Page 1 of 1
re-education please :)
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:17 pm
I am sure it's been asked (heck, I probably even asked it here) but I searched quite a bit before posting this as I found very little.
Where did the huge focus on protein (especially in the world of physique/muscle-focused people) come from? Is it really necessary to eat 1 g/lb of weight (or even lean body mass) per day? For instance do I really need 100 g of protein a day if I'm 118 lbs w/ about 100 lbs of lean body mass?
Where can I read more about this, as well as the whole "incomplete vs. complete protein" thing, which from what I can tell, isn't true? Back in the day didn't people say that vegetable proteins were inferior quality?
How much protein does an active person who weight trains really need?
And other than soy and dairy, what veg. products provide it?
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:27 am
Dairy isnt veg, what are you talking about? Look at hemp protein, soy, rice, vegetable (mostly soy), pea...those are all in powder form.
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:38 am
I use pea/rice.
I honestly dont measure how much protein i take. I usually take about 100g just in my shakes on lifting days, plus beans, rice, noodles or whatever else i cram down. Nuts of course. So many protein sources.
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:30 am
I notice my best gains when I take between 200 grams and 300 grams of protein daily. I know it is different for each person, but that is what has worked well for me.
I get most of my protein from foods. You can see my meal plans listed on the main site under nutrition:
When I use shakes, I get my protein mostly from hemp, but also rice, pea, and soy.
Do some experiments to see what works best for your body....that is how I found out that 200-300 grams was the best for me to put on size and strength.
Re: re-education please :)
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:15 am
The complete protein/incomplete protein value of foods is based on experiments to see what protein sources provide enough of the right amino acids to serve as the sole source of protein in a diet and promote growth and make one thrive.
Unfortunately, earlier tests on this were done with rats, because scientists can observe several generations of rats in a short time, and it was later found that rats need more of a specific amino acid than humans do to thrive. That's where 'all plant proteins are incomplete' comes from.
Somewhere around the early 1990's, scientists began taking this into account, and retested, finding that there are indeed some plant proteins (notably soy) that are 'complete.'
But since noone eats just one kind of protein, this is a bit misleading.
Francis Moore Lappé's original "Diet for a New Planet" tried to compensate for the 'incompleteness' of many plant foods by really stressing protein complimentary: the lackiing or low amino acids in one food group (like beans) could be compensated for by eating that food group with another that contained the missing/low amino acids (grains).
In subsequent editions of DFANP, Lappé amended her recommendations, based on research that showed that you don't have to eat the complimentatry amino acids at the same time, because your body stores amino acids, and can combine those from different meals.
The body breaks down protein into their individual amino acids and stores the ones that it doesn't need for the moment.
Some say that plant proteins are actually superior to animal proteins, because animal proteins are 'pre-formed' and take more energy to break down, while the proteins in plants are usually in the form of separate amino acids that the body doesn't have to break down (in nuts and seeds, soaking raw ones helps break down pre-formed proteins into individual amino acids that are easier to assimilate).
I think the "you need lots of protein to build muscle" thing is based a bit on inaccurate observation: to build muscle, you have to eat muscle (not thinking of how bulls and elephants and 'food' animals got their muscle!)
It can also be an overgeneralization: the logic that, since protein aids in building and recovery, MORE protein would mean MORE building and recovery, taking things to unnecessary extremes.
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:18 pm
calorie total is much more important...if your eating a couple thousand calories over what a lazy person your weight should eat your getting way more protein than you need...unless of course all your calories are from fat
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:06 pm
Total calories of course are more important.
But let's say I am eating 1500 cals a day.
would it not matter if it was say 50//25/25/ for prot./fat/carb.
20/30/50...or whatever. Exercise and weight training being constant, would I get different results?
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:55 pm
Like Rob said, it all varies. I eat under 100 grams a day and I've probably put on 25 pounds of muscle in a year.
Don't worry about that whole "combining proteins" and forcing yourself to eat beans with it's "complements", it's not necessary if you're eating like a weight lifter.
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:20 pm
You would probably get different results but maybe not...its different for everyone. I have more energy when I eat a ton of carbs and it lets me train harder...I tend to get larger on higher protein(meaning 300g+ instead of 200) but that doesn't normally mean stronger for me. Everyones different and you've gotta experiement but for pretty much everyone...if you wanna get big the calories have gotta be there
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:13 pm
Potter - judging from your avatar, you're a cyclist - of course you need the carbs
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:27 pm
the avatar is deceiving...most of my athletic life was as a 300+lbs shot putter...now I'm just a feebly muscled cyclist
Re: re-education please :)
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:32 pm
Kathryn wrote:The complete protein/incomplete protein value of foods is based on experiments to see what protein sources provide enough of the right amino acids to serve as the sole source of protein in a diet and promote growth and make one thrive.
Do you recall any of the research. I am very interested in it. I have never found any research to state why the "ideal" amino acid profile is so. It mirrors diary and eggs and absence any research (I have looked over the year many times) it seems it was simply based on the assumption that diary and eggs are some perfect protein source so that must be the ideal amino acid profile. In other words it probably carries no weight, if a simple assumption. But again I do not know but I am searching for such evidence tah tit is legitinmate.
Also any research on complete proteins would be good, as I am very interested in that. I still can not understand why something like rice that is only low in lysine by 25%, versus the so-called ideal profile means it is incomplete. If you ate 50 grams of rice protein that means you are getting just as much lysine as you would eating 38 grams of a so-called complete protein. Statistically to call that incomplete makes no sense to me. So any research helping to explain this would be much appreciated.
Re: re-education please :)
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:37 pm
9nines wrote:Do you recall any of the research.
Sorry, I don't remember any specifics, just the change when soy was finally found to be 'complete' accordiing to the research standards (Ie: will this protein source alone promote growth, and over generations?)
I wonder if the scientists doing this started with a preconceived notion of what would be the best protein sources (milk and eggs?) and went from there, or if they just decided to test various groups of rats with various types of proteins and see what worked, then determine from there what the protein requirements of humans really were (not too smart, as they later found out, when someone finally figured out that humans and rats aren't the same).
I don't even remember readiing one particular article or book about it, just little bits and pieces here and there. (So much for being the "long-term vegan memory" of the site!)
I wonder if a web search for "complete protein study" or "human protein requirements" or something to that effect would come up with anything useful?
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:22 pm
I had heard of the rat study also and the follow-up retort that it was invalid because they have like 12 essential amino acids or some such higher number.
I have searched with many different word variables and found none. All reports or studies on protein completeness, that I have seen, just site the ideal profile, yet none reference why it is ideal. It seems to be all tautological, with just acceptance of the premise that the ideal amino acid profile is X and the working back to it when giving a protein score on a source.
Also, you can find many of these reports highlighting rice with its 75% lysine, yet I have never read one highlighting hamburger meat at around 50% to 75% (higher the fat cut the lower %) of tryptophan, in comparison to the ideal profile, yet that is its score. That omission, while highlight plants sources with much higher scores, taints a lot of these reports as propaganda against a vegetarian diet.
If you ever run across an research that states how the ideal profile was formulated, please post here. I will do the same, if I ever do.