WashPost Article on Strength Training

Martha S. Gallagher said:

15-55 calories per workout???

Sounds low.

Figure the way most people work out they're doing about a
500 calorie/hour intensity, for two dozen sets at 15-30
seconds per set, or 3-6 minutes times 8 calories per
minute, giving 24-48 calories per hour.

Hmm.

And it could be even less, considering that most weightroom
exercises target a very small mass of muscle in the body
compared with the average aerobic exercise. Or more,
if most of a person's exercises are big-muscle moves with
very heavy weights.

I didn't see the article. Did they caveat that low calorie
number by saying that the major portion of weight-training
calorie consumption comes from EPOC following the workout?

--Blair
"Journalism and science
aren't the same thing."

Blair P. Houghton said:

Martha S. Gallagher said:

15-55 calories per workout???

Sounds low.

Figure the way most people work out thSNIP

I didn't see the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101245.html

Quoted message said:

Did they caveat that low calorie number
by saying that the major portion of
weight-training calorie consumption
comes from EPOC following the workout?

No.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

"Martha S. Gallagher" < my trainer had me balancing on my back on the BOSU,
then she had me extend my arms and legs straight out>>

Did she massage your bush?

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:01:32 -0400, "Phil Budgie" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Did she massage your bush?

avi please?

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter

Blair P. Houghton said:

Martha S. Gallagher said:

15-55 calories per workout???

Sounds low.

Figure the way most people work out they're doing about a
500 calorie/hour intensity, for two dozen sets at 15-30
seconds per set, or 3-6 minutes times 8 calories per
minute, giving 24-48 calories per hour.

What surprises me most is that nobody has seen fit to comment on the
following statement:

"Added protein is needed to build muscle. Most Americans already eat
about 90 grams of protein per day, 'enough protein to meet the needs of
a [professional] bodybuilder,' Nieman said. 'To take in a protein
supplement is just crazy. . . . It's not needed.'"

90g of protein is enough to meet the needs of a professional
bodybuilder? 90g sounds reasonably modest compared to most recommended
daily intakes that I see suggested around here for mass building, and
most MFW readers are (I assume) not "professional bodybuilders". So
are most of us carniverous folks with reasonably healthy appetites
wasting our time and money with protein supplements?

On 12 Aug 2005 11:28:43 -0700, "In a sense" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What surprises me most is that nobody has seen fit to comment on the
following statement:

"Added protein is needed to build muscle. Most Americans already eat
about 90 grams of protein per day, 'enough protein to meet the needs of
a [professional] bodybuilder,' Nieman said. 'To take in a protein
supplement is just crazy. . . . It's not needed.'"

90g of protein is enough to meet the needs of a professional
bodybuilder? 90g sounds reasonably modest compared to most recommended
daily intakes that I see suggested around here for mass building, and
most MFW readers are (I assume) not "professional bodybuilders". So
are most of us carniverous folks with reasonably healthy appetites
wasting our time and money with protein supplements?

Absolutely.

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."

In a sense said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Martha S. Gallagher said:

15-55 calories per workout???

Sounds low.

Figure the way most people work out they're doing about a
500 calorie/hour intensity, for two dozen sets at 15-30
seconds per set, or 3-6 minutes times 8 calories per
minute, giving 24-48 calories per hour.

What surprises me most is that nobody has seen fit to comment on the
following statement:

"Added protein is needed to build muscle. Most Americans already eat
about 90 grams of protein per day, 'enough protein to meet the needs of
a [professional] bodybuilder,' Nieman said. 'To take in a protein
supplement is just crazy. . . . It's not needed.'"

90g of protein is enough to meet the needs of a professional
bodybuilder? 90g sounds reasonably modest compared to most recommended
daily intakes that I see suggested around here for mass building, and
most MFW readers are (I assume) not "professional bodybuilders". So
are most of us carniverous folks with reasonably healthy appetites
wasting our time and money with protein supplements?

90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
and about a fifth of they would take in.

And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
a negative return on increasing protein intake when
exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.

The problem comes when you have to start cutting fat and
carbs to fit in that much protein. You need the carbs,
and some of the fat. So the limiting factor should be your
choice of protein/carb/fat ratio and your calorie target,
which should be about 15% above maintenance.

--Blair
"Some nutritionists aren't all that smart."

Blair P Houghton said:

90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
and about a fifth of they would take in.

And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
a negative return on increasing protein intake when
exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.

How is it positive ? What are the advantages of taking in more,
once you already have a positive nitrogen balance (which happens
at about 0.6-0.8gm/lb btw) ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
and about a fifth of they would take in.

And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
a negative return on increasing protein intake when
exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.

How is it positive ? What are the advantages of taking in more,
once you already have a positive nitrogen balance (which happens
at about 0.6-0.8gm/lb btw) ?

Well, there is some evidence that pulsed increases in the amino acid
pool lead to increased muscle protein synthesis in conjunction with
heavy resistance training, even though the amino acid pool is already
well saturated. Insulin pulses are helpful in making this occur.
However, this is more a matter of timed protein intake.

BTW, "nitrogen balance" has no real physiological significance in and
of itself. It's just a marker, and not always a very good marker.

JMW said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
and about a fifth of they would take in.

And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
a negative return on increasing protein intake when
exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.

How is it positive ? What are the advantages of taking in more,
once you already have a positive nitrogen balance (which happens
at about 0.6-0.8gm/lb btw) ?

Well, there is some evidence that pulsed increases in the amino acid
pool lead to increased muscle protein synthesis in conjunction with
heavy resistance training, even though the amino acid pool is already
well saturated. Insulin pulses are helpful in making this occur.
However, this is more a matter of timed protein intake.

BTW, "nitrogen balance" has no real physiological significance in and
of itself. It's just a marker, and not always a very good marker.

Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.

There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
less steep there, it remains positive.

In general, any chemical process that can be driven by
increasing the concentration of a solute will be pushed
harder by increasing the concentration of that solute.
And the only chemical processes I know of that can't are
those for which the other reactants are already fully
consumed. Living cells will basically take all you can
give them and either grow bigger or divide. You'd have to
be deficient in other nutrients or hormones to be unable
to use the extra protein. Working out makes your
body produce the anabolic hormones. Eating enough
calories and protein and complex carbs and fats determines
whether the cells can afford to grow. (Almost nobody is
deficient for stored fat, but "essential fats" must be
ingested constantly). The rest is "vitamins and minerals"
which any multivitamin can supply in sufficient quantity.

The question is whether there are any deleterious side
effects to having an excess concentration of a solute.

If the solute is a steroid, the answer is YES.

If the solute is protein, and you're healthy to start with,
the answer is "not at any intake level I've seen studied."

--Blair
"YMMV."

Blair P Houghton said:

In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
already fully consumed.

This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Blair P Houghton said:

Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.

I have a link which includes an interview with leading expert
Peter Lemon. He is the person who most people cite in support
of 1gm/lb.

http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=82&subcat=basic_nutrition

"Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think that's
optimal, based on what we've seen so far"

-- Peter Lemon, leading researcher on protein.

Quoted message said:

There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
less steep there, it remains positive.

Could post some cites ? The reason I ask this is because no-one has ever
at any time posted a cite that supports 1gm/lb as an optimal amount (1gm/lb
is a rounding up of Lemon's numbers). I mean, can you look them up on pubmed
or something ? You at least know the names of some of the authors, so it
shouldn't be hard to dig them up, right ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
already fully consumed.

This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Nothing new as everything he posts is utter nonsense.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.

I have a link which includes an interview with leading expert
Peter Lemon. He is the person who most people cite in support
of 1gm/lb.

http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=82&subcat=basic_nutrition

"Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think that's
optimal, based on what we've seen so far"

-- Peter Lemon, leading researcher on protein.

Quoted message said:

There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
less steep there, it remains positive.

Could post some cites ? The reason I ask this is because no-one has ever
at any time posted a cite that supports 1gm/lb as an optimal amount (1gm/lb
is a rounding up of Lemon's numbers). I mean, can you look them up on pubmed
or something ? You at least know the names of some of the authors, so it
shouldn't be hard to dig them up, right ?

He's just blowing smoke. There's no pat answer. However, Tipton and
Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of Sports
Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
been saying for quite a while:

[1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."

[2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the timing
of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."

Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
already fully consumed.

This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Nothing new as everything he posts is utter nonsense.

Tell us again how whey is made from yams, Einstein.

--Blair
"Or shut up."

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
already fully consumed.

This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Here. You look it up.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html

What I see is that the reaction is slowed by the new
reactant, but not stopped, and increasing the concentration
of the inhibited reactant still drives the reaction forward.

You have to increase the inhibitor at a rate equal with
the inhibited in order to get the negative-slope curves
at the bottom.

--Blair
"Don't let TrollBrink encourage you."

JMW said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Blair P Houghton said:

Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.

I have a link which includes an interview with leading expert
Peter Lemon. He is the person who most people cite in support
of 1gm/lb.

http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=82&subcat=basic_nutrition

"Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think that's
optimal, based on what we've seen so far"

-- Peter Lemon, leading researcher on protein.

Quoted message said:

There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
less steep there, it remains positive.

Could post some cites ? The reason I ask this is because no-one has ever
at any time posted a cite that supports 1gm/lb as an optimal amount (1gm/lb
is a rounding up of Lemon's numbers). I mean, can you look them up on pubmed
or something ? You at least know the names of some of the authors, so it
shouldn't be hard to dig them up, right ?

He's just blowing smoke.

No, I'm waving my hands. The difference being, I've
actually seen the study and simply didn't save a cite
to it. I do not have the name of it nor the authors'
names, and couldn't come up with a decent set of keywords
for google to find it, if I even saw it online, which I
can't guarantee was the case.

Suffice to say, if I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't be saying
I'd seen it. I'm not Will Brink.

Quoted message said:

There's no pat answer. However, Tipton and
Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of Sports
Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
been saying for quite a while:

[1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."

Not inconsistent with what I said. What that says
there is that there are convincing data to indicate
that it is necessary. But they are few in number.
Though the sentence doesn't say what "necessary"
means. Necessary for what? Maintenance? Growth?
Sparing? Survival? Hypertrophy? Hyperplasia? The sake
of argument?

Quoted message said:

[2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the timing
of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."

Again, not inconsistent. The fact that it is dependent on other
factors does not make it independent of rate of protein intake.

In my own opinion I wouldn't bother going above 2.2 g/kg
with any hope of magical gains. But I'd easily go from
1 to 2.2 g/kg and expect a noticeable improvement in both
growth rates during bulking (moderate overeating while
exercising) and sparing of muscle during cutting (moderate
undereating while exercising).

--Blair
"It won't bite."

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
already fully consumed.

This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Here. You look it up.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html

Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
down.

That is, the reaction rate goes down as the substrate concentration
increases.

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
> already fully consumed.

This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Here. You look it up.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html

Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
down.

Can you imagine what would happen in a biological system if there was no
substrate inhibition and or rate limiting reactions? Would be a total
mess.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/