ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
The Impact of Protein on Muscle Mass Gain: The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="madman" data-source="post: 278432" data-attributes="member: 13851"><p><strong><em>The belief that anabolic response to feeding during post-exercise recovery has an upper limit … lacks scientific proof.</em></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Did you watch the webinar to get his full take on the subject?</p><p></p><p>You need to watch the webinar to appreciate/understand what he is saying here.</p><p></p><p>I will throw in the some of the transcripts!</p><p></p><p>Make sure to read all of it over or better yet watch the full webinar!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Even when abusing high doses of exogenous T/AAS most are still consuming way too much protein!</p><p></p><p>Even when chemically enhanced the body can still only build new muscle fibers (actin/myosin) so fast.</p><p></p><p>Big difference between dry/wet gains here when it comes to packing on muscle mass!</p><p></p><p>You should very well know being in a caloric surplus and meeting your daily protein requirement is far more critical than consuming absurd amounts of protein natty or repping that chemically enhanced fake build!</p><p></p><p>>2 g/lb is overfucking kill especially when in a caloric surplus!</p><p></p><p>Nattys let alone anyone using using therapeutic doses of T can easily get away with 1 g/lb LBM when in a caloric surplus.</p><p></p><p>No one told you Yates rarely went above 1 g/lb LBM in the offseason?</p><p></p><p>Even when dieting he barely went above this and mainly manipulated his carbohydrates/fats.</p><p></p><p>I can show you the interview where he clearly states this!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Take home points here!</p><p></p><p><em><strong>*So just to talk to you a little bit about protein supplementation, hypertrophy. So first of all, <u>I do think that optimization of adaptations requires greater than the Rda but the intake that appears to optimize adaptations peaks at around 2 times the Rda</u></strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*And even if you believe that it goes up as high as 2.2. <u>My point is, there are no data showing that intakes higher than this offer further advantages from either fat mass loss which some people talk about or lean mass gain and emphasize lean mass</u>. Right? It's it's not muscle. <u>Nobody knows how much muscle, because people haven't done the right measures there</u></strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*And that means that I think that you know sort of other protein related variables are of <u>much lower importance than total daily intake</u>. And you know I'll give you a quick laundry list of things that <u>probably don't matter protein timing, meal distribution, Leucine content a few other things like that</u></strong></em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans (2023)</strong></p><p></p><p><em>Jorn Trommelen, Glenn A.A. van Lieshout, Jean Nyakayiru, Andrew M. Holwerda, Joey S.J. Smeets, Floris K. Hendriks, Janneau M.X. van Kranenburg, Antoine H. Zorenc, Joan M. Senden, Joy P.B. Goessens, Annemie P. Gijsen, Luc J.C. van Loon</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Stuart Phillips:</strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong>*But I think a lot of people have misunderstood what it means to have a difference between </strong></em><strong><em><strong>net whole body net, protein, balance and muscle</strong></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><strong></strong></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><strong>*<em><strong><em><strong>It is the best example showing the per meal protein dose isn't as important as we once thought</strong></em></strong></em></strong></em></strong></p><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p><strong><em>*So this sort of you know, you've got to get this, and you've got to pulse it several times a day. I still don't think that's true anymore. And so this paper shows at least that that's the case</em></strong></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]42993[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]42994[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p><em><strong>But then <u>along comes this paper</u>. So these are good friends of mine. I was actually Jorn's external examiner. So I'm responsible for, I guess, in part for unleashing in the packing in into the world here, as a Phd. Student, outstanding Guy great thinker, and his supervisor, his mentor, and a real good friend of mine, Luke Van Loon.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>and you can see the title of the paper is A. It's a it's a catchy one. It says. <em><u>The</u> <u>anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration, like it's it just goes on forever, or at least it would seem</u>.</em></strong></em></p><p></p><p><strong><em>and when you look at their abstract. <u>They say we've got this dose response increase, but a large bolus of protein further increases whole body, protein, net balance, mixed muscle, mild for pillar, muscle, connective and plasma protein synthesis rates</u>. So you know, a lot of people have talked a lot about this paper, and <u>I'll give you my sort of quick. Take on this</u>, <u>and it's not to in any way dis findings here at all</u>. <u>But I think a lot of people have misunderstood what it means to have a difference between </u></em><u><em><strong>net </strong></em></u><em><strong><u>whole body net, protein, balance and muscle</u>. So we've only got the the <u>synthetic side of the muscle processes here, and in a very short period of time</u>.</strong></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><strong></strong></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><strong>But it says that the <u>magnitude and duration of the anabolic response is not restricted as previously been underestimated, and I definitely think that that's the case</u>. <u>So maybe what I've been talking about for years is is incorrect</u>. <u>So here's my take on this paper first of all</u>. <u>And and I've said it about my own data</u>. <u>And and you know, just to acknowledge this, these are acute findings</u>.</strong></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><strong></strong></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><strong>So the question is, <u>do they translate into long term outcomes</u>.</strong> But a lot of water was made on social media. <strong><u>But what this meant for muscle, masking, and etc., etc., etc., and you have no idea</u>. <u>This is, it's not a meal</u>. Okay, it's just pure milk protein. So it's not, I mean, unless you sit down to milk protein which some of you might do but most people eat real food. <u>And so it it's it's hard to know what this would actually mean</u>. Now, if you take the title at face value and say<u> there is no upper limit, and the duration is, you know, sort of seemingly endless</u>. <u>Then, if true. then more and more and and more protein would be get more and more and more obviously muscle mass and connected tissue and blood protein and everything else, and and we know that just doesn't happen</u>. So you know <u>there has to be a cap on this somewhere, and I I would suspect that if you kept eating this way is that all of the processes that, if you like, oxidize amino acids and dispose of amino nitrogen, because we know that they're up regulated</u></strong> <strong><u>would up, regulate, and essentially nullify this</u>. </strong>So it's a it's an outstanding paper. I think it. You know.</em></strong><em><strong> There's only one group in the world that could do this. And it's Luke's group, and you know, full credit to yarn. <u>But I do think that this is something that's unique to the milk protein, which, remember, is 80% caseine, which is a slowly digested protein and it's an acute effect</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>Now. <u>So what can we take from this paper</u>. <u>Now, there are some interesting implications</u>, <u>because a lot of people ask about whether one meal a day was the better way to eat, and I would say, No, you know what you need a couple of meals, because there's a limit of cap. and I don't know if that's true anymore</u>. So is one meal a day, feeding a good way to promote muscle mass gain compared to 2 to 3 meals a day, you know. Is this omat one meal a day, or, you know, sort of intermittent fasting. And again, people have done this. They gain muscle. <u>Is it the optimal way to gain muscle</u>.<u> I'm not sure I I still sort of tend towards multiple meals, but maybe one meal per day is not bad, and and maybe you can maximize things</u>. <u>But what I do think this paper is. It is the best example showing the per meal. Protein dose isn't as important as we once thought</u></strong></em><strong><em>.