =) Didn't see you =)

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-25-2002, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
I'd have some protein with the dextrose, and don't worry too much about it.

Protein is good.

That's pretty much what i do.

50g dextrose, 2 scoops simply whey. Sometimes creatine if i have any in the house.

Wholefoods about 90 minutes later, or whenever i'm hungry if that's before then.

Blood&Iron
10-25-2002, 07:25 AM
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=ap7c93%24oat%241%40panix5.panix.com&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dmisc.fitness.weights%26start%3D50

Yanick
10-25-2002, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by duque21
Post again in this thread when you have some substantive facts.

I think you should start practicing what you preach.

NateDogg
10-25-2002, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Yanick


I think you should start practicing what you preach.

Yanick, check out the end of duque's post. I had a feeling this might happen. chris mason edited what duque had said and put the statement above in.

Shao-LiN
10-25-2002, 10:39 AM
Says Paul Stagg =).

NateDogg
10-25-2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Shao-LiN
Says Paul Stagg =).

Oops, you're right, got the point across though :D

Sorry Chris :angel:

Yanick
10-25-2002, 11:04 AM
wtf? whatever this thread is getting too wierd...call me when something funny happens.:D

LAM
10-25-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Who the hell is Terry Giles?

TG is an expert adviser at MM.com but more importantly he has been engineering supplements for the past 25 years. He currently works for MetRx.

Maki Riddington
10-25-2002, 02:42 PM
And your point is LAM, you still haven't provided,( or should I say Terry) hasn't provided any proof.

noraa
10-26-2002, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Blood&Iron
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=ap7c93%24oat%241%40panix5.panix.com&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dmisc.fitness.weights%26start%3D50

If we look at some available research, such as that presented by Rudman et al. Maximal rates of excretion and synthesis of urea in normal and cirrhotic subjects. J Clin Invest 1973;52:2241-9

An 75kg bodybuilder would beable to process maximally ~248g protein. (range 210-290g/day)

That would be approximately in the region that lyle is talking about. ~10g/hour

Higher level than this can result in hyperaminoacidamemia (sometiems good) but also hyperammoniaemia which definately aint.

orbital
11-03-2002, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by duque21


But as I have said this is one argument that has come up way too many times, so I AM GOING TO SUPPLY MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE MY FIGURES.



been over a week, research going well?

:confused:

restless
11-03-2002, 05:48 AM
LOL.

Rastaman
11-04-2002, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by orbital


been over a week, research going well?

:confused:

I think hes trying to build up our anticipation before providing his OVERWHELMING, IRREFUTABLE, INDESTRUCTIBLE EVIDENCE.

duque21
11-05-2002, 01:09 PM
Here I will give you a sneak peek.
Chief cells, found deep in the exocrine glands, secrete pepsinogen (the inactive "zymogen" precursor to pepsin, the only proteolytic enzyme in the stomach). Pepsinogen is not converted into active pepsin until it comes in contact with active pepsin molecules or HCl secreted by parietal cells. Lets follow what happens when a large amount of protein enters the stomach, or even, the purposeful ingesting of water in an attempt to raise the pH of the stomach.

The stomach walls become distended, and the pH increases because proteins and/or water have entered the stomach and buffered some of the stomach acid. This is worrisome, because pepsin needs a pH of 2 to be optimally active (higher and lower pH changes its conformation and renders it inactive). What occurs next is a neural negative feedback loop known as the "local reflex." The chemoreceptors and stretch receptors in the stomach detect the distention and pH increase, and proceed to send nerve impulses to the submucosal plexus, where they activate the parasympathetic (acetylcholine) and enteric fibers. The resulting nerve impulses stimulate the flow of gastric juice from parietal cells, chief cells, and mucous cells. The end-result should be evident -- parietal cells secrete HCl to lower the pH, the chief cells secrete pepsinogen, and mucous cells secrete mucus to line and lubricate the stomach walls. Mucous cells actually secrete some pepsinogen as well. Essentially, the chemoreceptors and stretch receptors monitor the activity, while the negative feedback mechanisms help provide the optimal conditions to effectively suit our dynamic nutritional needs.
Are you still following, do you see how tis can inccure a problem wehn trying to uptake massive amount of protein at one time? Your body will only secrete a set level of pancreatic enzymes at one time, the bodies digestive system is still developed and designed to break down foods over the course of a day and not all at one time. As in such never have as humans, have we through any dietary or through survival technique have become accustomed to consuming any where near the given amoutns of protein some of you suggest.

