- Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding Forum (
-   Nutrition (
-   -   Protein Myths (

Darkhorse 06-05-2005 01:23 AM

Protein Myths
In light of a past debate about how much protein one's body can assimilate at a time, I thought it best to shed some light on the highly debated subject. I like spreading knowledge to help disspell rumors and help people grow. ;)

Myth #2: You can only assimilate 30 grams of protein at one sitting.
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
Critics of high protein intakes may try to point out that increased protein intake only leads to increased protein oxidation. This is true, nevertheless, some researchers speculate that this increase in protein oxidation following high protein intakes may initiate something they call the "anabolic drive".13 The anabolic drive is characterized by hyperaminoacidemia, an increase in both protein synthesis and breakdown with an overall positive nitrogen balance. In animals, there is a correspondent increase in anabolic hormones such as IGF-1 and GH. Though this response is difficult to identify in humans, an increase in lean tissue accretion does occur with exaggerated protein intakes.14,15
The take home message is that, if you are going to maximize muscle growth you have to minimize muscle loss, and maximize protein synthesis. Research clearly shows this is accomplished with heavy training, adequate calories, and very importantly high protein consumption. This means that meals containing more than 30 grams of protein will be the norm. Not to worry, all that protein will certainly be used effectively by the body.

References: (ie. scientific data)
1. Tipton K., Ferrando A., Phillips S., Doyle, JR D., Wolfe R. Post exercise net protein synthesis in human muscle from orally administered amino acids. Am. J. Physiol. 276: E628-E634, 1999
2. Bennet, W. M., A. A. Connacher, C. M. Scrimgeour, and M. J. Rennie. The effect of amino-acid infusion on leg protein turnover assessed by L-[15N]phenylalanine and L-[1-13C]leucine exchange. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 20: 37-46, 1989
3. Castellino, P., L. Luzi, D. C. Simonson, M. Haymond, and R. A. DeFronzo. Effect of insulin and plasma amino acid concentrations on leucine metabolism in man. J. Clin. Invest. 80: 1784-1793, 1987
4. Fryburg, D. A., L. A. Jahn, S. A. Hill, D. M. Oliveras, and E. J. Barrett. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I enhance human skeletal muscle protein anabolism during hyperaminoacidemia by different mechanisms. J. Clin. Invest. 96: 1722-1729, 1995
5. McNulty, P. H., L. H. Young, and E. J. Barrett. Response of rat heart and skeletal muscle protein in vivo to insulin and amino acid infusion. Am. J. Physiol. 264 (Endocrinol. Metab. 27): E958-E965, 1993
6. Mosoni, L., M. Houlier, P. P. Mirand, G. Bayle, and J. Grizard. Effect of amino acids alone or with insulin on muscle and liver protein synthesis in adult and old rats. Am. J. Physiol. 264 (Endocrinol. Metab. 27): E614-E620, 1993
7. Newman, E., M. J. Heslin, R. F. Wolf, P. T. W. Pisters, and M. F. Brennan. The effect of systemic hyperinsulinemia with concomitant infusion of amino acids on skeletal muscle protein turnover in the human forearm. Metabolism 43: 70-78, 1994
8. Watt, P. W., M. E. Corbett, and M. J. Rennie. Stimulation of protein synthesis in pig skeletal muscle by infusion of amino acids during constant insulin availability. Am. J. Physiol. 263 (Endocrinol. Metab. 26): E453-E460, 1992
9. Newsholme, A.E., Parry-Billings M. Properties of glutamine release from muscle and its importance for the immune system. JPEN. 14 (4) supplement S63-67
10. Oddoye EA., Margen S. Nitrogen balance studies in humans: long-term effect of high nitrogen intake on nitrogen accretion. J Nutr 109 (3): 363-77
11. Boirie Y, Dangin M, Gachon P, Vasson M-P, Maubois J-L, and Beaufrère B. Slow and fast dietary proteins differently modulate postprandial protein accretion (amino acid turnover / postprandial protein anabolism / milk protein / stable isotopes) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 14930-14935, December 1997
12. Sarwar G. The Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score method overestimates quality of proteins containing antinutritional factors and of poorly digestible proteins supplemented with limiting amino acids in rats. J. Nutr. 127: 758-764, 1997
13. Millward, D.J. Metabolic demands for amino acids and the human dietary requirement: Millward and Rivers (1988) revisited. J. Nutr. 128: 2563S-2576S, 1998
14. Fern EB, Bielinski RN, Schutz Y. Effects of exaggerated amino acid and protein supply in man. Experientia 1991 Feb 15;47(2):168-72
15. Dragan, GI., Vasiliu A., Georgescu E. Effect of increased supply of protein on elite weight-lifters. In:Milk Protein T.E. Galesloot and B.J. Tinbergen (Eds.). Wageningen The Netherlands: Pudoc, 1985, pp. 99-103

Darkhorse 06-05-2005 02:37 AM

Well, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I respect that. As for your questions, you gotta take it up with all the authors/scientists listed since they are all in compliance with what I posted. I'm confident all your questions can be answered by someone with a degree/PhD. It wasn't hard for me to find the proof. Check it out for yourself and draw your own conclusions. There was alot of times where I was proved wrong and I'm a better man for it. (Not taking away from your perspective) But, from a bodybuilders perspective, the above is reason enough, at least for me, to continue my 40-50 grams per serving of protein without concern. :)

As for some of your examples of cougars and them eating meat and insects, I think you're getting defensive. They have a genetic limit as do we all. That doesn't have anything to do with the amount of protein humans can eat per serving. :confused:

Darkhorse 06-05-2005 03:10 AM


Originally Posted by TAURUS
CORRECTION - YOUR POST is in compliance with what they hypothesize!
AGAIN with the 'only a person with a 'paper and a PHD' can know what their talking about!
COME on now 0311 - THERE are 2 types of builders right. PERHAPS there is a specific diet for each type of building methodology! ;) PERHAPS a second 'mystery' diet! ;) YET, you wouldnt know a thing about it because your NAT -alledgedly.

AS for the animal content, I only included it because they obviously know what they should be eating, AND you mentioned animals in your 'copy n paste' endeavour so I did too ... in my own words.

IF animal studies have nothing to do with 'real-world' people results, why are animals tested for diets, medications, and disease 'cures' if they have no relevant correalation to us?

Yup, science and bodybuilding don't mix in your words then...

The fact of the matter is simply that you cannot prove your myth. I provided scientific studies, ect. You provided that animals eat insects and it's a piece of paper...

In animals, there is a correspondent increase in anabolic hormones such as IGF-1 and GH. Though this response is difficult to identify in humans, an increase in lean tissue accretion does occur with exaggerated protein intakes.14,15
Sounds like those animal studies you're talking about huh???? There you go, forgot about that..
Your post is in compliance blahblahblah. Doesn't sound like a 33 year old trying to have a grownup debate is it? If you want to argue with scientific research, go somewhere else. It started off pretty intelligently, but of course you got defensive. I'd rather you just go your own way or something because this is getting pretty stale. Honestly, show me anything besides your "golden opinion" and prove me wrong about you. Otherwise, go post elsewhere. I don't care. Everytime you ask for research backing my advice I gave it pure and simple. You just have your opinions :confused: I'm done with this subject. I know I'm right about this and you proved it with getting defensive and argumentative. Enjoy the forum, I'm done giving advice helping people out. :mad: I've tried to help this site out as much as I could, Fuck it-

sdf42450 06-05-2005 07:55 PM

dude, all those links are from 1 source... hardly compelling evidence when 1 researcher came to those conclusions.

and Dr. Lothar Wendt's protein theory can be debated quite easily. if you read anything futher than just that one theory and/or tested some of the theories you'd probably have a much different opion of Dr. Wendt's theory.

Darkhorse 06-05-2005 08:09 PM


Originally Posted by sdf42450
dude, all those links are from 1 source... hardly compelling evidence when 1 researcher came to those conclusions.

and Dr. Lothar Wendt's protein theory can be debated quite easily. if you read anything futher than just that one theory and/or tested some of the theories you'd probably have a much different opion of Dr. Wendt's theory.

"Zing"!!! HAHAHAHAHA I knew I didn't pull it out of a hat after all! Nice one source TAURUS "Zing-- :eek:

Darkhorse 06-05-2005 08:20 PM


Originally Posted by TAURUS
WERE really doing alot to prove this place is a shit-hole and will fall by the grace of GOD. Im from nothing, prove nothing, and will never be anything. THIS is the TRUTH. Ive exposed your inequities to all the 'noobs' which you didnt want to happen - YOUR a killer of the weak, something Ill never be! How many kills was that you bragged about over 20? FUCK YOU KILLER!

C'mon now classy...We were joking around when I talked about that...If you want to twist the truth some more then go ahead. If everyone reviews all your posts they'll find out how much integrity you really have..

Oh yeah...Still no proof :eek:

sdf42450 06-05-2005 08:24 PM

Dr. Wendt argues that fats only became considered a leading cause of heart disease because of a faulty assumption. Increasing numbers of heart attacks were correlated to increased consumption of animal fats. However, according to statistics, it was actually animal protein consumption which increased tenfold, while fat consumption remained relatively stable.

yet a clearly observable, measureable, and REAL example contradicts Dr. Wendt:

the American Eskimo, who eats nothing but meat and fat and has very low rates of heart disease and are generally healthy. hhmmmm...

sdf42450 06-05-2005 08:34 PM


sdf42450 06-05-2005 08:34 PM


Originally Posted by TAURUS
YOUR failing to mention Blood-type/diet interaction - come on SD - you know better! YOUR also bastardizing his theory, in hopes that members will take your word that you -speakle- / the TRUTH :)

explain this blood-type/diet interaction in detail as it was not mentioned in the literature i saw from Dr. Wendt's work

sdf42450 06-05-2005 08:50 PM


Originally Posted by TAURUS
MAN, my balls are 'black n blue' right now - I cant possibly explain it RIGHTNOW without the proper accreditations which I know 0311 will point out if not present - Its not a part of his theory, YET, it is well-founded fact/research which has very important implications to the workings of all types of dietary consumption, especially a high protein diet. I realize you like your facts from a broad-based selection of ? whatever, YET I cant provide that right now. The best I can do is something from TrulyHuge. BUT youve already seen it Im sure.

THIS is all I can offer RIGHT now:

Ill cross reference it,,,But you know I will!

i've read on that topic... perhaps this link will be of assistance to you:

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.