All you ever need to know about WHEY PROTEIN

mikey1976

bump for later i need this i think

jennyrebekka

WHEY COOL.....thanks

WhoTheHellIsBen

All the relevant studies show that muscle does not begin to atrophy just from fasting. In fact in all the research where atrophy is studied, fasting and denervation is required (a.k.a. they paralyzed the mice so that muscle couldn't be used).

In subjects where only fasting was studied, atrophy was not significant unless there was also a significant reduction in muscle use which is why intermittent fasting stresses the importance of strength training.

i guess it depends on what the definition of 'fasting' is. IF your not eating for long enough, your body will absolutely start to metabolize the muslces.

idk, honestly whats the difference between 'intermittent fasting' and a calorie defecit?

Anyway, this is interesting read for people who want to lose mass but not everyone wanting to take whey is in that boat.

For sure! I was specifically responding to the OP's claim that muscle starts to atrophy after an overnight fast (by the time you wake up in the morning) and the longest study I could find that shows no muscle deterioration from fasting was 72 hours (though the one I cited here because of open access, so everyone can read it, was 40 hours).

Intermittent fasting is based on the fact that certain things are accomplished while your body is in a fasted state (increases in HGH, insulin sensitivity, stem cells that ultimately help to repair damaged muscle and other body damage, oxidation of fat amongst many others). Even at a calorie deficit, your body is still in a "fed" state.

Calorie deficit or surplus can both be achieved while practicing intermittent fasting. People who are trying to add muscle bulk can benefit from intermittent fasting as well as people trying to lose.

I should have used the quote feature because initially (on the first page) I mentioned that some of the ideas expressed in the article were inaccurate and OP responded by quoting the Author's credentials at me and asking if I had researched what I was saying. And that is why I posted this here. My bad, I'll see if I can add the quote to my response.

Also, I don't have a problem with whey and use it to supplement my protein intake.

so far I as the OP have not made any claims aside from it os important to use Whey as a supplement to a balanced healthy diet. Anything else was an article written by a doctor that sourced decades of human based studies, not a hand full of newer studies that for what ever reason decided they needed to test on rodents. You're welcome to you opinion but I will choose to take my facts from a man with a doctorate that is built like a brick *kitten* house and is backed by counties that have led the charge on protein studies such as Australian over shorter term studies that use mixed species any day

rm7161

I use whey protein to fill out my macros, they are a good addition to smoothies.

Props to the OP for not shilling for any one particular product, but just laying it out what the different types are.

CristinaL1983

so far I as the OP have not made any claims aside from it os important to use Whey as a supplement to a balanced healthy diet. Anything else was an article written by a doctor that sourced decades of human based studies, not a hand full of newer studies that for what ever reason decided they needed to test on rodents. You're welcome to you opinion but I will choose to take my facts from a man with a doctorate that is built like a brick *kitten* house and is backed by counties that have led the charge on protein studies such as Australian over shorter term studies that use mixed species any day

My intent was not to derail your thread and everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I will continue on with the knowledge I learned from dozens of studies preformed by many people with many doctorates (like I said before I only cited studies that should be able to be viewed by everyone for free) over a single source (PhD or not) who has promoted protein supplements laden with heavy metals and has a vested interest in promoting supplements (continued income) because of his "celebrity trainer" status.

Peer reviewed studies also don't 'get better with age' so something published today is just as valid as it will be in 20 years. Sometimes a different approach can bring to light something that could not have been known before and occasionally research can be invalidated due to poor methodology but if that is the case, it will likely not make it past the peer reviewing stage nor be published. So the dozens of studies done in the past several years are completely valid.

Additionally, anyone who is vaguely familiar with research knows that there are many reasons rodents are used in research such as their short lifespan and genetic and behavioral similarities to humans. Also, paralyzing humans to study their muscles is not generally viewed as acceptable.