Trypsin which is the other cheif element used to break down the peptide bonds of the 3-d proteins, it is mainly designed to break down as a proteseas, but only works in an alkaline enviroment(small intestine). Functionaly if the pepsin did not complete the cleaving of the peptide bonds.Trypsin and chymotrypsin digest proteins into peptides and peptides into smaller peptides, but they cannot digest proteins and peptides to single amino acids. Some of the other proteases from the pancreas, for instance carboxypeptidase, have that ability, but the final digestion of peptides into amino acids is largely the effect of peptidases in small intestinal epithelial cells. More on this later All other functions are therefoere rendered useless and no other peptide cleaving sequences can be performed.

So as you can see there are definatly many limiting factors. I am right now conversing with some professionals, in the field to get some exactnumbers which have been gather from a groupe of test subjects. They have managed to do this by useing a paticular method.Phenylalanine (essential amino acid) is not metabolized in muscle, so it's appearance and disappearance can be used to estimated muscle protein breakdown and synthesis (respectively), and determine the net amino acid balance. Leucine, on the other hand, is used as fuel and can be metabolically traced with 13C isotopes.

I hope this post gives some insight as to where my argument is going.

Shankerr
11-05-2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Paul Stagg
The 40g number is poppycock.

Poppycock, i think I just found a new favourite word :D
now we have... poppycock, tomfoolery, debauchery and nincompoop... the list grows..

Anyway, I have heard a bunch of other theories too, but all I can comment on is what I do, and what works for me, because honestly, I have't found any evidence which supports any other theory in a satisfactory manner....

What I do, is consume about 40 -60g per sitting.. Not thru measurement or anything, thats just the way it works out usually.. My shakes contain 50g maltodextrin and 40 or 60g protein... This is what I found to be optimal for me, but I am sure its different for everyone..

Majestic
11-05-2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by duque21

Are you still following, do you see how tis can inccure a problem wehn trying to uptake massive amount of protein at one time?


:rolleyes:
I'm following, in spite of your lack of patience w/ regards to spelling, typing, and run-on sentences.

Are you sure all of this verbiage is yours??tuttut I've never seen you write like this, although I *do* recognize the impatient typing and run-on, misspelled sentences that are patently yours.

On the bright side, I respect the time you've taken to formulate your response.:study:


Originally posted by duque21
I hope this post gives some insight as to where my argument is going.

I know, I know......I *get it* already.....it's going down the toilet, like so much undigested or unsynthesized protein, right?

Anything over 40 grams per sitting, right?

I'm eager to see the whole enchilada.
:lurk:

TreeTrunks
11-05-2002, 02:33 PM
gee maj if all you can do is point out grammatical errors, why post?

Looks like you got one duque21, if they resort to picking apart your English then thats all they got against ya. Good work duque21.

bradley
11-05-2002, 02:35 PM
I am still pretty sure that everything that goes into your mouth gets digested...just some things take longer than others. :idea:

Yanick
11-05-2002, 02:44 PM
Duque,

I'll give you credit for the amount of research that has apparently gone into your post. However, much of this has gone over my head, I've never delved that deep into the world of digestion so for all I know, you can be making half of those enzymes up. However I will give you 'props' for what you are apparently doing.

The_Chicken_Daddy
11-05-2002, 02:47 PM
The major problem here is that despite enzymes being released at one time, the protein undigested will just sit there until more is released. Which is why protein takes longer to digest than, say carbs.

Which ties in with what Lyle said in a thread posted near the start of this argument.

Eating a lot of protein at once doesn't mean you won't digest most of it. It just means it'll take longer to digest.

The digestion efficiencies for the three main macros are:

fat - ~97%
protein - ~90-95%
carbs - ~70-80%

So eating a meal of 50g protein means that about 45g will be digested.


Duque, think back to primitive man, who got a meal maybe once a day. The human body has a mechanism to allow someone to stuff themselves silly before feeling full (the delayed effect of CCK from gut to brain means the hunter can eat as much as possible, before getting his/her ass out of there to avoid being eaten themselves). If all the human was getting was one meal a day, if protein digested at 40g per meal max, do you really think the human race would have lasted long enough for you to be born?

The_Chicken_Daddy
11-05-2002, 02:52 PM
And what if i did split my protein down to 40g per meal max.

What difference would 2-3 hours between meals make?

Unless we're talking whey, you can bet your ass protein will still be digesting in the stomach and passing through the intestines. Do the meals "spill over" in that, if there's still 15g sitting in the stomach and i eat a further 40g in my next meal, will that 15 g protein just not be digested? Or will it be 15g protein of the more recent meal?

These are rhetorical by the way, i'm just giving a conception of how ridiculous the claim is.