</em></strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong>So this sort of you know, <u>you've got to get this, and you've got to pulse it several times a day. I still don't think that's true anymore. And so this paper shows at least that that's the case</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><u>One of the things that we do know, however, and that's sort of critical when we talk about this</u>, but I'm about to sort of blow it up a little bit, too, is that there's a <u>key and critical amino acid in this process, and it's the amino acid. Leucine</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>Leucine is a branch chain amino acid. I'm I'm sure y'all remember. That's what it looks like. <u>We know how it works. It signals through this canonical signaling pathway the central hub of which is N</u>. <u>Tor to trigger protein synthesis </u></strong></em><strong><em><u>work from David Sabatini's lab at Mit has given us a mechanism</u>. <u>For this it binds in a protein called sestin 2. And then this whole M. Tor complex is able to be turned on, and protein synthesis proceeds</u>.</em></strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong><u>So how important is this amino acid</u>? And I'll just give you some data or show you some data from our lab to sort of emphasize this.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>This is work again, this Tyler church of Venez stuff, and we've got a negative control in this study. We've got. <u>This is Mps post exercise and 6 grams away</u>. <u>So a very small dose. And then we've got a fairly large dose, not not a hundred grams like you have in the trombin study but 25 grams</u>. <u>So we thought at the time, this is gonna Max, the the process so, and then we had 6 grams of weight, to which we added 5 grams of crystalline leucine</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><u>So what you can see is that is the rate of protein. Synthesis gets triggered by every intervention</u>. Here doesn't matter but then, in the <u>subsequent hours after exercise, this small dose is sort of sliding back towards baseline, because maybe it's rate limiting</u>. <u>You don't have enough amino acids, but the 25 gram doses doing just fine</u>. <u>In fact, it's up compared to the first 90 min</u>. <u>But so is the small dose when you've added Leucine back</u>.<u>and 5 grams of leucine is definitely overkill here</u>. This is proof as a proof of concept meal. I wouldn't recommend trying to get 5 grams of leucine into that kind of beverage. It's it's a very bitter amino acid, and this just doesn't taste particularly good.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>And a lot of people said, well, you know, I'm gonna try and do this. I'm gonna add leucine into here, and <u>I'll sort of show you in a little bit is that I think that this is an important amino acid.</u> <u>But we're blowing the top off of the response right here</u>.<u> It's probably much less amino acid, much less of the Leucine that you need</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>Now we have seen this work in in older men as well. This is Keelan. Murphy was a Phd. Student in my group at the time we had lower protein. This is the Rda. <u>This is 1.2 grams, and every time we added Leucine, and this was a crystalline drink at every meal. This is the protein synthetic response, not over hours now, but actually over days</u>. So this is a a deuterated water response </strong></em><strong><em>is that leucine, elevated even in a rested condition. The rate of muscle protein synthesis. <u>When you perform resistance, exercise as the crosses here indicate. Everything gets better</u>.<u> Exercise always amplifies the response, but Leucine added to resistance</u>.<u> Exercise amplifies it even further</u>. So it works in the the guys in this study. We're about 70 years old.</em></strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong>This is work by Michaela Devree. She was a postdoc in my group at the time. In older women, and instead of supplementing it as at every meal. This was 2 leucine, containing beverages that were formulated to be relatively high in Leucine that these women consumed, and so they were consuming the same amount of protein, but we improved the quality of the protein in these older individuals, and so at rest.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>The leucine beverage worked <u>exercise always greater than no exercise, but adding, the Leucine got a little bit further</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>So this has prompted us to <u>propose this Leucine trigger hypothesis</u>. Not just us. This is work that that Luke's lab contributed to. Bob Wolfe did some of this work as well. Blake Rasmussen has done some work, and and and definitely Doug Patton Jones, contributed to this as well, and <u>it goes something like this is that the intracellular leucine concentration probably has to rise to a certain threshold or full</u>.<u> If you like. Trigger level, it's not an on off switch. It's a sort of a dimmer switch type.</u> <u>Response</u></strong><u><strong>. </strong></u><strong><u>saturate all the sites, probably on cessron to remove all the inhibition on that complex, and then you get a robust increase in muscle protein synthesis</u>. <u>But the trigger moves. In other words, if you exercise particularly loading exercise, then the threshold goes down</u>. <u>it only does it transiently, but when I say transiently, it might do it for as long as a day or 2, and so so long as you're exercising, you make yourself sensitive to the effects of protein and leucine, and you can actually get away with eating a little bit less loosing</u>. <u>You don't necessarily need more</u>. <u>You're more sensitive to the effects.but the sugar can go in the opposite direction</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><u>If you're older, or even if you're younger, and you go on bed, rest, or you immobilize a leg, or if you have type, 2 diabetes, or you're suffering from systemic inflammation, then the trigger goes in the opposite direction</u>. <u>So you need more Leucine, or probably more practically, you need more protein to trigger this anabolic response</u>.</strong></em><strong><em>and just to emphasize to you that this is John Mathias work working at the University of Illinois, that proteins differ with respect to their quality. This is the digestible, indispensable amino acid score which is ostensibly the most useful. If you like. Way of scoring proteins, and we've got way proteins here. We've got milk proteins, and then you've got some soy proteins. You've got p protein. You've got wheat protein, and you can see </em></strong><em><strong>that to emphasize like the this is really a reflection of the essential amino acid content that not all proteins are created equal. and to hold in on the amino acid that that we think is important.</strong> <strong>These, that this is way protein, isolate milk, protein concentrate. Here's 2 different soy proteins, a peat protein, a rice protein. And I've added collagen here just because, it appears in a lot of supplements, and a lot of people probably know of my lack of fondness for collagen, but that's because it's astonishingly low in Leucine here, so ostensibly, you would have to eat 4 times as much collagen to trigger the antibodies response that you can get with these proteins here. And yet there's some absolutely fantastic data showing that this is somehow an effective source of protein for muscle growth. <u><strong>I</strong> guess at this point, after showing you all these protein synthetic measures. And you know this is how this works, and Tor and leucine triggers, you might ask yourself, does all of this really matter</u>? </strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><u>Does protein supplementation have an effect</u>? And you know, I'm from Mcmaster University? We like to think we're the home of of evidence-based medicine or evidence-based practice, or something like that. <u>So I'm gonna give you an evidence based answer. And this comes from obviously not looking at individual studies. but from systematic reviews and Meta analyses</u>. So this is this is Rob Morton. He was a Phd. Student, my group at the time when he, when he he did this study. <u>And you can see a cast of I think some fairly noterous a a individuals there.</u></strong></em><strong><em><u>and we're looking at the effect of protein supplementation over here on fat, free mass and then over </u>here on strength to the one lift that was common. So this is a leg press. But let's just say that that's representative, that it was the lift that was common to most of these studies. <u>So fat, free mass, first or </u></em></strong><em><strong><u>fat and bone free, lean mass, which isn't muscle</u>. <u>And I think a lot of people get confused about that</u>. <u>People say, you know, Dexa gives us the is the gold standard for muscle. And and it's not. It's not at a</u></strong><u><strong>ll</strong></u><strong>. <u>it's a proxy but protein supplementation. You can see if you can see the diamond here. It actually touches the 0 line and untrained people. And it's actually the trained folks that give us the significant effect</u>.