The Impact of Protein on Muscle Mass Gain: The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth
- Thread starter madman
- Start date
Deleted member 43589
Well-Known Member
Protein: Is there a limit to how much we can use?
I guess bodybuilders who eat huge amounts of protein have been right all along. So much for the 20g of protein bro science. Jorn Trommelen, Glenn A.A. van Lieshout, Jean Nyakayiru, Andrew M. Holwerda, Joey S.J. Smeets, Floris K. Hendriks, Janneau M.X. van Kranenburg, Antoine H. Zorenc, Joan...
www.excelmale.com
The belief that anabolic response to feeding during post-exercise recovery has an upper limit … lacks scientific proof.
The response of muscle protein synthesis following whole-body resistance exercise is greater following 40 g than 20 g of ingested whey protein - PubMed
The currently accepted amount of protein required to achieve maximal stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) following resistance exercise is 20-25 g. However, the influence of lean body mass (LBM) on the response of MPS to protein ingestion is unclear. Our aim was to assess the...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
MPS was stimulated to a greater extent following ingestion of 40g (0.059±0.020%·h−1) compared with 20g (0.049±0.020%·h−1;P=0.005) of protein. Our data indicate that ingestion of 40g whey protein following whole‐body resistance exercise stimulates a greater MPS response than 20g in young resistance‐trained men.
The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals - PMC
The consumption of dietary protein is important for resistance-trained individuals. It has been posited that intakes of 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day are needed for physically active individuals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Conclusions
Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat.The Effects of Overfeeding on Body Composition: The Role of Macronutrient Composition – A Narrative Review - PMC
Compared to investigations on hypocaloric diets, the effects of chronic overfeeding have been less studied. It has been posited that consuming calories in excess of daily caloric requirements will result in a gain in body weight and in particular ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Dietary protein appears to have a protective effect against fat gain during times of energy surplus, especially when combined with resistance training. Therefore, the evidence suggests that dietary protein may be the key macronutrient in terms of promoting positive changes in body composition.
High-protein diets in trained individuals - PubMed
The United States (US) recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein is 0.8 grams per kilogram body weight per day (g/kg/d). The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) recently recommended an intake of 1.4-2.0 g/kg/d whereas the United States and Canadian Dietetic Association...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It is the scientific opinion of the author that athletes should consume at least 2.2 g/kg/d of protein.
OLDER RESEARCH
Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) using both nitrogen balance and metabolic tracers methodology recommended between that 1.4 and 2.4 g/kg/d for athletes involved in strength and power exercise. Later 1.76 g/kg/d was recommended as the accepted RDA for strength and power athletes by Lemon et al (1992) and Tarnopolsky. These studies showed that whole body protein synthesis was elevated at these intakes without an increase in protein oxidation.
Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes - PubMed
Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders - PubMed
This randomized double-blind cross-over study assessed protein (PRO) requirements during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training and determined whether supplemental PRO intake (PROIN) enhanced muscle mass/strength gains. Twelve men [22.4 +/- 2.4 (SD) yr] received an isoenergetic PRO...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Fern et al. (1991) found that 2.4 g/kg/d was considered protein overload, thus providing no further increase in protein synthesis for strength and power athletes. When strength athletes increased their protein consumption to 2.4 g/kg/d amino acid oxidation increased, but there was no further protein synthesis. Researchers considered this to clearly indicate a protein overload.
Effects of exaggerated amino acid and protein supply in man - PubMed
A general update review of the dynamic aspect of protein metabolism is presented. The effect of excess protein level on protein metabolism has been the object of a limited number of studies in man. From the information available, it appears that the primary regulatory pathway for body protein...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It is interesting to note that Consolazio et al. (1975) Marabel et al. (1979), and Dragan et al. (1985) all reported larger increases in strength, lean body mass (LBM) and nitrogen with much higher protein intakes (3.3, 2.8, and 3.5 g/kg/d respectively). These reports tend to corroborate the more anecdotal beliefs of weight lifters that extremely high dietary protein intakes are essential for optimal muscular development.
Protein metabolism during intensive physical training in the young adult - PubMed
Two groups of men consumed two levels of protein (1.4 and 2.8 g/kg body weight) during a 40-day experimental period. Physical activity and the sweat rates were fairly high during the entire experimental phase. Urinary nitrogen excretions remained fairly constant for both groups during the...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Nutrition Recommendations for Bodybuilders in the Off-Season: A Narrative Review - PMC
Many nutrition practices often used by bodybuilders lack scientific support and can be detrimental to health. Recommendations during the dieting phase are provided in the scientific literature, but little attention has been devoted to bodybuilders ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Summary
Bodybuilders in the off-season should focus on consuming a slightly hyper-energetic diet (~10–20% above maintenance calories) with the aim of gaining ~0.25–0.5% of bodyweight per week. Advanced bodybuilders are advised to be more conservative with the caloric surplus and the rate of weekly weight gain. Dietary protein intake is recommended to be 1.6–2.2 g/kg/day with a focus on sufficient protein at each meal (0.40–0.55 g/kg/meal) and an even distribution throughout the day (3–6 meals).What most scientist seem to over look is the more active we are the more dietary protein we seem to need (ie. 40g is better for MPS that 20g). When you add supraphysiologic doses of anabolic steroids into the picture the body can utilize much more protein. These guys who are professional athletes are not being studied at all, and their needs seem to be astronomical with Olympic swimmers, taking in over 10,000 cal/d and pro strong man competitors taking in over 15,000 cal/d. Most pro heavy weight bodybuilders are consuming 35g/lb of protein and around 10,000 cal/d.
Last edited:
madman
Super Moderator
View attachment 42986
Protein: Is there a limit to how much we can use?
I guess bodybuilders who eat huge amounts of protein have been right all along. So much for the 20g of protein bro science. Jorn Trommelen, Glenn A.A. van Lieshout, Jean Nyakayiru, Andrew M. Holwerda, Joey S.J. Smeets, Floris K. Hendriks, Janneau M.X. van Kranenburg, Antoine H. Zorenc, Joan...
The belief that anabolic response to feeding during post-exercise recovery has an upper limit … lacks scientific proof.
The response of muscle protein synthesis following whole-body resistance exercise is greater following 40 g than 20 g of ingested whey protein - PubMed
The currently accepted amount of protein required to achieve maximal stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) following resistance exercise is 20-25 g. However, the influence of lean body mass (LBM) on the response of MPS to protein ingestion is unclear. Our aim was to assess the...
MPS was stimulated to a greater extent following ingestion of 40g (0.059±0.020%·h−1) compared with 20g (0.049±0.020%·h−1;P=0.005) of protein. Our data indicate that ingestion of 40g whey protein following whole‐body resistance exercise stimulates a greater MPS response than 20g in young resistance‐trained men.
The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals - PMC
The consumption of dietary protein is important for resistance-trained individuals. It has been posited that intakes of 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day are needed for physically active individuals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the ...
Conclusions
Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat.
The Effects of Overfeeding on Body Composition: The Role of Macronutrient Composition – A Narrative Review - PMC
Compared to investigations on hypocaloric diets, the effects of chronic overfeeding have been less studied. It has been posited that consuming calories in excess of daily caloric requirements will result in a gain in body weight and in particular ...
Dietary protein appears to have a protective effect against fat gain during times of energy surplus, especially when combined with resistance training. Therefore, the evidence suggests that dietary protein may be the key macronutrient in terms of promoting positive changes in body composition.
High-protein diets in trained individuals - PubMed
The United States (US) recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein is 0.8 grams per kilogram body weight per day (g/kg/d). The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) recently recommended an intake of 1.4-2.0 g/kg/d whereas the United States and Canadian Dietetic Association...
It is the scientific opinion of the author that athletes should consume at least 2.2 g/kg/d of protein.
OLDER RESEARCH
Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) using both nitrogen balance and metabolic tracers methodology recommended between that 1.4 and 2.4 g/kg/d for athletes involved in strength and power exercise. Later 1.76 g/kg/d was recommended as the accepted RDA for strength and power athletes by Lemon et al (1992) and Tarnopolsky. These studies showed that whole body protein synthesis was elevated at these intakes without an increase in protein oxidation.
Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes - PubMed
Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1...
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders - PubMed
This randomized double-blind cross-over study assessed protein (PRO) requirements during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training and determined whether supplemental PRO intake (PROIN) enhanced muscle mass/strength gains. Twelve men [22.4 +/- 2.4 (SD) yr] received an isoenergetic PRO...
Fern et al. (1991) found that 2.4 g/kg/d was considered protein overload, thus providing no further increase in protein synthesis for strength and power athletes. When strength athletes increased their protein consumption to 2.4 g/kg/d amino acid oxidation increased, but there was no further protein synthesis. Researchers considered this to clearly indicate a protein overload.
Effects of exaggerated amino acid and protein supply in man - PubMed
A general update review of the dynamic aspect of protein metabolism is presented. The effect of excess protein level on protein metabolism has been the object of a limited number of studies in man. From the information available, it appears that the primary regulatory pathway for body protein...
It is interesting to note that Consolazio et al. (1975) Marabel et al. (1979), and Dragan et al. (1985) all reported larger increases in strength, lean body mass (LBM) and nitrogen with much higher protein intakes (3.3, 2.8, and 3.5 g/kg/d respectively). These reports tend to corroborate the more anecdotal beliefs of weight lifters that extremely high dietary protein intakes are essential for optimal muscular development.
Protein metabolism during intensive physical training in the young adult - PubMed
Two groups of men consumed two levels of protein (1.4 and 2.8 g/kg body weight) during a 40-day experimental period. Physical activity and the sweat rates were fairly high during the entire experimental phase. Urinary nitrogen excretions remained fairly constant for both groups during the...
Nutrition Recommendations for Bodybuilders in the Off-Season: A Narrative Review - PMC
Many nutrition practices often used by bodybuilders lack scientific support and can be detrimental to health. Recommendations during the dieting phase are provided in the scientific literature, but little attention has been devoted to bodybuilders ...
Summary
Bodybuilders in the off-season should focus on consuming a slightly hyper-energetic diet (~10–20% above maintenance calories) with the aim of gaining ~0.25–0.5% of bodyweight per week. Advanced bodybuilders are advised to be more conservative with the caloric surplus and the rate of weekly weight gain. Dietary protein intake is recommended to be 1.6–2.2 g/kg/day with a focus on sufficient protein at each meal (0.40–0.55 g/kg/meal) and an even distribution throughout the day (3–6 meals).
What most scientist seem to over look is the more active we are the more dietary protein we seem to need (ie. 40g is better for MPS that 20g). When you add supraphysiologic doses of anabolic steroids into the picture the body can utilize much more protein. These guys who are professional athletes are not being studied at all, and their needs seem to be astronomical with Olympic swimmers, taking in over 10,000 cal/d and pro strong man competitors taking in over 15,000 cal/d. Most pro heavy weight bodybuilders are consuming 35g/lb of protein and around 10,000 cal/d.
The belief that anabolic response to feeding during post-exercise recovery has an upper limit … lacks scientific proof.
Did you watch the webinar to get his full take on the subject?
You need to watch the webinar to appreciate/understand what he is saying here.
I will throw in the some of the transcripts!
Make sure to read all of it over or better yet watch the full webinar!
Even when abusing high doses of exogenous T/AAS most are still consuming way too much protein!
Even when chemically enhanced the body can still only build new muscle fibers (actin/myosin) so fast.
Big difference between dry/wet gains here when it comes to packing on muscle mass!
You should very well know being in a caloric surplus and meeting your daily protein requirement is far more critical than consuming absurd amounts of protein natty or repping that chemically enhanced fake build!
>2 g/lb is overfucking kill especially when in a caloric surplus!
Nattys let alone anyone using using therapeutic doses of T can easily get away with 1 g/lb LBM when in a caloric surplus.
No one told you Yates rarely went above 1 g/lb LBM in the offseason?
Even when dieting he barely went above this and mainly manipulated his carbohydrates/fats.
I can show you the interview where he clearly states this!
Take home points here!
*So just to talk to you a little bit about protein supplementation, hypertrophy. So first of all, I do think that optimization of adaptations requires greater than the Rda but the intake that appears to optimize adaptations peaks at around 2 times the Rda
*And even if you believe that it goes up as high as 2.2. My point is, there are no data showing that intakes higher than this offer further advantages from either fat mass loss which some people talk about or lean mass gain and emphasize lean mass. Right? It's it's not muscle. Nobody knows how much muscle, because people haven't done the right measures there
*And that means that I think that you know sort of other protein related variables are of much lower importance than total daily intake. And you know I'll give you a quick laundry list of things that probably don't matter protein timing, meal distribution, Leucine content a few other things like that
The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans (2023)
Jorn Trommelen, Glenn A.A. van Lieshout, Jean Nyakayiru, Andrew M. Holwerda, Joey S.J. Smeets, Floris K. Hendriks, Janneau M.X. van Kranenburg, Antoine H. Zorenc, Joan M. Senden, Joy P.B. Goessens, Annemie P. Gijsen, Luc J.C. van Loon
Stuart Phillips:
*But I think a lot of people have misunderstood what it means to have a difference between net whole body net, protein, balance and muscle
*It is the best example showing the per meal protein dose isn't as important as we once thought
*So this sort of you know, you've got to get this, and you've got to pulse it several times a day. I still don't think that's true anymore. And so this paper shows at least that that's the case
But then along comes this paper. So these are good friends of mine. I was actually Jorn's external examiner. So I'm responsible for, I guess, in part for unleashing in the packing in into the world here, as a Phd. Student, outstanding Guy great thinker, and his supervisor, his mentor, and a real good friend of mine, Luke Van Loon.
and you can see the title of the paper is A. It's a it's a catchy one. It says. The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration, like it's it just goes on forever, or at least it would seem.
and when you look at their abstract. They say we've got this dose response increase, but a large bolus of protein further increases whole body, protein, net balance, mixed muscle, mild for pillar, muscle, connective and plasma protein synthesis rates. So you know, a lot of people have talked a lot about this paper, and I'll give you my sort of quick. Take on this, and it's not to in any way dis findings here at all. But I think a lot of people have misunderstood what it means to have a difference between net whole body net, protein, balance and muscle. So we've only got the the synthetic side of the muscle processes here, and in a very short period of time.
But it says that the magnitude and duration of the anabolic response is not restricted as previously been underestimated, and I definitely think that that's the case. So maybe what I've been talking about for years is is incorrect. So here's my take on this paper first of all. And and I've said it about my own data. And and you know, just to acknowledge this, these are acute findings.
So the question is, do they translate into long term outcomes. But a lot of water was made on social media. But what this meant for muscle, masking, and etc., etc., etc., and you have no idea. This is, it's not a meal. Okay, it's just pure milk protein. So it's not, I mean, unless you sit down to milk protein which some of you might do but most people eat real food. And so it it's it's hard to know what this would actually mean. Now, if you take the title at face value and say there is no upper limit, and the duration is, you know, sort of seemingly endless. Then, if true. then more and more and and more protein would be get more and more and more obviously muscle mass and connected tissue and blood protein and everything else, and and we know that just doesn't happen. So you know there has to be a cap on this somewhere, and I I would suspect that if you kept eating this way is that all of the processes that, if you like, oxidize amino acids and dispose of amino nitrogen, because we know that they're up regulated would up, regulate, and essentially nullify this. So it's a it's an outstanding paper. I think it. You know. There's only one group in the world that could do this. And it's Luke's group, and you know, full credit to yarn. But I do think that this is something that's unique to the milk protein, which, remember, is 80% caseine, which is a slowly digested protein and it's an acute effect.
Now. So what can we take from this paper. Now, there are some interesting implications, because a lot of people ask about whether one meal a day was the better way to eat, and I would say, No, you know what you need a couple of meals, because there's a limit of cap. and I don't know if that's true anymore. So is one meal a day, feeding a good way to promote muscle mass gain compared to 2 to 3 meals a day, you know. Is this omat one meal a day, or, you know, sort of intermittent fasting. And again, people have done this. They gain muscle. Is it the optimal way to gain muscle. I'm not sure I I still sort of tend towards multiple meals, but maybe one meal per day is not bad, and and maybe you can maximize things. But what I do think this paper is. It is the best example showing the per meal. Protein dose isn't as important as we once thought.
So this sort of you know, you've got to get this, and you've got to pulse it several times a day. I still don't think that's true anymore. And so this paper shows at least that that's the case.
One of the things that we do know, however, and that's sort of critical when we talk about this, but I'm about to sort of blow it up a little bit, too, is that there's a key and critical amino acid in this process, and it's the amino acid. Leucine.
Leucine is a branch chain amino acid. I'm I'm sure y'all remember. That's what it looks like. We know how it works. It signals through this canonical signaling pathway the central hub of which is N. Tor to trigger protein synthesis work from David Sabatini's lab at Mit has given us a mechanism. For this it binds in a protein called sestin 2. And then this whole M. Tor complex is able to be turned on, and protein synthesis proceeds.
So how important is this amino acid? And I'll just give you some data or show you some data from our lab to sort of emphasize this.
This is work again, this Tyler church of Venez stuff, and we've got a negative control in this study. We've got. This is Mps post exercise and 6 grams away. So a very small dose. And then we've got a fairly large dose, not not a hundred grams like you have in the trombin study but 25 grams. So we thought at the time, this is gonna Max, the the process so, and then we had 6 grams of weight, to which we added 5 grams of crystalline leucine.
So what you can see is that is the rate of protein. Synthesis gets triggered by every intervention. Here doesn't matter but then, in the subsequent hours after exercise, this small dose is sort of sliding back towards baseline, because maybe it's rate limiting. You don't have enough amino acids, but the 25 gram doses doing just fine. In fact, it's up compared to the first 90 min. But so is the small dose when you've added Leucine back.and 5 grams of leucine is definitely overkill here. This is proof as a proof of concept meal. I wouldn't recommend trying to get 5 grams of leucine into that kind of beverage. It's it's a very bitter amino acid, and this just doesn't taste particularly good.
And a lot of people said, well, you know, I'm gonna try and do this. I'm gonna add leucine into here, and I'll sort of show you in a little bit is that I think that this is an important amino acid. But we're blowing the top off of the response right here. It's probably much less amino acid, much less of the Leucine that you need.