The_Chicken_Daddy
11-05-2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Yanick
Duque,

I'll give you credit for the amount of research that has apparently gone into your post. However, much of this has gone over my head, I've never delved that deep into the world of digestion so for all I know, you can be making half of those enzymes up. However I will give you 'props' for what you are apparently doing.

I recognised a lot of the terminology from a bio-chem/animal studies module i did at A-level, but the depth that goes into was much deeper. However, it makes no difference.

Paul Stagg
11-05-2002, 03:02 PM
Your argument goes nowhere, because it assumes that any given volume of food is processed in the same amount of time.

(X volume of food is digested in Y time, X+50 volume of food is digested in Y time)

You also completely ignore the necessity of quantifying how much protein is 'too much' or 'excessive'. Is it 40 grams, or is it 200 grams?

You also ignore the remarkable ability of the body to adapt, so perhaps an unusually high amount would be an issue (again, with unusually high not being defined), what if the individual has adapted to a usual amount of 60 grams?

I'm not suprised, though. Anyone idiotic enough to argue there is a defined set point for protein assimilation/digestion at one sitting for all humanity shows immediately his lack of understanding of physiology.

Keep trolling.

Yanick
11-05-2002, 04:00 PM
Duque man, you tried its probably time to give up:D

duque21
11-05-2002, 04:42 PM
Here I will make it even more simple. Not every thing your body takes in gets broken down. If proteins are not broken down your body will not be able to utilize them as aminos And even then an over abundance of aminos can be excreted and not uptaken through the wall of the small intestine.

As for my spelling, well I was never big on English class and admit I do suck at spelling. I am sure I could take my time to re-read what I post, but I am too busy to be concerned as to whether or not its going to make you happy....Especially you majestic.


AND BY THE WAY ALL I SAID THAT THIS WAS JUST A PREVIEW, THERE IS A LOT MORE TO COME. I AM ONLY SETTING THE GROUND WORK FOR MY MORE EXACT ARGUMENTS. I AINT DONE YET!

duque21
11-05-2002, 04:55 PM
Duque, think back to primitive man, who got a meal maybe once a day. The human body has a mechanism to allow someone to stuff themselves silly before feeling full (the delayed effect of CCK from gut to brain means the hunter can eat as much as possible, before getting his/her ass out of there to avoid being eaten themselves). If all the human was getting was one meal a day, if protein digested at 40g per meal max, do you really think the human race would have lasted long enough for you to be born?

Well if this were true maybe, but since we know that primative man ate through out the day, and that is why our bodies are best equiped to ingest food in such a manner. This mainly the reason why our body will only allow us to digest a given amount over a given time. I think you guys use the term digest a littel loose. I am talking mainly about protein and amino utilization.

-Paul I feel as though it is you who does not have a grasp on the physiological process of the human digestive system when it comes to proteins. You act as though I am cursing at you in a different language. I was not even making any references to amounts or times. I will though, but till then keep calm.

Majestic
11-05-2002, 05:06 PM
You've managed to miss the point.

I was pointing out that between the technically oriented jargon embedded in sentence structure that is not of your ability, there are misspelled words and run-on sentences that are clearly yours.

I just hope that *if* you plagiarized any material, that you'll cite it.

And it doesn't surprise me that you don't care what *I* think. After all, out of anybody here, I've tried to help you the MOST, yet you've been the poor listener/learner (i.e. "know-it-all")that you accuse *us* of being.

Go figure.:scratch:

duque21
11-05-2002, 05:10 PM
Buddy you have never tried to help me in any way at all. All you have ever done is crtique me in negative aspects. To think one would be appreciative of some one like you. Sounds like delusions of grandure.

TreeTrunks
11-05-2002, 05:35 PM
Buddy you have never tried to help me in any way at all. All you have ever done is crtique me in negative aspects. To think one would be appreciative of some one like you. Sounds like delusions of grandure.

ROFL duque

The_Chicken_Daddy
11-05-2002, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by duque21
Here I will make it even more simple. Not every thing your body takes in gets broken down. If proteins are not broken down your body will not be able to utilize them as aminos And even then an over abundance of aminos can be excreted and not uptaken through the wall of the small intestine.


Correct, i gave the generalised digestive efficiencies above.


Well if this were true maybe, but since we know that primative man ate through out the day, and that is why our bodies are best equiped to ingest food in such a manner.

News to me.

They may have snacked on fruits and stuff, but i'm doubting they were eating mammoths thrice daily.

But then again, it's something i've read an abundance on.


I think you guys use the term digest a littel loose. I am talking mainly about protein and amino utilization.


If that is the case, then why even bother with all the schpiel above, since all that explains is digestion?

duque21
11-05-2002, 07:14 PM
Rob, did you have something to add or argue against? If not go back to your microscope and continue to examine my post.

Maki Riddington
11-05-2002, 07:24 PM
**** Here is a list of references that may help shed some light on this topic. Some may be useless while others a great help.

References

ArmandM, Borel P, Dubois C, Senft M, Peyrot J, Salducci
J, Lafont H & Lairon D (1994): Characterization of
emulsions and lipolysis of dietary lipids in the humans
stomach. Am. J. Physiol. 266(3), G372–G381.

ArmandM, Hamosh M, Mehta NR, Angelus PA, Philpott
JR, Henderson TR, Dwyer NK, Lairon D & Hamosh P
(1996): Effect of human milk or formula on gastric
function and fat digestion in the premature infant.
Pediatr. Res. 40(3), 429– 437.

Bauerfeind P, Cilluffo T, Armstrong D, Emde C, Muller-
Duysing W, Duroux P & Blum AL (1990): Fate of antacid
gel in the stomach—site of action and interaction with
food. Dig. Dis. Sci. 35(5), 553– 558.

Bjorck I, Granfeldt Y, Liljeberg H, Tovar J & Asp NG
(1994): Food properties affecting the digestion and
absorption of carbohydrates. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 59(3
Suppl.), 699S–705S.

Boirie Y, Dangin M, Gachon P, Vasson MP, Maubois JL &
Beaufrere B (1997): Slow and fast dietary proteins
differently modulate postprandial protein accretion. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94(26), 14930–14935.

Burke LM, Collier GR & Hargreaves M (1998): Glycemic
index—a new tool in sport nutrition? Int. J. Sport Nutr.
8(4), 401– 415.

Cunningham KM, Daly J, Horowitz M & Read NW (1991):
Gastrointestinal adaptation to diets of differing fat
composition in human volunteers. Gut 32, 483–486.
Englyst KN, Englyst HN, Hudson GJ, Cole TJ & Cummings
JH (1999): Rapidly available glucose in foods: an
in vitro measurement that reflects the glycemic response.
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 69 (3), 448–454.

Goni I, Garcia-Alonso A & Saura-Calixto F (1997): A
starch hydrolysis procedure to estimate glycemic index.
Nutr. Res. 17(3), 427– 437.

Granfeldt Y, Bjorck I, Drews A & Tovar J (1994): An in
vitro procedure based on chewing to predict metabolic
response to starch in cereal and legume products. Am. J.
Clin. Nutr. 59(3 Suppl.), S777.

Guan D & Green GM (1996): Significance of peptic
digesion in rat pancreatic secretory reponse to dietary
protein. Am. J. Physiol. 271, G42–G47.

Hoebler C, Karinthi A, Devaux MF, Guillon F, Gallant DJG,
Bouchet B, Melegari C & Barry JL (1998): Physical and
chemical transformations of cereal food during oral
digestion in human subjects. Br. J. Nutr. 80, 429–436.

Hoebler C, Karinthi A, Chiron H, ChampM & Barry JL
(1999): Bioavailability of starch in bread rich in amylose:
metabolic responses in healthy subjects and starch
structure. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 53, 360– 366.

Hoebler C, Devaux MF, Karinthi A, Belleville C & Barry JL
(2000): Particle size of solid food after human mastication
and in vitro simulation of oral breakdown. Int. J.

Food Sci. Nutr. 51, 353–366.
Jenkins DJ & Jenkins AL (1995): Nutrition principles and
diabetes. A role for ‘lente carbohydrate’? Diabetes Care
18(11), 1491–1498.

Karkalas J (1985): An improved enzymatic method for the
determination of native and modified starch. J. Agric.
Food Agric. 36, 1017–1027.

Londong W, AngererM, Bosh R & Koelzow H (1990):
Standardization of electrode positionning and composition
of meals for long-term intragastric pH metry in man.
Dig. Dis. Sci. 8 (Suppl. 1), 46–53.

Mackie DA & Pangborn RM (1990): Mastication and its
influence on human salivary flow and alpha-amylase
secretion. Physiol. Behav. 47, 593–595.

Malagelada J-R (1977): Quantification of gastric solidliquid
discrimination during digestion of ordinary meals.
Gastroenterology 72, 1284–1287.

Masson P, Popineau Y & Pineau F (1989): Limited
hydrolysis of gamma-gliadin by pepsin: fractionation and
partial characterisation of large polypeptides. Lebensm.
Wiss. Technol. 22 (4), 157–163.

