Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction

QuietBloom

this a review study and you have to look at the original studies it is based on to see if they hold up- garbage in, garbage out.. This is done to gain statistical power,

Not so sure why the surprise, though. With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass. Of course you will need more protein over baseline.

I don't think anyone is surprised. And while it may be obvious you need more protein, it's not obvious just how much. This study is the latest published research showing us just how much.

Does it?

Varies for everyone. And if you counters really want data, keep track of your protein intake and your urinary and fecal nitrogen levels.
Have fun!

For all you calorie counters and people who like to do things scientifically, here is a web site where you can DOWNLOAD the complete Guyton and Hall physiology textbook for FREE.

It is the 2006 edition, so a little out of date, but it is a good starting point.

I must admit I haven't seen a lot of the goofy science posted here that I did when I first arrived a couple months ago. That is a good thing.

https://archive.org/details/Guyton

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Laughing at Guyton's again?

I thought you had learned your lesson.

Just what is your background that makes you scoff at the medical standard for physiology?

I think that is a very fair question.

Oh no. Guytons is a very good basic physiology textbook. I am laughing at you Steve, and your disdain for current scientific literature. I guess if I needed it broken down and condensed, I wouldn't like it either.

Also, without getting into the rest of it, I'm going to look with a very jaundiced eye on anything said by someone who also says that strength gains only come with an increase in muscle mass. That shows fatal ignorance.

Thanks for posting this interesting topic, QuietBloom!

(edit to fix weird quote issue)

While QuietBloom continues to laugh hysterically, here is part of the front-piece in Guyton's chapter on Sports Physiology for people who want to get serious.
Yes, strength comes from an increase in muscle mass.

"In general, most quantitative values for women—such as muscle strength, pulmonary
ventilation, and cardiac output, all of which are related mainly to the muscle
mass—vary between two thirds and three quarters of the values recorded in men.
When measured in terms of strength per square centimeter of cross-sectional area,
the female muscle can achieve almost exactly the same maximal force of contraction
as that of the male-between 3 and 4 kg/cm2. Therefore, most of the difference
in total muscle performance lies in the extra percentage of the male body that is
muscle, caused by endocrine differences that we discuss later."

Scoundrel! You have proclaimed your love to DamePiglet, when it is abundantly clear, that you love only ME!

Wetcoaster

Doubling the Daily Allowance of Protein Intake With Diet and Exercise Protects Muscle Loss

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130829110430.htm?utm_content=buffer0b4c0&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer



Aug. 29, 2013 — A new report appearing in the September issue of The FASEB Journal challenges the long-held adage that significant muscle loss is unavoidable when losing weight through exercise and diet. In the report, scientists show that consuming twice the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein while adhering to a diet and exercise plan prevents the loss of muscle mass and promotes fat loss. Tripling the RDA of protein, however, failed to provide additional benefits.


"It is our hope that the findings from this well-controlled study will be discussed and cited by the Institute of Medicine for the updated Dietary Reference Intakes on protein," said Stefan M. Pasiakos, Ph.D., a researcher involved in the work from the Military Nutrition Division at the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine in Natick, MA. "We believe that the RDA for protein should be based on a level to optimize health, as well as prevent deficiencies, and our data demonstrate a potential inadequacy of the current RDA for sparing muscle mass during weight loss, which may affect a significant portion of the population."


To make this discovery, Pasiakos and colleagues assigned young men and women controlled diets for 31 days that provided dietary protein at three different levels: 1) the U.S. RDA, 2) twice the U.S. RDA, and 3) three times the U.S. RDA. Volunteers were given adequate total calories to maintain constant body weight for the first 10 days to allow their metabolism to adapt to the dietary protein level, and then for the following three weeks, weight loss was induced by restricting the total calories and increasing daily exercise sufficiently to elicit an average two-pound weight loss per week. All meals were prepared and administered by research staff and exercise was highly controlled. Body composition and measurements of muscle protein metabolism were performed at the end of both the stable weight maintenance and weight loss phases of the study. Results of this study demonstrated that there are limits to the protective effect of extra protein. As such, these data suggest an optimal, and perhaps maximal, level of protein for young, active adults who may undergo short-term periods of intentional or unintentional weight loss.

"This study essentially confirms what body builders have shown us for a long time -- a high protein diet helps prevent muscle loss when trying to lose fat," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "Although eating a well balanced diet is still necessary for health and weight maintenance, upping one's protein intake when dieting might be a useful tool in the short term."

Fullsterkur_woman

If body fat was low enough, could you go with 1.1g x total body weight? If so, what do you guys think that cut off would be?

Units matter (heh... units). TBW in kg? No. TBW in lbs? Sure, why not? I do 1 x TBW in pounds right now, at 34% body fat. My LBM (and TBW) has held more or less constant (pending a new DEXA scan next month) since August, while my strength has gone up by a large percentage (adding something like 70-80 pounds to my deadlift). And I restarted my lifting program in February, so I'd say even the initial adaptation period/n00b gains were done.

Fullsterkur_woman

We should be talking about pure isolated muscle strength here- not strength measure by actual outcomes.

Why in blue hell should we be talking about that?! Why would I possibly care about anything besides the weight on the bar I can lift?!

Oh. I get it. Carry on.

jonnythan

We should be talking about pure isolated muscle strength here- not strength measure by actual outcomes.

With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass.

So the point isn't to get stronger and be able to move more weight.... it's only to increase the actual strength of individual muscles. Or something.

Even if that were true, which makes no sense at all, it's irrelevant. Neural adaptations make muscles able to contract with greater strength, period.

No amount of irrelevant passages copied and pasted from Guyton's changes that. Especially when you can't even seem to quite understand what you're copying.

QuietBloom

I would like to enjoy it, but I can't access the link.
Why don't you cut and paste it?

Copy and paste the links into your browser window Steve.

QuietBloom

We should be talking about pure isolated muscle strength here- not strength measure by actual outcomes.

With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass.

So the point isn't to get stronger and be able to move more weight.... it's only to increase the actual strength of individual muscles. Or something.

Even if that were true, which makes no sense at all, it's irrelevant. Neural adaptations make muscles able to contract with greater strength, period.

No amount of irrelevant passages copied and pasted from Guyton's changes that. Especially when you can't even seem to quite understand what you're copying.

You will not find a hypothesized "strength gain" from neural adaption without a gain in muscle mass- with the muscle mass gain probably the most dominant factor.

Cut and paste the study you cited.

Why are you even arguing the point?

What part of neuronal adaptation do you not understand Steve?

jonnythan

Cut and paste the study you cited.

Why are you even arguing the point?

"Strength training may cause adaptive changes within the nervous system that allow a trainee to more fully activate prime movers in specific movements and to better coordinate the activation of all relevant muscles, thereby effecting a greater net force in the intended direction of movement."

"It is generally accepted that neural factors play an important role in muscle strength gains"
"An increase in muscular strength without noticeable hypertrophy is the first line of evidence for neural involvement in acquisition of muscular strength."

These are just the first two studies I even found.

Your position, that strength increases require increased muscle mass, are simply wrong and indefensible.

jonnythan

We should be talking about pure isolated muscle strength here- not strength measure by actual outcomes.

With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass.

So the point isn't to get stronger and be able to move more weight.... it's only to increase the actual strength of individual muscles. Or something.

Even if that were true, which makes no sense at all, it's irrelevant. Neural adaptations make muscles able to contract with greater strength, period.

No amount of irrelevant passages copied and pasted from Guyton's changes that. Especially when you can't even seem to quite understand what you're copying.

You will not find a hypothesized "strength gain" from neural adaption without a gain in muscle mass- with the muscle mass gain probably the most dominant factor.