When you quoted the Author's credentials at me and asked if I had even done any research, you implicitly claimed that the author's views were also your own and that I was wrong. I'm simply supporting my opinion with several peer-reviewed research articles which is more than you have done at this point.

dream_big

bump for later

geebusuk

I am saying protein intake is over rated. It's not like someone will eat 100% carbs, 100% protien or 100% fat. When we eat we usually get a mix of macro nutrients.

Carbs are muscle sparing. The more protein you eat, the more protein you oxidize, the more carbs you eat the more carbs you will oxidize. Keeping calories constant you will be fine. No need to spend your money on shakes unless you want to for convenient reasons.

Got any back up for that?

A quick google and the lowest suggestion for protein for an 'athlete' is .8g per lb of body weight ( Dr. Peter Lemon ), with others showing benefits for more.

Oh and... nice well researched posting CristinaL1983; interesting stuff.

CristinaL1983

Oh and... nice well researched posting CristinaL1983; interesting stuff.

Thanks! I find it fascinating (which is why I've looked into it so much)!

WhoTheHellIsBen

bump

renee_72

i take creatine before every workout. love the feeling when im in the zone. i feel like superwoman. lol

TheRealParisLove

I'm sorry, tell me again about how multiple studies from over the entire world compiled into one article by a man with a phD is Broscience? Do you guys even try to research the things to try to refute?

Don't take it personal, and don't take science as gospel either. That is the beauty of scientific research, that it can and often is over turned in light of new evidence.

Remember back in the late 70's through the early 90's people with lots of letters after their names were telling everyone to eat very low fat diets and the fats that were the best were trans fats?

Yep, even very smart humans are still human and make mistakes.

bcattoes

Remember back in the late 70's through the early 90's people with lots of letters after their names were telling everyone to eat very low fat diets and the fats that were the best were trans fats?

I think your timeline is a little late, but that aside I don't ever remember hearing that trans fats were the best fats. It was thought that because the trans fats were made from vegetable fats instead of animal fats, that margarine was healthier than butter. Though most people I knew ate margarine because it was so much cheaper than butter, rather than for the health benefits.

WhoTheHellIsBen

I'm sorry, tell me again about how multiple studies from over the entire world compiled into one article by a man with a phD is Broscience? Do you guys even try to research the things to try to refute?

Don't take it personal, and don't take science as gospel either. That is the beauty of scientific research, that it can and often is over turned in light of new evidence.

Remember back in the late 70's through the early 90's people with lots of letters after their names were telling everyone to eat very low fat diets and the fats that were the best were trans fats?

Yep, even very smart humans are still human and make mistakes.

Totally not taking it personal but there are two things I keep a deep rooted interest in. One is Metal music and the other is Health&Fitness. In the metal world the trolls who don't like a popular band will now refer to the band as Mallcore, it refers to a bands where you can get their merch in malls and find their fans wearing said merch. It's as stupid as all hell and created by people that are even stupider
Then in the fitness world if someone doesn't like something, doesn't agree with it or whatever, they refer to it as broscience no matter how many millions of dollars worth of studies have been dumped into. The use of the word broscience has become rampant and usually is ised and abused by people wearing the biggest and brightest clown shoes possible

CristinaL1983

Totally not taking it personal but there are two things I keep a deep rooted interest in. One is Metal music and the other is Health&Fitness. In the metal world the trolls who don't like a popular band will now refer to the band as Mallcore, it refers to a bands where you can get their merch in malls and find their fans wearing said merch. It's as stupid as all hell and created by people that are even stupider
Then in the fitness world if someone doesn't like something, doesn't agree with it or whatever, they refer to it as broscience no matter how many millions of dollars worth of studies have been dumped into. The use of the word broscience has become rampant and usually is ised and abused by people wearing the biggest and brightest clown shoes possible

Here's my issue. You are trying to say that your article is legitimate but have not posted one single scientific study to back it up. You know who one of the leading cardiac surgeons was? Dr. Oz. He holds the patents on several breakthrough heart replacement parts. That doesn't mean I'm going to start taking raspberry ketones or green coffee bean extract. You know why? Because the science doesn't support the claim. It's that simple. Someone who has something to sell could be legit but they could also be a snake oil salesman. The only way to tell is to do some research. It takes maybe an hour or two and you can get a pretty good idea of whether they are legitimate or not.