Meyer JH, Elashoff J, Porter-Fink V, Dressman J & Amidon
GL (1988): Human postprandial gastric emptying of 1–3
milimeter spheres. Gastroenterology 94, 1315–1325.

Minamiura N (1988): Data on individual amylases:
I.1.a-amylase. In Amylases: Their Sources, Isolation
Methods, Properties and Applications, pp 18–22.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Minekus M, Marteau P, Havenaar R & Huisin’t Veld JHJ
(1995): A multicompartimental dynamic computer-controlled
model simulating the stomach and small intestine.
Alta 23, 197– 209.

Mourot J, Thouvenot P, Couet C, Antoine J-M, Krobicka A
& Debry G (1988): Relationship between the rate of
gastric emptying and glucose and insulin responses to
starchy foods in young healthy adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.
48, 1035–1040.

Ohta A, Taguchi A, Takizawa T, Adachi T, Kimura S &
Hashizume N (1997): The alginate reduce the postprandial
glycaemic response by forming a gel with
dietary calcium in the stomach of the rat. Int. J. Vitamin
Nutr. Res. 67(1), 55– 61.

Popineau Y, Masson P & Thebaudin JY (1993): Enzymatic
processing of wheat protein. In Bioconversion of Wheat
Products, ed B Godon, pp 126–160. Paris: Lavoisier.
Read NW, Welch ML, Austen CJ, Barnish C, Bartlett CE,
Baxter AJ, Brown G, Compton ME, Hume KE, Storie I &
Wordling J (1986): Swallowing food without chewing: a
simple way to reduce postprandial glycemia. Br. J. Nutr.
55, 43–47.

Savalle B, Miranda G & Pelissier J-P (1989): In vitro
simulation of gastric digestion of milk proteins. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 37, 1336–1340.

Savoie L, Charbonneau R & Parent G (1989): In vitro amino
acid digestibility of food proteins as measured by the
digestion cell technique. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 39(1),
93–107.

Schmidt DG, Meijer RJ, Slangen CJ & van Beresteijn EC
(1995): Raising the pH of the pepsin-catalysed hydrolysis
of bovine whey proteins increases the antigenicity of the
hydrolysates. Clin. Exp. Allergy 25, 1007–1017.

Tollier M-T & Robin J-P (1979): Adaptation de la
m´ethode `a l’orcinol sulfurique au dosage automatique
des glucides neutres totaux: conditions d’application
aux extraits d’origine v´eg´etale. Ann. Technol. Agric.
28(1), 1–15.

Torsdottir I, AlpstenM, Holm G, Sanberg A-S & Tolli J
(1991): A small dose of soluble alginate-fiber affects
postprandial glycemia and gastric emptying in humans
with diabetes. J. Nutr. 121, 795–799.

Urooj A & Puttraj S (1999): Digestibility index and factors
affecting rate of starch digestion in vitro in conventiona l
food preparation. Nahrung 43(1), 42–47.

Vessby B (1994): Dietary carbohydrates in diabetes. Am. J.
Clin. Nutr. 59(3 Suppl.), 742S–746S.

Weegels PW & Hamer RJ (1998): Temperature induced
changes of wheat products. In Interactions: The Keys to
Cereal Quality, eds RJ Hamer & RC Hoseney, pp
95–123. St Paul, MN: AACC, Inc.

Weiner K, Graham LS, Reedy T, Elashoff J & Meyer JH
(1981): Simultaneous gastric emptying of two solid
foods. Gastroenterology 81, 257– 266.

duque21
11-05-2002, 07:31 PM
this is of use-----Guan D & Green GM (1996): Significance of peptic
digesion in rat pancreatic secretory reponse to dietary
protein. Am. J. Physiol. 271, G42–G47.

-----good but old Malagelada J-R (1977): Quantification of gastric solidliquid
discrimination during digestion of ordinary meals.
Gastroenterology 72, 1284–1287.


there were a few others, but most of those have to do with starches...Let my post most of my sources. I'll out them up tommarow

Maki Riddington
11-05-2002, 07:38 PM
The point is, the studies will at least shed some light on some of the on going functions that ocurr. Like I said, some are useless but some I've skimmed through and are interesting and can be helpful, just not in a direct way. You'll be hard pressed to find a study that shows exactly why too much protein shouldn't be taken during a sitting. What you fill find instead are various points that can be drawn upon so that you might be able to create your own logical conclusion.

smalls
11-05-2002, 07:43 PM
You explained the basics of how protein is digested in the body. Good for you. That explanation did not proove your point in any way shape or form. It was already brought up that protein does not have to be digested as a whole in one shot, it is a slow process, which is basically what your post said.
It did not prove(because it is not true) that excess protein is automatically excreted. You just said that at the end, the post did nothing to prove it.
That really is cool that you went out and did your research and actually learned something(what paul has been trying to get you to do for a while now). But just because you got the basics of protein breakdown in the stomach down does not mean you should act like some kind of nutrition god. Especially since you are still far from proving your point. We are all eagerly waiting your next installment.

duque21
11-05-2002, 09:06 PM
smalls...keep your pants on buddy. I never said I was done. I was mearly trying to educate some of the less educated members as to how (basically) proteins are digested. I made it clear, but maybe just not to you, that I am no where near to being done. This is quite a hard thing to get across(some more than others) and I doubt, unless you actually did research your self or have more than just a "grasp" on the physiology of the digestive system; that any one is even going to understand my evidence when I gather and present it in its entirety.

Why don't you sit down and wait patiently like the rest, instead of working your self up.

smalls
11-05-2002, 09:31 PM
[i]We are all eagerly waiting your next installment. [/B]

By installment I meant your next segment of your argument, I knew you where coming back to prove your argument, I just didnt make it that clear.

Unless you can type out your explenation off the top of your head then stop with the hi IQ attitude, we have all seen your other posts bro.

The_Chicken_Daddy
11-06-2002, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by duque21
Rob, did you have something to add or argue against? If not go back to your microscope and continue to examine my post.

Wow, someone grew a pair of balls overnight.

All you explained is how protein is digested. Nothing whatsoever regarding how much can be digested. And like i said earlier, just because it is an enzyme controlled reaction, the protein just sits in the stomach for longer.

Paul Stagg
11-06-2002, 08:58 AM
He continues to show his complete lack of understanding of physiology, and remarkably poor reading comprehension for a college student. (Although he would fit right in writing articles for ABCBBing)

Definately just trolling.

I think I'm going to pull the plug on him soon.

Berserker
11-06-2002, 09:44 AM
I started reading this post when it started and quickly got swept away. If this has already been mentioned sorry.
What about age and size? As far the amount protein one can digest. I would think 150lb person could digest less then a 250 lb person. My references are my 70lb dog leaves bigger turds then a 13lb dog. Just kidding, but its true.

Also just out of curiosity how do we know early man ate 1 meal? Though most animals eat once a day.
Berserker

AJ_11
11-06-2002, 09:58 AM
if you look at animals though they eat one meal and it last them sometimes for a whole weak. Not that I am comparing our digestive system to that of an animals. Another thing an animals diet usually consists of fat and protein.

TreeTrunks
11-06-2002, 10:48 AM
Pull the plug on him? How ridicluous! Why? Cause his opinion differs from yours? Give him a chance to explain his side.

Paul Stagg
11-06-2002, 11:54 AM
I have.

TT - I think he's a troll. He posts a claim that isn't factual, and can not be backed up, then says it can, then posts a bunch of meaningless crap saying that defends his position, when all it does is explain a process, not explain how this process is somehow limited.

Then he sits back, and watches the rest of us get all fired up.

His purpose is to stir people up, not to learn and not to help.

He's a troll.

One of the things I think sets this board aprart from a lot of others is that trolls don't typically last long.

Duque is good at it - with a really good troll, you ask yourself if he's really that ignorant, or if he's just messing with us... it's taken quite some time for me to figure out it's the latter.

Berserker
11-06-2002, 12:30 PM
By Troll hes from downstate Michigan? Only 2 things come out of detriot cars and criminals. I am betting he ain't a buick.

IceRgrrl
11-06-2002, 12:30 PM
Berserker, are you from the U.P?

Berserker
11-06-2002, 01:02 PM
Ya

IceRgrrl
11-06-2002, 02:06 PM
Cool! I grew up in the western end, near Ironwood :) I miss the snow :(

gettinjackT
11-06-2002, 02:13 PM
Why did you bump this thread orbital? LoL.....u fired duque right back up. This thread needs to be closed, I keep accidentally clicking on it. It's not even funny anymore.......

duque21
11-06-2002, 05:22 PM
Paul if youwant to ban me, by all means, it would be fine by me. It would only show your lack of patients to await my evidence. Or is it that you DON'T want to be proven wrong? Either way it would be censorship.

Paul, I ask you what is it that allows you to judge who understands the multiples physiological process's that the body goes through?

I wouldl like you to take two seconds or how ever long it may take for you to realize that I am simply stating my case, and that it is YOU who is getting upset.