</strong> <strong><u>But it's there it's about point 3 kilos, or a little bit less than a pound. How much of that is muscle? I I'm not really sure. But let's you know</u>.let's say half on average. <u>So it's about a hundred 50 grams, so probably about a quarter of a pound of muscle</u>. <u>But but it's significant</u>. <u>But you need 1,800 individuals</u>. <u>That's what this comprises here to see the effect</u>. So let's just say, on an individual study level, you can see here is that it's pretty difficult to pick it up </strong></em><strong><em>when it comes to strength, one rn strength. This is in the leg press to gain nothing, and untrained, but mostly in trained you've got about an extra 2 and a half kilos here. <u>So you know, this is a a II thought it was a fairly good systematic review met a meta analysis at the time</u>. <u>But you know these things outlive their usefulness, and they have to be updated</u>. And so this is ever so Nunez, who's a postdoc in my group. <u>And we just basically redid this, but actually added a few bells and whistles, not the least of which was to update the number of individuals. So we've got 74 randomized control trials here, 2,000 300 individuals</u>.</em></strong></p><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p><strong><em>Most of the studies are <u>animal protein</u>. They last or, excuse me, they're <u>they're probably taking people from above the Rda, anyway, and and and emphasizing that by somewhere between 30 to 50 grams per day</u>. Sometimes it comes from food. </em></strong><em><strong>sometimes it comes from supplements. <u>And you know the long and short is, is there is an effect of protein</u>. <u>It doesn't work</u>. I<u>f you're just consuming protein and not lifting weights, it only works when you're lifting weights, at least in our hands, and I'll show you some data which differs from that but the effect is small</u>.<u> It's about a half a kilo difference here in lean mass again, not muscle</u>. <u>Try to emphasize that point</u>. But it's there.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>But you need <u>2,300 odd individuals to find that significant effect with the implication, then, that it's a pretty small effect</u>.</strong> <strong><u>You can't actually find it in too many individual studies</u>. <u>It's a dose response, probably not surprising if you supplemented small doses</u>. You didn't see it. <u>So you got to less than 1.2 between 1.2 and 1.5 9, or almost 1.6 you saw the effect it actually only worked</u>. If you were younger and not if you were older, that's or although it's excuse me, <u>it is a small effect</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*And then, when you got into the <u>higher doses here, you did see something that was greater</u>.<u> Statistically speaking, it's actually no greater than the overall effect</u>. <u>But you can argue about whether that's a big deal or not</u>.<u> Maybe it is</u>. </strong></em><strong><em>And there were some functional outcomes at least nothing that I would be too excited about. <u>But you got a little bit stronger in the bench press and a few other lists. </u></em></strong><em><strong><u>but to try and give you some context about how small or how large these effects are. I'm gonna come back to this Morton Meta analysis into a figure that we inserted into this paper that was kinda surprised that we actually got in, because and I'll show you why.</u> <u>And and it's this figure right here. So we've got total protein intake quoted against the change in fat, free mass</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*And we've we forced what's called a a <u>biphasic linear regression equation through here</u>. <u>So the the line goes up for as long as it can, and then we're modeling it through here to the point where it plateaus you you could you could put a mono exponential </u></strong></em><strong><em><u>curve on here?</u> <u>You actually get close to the same answer</u>. But the point is here. <u>At the point at which this curve in flex is supposed to be sort of the mean optimization of this outcome, if you like</u>. <u>And I've added the the 90% confidence intervals</u>. <u>So the uncertainty of this answer is that it could be as low as point 9 or as high as 2.2</u>. <u>Well, of course, everybody wants to pick up here, because just in case so 1.6 is clearly twice the Rda, so that is a substantial amount of protein</u>.</em></strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong>*But it's <u>not as high as 2.2, so 2.2 would be that one mythical bodybuilder, one gram per pound, 1.6 is about 0 point 7 grams per pound and clearly point 8 down here is about 0 point 4 grams per pound</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*The interesting part is is that that the <u>overall relationship actually isn't statistically significant</u>. <u>So we weren't able to explain enough variance in using that approach that this curve was statistically significant</u>. And but it's, you know. <u>People have taken this and and run with it and said, You know why you go as high as 2.2</u>. <u>You know. You gotta believe your own data</u>. <u>And I'm like, well, you know, I try not to make too much about it, because this </u></strong></em><strong><u><em>so go figure</em></u><em><u>t o give us some more real world context</u>. There's the change in one. Rm, people say, I'll take the 9, or I'll take the 27% in fat, free mass. <u>But remember, this is the summed total of 2,000 odd individuals, and so you can argue whether you'll take it</u>. <u>You might be this person down here and very, very much buried in the variance, and and not have anything to sort of show for taking the extra protein</u>. <u>But on average you got about </u></em></strong><em><strong><u>27 extra. But realize that that's about 200 odd grams, which is about half a pound of fat free mass, which is a muscle</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>What percent of muscle I'm I'm not able to tell you, but and a little bump in strength, at least for the leg press.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>Now, a lot of people have sort of said, <u>you've lived and died on that that break point analysis that we did in the 1.6</u>. <u>So I said, well, you know what we can remove the stringent criteria that we use for that curve</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>In other words, <u>we can include studies that didn't have a control group which is the ethos of how you compare to learn the effect of the intervention</u>. <u>You need a control group</u>. <u>You need an intervention group, and you look at the standardized mean difference between the outcomes of those 2 groups </u></strong></em><strong><em><u>removing that stringent need to put all of those in there, and putting in some studies which only had a pre post measure, but used extraordinarily high protein intakes</u>. <u>You can come up with a different relationship, and I'll show you what happens when you include them</u>.</em></strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong>So this is the<u> curve, and the black dots are the the studies in which we had control groups</u>. And then I've got some other studies here which are the <u>open dots, and you can see these. These only have pre post measures</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>But I can tell you the change in lean mass, because these guys reported here. <u>Usually it comes from Dexa. Sometimes it comes from BIA, sometimes from Vod pod, sometimes the scores or or the result</u>. <u>Here is a composite of all of these things</u>. <u>So but let's just say, you know, from an illustrative perspective, is that the inflection point that occurs at 1.6. Here. This is, remember, this is the curve I showed you before actually shifts to the left, and occurs at about 1.2. When you include these these studies out here</u>?</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*And and these <u>studies, you know 3 point almost 3 point. I think it was 3.3 or something, and 4.4 grams</u>. <u>They're the largest protein supplementation trials that we have. And you can see that there's absolutely no impact on lean mass</u>. <u>Here everybody goes. All it's above 0. And it's I'm not like Ashley. It's buried right in the measurement error</u>.<u> So it's it's actually non significantly different</u>. <u>So this is a study that recently came out. By bagarry. 16 weeks with high protein diets and concurrent training</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><u>*And you can see that there's no impact here. This is an older study, but up to 4.4 grams per kilo per day, and and and no change in lean mass</u>. <u>So th these studies bend the curve right, even if you don't put these studies in here the inflection point is shifted to the left</u>. </strong></em><strong><em>Now, I know. You know, this is, you know, Sue's in ho in house if you like my version of the data. But stay tuned. <u>There's some further analysis coming on this stuff here</u>.