Protein?? How do I eat less of it

Someone asked to to clarify this statement earlier - you seem to have over looked that.

Can you please define EXACTLY what you mean by "carbs are more muscle sparing than protein" and under what conditions.

In conditions where diet is higher in carbs than protein, if protein is higher than carbs then protein is more sparing. Longer more difficult process through gluconeogenesis.

Since this is about clarification, I'll dumb it down. Gluconeogenesis is the process of making glucose(carbs in the blood) from protein. The body needs glucose. For energy, it can use ketones (but this is another topic all together).

What causes loss of muscle mass? When the body needs glucose. It will strip amino acids from the muscles and convert it in to glucose and use it for energy. It can also strip it from muscles to provide amino acids to critical organs if there isn't enough amino acids in the blood stream.

You can eat more carbs to prevent muscle being broken down to to glucose(carbs). So "Carbs are muscle sparing." You could also eat more protein i you want too, protein converts to glucose at a ratio o 48 * 100^-1 grams.

I know what gluconeogenesis is and I know that carbs *can* be protein sparing...but I am not sure how that answers your statement of "carbs are more muscle sparing than protein". By your logic, I don't need to have any protein?

Protein is important, but the amount people think they need is over rated. Carbs convert at a 1:1 ratio, protein .48:1 ratio. You get more glucose which will prevent muscles mass being used for energy.

Assuming a depleted state of glucose.
example 1: you consume 100g of carbs and workout using 75g of glucose, you still have 25g of glucose left.
example 2: you consume 100g of protein you get 48g grams of glucose. You still need 27g of glucose, this will come from muscle mass.

oh okay, To answer you "directly" and not deflect. No i didn't do the math wrong, I just didn't see the entire article if i remember correctly.

On your calculating macro topic why do you set 1g per LBM for everyone? You don't think different people in different situations needs different amounts of protein?

Ummm...if you read the topic you will see I do not say it is for everyone.

Also, still waiting for that link to the thread you mentioned...

and yes, you go the math wrong...and did not read the article properly

If you read my post properly, I said i don't remember the name of the topic. I'll go check my math on that topic.

You're mistaken about my ticker, you shouldn't make things up.

300 * .82 = 246lbs.

I made a mistake on my original calculation.

Protein is important, but the amount people think they need is over rated. Carbs convert at a 1:1 ratio, protein .48:1 ratio. You get more glucose which will prevent muscles mass being used for energy.

Assuming a depleted state of glucose.
example 1: you consume 100g of carbs and workout using 75g of glucose, you still have 25g of glucose left.
example 2: you consume 100g of protein you get 48g grams of glucose. You still need 27g of glucose, this will come from muscle mass.

People get in to eating higher protein for muscle sparing properties. As you know most of the people on this site are in a deficit in the first place. They think they have to eat all this protein to prevent muscle loss. When carbs would do the job better.

I agree this is dumb, if you want to prove what you said in what i quoted. I posted my studies and i explained the processes. I explained how and why it works.

Still waiting for someone to quote something i said and tell me it's incorrect.

I already did ;-)

And with that...bye :happy:

Or we can check the thread when i proved both of them wrong, I don't remember the title of it though. We had a debate about this again. If you want to take the alan aragon approach, he recommends things by a dexa scan which is flawed. So that blows that out of the water.

What makes one person study more credible than another? You can't pick favorites in science.

I also offer this question to anyone who is talking about higher protein intake. Are they talking from education or experience? I am speaking from both.

I wouldn't call them scientifically minded. I would call it pick a favorite guru and parrot him.

I have never seen such a thread. Not that it matters but I do find Sara and Sidesteel more credible then you. They don't tend to botch things up constantly like I see you do (see example of that thread I posted where you constantly made mistakes). That aside, I don't listen to them unless it makes sense. I've questioned Sara many a times and went out and read my own info...and so far...Sara's usually if not always right lol. I always question things though. And I've questioned Sara many times. And the longer period of time that goes by, the more likely I am to look at her response over someone like you. And after reading sidesteels arms...and then looking at his posts lol...everything he said just made sense to me.

