Supplements the debate/discussion thread

One of these is what I use for a shake with zero and I mean zero lumps. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Russell-Hob...r_1_3?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1346711881&sr=1-3
21veBMDOnbL._SS400_.jpg

Touch of milk first 3 scoops, milk. Stick this in and use your hand to cover the glass a little and 10 seconds later you have it. Will easily blend banana, peanut butter and oats.

Easy to clean too, just stick it in some warm water and turn on. Does it for you.
 
ChroniC said:
What's everyone thoughts on this is the news recently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19449377

Since protein shakes are consumed in the millions you'd think it would be more apparent that they were causing some damage to your kidney and liver.
I'm not sure if I agree or not. Is it possible they are just being choosey on some ridiculous brand that is offering like 90g of protein per shake or something.

I also don't understand the science behind you body filtering protein, I can see your liver struggling to convert it maybe, but removing it. Why would it need too?
Click to expand...
For 99.99% of people taking protein shakes, it's a load of fuss over nothing.
 
The only salient point is over consumption of protein - however, for it to really be an issue we are talking about getting a large amount of calories from your protein supplementation. I'd think that 7 shakes, plus his diet (which judging by his attitude would be crap) would lead him to being very dehydrated, and having a fairly high level of protein toxicity which is undoubtedly why he was irritable, and generally feeling like ****, and as such acting like a ****.
 
Just to throw the cat among the pigeons for all the high protein dieters - here's some research done on the 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight "myth" or gospel that has been touted for years....

• Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload. <- key point IMO
• Waldberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period.
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders.
• Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb.
• Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.
Click to expand...

Goes back to what I was saying in the other thread about oxidisation and nitrogen balance.

Additionally, the more advanced a trainer you are or the longer you have been training and gaining, you start to get a lot less increases in protein synthesis after a training session. As you develop more muscles (either pure bulk or deeper thicker muscles) and like the unfortunate fact that you get closer to your genetic limit, you have to accept that after every session less and less muscle is built :(. It kinda makes sense though doesn't it? The slower your body's ability to build muscle (as you become highly trained), the less protein your body is going to need for optimum muscle development.

It doesn't make sense if your body needed more protein to build less muscle! Also if you consider that that your body becomes increasingly good and efficient at protein metabolising.

Of course if you start pushing that genetic barrier artificially then we are opening a whole can of worms ;)
 
Last edited:
Makes complete sense FF. I may look at a reworking my protein consumption.
I wonder how the body deals with periods of high protein then lower within a 7 day window.
 
I've been training for a long time (8 years) and think I'm not far off my genetic limit, so as FF said, I don't need as much protein because I'm not creating much muscle.
 
LiE said:
I've been training for a long time (8 years) and think I'm not far off my genetic limit, so as FF said, I don't need as much protein because I'm not creating much muscle.
Click to expand...

LiE and Genetic Limit.. Sorry, they don't sound right :p
 
Last edited:
Don't forget you still need to fuel what you HAVE, but my point still stands - you're just not going to be creating as much new muscle. :)

I'm not saying what I say is gospel, but having done a lot more reading into it recently, it seems to make sense to me. :)
 
LiE said:
Makes complete sense FF. I may look at a reworking my protein consumption.
I wonder how the body deals with periods of high protein then lower within a 7 day window.
Click to expand...

Good question, not entirely sure how quickly your body adapts to nitrogen balance and protein synthesis - I can't imagine it being a long process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom