Too much protein?
Replies
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Lol. What, pray tell do you think the Test and HGH did to improve his performance? (Hint: made him stronger and more muscular).
He was doping. Geez, you'll argue on anything. We first stated that pro cyclists don't want a big upper body, and that's true. Just drop it.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
Thus, the increased muscle and strength he gained from juicing gave him the advantage he needed to win.
"Doping" isn't like a one shot wonder where you pop a pill and all of a sudden you've got three hours of super human strength.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
He won because the doping made him stronger and more muscular than he would have been otherwise.0 -
Geez. The young lady who started this thread asked a question, and instead of recognizing that there are thousands of articles out there saying contradicting things, everybody wants to quote them.
There are so many different rules that you have to find what works for you. I try to follow the rule 1g of protein per pound. So a 210lbs bodybuilder should intake an average of 210g, where as 150 - 150g. But there are other articles/websites which recommend .5 to .7 per lbs.
Unfortunately, all of our bodies are different, and we are have unique workouts and goals, so there is no one thing fits everybody.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
He won because the doping made him stronger and more muscular than he would have been otherwise.
So he won cause he was doping.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Lol. What, pray tell do you think the Test and HGH did to improve his performance? (Hint: made him stronger and more muscular).
He was doping. Geez, you'll argue on anything. We first stated that pro cyclists don't want a big upper body, and that's true. Just drop it.
No, we first stated that sufficient protein is vital for muscle retention/repair.
Then you turned it into an argument that muscles don't matter because you're a cyclist and big pecs will slow you down.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
He won because the doping made him stronger and more muscular than he would have been otherwise.
So he won cause he was doping.
No, he won because he was stronger and more muscular. If he had achieved that without the doping, he still would have won.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
Remember he also beat all the other pro cyclists who were doping at the same time. In that period the elite were virtually all at it.
Yes some cyclists deliberately lose upper body mass - Bradly Wiggins was a good example. Lost the slightly more developed upper body that track cyclists have compared to road cyclists to improve his power to weight ratio to go on and win the TdF.
It may be a compromise you are prepared to make but that makes you very unusual and for the general public or recreational rider it would pretty silly.
What level do you compete at?0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
He won because the doping made him stronger and more muscular than he would have been otherwise.
So he won cause he was doping.
No, he won because he was stronger and more muscular. If he had achieved that without the doping, he still would have won.
The extra muscle he attained, gave him the extra strength, and therefore edge over his competitors, right?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
He won because the doping made him stronger and more muscular than he would have been otherwise.
So he won cause he was doping.
If he'd gotten that strong and muscular without doping he still would have won.
With that, I'm done. Not worth any more of my time.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
He won because the doping made him stronger and more muscular than he would have been otherwise.
So he won cause he was doping.
No, he won because he was stronger and more muscular. If he had achieved that without the doping, he still would have won.
The extra muscle he attained, gave him the extra strength, and therefore edge over his competitors, right?
Wrong.
He is a thoroughly unpleasant character but he was an exceptional athlete competing on what was effectively a level but dirty playing field.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
He won because the doping made him stronger and more muscular than he would have been otherwise.
So he won cause he was doping.
No, he won because he was stronger and more muscular. If he had achieved that without the doping, he still would have won.
The extra muscle he attained, gave him the extra strength, and therefore edge over his competitors, right?
Wrong.
He is a thoroughly unpleasant character but he was an exceptional athlete competing on what was effectively a level but dirty playing field.
Haha I have no knowledge about steroids and what they do or don't do, which was why i was asking
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Well if I get such low protein, what do YOU think is a good enough amount of protein? I'm not a bodybuilder so why do I need more than 50g's of protein..?
I'd say around 120g of protein a day
Check here:
http://www.iifym.com/iifym-calculator/
That's more or in-line with some bodybuilders that weigh 210 pounds! Why would I ever need that much?
Hahahaaa!!! My wife doesn't even weigh half that much and she's certainly not a bodybuilder but her protein goal is 110 grams.
Why? Because she wants to retain muscle mass while she loses weight.
Research shows that when .8-1.2 grams of protein per pound of lean bodyweight is consumed during a calorie deficit, muscle retention is greatly improved, leading to increased fat loss and reduced muscle loss.
As I am a cyclist, I do not want the muscle in my upper body. I have no need for an excess of protein in my diet.
Please don't give cyclists a bad name...
Find one pro cyclist that wants a huge upper body and get back to me.
How does "retain existing muscle" translate to "huge upper body?"
I was replying to the Hornsby with that one. Pro cyclist's don't want to retain existing muscle either, they want the least mass in their upper body they can get to.
Lance Armstrong disagrees...
Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping.
I'm not endorsing that. But what he did resulted in him becoming very strong and muscular. And that strength and muscularity won him a lot of races.
No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.
Do you not know how steroids work?
Roids+exercise=greater muscle gains=advantage=winning
So in theory he won because he was doping.
Remember he also beat all the other pro cyclists who were doping at the same time. In that period the elite were virtually all at it.
