Help on losing Body fat percentage
Options
Replies
-
???0
-
U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO
:noway:0 -
It is true actually. To reduce body fat you need to be doing cardio. Strength training is can help increase muscle size but if the fat is covering it, doesnt do much good does it? Yes, you burn more when you have more muscle, but thats the longer route.
IMO a combination of cardio and strength training is the best possible solutionU NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO
No. Please don't listen to this.0 -
I would shoot for at least 1g of protein / pound of body weight. Also, keep with the lifting and add some HIIT cardio. To lose body fat you need to maintain the lean body mass (muscles) that you have; this is where the protein and lifting come in. While you're trying to lose, I wouldn't expect to make many strength gains, just try to keep what you have. When weight is lost at least some of it will be muscle, but by exclusively doing cardio it will be more than if you keep lifting.
Eat protein and don't be afraid of healthy fats
Lift
HIIT cardio.
THIS!!! Perfect! This is exactly what I am doing and it is working. I am also eating TDEE-20% so keep that up too!0 -
So how much cardio in general do i need to in a week?0
-
It is true actually. To reduce body fat you need to be doing cardio. Strength training is can help increase muscle size but if the fat is covering it, doesnt do much good does it? Yes, you burn more when you have more muscle, but thats the longer route.
IMO a combination of cardio and strength training is the best possible solutionU NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO
No. Please don't listen to this.
Of course cardio should be included, and I said that in my reply. What I was asking OP not to listen to is that she should only do 1 hour a day of cardio. Fat loss is separate than weight loss as I said:Also, keep with the lifting and add some HIIT cardio. To lose body fat you need to maintain the lean body mass (muscles) that you have; this is where the protein and lifting come in. While you're trying to lose, I wouldn't expect to make many strength gains, just try to keep what you have. When weight is lost at least some of it will be muscle, but by exclusively doing cardio it will be more than if you keep lifting.
Eat protein and don't be afraid of healthy fats
Lift
HIIT cardio.0 -
Muscles actually increase in size, they don't grow "new muscle fibers" Protein is needed to build "new cell fibers." Muscles don't work that way. You use glucose(carbs) when you lift, they are needed for the muscle contractions. The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned. You don't need that much protein(what you claim).
This doesn't actually make any sense... You are suggesting that people who have big muscles look that way because of fluid retention? :huh: Think that through for a sec.
Muscle growth comes from suffering micro-tears in the muscle fiber while using them. When they heal, they heal stronger and slightly larger. This is why they suggest rest, to allow the healing to happen. There is some fluid retention right after lifting to aid in that healing process. This is where protein is used.0 -
U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO
No. Please don't listen to this.
Yes, don't, please.0 -
It depends on how much you want to do. I think they say HIIT sessions should be around 20 minutes.So how much cardio in general do i need to in a week?
I love Molly Galbraith, check out her blog for some good info on fat loss and how to cardio for it, http://mollygalbraith.com/2013/02/weekly-reader-question-8-bust-through-your-fat-loss-plateau-part-1/0 -
U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO
What?? :laugh:
lift please!0 -
Muscles actually increase in size, they don't grow "new muscle fibers" Protein is needed to build "new cell fibers." Muscles don't work that way. You use glucose(carbs) when you lift, they are needed for the muscle contractions. The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned. You don't need that much protein(what you claim).
So you're claiming that muscle protein synthesis, a phenomena that has been directly measured, doesn't occur? I think you're confusing hypertrophy with hyperplasia.0 -
Muscles actually increase in size, they don't grow "new muscle fibers" Protein is needed to build "new cell fibers." Muscles don't work that way. You use glucose(carbs) when you lift, they are needed for the muscle contractions. The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned. You don't need that much protein(what you claim).
So you're claiming that muscle protein synthesis, a phenomena that has been directly measured, doesn't occur? I think you're confusing hypertrophy with hyperplasia.
