PDA

View Full Version : protein / lbs rules, requirements



jazer80
03-16-2006, 11:48 AM
i apologize in advance if somebody has already started the same thread.



i sell sports supplements, adn always read/believe in the 1gram/lbs for protein requirements. i know it's not exact, but it just seems like such a good bench mark. i believe that many people like / use this rule.

lately i have had some conflicting thoughts in these regards tho. 1gram/lbs encompasses a gigantic range of effectiveness. i'd have to imagine that 1 gram /lbs of hydrolyzed collagen and soy are not even remotely as effective as whey protein shakes.

that being said,
1) when people say 1 gram/lbs, would that mean at the highest quality, or coudl you get away with less if it were higher bioavailability/ better amino makeup?


That thought was lingering, and then it got me thinking even further along those lines. my first question is about bioavailability and amino makeup, but let's take the amino make part of the equation even further. it is my understnading that some amino acids are just way more important than others for our purposes. for instance, i'd have to imagine that a 10g mix of the bcaa's, glutamine, arginine, etc, would be more effective than a 20g serving of, say, whey protein, which is an awesome source in its own right.

2)is that a reasonable assumption?

if so, i'd take it even further. say you had a designer blend of aminos (i don't have a particular product in mind, but i know many would probably fit along these lines), very heavy in all the amino acids that i just mentioned, and it was in perfect form, hydrolyzed and/or with digestive enzymes, to the point where the amino mix is as close to perfect bioavailability as possible. This type of comparison really has me wondering whether or not we need 1g/Lbs to sustain anabolism when we are dealing with generic 'protein', and whether we could reduce this number, maybe even significantly, by using custom formulations that are proteins that are specifically tailored to us.

i would be psyched to realize i only needed .7grams/lbs if it were optimally preppared/formulated

smalls
03-16-2006, 02:01 PM
You probably dont even NEED .7g/lb. But it doesnt hurt to get more when calories are abundant. The thing is your amino acid mix/ bioavaliblity ect will never be perfect so why bother. Just get more than you need and call it a day. Making overall progress in this game has too many variables to worry so much about just one.

I get 450-600 grams of protein a day, I could care less how perfect that makeup is. Put more weight on the bar, eat more than you burn, and recover.

jazer80
03-16-2006, 04:26 PM
although i agree that that approach is viable, just overshoot so you don't have to worry, it isn't necessarily the best for everyone. for people who have enough money to buy whatever supplements they want, and very little time to cook meat constantly, this could be a useful approach, if it is valid in the first place.

occasionally i will have times where i may go days without even being able to sit down for more than a couple real 'meals'. i am a rarer example (full time senior econ student, full time retail manager, and partner in a local startup business) in terms of time demands, but sometimes my days are so hectic that i cannot hope to be able to hit my protein requirements without resorting to tons of shakes. when i do this i always use digestive enzymes to get the most out of my protein.

this got me thinking that even on days when i'm not busy, i hate dealing with the protein parts of my meals. i enjoy my steaks, but that is about all. as i'm sure many here can understand, eggs and chicken are no longer appetizing to me. too many years of them being staples. however, i still eat them, because i have too. or i thought i did anyways, as they are the only rational ways to get up to the ~.7-1.0g/lbs of my daily protein requirements.

however, if i could get the same results by using carefully planned amino supplement preparations instead of those meals, i wouldn't mind buying the products. in my eyes i'd rather spend money on a custom shake to have with each of my meals instead of having to cook/eat meats constantly. unless someone can chime in with a reason why this approach wouldn't work, i think i'm going to be switching over

Built
03-16-2006, 05:19 PM
Supplements are never superior to food - they're an addition.

I rarely bother with supplemental protein. Usually, I just eat food. The occasional whey shake makes its way into my day, but that's it.

jazer80
03-16-2006, 07:08 PM
Supplements are never superior to food - they're an addition.


i don't want to start an arguement, but that is not true. There are absolutely times where a supplement is superior to food. Directly after a workout comes to mind. I can't imagine the reasoning as to why a meal is better than a pwo shake (assuming the shake is the proper shake for the scenario).

I agree that food is usually a better option. However, here I am solely concerned with anabolism. Can you back your statement up further, strictly in regards to anabolism, as to why this wouldn't work?

I know real food has all kinds of things that are tough/impossible to duplicate in powders. But, when all is said and done, powdered supplements are like powdered food. I don't think my body really cares whether the l-valine, or whatever else, came from a steak or from a shake, as long as it is absorbed the same way. I would imagine that the steak has a longer digestion time, so more could possilby be absorbed due to longer time for absorption. This can be mimiced through powders (fat, fiber, etc). Also, foods have enzymes in them to help break stuff down, but this can be duplicated as well.


built, i have lots of respect for you, and you know your stuff as far as i can tell. i am interested in what the actual reasons behind your statement are, aside from just the fact that food is better

Davidelmo
03-16-2006, 07:23 PM
I get 450-600 grams of protein a day

Holy crap.:omg:

WildCard
03-16-2006, 07:30 PM
Holy crap.:omg:

thats what I said.

Built
03-16-2006, 07:32 PM
No worries jazer - and thank you.

I was thinking more along the line of amino acid supplements suggested in the original post.

Whey is just food. So is dextrose. I don't really think of these as supplements.

But from an anabolic perspective, I remain unconvinced that whey and dex post workout will make a DRAMATIC difference in muscle growth vs proper pre-workout nutrition. Some, possibly. But I know plenty of big beefy boys who just eat solid food. And I generally ditch whey on a cut because I prefer to chew what little food I get to eat.

My .02

smalls
03-17-2006, 01:00 AM
Holy crap.:omg:


Why thank you. Actually I havent gotten as low as 450g in months and probably wont again.



although i agree that that approach is viable, just overshoot so you don't have to worry, it isn't necessarily the best for everyone. for people who have enough money to buy whatever supplements they want, and very little time to cook meat constantly, this could be a useful approach, if it is valid in the first place.



The thing is protein is cheaper in supplement form than food. Food has plenty of benefits but I really think your overexagerating these benefits of perfectly timed and balanced meals.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 01:23 AM
There are absolutely times where a supplement is superior to food.Food has vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that supps don't have. They are not superior to food. A better word to describe supplements is "convenience". There are times when just taking a protein shake instead of eating food is more "convenient". They are definitely helpful when you're lagging behind on protein intake...or you're just trying to fit in some easily digestible high cals.

smalls
03-17-2006, 01:37 AM
Food has vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that supps don't have. They are not superior to food. A better word to describe supplements is "convenience". There are times when just taking a protein shake instead of eating food is more "convenient". They are definitely helpful when you're lagging behind on protein intake...or you're just trying to fit in some easily digestible high cals.


And protein supps have vitamins that some foods dont have. I wouldnt stress one over the other as long as your hitting your overal dietary goals.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 01:39 AM
The synthetic vitamins added to supps aren't as efficient as those in real food. They're still better than no vitamins.


I wouldnt stress one over the other as long as your hitting your overal dietary goals:withstupi

As long as your diet is in order, then there isn't really anything to be concerned about.

Benji
03-17-2006, 05:04 AM
450grams of protein..:thumbup:

jazer80
03-17-2006, 08:04 AM
Food has vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that supps don't have. They are not superior to food. A better word to describe supplements is "convenience". There are times when just taking a protein shake instead of eating food is more "convenient". They are definitely helpful when you're lagging behind on protein intake...or you're just trying to fit in some easily digestible high cals.
that's not what i meant. I don't mean they're more convenient after workouts, i mean from what i have read they are superior. after a workout a shake is superior to food because you can get exactly what you need (protein/simple carb) into your system asap. The loss of phytochemicals is not going to make as big of a difference to anabolism as the gain of not having to break food down.


also, you shouldn't assume that shakes do not have all the 'food' attributes you just listed. my post workout shakes are a generic whey/malto gainer, more whey protein added in, creatine, and a 'greens/superfood' product. I take this with a premium multi vitamin. In my shakes pwo I get my phytochemicals, polyphenols, fiber, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, etc, as well as my macronutrients.



I'd really like to keep this focused tho, and keep it directly on anabolism. scarz of pain, you think that a food meal, as opposed to a powdered shake, is superior for anabolism because of the phytochemicals? Please elaborate

ddegroff
03-17-2006, 08:44 AM
But from an anabolic perspective, I remain unconvinced that whey and dex post workout will make a DRAMATIC difference in muscle growth vs proper pre-workout nutrition. Some, possibly. But I know plenty of big beefy boys who just eat solid food. And I generally ditch whey on a cut because I prefer to chew what little food I get to eat.


There it is right there. I feel pre-workout is more important than post. I have whey/creatine shake right before and a little during. Then I eat a full meal afterwards.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 12:48 PM
i mean from what i have read they are superior.I don't know what you're reading, but that's simply not true.



after a workout a shake is superior to food because you can get exactly what you need (protein/simple carb) into your system asap.That doesn't mean it's superior to food. That means it's easier to digest and gets the nutrients you need when you need them. You can make shakes from real food that work in the same way.



scarz of pain, you think that a food meal, as opposed to a powdered shake, is superior for anabolism because of the phytochemicals? Please elaborateI'm talking about the nutrition aspect of what you're ingesting. The anabolic effect is probably too small to even compare. There's hardly a difference between the two. I wasn't referring to that. There's nothing wrong with the supps for anabolism.

jazer80
03-17-2006, 01:20 PM
That doesn't mean it's superior to food. That means it's easier to digest and gets the nutrients you need when you need them. You can make shakes from real food that work in the same way.

if a person benefits from quicker digesting nutrients after a workout, and a shake digests faster than food, please tell me how the food is superior in this instance. are you arguing the semantics that although it is superior here, it is because of the convenience, and that the food is a superior, inconvenient option? if so i'm not going to have a semantic argument, you know what i mean, adn that is that it is overall superior at that particular time due to its speed of digestion. your body gets what it needs to begin repairing muscle quicker than it would had you eaten a real meal

and yes you can make shakes from food too, the source of the shakes is kind of irrelevant to our discussion. you could make the arguement that whey powder is already 'made from food', as it's from milk/cheese in teh first place.




anyways, we seem to be straying... can anybody give a reason why a lower total quantity of carefully chosen amino acids will not perform a larger quantity of 'protein'. this is turning into a godforesaken food v. supplements thread, as i'm sure we all knew it would.

my contention is that if X grams daily of whole food proteins are needed for an individual to sustain anabolism / positive nitrogen balance, a lower amount than X grams are needed if they are made up of a certain blend of amino acids, and used knowledgably (in quick digesting preparations when needed, and in much slower digesting preparations when needed; also, used in forms of higher bioavailability, and in conjunction with enzymes for proper assimilation)

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 01:24 PM
if a person benefits from quicker digesting nutrients after a workout, and a shake digests faster than food, please tell me how the food is superior in this instance.In that context, it is superior.



are you arguing the semantics that although it is superior here, it is because of the convenience, and that the food is a superior, inconvenient option?Again, the context for which I used "superior" was referring to the nutrition aspect of food and supplements.



you could make the arguement that whey powder is already 'made from food', as it's from milk/cheese in teh first place.There is nothing wrong with that. Whatever helps you should continue doing.

jazer80
03-17-2006, 02:19 PM
In that context, it is superior.


Again, the context for which I used "superior" was referring to the nutrition aspect of food and supplements.


There is nothing wrong with that. Whatever helps you should continue doing.
so what do you think of a smaller amount of specific aminos equalling a larger amount of food protein, in terms of anabolism?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
03-17-2006, 02:21 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Care to rephrase that?

Built
03-17-2006, 03:18 PM
Jazer, if you didn't eat properly before you trained, then yes, the best "damage control" is gonna be a shake with dex.

If you DID eat properly before you trained, the speed of the post workout meal won't matter as much - you'll have plenty of the good stuff circulating in your system already by the time you're training.

And the amino supps? I can't see how they would make anything more than a microscopic difference to your anabolic response. My thinking is that it would be like saying you were better hydrated today because you drank an extra ounce of water. In both situations, while it might be technically true, you're unlikely to notice a measurable difference.

jazer80
03-17-2006, 05:30 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Care to rephrase that?
i hate cooking meat all day. i do it so that i can keep myself anabolic. it is a pain for me to get down all the protein i need. i know whole foods have their benefits to simplified powders, but if i want to keep myself anabolic, i need to to take in a certain of meat to get in enough protein to optimize muscle growth.

i have cheap access to sports supplements. real cheap. i have been thinking lately that if i needed, say, 150grams of protein daily to stay anabolic, could i maybe achieve this with 100grams of a BCAA + other important aminos mix? The reasoning being that within that 150grams of food based protein, there are surely large amounts of amino acids that are less important for muscle growth than others. If one were to make a mix of the most ideal 100grams of amino acids conceivable (strictly in terms of anabolism), could this mix surpass 150grams of food protein? (i am not assuming those particular numbers are correct, but my point is that i believe that 149grams of the aforementioned 'ideal' amino blend would be more effective than 150grams of 'food' protein. What i am trying to investigate here is just how far of a spread there could be between a natural 'food' based blend, and a customized amino mixture designed solely for optimal anabolism.

I am by no means even close to expert in these areas, but it just seems that in all my reading that there appear to be certain amino acids that are much more significant (for our purposes) than the others. i mean you'd definitely prefer a 10g bcaa+glutamine+arginine mix over a 10g shake of say l-proline for muscle growth (dunno what proline is, just for example). So, if there are these apparently significant differences between the amino acids, then a mixture of only the 'best' ones would be much more potent, on a weight basis, than one that just contained 'normal' ratios, like you woudl find in a piece of meat. Because of this difference, I am confident you could get away with less protein in a given day, provided it was the right protein.




I started this thread to hear people's opinions on just how large of a spread this is. I think we'd all agree there is some sources of protein that are totally inferior for muscle growth (hydrolyzed collagen anyone?), or completely useless, and some amino acids that seem to be helpful at *relatively* low levels. if basing the protein requirements of your diet around these more important aminos, you coudl get away with less total protein consumed in a given day, yet keep anabolism constant.

(sorry so long, i am having trouble getting this across as clearly as i can)

Built
03-17-2006, 05:37 PM
Okay, what you're saying is that if price was no object (ie you have virtually FREE amino acid supps available to you) and food is inconvenient, can you make do with these? Possibly.

Meat isn't the only protein source - how about hardboiled egg whites? Cottage cheese? I LIVE on cottage cheese. You can make protein waffles with the stuff, eat it neat, blend and sweeten it and use it like yogurt... cheap, effective, and filling.

Davidelmo
03-17-2006, 07:10 PM
... cheap, effective, and filling.

and disgusting :P

In all seriousness though, the question is pretty interesting.

I imagine if you could pick and choose and emphasise certain amino acids in your diet then it might be better for anabolism than simply taking in protein with many AA's which needs to be broken down etc.

I'm just guessing though. Even if you can get supplements cheap, trying it would be crazy.

jazer80
03-17-2006, 07:18 PM
i manage a vitamin store, so i get first pick at sales, plus a sizable discount. there are tons of pre/post powders that have what appear to be good mixes of amino acids, and if i knew i could cut out a significant amount of necessary total grams for my daily requirement, by having the aminos taken being optimal, i could reduce necessary meat meals (or cottage cheese, whatever. bottom line is it is all disgusting after a certain number of years. i do it because i have to, but am always looking different approaches)

Built
03-18-2006, 01:26 AM
I think you just need to learn how to be a better cook, Jazer.