Now we have seen this work in in older men as well. This is Keelan. Murphy was a Phd. Student in my group at the time we had lower protein. This is the Rda. This is 1.2 grams, and every time we added Leucine, and this was a crystalline drink at every meal. This is the protein synthetic response, not over hours now, but actually over days. So this is a a deuterated water response is that leucine, elevated even in a rested condition. The rate of muscle protein synthesis. When you perform resistance, exercise as the crosses here indicate. Everything gets better. Exercise always amplifies the response, but Leucine added to resistance. Exercise amplifies it even further. So it works in the the guys in this study. We're about 70 years old.
This is work by Michaela Devree. She was a postdoc in my group at the time. In older women, and instead of supplementing it as at every meal. This was 2 leucine, containing beverages that were formulated to be relatively high in Leucine that these women consumed, and so they were consuming the same amount of protein, but we improved the quality of the protein in these older individuals, and so at rest.
The leucine beverage worked exercise always greater than no exercise, but adding, the Leucine got a little bit further.
So this has prompted us to propose this Leucine trigger hypothesis. Not just us. This is work that that Luke's lab contributed to. Bob Wolfe did some of this work as well. Blake Rasmussen has done some work, and and and definitely Doug Patton Jones, contributed to this as well, and it goes something like this is that the intracellular leucine concentration probably has to rise to a certain threshold or full. If you like. Trigger level, it's not an on off switch. It's a sort of a dimmer switch type. Response. saturate all the sites, probably on cessron to remove all the inhibition on that complex, and then you get a robust increase in muscle protein synthesis. But the trigger moves. In other words, if you exercise particularly loading exercise, then the threshold goes down. it only does it transiently, but when I say transiently, it might do it for as long as a day or 2, and so so long as you're exercising, you make yourself sensitive to the effects of protein and leucine, and you can actually get away with eating a little bit less loosing. You don't necessarily need more. You're more sensitive to the effects.but the sugar can go in the opposite direction.
If you're older, or even if you're younger, and you go on bed, rest, or you immobilize a leg, or if you have type, 2 diabetes, or you're suffering from systemic inflammation, then the trigger goes in the opposite direction. So you need more Leucine, or probably more practically, you need more protein to trigger this anabolic response.and just to emphasize to you that this is John Mathias work working at the University of Illinois, that proteins differ with respect to their quality. This is the digestible, indispensable amino acid score which is ostensibly the most useful. If you like. Way of scoring proteins, and we've got way proteins here. We've got milk proteins, and then you've got some soy proteins. You've got p protein. You've got wheat protein, and you can see that to emphasize like the this is really a reflection of the essential amino acid content that not all proteins are created equal. and to hold in on the amino acid that that we think is important. These, that this is way protein, isolate milk, protein concentrate. Here's 2 different soy proteins, a peat protein, a rice protein. And I've added collagen here just because, it appears in a lot of supplements, and a lot of people probably know of my lack of fondness for collagen, but that's because it's astonishingly low in Leucine here, so ostensibly, you would have to eat 4 times as much collagen to trigger the antibodies response that you can get with these proteins here. And yet there's some absolutely fantastic data showing that this is somehow an effective source of protein for muscle growth. I guess at this point, after showing you all these protein synthetic measures. And you know this is how this works, and Tor and leucine triggers, you might ask yourself, does all of this really matter?
Does protein supplementation have an effect? And you know, I'm from Mcmaster University? We like to think we're the home of of evidence-based medicine or evidence-based practice, or something like that. So I'm gonna give you an evidence based answer. And this comes from obviously not looking at individual studies. but from systematic reviews and Meta analyses. So this is this is Rob Morton. He was a Phd. Student, my group at the time when he, when he he did this study. And you can see a cast of I think some fairly noterous a a individuals there.and we're looking at the effect of protein supplementation over here on fat, free mass and then over here on strength to the one lift that was common. So this is a leg press. But let's just say that that's representative, that it was the lift that was common to most of these studies. So fat, free mass, first or fat and bone free, lean mass, which isn't muscle. And I think a lot of people get confused about that. People say, you know, Dexa gives us the is the gold standard for muscle. And and it's not. It's not at all. it's a proxy but protein supplementation. You can see if you can see the diamond here. It actually touches the 0 line and untrained people. And it's actually the trained folks that give us the significant effect. But it's there it's about point 3 kilos, or a little bit less than a pound. How much of that is muscle? I I'm not really sure. But let's you know.let's say half on average. So it's about a hundred 50 grams, so probably about a quarter of a pound of muscle. But but it's significant. But you need 1,800 individuals. That's what this comprises here to see the effect. So let's just say, on an individual study level, you can see here is that it's pretty difficult to pick it up when it comes to strength, one rn strength. This is in the leg press to gain nothing, and untrained, but mostly in trained you've got about an extra 2 and a half kilos here. So you know, this is a a II thought it was a fairly good systematic review met a meta analysis at the time. But you know these things outlive their usefulness, and they have to be updated. And so this is ever so Nunez, who's a postdoc in my group. And we just basically redid this, but actually added a few bells and whistles, not the least of which was to update the number of individuals. So we've got 74 randomized control trials here, 2,000 300 individuals.
Most of the studies are animal protein. They last or, excuse me, they're they're probably taking people from above the Rda, anyway, and and and emphasizing that by somewhere between 30 to 50 grams per day. Sometimes it comes from food. sometimes it comes from supplements. And you know the long and short is, is there is an effect of protein. It doesn't work. If you're just consuming protein and not lifting weights, it only works when you're lifting weights, at least in our hands, and I'll show you some data which differs from that but the effect is small. It's about a half a kilo difference here in lean mass again, not muscle. Try to emphasize that point. But it's there.
But you need 2,300 odd individuals to find that significant effect with the implication, then, that it's a pretty small effect. You can't actually find it in too many individual studies. It's a dose response, probably not surprising if you supplemented small doses. You didn't see it. So you got to less than 1.2 between 1.2 and 1.5 9, or almost 1.6 you saw the effect it actually only worked. If you were younger and not if you were older, that's or although it's excuse me, it is a small effect.
*And then, when you got into the higher doses here, you did see something that was greater. Statistically speaking, it's actually no greater than the overall effect. But you can argue about whether that's a big deal or not. Maybe it is. And there were some functional outcomes at least nothing that I would be too excited about. But you got a little bit stronger in the bench press and a few other lists. but to try and give you some context about how small or how large these effects are. I'm gonna come back to this Morton Meta analysis into a figure that we inserted into this paper that was kinda surprised that we actually got in, because and I'll show you why. And and it's this figure right here. So we've got total protein intake quoted against the change in fat, free mass.
*And we've we forced what's called a a biphasic linear regression equation through here. So the the line goes up for as long as it can, and then we're modeling it through here to the point where it plateaus you you could you could put a mono exponential curve on here? You actually get close to the same answer. But the point is here. At the point at which this curve in flex is supposed to be sort of the mean optimization of this outcome, if you like. And I've added the the 90% confidence intervals. So the uncertainty of this answer is that it could be as low as point 9 or as high as 2.2. Well, of course, everybody wants to pick up here, because just in case so 1.6 is clearly twice the Rda, so that is a substantial amount of protein.
*But it's not as high as 2.2, so 2.2 would be that one mythical bodybuilder, one gram per pound, 1.6 is about 0 point 7 grams per pound and clearly point 8 down here is about 0 point 4 grams per pound.
*The interesting part is is that that the overall relationship actually isn't statistically significant. So we weren't able to explain enough variance in using that approach that this curve was statistically significant. And but it's, you know. People have taken this and and run with it and said, You know why you go as high as 2.2. You know. You gotta believe your own data. And I'm like, well, you know, I try not to make too much about it, because this so go figuret o give us some more real world context. There's the change in one. Rm, people say, I'll take the 9, or I'll take the 27% in fat, free mass. But remember, this is the summed total of 2,000 odd individuals, and so you can argue whether you'll take it. You might be this person down here and very, very much buried in the variance, and and not have anything to sort of show for taking the extra protein. But on average you got about 27 extra. But realize that that's about 200 odd grams, which is about half a pound of fat free mass, which is a muscle.
What percent of muscle I'm I'm not able to tell you, but and a little bump in strength, at least for the leg press.
Now, a lot of people have sort of said, you've lived and died on that that break point analysis that we did in the 1.6. So I said, well, you know what we can remove the stringent criteria that we use for that curve.
In other words, we can include studies that didn't have a control group which is the ethos of how you compare to learn the effect of the intervention. You need a control group. You need an intervention group, and you look at the standardized mean difference between the outcomes of those 2 groups removing that stringent need to put all of those in there, and putting in some studies which only had a pre post measure, but used extraordinarily high protein intakes. You can come up with a different relationship, and I'll show you what happens when you include them.
So this is the curve, and the black dots are the the studies in which we had control groups. And then I've got some other studies here which are the open dots, and you can see these. These only have pre post measures.
But I can tell you the change in lean mass, because these guys reported here. Usually it comes from Dexa. Sometimes it comes from BIA, sometimes from Vod pod, sometimes the scores or or the result. Here is a composite of all of these things. So but let's just say, you know, from an illustrative perspective, is that the inflection point that occurs at 1.6. Here. This is, remember, this is the curve I showed you before actually shifts to the left, and occurs at about 1.2. When you include these these studies out here?
*And and these studies, you know 3 point almost 3 point. I think it was 3.3 or something, and 4.4 grams. They're the largest protein supplementation trials that we have. And you can see that there's absolutely no impact on lean mass. Here everybody goes. All it's above 0. And it's I'm not like Ashley. It's buried right in the measurement error. So it's it's actually non significantly different. So this is a study that recently came out. By bagarry. 16 weeks with high protein diets and concurrent training.