No i am not, here is part of a article I wrote. "Today scientists do not have the tools to measure muscle growth directly. The reason is because muscle mass grows at a slow rate. How is protein intake is determined for muscle growth if we can’t measure it directly? We use a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a theoretical indirect measure. It’s an assumption we’re getting a result by a specific indicator. For muscle building we use nitrogen balance. Nitrogen is found only in protein. If we’re not losing any (in a positive nitrogen balance) the body is using the protein. If we’re in a negative nitrogen balance it’s assumed that muscle mass is being loss because our body is using our muscle mass for energy and we’re eliminating protein from the body. This would imply we don’t have enough protein. Most research agrees there is no correlation between protein synthesis and protein intake. Most recommendation on protein intake use this surrogate endpoint of protein synthesis (nitrogen balance), the method is flawed, it’s based on assumption. "
An article you wrote is hardly a valid reference. Most research, in fact, shows a direct correlation between protein synthesis and protein intake. And, contrary to what you said, muscle growth is not just "fluid"
"The role of dietary protein intake on protein turnover has been well established. As discussed previously the adequate requirement of essential amino acids is of paramount importance to reaching a net positive protein turnover. It is also clear that the ramification of restricted dietary protein intake is muscle wasting [27]. Recently a study [28] found that consumption of an isoenergetic diet at the mean adult minimum protein requirement for 4 wk produced an 81% lower fractional synthesis rate of myosin heavy chain (MHC) proteins in vastus lateralis muscle than did consumption of an ample protein diet. "
http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/27
"Current research suggests that dietary protein supplementation can augment resistance exercise-mediated gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength and can preserve skeletal muscle mass during periods of diet-induced energy restriction. Perhaps less appreciated, protein supplementation can augment resistance training-mediated gains in skeletal muscle mass even in individuals habitually consuming 'adequate' (i.e., >0.8 g kg-1 day-1) protein. Additionally, overfeeding energy with moderate to high-protein intake (15-25 % protein or 1.8-3.0 g kg-1 day-1) is associated with lean, but not fat mass accretion, when compared to overfeeding energy with low protein intake (5 % protein or ~0.68 g kg-1 day-1)"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645387
"Quantity and timing of protein ingestion are major factors regulating myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS).""
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/234597530 -
Stop spewing bad advice everywhere.U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO0 -
Muscles actually increase in size, they don't grow "new muscle fibers" Protein is needed to build "new cell fibers." Muscles don't work that way. You use glucose(carbs) when you lift, they are needed for the muscle contractions. The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned. You don't need that much protein(what you claim).
So you're claiming that muscle protein synthesis, a phenomena that has been directly measured, doesn't occur? I think you're confusing hypertrophy with hyperplasia.
No i am not, here is part of a article I wrote. "Today scientists do not have the tools to measure muscle growth directly. The reason is because muscle mass grows at a slow rate. How is protein intake is determined for muscle growth if we can’t measure it directly? We use a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a theoretical indirect measure. It’s an assumption we’re getting a result by a specific indicator. For muscle building we use nitrogen balance. Nitrogen is found only in protein. If we’re not losing any (in a positive nitrogen balance) the body is using the protein. If we’re in a negative nitrogen balance it’s assumed that muscle mass is being loss because our body is using our muscle mass for energy and we’re eliminating protein from the body. This would imply we don’t have enough protein. Most research agrees there is no correlation between protein synthesis and protein intake. Most recommendation on protein intake use this surrogate endpoint of protein synthesis (nitrogen balance), the method is flawed, it’s based on assumption. "
An article you wrote is hardly a valid reference. Most research, in fact, shows a direct correlation between protein synthesis and protein intake. And, contrary to what you said, muscle growth is not just "fluid"
"The role of dietary protein intake on protein turnover has been well established. As discussed previously the adequate requirement of essential amino acids is of paramount importance to reaching a net positive protein turnover. It is also clear that the ramification of restricted dietary protein intake is muscle wasting [27]. Recently a study [28] found that consumption of an isoenergetic diet at the mean adult minimum protein requirement for 4 wk produced an 81% lower fractional synthesis rate of myosin heavy chain (MHC) proteins in vastus lateralis muscle than did consumption of an ample protein diet. "
http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/27
"Current research suggests that dietary protein supplementation can augment resistance exercise-mediated gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength and can preserve skeletal muscle mass during periods of diet-induced energy restriction. Perhaps less appreciated, protein supplementation can augment resistance training-mediated gains in skeletal muscle mass even in individuals habitually consuming 'adequate' (i.e., >0.8 g kg-1 day-1) protein. Additionally, overfeeding energy with moderate to high-protein intake (15-25 % protein or 1.8-3.0 g kg-1 day-1) is associated with lean, but not fat mass accretion, when compared to overfeeding energy with low protein intake (5 % protein or ~0.68 g kg-1 day-1)"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645387
"Quantity and timing of protein ingestion are major factors regulating myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS).""
