Where Does Frank Medrano Get His Protein?

Note to this thread, I'm smart enough to ignore ignorance and hate, and I will continue to do so...

I'm not terribly certain that responding to something qualifies as ignoring it. I could be wrong though...I don't know science, or as it has come to be known...youtube videos.

Philip McCluskey on CBS "The Doctors"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FEaS6sudY

Do you even pubmed?

You did make a good attempt earlier.

I think there's a point here though that while Mr Frank Medrano looks strong for his stature (high strenght to weight ratio) he would need vastly less protein to maintain that physique compared to Mr Kali Muscle above; clearly built on meat and dare I say it - more?

I don't think anyone is going to build Mr Kali's physique on a vegan diet - or even omnivore for most - but then do we wan't to acheive those extremes? Having said that, I don't think I wan't to eat (let alone find every day) 50 bananas!

Kali Muscle relies on steroids more than anything, I think

one can find anecdotal evidence supporting the weight loss potential of just about everything, including bacon. Just because a person tries one method and succeeds in meeting a goal, does not mean that the method contributed to their success. In many, many, many cases it's actually the exact opposite (see: science). The human element of any such unregulated experiment categorically affects the outcome. If I want to make a bacon diet work, I can do it. It might take forever, and I might have a heart attack 5 years later because of it, but I can do it.

I'm not saying that being vegan will give you a heart attack. I'm saying that I grow tired of the non-scientific examples constantly (like, overwhelmingly frequently) cited on MFP as "evidence" of something. Whether it's eat more to lose weight, eat less to lose weight, drink this thing at this time always, never eat this, always eat this... you name it and someone has "proven" that it's the way to go. A picture of some chick who lost a bunch of weight and is also vegan does nothing to support your point or any other. Show me a double-blind, peer-reviewed study that has actually been published by an organization with some credibility, and I'll enjoy the hell out of reading it.

You're aware under our system, industry funds most scientific studies, so the study that you're crying for is not ever going to happen... And I understand you're from Texas, and maybe freedom of speech is not valued there, but I'm going to promote whatever I feel is right, and you're free to do the same... But I've had enough of closed minded bullies for one night...
This is our last conversation cowboy... Thanks for your comments, and have a great life...

This is incorrect - industry does not fund most scientific studies. While R&D is mostly industry paid, government and public funding is a huge part of it. While overall medical funding is about 40% public, this goes well above 70% when you take out product-related research.

Here try this --- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Now go see if one study shows that whey protein is bad for you.

Well here you go...
Part 1
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/protein-intake-and-igf-1-production/

Part 2
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/higher-quality-may-mean-higher-risk/

Well, that's some guy's blog not pubmed. So let's look at the source of information he used which is here: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1441.full.pdf+html

First point - it says absolutely nothing, not one thing, does not mention whey at all.
So that's a fail.

Second of all - yes, IGF-1 production is lower in certain vegan/vegetarian diets. This is true. Is this good or bad? IGF-1 production is low basically because the amino acid profile in the study *may* be deficient.

Or as the authors put it:
"Vegan diets tends to be low in certain essential amino acids, and dietary restriction of one or more essential amino acids has been shown to reduce IGF-I and increase IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-2 production in animal (8, 34) and human feeding studies (35, 36). This may be attributable to an indirect effect of protein restriction in reducing growth hormone secretion and, hence, reducing IGF-I and increasing IGFBP-2 production (37) or a more direct effect of amino acid restriction in increasing IGFBP-1 production in hepatocytes (34, 38)."

So, the author's showed that *possibly* these diets were deficient in providing the essential elements for IGF-1.

So what is IGF-1 and is it bad?
Well, without it IGF-1 we have muscle atrophy and neuronal cell death. It is also a factor that is extremely important in my old field of research - bone growth. IGF-1 is a major positive element in bone growth through the activation of osteocytes.

That's strike two and three for that site.

Oh, wait, what does your site say about IGF-1 - It's all bad and promotes cancer, right?

In fact, the dude has a whole page on why IGF-1 is a "One Stop Cancer" something or other....
Here: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/igf-1-as-one-stop-cancer-shop/

Except what does a study he cite actually say?

Well, it sees some correlation but not much, not always and issues in study design. Strike 4.

Quote:
"For all exposures, there was substantial heterogeneity (all I(2) > 75%), partly explained by study design: the magnitude of associations was smaller in prospective vs. retrospective studies, and for IGFBP-3, the inverse association with prostate cancer risk was seen in retrospective but not prospective studies. There was weak evidence that associations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 with prostate cancer were stronger for advanced disease. Our meta-analysis confirms that raised circulating lGF-I is positively associated with prostate cancer risk. Associations between IGFBP-3 and prostate cancer were inconsistent, and there was little evidence for a role of IGF-II, IGFBP-1 or IGFBP-2 in prostate cancer risk."

So form this - when levels from normal to raised one sees *possibly* an increase in risk of some cancers to conclude that artificially lowering normal levels will somehow be effective in reducing these risks is monkey droppings.

Strike 5.

None of these studies show whey to be bad. To promote cancer.

Now is IGF-1 expression an indicator of cancer - maybe. There are studies in cell cultures that suggest it might be. There are also studies in humans that show that overexpression is an indicator for LOW risk of breast cancer. (In all honesty, not only is this not my specialty but I would take the educated guess that IGF-1 will likely be found to "feed" certain types of tumors but not a real cause or "switch" of cancers. But that's a guess on my part and not really of value.)

That's strike 6.

Now again - is there a published, peer reviewed study that shows whey protein to be bad? I have not found one. Believe me I look, I read the source literature.

Oh, and about normal IGF-1 levels. I'm going to close with a quote from one of the studies he cites:

"Circulating levels of IGF-1 are regulated by insulin and the growth hormone. Malnutrition, fasting, liver disease and other severe diseases are associated with low IGF-1 concentration [16]. IGF-1 concentration decreases with aging [53]. Exercise is another important regulator of IGF-1 levels [60].

Several cross-sectional studies have found significant positive correlations between fitness level and circulating IGF-1 levels [24, 43, 70]. Such a correlation indicates that physical training leads to an increased activity of the IGF system. Higher levels of circulating IGF-1 and increased amplitude of spontaneous GH pulses were found in trained young males as compared with the untrained ones [43, 48, 70]. Studies on animals demonstrated that longer periods of training resulted in increased IGF-1 gene expression in the skeletal muscular tissue [108]."

So if you want to artificially lower your IGF-1 levels may I suggest stopping exercise, malnutrition and drinking to induce liver disease? Probably not a good idea...

tl;dr: IGF-1 good, too much or too little maybe bad.

I think there's a point here though that while Mr Frank Medrano looks strong for his stature (high strenght to weight ratio) he would need vastly less protein to maintain that physique compared to Mr Kali Muscle above; clearly built on meat and dare I say it - more?

I don't think anyone is going to build Mr Kali's physique on a vegan diet - or even omnivore for most - but then do we wan't to acheive those extremes? Having said that, I don't think I wan't to eat (let alone find every day) 50 bananas!

Kali Muscle relies on steroids more than anything, I think

Wonder if he puts bananas in his protein shakes to?

I seen him eat like 50 bananas to wash down his hyphy mud.

Philip McCluskey on CBS "The Doctors"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FEaS6sudY

Do you even pubmed?

You did make a good attempt earlier.

No, you're more than welcome to take that over...
And thank you for your comments...

Not my 'job' as I am not the one making these silly claims.

I wish i could do gifs from my phone!

Ive been watching this thread all morning and feel the need to grab doughnuts and watch more!

I'm not adding anything as its clear the OP knows best ;-)

I know what's good for myself, and I have a right to share information... I'm happy that no one would try to censor anyone... LOL
Enjoy your donuts, and thank you for your comment...

You know you remind me of my grandad, ramming religion down my throat all my life, what you like/believe etc is fine, but you can't seem to even comprehend its not the only way?!!!

So it is for you, that's great I'm glad you've found what works for you. To be honest you should leave science out of it, every living thing is different and does not react to things the same way, so science is just as far as I'm concerned a guidance, everyone needs things that are different, which as far as i can see you refuse to acknowledge, so who exactly is closed minded?

I personally don't ever want to give up anything i like just because it's politically correct, and i could get run over tomorrow and die so I'm going to enjoy everything, just in moderation now, but i however respect others may not want to do it my way! That's being open minded. I read your points, watched your videos, being open minded and still decided its not for me!

Btw you missed the sarcasm in the doughnut comment