Again, I think whey protein is great. However, the claim that your muscles start to break down after an overnight fast is simply not supported by science.

Additionally, some whey protein is only great in certain quantities. It is not regulated by the FDA and when consumer reports had several brands tested in labs they found that some of those brands, including the one endorsed by the doctor who wrote this article, had high levels of heavy metals. High enough levels to cause heavy metal poisoning if you consume several servings a day. Sometimes someone who has something to sell is just a salesman regardless of what he used to do or what his qualifications seem to be.

If you take one of the supplements that tested as safe and you want to consume a serving every couple hours to prevent muscle breakdown, more power to you.

But you are basically saying that I'm the one wearing clown shoes even though I cited a handful of peer reviewed, scientific research articles and you are the one just repeating the salesman's qualifications at me. :noway:

No_Finish_Line

For sure! I was specifically responding to the OP's claim that muscle starts to atrophy after an overnight fast (by the time you wake up in the morning) and the longest study I could find that shows no muscle deterioration from fasting was 72 hours (though the one I cited here because of open access, so everyone can read it, was 40 hours).

save me some reading. how did they measure the muscle atrophy?

I've often heard that proteins within the muscle are broken down in order to... repair the muscle i guess lol, while one sleeps if they are not getting adaquette nutrition. Saying it out loud sounds kind of funny lol, maybe i've gotten the reasoning wrong, but i've heard that a lot... that your body will in effect 'eat' your muscle to satisfy some metabloic process if your not properlly nurished in your sleep.

and people make it sound like it doesn't take much of 'sub par' nurishment to get into this state.

Your saying there is no real research to support that?

The following statement is NOT an attack on anyone in this thread or this site, but it seems that people in forums in general have no idea what the difference between an article published in an magazine and emperical research from a peer reviewed journal. which for some reason i have a really difficult time finding through google searches

No_Finish_Line

Additionally, some whey protein is only great in certain quantities. It is not regulated by the FDA and when consumer reports had several brands tested in labs they found that some of those brands, including the one endorsed by the doctor who wrote this article, had high levels of heavy metals. High enough levels to cause heavy metal poisoning if you consume several servings a day.

yeah i've seen that a lot. One reason why i like to switch brands often.

CristinaL1983

For sure! I was specifically responding to the OP's claim that muscle starts to atrophy after an overnight fast (by the time you wake up in the morning) and the longest study I could find that shows no muscle deterioration from fasting was 72 hours (though the one I cited here because of open access, so everyone can read it, was 40 hours).

save me some reading. how did they measure the muscle atrophy?

I've often heard that proteins within the muscle are broken down in order to... repair the muscle i guess lol, while one sleeps if they are not getting adaquette nutrition. Saying it out loud sounds kind of funny lol, maybe i've gotten the reasoning wrong, but i've heard that a lot... that your body will in effect 'eat' your muscle to satisfy some metabloic process if your not properlly nurished in your sleep.

and people make it sound like it doesn't take much of 'sub par' nurishment to get into this state.

Your saying there is no real research to support that?

The following statement is NOT an attack on anyone in this thread or this site, but it seems that people in forums in general have no idea what the difference between an article published in an magazine and emperical research from a peer reviewed journal. which for some reason i have a really difficult time finding through google searches

The measurement they used was how many of the mRNAs found in a muscle biopsy after x time (one study I read was 40 hours and one was 72) were associated with muscle atrophy. They measured the concentrations of something like 600 mRNAs all associated with different actions (oxidation of fat, growth of muscle, atrophy of muscle, etc...). These mRNAs are always present in the muscle in some concentration and your body is in a constant state of rebuild/repair so you can say that muscle is always being broken down and repaired but the idea is that your net is zero. You want just as much repair as breakdown. Atrophy begins when the mRNAs associated with muscle breakdown are greater than the mRNAs associated with muscle repair. [This is a vast oversimplification of the process].