</em></strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong><u>So just to talk to you a little bit about protein supplementation, hypertrophy. So first of all, I do think that optimization of adaptations requires greater than the Rda</u>. <u>But the intake that appears to optimize adaptations peaks at around 2 times the Rda</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*And even if you <u>believe that it goes up as high as 2.2. My point is, there are no data showing that intakes higher than this offer. Further advantages from either fat mass loss which some people talk about or lean mass gain and emphasize lean mass</u>. <u>Right? It's it's not muscle. Nobody knows how much muscle, because people haven't done the right measures there</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><u>*And that means that I think that you know sort of other protein related variables are of much lower importance than total daily intake</u>. And you know I'll give you a quick laundry list of things that probably don't matter <u>protein timing, meal distribution, Leucine content a few other things like that</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>*Now a lot of people have said, well, you know what there's this other study. It's it's it uses splines. <u>It doesn't use bipasic progression</u>. So we just take a quick look at that. This is a paper that came out a couple of years ago. Now, 2021 and they've got 3 if you like, models here, and what they've done here is continuously fit the data. <em><strong><u>They don't actually show you the data points, but they've used the spline model her</u></strong></em><u>e</u>. <u>In other words, they've iterated a curve that explains the maximum proportion of the variance in the outcome here, and the outcome is the change in fat, free mass or lean body mass. So again, not muscle, but a proxy thereof, and in 3 different conditions</u>. <u>This is all the studies. This is in studies that had resistance training. And this is like taking the resistance training out. And so essentially taking these studies out here</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>Now, interestingly enough, <u>if you look at the inflection point here it it's smaller</u>.<u> It's actually closer to about 1.3 grams and and not 1.6, and and you could argue that you know it still continues to go up</u>.<u> And and indeed these authors talk about the majority of the effect happening when you go from below the Rda to 1.3</u>. <u>But thi, this is statistically significant here</u>. <u>So there's still an upward trend in this curve</u>.<u> When they talk about that, they actually talk about. It's just these data. It's nothing</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong><u>Resistance training definitely, no resistance training. So this is great. These are interesting, but then you have to adjust the model for covariates</u>. And so they did in this model here. So they've adjusted for age, sex, and the intervention period. <u>So the the the duration of how long things are things stay pretty much the same. But actually the scale on this sort of graph. Here the curves begin to flatten out just a little bit, and particularly the resistance training curve. You could argue whether that's significant dollar. So delta of about a kilo in terms of fat, free mas</u>s. Here the interesting part is when they adjust, because they they included trials in this study that had a a weight, loss component. <u>And so when you adjust for weight loss, this is what happens. So we've got age, sex intervention, period and weight chang</u></strong><u><strong>e and the breakpoint effectively disappears. There's actually no relationship. It's not an upward direction Rt effectively is flat.</strong> </u><strong><u>And in fact, this always goes in the sort of opposite direction which is interesting, because it shows you that the more protein that you eat in a weight loss scenario without resistance training, you actually might not be doing yourself any favors</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>So there's some things to consider from looking at this analysis, which gets cited a lot, and particularly on social media. <u>I've had this pushed into my feed is evidence of a protein effect which seems to go on seemingly foreve</u>r.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>It's 68 Rcts evaluating lean body mass or fat, free mass the intervention period spanned as short as 2 weeks, but as long as 18 months. This was a weight loss, trial, with a mean of about 2020 weeks, but 41 of the 68 trials used an aggressive weight loss protocol. <u>So I think that this is the reason why you're beginning to see some of these effects, and the effect of protein supplementation </u></strong></em><strong><em><u>rapidly diminished after 1.3 grams per kilo, and resistance training markedly suppressed.</u> <u>This decline, which indicates again that it's lifting weights and not the protein supplementation that's having all the quote unquote muscle retention effects</u>.</em></strong></p><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p><strong><em>So the last part, I'm gonna finish with and <u>before sort of reaching my conclusions here is, you know how how much muscle can you reasonably expect to gain a a. And I've I've read a lot of stuff on this and listen to a lot of people. And we still really don't have a great answer to this question here</u>. So </em></strong><em><strong>if you do a scan of websites and talks and Youtube videos, and you know, I've seen probably a lot of them, and maybe not all of them but and <u>you ask people who work in gyms and maybe don't do as much science. This is what they will tell you.</u></strong> </em><u><strong><em>4 to 12 kilos per year of of muscle. If you're a novice or 2 to 4 and a half kilos, if you're trained. Now, here's what we get in our lab, and I've looked at a number of other studies. It's about 2 to 8 kilos per year, or about one to 4, if you're trained, and so.you know, almost, I would say, a little less than half, or maybe a little more than half, but not quite as ambitious as some of these numbers right here. and one of the main reasons why I remained skeptical on this is that it's always dexa that measures lean mass </em></strong></u><em><strong><u>in these outcomes here, and and it's not muscle mass</u>. <u>And and it's whether a a any of these individuals have undergone any form of scanning here other than maybe weight on a scale and sort of a mirror check, and not to say that you can't get people that push the outer envelop</u>e. <u>But remember, these were sort of mean ranges, and I don't know that I've ever seen anybody gain that much in in a year ever unless they're getting exogenous support</u>.</strong></em></p><p></p><p><strong><em><u>People talk about skeletal muscle. Mass. By BIA. It is an output of the machine</u>.<u> But it's a completely algorithm derived proxy estimate and and pointed out to people that body weight increases and strength gains are not reasonable or or accurate</u>. <u>Prose proxies. Excuse me of of muscle mass. So you know, my takeaway here is that nobody has a good or particularly accurate answer to this question, but working on a couple of approaches that hopefully will will yield some fruit in this area.</u></em></strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong>Oh, and just appreciating the the start here, you know, if you're you're unfamiliar with kilos, it is based. 10 should be easy, but 10 to 25 pounds, or 5 to 10 pounds.<u> And this is the the research estimates closer to 4 to 18 pounds</u>.<u> I have seen this one time over about a year, and somebody that I trained in in another life.and I've seen that as well with people who have a long history of training and trying to maximize adaptations</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>So some quick takeaways,<u> protein supplementation augments hypertrophy. It is both sufficient. </u></strong></em><strong><u><em>and it is necessary for that effect to occur. but the effect is small compared to just going to the gym </em></u><em><u>and not supplementing with proteins</u>. <u>So the majority of the response comes from going to the gym</u>.</em></strong><em><strong>and not to, you know, sort of advertise a paper that I'm an author on. But you know, Nick Tiller and I wrote this I would say that Nick sort of said, Hey, you know, after he done the majority of the work. Come and join me on this paper, but we talk a little bit about trying to be not cynical about some of the estimates that we see, but definitely skeptical and trying to improve the overall sort of standards of the health and wellness industry. So some of the take home points that when I say to people.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>You know, this is what you hear, read and see about protein. And you know, women need more protein. High protein foods need more muscle. Yeah. And and now it's all about women, because we know that women take less supplements. So people are trying to get them into the market, you know.<u> Protein timing everything is, you know. If you have more muscle mass, you need to eat more protein engaged. The the effect here is absolutely trivial, but definitely more protein leads to more muscles</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>So the the laundry list of takeaways and in <u>terms of prioritizing maximizing muscle mass gains. First, you gotta go to the gym. You gotta go regularly. You gotta work towards a training goal with a plan that meets your aims and you work with a high degree of effort</u>.