And terrible to admit it but after doing something for an extended period of time people will trust you more if you look the part. Many people will choose the fit personal trainer over the obese one even if the larger one is a whole lot more knowledgeable and sensible. Perhaps why I've met many dumb ones that are doing so well. Sara and Sidesteel are both in incredible shape. They are both in inspirable shape and practice what they preach and can back it up. Not saying looks should have all baring at all...A friend of mine is incredibly intelligent but never practices what he preaches.

I'm a terrible parrot. How many times did I ignore and question weights and more protein and increasing calories etc etc etc before I actually did it because I didn't have a doubt left. If I took your side my finger nails would probably still be constantly cracking off.

If someone says something I can find something on google scholar that agrees with them and it makes sense, I'll believe them. Why wouldn't I?

They are more credible than a biochemistry major, NASM CPT(National Academy Of Sports Medicine) who has lost 163lbs? okay.
You never even questioned me, you don't know what I know.

Big muscles limit performance in a survival situation, as humans we're designed to survive, so bigger muscles are pointless for humans.

I train some people who look better than both of them combined, just so you know. Advice listen to both sides and make your conclusion, don't be narrow minded.

I really doubt that biochem major is you, or is here to argue what you pulled out of your bum. No, I didn't question you, because I don't want to know what you know, because constantly spit out things that make no sense that you are constantly correcting. And when you're lying and pulling things out of thin air and making assumptions, I don't see the point of questioning you, or trying to know what you know.

Who said I had big muscles, I have no idea what you are going on with or why you are going on with it lol.

And I don't doubt that you train people who look better then both of them combined. I feel sorry for them though. I've listened to the advice on both sides, looked up some biology and chemistry, was on the other side of the low protein fence, made a conclusion, benefited from it and showed results and increased my health. I wouldn't call that being narrow minded.

If you're talking about me "correcting things" it was on that protein topic i made. I specifically said I was really tired and I haven't gotten much rest. If you can list something else I "corrected" i would gladly like to hear it.

Calculus doesn't make sense to a 5th grader. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong.

Go look up IGF-1 and life span, and uric acid and pH of blood. Then eat your protein.

I seem to remember in a certain thread where you got some basic math wrong.....oh...this one! http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/827452-how-dave-tate-cuts?

Yes I made a mistake, tell me you have never made one?, i seen you make them too. Even codergirl said you make mistakes. So what? we all do.

Yet again, missing the point and trying to deflect. And actually, codergal did not actually say that.

ETA: for the record, I am not saying I am never wrong, however,which mistakes did I make or can you not find that those threads either?

Or we can check the thread when i proved both of them wrong, I don't remember the title of it though. We had a debate about this again. If you want to take the alan aragon approach, he recommends things by a dexa scan which is flawed. So that blows that out of the water.

What makes one person study more credible than another? You can't pick favorites in science.

I also offer this question to anyone who is talking about higher protein intake. Are they talking from education or experience? I am speaking from both.

I wouldn't call them scientifically minded. I would call it pick a favorite guru and parrot him.

I have never seen such a thread. Not that it matters but I do find Sara and Sidesteel more credible then you. They don't tend to botch things up constantly like I see you do (see example of that thread I posted where you constantly made mistakes). That aside, I don't listen to them unless it makes sense. I've questioned Sara many a times and went out and read my own info...and so far...Sara's usually if not always right lol. I always question things though. And I've questioned Sara many times. And the longer period of time that goes by, the more likely I am to look at her response over someone like you. And after reading sidesteels arms...and then looking at his posts lol...everything he said just made sense to me.

And terrible to admit it but after doing something for an extended period of time people will trust you more if you look the part. Many people will choose the fit personal trainer over the obese one even if the larger one is a whole lot more knowledgeable and sensible. Perhaps why I've met many dumb ones that are doing so well. Sara and Sidesteel are both in incredible shape. They are both in inspirable shape and practice what they preach and can back it up. Not saying looks should have all baring at all...A friend of mine is incredibly intelligent but never practices what he preaches.