Do you know what a "despot" is? Well I would assume you do, since you feel as though this is an enviroment where you can express you need control others. Why is it that you can not just let me present my self?

Maki Riddington
11-06-2002, 05:26 PM
How about this Duque. Stop patronizing people with your holier then thou attitude and post your evidence. Till then everyone will wait in anticipation ok?

I have no quarrel with you arguing this as I'm always interested to hear the other side. Just be nice about it.:)

duque21
11-06-2002, 05:28 PM
you guys put your gun down and I will also. Fair enough.

orbital
11-06-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by gettinjackT
Why did you bump this thread orbital? LoL.....u fired duque right back up. This thread needs to be closed, I keep accidentally clicking on it. It's not even funny anymore.......

lol, maybe I shouldn't have. However, I bumped it because it was about to fall to the second page. Duque had promised to provide the evidence that many have been asking for through two threads and over the span of several months. His lack of an update or a reply to this thread for such a lengthy period after his promise clearly indicates to me that his intention was to simply let this thread fall out of existence. Therefore, he could accomplish two important goals of the troll 1) insult people and 2) waste people's time. Once the thread becomes old news and he has accomplished these two objectives, victory is achieved. Being an undercover anti-troll agent I subverted his plans and he has egg all over his face again.

Maki Riddington
11-06-2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by duque21
you guys put your gun down and I will also. Fair enough.

*** You call yourself a professional yet you act this way.
:)

Shao-LiN
11-06-2002, 07:28 PM
I don't understand why you didn't just post all the proof and studies in one thread insead of splicing it and posting 1 thread that doesn't say anything about a limit.

duque21
11-06-2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Shao-LiN
I don't understand why you didn't just post all the proof and studies in one thread insead of splicing it and posting 1 thread that doesn't say anything about a limit.

Well I wanted you to understand the physiological process of protein digestion. I seriously doubt (except for a few) that any one truely understnds what it comprises of. If you dont understnd how it works, how are you going to understand my evidence. Even then I doubt you will take any effort to educate, or take any steps to educate your selves concerning this matter.

But if you wish for me to present my case with out laying down any foundation, well I could do that also. If I were to do that I am sure you would try to flame me for not doing the prior. So as I see it "I am damned if I do, and damned if I don't" What do you all want from me? I am certain for what ever I present, you will surely not accept, do to your bias and hatred for me.

Maki Riddington
11-06-2002, 09:45 PM
Don't speak of a majority when it is in fact a minority that is calling you out. Just post and say your piece. I'm sure there are many that are silent that are eager to see your evidence.

So post on..........

TreeTrunks
11-06-2002, 10:11 PM
So as I see it "I am damned if I do, and damned if I don't" What do you all want from me? I am certain for what ever I present, you will surely not accept, do to your bias and hatred for me.

Welcome to WBB!

Majestic
11-06-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by duque21
Well I wanted you to understand the physiological process of protein digestion. Even then I doubt you will take any effort to educate, or take any steps to educate your selves concerning this matter.

For the record, I (personally) already understand the basics of protein digestion, but still received affirmation, and even enlightenment from your intro.:cool:


Originally posted by duque21
But if you wish for me to present my case with out laying down any foundation, well I could do that also. If I were to do that I am sure you would try to flame me for not doing the prior.

I don't think he/they were suggesting you present your case without "laying the foundation". I think he/they felt you should've presented the different modules TOGETHER.

I personally appreciate your thorough explanation of protein digestion, even though, as Paul says, in itself it doesn't back up your argument.

As far as being "damned if you do, damned if you don't", well....you've got to lay in the bed that you made.:( It's unfortunate, but you've earned it.

The less you say, the less you have to take back. It's never too late, though.


Originally posted by duque21
What do you all want from me? I am certain for what ever I present, you will surely not accept, do to your bias and hatred for me.

I doubt anybody hates you, but if you're going to throw out some outrageous idea, then be prepared to back it up, or else prepare to be criticized. It's very fair. I don't see where it has anything to do with "bias" or "hatred". I hope you weren't trying to drum up undeserved sympathy.:confused:

I'm still confused over your "muscle maturation" comment, and I'm still waiting for you to explain it. Even if there is "no such thing" (as the 20+ people following that particular post seemed to indicate), I'd like to know what you *thought* you were communicating.:scratch:

WestyHeadbanger
11-07-2002, 12:21 AM
The correct answer per sitting is 15*bwgt(kg)/lbm(g) *2000.

I rang the Australian Institute of Sports Canberra, and that's their answer.

Berserker
11-07-2002, 08:17 AM
Atleast this takes into account your weight. I got 34g. Which seems plausible I am not a big guy.

Paul Stagg
11-07-2002, 08:36 AM
Westy - what is the rationale behind that - where is the explanation of the limiting process?

Duque is asuming th epeople readin ghti sare dolts, apparently.. suggesting that most won't understand what he posts.

He's quite mistaken.

How long has it been that we've been waiting for all of this evidence that will explain how there is a 40g limit on protein at one sitting?

How will 'one sitting' be defined?

How will the brilliance explain the difference between a 225 pound man and a 115 pound woman?

Don't hold your breath, kids. If the evidence was out there, Duque CERTAINLY wouldn't be the first person bringing it to light.

PowerManDL
11-07-2002, 10:11 AM
I know a few things about physiology. I'd bet I might have some slight chance of understanding it, duque.

hemants
11-07-2002, 03:11 PM
"The correct answer per sitting is 15*bwgt(kg)/lbm(g) *2000."

This answer would be based on many assumptions not the least of which is the rate of digestion of the protein in question which as far as we know is highly variable.

In any case, the claim that there is a max amount of protein useable for muscle gain at one sitting remains unproven.

Not withstanding that, even if we do take into account protein absorption time, and the amount of time it takes to go from belly to amino acid to muscle tissue, there will be some value beyond which protein, if consumed at one sitting, will cease to be used for muscle repair.

But we are a long way from quantifying that from what I can see so this thread has pretty much lived it's useful life IMO :)

gettinjackT
11-07-2002, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by hemants
"The correct answer per sitting is 15*bwgt(kg)/lbm(g) *2000."

This answer would be based on many assumptions not the least of which is the rate of digestion of the protein in question which as far as we know is highly variable.

In any case, the claim that there is a max amount of protein useable for muscle gain at one sitting remains unproven.

Not withstanding that, even if we do take into account protein absorption time, and the amount of time it takes to go from belly to amino acid to muscle tissue, there will be some value beyond which protein, if consumed at one sitting, will cease to be used for muscle repair.

But we are a long way from quantifying that from what I can see so this thread has pretty much lived it's useful life IMO :)

so what you're saying, is that duque doesn't know what he's talking about?:confused:


I don't believe that for a second.........:rolleyes:

Alex.V
11-07-2002, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by hemants


This answer would be based on many assumptions not the least of which is the rate of digestion of the protein in question which as far as we know is highly variable.

In any case, the claim that there is a max amount of protein useable for muscle gain at one sitting remains unproven.

Not withstanding that, even if we do take into account protein absorption time, and the amount of time it takes to go from belly to amino acid to muscle tissue, there will be some value beyond which protein, if consumed at one sitting, will cease to be used for muscle repair.


For christ's sake, I've been saying this since the first damn Duque protein thread. He never addressed this, so to me, after that, the discussion was over.

Say 40 grams of free form amino acids were swallowed. Track the absorption there. Fine. Say 40 grams of protein from a steak were eaten. That'll still be sitting in the gut getting digested 3 hours later. For the last time, RATE of digestion is of primary importance here! And nowhere have I seen this get addressed!

Yanick
11-08-2002, 01:25 PM
hmm, these last few posts have got me thinking. Is protein absorption rate like GI in terms of mixing various sources?

IE we know that dextrose is absorbed ultra fast and something like oatmeal is absorbed ultra slow. If mixed together, the GI of the meal is somewhere in the middle.

So does it work the same way, if you ingest whey/casein together?

AJ_11
11-08-2002, 05:47 PM
I think that certain protein take longer to digest from what I have been hearing around these post on this board. Whey is absorbed alot quicker than say a steak. I am not sure if is the absorbtion or the release of amino acids in your system though. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong though.

I think that protein also mixed with certain food affect absorbtion or digestion, like if you have some fat with it then most likely it will take lnger to absorb.

This does make some sense becasue after a workout it is recommended that you take some whey without fat to get delivered to your muscles at a faster rate.

Yanick
11-09-2002, 04:11 PM
On another note. I've read something very interesting from Lyle a few days ago. Basically liquid fats (like flax mixed into a whey shake) will not delay gastric emptying. Reason being that the fat does not mix with the shake, and instead just sits on top of everything else in the gut.

The_Chicken_Daddy
11-09-2002, 07:01 PM
That is liquid fats in a liquid meal.

Butter WILL slow digestion of a potato providing it's mashed in well enough.

Mayo mixed with tuna slapped between two slices of wholemeal bread WILL slow digestion.

Flax oil WILL slow digestion if eaten with tuna.

Stuff like that.