<u> When you're there. </u></strong></em><u><strong><em>make sure you get enough energy to cover your needs, and if gains are your goal and put yourself in an energy surplus, how big of a surplus you decide. Just </em></strong></u><em><strong><u>remember that the bigger the surplus, the more body fat you're gonna gain</u>. But it definitely works. That's one and <u>2, and we haven't even talked about protein yet, but definitely emphasize daily protein up to about 1.6, or perhaps higher. If you're cutting weight, because everybody seems to think that they're cutting, and so 2 to 2.4 during this phase</u>. <u>But I don't see the advantage of going up this high here. This certainly it's not an insurance policy. I just don't see the benefit</u>.</strong></em></p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>After this, <u>things get pretty small, and the font size emphasizes their importance. Permal doses </u></strong></em><u><strong><em>plant protein versus animal protein, particularly if you're getting these types of intakes of protein quality, maybe not as important as we thought. Timing. With respect to exercise definitely, probably occupying a very low rung on the ladder here. The rapidity of digestion. Even though people make a lot of noise about this, it has absolutely no influence on the on any of the outcomes. Collagen. It's a low quality filler protein. It definitely belongs down here. </em></strong></u><em><strong><u>and the last one which you probably can't even read, but other miscellaneous protein related considerations. And yet somebody will still come up with something that I've never heard about with respect to protein and say that it's the unlock. And and and you know, this is definitely where I place that type of evidence, and it's definitely goes from an evidence to a belief base in terms of these recommendations</u>.</strong></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="madman, post: 278432, member: 13851"] [B][I]The belief that anabolic response to feeding during post-exercise recovery has an upper limit … lacks scientific proof.[/I][/B] Did you watch the webinar to get his full take on the subject? You need to watch the webinar to appreciate/understand what he is saying here. I will throw in the some of the transcripts! Make sure to read all of it over or better yet watch the full webinar! Even when abusing high doses of exogenous T/AAS most are still consuming way too much protein! Even when chemically enhanced the body can still only build new muscle fibers (actin/myosin) so fast. Big difference between dry/wet gains here when it comes to packing on muscle mass! You should very well know being in a caloric surplus and meeting your daily protein requirement is far more critical than consuming absurd amounts of protein natty or repping that chemically enhanced fake build! >2 g/lb is overfucking kill especially when in a caloric surplus! Nattys let alone anyone using using therapeutic doses of T can easily get away with 1 g/lb LBM when in a caloric surplus. No one told you Yates rarely went above 1 g/lb LBM in the offseason? Even when dieting he barely went above this and mainly manipulated his carbohydrates/fats. I can show you the interview where he clearly states this! Take home points here! [I][B]*So just to talk to you a little bit about protein supplementation, hypertrophy. So first of all, [U]I do think that optimization of adaptations requires greater than the Rda but the intake that appears to optimize adaptations peaks at around 2 times the Rda[/U] *And even if you believe that it goes up as high as 2.2. [U]My point is, there are no data showing that intakes higher than this offer further advantages from either fat mass loss which some people talk about or lean mass gain and emphasize lean mass[/U]. Right? It's it's not muscle. [U]Nobody knows how much muscle, because people haven't done the right measures there[/U] *And that means that I think that you know sort of other protein related variables are of [U]much lower importance than total daily intake[/U]. And you know I'll give you a quick laundry list of things that [U]probably don't matter protein timing, meal distribution, Leucine content a few other things like that[/U][/B][/I] [B]The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans (2023)[/B] [I]Jorn Trommelen, Glenn A.A. van Lieshout, Jean Nyakayiru, Andrew M. Holwerda, Joey S.J. Smeets, Floris K. Hendriks, Janneau M.X. van Kranenburg, Antoine H. Zorenc, Joan M. Senden, Joy P.B. Goessens, Annemie P. Gijsen, Luc J.C. van Loon[/I] [B]Stuart Phillips:[/B] [I][B]*But I think a lot of people have misunderstood what it means to have a difference between [/B][/I][B][I][B]net whole body net, protein, balance and muscle *[I][B][I][B]It is the best example showing the per meal protein dose isn't as important as we once thought[/B][/I][/B][/I][/B] *So this sort of you know, you've got to get this, and you've got to pulse it several times a day. I still don't think that's true anymore. And so this paper shows at least that that's the case[/I][/B] [ATTACH type="full" alt="Screenshot (34203).png"]42993[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full" alt="Screenshot (34205).png"]42994[/ATTACH] [I][B]But then [U]along comes this paper[/U]. So these are good friends of mine. I was actually Jorn's external examiner. So I'm responsible for, I guess, in part for unleashing in the packing in into the world here, as a Phd. Student, outstanding Guy great thinker, and his supervisor, his mentor, and a real good friend of mine, Luke Van Loon. and you can see the title of the paper is A. It's a it's a catchy one. It says. [I][U]The[/U] [U]anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration, like it's it just goes on forever, or at least it would seem[/U].[/I][/B][/I] [B][I]and when you look at their abstract. [U]They say we've got this dose response increase, but a large bolus of protein further increases whole body, protein, net balance, mixed muscle, mild for pillar, muscle, connective and plasma protein synthesis rates[/U]. So you know, a lot of people have talked a lot about this paper, and [U]I'll give you my sort of quick. Take on this[/U], [U]and it's not to in any way dis findings here at all[/U]. [U]But I think a lot of people have misunderstood what it means to have a difference between [/U][/I][U][I][B]net [/B][/I][/U][I][B][U]whole body net, protein, balance and muscle[/U]. So we've only got the the [U]synthetic side of the muscle processes here, and in a very short period of time[/U]. But it says that the [U]magnitude and duration of the anabolic response is not restricted as previously been underestimated, and I definitely think that that's the case[/U]. [U]So maybe what I've been talking about for years is is incorrect[/U]. [U]So here's my take on this paper first of all[/U]. [U]And and I've said it about my own data[/U]. [U]And and you know, just to acknowledge this, these are acute findings[/U]. So the question is, [U]do they translate into long term outcomes[/U].[/B] But a lot of water was made on social media. [B][U]But what this meant for muscle, masking, and etc., etc., etc., and you have no idea[/U]. [U]This is, it's not a meal[/U]. Okay, it's just pure milk protein. So it's not, I mean, unless you sit down to milk protein which some of you might do but most people eat real food. [U]And so it it's it's hard to know what this would actually mean[/U]. Now, if you take the title at face value and say[U] there is no upper limit, and the duration is, you know, sort of seemingly endless[/U]. [U]Then, if true. then more and more and and more protein would be get more and more and more obviously muscle mass and connected tissue and blood protein and everything else, and and we know that just doesn't happen[/U]. So you know [U]there has to be a cap on this somewhere, and I I would suspect that if you kept eating this way is that all of the processes that, if you like, oxidize amino acids and dispose of amino nitrogen, because we know that they're up regulated[/U][/B] [B][U]would up, regulate, and essentially nullify this[/U]. [/B]So it's a it's an outstanding paper. I think it. You know.[/I][/B][I][B] There's only one group in the world that could do this. And it's Luke's group, and you know, full credit to yarn. [U]But I do think that this is something that's unique to the milk protein, which, remember, is 80% caseine, which is a slowly digested protein and it's an acute effect[/U]. Now. [U]So what can we take from this paper[/U]. [U]Now, there are some interesting implications[/U], [U]because a lot of people ask about whether one meal a day was the better way to eat, and I would say, No, you know what you need a couple of meals, because there's a limit of cap. and I don't know if that's true anymore[/U]. So is one meal a day, feeding a good way to promote muscle mass gain compared to 2 to 3 meals a day, you know. Is this omat one meal a day, or, you know, sort of intermittent fasting. And again, people have done this. They gain muscle. [U]Is it the optimal way to gain muscle[/U].