Frameless -- That's a good question, and a good point you make. I don't think that this has been systematically investigated yet. If you have any speculations or hard data regarding what the answer is, please post it up. That said, I think that the question you're asking is more applicable to acute (short-term) studies, which are good for generating hypotheses. Long-term studies measuring the macro-outcomes (performance & body composition) would be the ultimate test of such hypotheses.
awesome article. would be good if some more studies showed the difference in strength athletes vs recreational or even sedentary.
forwarded to all my co-workers.
heathj -- Yup, this is a very understudied area of research. I'm eager to see how future study designs will improve. Glad you like the article, thanks for spreading it.
Alan, one of the boneheads in that MMA thread you linked seems to have reached the conclusion that you are endorsing "Nitrean" and your pimping of such protein is your driving force for writing the article. Amazing.
Snorkelman -- Yeah, that was hilarious. What a dumbass.
It cracks me up because the product plug is SO small and VERY relevant!
Bah, in my opinion if you don't have the intelligence to read something and grasp the quality of the information and learn from it, you don't deserve too lol
Last night I went out to dinner with some friends for one of the guys birthdays, at dinner we started working out diet etc... One of the guys ( never met him before ) starts talking about how the body can only absorb 26 grams of protein max and thats it. Now I am not one to sit and argue or debate with people but I could not let this one go ( plus I know a little bit but I am not an expert ). So I brought up this article and I also brought up the issue of IF as well ( which I have been doing for almost a month and glad I switched over to it ) and the guy still said I was wrong, stating that a whole team of guys came to this conclusion ( though he does not know the study and cannot quote it, as I asked him to ) and Alan is just one guy ( which made me laugh out loud ). So I then brought up the fact that depending on the protein source it is absorbed into the body at different rates then he says this study was only for "isolates" so I said your talking about whey then and he said no isolate protein its not the same as whey, at this point I was just dumbfounded by his stupidity I was almost at a loss for words. I asked him how protein was made and he did not know so I explained how its a bi product of cheese and the different types of proteins etc etc.. and he still said I was wrong, so I just told him alright conversation is done as you are clueless, I asked him if he the internet on his phone he said yes I told him to look up this article and how whey was produce and its different types all of witch he said he would do later, I just smiled and said ok, and I just dropped it, people are so stuck in body building dogma its just unreal.
Two things that made me laugh even more was the fact that he did not like my gym ( local chain, they have 4 gyms in my city ) because it has to many free weights and not enough machines, and then he got so drunk he threw up all over himself and the table when he took one to many shoots.
Times like these makes me want to learn as much as I can about nutrition for when times like these appear.
Great article! I really enjoyed that.
How To Grow
Of course there is a limit. The only thing is no one knows what it really is for each individual. So you gotta always take in more than what is necessary to keep growing.
Someone who knows what he's talking about. I was drawn to one line in your article in particular.. "This brings me to the crucial point that acute outcomes merely provide grounds for hypothesis. Itís not completely meaningless, but itís far from conclusive without examining the long-term effects."
Thank you for this. This is the point that EVERYBODY should keep in mind when evaluating the various data that are floating around and often cited when people write god-awful position papers (can't really call them articles) on nutrition, training, etc.
Very well done article, a thoughtful piece that can be easily understood by all audiences while referencing relevant scientific data. Solid conclusion, good evidence, a must read!
While it is fair to say that different usage scenarios will result in different conclusions as to protein usage, one should be careful to discredit studies based on arguments that are explicitly excluded in the study to begin with. While it is easy to say that the studies that pegged maximum protein absorption to less than 30g are in error by arguing them out of the scope of their application, these studies were not in any way slanted by the academics and the results can be taken as prima facie evidence of limited protein absorption taking place in the exact scenarios tested.
The reason for the difference in absorption is because it is an entirely time-dependant process. Hence a steak, that takes much longer to digest, would in fact allow more protein to be absorbed than a serving of the same amount of whey protein which digests much faster. Hence it can be safe to assume that you are wasting your money if you decide to gobble down huge amounts of whey at once and think that your body will 'sort it out'. But here's the thing: most researchers know this, yet the author of this article seems not to know it. Which is why they are testing for protein supplementation absorption and not steak protein absorption, two entirely different scenarios mind you. An argument on the one has no bearing on the other.
While anyone is allowed to make up their own mind on this issue, I would use the authors own words against him and warn that exactly because the long term effects have not been studied that intensively, it is much better to under-supplement than over-supplement. Your body would be severely taxed to break down a lot of excess protein in the event that the author is wrong and then you will likely have health problems because of this advice.
How so? To my knowledge, there is little evidence showing ammonia toxicity or excessive liver/kidney stress in HEALTHY individuals directly caused by "excessive" protein intake. In speaking with quite a large number of physicians/researchers in the nutrition field, I've yet to even find any case studies of individuals who have had liver or kidney damage/failure as a result of high protein intake. Note I DO emphasize "healthy"- I have seen a number of cases of individuals with pre-existing conditions who've experienced issues with high protein intake.
Originally Posted by Drizzt
To me, this is really the major point of dissent- if healthy individuals have nothing to fear from high protein intake, then extra protein becomes essentially an expensive and inefficient (though quite tasty) source of pyruvate/acetyl CoA and a whole bunch of urea.