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23459753
The first one you posted, have you even read it? The reference, it talks about people with diseases, such as aids. So that doesn't really apply to the general population.
What are you talking about? The 1st reference is a meta-analysis of several studies, which clearly states that protein plays an important role in MPS.
Since you like references, here is the rest of what i wrote.Everyone agrees that the key to muscle growth is resistance training. Without it, you won’t grow muscle mass without any form of muscle stimulation. The load and proper rest are the main things that influence muscle growth [Goldeberg Al, 1975]. Any good resistance program will cause a muscle gain of 2-5lbs in 2 to 4 months. Remember this number, 5lbs is near the top of muscle growth during this period of time. It is our baseline for the studies as well.
Steroids and muscle growth
There was a steroid study that contained 43 men who were experienced weight lifters. There were 4 groups in the study.
* Group 1: NO EXERCISE + NO STERIODS
* Group 2: EXERCISE + NO STERIODS
* Group 3: NO EXERCISE + WEEKLY STEROID INJECTION
* Group 4: EXERCISE + WEEKLY STEROID INJECTION.
Each member of this study consumed roughly 120g of protein (which is on the lower side of current recommendations) and about 16calories per pound of bodyweight.
Group 1: no gain in LBM
Group 2: gained 4.5lbs
Group 3: gained more than group 1
Group 4: gained over 13lbs of LBM
120g of protein was sufficient protein to be able to build up to 13lbs of LBM.
[Bhasin S, 1996].
And a steroid study has to do with protein intake how???Lacto-ovo vegeterians
Lacto-ovo vegeterians(I’ll just call them veggie’s for short) Consume about 79g of protein and about 450 calories less than non-vegetarians. Non veggie’s consume about 138g of protein on a daily basis. Both groups in this study gained between 2-5lbs of LBM. The point of this study is to show once you meet the minimum requirements you don’t need more protein. Remember 5lbs of LBM is what can be gained with a good resistance plan. In this study both groups came close to average results, even the veggies who ate very low amounts of protein.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600563
Also fails to support your claim. The study was about creatine, not protein, and it showed that vegetarians show a greater effect from creatine supplementation because of lower baseline levels.Renal Disease
People with renal disease must consume low amounts of protein to delay their disease. They must under 0.3g of protein per pound of body weight. A man of 160lbs would consume 48g of protein. Their disease is highly catabolic(breaks down their muscles). One group lifted weights while the other group did not. Even with ridiculous low amount of protein the group that lifted weights had a slight increase of LBM. The group who didn’t do any resistance training? They lost 7lbs of LBM. This shows how powerful resistance training can be.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11730397
Also not studying the effect of protein intake. And how, exactly, does this "apply to the general population"?????Excessive calories
In this study both groups consumed 2010 calories in addition to their normal daily intake. Group 1 also consumed an additional 106g of protein and group 2 consumed only an extra 24g of protein. The results are group 1 gained 6lbs of lBM and group 2 gained 7.5lbs while consuming roughly 120g of protein total. Yes the LOWER protein group gained LBM than the higher protein group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11591884
Directly contradicts your claim:
". Males that supplemented with whey protein while resistance training demonstrated greater improvement in knee extension peak torque and lean tissue mass than males engaged in training alone. Males that supplemented with a combination of whey protein and creatine had greater increases in lean tissue mass and bench press than those who supplemented with only whey protein or placebo. "
So Whey+Creatine > Whey > Placebo.
Stop listening to Pilon, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Here's a lesson for you. If you want to show that protein intake is unimportant, than quote a study that shows no effect when levels of protein are varied. You haven't done this.
If you read the meta-analysis I posted (or any of the others), they show a clear benefit to increased protein intake.