[U] I'm not sure I I still sort of tend towards multiple meals, but maybe one meal per day is not bad, and and maybe you can maximize things[/U]. [U]But what I do think this paper is. It is the best example showing the per meal. Protein dose isn't as important as we once thought[/U][/B][/I][B][I].[/I][/B] [I][B]So this sort of you know, [U]you've got to get this, and you've got to pulse it several times a day. I still don't think that's true anymore. And so this paper shows at least that that's the case[/U]. [U]One of the things that we do know, however, and that's sort of critical when we talk about this[/U], but I'm about to sort of blow it up a little bit, too, is that there's a [U]key and critical amino acid in this process, and it's the amino acid. Leucine[/U]. Leucine is a branch chain amino acid. I'm I'm sure y'all remember. That's what it looks like. [U]We know how it works. It signals through this canonical signaling pathway the central hub of which is N[/U]. [U]Tor to trigger protein synthesis [/U][/B][/I][B][I][U]work from David Sabatini's lab at Mit has given us a mechanism[/U]. [U]For this it binds in a protein called sestin 2. And then this whole M. Tor complex is able to be turned on, and protein synthesis proceeds[/U].[/I][/B] [I][B][U]So how important is this amino acid[/U]? And I'll just give you some data or show you some data from our lab to sort of emphasize this. This is work again, this Tyler church of Venez stuff, and we've got a negative control in this study. We've got. [U]This is Mps post exercise and 6 grams away[/U]. [U]So a very small dose. And then we've got a fairly large dose, not not a hundred grams like you have in the trombin study but 25 grams[/U]. [U]So we thought at the time, this is gonna Max, the the process so, and then we had 6 grams of weight, to which we added 5 grams of crystalline leucine[/U]. [U]So what you can see is that is the rate of protein. Synthesis gets triggered by every intervention[/U]. Here doesn't matter but then, in the [U]subsequent hours after exercise, this small dose is sort of sliding back towards baseline, because maybe it's rate limiting[/U]. [U]You don't have enough amino acids, but the 25 gram doses doing just fine[/U]. [U]In fact, it's up compared to the first 90 min[/U]. [U]But so is the small dose when you've added Leucine back[/U].[U]and 5 grams of leucine is definitely overkill here[/U]. This is proof as a proof of concept meal. I wouldn't recommend trying to get 5 grams of leucine into that kind of beverage. It's it's a very bitter amino acid, and this just doesn't taste particularly good. And a lot of people said, well, you know, I'm gonna try and do this. I'm gonna add leucine into here, and [U]I'll sort of show you in a little bit is that I think that this is an important amino acid.[/U] [U]But we're blowing the top off of the response right here[/U].[U] It's probably much less amino acid, much less of the Leucine that you need[/U]. Now we have seen this work in in older men as well. This is Keelan. Murphy was a Phd. Student in my group at the time we had lower protein. This is the Rda. [U]This is 1.2 grams, and every time we added Leucine, and this was a crystalline drink at every meal. This is the protein synthetic response, not over hours now, but actually over days[/U]. So this is a a deuterated water response [/B][/I][B][I]is that leucine, elevated even in a rested condition. The rate of muscle protein synthesis. [U]When you perform resistance, exercise as the crosses here indicate. Everything gets better[/U].[U] Exercise always amplifies the response, but Leucine added to resistance[/U].[U] Exercise amplifies it even further[/U]. So it works in the the guys in this study. We're about 70 years old.[/I][/B] [I][B]This is work by Michaela Devree. She was a postdoc in my group at the time. In older women, and instead of supplementing it as at every meal. This was 2 leucine, containing beverages that were formulated to be relatively high in Leucine that these women consumed, and so they were consuming the same amount of protein, but we improved the quality of the protein in these older individuals, and so at rest. The leucine beverage worked [U]exercise always greater than no exercise, but adding, the Leucine got a little bit further[/U]. So this has prompted us to [U]propose this Leucine trigger hypothesis[/U]. Not just us. This is work that that Luke's lab contributed to. Bob Wolfe did some of this work as well. Blake Rasmussen has done some work, and and and definitely Doug Patton Jones, contributed to this as well, and [U]it goes something like this is that the intracellular leucine concentration probably has to rise to a certain threshold or full[/U].[U] If you like. Trigger level, it's not an on off switch. It's a sort of a dimmer switch type.[/U] [U]Response[/U][/B][U][B]. [/B][/U][B][U]saturate all the sites, probably on cessron to remove all the inhibition on that complex, and then you get a robust increase in muscle protein synthesis[/U]. [U]But the trigger moves. In other words, if you exercise particularly loading exercise, then the threshold goes down[/U]. [U]it only does it transiently, but when I say transiently, it might do it for as long as a day or 2, and so so long as you're exercising, you make yourself sensitive to the effects of protein and leucine, and you can actually get away with eating a little bit less loosing[/U]. [U]You don't necessarily need more[/U]. [U]You're more sensitive to the effects.but the sugar can go in the opposite direction[/U]. [U]If you're older, or even if you're younger, and you go on bed, rest, or you immobilize a leg, or if you have type, 2 diabetes, or you're suffering from systemic inflammation, then the trigger goes in the opposite direction[/U]. [U]So you need more Leucine, or probably more practically, you need more protein to trigger this anabolic response[/U].[/B][/I][B][I]and just to emphasize to you that this is John Mathias work working at the University of Illinois, that proteins differ with respect to their quality. This is the digestible, indispensable amino acid score which is ostensibly the most useful. If you like. Way of scoring proteins, and we've got way proteins here. We've got milk proteins, and then you've got some soy proteins. You've got p protein. You've got wheat protein, and you can see [/I][/B][I][B]that to emphasize like the this is really a reflection of the essential amino acid content that not all proteins are created equal. and to hold in on the amino acid that that we think is important.[/B] [B]These, that this is way protein, isolate milk, protein concentrate. Here's 2 different soy proteins, a peat protein, a rice protein. And I've added collagen here just because, it appears in a lot of supplements, and a lot of people probably know of my lack of fondness for collagen, but that's because it's astonishingly low in Leucine here, so ostensibly, you would have to eat 4 times as much collagen to trigger the antibodies response that you can get with these proteins here. And yet there's some absolutely fantastic data showing that this is somehow an effective source of protein for muscle growth. [U][B]I[/B] guess at this point, after showing you all these protein synthetic measures. And you know this is how this works, and Tor and leucine triggers, you might ask yourself, does all of this really matter[/U]? [U]Does protein supplementation have an effect[/U]? And you know, I'm from Mcmaster University? We like to think we're the home of of evidence-based medicine or evidence-based practice, or something like that. [U]So I'm gonna give you an evidence based answer. And this comes from obviously not looking at individual studies. but from systematic reviews and Meta analyses[/U]. So this is this is Rob Morton. He was a Phd. Student, my group at the time when he, when he he did this study. [U]And you can see a cast of I think some fairly noterous a a individuals there.[/U][/B][/I][B][I][U]and we're looking at the effect of protein supplementation over here on fat, free mass and then over [/U]here on strength to the one lift that was common. So this is a leg press. But let's just say that that's representative, that it was the lift that was common to most of these studies. [U]So fat, free mass, first or [/U][/I][/B][I][B][U]fat and bone free, lean mass, which isn't muscle[/U]. [U]And I think a lot of people get confused about that[/U]. [U]People say, you know, Dexa gives us the is the gold standard for muscle. And and it's not. It's not at a[/U][/B][U][B]ll[/B][/U][B]. [U]it's a proxy but protein supplementation. You can see if you can see the diamond here. It actually touches the 0 line and untrained people. And it's actually the trained folks that give us the significant effect[/U].