*And you can see that there's no impact here. This is an older study, but up to 4.4 grams per kilo per day, and and and no change in lean mass. So th these studies bend the curve right, even if you don't put these studies in here the inflection point is shifted to the left. Now, I know. You know, this is, you know, Sue's in ho in house if you like my version of the data. But stay tuned. There's some further analysis coming on this stuff here.
So just to talk to you a little bit about protein supplementation, hypertrophy. So first of all, I do think that optimization of adaptations requires greater than the Rda. But the intake that appears to optimize adaptations peaks at around 2 times the Rda.
*And even if you believe that it goes up as high as 2.2. My point is, there are no data showing that intakes higher than this offer. Further advantages from either fat mass loss which some people talk about or lean mass gain and emphasize lean mass. Right? It's it's not muscle. Nobody knows how much muscle, because people haven't done the right measures there.
*And that means that I think that you know sort of other protein related variables are of much lower importance than total daily intake. And you know I'll give you a quick laundry list of things that probably don't matter protein timing, meal distribution, Leucine content a few other things like that.
*Now a lot of people have said, well, you know what there's this other study. It's it's it uses splines. It doesn't use bipasic progression. So we just take a quick look at that. This is a paper that came out a couple of years ago. Now, 2021 and they've got 3 if you like, models here, and what they've done here is continuously fit the data. They don't actually show you the data points, but they've used the spline model here. In other words, they've iterated a curve that explains the maximum proportion of the variance in the outcome here, and the outcome is the change in fat, free mass or lean body mass. So again, not muscle, but a proxy thereof, and in 3 different conditions. This is all the studies. This is in studies that had resistance training. And this is like taking the resistance training out. And so essentially taking these studies out here.
Now, interestingly enough, if you look at the inflection point here it it's smaller. It's actually closer to about 1.3 grams and and not 1.6, and and you could argue that you know it still continues to go up. And and indeed these authors talk about the majority of the effect happening when you go from below the Rda to 1.3. But thi, this is statistically significant here. So there's still an upward trend in this curve. When they talk about that, they actually talk about. It's just these data. It's nothing.
Resistance training definitely, no resistance training. So this is great. These are interesting, but then you have to adjust the model for covariates. And so they did in this model here. So they've adjusted for age, sex, and the intervention period. So the the the duration of how long things are things stay pretty much the same. But actually the scale on this sort of graph. Here the curves begin to flatten out just a little bit, and particularly the resistance training curve. You could argue whether that's significant dollar. So delta of about a kilo in terms of fat, free mass. Here the interesting part is when they adjust, because they they included trials in this study that had a a weight, loss component. And so when you adjust for weight loss, this is what happens. So we've got age, sex intervention, period and weight change and the breakpoint effectively disappears. There's actually no relationship. It's not an upward direction Rt effectively is flat. And in fact, this always goes in the sort of opposite direction which is interesting, because it shows you that the more protein that you eat in a weight loss scenario without resistance training, you actually might not be doing yourself any favors.
So there's some things to consider from looking at this analysis, which gets cited a lot, and particularly on social media. I've had this pushed into my feed is evidence of a protein effect which seems to go on seemingly forever.
It's 68 Rcts evaluating lean body mass or fat, free mass the intervention period spanned as short as 2 weeks, but as long as 18 months. This was a weight loss, trial, with a mean of about 2020 weeks, but 41 of the 68 trials used an aggressive weight loss protocol. So I think that this is the reason why you're beginning to see some of these effects, and the effect of protein supplementation rapidly diminished after 1.3 grams per kilo, and resistance training markedly suppressed. This decline, which indicates again that it's lifting weights and not the protein supplementation that's having all the quote unquote muscle retention effects.
So the last part, I'm gonna finish with and before sort of reaching my conclusions here is, you know how how much muscle can you reasonably expect to gain a a. And I've I've read a lot of stuff on this and listen to a lot of people. And we still really don't have a great answer to this question here. So if you do a scan of websites and talks and Youtube videos, and you know, I've seen probably a lot of them, and maybe not all of them but and you ask people who work in gyms and maybe don't do as much science. This is what they will tell you. 4 to 12 kilos per year of of muscle. If you're a novice or 2 to 4 and a half kilos, if you're trained. Now, here's what we get in our lab, and I've looked at a number of other studies. It's about 2 to 8 kilos per year, or about one to 4, if you're trained, and so.you know, almost, I would say, a little less than half, or maybe a little more than half, but not quite as ambitious as some of these numbers right here. and one of the main reasons why I remained skeptical on this is that it's always dexa that measures lean mass in these outcomes here, and and it's not muscle mass. And and it's whether a a any of these individuals have undergone any form of scanning here other than maybe weight on a scale and sort of a mirror check, and not to say that you can't get people that push the outer envelope. But remember, these were sort of mean ranges, and I don't know that I've ever seen anybody gain that much in in a year ever unless they're getting exogenous support.
People talk about skeletal muscle. Mass. By BIA. It is an output of the machine. But it's a completely algorithm derived proxy estimate and and pointed out to people that body weight increases and strength gains are not reasonable or or accurate. Prose proxies. Excuse me of of muscle mass. So you know, my takeaway here is that nobody has a good or particularly accurate answer to this question, but working on a couple of approaches that hopefully will will yield some fruit in this area.
Oh, and just appreciating the the start here, you know, if you're you're unfamiliar with kilos, it is based. 10 should be easy, but 10 to 25 pounds, or 5 to 10 pounds. And this is the the research estimates closer to 4 to 18 pounds. I have seen this one time over about a year, and somebody that I trained in in another life.and I've seen that as well with people who have a long history of training and trying to maximize adaptations.
So some quick takeaways, protein supplementation augments hypertrophy. It is both sufficient. and it is necessary for that effect to occur. but the effect is small compared to just going to the gym and not supplementing with proteins. So the majority of the response comes from going to the gym.and not to, you know, sort of advertise a paper that I'm an author on. But you know, Nick Tiller and I wrote this I would say that Nick sort of said, Hey, you know, after he done the majority of the work. Come and join me on this paper, but we talk a little bit about trying to be not cynical about some of the estimates that we see, but definitely skeptical and trying to improve the overall sort of standards of the health and wellness industry. So some of the take home points that when I say to people.
You know, this is what you hear, read and see about protein. And you know, women need more protein. High protein foods need more muscle. Yeah. And and now it's all about women, because we know that women take less supplements. So people are trying to get them into the market, you know. Protein timing everything is, you know. If you have more muscle mass, you need to eat more protein engaged. The the effect here is absolutely trivial, but definitely more protein leads to more muscles.
So the the laundry list of takeaways and in terms of prioritizing maximizing muscle mass gains. First, you gotta go to the gym. You gotta go regularly. You gotta work towards a training goal with a plan that meets your aims and you work with a high degree of effort. When you're there. make sure you get enough energy to cover your needs, and if gains are your goal and put yourself in an energy surplus, how big of a surplus you decide. Just remember that the bigger the surplus, the more body fat you're gonna gain. But it definitely works. That's one and 2, and we haven't even talked about protein yet, but definitely emphasize daily protein up to about 1.6, or perhaps higher. If you're cutting weight, because everybody seems to think that they're cutting, and so 2 to 2.4 during this phase. But I don't see the advantage of going up this high here. This certainly it's not an insurance policy. I just don't see the benefit.
After this, things get pretty small, and the font size emphasizes their importance. Permal doses plant protein versus animal protein, particularly if you're getting these types of intakes of protein quality, maybe not as important as we thought. Timing. With respect to exercise definitely, probably occupying a very low rung on the ladder here. The rapidity of digestion. Even though people make a lot of noise about this, it has absolutely no influence on the on any of the outcomes. Collagen. It's a low quality filler protein. It definitely belongs down here. and the last one which you probably can't even read, but other miscellaneous protein related considerations. And yet somebody will still come up with something that I've never heard about with respect to protein and say that it's the unlock. And and and you know, this is definitely where I place that type of evidence, and it's definitely goes from an evidence to a belief base in terms of these recommendations.
madman
Super Moderator
Feel sorry for all those poor bastards wasting their money on absurd amounts of protein, let alone many of those garbage ass supplements/so called T-boosters in the hopes of packing on muscle!
Gets even worse with all those clowns abusing testosterone/AAS claiming its all diet and training let alone repping the supplement companies latest protein powder or mass gainer
LMFAO!
Pull the plug on those artificially inflated T levels and all you have left is what we call the incredible shrinking so called MAN!
The whole industry is a fucking SCAM!
Gets even worse when you have all these young men idolizing those fake ass chemically enhanced builds!
Sad fucking society we live in.
Gets even worse with all those clowns abusing testosterone/AAS claiming its all diet and training let alone repping the supplement companies latest protein powder or mass gainer
LMFAO!
Pull the plug on those artificially inflated T levels and all you have left is what we call the incredible shrinking so called MAN!
The whole industry is a fucking SCAM!
Gets even worse when you have all these young men idolizing those fake ass chemically enhanced builds!
Sad fucking society we live in.