Yes some cyclists deliberately lose upper body mass - Bradly Wiggins was a good example. Lost the slightly more developed upper body that track cyclists have compared to road cyclists to improve his power to weight ratio to go on and win the TdF.
It may be a compromise you are prepared to make but that makes you very unusual and for the general public or recreational rider it would pretty silly.
What level do you compete at?
I'm no pro, but I do local races in-state and in neighboring states occasionally.0 -
-
-
BecomingBane wrote: »I leave for a minute and this happens. *SMH*
I can't remember who it was, but they posted that they open the longer threads, read the first and last post to see how far off track they have gotten. I suppose from the point you re-entered, we went from member asking if she should worry about consuming too much protein, to zombies eating brains. That's a slight drift. Brains contain protein right?0 -
I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.0
-
BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
Excellent point! I've been pondering the same question....
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
I figured where you were coming from. Some people are intentionally obtuse.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
I think it's usually referred to as 'extreme fanaticism' or 'cultism'.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
What works for me might not work for you. What works for you might not work for me, so I'm not wrong, it's just that I'm the minority.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
I think it's usually referred to as 'extreme fanaticism' or 'cultism'.
I don't disagree with you, there.... I just find it hard to understand. I was raised to examine my beliefs when they were challenged, not to use them as a shield. So, that particular line of thinking creates cognitive dissonance in me.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
What works for me might not work for you. What works for you might not work for me, so I'm not wrong, it's just that I'm the minority.
Well please quit spreading your opinion of what works for your minority to the majority as though it's fact.
Advising people to eat insufficient amounts of protein is not helpful. It's reckless.0 -
this is all you need to read about protein controversy. Read everything by Lyle if you want science. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-controversies.html/
This article gives some good insight. Now I have a better understanding of all this. Thanks for posting the link!0 -
workhardtogethard wrote: »this is all you need to read about protein controversy. Read everything by Lyle if you want science. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-controversies.html/
This article gives some good insight. Now I have a better understanding of all this. Thanks for posting the link!
my pleasure, Lyle is one of the few guys you can really trust, he posts sources for everything, and he knows his stuff. His website is a gold mine of valuable information.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
I think it's usually referred to as 'extreme fanaticism' or 'cultism'.
I don't disagree with you, there.... I just find it hard to understand. I was raised to examine my beliefs when they were challenged, not to use them as a shield. So, that particular line of thinking creates cognitive dissonance in me.
I agree completely. Nutrition and training interests me and I'm always looking to learn more about it. If I posted something and a bunch of people posted studies showing I was screwed up, it would make me reconsider and go do more research. I'd rather know the right stuff, both for my own personal purposes/use and also to not be the crackpot spouting bad info to other people.
Some people accidentally succeed in spite of what they do rather than because of what they do.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »I was mostly smh at some of the arguments in here. It's become apparent to me in this thread, after reading its entirely, and a few others, that some people are going to keep spouting bad advice no matter what evidence is shown to them. It frustrates me because it's patently untrue, and while it may work for some, can be dangerous for many others... but what gets me is just a wonder... what kind of bold faced bravado does one need when the masses are providing ample explanation and evidence that your position is not only wrong, but seemingly completely founded solely on personal opinion, to continue denying it and be completely unwilling to stop for just one moment and consider the fact that if, say 30 people are telling me I'm wrong, there might be a possibility that my position is worth examining.
What works for me might not work for you. What works for you might not work for me, so I'm not wrong, it's just that I'm the minority.
Well please quit spreading your opinion of what works for your minority to the majority as though it's fact.
Advising people to eat insufficient amounts of protein is not helpful. It's reckless.
It honestly depends on the person as to how much protein they need. Protein is subjective.0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »
He tends to broscience a lot
Protein Does NOT Leach Calcium From Your Bones and Cause Osteoporosis
http://authoritynutrition.com/is-too-much-protein-bad-for-you/
It is commonly believed that a high protein intake can contribute to osteoporosis.
The theory is that the protein increases the acid load of your body, which then causes the body to take calcium out of the bones to neutralize the acid.
Even though there are some studies showing increased calcium excretion in the short term, this effect does not persist over the long term.
In fact, longer term studies do not support this idea at all. In one 9 week study, replacing carbohydrate with meat did not affect calcium excretion and improved some hormones known to promote bone health, like IGF-1 (2).
A review published in in 2011 concluded that there is no evidence that increased protein harms the bones. If anything, the evidence points to a higher protein intake improving bone health, NOT the other way around (3).
There are multiple other studies and papers showing that a higher protein intake is a good thing when it comes to bone health.
For example, it improves bone density and lowers the risk of fracture. It also increases IGF-1 and lean mass, both known to promote bone health (4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
The whole protein-osteoporosis thing is a myth with literally zero evidence to back it up. This is one example of where blindly following conventional nutritional wisdom leads to the exact opposite result of what you expected.
Bottom Line: Despite a high protein intake increasing calcium excretion in the short term, long term studies show a strong positive effect on bone health.
Thank you for clarifying this. I was absolutely baffled at where such mind-boggling wrongness could possibly be coming from.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions