allday54
Member
- Awards
- 0
HOw much protein can your body take in and absorb at once? Protein is expensive as hell these days and I don want to piss it in the toilet.
Good read, but keep in mind it is written by a supplement company that sells protein. Read Alan Aragon articles on protein.
Very true.Good read, but keep in mind it is written by a supplement company that sells protein. Read Alan Aragon articles on protein.
Bingo.A more important question should be: How do ensure that an optimal amount of the proteins I am eating are being assimilated into skeletal muscle tissue?
Br
so, how do you ensure that an optimal amount of the proteins consumed are being assimilated into skeletal muscle tissue?A more important question should be: How do ensure that an optimal amount of the proteins I am eating are being assimilated into skeletal muscle tissue?
Br
Did you read the article posted above? From the research, it doesn't seem very likely that 200g of protein split over 6 vs. 2 meals makes much of a difference in protein synthesis rates.It's absorbed by the small intestine... you know how much surface area that is? It all depends on what kind of protein your taking in and how "long it takes" to absorb. Your likely going to utilize most of what you throw at your body between your mouth and your ass. I wouldn't worry about it.
But... the better spaced apart, the more stable your blood amino acids levels will be... Thus giving you a nice steady anabolic environment. Taking it all down in one sitting is not going to help you much. If your having problems with mealtime, I would suggest a couple casein shakes throughout the day, say... one when you wake, one in the evening, and even one before bed... (50-80g each, depending on your macro goals).
X2 ^^^^^^^^^I'm referring to type of protein... Ex, whey, casein, egg.... How fast it's digested and absorbed by the body. I was actually supporting the article with my statement of the surface are of the intestines "being able" to absorb how ever much (quantity) you throw at it.
However, I'm still not convinced that one article (with a 14 day period, done on females) has any relevance to area being discussed.
My approach is 6 meals vs 2... complete that is, carbs, proteins, fats, etc... just seems to be the more logical choice if you ask me. This is a tried and true method with supporting evidence of stable blood sugar levels, stable blood nitrogen levels, etc...
I would like to see the scientific evidence behind this article if there is any... Not that I'm bashing what it is suggesting. I just feel that every ones digestive system works at different rates, one person may take 24 hours to fully digest a meal, while someone else may **** it out in 8 hours. Split meals has been established and accepted as the most ideal way to ingest your days nutrients for the most positive effectiveness.
Why do you think people that eat once a day in one sitting are mostly overweight, particularly in the visceral region.
What happens if you drink 400 mg of caffeine in one sitting... compared to 100mg 4x a day... It's just common sense. The metabolism plays a large role with anything we throw in our body. Why would protein be any different?
I was suggesting the casein BTW... because of prolonged absorption rates.
I'd like to see a follow up study with 200grams of whey in one sitting once a day... vs. 50 mg of casein 4x a day... That would be interesting.
^ This make senseI'm referring to type of protein... Ex, whey, casein, egg.... How fast it's digested and absorbed by the body. I was actually supporting the article with my statement of the surface are of the intestines "being able" to absorb how ever much (quantity) you throw at it.
However, I'm still not convinced that one article (with a 14 day period, done on females) has any relevance to area being discussed.
My approach is 6 meals vs 2... complete that is, carbs, proteins, fats, etc... just seems to be the more logical choice if you ask me. This is a tried and true method with supporting evidence of stable blood sugar levels, stable blood nitrogen levels, etc...
I would like to see the scientific evidence behind this article if there is any... Not that I'm bashing what it is suggesting. I just feel that every ones digestive system works at different rates, one person may take 24 hours to fully digest a meal, while someone else may **** it out in 8 hours. Split meals has been established and accepted as the most ideal way to ingest your days nutrients for the most positive effectiveness.
Why do you think people that eat once a day in one sitting are mostly overweight, particularly in the visceral region.
What happens if you drink 400 mg of caffeine in one sitting... compared to 100mg 4x a day... It's just common sense. The metabolism plays a large role with anything we throw in our body. Why would protein be any different?
I was suggesting the casein BTW... because of prolonged absorption rates.
I'd like to see a follow up study with 200grams of whey in one sitting once a day... vs. 50 mg of casein 4x a day... That would be interesting.
Sigh...
Broscience at its best. Brosh!tSigh...
just because something seems more logical, doesnt make it true. Example: Eating every two hours to stoke your metabolism seems logical but just isnt trueMy approach is 6 meals vs 2... complete that is, carbs, proteins, fats, etc... just seems to be the more logical choice
I didnt read the article by aragon so not sure what he said or what claims he made but there is plenty of evidence that supports the opposite of your claims that smaller meals multiple time are better than fewer yet larger mealsI would like to see the scientific evidence behind this article if there is any...
nopeSplit meals has been established and accepted as the most ideal way to ingest your days nutrients for the most positive effectiveness.
And what is this based off off?Why do you think people that eat once a day in one sitting are mostly overweight, particularly in the visceral region.
I'm referring to type of protein... Ex, whey, casein, egg.... How fast it's digested and absorbed by the body. I was actually supporting the article with my statement of the surface are of the intestines "being able" to absorb how ever much (quantity) you throw at it.
However, I'm still not convinced that one article (with a 14 day period, done on females) has any relevance to area being discussed.
My approach is 6 meals vs 2... complete that is, carbs, proteins, fats, etc... just seems to be the more logical choice if you ask me. This is a tried and true method with supporting evidence of stable blood sugar levels, stable blood nitrogen levels, etc...
I would like to see the scientific evidence behind this article if there is any... Not that I'm bashing what it is suggesting. I just feel that every ones digestive system works at different rates, one person may take 24 hours to fully digest a meal, while someone else may **** it out in 8 hours. Split meals has been established and accepted as the most ideal way to ingest your days nutrients for the most positive effectiveness.
Why do you think people that eat once a day in one sitting are mostly overweight, particularly in the visceral region.
Anecdotal evidence. You can also look at studies done in intermittent fasting subjects, who show similar and sometimes greater weight loss and better body compositions.
PMID: 20921964
Similar or greater insulin sensitivity: 16051710, 19776143
Positive adaptations in GH and body comp in trained men with single meal consumption: 18617733
Not to mention, there's a decent amount of research regarding the anti-cancer, anti-aging, heart protective and neuroprotective effects of intermittent fasting, 17374948, 15802901, 10878654, 15741046
And one study showing the consumption of one meal has little effect on performance in Judo: 19910805
Though, I would think a period of acclimiation would be needed when switching from multiple feedings to IF.
What happens if you drink 400 mg of caffeine in one sitting... compared to 100mg 4x a day... It's just common sense. The metabolism plays a large role with anything we throw in our body. Why would protein be any different?
I see the analogy you are trying to make; however, caffeine is not stored in the body tissues like amino acids, glucose, or fatty acids are. Caffeine is an alkaloid that is metabolized and excreted.
I was suggesting the casein BTW... because of prolonged absorption rates.
I'd like to see a follow up study with 200grams of whey in one sitting once a day... vs. 50 mg of casein 4x a day... That would be interesting.
Splanchnic and leg substrate exchange after ingestion of a natural mixed meal in humans.
It is concluded that in human subjects, 1) the absorption of a natural mixed meal is still incomplete at 5 h after ingestion; 2) HGP is only marginally and tardily inhibited; 3) splanchnic and peripheral tissues contribute to the disposal of meal carbohydrate to approximately the same extent; 4) the splanchnic area transfers >30% of the ingested proteins to the systemic circulation; and 5) after meal ingestion, skeletal muscle takes up BCAA to replenish muscle protein stores.
PMID:10331398
Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women
No significant effects of the protein feeding pattern were detected on either whole-body protein turnover [5.5 +/- 0.2 vs. 6.1 +/- 0.3 g protein/(kg fat-free mass. d) for spread and pulse pattern, respectively] or whole-body protein synthesis and protein breakdown. Thus, in young women, these protein feeding patterns did not have significantly different effects on protein retention.
PMID:10867039
Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention
....were fed for 14 d either a pulse diet (n = 7), providing 80% of the daily protein intake at 1200, or a spread diet (n = 8), in which the same daily protein intake was spread over 4 meals. Both diets provided 1.7 g protein x kg fat-free mass (FFM)(-1) x d(-1). Protein accretion and daily protein turnover were determined by using the nitrogen balance method and the end product method (ammonia and urea) after an oral dose of [15N]glycine.....Nitrogen balance was more positive with the pulse than with the spread diet (54 +/- 7 compared with 27 +/- 6 mg N x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1); P < 0.05). Protein turnover rates were also higher with the pulse than with the spread diet (5.58 +/- 0.22 compared with 4.98 +/- 0.17 g protein x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1); P < 0.05), mainly because of higher protein synthesis in the pulse group (4.48 +/- 0.19 g protein x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1)) than in the spread group (3.75 +/- 0.19 g protein x kg FFM(-1) x d(-1)) (P < 0.05).....A protein pulse-feeding pattern was more efficient than was a protein spread-feeding pattern in improving, after 14 d, whole-body protein retention ....
PMID:10357740
And also Lyle McDonald on the topicIntermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism.
No differences in body weight were observed between the IF and SD groups. Peripheral glucose uptake and hepatic insulin sensitivity during the clamp did not significantly differ between the IF and SD groups. Likewise, lipolysis and proteolysis were not different between the IF and SD groups. IF decreased resting energy expenditure. IF had no effect on the phosphorylation of AKT but significantly increased the phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase. Phosphorylation of mTOR was significantly lower after IF than after the SD.
PMID:19776143
(101 g protein in a 4-hour window, there was no difference in preservation of lean mass and muscle protein between if and standard diet groups)
References
1. Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. Br J Nutr. 2008 Jun;99(6):1316-21.
2. Taylor MA, Garrow JS. Compared with nibbling, neither gorging nor a morning fast affect short-term energy balance in obese patients in a chamber calorimeter. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Apr;25(4):519-28.
3. Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM. Meal frequency and energy balance. Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
4. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Frequency of feeding, weight reduction and energy metabolism. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993 Jan;17(1):31-6.
5. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Influence of the feeding frequency on nutrient utilization in man: consequences for energy metabolism. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991 Mar;45(3):161-9.
6. Bilsborough S, Mann N. A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Apr;16(2):129-52.
7. Moore DR, et al. Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albumin protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):161-8.
8. Campbell B, et al. International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Sep 26;4:8.
9. Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
10. Symons TB, et al. A moderate serving of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and elderly subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Sep;109(9):1582-6.
11. Arnal MA, et al. Protein feeding pattern does not affect protein retention in young women. J Nutr. 2000 Jul;130(7):1700-4.
12. Arnal MA, et al. Protein pulse feeding improves protein retention in elderly women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1202-8.
13. Soeters MR, et al. Intermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;90(5):1244-51.
14. Stote KS, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.
the bold statements are saying that a fasted method of dieting and the warrior diet are what? i know tons of people who have great success using both types....I'm referring to type of protein... Ex, whey, casein, egg.... How fast it's digested and absorbed by the body. I was actually supporting the article with my statement of the surface are of the intestines "being able" to absorb how ever much (quantity) you throw at it.
However, I'm still not convinced that one article (with a 14 day period, done on females) has any relevance to area being discussed.
My approach is 6 meals vs 2... complete that is, carbs, proteins, fats, etc... just seems to be the more logical choice if you ask me. This is a tried and true method with supporting evidence of stable blood sugar levels, stable blood nitrogen levels, etc...
I would like to see the scientific evidence behind this article if there is any... Not that I'm bashing what it is suggesting. I just feel that every ones digestive system works at different rates, one person may take 24 hours to fully digest a meal, while someone else may **** it out in 8 hours. Split meals has been established and accepted as the most ideal way to ingest your days nutrients for the most positive effectiveness.
Why do you think people that eat once a day in one sitting are mostly overweight, particularly in the visceral region.
What happens if you drink 400 mg of caffeine in one sitting... compared to 100mg 4x a day... It's just common sense. The metabolism plays a large role with anything we throw in our body. Why would protein be any different?
I was suggesting the casein BTW... because of prolonged absorption rates.
I'd like to see a follow up study with 200grams of whey in one sitting once a day... vs. 50 mg of casein 4x a day... That would be interesting.