Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> >> 1 kg of meat is 210 grams of pure protein (medium fat cattle).
> >> Our (german) official recommendation is 55g for a 70 kg young male.
> >> Would you really assume a 4-time as high protein *need*?
> >I was referring to ground beef, which is about 70gm protein/lb....
> 1 lb is abt. 450 grams, isn't it?
> I can't find meat with much less than about 20g protein in 100 gram.
> At usda.gov i get for "Beef, ground, extra lean, (approximately 17% fat), raw"
> 18.7 grams of protein.
> You do eat 900 grams of it, then you'll have at least 170 grams of protein.
You looked at the leanest ground beef, and that is less than 20 grams/100gram.
Regular ground beef is 16.62/100 or just under 75gm per pound, which is
pretty close to what I said. What are you disagreeing with?
> > So, you might ask,
> where do I get my numbers from?
> >Various books, articles, newsgroups, especially those that deal
> >with sports nutrition. Those tend to be more practical out of
> >necessity - any author that recommends lower than needed amounts
> >of protein to, say bodybuilders or weightlifters, will be ignored
> >rather quickly.
> Yes, I do ask. How about some scientific based numbers?
The sources I look to do indeed reference studies, otherwise I
wouldn't believe them. Some of the studies that did impress me were the
ones that dealt with muscle growth, strength growth, etc. in
athletes vs. protein consumption. 0.9 - 1.0 gm / pound of lean
bodymass appeared to be the optimum amount, if I recall correctly.
I don't have the references handy, but if you really care about
it you can probably find them fairly easily. It would probably
take me just as much time to track them down again as it would
take for you.
> I'm afraid that various book or articles could support only
> some specific reason why to support a high protein need.
Yes, are you waiting for an article that would cover ALL reasons
for it in a single source?
> For example selling expensive amino-acides in pure form or similar things.
There are plenty of bogus studies supporting various positions.
If you are careful about checking your sources, reading the
studies themselves, and picking the authorities whose judgement
you trust when you don't have the time to do the research yourself
then you are likely to get to right conclusions.
> >Protein need varies greatly by size, body composition, and
> >physical activity. I don't have detailed numbers for general
> >population matching those vs. protein intake, so can't say
> >how lacking in protein people are.
> What would you assume, that the additional protein would be used for?
> I can only see that it's used for building up
> tissue.
> Usage for the several enzymatic systems has a recycling system.
> There are few proteins *lost* from it. Where should they go to?
> Some skin cells, a *little* bit in sweat, a little in the stool.
Some is needed for the actual new muscle (which btw could be substantial,
some people can gain as much as 1-2 pounds of lean tissue a week).
Some is needed for the excercise itself (the body uses amino acids
for fuel, e.g. glutamine, not just fat or glucose). I have seen the
actual breakdown, sorry I no longer remember. If you are interested
in this subject you should probably join a good excercise list where
people will be able to point you to answers to questions like these
very quickly.
> >I vary my protein intake from day to day, depending on whether I
> >work out or not, etc. I also tend to err on the overeating side, since
> >I don't have any kidney problems and am not aware of any reason not
> >to overeat a little.
> I still can't see any significant protein need increase that workout could
> cause - where should it go to? All sweat out?
> 50 grams of protein sweat out in one workout?
It's not sweat. The path out of the body is most likely urine. As for why
more protein is used up - as I said I don't remember, but I did see the
breakdown of where it goes. When I read that stuff it was for my own
education, not as a refernce for a future argument with somebody.
> Except that it would be burnt.
> In my readings I find that burning proteins is the least desireable
> source of energy.
What do you mean by 'desirable'?
> Body *uses* only carbohydrates (and ketones as i learnt).
Body uses a lot more than glucose and ketones. Fatty acids are used
as energy sources, amino acids, etc. Since metabolism is not my
strongest point I'll leave this to others to explain.
> >> I can't see a sense in consuming exce
> ss amounts of unsued protein
> >> just for the purpose of getting enough of vitamin b1 or calories.
> >That's not why I eat extra protein. I get my B's from food, plus
> >I supplement with a wide range of vitamins.
> So, why then?
I am supplementing because I believe that my need for protein is higher,
so protein itself is needed, not some vitamins that may be contained in
the same food. When low carbing the protein is used to make glucose. If
you don't have enough dietary protein then you'll start losing your own
muscle. I want to avoid this. There are many reasons why somebody wouldn't
just eat more carbs rather than up the protein. For example, if your carbs
contain fructose it will reglycogenate the liver first. This will kick you
out of ketosis, yet will not provide your muscles with much glucose for
excercise.
There are additional reasons for eating more protein. E.g., protein appears
to be mildly anabolic, so if you eat more it becomes easier for you to
build bigger muscles. Since this is one of my goals I eat more protein.
I do believe that quite a bit of the extra protein may be 'wasted' in the
sense that it is simply excreted and not used directly to build tissue
or provide energy. But it is NOT wasted in the sense that it may alter
hormonal balance to favor bigger muscles.
> IMHO the normal nutrition , without any supplementation should include
> *all* necessary vitamins without any supplementation.
Necessary yes, optimal no.
> If it doesn't do that, at least I wouldn't call it paleolithic.
> Cro-Magnons didn't do it. Australopithecus didn't do it.
> But they had a vitamin supply superior to ours.
> If you would need supplements, then you nutrition differs from theirs.
> And then you might be eating foodstuff, or compositions of foods items
> you were *not* adapted to.
I also want to live to 150 and look like I am 20 while doing it.
Cro-Magnons didn't do it. Australopithecus didn't do it.
> >> BTW I have read that our digestion system can't handle more than
> >> 50 to 60 grams of protein in *a single meal*, anyway.
> >This is completely incorrect as I have eaten much more than that
> >myself. Though, whoever made that statement may have meant something
> >like 'can't handle efficiently' or some such. In that they may be
> >correct.
> Well it wasn't 50 grams, it was 35 grams of protein that can be handled.
> This fits to the number of about 65 grams of amino-acids that
> build the amino acid pool in the body.
> Body can't store - and therefore doesn't need more of it in a
> certain time.
As I said, protein use can be much more than storage, or energy, or
direct use to build tissue - affecting hormonal, enzymatic, etc. balance
in the body. My point was that consuming this much protein does not
cause any negative effects, while achieving some goal of mine. So
they are 'used'. If this isn't what you mean then we are arguing
about semantics, not ideas.
Ilya
|