;)

jazer80
03-18-2006, 12:13 PM
I think you just need to learn how to be a better cook, Jazer.

;)
haha i'm a great cook, don't you worry....

i was thinking more about this at work today. even for people who don't have very cheap access to supplements, you can get them cheap enough if you know how to find them. assuming you get good deals, it still seems to be cheaper to get powders than real foods. i know a meal replacement packet is typically cheaper than a meal that would provide a comparable amount of macros/micros...

if that's the case, then powders seem to be cheaper, potentially more effective on anabolism given the proper makeup choices, *way* more convenient, and better tasting to some people

Built
03-18-2006, 12:16 PM
The convenience factor is a big one to be sure. And there are plenty of what I lovingly refer to as "Goddamned Hydroponic Bodybuilders" on this site: Chase for example, and Smalls I believe live on a mostly liquid diet as well. But this is so they can easily get in their 6000+ a day calories. As I understand it, one gets tired of chewing at a certain point.

TECHO
03-18-2006, 12:37 PM
I think there're a lot of foods out there you could take advantage of for their low price, high protein content, and ease of preparation. Cottage cheese was a great example. So is peanut butter, tunafish, canned chicken, salmon, oatmeal, etc. I rely on supplements to supplement, nothing more. For some reason I just can't rationalize cutting out the majority of my solid food intake for convenience. Personally, I find preparing my daily meals a pain as well, but I make time for it regardless because it saves me money and keeps me fueled properly, which seems like it would be extremely important for one like yourself, Jazer, who is really really busy and leads a high-energy life. Shakes/supps just don't keep me energized like a solid meal does.

That's my 2 pieces of pocket lint.

jazer80
03-18-2006, 05:17 PM
I think there're a lot of foods out there you could take advantage of for their low price, high protein content, and ease of preparation. Cottage cheese was a great example. So is peanut butter, tunafish, canned chicken, salmon, oatmeal, etc. I rely on supplements to supplement, nothing more. For some reason I just can't rationalize cutting out the majority of my solid food intake for convenience. Personally, I find preparing my daily meals a pain as well, but I make time for it regardless because it saves me money and keeps me fueled properly, which seems like it would be extremely important for one like yourself, Jazer, who is really really busy and leads a high-energy life. Shakes/supps just don't keep me energized like a solid meal does.

That's my 2 pieces of pocket lint.

all those foods are completely a chore to eat to many who have lived this style for a long time. and i'm not saying i don't suck it up and deal, because i do. i am just wondering about a different approach.

shakes/supplements keep me more energized than food, but again, you need to know what you're doing. i make smoothies constantly, and they are the healthiest product i've ever consumed in my life. i am always living on liquid, hydroponically (built, i like that term), and find i can actually enhance energy with liquid better than food. i find adding in vegetable powder/fiber to almost any mrp, and eating some kind of good fats (fish pills/flax liquids for me), will keep me energized/full longer than a meal, or at least comparably.

but, we stray from our topic at hand. and besides, i think most people on this site understand the basic differences in teh food v. powder/supp arguement, so let's leave this stuff out.


anyone else with extensive amino knowledge wanna share opinions as to whether or not a decent sized reduction in total grams daily protein could be achieved by swapping out inferior, generalized 'food' proteins for muscle-optimized aminos?

Songsangnim
03-18-2006, 10:22 PM
I've never used supplements. No protein shakes, no creatine, nothing like that. I get all my calories, vitamins, and protein from food. There is no magic supplement or mix thereof that will give you any faster gains than eating the right kinds of food.

Now about your question ...whether or not a decent sized reduction in total grams daily protein could be achieved by swapping out inferior generalized 'food' proteins for muscle optimized aminos"

Your question is misleading as it makes some unfounded assumptions. First off why would one (assuming s/he is a serious bodybuilder) WANT a reduction in protein? Why would that be necessary? Second there is no proof that the 'food' proteins are indeed inferior to these aminos. And third there is no proof that these aminos are any more "muscle optimized" than said food proteins or at least to such a degree that it would make a noticable difference. Fourth everybody responds differently to different macronutrients.

Yes you could get a decent sized reduction in total grams by swapping. Simply eat less. Could you get the SAME results or better? Extremely doubtful. Why would you expect to get the same or better results from eating LESS protein?

The only real advantage supplements have over food (that's why they are SUPPLEMENTS and not food) is convenience.

Holto
03-19-2006, 02:00 PM
I'm not sure how valid this theory is but it's believed that a protein source that releases slowly into the circulation will result in more net retention than a fast source.

Now for somebody eating 50g's of whey 6+X/day I don't think this will make an impact.

For someone like me cutting on 4 meals/day I feel I will get much higher net retention from chicken and fish, than whey.

This is also why At Large will likely never make a whey only product. Even post w/o you get higher net retention with a blend.

In a nutshell the amino acid pool is a closely guarded resource and the body has no means of storing protein.