I'm a terrible parrot. How many times did I ignore and question weights and more protein and increasing calories etc etc etc before I actually did it because I didn't have a doubt left. If I took your side my finger nails would probably still be constantly cracking off.

If someone says something I can find something on google scholar that agrees with them and it makes sense, I'll believe them. Why wouldn't I?

They are more credible than a biochemistry major, NASM CPT(National Academy Of Sports Medicine) who has lost 163lbs? okay.
You never even questioned me, you don't know what I know.

Big muscles limit performance in a survival situation, as humans we're designed to survive, so bigger muscles are pointless for humans.

I train some people who look better than both of them combined, just so you know. Advice listen to both sides and make your conclusion, don't be narrow minded.

I really doubt that biochem major is you, or is here to argue what you pulled out of your bum. No, I didn't question you, because I don't want to know what you know, because constantly spit out things that make no sense that you are constantly correcting. And when you're lying and pulling things out of thin air and making assumptions, I don't see the point of questioning you, or trying to know what you know.

Who said I had big muscles, I have no idea what you are going on with or why you are going on with it lol.

And I don't doubt that you train people who look better then both of them combined. I feel sorry for them though. I've listened to the advice on both sides, looked up some biology and chemistry, was on the other side of the low protein fence, made a conclusion, benefited from it and showed results and increased my health. I wouldn't call that being narrow minded.

If you're talking about me "correcting things" it was on that protein topic i made. I specifically said I was really tired and I haven't gotten much rest. If you can list something else I "corrected" i would gladly like to hear it.

Calculus doesn't make sense to a 5th grader. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong.

Go look up IGF-1 and life span, and uric acid and pH of blood. Then eat your protein.

I seem to remember in a certain thread where you got some basic math wrong.....oh...this one! http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/827452-how-dave-tate-cuts?

Yes I made a mistake, tell me you have never made one?, i seen you make them too. Even codergirl said you make mistakes. So what? we all do.

Yet again, missing the point and trying to deflect. And actually, codergal did not actually say that.

oh okay, To answer you "directly" and not deflect. No i didn't do the math wrong, I just didn't see the entire article if i remember correctly.

On your calculating macro topic why do you set 1g per LBM for everyone? You don't think different people in different situations needs different amounts of protein?

Someone asked to to clarify this statement earlier - you seem to have over looked that.

Can you please define EXACTLY what you mean by "carbs are more muscle sparing than protein" and under what conditions.

In conditions where diet is higher in carbs than protein, if protein is higher than carbs then protein is more sparing. Longer more difficult process through gluconeogenesis.

Since this is about clarification, I'll dumb it down. Gluconeogenesis is the process of making glucose(carbs in the blood) from protein. The body needs glucose. For energy, it can use ketones (but this is another topic all together).

What causes loss of muscle mass? When the body needs glucose. It will strip amino acids from the muscles and convert it in to glucose and use it for energy. It can also strip it from muscles to provide amino acids to critical organs if there isn't enough amino acids in the blood stream.

You can eat more carbs to prevent muscle being broken down to to glucose(carbs). So "Carbs are muscle sparing." You could also eat more protein i you want too, protein converts to glucose at a ratio o 48 * 100^-1 grams.

I know what gluconeogenesis is and I know that carbs *can* be protein sparing...but I am not sure how that answers your statement of "carbs are more muscle sparing than protein". By your logic, I don't need to have any protein?

Protein is important, but the amount people think they need is over rated. Carbs convert at a 1:1 ratio, protein .48:1 ratio. You get more glucose which will prevent muscles mass being used for energy.

Assuming a depleted state of glucose.
example 1: you consume 100g of carbs and workout using 75g of glucose, you still have 25g of glucose left.
example 2: you consume 100g of protein you get 48g grams of glucose. You still need 27g of glucose, this will come from muscle mass.

Someone asked to to clarify this statement earlier - you seem to have over looked that.

Can you please define EXACTLY what you mean by "carbs are more muscle sparing than protein" and under what conditions.

In conditions where diet is higher in carbs than protein, if protein is higher than carbs then protein is more sparing. Longer more difficult process through gluconeogenesis.