What does a single outlier prove? Compare vegan bodybuilders with non-vegans, and see who usually comes out on top.0 -
From is VeganBB article
Bench Press: 180Kg
Squat: 192Kg
Dead lift: 250Kg
Sounds impressive, until you compare him to other competitive powerlifters in his age/weight class:
If he were competing in the USAPL his ranking would be as follows (out of 20 competitors)
Bench: 6th
Squat: 17th
Deadlift: 8th
Total: 10th
So low protein can make you mediocre. Awesome.0 -
U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO
Ignore this. This is the worst advice I've ever seen.
Lifting weights DEFINITELY helps you lose body fat.0 -
I know you know what beef jerky looks like. A lot of mass is lost in the dehydration process, why? There is a ton of fluid in it. If i remember correctly, I think it's like 70-80% fluid. The micro fiber tear thing isn't entirely true. I has more to do with lactic acid.
Muscles actually increase in size, they don't grow "new muscle fibers" Protein is needed to build "new cell fibers." Muscles don't work that way. You use glucose(carbs) when you lift, they are needed for the muscle contractions. The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned. You don't need that much protein(what you claim).
This doesn't actually make any sense... You are suggesting that people who have big muscles look that way because of fluid retention? :huh: Think that through for a sec.
Muscle growth comes from suffering micro-tears in the muscle fiber while using them. When they heal, they heal stronger and slightly larger. This is why they suggest rest, to allow the healing to happen. There is some fluid retention right after lifting to aid in that healing process. This is where protein is used.
Also from wiki...
"Muscle hypertrophy involves an increase in size of skeletal muscle through an increase in the size of its component cells. Hypertrophy can be broken down into two types of categories: myofibril and sarcoplasmic. Each of these specific types of muscle hypertrophy will result in increasing size of cells, but not of equal effect. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is focused on increasing the actual size of the muscle, and less on increasing strength. Myofibril hypertrophy will focus more on strength increase and less on an increase in the size of the skeletal muscle."
There is a difference in increasing "cell SIZE" and creating "NEW" cells.
Using Wiki and your own article as references. Not even going to bother refuting any of this. I think FunkyTobias did a great job of that.0 -
I know you know what beef jerky looks like. A lot of mass is lost in the dehydration process, why? There is a ton of fluid in it. If i remember correctly, I think it's like 70-80% fluid. The micro fiber tear thing isn't entirely true. I has more to do with lactic acid.
Muscles actually increase in size, they don't grow "new muscle fibers" Protein is needed to build "new cell fibers." Muscles don't work that way. You use glucose(carbs) when you lift, they are needed for the muscle contractions. The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned. You don't need that much protein(what you claim).
This doesn't actually make any sense... You are suggesting that people who have big muscles look that way because of fluid retention? :huh: Think that through for a sec.
Muscle growth comes from suffering micro-tears in the muscle fiber while using them. When they heal, they heal stronger and slightly larger. This is why they suggest rest, to allow the healing to happen. There is some fluid retention right after lifting to aid in that healing process. This is where protein is used.
Also from wiki...
"Muscle hypertrophy involves an increase in size of skeletal muscle through an increase in the size of its component cells. Hypertrophy can be broken down into two types of categories: myofibril and sarcoplasmic. Each of these specific types of muscle hypertrophy will result in increasing size of cells, but not of equal effect. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is focused on increasing the actual size of the muscle, and less on increasing strength. Myofibril hypertrophy will focus more on strength increase and less on an increase in the size of the skeletal muscle."
There is a difference in increasing "cell SIZE" and creating "NEW" cells.
Using Wiki and your own article as references. Not even going to bother refuting any of this. I think FunkyTobias did a great job of that.
My own article is based on research. The wiki part was used as a "definition." Read the other part i posted, with all the studies I posted... Go look up the definition of "hypertrophy" use any source you want to.... you will see.
And, contrary to your claim, protein is crucial to both myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Nobody brought up hyperplasia (except you). So just stop tilting at strawmen please. KTHXBYE.0 -
Think about your claim, "the benefit of eating more protein." Does it even make any sense? If I sat here eating 500g of protein, you think I'll be growing muscle? What if I was eating 500g of protein and weight training, would i grow muscle(if in a calorie deficit)? So if you think "protein" builds muscle, think again. Muscle growth requires a "CALORIE" surplus and a stimuli(weight lifting).
Which brings us back to the original point of the thread. Eat protein to preserve muscle while eating at a deficit to lose more fat than muscle.0 -
Muscles actually increase in size, they don't grow "new muscle fibers" Protein is needed to build "new cell fibers." Muscles don't work that way. You use glucose(carbs) when you lift, they are needed for the muscle contractions. The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned. You don't need that much protein(what you claim).
So you're claiming that muscle protein synthesis, a phenomena that has been directly measured, doesn't occur? I think you're confusing hypertrophy with hyperplasia.
No i am not, here is part of a article I wrote. "Today scientists do not have the tools to measure muscle growth directly. The reason is because muscle mass grows at a slow rate. How is protein intake is determined for muscle growth if we can’t measure it directly? We use a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a theoretical indirect measure. It’s an assumption we’re getting a result by a specific indicator. For muscle building we use nitrogen balance. Nitrogen is found only in protein. If we’re not losing any (in a positive nitrogen balance) the body is using the protein. If we’re in a negative nitrogen balance it’s assumed that muscle mass is being loss because our body is using our muscle mass for energy and we’re eliminating protein from the body. This would imply we don’t have enough protein. Most research agrees there is no correlation between protein synthesis and protein intake. Most recommendation on protein intake use this surrogate endpoint of protein synthesis (nitrogen balance), the method is flawed, it’s based on assumption. "
An article you wrote is hardly a valid reference. Most research, in fact, shows a direct correlation between protein synthesis and protein intake. And, contrary to what you said, muscle growth is not just "fluid"
"The role of dietary protein intake on protein turnover has been well established. As discussed previously the adequate requirement of essential amino acids is of paramount importance to reaching a net positive protein turnover. It is also clear that the ramification of restricted dietary protein intake is muscle wasting [27]. Recently a study [28] found that consumption of an isoenergetic diet at the mean adult minimum protein requirement for 4 wk produced an 81% lower fractional synthesis rate of myosin heavy chain (MHC) proteins in vastus lateralis muscle than did consumption of an ample protein diet. "
http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/27
"Current research suggests that dietary protein supplementation can augment resistance exercise-mediated gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength and can preserve skeletal muscle mass during periods of diet-induced energy restriction. Perhaps less appreciated, protein supplementation can augment resistance training-mediated gains in skeletal muscle mass even in individuals habitually consuming 'adequate' (i.e., >0.8 g kg-1 day-1) protein. Additionally, overfeeding energy with moderate to high-protein intake (15-25 % protein or 1.8-3.0 g kg-1 day-1) is associated with lean, but not fat mass accretion, when compared to overfeeding energy with low protein intake (5 % protein or ~0.68 g kg-1 day-1)"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645387
"Quantity and timing of protein ingestion are major factors regulating myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS).""
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23459753
The first one you posted, have you even read it? The reference, it talks about people with diseases, such as aids. So that doesn't really apply to the general population.
What are you talking about? The 1st reference is a meta-analysis of several studies, which clearly states that protein plays an important role in MPS.
Since you like references, here is the rest of what i wrote.Everyone agrees that the key to muscle growth is resistance training. Without it, you won’t grow muscle mass without any form of muscle stimulation. The load and proper rest are the main things that influence muscle growth [Goldeberg Al, 1975]. Any good resistance program will cause a muscle gain of 2-5lbs in 2 to 4 months. Remember this number, 5lbs is near the top of muscle growth during this period of time. It is our baseline for the studies as well.
Steroids and muscle growth
There was a steroid study that contained 43 men who were experienced weight lifters. There were 4 groups in the study.
* Group 1: NO EXERCISE + NO STERIODS
* Group 2: EXERCISE + NO STERIODS
* Group 3: NO EXERCISE + WEEKLY STEROID INJECTION
* Group 4: EXERCISE + WEEKLY STEROID INJECTION.
Each member of this study consumed roughly 120g of protein (which is on the lower side of current recommendations) and about 16calories per pound of bodyweight.
Group 1: no gain in LBM
Group 2: gained 4.5lbs
Group 3: gained more than group 1
Group 4: gained over 13lbs of LBM
120g of protein was sufficient protein to be able to build up to 13lbs of LBM.
[Bhasin S, 1996].
And a steroid study has to do with protein intake how???Lacto-ovo vegeterians
Lacto-ovo vegeterians(I’ll just call them veggie’s for short) Consume about 79g of protein and about 450 calories less than non-vegetarians. Non veggie’s consume about 138g of protein on a daily basis. Both groups in this study gained between 2-5lbs of LBM. The point of this study is to show once you meet the minimum requirements you don’t need more protein. Remember 5lbs of LBM is what can be gained with a good resistance plan. In this study both groups came close to average results, even the veggies who ate very low amounts of protein.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600563
Also fails to support your claim. The study was about creatine, not protein, and it showed that vegetarians show a greater effect from creatine supplementation because of lower baseline levels.Renal Disease
People with renal disease must consume low amounts of protein to delay their disease. They must under 0.3g of protein per pound of body weight. A man of 160lbs would consume 48g of protein. Their disease is highly catabolic(breaks down their muscles). One group lifted weights while the other group did not. Even with ridiculous low amount of protein the group that lifted weights had a slight increase of LBM. The group who didn’t do any resistance training? They lost 7lbs of LBM. This shows how powerful resistance training can be.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11730397
Also not studying the effect of protein intake. And how, exactly, does this "apply to the general population"?????Excessive calories
In this study both groups consumed 2010 calories in addition to their normal daily intake. Group 1 also consumed an additional 106g of protein and group 2 consumed only an extra 24g of protein. The results are group 1 gained 6lbs of lBM and group 2 gained 7.5lbs while consuming roughly 120g of protein total. Yes the LOWER protein group gained LBM than the higher protein group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11591884
Directly contradicts your claim:
". Males that supplemented with whey protein while resistance training demonstrated greater improvement in knee extension peak torque and lean tissue mass than males engaged in training alone. Males that supplemented with a combination of whey protein and creatine had greater increases in lean tissue mass and bench press than those who supplemented with only whey protein or placebo. "
So Whey+Creatine > Whey > Placebo.
Stop listening to Pilon, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Here's a lesson for you. If you want to show that protein intake is unimportant, than quote a study that shows no effect when levels of protein are varied. You haven't done this.
If you read the meta-analysis I posted (or any of the others), they show a clear benefit to increased protein intake.
Think about your claim, "the benefit of eating more protein." Does it even make any sense? If I sat here eating 500g of protein, you think I'll be growing muscle? What if I was eating 500g of protein and weight training, would i grow muscle(if in a calorie deficit)? So if you think "protein" builds muscle, think again. Muscle growth requires a "CALORIE" surplus and a stimuli(weight lifting).
Strawman again. Nobody sad that protein builds muscle in the absence of training. Look up the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" condition.
A caloric surplus is a "necessary" condition.
Adequate protein is a "necessary" condition.
Resistance training is a "necessary condition.
None are sufficient.The first study I posted on steroids shows that you can build muscle mass with 120g of protein, you can build up to 14lbs. That study was about low amount of protein and large gains in muscle, proving that we don't need as much protein as we think.
Steroids change everything. Unless you're advocating drug use, this has no relevance to the topic at hand.The renal study shows you can gain LBM on very low amounts of protein. So once again "you don't need that much protein to put on LBM." The gained 5lbs of LBM I believe, that is average result results. Eating more protein won't produce greater results.
The bolded statement is false and merely a product of your own speculation."So Whey+Creatine > Whey > Placebo." Yes, the "creatine" produced results, not the whey. Which is saying once again, "you don't need that much protein" protein was constant in both groups, but the group with creatine made more gains. Why? Cause it's not about protein.
And the protein in the whey group was higher than the placebo group, and the results were better. This directly contradicts your claim.I don't "listen" to pilon, I listen to the research he produced, or research anyone has produced that makes sense. I have a lot of resources, I am majoring in biochemistry after all...
He hasn't produced any research, he merely cherry-picks and misapplies research. He (and you) are making claims about the difference in MPS given varying protein intake, yet carefully avoid any studies that actually focus on this exact topic. There are several (some of which I've already posted) and the overwhelming result is that higher protein intake results in higher levels of MPS.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions