Protien: how much per day?

Runningart2004 wrote:

I only argue with people who want to argue, those who just spew nonsense.

Then you should be arguing with yourself, since most of what you spew on nutrition, is in fact, nonsense.

And as far as refuting you, I've don't it many times, and you just ignored it. You have ZERO training in nutrition, and sooo, soooo very much of what you write on the subject is not backed up by real science. I am sorry, but those are the facts.

Anyone asking Alan for advice on nutrition is getting bad advice. Again, please tell me why you think you know so much about this subject? Again, you have NO education in the area, NO training, and clearly jump to conclusions, and garner most of your knowledge from small one-off studies done 15 years ago, or from body building magazines/Dr's who promote/are sponsored by protein supplements.

Thinking yourself and proclaiming yourself an expert is not enough to make yourself actually one. You've got to prove it, and spending your day reading body building magazines and telling old ladies how to do crunches does not not suffice in making a knowledgeable person on nutrition. I'm sorry, it just plain doesn't (you do have a degree and experience and certs in sport science/personal training, so when it comes to asking about how to do certain lifts and strength training, I would consider your opinion in that area).

I appreciate the feedback, Alan. My PRs are too embarrasing to state(lets just say im pretty far away from a 4 min mile).

Lets take Pre as an example, if he had became leaner, do you think his already impressive times can become better? I recall Harald Norporth's coach thinking so. I agree the muscles push us forward but won't that be countered by the excess weight(extra muscles) that the body is carrying? Just a thought.

Btw im in the army, so it is quite impossible for me to cut out pullups.

I don't advocate 1000g of protein...that would be my doppleganger.

Hey Gwendolyn, I mean Sir Lance-alot...

You know what they say...if you don't have something nice to say...

Did you know the first college nutrition programs were paid for by General Mills and pretty much all of the nutritional "guidelines" you see in print are come from big AG.

I'll post this again since you have a reading problem:

Chopped full of sources and SCIENCE:

www.apec-s.com/Low%20Carb%20Redux.pdf

Paul Chek is probably the smartest strength & conditioning coach on the planet...he's gone a little over the edge latley, but here are some comments before he went coo-coo:

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/deconstructing_paul_chek

Lance, I continue to lead you to water but you still don't budge. That's fine. I don't invade threads call you an idiot so I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy. We can have dicussions and disagree all we want. I know I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. People here can make their own decisions and read what they want to read and learn what they want to learn.

Alan

Thanks for the responses, folks. To keep things simple, I may go with the 1g protein per 1 lb body weight.

Alan, your input is always a worthwhile read.

Thanks...glad to see people appreciate it.

Alan

'Do the muscles move the legs forward or is it the heart/lungs? It's the muscles'

No, like the engine of a car its largely the heart, lungs. When I say largely do you understand? - not eveything is black & white

I was 145-147 6'0 & could still beat 90% of guys weighing 30lbs more in an arm wrestle. An international runner - Steve Vernon- saw me training & said my legs were like a rugby players rather than a runner - so your undertanding of body weight and runners is miles out

I eat plent of crap you advise now & am no stonger just fatter & run more slowly! That's married life though (and not running enough) - not listening to your crap!!

Ah...a subject for another day...

Is it your heart/lungs telling your legs what to do or is it your legs telling your heart/lungs what it needs.

There is a difference between necessary and unecessary muscle. Due to genetics, some people will be able to get really skinny and lean and that is fine with them, others, like Pre, are not destined to be that skinny.

Run well and eat right and your body will settle on the weight that is optimal for that activity. Trying to invade that homeostasis is likely not a good idea.

Webb on the otherhand does too much arm work and that is why he's too jacked up in the arms. He's not lifting with his head doing functional work, he's lifting with his ego which is why he's overly muscled.

Alan

Ah yes, gluconeogenesis. I was totally thrown off because I usually work with that term when just dealing with the individual amino acids and not the protein as a whole. I feel like an undergrad for not realizing!

Anyway, gluconeogenesis is only used in extreme conditions in when there is no available serum glucose or muscle glycogen, I would be shocked to find someone in America that fits that criteria.

As for keeping carbs low...why on earth would you EVER want to do that? It's the easiest fuel source for the body to break down. It does it efficiently and quickly and does it ALL THE TIME. So why would you ever decrease your carb intake just to increase your protein intake.

The 2.0 g/kg is the UPPERMOST tier for protein intake and most people shouldn't really be that high. I would recommend around 1.8g/kg for most runners because a lot of the running that most people do isn't necessarily depleting their nutrient stores so there's really not a huge need to ingest more than enough protein to rebuild. A small amount does the trick. Don't overconsume is what I'm trying to say. Besides, you'll have more room for storing carbs to use as fuel (which protein isn't).

As your 1g/lb of bodyweight is still ABOVE the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST that researchers and scientists say that is the MAXIMUM amount that can be used by the body, I'd say you are wasting a lot of energy digesting those proteins and a lot of time eating them (depending on how fast you eat!) Plus, no research has ever been shown that excess protein ingestion shows an ergogenic benefit.

Keep the feedback coming, Alan. Loving them.

While I agree that a high fructose diet is bad, a glucose or starch rich diet is just fine for you. It is used readily by your cells and is not stored as fat. The body needs to strip amino acids of an amine group (leading to excess urea which needs to be filtered by your kidneys...may logically be a bit tough on them) before gluconeogenesis can be used. Seems like extra work to me when glucose can just be used as it is. Why make your kidneys and digestive system work harder to basically make glucose from protein when you can just take glucose in as is. After all protein to glucose is called GLUCOneogenesis. All living cells have evolved to use glucose so why try to deprive them of it.

Im sure everyone knows this but to reiterate and clarify, sugar is sucrose (fructose-glucose disaccharide), starch is amylopectin (glucose polysaccharide) and maltose is also a glucose-glucose disaccharide that can be obtained from breaking down starch. All can be hydrolyzed early in digestion at the surface of the small intestine where enzymes are waiting. High fructose corn syrup is bascially the same thing as sucrose too so I don't get why all the buzz is that HFCS is bad for you and sugar gets a free pass.

About 80% of the glucose you consume is utilized quickly by both the muscles and the brain and doesn't get much of a chance to go through the liver. The remaining 20% of the glucose you consume goes into the liver where it is stored as glycogen (energy reserves that we want because we can tap into them easily later). Some if this glucose (now glucose-6-P) is turned into pyruvate where it enters mitochondria and is turned into acetyl CoA. The acetyl CoA goes into the Kreb cycle so you can have ATP for your working muscles. However, a very small fraction of the acetyl CoA in your mitochondria is exported back out as citrate and through denovo lipogenesis (new fat making) is turned into adipose tissue (first as VLDLs). With glucose this amount is very small, just a fraction of the amount of glucose you consume.

Conversely, with fructose, the liver takes all of the burden. This is due to the lack of receptors for fructose by your brain and muscles. Only your liver can metabolize it. So now a much larger amount can be converted to pyruvate then enter the mitochondria then exit as citrate and be turned into VLDLs. Additionally, other steps in the breakdown of fructose produce ureic acid which leads to both gout and hypertension. As stated before, since your brain doesn't have receptors for fructose you do not have a negative feedback loop telling you that you are full so you don't stop eating. In summary, fructose turns into fat and causes leads to other problems...unless you have a high fiber diet. If fiber is high the small intestine does not absorb as much fructose (so the liver can't turn it into adipose tissue)

Someone posted an excellent video on here about the negative aspects of fructose presented by Robert Lustig, a Prof. of Pediatrics. It is a bit long but I would advise watching it. Most of the stuff above comes from what I remember him saying in the video. From about 40:00-1:10:00 is the good stuff. He makes it pretty easy to follow and comprehend but some background knowledge in metabolic pathways and general biology would definitely be helpful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

How he explains the metabolic pathway fructose takes really illuminates how it is bad for us. However, that being said, I do not think he would advise a high protein diet (he may but I can't remember if he does). He comes across as one who would recommend to limit your fructose intake or, increase your fiber intake to limit the amount of fructose that is absorbed by your small intestine, while eating a high glucose diet to restore glycogen stores and fuel cells.

Lance, once again you're way out of line. Always on the hate and trying to pick a fight. Yes Alan is a bit over the top at times and clearly loves himself but so are many other people including myself. He does however bring some knowledge and helpful advice to some of us always looking for a little more food for thought. As with any advise you should always consider opposing views too and use your own experiences to determine what works best for you. Maybe you would be well served with some study in tolerance and issues of inadequecies.

Sorry, my ridiculous long post was to state why I think protein is a bad choice for fuel. However, it is still probably extremely important for muscle repair. I do not have much knowledge on this since I am not big into weigh lifting or explosive activities (and yes, I know running breaks down a lot of muscle too). I see fueling as more of and issue in running than repair so this is why I am arguing that glucose is better used as a fuel source than protein, as it seems that Alan is arguing. I do like the information and enjoy reading the back and forth bitching so please keep it up. Obviously there is no one BEST way of doing something and I am open to all new ideas or opinions so keep them coming!

Before we go any further....when calculating carb intake I do not count vegetables unless they are tubers (potatoes, yams, etc)....as they don't contribute much to the equation.

Gluconeogensis will happen any time dietary glucose is low.

chemistry.creighton.edu/~jksoukup/lec17glucon2007.pdf

Pre-modern eskimos thrived on a diet high in fat and protein and void of any carbs. Our ancestors, where were quite lean and strong, ate mostly fat and protein with few carb sources (nuts, berries, fruit, etc)

I've posted some of these before...and will again...

Please, everyone...take time and read:

Dr. Clay Hyght:

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/high_performance_nutrition_made_easy

Dr. Lonnie Lowery:

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/inconvenient_truths_protein_health_and_strength_sports

Low Carb Redux:

www.apec-s.com/Low%20Carb%20Redux.pdf

*great sources here

Protein Prejudice by Dr. John Berardi

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/protein_prejudice

"An athlete may need less protein to stay alive but he/she should consume more protein to optimize performance and body composition."

The Truth About Nutrtion by Dr. Johnny Bowden:

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/the_truth_about_nutrition

That's all for now...maybe more later...

Alan

Great post shortshorts, thanks for contributing in a positive manner.

A high carb, high fat diet is why 60% of America is overweight.

Of course glucose is so easily used by the body...the body wants nothing more than to lay around and wait for the next famine. It would love to eat lots of fats and carbs and get fat and wait. It's a survial mechanism. Your nervous system needs glucose yes. The question is do we need as many carbs as we normally consume? I would say no.

Grains are pretty new ingredient in human advancement, only in the last 10,000 years and bread wasn't readily available untl the last few hundred years.

Alan

Oh I got one more:

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/the_protein_roundtable

Look at the graph early on, while the high protein guy lost more nitrogen he also netted much more protein.

While most of the discussions and articles I source are from "bodybuilding" authors, coaches, and doctors they are very applicable to the distance running world and especially elite distance running. The amount of physical damage we do to muscle tissue on a day to day basis is at least equal to the amount of protein a bodybuilder needs to gain mass. Physical activity is physical activity.

Alan

Alan, thanks for the protein resources, but it's pretty clear you didn't get the gist of shortshorts's remarkably excellent post. There's a huge difference in how glucose (good) and fructose/sucrose (bad) are handled by the body (that video should be watched, especially at the points that shortshorts indicated). You are needlessly villifying grains (although the current grain industry might be a different story). I know you're really pushing this whole paleolithic/stone age stuff/pre10kBC, but don't you think the development of an actual "human civilization" and perhaps the advancement of human evolution/knowledge was in part the result of agriculture?

I didn't touch on shortshorts fructose/glucose/sucrose comments because I agree. Fructose is not a good thing to have high amounts of.

Agriculture simple allowed humans to stay in one place so yes it did advance our civilization, but even with the advent of agriculture we still ate a lot of natural foods.

It's the processed carbs that I have a huge problem with: cereals, pasta, bread...basically anything that has more than one ingredient. Those are the types of foods that lead us to ingest 50-70% carbs....unless you're consuming a crap ton of corn and potatoes! Even then would that really be ideal for an athlete?

Anyway, I've said my piece and posted loads of information and links that should keep you all busy.

Have a good Friday!

Alan

[quote]ukathleticscoach wrote:

'Do the muscles move the legs forward or is it the heart/lungs? It's the muscles'

No, like the engine of a car its largely the heart, lungs. When I say largely do you understand? - not eveything is black & whitequote]

You are obviously not an automotive engineer. I am not either, but I would compare the heart and lungs more to the gas tank and the vents in the engine. The engine is more like the muscles.

And the driver is the brain, and the wheels are the feet, and the tires are the shoes, and the windows and mirrors are the eyes, and this analogy has gone far enough.

I guess as an asian guy, I get pretty protective of my rice.