Cut and paste the study you cited.

Why are you even arguing the point?

What part of neuronal adaptation do you not understand Steve?

Understand it? He denies it exists, because he can't find it in Guyton's.

It would appear that a PDF of Guyton's is the only information he has access to.

Phoenix_Warrior

Wait, so all my strength gains while eating at a deficit have been lies? Da horror!

Holly_Roman_Empire

Wait, so all my strength gains while eating at a deficit have been lies? Da horror!

+1 Teehee.

WendyTerry420

Wait, so all my strength gains while eating at a deficit have been lies? Da horror!

Yeah, those aren't gainzzzz. The truth is, Steve put a gun to your head to make you lift moarzzzz.


:laugh: :laugh:

Safiyandi

I'm still trying to figure out why it's been recommended that we should send our dookie off to a lab for nitrogen assay instead of just highballing a protein intake estimate.

Hornsby

I'm still trying to figure out why it's been recommended that we should send our dookie off to a lab for nitrogen assay instead of just highballing a protein intake estimate.

Now........That.......Was........Funny!

And seriously? Dookie? I haven't heard that term in forever! haha.

mustgetmuscles1

So if you have doubled the amount you can lift since you started you actually double the amount of muscle you have. Damn I have been doing pretty good then.

_John_

So if you have doubled the amount you can lift since you started you actually double the amount of muscle you have. Damn I have been doing pretty good then.

does the same work for ALL muscles?

Fullsterkur_woman

I'm still trying to figure out why it's been recommended that we should send our dookie off to a lab for nitrogen assay instead of just highballing a protein intake estimate.

That's just crazy talk. We should eat exactly as much protein as our bodies require for muscle tissue building and not one femtogram more! You know, because we can't metabolize it to get usable ATP or anything...

mustgetmuscles1

So if you have doubled the amount you can lift since you started you actually double the amount of muscle you have. Damn I have been doing pretty good then.

does the same work for ALL muscles?

For girth but not length since you cant change the insertion points. :huh:

_John_

femtogram

:flowerforyou:

Fullsterkur_woman

So if you have doubled the amount you can lift since you started you actually double the amount of muscle you have. Damn I have been doing pretty good then.

does the same work for ALL muscles?

For girth but not length since you cant change the insertion points. :huh:

Heh. Insertion points.

_John_

So if you have doubled the amount you can lift since you started you actually double the amount of muscle you have. Damn I have been doing pretty good then.

does the same work for ALL muscles?

For girth but not length since you cant change the insertion points. :huh:

Heh. Insertion points.

there are typically 2 of those right?

Safiyandi

For girth but not length since you cant change the insertion points. :huh:

Heh. Insertion points.

Topic: Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction: A Discussion of Girth and Length

_John_

For girth but not length since you cant change the insertion points. :huh:

Heh. Insertion points.

Topic: Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction: A Discussion of Girth and Length

muscles are made of protein and those are measurements of muscle size...not much of a stretch really....

WalkingAlong

Doubling the Daily Allowance of Protein Intake With Diet and Exercise Protects Muscle Loss

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130829110430.htm?utm_content=buffer0b4c0&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer



Aug. 29, 2013 — A new report appearing in the September issue of The FASEB Journal challenges the long-held adage that significant muscle loss is unavoidable when losing weight through exercise and diet. In the report, scientists show that consuming twice the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein while adhering to a diet and exercise plan prevents the loss of muscle mass and promotes fat loss. Tripling the RDA of protein, however, failed to provide additional benefits.


"It is our hope that the findings from this well-controlled study will be discussed and cited by the Institute of Medicine for the updated Dietary Reference Intakes on protein," said Stefan M. Pasiakos, Ph.D., a researcher involved in the work from the Military Nutrition Division at the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine in Natick, MA. "We believe that the RDA for protein should be based on a level to optimize health, as well as prevent deficiencies, and our data demonstrate a potential inadequacy of the current RDA for sparing muscle mass during weight loss, which may affect a significant portion of the population."


To make this discovery, Pasiakos and colleagues assigned young men and women controlled diets for 31 days that provided dietary protein at three different levels: 1) the U.S. RDA, 2) twice the U.S. RDA, and 3) three times the U.S. RDA. Volunteers were given adequate total calories to maintain constant body weight for the first 10 days to allow their metabolism to adapt to the dietary protein level, and then for the following three weeks, weight loss was induced by restricting the total calories and increasing daily exercise sufficiently to elicit an average two-pound weight loss per week. All meals were prepared and administered by research staff and exercise was highly controlled. Body composition and measurements of muscle protein metabolism were performed at the end of both the stable weight maintenance and weight loss phases of the study. Results of this study demonstrated that there are limits to the protective effect of extra protein. As such, these data suggest an optimal, and perhaps maximal, level of protein for young, active adults who may undergo short-term periods of intentional or unintentional weight loss.

"This study essentially confirms what body builders have shown us for a long time -- a high protein diet helps prevent muscle loss when trying to lose fat," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "Although eating a well balanced diet is still necessary for health and weight maintenance, upping one's protein intake when dieting might be a useful tool in the short term."

I can't read that study because my academic library has never heard of that journal. It sounds more convincing but I'd take issue with ScienceDaily's wording "consuming twice the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of protein while adhering to a diet and exercise plan prevents the loss of muscle mass and promotes fat loss." The abstract says this:

"The proportion of weight loss due to reductions in fat-free mass was lower (P<0.05) and the loss of fat mass was higher (P<0.05) in those receiving 2×-RDA and 3×-RDA compared to RDA."

And it doesn't say how much higher the loss of fat mass was. I think saying it "prevents" muscle loss implies it prevents it all.

Fullsterkur_woman

So if you have doubled the amount you can lift since you started you actually double the amount of muscle you have. Damn I have been doing pretty good then.

does the same work for ALL muscles?

For girth but not length since you cant change the insertion points. :huh:

Heh. Insertion points.

there are typically 2 of those right?

I think there may be some variation by number of X chromosomes on that issue.
(edit due to typo that left out one critical letter!)

jonnythan

Deep Guyton's deep derp

Fullsterkur_woman

We should be talking about pure isolated muscle strength here- not strength measure by actual outcomes.

With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass.

So the point isn't to get stronger and be able to move more weight.... it's only to increase the actual strength of individual muscles. Or something.

Even if that were true, which makes no sense at all, it's irrelevant. Neural adaptations make muscles able to contract with greater strength, period.

No amount of irrelevant passages copied and pasted from Guyton's changes that. Especially when you can't even seem to quite understand what you're copying.

You will not find a hypothesized "strength gain" from neural input/adaption over time without a gain in muscle mass- with the muscle mass gain probably the most dominant factor.

At any rate, we are talking about two different things.

Measure what a weightlifter can do in a session, and then threaten him with a TASER if he doesn't lift more. He probably will lift more weight under the pressure and apparently GAIN STRENGTH. Does that mean his muscles have grown stronger?

Stronger neural input recruits more muscle packets to contract, resulting an effective increase in strength, but the actin-myosin microfilaments have limit. To do more work within a "packet" more are needed. Mass must be increased.

Read Guytons

bump

Assuming arguendo the crazy that is threatening a lifter with a taser... Have you ever used or seen used ammonia ampules?! Or just regular old caffeine? These are just garden variety stimulants. I overheard a conversation one time and heard the words "adrenaline" and "fight or flight response" used in close proximity.

Safiyandi

Deep Guyton's deep derp

:drinker: :laugh:

QuietBloom

Deep Guyton's deep derp

Derpy Guyton's copy and paster is derpy.

_John_

you can become able to lift more weight without increasing muscle size....


HAPPY NOW!!!!!