Sharp rises in the AA pool result in aminos being converted into sugar, fat, or ketones, rendering them useless for building muscle.

Ideally you want to replace amino's as they are being used, this would involve slow digesting/assimilating sources of protein.

smalls
03-19-2006, 11:51 PM
anyone else with extensive amino knowledge wanna share opinions as to whether or not a decent sized reduction in total grams daily protein could be achieved by swapping out inferior, generalized 'food' proteins for muscle-optimized aminos?

The main problem with this idea, at least the way it's worded here, is that it means a loss in calories.

At the end of the day anabolism is going to be mainly determined by total caloric intake. That is what's going to matter the most.

jazer80
03-20-2006, 03:32 PM
There is no magic supplement or mix thereof that will give you any faster gains than eating the right kinds of food.
i'm definitely not suggesting that, what i am suggesting is that certain proteins, or amino acids specifically, are going to have a stronger anabolic response than others



First off why would one (assuming s/he is a serious bodybuilder) WANT a reduction in protein? Why would that be necessary?
well, i'm a seriuos bodybuilder, and i don't want to speak for everyone here, but i eat protein BECAUSE I HAVE TO, FOR ANABOLISM, TO BUILD MUSCLE. I don't eat protein (at least not the amounts that i eat) because i like to. I'd have to imagine that most bodybuilders WOULD want a reduction in protein, assuming they could grow the same without it.
Why would it be necessary? well, it would be much more convenient, and possibly cheaper. plus some people dislike the meats they eat, so in some cases it would actually be more appetizing (i prefer a good tasting shake to a fat free chicken breast any day)



Second there is no proof that the 'food' proteins are indeed inferior to these aminos. And third there is no proof that these aminos are any more "muscle optimized" than said food proteins or at least to such a degree that it would make a noticable difference.
I'm not sure i see much of a difference between numbers 2 and 3 here, so i will answer them both simultaneously. I am NOT asserting that i have proof. that is why i started this thread, to discuss this. this was meant to get people's opinions/fact, i didn't come in here telling you all what's what.

And while i don't have proof that some aminos are more 'muscle optimized', i'm sure that i'm not alone in feeling that some surely are (am i? am i ?!?!?)





Fourth everybody responds differently to different macronutrients.
i definitely agree with you there, but we're only talking about one macronutrient, and i don't see how this would make a huge difference between one individual and the next. I'm not saying i think everyone would respond to this approach the same, but i'd imagine there would be a stronger equality of responses in regards to something like this versus, say, carb or fat intake. i knew different bodies store fat differently than others, but i didn't know people responded much differently in terms of amino acids going to muscles. i am interested in your elaboration here, that sounds like an interesting concept that i'm surprised i didn't know much about.




Could you get the SAME results or better? Extremely doubtful. Why would you expect to get the same or better results from eating LESS protein?
as stated, i would expect the same results because although there would be a lower total gram count of protein, the grams that one did end up consuming would, for argument's sake, be more closely tied to anabolism.

i'd have to imagine that most people here agree that eating 199 grams of whey protein daily is better for gaining muscle than 200 grams of soy protein. That is the idea i am trying to get across here. i am sick of hearing (and preaching) the 1gram/lbs rule, and it got me thinking that generalized statements like that don't seem to take into account the types of protein, and as far as i can tell there are major differences among sources (amino makeup, bioavailability, length of digestion, enzyme combinations from food or added artificially).

in my mind these differences could actually add up to something that may be significant, and if the rules we live by are based on a general protein intake, and we could use a specialized intake, we may be able to reduce total intake, thereby saving time, money, and making eating more enjoyable (for some).



The only real advantage supplements have over food (that's why they are SUPPLEMENTS and not food) is convenience.
i know there's strong hatred for supplements here, as most people discussing supplements are newbs looking for the magic pill. i personally disagree with you here; i think of my preworkout mixes, and wonder how on earth i could get all the stuff i take in naturally (unless there's natural sources of the stimulants, creatines, etc etc etc that could be digested as rapidly as shake).

aside from that, adn i will give you that in MOST cases supplements are just more convenient, why make them seem so inferior jsut because their advantage is convenience? to some people, convenience is a necessity, otherwise they would not be able to be bodybuilders. if i had to prepare 6 - 8 real meals daily, i would not be able to be a bodybuilder at this point in my life. because of my classes and work, i have many times where i literally do not have time for a meal (and i don't mean 'boo hoo i'm so busy'. i work in a 1 man store, and can't really have a food break. sometimes i need to go from a long class straight to there, etc. there are just times that you cannot have a real meal, and some people's lives are filled with those occasions)

jazer80
03-20-2006, 03:40 PM
The main problem with this idea, at least the way it's worded here, is that it means a loss in calories.

At the end of the day anabolism is going to be mainly determined by total caloric intake. That is what's going to matter the most.
i don't think that's a big hurdle though, unless i'm missing something.

i will use myself as an example. i weigh about 150-160 depending what kind of lifting i've been doing (powerlifting squats i gain huge leg mass quickly, when bodybuilding i don't do much anaerobic leg work).

i need roughly 3000-3300 calories when bulking. i usually aim for around 175 grams protein. now, let's say i made this reduction by swapping out some of my meat / shakes / milk for a specially made amino acid blend, that i was confident woudl give me the same amount of usefulness, in terms of amino acids, as the food i am replacing it with gave.

if i take away 75 grams of food protein, and replaced it with, say, 40 grams, i would be taking a 35 gram deficit of protein. that is only 140 calories. when all is said and done, the lost protein is easily replaced with more 'appetizing' macros, like fat/carbs (which i agree could lead to some bf for those here with slower metabolisms).


could be missing something here. again, i am not saying this would work, but i started this thread looking to be thoroughly convinced i was wrong, hoping i wouldn't be

jazer80
03-20-2006, 03:49 PM
I'm not sure how valid this theory is but it's believed that a protein source that releases slowly into the circulation will result in more net retention than a fast source.

Now for somebody eating 50g's of whey 6+X/day I don't think this will make an impact.

For someone like me cutting on 4 meals/day I feel I will get much higher net retention from chicken and fish, than whey.

This is also why At Large will likely never make a whey only product. Even post w/o you get higher net retention with a blend.

In a nutshell the amino acid pool is a closely guarded resource and the body has no means of storing protein.

Sharp rises in the AA pool result in aminos being converted into sugar, fat, or ketones, rendering them useless for building muscle.

Ideally you want to replace amino's as they are being used, this would involve slow digesting/assimilating sources of protein.
interesting points you make (as usual).

my first thoughts are that the slow digestion can be achieved by manipulating the sources. i don't know this for fact, but it has always been my understanding that a whey shake digests very very quickly, maybe a 2 hour interval, if my memory serves. now, if i were to make the shake with milk, i coudl count on that caseinate slowing down the whey's absorption. if this were whole milk, or if i added some flax or cla, i would count on slowing it even more. lastly, if i were to swallow a bunch of psyllium husk (fiber) pills with it, i believe that woudl slow it further.

an approach like that would seem to significantly slow whey's digestion, and i would assume work similarly on damn near anything you took that way. again, i don't know this for fact, but it has always been my understanding that these nutrients could be used in such a manner.




as for aminos being converted to sugars, that is very interesting. i have never heard that before, in fact, i had been told that you couldn't really get fat from eating protein, as the metabolic cost (is that the right term? the amount of calories your body burns to process something..) of the protein is close enough to the calories it provided. again, jsut my understanding, can't hit you with research articles or anything, and i coudl be wrong.

furthermore, maybe someone else can go further with this, but i thought that if you ate protein in the manner that you described ('Sharp rises in the AA pool result in aminos being converted into sugar, fat, or ketones, rendering them useless for building muscle.') you would be in a state of 'hyperaminoacidemia', adn that this was desirable. i can't elaborate much more on this approach, but i remember someone on another board explaining a certain approach to pwo that involved this, and never made mention of them turning to sugar/ketones/fat. again, don't know enough to be sure of this (damn, did i respond to all of your post with assumptions? i think they're mostly solid, but feel like a lazy bastard)

jazer80
03-21-2006, 08:03 PM
.............................. anybody?

Built
03-21-2006, 08:05 PM
You can't get fat from overeating protein? Really?

<runs off and eats entire cow>

jazer80
03-21-2006, 08:33 PM
You can't get fat from overeating protein? Really?

<runs off and eats entire cow>
or maybe it's just much harder? if you overate protein, it is gonna add as much bf as overeating carbs? i've definitely read otherwise...


but who cares, that's kind of off topic.. did you guys disagree wtih my responses? i get the impression nobody thinks my idea is valid, but i really haven't been convinced i'm wrong, and it's not because i'm being stubborn

Holto
03-22-2006, 10:36 AM
my first thoughts are that the slow digestion can be achieved by manipulating the sources. i don't know this for fact, but it has always been my understanding that a whey shake digests very very quickly, maybe a 2 hour interval, if my memory serves. now, if i were to make the shake with milk, i coudl count on that caseinate slowing down the whey's absorption. if this were whole milk, or if i added some flax or cla, i would count on slowing it even more. lastly, if i were to swallow a bunch of psyllium husk (fiber) pills with it, i believe that woudl slow it further.

Imagine the same situation with solid food. Chicken+Fiber +Fat. Most meals should have fiber and fat at a minnimum. You still get better net retention with food.



as for aminos being converted to sugars

It's a process called gluconeogenesis. I think the reasons the magazines supress this type of info is to perpetutate their own existence.

If the amino is converted to anything it's rendered useless in terms of anabolism.



'hyperaminoacidemia'

I will go out on a limb and say this *state* is achieved after several weeks of a high protein intake.

Question for you:

What exactly do you mean by optimized?

One example I like to give people. If whey or any other protein product promoted more anabolism than food it would have a very important role in the medical insdustry. Trauma units around the country would give it to patients from fires, car accidents, gun shots. Aids patients could prolong their lives using whey if it had any benefits above and beyond food. Steroids are keeping aids patients alive way past life expectancy.

TheGimp
03-22-2006, 10:45 AM
as for aminos being converted to sugars, that is very interesting. i have never heard that before, in fact, i had been told that you couldn't really get fat from eating protein, as the metabolic cost (is that the right term? the amount of calories your body burns to process something..) of the protein is close enough to the calories it provided. again, jsut my understanding, can't hit you with research articles or anything, and i coudl be wrong.

If I recall correctly it is in the region of 25% of calories provided by protein are required to digest it.

Holto
03-22-2006, 10:56 AM
If I recall correctly it is in the region of 25% of calories provided by protein are required to digest it.

There are alot of factors to consider.

I know once in your body it's more costly to convert carbs to fat than protein.

This is why I use the term net energy alot now.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 11:15 AM
there are surely large amounts of amino acids that are less important for muscle growth than others. If one were to make a mix of the most ideal 100grams of amino acids conceivable (strictly in terms of anabolism), could this mix surpass 150grams of food protein? (i am not assuming those particular numbers are correct, but my point is that i believe that 149grams of the aforementioned 'ideal' amino blend would be more effective than 150grams of 'food' protein. What i am trying to investigate here is just how far of a spread there could be between a natural 'food' based blend, and a customized amino mixture designed solely for optimal anabolism.

I am by no means even close to expert in these areas, but it just seems that in all my reading that there appear to be certain amino acids that are much more significant (for our purposes) than the others. i mean you'd definitely prefer a 10g bcaa+glutamine+arginine mix over a 10g shake of say l-proline for muscle growth (dunno what proline is, just for example). So, if there are these apparently significant differences between the amino acids, then a mixture of only the 'best' ones would be much more potent, on a weight basis, than one that just contained 'normal' ratios, like you woudl find in a piece of meat. Because of this difference, I am confident you could get away with less protein in a given day, provided it was the right protein.
You have to take into consideration the other, sometimes more important, roles that amino acids have.

Just to name a few, transport proteins, immunoproteins, enzymes, structural proteins, nonstructural tissue proteins and nitrogen containing compounds, plasma proteins, peptide hormones, and protein secretions that form digestive enzymes and endogenous proteins for use in digestion.

Muscle anabolism is far from being the priority in terms of biosynthetic processes, and you certainly can't pick and choose exactly what amino acids are going to enter what process.

Conclusion: Not every process requires the same number or type of amino acid. Even if muscle anabolism is your specific goal, some of the other functions I mentioned aid, or form intermediates or other requirements needed for processes involving tissue formation.

Drinking a shake with your own blend of specific free form amino acids probably isn't the best choice. Not to mention ingestiing free for amino acids or a particular group can result in competition for absorption, creating an imbalance.

Peptides from natural food sources are actually faster absorbing than an equivelant mixture of amino acids. Nitrogen assimilation is also superior.

Hope this helps you out.

jazer80
03-22-2006, 12:53 PM
You have to take into consideration the other, sometimes more important, roles that amino acids have.

Just to name a few, transport proteins, immunoproteins, enzymes, structural proteins, nonstructural tiiuse proteins and nitrogen containing compounds, plasma proteins, peptide hormones, and protein secretions that form digestive enzymes and endogenous proteins for use in digestion.

Muscle anabolism is far from being the priority in terms of biosynthetic processes, and you certainly can't pick and choose exactly what amino acids are going to enter what process.

Conclusion: Not every process requires the same number or type of amino acid. Even if muscle anabolism is your specific goal, some of the other functions I mentioned aid, or form intermediates or other requirements needed for processes involving tissue formation.

Drinking a shake with your own blend of specific free form amino acids probably isn't the best choice. Not to mention ingestiing free for amino acids or a particular group can result in competition for absorption, creating an imbalance.

Peptides from natural food sources are actually faster absorbing than an equivelant mixture of amino acids. Nitrogen assimilation is also superior.

Hope this helps you out.
very much. thanks

ddegroff
03-22-2006, 02:20 PM
wow slim i think you wrapped this one up.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 05:01 PM
wow slim i think you wrapped this one up.
I'm here for y'all :thumbup:

Davidelmo
03-22-2006, 06:07 PM
Peptides from natural food sources are actually faster absorbing than an equivelant mixture of amino acids. Nitrogen assimilation is also superior.

Why is this?

Maybe I'm missing the point but logically I would assume that by injesting free AA's, you would skip the need for proteases to cleave the protein, which would speed up the time from you eating it to it being absorbed.

fattyniebs
03-22-2006, 07:44 PM
Why is this?

Maybe I'm missing the point but logically I would assume that by injesting free AA's, you would skip the need for proteases to cleave the protein, which would speed up the time from you eating it to it being absorbed.
Logically, it makes sense.

However, digestion of the protein is just the first step. This is the key part. Proteins are cleaved by numerous enzymes to form free amino acids, dipeptides, tripeptides, and oligopeptides.

After this, they can pass through the brush border of the enterocyte (intestinal cell) by different carrier systems.

As slim mentioned, the transport of peptides is faster than AA's. Many Free form AA's compete for transport. The peptides are hydrlozyed to free form AA's once inside the enterocyte. 67% of the AA's here were absorbed as small peptides and 33% were absorbed as free AA's

What's interesting is that peptides of shorter length have a greater affinity for transport than longer peptides.

Just a side note - branched chain AA's are absorbed faster than free form, and essential AA's are absorbed faster than nonessential AA's.

jazer80
03-22-2006, 08:22 PM
Why is this?

Maybe I'm missing the point but logically I would assume that by injesting free AA's, you would skip the need for proteases to cleave the protein, which would speed up the time from you eating it to it being absorbed.
but time isn't really a big advantage in terms of absorbing protein, i believe someone was saying (in this thread) that slower digesting = greater nitrogen retention (damn, i wish i knew what nitrogen was in relation to protein..)

slimschaedle, you're a smart bastard... i spent like an hour reading a bunch of **** you posted, learned a ton this afternoon

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 09:05 PM
Fatty pretty much nailed it


Jazer, glad it helps you out.

Songsangnim
03-23-2006, 04:06 AM
i'm definitely not suggesting that, what i am suggesting is that certain proteins, or amino acids specifically, are going to have a stronger anabolic response than others



well, i'm a seriuos bodybuilder, and i don't want to speak for everyone here, but i eat protein BECAUSE I HAVE TO, FOR ANABOLISM, TO BUILD MUSCLE. I don't eat protein (at least not the amounts that i eat) because i like to. I'd have to imagine that most bodybuilders WOULD want a reduction in protein, assuming they could grow the same without it.
Why would it be necessary? well, it would be much more convenient, and possibly cheaper. plus some people dislike the meats they eat, so in some cases it would actually be more appetizing (i prefer a good tasting shake to a fat free chicken breast any day)



(A) I'm not sure i see much of a difference between numbers 2 and 3 here, so i will answer them both simultaneously. I am NOT asserting that i have proof. that is why i started this thread, to discuss this. this was meant to get people's opinions/fact, i didn't come in here telling you all what's what.

And while i don't have proof that some aminos are more 'muscle optimized', i'm sure that i'm not alone in feeling that some surely are (am i? am i ?!?!?)





i definitely agree with you there, but we're only talking about one macronutrient, and i don't see how this would make a huge difference between one individual and the next. I'm not saying i think everyone would respond to this approach the same, but i'd imagine there would be a stronger equality of responses in regards to something like this versus, say, carb or fat intake. i knew different bodies store fat differently than others,(B) but i didn't know people responded much differently in terms of amino acids going to muscles. i am interested in your elaboration here, that sounds like an interesting concept that i'm surprised i didn't know much about.




as stated, i would expect the same results because although there would be a lower total gram count of protein, the grams that one did end up consuming would, for argument's sake, be more closely tied to anabolism.

i'd have to imagine that most people here agree that eating 199 grams of whey protein daily is better for gaining muscle than 200 grams of soy protein. That is the idea i am trying to get across here. (C) i am sick of hearing (and preaching) the 1gram/lbs rule, and it got me thinking that generalized statements like that don't seem to take into account the types of protein, and as far as i can tell there are major differences among sources (amino makeup, bioavailability, length of digestion, enzyme combinations from food or added artificially).

in my mind these differences could actually add up to something that may be significant, and if the rules we live by are based on a general protein intake, and we could use a specialized intake, we may be able to reduce total intake, thereby saving time, money, and making eating more enjoyable (for some).



i know there's strong hatred for supplements here, as most people discussing supplements are newbs looking for the magic pill. i personally disagree with you here; i think of my preworkout mixes, and wonder how on earth i could get all the stuff i take in naturally (unless there's natural sources of the stimulants, creatines, etc etc etc that could be digested as rapidly as shake).

aside from that, adn i will give you that in MOST cases supplements are just more convenient,(D) why make them seem so inferior jsut because their advantage is convenience? to some people, convenience is a necessity, otherwise they would not be able to be bodybuilders. if i had to prepare 6 - 8 real meals daily, i would not be able to be a bodybuilder at this point in my life. because of my classes and work, i have many times where i literally do not have time for a meal (and i don't mean 'boo hoo i'm so busy'. i work in a 1 man store, and can't really have a food break. sometimes i need to go from a long class straight to there, etc. there are just times that you cannot have a real meal, and some people's lives are filled with those occasions)

(Letters are mine)

(A) Well, you did state that food proteins were "inferior" and that aminos were "muscle optimized" It just sounded a little too definite...but I'm glad we cleared that up.

(B) Mr Schaedle has already answered this one. And keep in mind that there are so many variables to take into account that no two people are likely to respond the exact same way. Some people may be able to gain muscle from eating 200 grams of protein, some may need 300+ to make an appreciable dent.


(C) The 1 gram per pound "rule" is a guideline not a rule. It is not carved in stone. In fact studies (Google Dr. Peter Lemon) have shown that even very active people may need slightly less. The 1 gram per pound helps the average person meet all his requirements plus a little extra to make sure 'all the bases are covered' And it's a easy way to remember your protein intake.

(D) I never said they were inferior, I said they weren't superior . And if you are so busy I agree that using supplements may be a better option for you at this point in your life.

Holto
03-26-2006, 10:00 AM
Here is something else that goes with what Slim was saying.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=292168&tools=bot

"In each intestinal segment, amino acid absorption rates were significantly greater from the test solutions containing the same amount of amino acids in dipeptide than in free form(as high as 185% increase)"

Slim Schaedle
03-26-2006, 12:24 PM
Thanks Holto