Do tell. If you come across them again an example would be great.
Here is an example that I still remember. Most people have seen the thread and the artices on "30 Grams of Protein Myth". There is a Will Brink article and another one as well that basically says....no studies or evidence has ever been found on protein limit by the authors. The conclusion is not to worry about it and of course it sounds pretty silly anyway. But just because you don't believe it doesn't mean you have the right to act like there is some type of PROOF of how much protein everyone can assimilate and then post bogus sources.
Here is the example I'm speaking of from Bryan Haycock:
Quote:
Fact: The body has the ability to digest and assimilate much more than 30 grams of protein from a single meal.
Speaking of high intakes of protein, people have been perpetuating the myth that you can only assimilate ~30 grams of protein at a time, making protein meals any greater than a 6 oz. chicken breast a waste. This is anything but true. For example, the digestibility of meat (i.e. beef, poultry, pork and fish) is about 97% efficient. If you eat 25 grams of beef, you will absorb into the blood stream 97% of the protein in that piece of meat. If, on the other hand, you eat a 10 oz steak containing about 60 grams of protein, you will again digest and absorb 97% of the protein. If you could only assimilate 30 grams of protein at a time, why would researchers be using in excess of 40 grams of protein to stimulate muscle growth?1
|
And here is the "1" citation he is listing:
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/276/4/E628
It is one of those Tipton things on post exercise amino acids (solution). There is NOTHING in it that has anything to do with how much steak you can assimilate, etc. It has no bearing whatsoever on the "30 grams myth" that I can see.
Very bogus. Sorry to any Haycock fans but it is what it is. What he is really doing is making a statement about 97 percent that cannot be verified and then using the study as an example of why he asks the question "why would researchers use in excess of 40 grams"...as if that somehow proves something. The effect is that most people will see a "study" listed and take the whole paragraph as "truth".