Deleted member 43589
Well-Known Member
Live and let live Madman. Thank goodness the whole world is not like you and the rest of us feel free to take a different paths in life. Lots of professions include putting your life on the line and lots are willing to do the job. Most all of my family served in the military in war times and made very little money risking their life. Just because you choose not to go that route doesn't mean it is wrong for others yet you pass judgement? How about those steal workers who build skyscrapers?
Now ask yourself Madman, why is it so many pro-bodybuilders eat huge amounts of protein? Dorian Yates....since you brought him up. I speak to him when he comes to Houston every year at the Branch Warren Classic. Dorian aimed for 1.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight, which means he was eating over 400 grams of protein in the offseason. Far from what you posted isn't it? Maybe interviews aren't so true. I once said in an interview that I was drug free and got strong by eating. Everyone I trained with laughed. My friend who has benched over 1100lbs says he is drug free. Hulk Hogan said he just takes vitamins. Anyway Yates took in FAR over the Canadian recommendations of 1.6g/kg/bw. Phil Heath (7 x Olympia)...3.25g/lb/bw. Ronnie Coleman(8 x Olympia) 546 grams of protein each day, about 2g/lb/bw. Jay Cutler about the same. Dexter Jackson 400g/d. Mamdouh Elssbia about 500g/d. Why is it all of these WINNERS all eat high amounts of protein Madman. Despite YOU and a the Canadian PhD, claiming they are wasting their time and money? Again, maybe science should quit wasting their time telling WINNERS in sport what they are doing is wrong and find out what they get results from doing what they do.
Wasting money of protein supplements? I spend maybe $300--$400 every year of my life. I would rather spend that money than spend $35 on a ribeye steak. Dollar for dollar, I come out way ahead financially buying protein rather than getting ripped off by the mean industry. Fish is way over priced, chicken is ridiculous as it pork.
Madman, you live in a self-righteous world were you justify your use of anabolic steroids while you criticize others who have their own justifications. Whether you like it or not, anabolic steroids have been a big part of sports for several decades. Name the sport and you have the best who are using some kind of PED. Most are smart enough to get around the best of drug testing.
When the amount to money and fame you can get from being the best in sport is so high, MOST will do what ever it take to win. That the object of ALL sports. The "fake ass chemically enhanced builds" you criticize, whether you like it or not have made the fitness industry what it is today. The popularity of the fitness industry is working hard to change the sedentary lifestyles all over the world that have lead to so many diseases. his popularity got started by the few chemically enhanced, protein eaters back as far as the ancient Greeks. Not sure how old you are but I started out working out in a old chicken shed in the 70's and still remember when women were not allowed in gyms. We did not lift weight in high school sports because they made you bulky. Of course the biggest guy on the field was not much over 200lbs. Take a look at any sport. Athletes are bigger, stronger and faster that they were 50 years ago. Diet, training, and drugs.
Now coming from a guy who was one of the best in his sport and also well involved in exercise science and sports nutrition industry, what I despise the most is these PhD's that tell athletes that they don't have a clue what they are doing because their research shows they are wrong. Yet athletes keep doing what the do and win. These guys who You put on such a high pedestal need to take off their self-righteous white coats long enough to find out why the best in any sport get the results they do. We don't know near as much as YOU and some Phd's think we know about why the body works the way it does. In fact, after all of these years, the sliding filament theory is still just a theory.
Why is it for 1000's of years the best athletes have always consumed huge amounts of protein? Despite that, the last 50 years nutritionists and scientist keep saying they are wrong? I was told by my nutrition professor creatine would kill you. Yet, 40 years later I am still using it. Another PHd. told me protein supplements were not food. Obviously she didn't know how protein is made. I grew up on a farm so I know well. Same people who pushed the food guild pyramid off on us and told us high protein would shut down your kidneys, eat high carbs, now we have a country of fat slobs. Is it little wonder why ATHLETES quit listening? We were told by Phd's that anabolic steroids would not enhance athletics. Yet athletes keep doing them anyway. We were also told that steroids kill. Why is it athletes keep doing large amounts of anabolic steroids and stay healthy despite people like YOU saying it can't be done.
My wife who was national champion and pro-bodybuilder and has done anabolic steroids for over 3 decades just got a huge exam both cardiorespiratory and vascular. The results as written by the team of doctors, described her as exceptionally HEALTHY. Absolutely no problem with the lungs, vascular system or heart. Despite her team doctor in Argentina putting her on doses of anabolic steroids that most men don't do, despite the continued use for over 3 decades, despite the consumption of huge amounts of protein, she is extremally healthy for a woman of 61 years. I know so many other ex-pros athletes who fit the same profile. The biggest problem most high level athletes have is the damage they do to their body structurally from years of hard training.
I have a hard time trying to figure out why you are so critical of other's views. You also have been very outspoken against medical doctors who also don't preach what you preach, even highly published urologist who put many of their patients on higher doses of anabolic steroids. Have you ever been an athlete? Ever published research? Are you a medical doctor? What exactly are your qualifications? I have absolutely no problem listing mine. What gives you the right to be so critical of others and pass judgement? Seems your options are just as good or bad as anyone here. Try to not get so personal with your defense of other peoples research. I have been highly involve in board like this since the early 90 when USENET was popular and its sad to see a guy who posts so much research and is a moderator of the board get abusive with the people who come here to learn.
"garbage ass supplements/so called T-boosters in the hopes of packing on muscle!"
Really Madman, who takes T-boosters? Lots of pro-bodybuilder make huge amounts of money repping for supplement companies. Only an idiots believes everything they see advertised. Its a job. Unfortunately, I never got the chance to rep supplements because no one is interested in seeing a 290lb powerlifter on a supplement. But the money is good. So what's the problem? Pro sports are jobs. These guys in all professional sports are in it to make money. Tire companies used pro NASCAR and drag to do research on the tires we use on our cars. They value the opinions and ideas being used in pro sports. Yet YOU turn a blind eye to what PRO's in bodybuilding are doing. These guys are experts in diet and experts in training for hypertrophy. Yet they are clowns?
"Pull the plug on those artificially inflated T levels and all you have left is what we call the incredible shrinking so called MAN!"
So your TRT test level is not artificial? I know mine is because I inject TU to get the levels I have. At 68 years old my NATURAL levels would be far less as your would be. Now granted I am not as strong as I was or as big as I was using 250mg of TE but incredible shrinking man I was not. I dropped from 290 to 240 because I quit eating 10,000cal/d and quit lifting heavy weight. My numbers in sport got where they were because of years worth the incredibly hard work and dedication. I did not go to parties when I was young, dated little because while most were out, I was in the gym, while most were on dates, I was competing. My wife and I spent our honeymoon in the gym because I had a contest to get ready for. Shrink Madman.....I still weight over 240lb and have a bodyfat under 10%. Not sure what plug was pulled. I never knew on professional in any sport that did not believe the AAS they took helped. That is why so many have learned through years of trial and error what works with their genetics. Madman, it is obvious you know little about athletes.
"Sad fucking society we live in."
Really? Just because we have the freedom to make choices that YOU don't agree with?
madman
Super Moderator
Pull up all those pics of the real strong men decades before synthetic T/AAS came on the scene.
Natty genetic potential at it's finest!
Where is the shitshow at now?
Bunch of fucking circus clowns!
You mean body FAKE builders!
I even flipped it so it sinks in your dome.
You know that chemically enhanced look that one could never achieve let alone maintain natty.
You are always going to be bigger, stronger, have fuller muscles due to increased glycogen/water, be able to train longer and harder with enhanced recovery to boot.
No one is going to deny that you need to put in the effort (diet/training) let alone your genetics will have the final say when it comes to making gains from abusing testosterone/AAS but the use of such compounds (dose/compounds used) is the MAIN DRIVER that allows one to gain muscle beyond their genetic set-point or better yet well beyond their natural genetic potential.
Something you could never achieve or maintain natty even with and all out effort when it comes to your diet/training let alone even if one had top tier genetics!
Not a fucking chance!
Yes pull the fucking plug and again all you have left is what we call the incredible shrinking so called man.
Night and fucking day here!
Sadly this turns out to be a lifelong commitment whether cycling, blasting/cruising in order to maintain that look.
There is no such thing as a one and done or dabbling temporarily.
Yes there is always a price to pay when it comes to your long-term heath one way or another especially when it comes to cardiovascular/brain health.
There is a big difference between use/abuse when it comes to testosterone/AAS and the amount of chemical warfare used when it comes to amateur let alone professional bodybuilding (doses/compounds/ancillaries to numerous to list) is beyond ridiculous and plays absolutely no part in long-term health.
Chemically enhanced professional athletes are only getting their feet wet when compared to amateur/professional bodybuilders.
Yes we are running around with artificially inflated T seeing this is an HRT forum we are using exogenous T to treat fucking hypogonadism and improve our overall health/well-being!
Far cry from the artificially inflated T levels of one abusing T/AAS for the sole purpose of gaining muscle/strength well beyond one's natty genetic potential!
Now getting back to the needing to consume an absurd amount of protein well beyond 1.6 g/kg/day to gain muscle nonsense!
Before shooting off at the mouth if you listened to the full webinar you would have known he was not emphasizing anything to do with athletes abusing high doses T/AAS!
Nattys let alone anyone using therapeutic doses of T, professional athletes can easily get away with 1 g/lb LBM when in a caloric surplus!
Even then as I stated previously anyone abusing high doses of T/AAS taking in >2 g/lb/day is overfucking kill especially when in a caloric surplus!