[/B] [B][U]But it's there it's about point 3 kilos, or a little bit less than a pound. How much of that is muscle? I I'm not really sure. But let's you know[/U].let's say half on average. [U]So it's about a hundred 50 grams, so probably about a quarter of a pound of muscle[/U]. [U]But but it's significant[/U]. [U]But you need 1,800 individuals[/U]. [U]That's what this comprises here to see the effect[/U]. So let's just say, on an individual study level, you can see here is that it's pretty difficult to pick it up [/B][/I][B][I]when it comes to strength, one rn strength. This is in the leg press to gain nothing, and untrained, but mostly in trained you've got about an extra 2 and a half kilos here. [U]So you know, this is a a II thought it was a fairly good systematic review met a meta analysis at the time[/U]. [U]But you know these things outlive their usefulness, and they have to be updated[/U]. And so this is ever so Nunez, who's a postdoc in my group. [U]And we just basically redid this, but actually added a few bells and whistles, not the least of which was to update the number of individuals. So we've got 74 randomized control trials here, 2,000 300 individuals[/U]. Most of the studies are [U]animal protein[/U]. They last or, excuse me, they're [U]they're probably taking people from above the Rda, anyway, and and and emphasizing that by somewhere between 30 to 50 grams per day[/U]. Sometimes it comes from food. [/I][/B][I][B]sometimes it comes from supplements. [U]And you know the long and short is, is there is an effect of protein[/U]. [U]It doesn't work[/U]. I[U]f you're just consuming protein and not lifting weights, it only works when you're lifting weights, at least in our hands, and I'll show you some data which differs from that but the effect is small[/U].[U] It's about a half a kilo difference here in lean mass again, not muscle[/U]. [U]Try to emphasize that point[/U]. But it's there. But you need [U]2,300 odd individuals to find that significant effect with the implication, then, that it's a pretty small effect[/U].[/B] [B][U]You can't actually find it in too many individual studies[/U]. [U]It's a dose response, probably not surprising if you supplemented small doses[/U]. You didn't see it. [U]So you got to less than 1.2 between 1.2 and 1.5 9, or almost 1.6 you saw the effect it actually only worked[/U]. If you were younger and not if you were older, that's or although it's excuse me, [U]it is a small effect[/U]. *And then, when you got into the [U]higher doses here, you did see something that was greater[/U].[U] Statistically speaking, it's actually no greater than the overall effect[/U]. [U]But you can argue about whether that's a big deal or not[/U].[U] Maybe it is[/U]. [/B][/I][B][I]And there were some functional outcomes at least nothing that I would be too excited about. [U]But you got a little bit stronger in the bench press and a few other lists. [/U][/I][/B][I][B][U]but to try and give you some context about how small or how large these effects are. I'm gonna come back to this Morton Meta analysis into a figure that we inserted into this paper that was kinda surprised that we actually got in, because and I'll show you why.[/U] [U]And and it's this figure right here. So we've got total protein intake quoted against the change in fat, free mass[/U]. *And we've we forced what's called a a [U]biphasic linear regression equation through here[/U]. [U]So the the line goes up for as long as it can, and then we're modeling it through here to the point where it plateaus you you could you could put a mono exponential [/U][/B][/I][B][I][U]curve on here?[/U] [U]You actually get close to the same answer[/U]. But the point is here. [U]At the point at which this curve in flex is supposed to be sort of the mean optimization of this outcome, if you like[/U]. [U]And I've added the the 90% confidence intervals[/U]. [U]So the uncertainty of this answer is that it could be as low as point 9 or as high as 2.2[/U]. [U]Well, of course, everybody wants to pick up here, because just in case so 1.6 is clearly twice the Rda, so that is a substantial amount of protein[/U].[/I][/B] [I][B]*But it's [U]not as high as 2.2, so 2.2 would be that one mythical bodybuilder, one gram per pound, 1.6 is about 0 point 7 grams per pound and clearly point 8 down here is about 0 point 4 grams per pound[/U]. *The interesting part is is that that the [U]overall relationship actually isn't statistically significant[/U]. [U]So we weren't able to explain enough variance in using that approach that this curve was statistically significant[/U]. And but it's, you know. [U]People have taken this and and run with it and said, You know why you go as high as 2.2[/U]. [U]You know. You gotta believe your own data[/U]. [U]And I'm like, well, you know, I try not to make too much about it, because this [/U][/B][/I][B][U][I]so go figure[/I][/U][I][U]t o give us some more real world context[/U]. There's the change in one. Rm, people say, I'll take the 9, or I'll take the 27% in fat, free mass. [U]But remember, this is the summed total of 2,000 odd individuals, and so you can argue whether you'll take it[/U]. [U]You might be this person down here and very, very much buried in the variance, and and not have anything to sort of show for taking the extra protein[/U]. [U]But on average you got about [/U][/I][/B][I][B][U]27 extra. But realize that that's about 200 odd grams, which is about half a pound of fat free mass, which is a muscle[/U]. What percent of muscle I'm I'm not able to tell you, but and a little bump in strength, at least for the leg press. Now, a lot of people have sort of said, [U]you've lived and died on that that break point analysis that we did in the 1.6[/U]. [U]So I said, well, you know what we can remove the stringent criteria that we use for that curve[/U]. In other words, [U]we can include studies that didn't have a control group which is the ethos of how you compare to learn the effect of the intervention[/U]. [U]You need a control group[/U]. [U]You need an intervention group, and you look at the standardized mean difference between the outcomes of those 2 groups [/U][/B][/I][B][I][U]removing that stringent need to put all of those in there, and putting in some studies which only had a pre post measure, but used extraordinarily high protein intakes[/U]. [U]You can come up with a different relationship, and I'll show you what happens when you include them[/U].[/I][/B] [I][B]So this is the[U] curve, and the black dots are the the studies in which we had control groups[/U]. And then I've got some other studies here which are the [U]open dots, and you can see these. These only have pre post measures[/U]. But I can tell you the change in lean mass, because these guys reported here. [U]Usually it comes from Dexa. Sometimes it comes from BIA, sometimes from Vod pod, sometimes the scores or or the result[/U]. [U]Here is a composite of all of these things[/U]. [U]So but let's just say, you know, from an illustrative perspective, is that the inflection point that occurs at 1.6. Here. This is, remember, this is the curve I showed you before actually shifts to the left, and occurs at about 1.2. When you include these these studies out here[/U]? *And and these [U]studies, you know 3 point almost 3 point. I think it was 3.3 or something, and 4.4 grams[/U]. [U]They're the largest protein supplementation trials that we have. And you can see that there's absolutely no impact on lean mass[/U]. [U]Here everybody goes. All it's above 0. And it's I'm not like Ashley. It's buried right in the measurement error[/U].[U] So it's it's actually non significantly different[/U]. [U]So this is a study that recently came out. By bagarry. 16 weeks with high protein diets and concurrent training[/U]. [U]*And you can see that there's no impact here. This is an older study, but up to 4.4 grams per kilo per day, and and and no change in lean mass[/U]. [U]So th these studies bend the curve right, even if you don't put these studies in here the inflection point is shifted to the left[/U]. [/B][/I][B][I]Now, I know. You know, this is, you know, Sue's in ho in house if you like my version of the data. But stay tuned. [U]There's some further analysis coming on this stuff here[/U].[/I][/B] [I][B][U]So just to talk to you a little bit about protein supplementation, hypertrophy. So first of all, I do think that optimization of adaptations requires greater than the Rda[/U]. [U]But the intake that appears to optimize adaptations peaks at around 2 times the Rda[/U]. *And even if you [U]believe that it goes up as high as 2.2. My point is, there are no data showing that intakes higher than this offer. Further advantages from either fat mass loss which some people talk about or lean mass gain and emphasize lean mass[/U]. [U]Right? It's it's not muscle. Nobody knows how much muscle, because people haven't done the right measures there[/U]. [U]*And that means that I think that you know sort of other protein related variables are of much lower importance than total daily intake[/U]. And you know I'll give you a quick laundry list of things that probably don't matter [U]protein timing, meal distribution, Leucine content a few other things like that[/U]. *Now a lot of people have said, well, you know what there's this other study. It's it's it uses splines. [U]It doesn't use bipasic progression[/U]. So we just take a quick look at that. This is a paper that came out a couple of years ago. Now, 2021 and they've got 3 if you like, models here, and what they've done here is continuously fit the data. [I][B][U]They don't actually show you the data points, but they've used the spline model her[/U][/B][/I][U]e[/U]. [U]In other words, they've iterated a curve that explains the maximum proportion of the variance in the outcome here, and the outcome is the change in fat, free mass or lean body mass. So again, not muscle, but a proxy thereof, and in 3 different conditions[/U]. [U]This is all the studies. This is in studies that had resistance training. And this is like taking the resistance training out. And so essentially taking these studies out here[/U]. Now, interestingly enough, [U]if you look at the inflection point here it it's smaller[/U].