The 40 hour study I cited (in this thread), found no significant increases in the mRNA associated with muscle atrophy after 40 hours in humans. In order to actually study atrophy (which was the point of the study) they paralyzed rats and starved them (so that their muscles couldn't be used and would atrophy more quickly). I have not actually found a study where fasting caused a noticeable physical atrophy (although I have really only looked into short term fasting because I practice IF and am certainly not going to go without food for more than 40 hours .)

As far as when muscle atrophy occurs due to malnutrition, the best study for that is the Minnesota starvation experiment (a 1940s Army experiment). I don't know if anything equivalent has been done but I seriously doubt it. They took a bunch of guys in the army, had them all hit their ideal weight then fed them 1500 calories a day. They all had to complete long marches and lots of working out, before the diet they had been eating over 3000 calories a day. They studied the physical and psychological effects of starvation on these men. The physical effects (such as atrophy, slow down of BMR and weakness) started to show as they hit their "essential" body fat percentages. The psychological effects were pretty crazy people cutting off limbs, hallucinating etc...

The best I can tell (and this is just putting things together from all the studies so feel free to do your own research) as long a you have enough body fat to support yourself (higher than the "essential" limit ) your body will not break down your muscles (not on more than a cellular rebuilding way) for at least 72 hours even if fasting (I put 72 hours because that's the longest study I saw that had the same results). If you are in that very low fat category, your body will not be able to maintain itself just using fat stores and will eventually have to break down muscles. I couldn't tell you when that would happen (how any hours after eating etc... because most of these studies start with "healthy weighted" individuals). There really are hundreds of studies on various aspects of fasting and I haven't read through all of them.

Hope that answers the question (sorry it was so long).

Edit to add: If you are looking for something in particular and want to find the actual research, search using scholar.google.com not everything that comes up is a scientific journal but most of them are.

Jerrypeoples

i just started using ON's whey protein.

not the best tasting way to get protein but it helps

CristinaL1983

Additionally, some whey protein is only great in certain quantities. It is not regulated by the FDA and when consumer reports had several brands tested in labs they found that some of those brands, including the one endorsed by the doctor who wrote this article, had high levels of heavy metals. High enough levels to cause heavy metal poisoning if you consume several servings a day.

yeah i've seen that a lot. One reason why i like to switch brands often.

Here's a link to the consumer reports article with their findings. It is kind of long and talks about daily protein amounts etc... but there is a table at the bottom of the article with levels of heavy metals for 3 servings of the 15 protein supplements they tested. I take the GNC Wheybolic Amplified Extreme (except I like vanilla not chocolate) that is pretty high on the list but I don't go over half a serving to a serving a day (a serving is 60g of protein) so it doesn't put me in the 'danger zone.'

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/04/protein-drinks/index.htm

No_Finish_Line

The measurement they used was how many of the mRNAs found in a muscle biopsy after x time (one study I read was 40 hours and one was 72) were associated with muscle atrophy. They measured the concentrations of something like 600 mRNAs all associated with different actions (oxidation of fat, growth of muscle, atrophy of muscle, etc...). These mRNAs are always present in the muscle in some concentration and your body is in a constant state of rebuild/repair so you can say that muscle is always being broken down and repaired but the idea is that your net is zero. You want just as much repair as breakdown. Atrophy begins when the mRNAs associated with muscle breakdown are greater than the mRNAs associated with muscle repair. [This is a vast oversimplification of the process].

The 40 hour study I cited (in this thread), found no significant increases in the mRNA associated with muscle atrophy after 40 hours in humans.

I'd feel better if the studies were done on weight training atheletes. seen any like you describe that focused on this population?