Break point = 1.62 g protein/kg/day p= 0.079*
Solid arrow indicates 95% CI (1.03 to 2.20)
You get the fucking jist!
*Emphasize daily protein intake up to 1.6 g protein/kg/d or perhaps higher if cutting weight - 2.2-2.4 g protein/kg/d but don't expect miracles!
Forget the Canadian PHD lets kick some Alan Aragon!
So let me take a guess here you are going to tell me Aragon has no clue what he is talking about?
Where is that needing much >1 g/lb/day for the natty, men using therapeutic dose of T let alone professional athletes?
Better yet where is that chemically enhanced bodybuilders needing >2 g/lb/day?
Dorian made it loud and clear that he rarely took in >1 g/lb/LBM and yes this is from a recent interview!
Again he mainly manipulated his carbs/fats offseason/pre-contest.
He has nothing to hide here especially when it comes to a fucking macronutrient!
Take home points from Aragon's summary:
• Maximizing muscle growth requires a sustained caloric surplus (muscle growth can still occur without a surplus, it just won’t be maximized).
• Based on the collective longitudinal research that directly assessed body composition, total daily protein intake for maximizing muscle gain is 1.6-2.2 g/kg of total bodyweight (0.7-1.0 g/lb).24
• Alternatively, 2.2 g/kg FFM (1.0 g/lb FFM) can be put to trial and adjusted according to individual response.
Straight to the point here!
*Important side-note: a common misconception is that since resting muscle burns about 13 kcal/kg (6 kcal/lb) per day,23 only a tiny surplus is required to build muscle. Under that presumption, the surpluses in the above table might seem too large. However, aside from the research evidence showing otherwise,22 I would encourage you to head over to the July 2020 issue of AARR, and read the article titled, A pound of muscle burns [X] calories per day: facts, fallacies, & applications. In that article, I discuss the various components of energy expenditure increases involved with the process of building new muscle tissue. The resting value of 13 kcal/kg does not account for non-exercise & exercise activity increases, and thus should not be used for programming caloric surpluses for muscle growth. So, assuming we’ve got the right caloric surplus in place, maximizing muscle growth can be achieved with 1.6-2.2 g/kg (0.7-1.0 g/lb). This range is derived from Morton et al,24 who conducted the largest meta-analysis to date on the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength. I was fortunate enough to be one of the collaborators in this paper. Here’s a key passage from the discussion section which I snipped for brevity: “Here we provide significant insight by reporting an unadjusted plateau in RET-induced gains in FFM at 1.62 g protein/kg/day - 20 -(95% CI: 1.03 to 2.20). […] Given that the confidence interval of this estimate spanned from 1.03 to 2.20, it may be prudent to recommend ~2.2 g protein/kg/d for those seeking to maximise resistance training-induced gains in FFM.” With all this said, there are a few caveats to consider before taking the results as unassailable gospel. Note that this analysis excluded trials involving hypocaloric conditions, which have their own protein requirements (discussed in Chapter 8). It also did not focus specifically on highly trained, athletic, or competitive populations – let alone advanced trainees on ergogenic supplementation and/or drugs. Furthermore, protein needs based on total body mass are presumptive about body composition, when clearly there’s wide variability in the proportions of lean mass and fat mass between individuals. Nevertheless, Morton et al’s findings were echoed in subsequent research by Bandegan et al,25 who found a protein requirement of 1.7-2.2 g/kg in bodybuilders on a non-training day, using the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique. Using the same method, Mazzulla et al26 reported that resistance-trained men required 2.01-2.38 g/kg. Current bodyweight vs. target bodyweight vs. lean mass Protein requirements based on total bodyweight predominate the peer reviewed literature; it’s actually quite rare to find - 21 -publications that issue recommendations based on lean mass (typically denoted as fat-free mass or FFM). Total body weight based protein recommendations are typically issued under the presumption of normal-weight individuals. The pitfall here is that it’s possible to overshoot or undershoot estimated needs if someone is highly over- or underweight. A simple solution to this, which also circumvents the need to estimate body composition, is to base protein intake on goal bodyweight or target bodyweight. Use your current weight to estimate protein needs if you’re seeking to maintain current weight. Otherwise, base your estimations on target bodyweight. This is an effective way of approximating lean mass, with a built-in margin of safety. A quick-and-dirty estimate of protein needs that doesn’t factor bodyweight into the calculation is basing your protein gram target on your height in centimeters (multiply inches by 2.54). If you run the numbers on this, you’ll find that it’s in the right ballpark for taller folks, but shoots high for shorter individuals. As such, it tends to overestimate the protein needs of women who are not particularly tall. For those who are hell-bent on basing protein intake on lean mass or fat-free mass (FFM), a reasonable range for maximizing muscle growth is 1.8-2.6 g/kg FFM. This range is - 22 - derived from IAAO data in recent studies I discussed in the October 2019 issue of AARR. To simplify things, a target of 2.2 g/kg FFM (1.0 g/lb FFM) shoots right in the middle of the ‘optimal’ range. This is a safe baseline target for the goal of muscle gain. Like any programming variable, this would need to be put to trial and adjusted as needed.
Protein Book | AlanAragon.com
alanaragon.com
Chapter 1
Hierarchy of importance (start here, then skip through the book as you wish) Welcome! Welcome, and thank you for cracking open this little beast. In the odd case that you’re reading this, yet you don’t know who I am or why I’m worth listening to, here is my bio, and here are my peer reviewed publications. The content of this book is meticulously compiled from the current state of the scientific evidence combined with nearly three decades of field experience. I’m proud to say that I’ve co-authored several of the key research publications that have shaped the current practice guidelines on protein intake for sports and fitness oriented populations. The aim of this book is to provide a highly focused, fluff-free resource that concisely answers the most frequently asked protein questions I’ve encountered throughout my career as a trainer, nutritional counselor, researcher, and educator. So yes, get excited. Get very excited. Hierarchy of importance Here’s the crux of why I wanted you to read this introductory section first. Without maintaining the proper big-picture -5- perspective, the smaller details will lack meaning and context. As you go through the material, keep in mind that there’s an underlying order of importance when it comes to the various aspects about protein. From most to least important, the ranking is as follows (keep in mind that these are specific to protein; this hierarchy does not apply to all nutrients): 1) Total daily protein amount. For most of you reading this, getting total daily amount right is the most influential factor. Still, for a minority of individuals with very limited options, it’s theoretically possible to get total daily intake right, but lack quality (sufficient essential amino acids within bioavailable contexts1). We’ll be operating under the assumption that quality of the dietary protein sources is high overall. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, total daily amount is king. 2) Distribution of protein through the day – in other words, the spread or pattern of intake, including number of feedings and protein dose per meal. The impact of a more evenly spread versus skewed pattern, or a low vs. high feeding frequency, or a narrow versus broad feeding window depends on the individual goal. Nevertheless, these aspects -6-of within-day distribution are of distantly secondary importance compared to total daily amount. 3) Timing of protein relative to the training bout. For most goals, this factor has the least impact, especially in the context of programs with typical protein feeding distributions amounting to the proper daily total. Exceptions where protein timing relative to the training bout warrants attention are programs with very low meal frequency (e.g., 1-2 meals per day). In the latter case, the positioning/timing of protein can potentially influence rates of progress. The finer details of these concepts are elucidated in subsequent chapters. Caveats Keep in mind that nutritional needs vary across the stages of the human life cycle, well as different disease states. The protein requirements discussed in this book apply to healthy adults, unless specified otherwise. With that out of the way, let’s dive in! -7-
Chapter 2
How much protein does the general public habitually consume? A common statement made by professors throughout my college experience was that protein supplements (and the push for greater protein intakes in fitness-related media) are a scam because people already consume more than enough protein. A more nuanced approach to this topic shows that different goals warrant different protein intakes. So, this claim always set off my skepticism sensors. The latest protein consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)2 shows that men aged 19-50 years consume 101.2-109.5 g/day. Using NHANES data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that the average bodyweight of men in the US is 89.8 kg.3 This amounts to an average protein intake of approximately 1.17 g/kg in men. NHANES data for women aged 19-50 years showed an intake of 70.3-72.9 g/day.2 The CDC reported an average body weight of 77.4 kg.3 This works out to a protein intake of approximately 0.92 g/kg in women. Both of these protein intakes (1.17 & 0.92 g/kg in men & women, respectively) exceed the Recommended Daily -8- Allowance (RDA) for protein, which is 0.8 g/kg.4 So, by that standard, my professors were correct. The general public’s protein intake exceeds the “official” public health guideline. The problem is that the RDA is insufficient to meet the needs of a substantial proportion of the general population, and it comes up short for practically all dieting and athletic populations. The following chapters cover the RDA’s shortcomings in more detail. -9-
Chapter 3
How much protein is needed to maintain health in the general population? Ancient & tenacious The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for protein is 0.8 g/kg.4 Notably, this figure was derived from nitrogen balance studies on sedentary individuals. It formally became part of the public health guidelines in 1980. It’s now 2021, and the RDA for protein hasn’t changed; no adjustments for athletes or physically active individuals, no increase for the elderly. Forty years is a long time for a guideline as important as protein intake to be outdated, despite a mountain of research showing benefits of greater intakes across virtually all populations. But, this is pretty much the normal (glacial) pace of conventional wisdom when it comes to altering established nutrition rules in general. Moving forward The research community’s call to re-evaluate the RDA has been ongoing and vigorous. A memorable 2009 review by Donald Layman,5 one of the pioneers of protein research in physically active subjects, was blatantly titled, Dietary Guidelines should reflect new understandings about adult protein needs. This was - 10 - perhaps the first paper to address the RDA’s lack of contingencies for protein needs based on the state of energy balance. Layman accurately contended that protein requirements are inversely proportional to energy intake. In other words, protein requirements increase in the face of hypocaloric (energy deficit) conditions, which pose an inherent threat to lean mass preservation. Furthermore, Layman noted beneficial effects on calcium metabolism and bone health at protein intakes above 1.2 g/kg. Protein requirements for the general adult population are largely focused on preserving lean mass in compromising conditions such as dieting and aging (separate goals from getting jacked or enhancing athletic performance, covered elsewhere in this book). A review by Lonnie et al6 relayed the collective guidelines of the International PROT-AGE Study Group and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) for individuals over age 65, which are as follows: 1.0-1.2 g/kg for healthy folks, 1.2-1.5 g/kg for those with acute or chronic illnesses, and 2.0 g/kg for those with severe illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition. A review by Phillips et al7 took direct aim at the RDA, focusing on protein needs for optimizing health and longevity, arriving - 11 -at a recommendation of 1.2-1.6 g/kg. This recommendation was inclusive of the general adult population, from younger to older. On the more generous end, Pencharz et al8 proposed an intake of 1.5-2.2 g/kg. Interestingly this recommendation pertained to the general population (not strength athletes or bodybuilders). However, their reasoning for this range was based, in part, on the Institute of Medicine’s Acceptable Daily Macronutrient Range (ADMR) of 10-35% of total energy intake,9 which carries a high degree of subjectivity. As is typical in research, the recommendations vary according to different perspectives and interpretations of the data. Among these recommendations, the intake range best supported by the research evidence for the healthy, not necessarily-athletic-nor-dieting general public is Phillips et al’s proposed guideline of 1.2-1.6 g/kg.7 In Imperial terms, this translates to 0.54-0.72 g/lb.- 12 -
Chapter 4: How much protein do high-level competitive athletes habitually consume?
Strength/power athletes Gillen et al10 reported that elite-level Dutch strength athletes (71 subjects) had a protein intake that averaged 1.8 g/kg in those who used protein supplements, and 1.5 g/kg in those who did not. Slater and Phillips10 relayed the reported intakes of various strength/power athletes at the elite, national, and international levels as follows:
Throwing: Sprinting: Weightlifting:
Men 1.3-2.4 g/kg 1.5 g/kg 1.3-3.2 g/kg
Women 1.1-2.5 g/kg 1.7 g/kg [no data]
Bodybuilders
Slater and Phillips11 reported that the protein intakes of elite level male and female bodybuilders was 1.7-2.4 g/kg & 1.5-2.0 g/kg, respectively. A systematic review by Spendlove et al12 reported a range of 157 g/day (1.9 g/kg/day) to 406 g/day (4.3 g/kg/day) among a mix of drug-free and enhanced competitive bodybuilders. Chappell et al13 reported that in high-level drug free bodybuilders, pre-contest protein intakes of men and - 13 -women who placed in the top-5 were 3.3 & 2.8 g/kg, respectively. Protein intake of men and women who placed out of the top-5 were 2.7 & 2.9 g/kg, respectively. Body composition was not reported in this study, so no intakes based on fat-free mass can be reported.
Mixed/team sports
Team sports fall somewhere in the middle of the strength endurance continuum, with a mix of demands and energy system contributions on that continuum. In a large sample of elite-level team sport athletes (242 subjects), Gillen et al10 found that protein intake averaged 1.6 g/kg in subjects who used protein supplements, and 1.4 g/kg in those who did not.
A systematic review by Jenner et al14 reported the intakes of various professional & semi-professional mixed/team sports athletes as follows: Football (soccer): Australian football: Rugby union: Wheelchair basketball: Volleyball: Ice hockey:
Men 1.9-2.0 g/kg 1.8-3.4 g/kg 2.2-2.7 g/kg 1.7 g/kg [no data] [no data]
Women [no data] [no data] [no data] [no data] 0.9 g/kg 1.4 g/kg
- 14 -Endurance athletes
Finally, we have our quirky friends who just love to see how far they can push the limits of their fuel tanks. A classic review by Tarnopolsky et al15 reported protein intakes ranging 1.0-2.2 g/kg among high-level male and female endurance athletes. More recently, Burke et al16 reported that in elite-level Australian endurance athletes (4 canoeists, 2 cyclists, 11 distance runners, 3 kayakers, 9 rowers, 9 swimmers, and 3 walkers), protein intake averaged 1.9 g/kg.- 15 -
Chapter 5: How much protein maximizes athletic performance?
The following table outlines the latest position stands of the major nutrition (& exercise) organizations on protein requirements for athletic populations. The protein recommendation of the ISSN17 has been the same since their initial position stand on this topic in 2007; they were a bit ahead of the game. The current recommendation of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Dietitians of Canada, and American College of Sports Medicine18 has been increased since their previous statement in 2009, where the range was 1.2-1.7 g/kg. POSITION STANDS ON PROTEIN INTAKE FOR ATHLETIC GOALS Publication Population Recommendation Jäger R, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017 Jun 20;14:20. [PubMed]
Physically active individuals, including competitive and recreational athletes aiming to enhance muscular strength, endurance, or size
1.4-2.0 g/kg Thomas DT, et al. Position of the AND, DC, & ACSM: Nutrition and Athletic Performance. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016 Mar;116(3):501528. [PubMed]
Competitive athletes in a range of sports spanning the “Higher intakes may be strength-endurance indicated for short periods continuum during intensified training or when reducing energy intake.”
“Higher protein intakes (2.3-3.1 g/kg/d) may be needed to maximize the retention of lean body mass in resistance-trained subjects during hypocaloric periods.” 1.2-2.0 g/kg - 16 -
Caveats to accepting the position stands as gospel Although the position stands of the above organizations represent the weight of the evidence, this doesn’t mean that they are indisputable. The indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique is a validated method used for determining indispensable amino acids in humans.19 Recent studies using the IAAO technique have shown protein requirements greater than the low-end of the protein ranges listed in the position stands. Kato et al20 found that in endurance athletes on a training day had an estimated average requirement of 1.65 g/kg. More recently, Bandegan et al21 reported that the estimated average protein requirement in endurance-trained subjects in the 24-hour post-trained period was 2.1 g/kg. The latter findings call into question the recommendations of the current position stands on protein intakes for athletes, especially the allowance of intakes as low as 1.2-1.4 g/kg. Based on the current evidence, I would not recommend dipping below 1.6 g/kg for competitive athletes, or recreational athletes who take winning seriously.- 17 -
Chapter 6: How much protein maximizes muscle gain?
Let’s talk about growth for a moment Alright, so what about protein needs for muscle growth? This question is not all that simple. For maximizing muscle growth (also called muscle anabolism or hypertrophy), even the most carefully optimized protein intake is just part of the picture. In order to prime the physiological environment for growth, hypercaloric conditions (a caloric surplus) must be sustained. While muscle growth is indeed possible in caloric maintenance and deficit conditions, growth cannot be maximized unless a surplus of energy is consumed. Hypocaloric conditions compromise nutrient & energy availability. This suppresses anabolic signaling and muscle protein synthesis (MPS), ultimately compromising the rate of muscle growth. Hypocaloric conditions can tip the balance of turnover toward muscle protein breakdown (MPB). In contrast, hypercaloric conditions facilitate the opposite. Sustaining a caloric surplus drives muscle growth by not only increasing anabolic signaling and MPS, but also supporting the escalating demands of progressive resistance training volume. - 18 -
Just what kind of caloric surplus is needed, you ask? The answer is, it depends on the population. Beginners and more advanced trainees have different requirements. The following table is a summary of the energy surplus guidelines from a recent paper I co-authored with Brad Schoenfeld:22 CALORIC SURPLUS GUIDELINE SUMMARY Population/training Magnitude of Nature of the surplus status the surplus Untrained/novice Approximately Greater potential benefit of a or deconditioned 20-40% above predominance of carbohydrate due to maintenance higher total energy surplus capacity. needs (~500 Surplus should include a minimum 1000 kcal) protein dose of approximately 20-40 g (or at least ~0.4 g/kg of total bodyweight). Trained/more Approximately advanced; closer to 10-20% above maximum potential maintenance needs (~250-500 kcal)
Lesser potential benefit of carbohydrate predominance due to lower total energy surplus capacity. Surplus should include a minimum protein dose of approximately 20-40 g (or at least ~0.4 g/kg of total bodyweight).
Notes & caveats First and foremost, a caloric surplus for muscle gain must be built upon a foundation of sufficient total daily protein and energy intake. In general, for optimizing high-intensity fueling requirements of progressive resistance training, an energy surplus should focus on increasing carbohydrate. However, increased proportions of protein can be employed depending on how cautiously one wants to court the potential for concurrent fat gain. More advanced trainees closer to their potential have less room for surplus energy partitioning into lean tissue, and thus may choose to employ protein-focused surpluses. Regardless of training status, individuals cautiously avoiding fat gain might also benefit from this tactic. - 19 -
Important side-note: a common misconception is that since resting muscle burns about 13 kcal/kg (6 kcal/lb) per day,23 only a tiny surplus is required to build muscle. Under that presumption, the surpluses in the above table might seem too large. However, aside from the research evidence showing otherwise,22 I would encourage you to head over to the July 2020 issue of AARR, and read the article titled, A pound of muscle burns [X] calories per day: facts, fallacies, & applications. In that article, I discuss the various components of energy expenditure increases involved with the process of building new muscle tissue. The resting value of 13 kcal/kg does not account for non-exercise & exercise activity increases, and thus should not be used for programming caloric surpluses for muscle growth. So, assuming we’ve got the right caloric surplus in place, maximizing muscle growth can be achieved with 1.6-2.2 g/kg (0.7-1.0 g/lb). This range is derived from Morton et al,24 who conducted the largest meta-analysis to date on the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength. I was fortunate enough to be one of the collaborators in this paper. Here’s a key passage from the discussion section which I snipped for brevity: “Here we provide significant insight by reporting an unadjusted plateau in RET-induced gains in FFM at 1.62 g protein/kg/day - 20 -(95% CI: 1.03 to 2.20). […] Given that the confidence interval of this estimate spanned from 1.03 to 2.20, it may be prudent to recommend ~2.2 g protein/kg/d for those seeking to maximise resistance training-induced gains in FFM.” With all this said, there are a few caveats to consider before taking the results as unassailable gospel. Note that this analysis excluded trials involving hypocaloric conditions, which have their own protein requirements (discussed in Chapter 8). It also did not focus specifically on highly trained, athletic, or competitive populations – let alone advanced trainees on ergogenic supplementation and/or drugs. Furthermore, protein needs based on total body mass are presumptive about body composition, when clearly there’s wide variability in the proportions of lean mass and fat mass between individuals. Nevertheless, Morton et al’s findings were echoed in subsequent research by Bandegan et al,25 who found a protein requirement of 1.7-2.2 g/kg in bodybuilders on a non-training day, using the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique. Using the same method, Mazzulla et al26 reported that resistance-trained men required 2.01-2.38 g/kg. Current bodyweight vs. target bodyweight vs. lean mass Protein requirements based on total bodyweight predominate the peer reviewed literature; it’s actually quite rare to find - 21 -publications that issue recommendations based on lean mass (typically denoted as fat-free mass or FFM). Total body weight based protein recommendations are typically issued under the presumption of normal-weight individuals. The pitfall here is that it’s possible to overshoot or undershoot estimated needs if someone is highly over- or underweight. A simple solution to this, which also circumvents the need to estimate body composition, is to base protein intake on goal bodyweight or target bodyweight. Use your current weight to estimate protein needs if you’re seeking to maintain current weight. Otherwise, base your estimations on target bodyweight. This is an effective way of approximating lean mass, with a built-in margin of safety. A quick-and-dirty estimate of protein needs that doesn’t factor bodyweight into the calculation is basing your protein gram target on your height in centimeters (multiply inches by 2.54). If you run the numbers on this, you’ll find that it’s in the right ballpark for taller folks, but shoots high for shorter individuals. As such, it tends to overestimate the protein needs of women who are not particularly tall. For those who are hell-bent on basing protein intake on lean mass or fat-free mass (FFM), a reasonable range for maximizing muscle growth is 1.8-2.6 g/kg FFM. This range is - 22 - derived from IAAO data in recent studies I discussed in the October 2019 issue of AARR. To simplify things, a target of 2.2 g/kg FFM (1.0 g/lb FFM) shoots right in the middle of the ‘optimal’ range. This is a safe baseline target for the goal of muscle gain. Like any programming variable, this would need to be put to trial and adjusted as needed.
Summing up
• Maximizing muscle growth requires a sustained caloric surplus (muscle growth can still occur without a surplus, it just won’t be maximized).
• Based on the collective longitudinal research that directly assessed body composition, total daily protein intake for maximizing muscle gain is 1.6-2.2 g/kg of total bodyweight (0.7-1.0 g/lb).24
• Women typically carry significantly more body fat than men, so shooting lower on this range might be more appropriate as a starting point from which to adjust according to results.
• Remember to use target body weight if you’re highly over or underweight.
• Alternatively, 2.2 g/kg FFM (1.0 g/lb FFM) can be put to trial and adjusted according to individual response.
- 23 -
Deleted member 43589
Well-Known Member
Madman, I am not sure yet why I bothered replying to anything you post. After you showing your ignorance on women and testosterone I thought I had learned my lesson.
These studies are really cool, but I can promise you are no professional athletes that are wasting their time participating in any research studies. It only takes time away from what they do to win. I can assure you what researchers call "elite" the rest of us refer to as wannabes. You keep believing in what your are reading. In the real world I can assure you, things are much different.
I remember a professor of biomechanics who did an analysis on the sprint form of Usain Bolt. The results, his trainer was told Usain had terrible form and would do better changing. The trainer told him to get lost. So here we go with another PhD who has never run a sprint in his life telling the world's all time fastest 200 meter sprinter that he is doing it wrong. What arrogance. Why didn't he didn't taking the time to learn more about biomechanics and figure out why it is Usain gets the results he gets? But like many in science, they think they know it all. This is the kind of arrogance I see from people like YOU and this Phd in Canada.
Research is a creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge. Note the words INCREASE THE STOCK OF KNOWLEDGE? Go tell you Canadian Phd friend that guys that I know who ARE professional bodybuilders laugh at people like him, as well as people like you who give advice and have absolutely no qualifications to do so. Pal, you are just a moderator of this board, not an expert in anything. I seems kind of odd you call these guys CLOWNS when most all the guys winning the Mr Olympia alone are taking home quite a lot of money for their work:
While I never got paid at all, I know well how my career completely changed when I started eating more calories and more protein. I got that suggestion from the late Louis Simmons (not a Phd.) Never took more than 250mg of test enanthate. But for a man who was in his late 40's, started out at 6'1" and weighted 150lbs, ending up being #1 in the 275's and #2 in the 308's in one year (2001) I was able to do what people like you and many PhD would say couldn't be done. I took 20 years of trial and error. By the time people get to this level they have changed every variable as many times as they can be changed and found out what combination really works. Its different for everyone.
I met Jay Cutler (4xOlympia) when he won the Nationals back in the 96's. He turned pro and is now worth over $30 million dollars. The guy was a working grunt before going pro, 28 years later he is retired and rolling in money. Oh, still alive after the huge doses you say people can't live through.
The great thing about education Madman, is we are humbled to learn how much we really don't know. You have closed eyes because you think you know it all. Sad, because there is so much to learn in one life time.
These studies are really cool, but I can promise you are no professional athletes that are wasting their time participating in any research studies. It only takes time away from what they do to win. I can assure you what researchers call "elite" the rest of us refer to as wannabes. You keep believing in what your are reading. In the real world I can assure you, things are much different.
I remember a professor of biomechanics who did an analysis on the sprint form of Usain Bolt. The results, his trainer was told Usain had terrible form and would do better changing. The trainer told him to get lost. So here we go with another PhD who has never run a sprint in his life telling the world's all time fastest 200 meter sprinter that he is doing it wrong. What arrogance. Why didn't he didn't taking the time to learn more about biomechanics and figure out why it is Usain gets the results he gets? But like many in science, they think they know it all. This is the kind of arrogance I see from people like YOU and this Phd in Canada.
Research is a creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge. Note the words INCREASE THE STOCK OF KNOWLEDGE? Go tell you Canadian Phd friend that guys that I know who ARE professional bodybuilders laugh at people like him, as well as people like you who give advice and have absolutely no qualifications to do so. Pal, you are just a moderator of this board, not an expert in anything. I seems kind of odd you call these guys CLOWNS when most all the guys winning the Mr Olympia alone are taking home quite a lot of money for their work:
- Winner – Derek Lunsford – $400,000
- Second Place – Hadi Choopan – $150,000
- Third Place- Samson Dauda – $100,000
- Fourth Place – Brandon Curry – $40,000
- Fifth Place – Andrew Jacked – $35,000
While I never got paid at all, I know well how my career completely changed when I started eating more calories and more protein. I got that suggestion from the late Louis Simmons (not a Phd.) Never took more than 250mg of test enanthate. But for a man who was in his late 40's, started out at 6'1" and weighted 150lbs, ending up being #1 in the 275's and #2 in the 308's in one year (2001) I was able to do what people like you and many PhD would say couldn't be done. I took 20 years of trial and error. By the time people get to this level they have changed every variable as many times as they can be changed and found out what combination really works. Its different for everyone.
I met Jay Cutler (4xOlympia) when he won the Nationals back in the 96's. He turned pro and is now worth over $30 million dollars. The guy was a working grunt before going pro, 28 years later he is retired and rolling in money. Oh, still alive after the huge doses you say people can't live through.
The great thing about education Madman, is we are humbled to learn how much we really don't know. You have closed eyes because you think you know it all. Sad, because there is so much to learn in one life time.
Last edited:
ViniDiesel70
New Member
Is there a recording of the Zoom Webinar?
Share this page
Sponsors
Online statistics
- Members online
- 3
- Guests online
- 7
- Total visitors
- 10
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
My CAC calcium score is high- Should I take vitamin K?
- Latest: Guided_by_Voices