Since this is about clarification, I'll dumb it down. Gluconeogenesis is the process of making glucose(carbs in the blood) from protein. The body needs glucose. For energy, it can use ketones (but this is another topic all together).

What causes loss of muscle mass? When the body needs glucose. It will strip amino acids from the muscles and convert it in to glucose and use it for energy. It can also strip it from muscles to provide amino acids to critical organs if there isn't enough amino acids in the blood stream.

You can eat more carbs to prevent muscle being broken down to to glucose(carbs). So "Carbs are muscle sparing." You could also eat more protein i you want too, protein converts to glucose at a ratio o 48 * 100^-1 grams.

I know what gluconeogenesis is and I know that carbs *can* be protein sparing...but I am not sure how that answers your statement of "carbs are more muscle sparing than protein". By your logic, I don't need to have any protein?

Protein is important, but the amount people think they need is over rated. Carbs convert at a 1:1 ratio, protein .48:1 ratio. You get more glucose which will prevent muscles mass being used for energy.

Assuming a depleted state of glucose.
example 1: you consume 100g of carbs and workout using 75g of glucose, you still have 25g of glucose left.
example 2: you consume 100g of protein you get 48g grams of glucose. You still need 27g of glucose, this will come from muscle mass.

So all this time you were implying carbs are better for retaining muscle when you were really just saying how much excess sugar carbs turn to? I'm not following you on this.

Nitrogen balance in the low protein condition resulted in two of the six bodybuilders entering into negative nitrogen balance. A linear regression calculation of protein requirements needed to attain zero nitrogen balance indicated that bodybuilders required 1.2 g·kg-1·day-1 with a correction factor of 1 standard deviation (SD) unit added. When comparing low protein diets to high protein diets, it was found that nitrogen balance was significantly more positive for the high protein condition than the low protein condition (13.35 grams of N retained vs. 1.06 grams of N retained). Surprisingly, the authors did not find a significant change in lean body mass (LBM). The authors suggested that these results may have been due to overestimation of nitrogen retention. However, Tipton and Wolfe [1] recently postulated that the protein deposition may have been too small to detect. This explanation appears valid considering the fact that these were experienced bodybuilders who were in 'maintenance' and that each condition in the study lasted for only a 10 day duration.

notice the bold

That was one study comparing bodybuilders who were maintaining their mass, and even their lowest-protein group was consuming over 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight.

In a second study conducted by Tarnopolsky et al. [13] strength athletes with 3–9 months of training experience and sedentary participants were analyzed in response to low (0.8 g·kg-1·day-1), moderate (1.4 g·kg-1·day-1) and high protein intakes (2.4 g·kg-1·day-1). Utilizing linear regression, protein requirements for sedentary and strength athletes were found to be 0.69 and 1.4 g·kg-1·day-1 respectively. In addition to nitrogen balance however, the authors utilized a tracer technique to measure whole body protein synthesis (WBPS). Results indicated that WBPS increased from low to moderate protein intake, with no significant increase from the moderate to high condition.

Further, the rate of leucine oxidation increased as protein intakes increased, indicating that a great deal of the excess protein intake was utilized as energy. One variable in this study that the authors mentioned was that the additional protein from the moderate to high protein conditions was added from whey, making the diet a higher quality of protein relative to the low and moderate protein diets.

I was reading this one too and all i could think "who cares about the nitrogen balance."

People who have a clue about biology care about nitrogen balance.

I conclude this "peer review study" you posted invalid.

The link wasn't to a study. It was to a collection of dozens of studies. Look at the summary table - five of these peer-reviewed studies concluded you need more than 1g/kg of bodyweight protein to maintain muscle mass.

Go get 'em white tiger lol I'm taking the advice given to me and I'm out :P

What would your conclusion of the entire book be?
It's a load of crap. That's how i see the link you posted.

Really high amounts of protein aren't good for you. Your body can only use so much, and the process of excreting the rest involves calcium. One reason why we have so much osteoporosis in America (compared to many developing nations that have almost none) is our high protein diets. We leach the calcium from our bones as we digest the excess protein. I kid you not: there's lots of science behind this.