[U] It's actually closer to about 1.3 grams and and not 1.6, and and you could argue that you know it still continues to go up[/U].[U] And and indeed these authors talk about the majority of the effect happening when you go from below the Rda to 1.3[/U]. [U]But thi, this is statistically significant here[/U]. [U]So there's still an upward trend in this curve[/U].[U] When they talk about that, they actually talk about. It's just these data. It's nothing[/U]. [U]Resistance training definitely, no resistance training. So this is great. These are interesting, but then you have to adjust the model for covariates[/U]. And so they did in this model here. So they've adjusted for age, sex, and the intervention period. [U]So the the the duration of how long things are things stay pretty much the same. But actually the scale on this sort of graph. Here the curves begin to flatten out just a little bit, and particularly the resistance training curve. You could argue whether that's significant dollar. So delta of about a kilo in terms of fat, free mas[/U]s. Here the interesting part is when they adjust, because they they included trials in this study that had a a weight, loss component. [U]And so when you adjust for weight loss, this is what happens. So we've got age, sex intervention, period and weight chang[/U][/B][U][B]e and the breakpoint effectively disappears. There's actually no relationship. It's not an upward direction Rt effectively is flat.[/B] [/U][B][U]And in fact, this always goes in the sort of opposite direction which is interesting, because it shows you that the more protein that you eat in a weight loss scenario without resistance training, you actually might not be doing yourself any favors[/U]. So there's some things to consider from looking at this analysis, which gets cited a lot, and particularly on social media. [U]I've had this pushed into my feed is evidence of a protein effect which seems to go on seemingly foreve[/U]r. It's 68 Rcts evaluating lean body mass or fat, free mass the intervention period spanned as short as 2 weeks, but as long as 18 months. This was a weight loss, trial, with a mean of about 2020 weeks, but 41 of the 68 trials used an aggressive weight loss protocol. [U]So I think that this is the reason why you're beginning to see some of these effects, and the effect of protein supplementation [/U][/B][/I][B][I][U]rapidly diminished after 1.3 grams per kilo, and resistance training markedly suppressed.[/U] [U]This decline, which indicates again that it's lifting weights and not the protein supplementation that's having all the quote unquote muscle retention effects[/U]. So the last part, I'm gonna finish with and [U]before sort of reaching my conclusions here is, you know how how much muscle can you reasonably expect to gain a a. And I've I've read a lot of stuff on this and listen to a lot of people. And we still really don't have a great answer to this question here[/U]. So [/I][/B][I][B]if you do a scan of websites and talks and Youtube videos, and you know, I've seen probably a lot of them, and maybe not all of them but and [U]you ask people who work in gyms and maybe don't do as much science. This is what they will tell you.[/U][/B] [/I][U][B][I]4 to 12 kilos per year of of muscle. If you're a novice or 2 to 4 and a half kilos, if you're trained. Now, here's what we get in our lab, and I've looked at a number of other studies. It's about 2 to 8 kilos per year, or about one to 4, if you're trained, and so.you know, almost, I would say, a little less than half, or maybe a little more than half, but not quite as ambitious as some of these numbers right here. and one of the main reasons why I remained skeptical on this is that it's always dexa that measures lean mass [/I][/B][/U][I][B][U]in these outcomes here, and and it's not muscle mass[/U]. [U]And and it's whether a a any of these individuals have undergone any form of scanning here other than maybe weight on a scale and sort of a mirror check, and not to say that you can't get people that push the outer envelop[/U]e. [U]But remember, these were sort of mean ranges, and I don't know that I've ever seen anybody gain that much in in a year ever unless they're getting exogenous support[/U].[/B][/I] [B][I][U]People talk about skeletal muscle. Mass. By BIA. It is an output of the machine[/U].[U] But it's a completely algorithm derived proxy estimate and and pointed out to people that body weight increases and strength gains are not reasonable or or accurate[/U]. [U]Prose proxies. Excuse me of of muscle mass. So you know, my takeaway here is that nobody has a good or particularly accurate answer to this question, but working on a couple of approaches that hopefully will will yield some fruit in this area.[/U][/I][/B] [I][B]Oh, and just appreciating the the start here, you know, if you're you're unfamiliar with kilos, it is based. 10 should be easy, but 10 to 25 pounds, or 5 to 10 pounds.[U] And this is the the research estimates closer to 4 to 18 pounds[/U].[U] I have seen this one time over about a year, and somebody that I trained in in another life.and I've seen that as well with people who have a long history of training and trying to maximize adaptations[/U]. So some quick takeaways,[U] protein supplementation augments hypertrophy. It is both sufficient. [/U][/B][/I][B][U][I]and it is necessary for that effect to occur. but the effect is small compared to just going to the gym [/I][/U][I][U]and not supplementing with proteins[/U]. [U]So the majority of the response comes from going to the gym[/U].[/I][/B][I][B]and not to, you know, sort of advertise a paper that I'm an author on. But you know, Nick Tiller and I wrote this I would say that Nick sort of said, Hey, you know, after he done the majority of the work. Come and join me on this paper, but we talk a little bit about trying to be not cynical about some of the estimates that we see, but definitely skeptical and trying to improve the overall sort of standards of the health and wellness industry. So some of the take home points that when I say to people. You know, this is what you hear, read and see about protein. And you know, women need more protein. High protein foods need more muscle. Yeah. And and now it's all about women, because we know that women take less supplements. So people are trying to get them into the market, you know.[U] Protein timing everything is, you know. If you have more muscle mass, you need to eat more protein engaged. The the effect here is absolutely trivial, but definitely more protein leads to more muscles[/U]. So the the laundry list of takeaways and in [U]terms of prioritizing maximizing muscle mass gains. First, you gotta go to the gym. You gotta go regularly. You gotta work towards a training goal with a plan that meets your aims and you work with a high degree of effort[/U].[U] When you're there. [/U][/B][/I][U][B][I]make sure you get enough energy to cover your needs, and if gains are your goal and put yourself in an energy surplus, how big of a surplus you decide. Just [/I][/B][/U][I][B][U]remember that the bigger the surplus, the more body fat you're gonna gain[/U]. But it definitely works. That's one and [U]2, and we haven't even talked about protein yet, but definitely emphasize daily protein up to about 1.6, or perhaps higher. If you're cutting weight, because everybody seems to think that they're cutting, and so 2 to 2.4 during this phase[/U]. [U]But I don't see the advantage of going up this high here. This certainly it's not an insurance policy. I just don't see the benefit[/U]. After this, [U]things get pretty small, and the font size emphasizes their importance. Permal doses [/U][/B][/I][U][B][I]plant protein versus animal protein, particularly if you're getting these types of intakes of protein quality, maybe not as important as we thought. Timing. With respect to exercise definitely, probably occupying a very low rung on the ladder here. The rapidity of digestion. Even though people make a lot of noise about this, it has absolutely no influence on the on any of the outcomes. Collagen. It's a low quality filler protein. It definitely belongs down here. [/I][/B][/U][I][B][U]and the last one which you probably can't even read, but other miscellaneous protein related considerations. And yet somebody will still come up with something that I've never heard about with respect to protein and say that it's the unlock. And and and you know, this is definitely where I place that type of evidence, and it's definitely goes from an evidence to a belief base in terms of these recommendations[/U].[/B][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Nutrition and Supplements
The Impact of Protein on Muscle Mass Gain: The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top