E
elzinator
Guest
DZ wrote:
> JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ign0ramus18142 wrote:
> >>>> Actually endurance athletes can get away with a little less
protein
> >>>> although in the scheme of things it is not all that much less
really.
> >>>
> >>> actually, endurance athletes can thrive on significantly less
protein
"Thrive"? That does not imply that 'significantly less" protein is
optimal for performance. Although conclusions in research papers are
discordant, and may always be, the data suggests otherwise. Even the
Kenyan runners take in more protein than many realize. The question is
less how much, but may be more what proteins are being synthesized and
degraded and at what rate. Not all dietary protein is destined for
myofibrillar proteins. Another important point that is only now given
consideration is timing of protein intake; it may be more important
than overal total intake.
> >>Time to look up actual studies guys...
> >
> > The "real issue" is several issues. First, it's not an issue of
> > "athletes don't need more protein than ..." but rather, an issue of
> > "the average diet contains significantly less protein than ..."
> > Another significant issue is *when* the amino acids are available;
> > studies suggest that a high level of circulating essential amino
acids
> > immediately after resistance training, and over the next few hours,
> > are very beneficial for muscles protein synthesis. Inherent in
that
> > issue is how fast ingested protein is broken down and absorbed into
> > circulating EAAs. Also, highly glycemic carbohydrates prompt
insulin
> > release, which is helpful in preventing muscle protein breakdown
and
> > for increasing the expression of amino acid transporters in muscle
> > cells.
One reason 'fast' available proteins is so popular is not only because
of the rate that AAs are added to the total amino acid pool, but that
several of the EAAs induce an insulin response, with or without dietary
carbs. Ideally, or optimally, the goal is to 'top off' the AA pool
prior to exercise (endurance and resistance), then assuring a steady
state AA pool for the next 36-48 hours post-exercise (depending on
intensity and volume of both E and RT). Merits exist for dietary carbs
during and post-exercise, too(mediates hormonal response, total protein
catabolism, etc).
> Just to add to the "several issues" issue. Studies look at "optimal"
> in the sense of optimizing relatively short (many years) term
progress
> (e.g. strength, endurance, speed) in sports. But a substantial
> proportion of people have different goals, and many who don't have
> competition related goals have already reached fitness levels far
> above the average.
>
> Consider claims like these (PMID: 12699727) "restriction of foods
with
> a high glycemic index ... would avoid or delay many diseases of aging
> and might result in life extension".
The key words in the above excerpt are 'would' and 'might'. Diet
intervention to increase life span and avoid age-related diseases is
relative to overall lifestyle.
> Then the above "highly glycemic carbohydrates prompt insulin release,
> which is helpful in preventing muscle protein breakdown" is no longer
> optimal when sport and health related goals are considered
> simultaneously.
Again, relative to dose and duration. Your comment does not encompass
overall diet and/or lifestyle, thus your assumption is simplistic.
Intake of high glycemic carbs post-exercise has little relevance to
lifespan and disease prevention unless overall diet and lifestyle are
considered. Many athletes consume HGI carbs only post-exercise, when
the muscle tissue is most receptive for total body glucose clearance.
Otherwise, they eat low-GI carbs. This will most likely not affect
total health-related goals while benefiting sports performance. In
fact, if this reduces muscle loss, then the net benefit is positive,
not negative.
> Looked another way, one can define fitness oriented success by LBM,
> strength, and endurance measured many decades from starting the
> training program. Then (relatively) quick fixes like satiating body
> with nutrients become less and less appealing. For example, in (PMID:
> 14734642) they determined that old calorie restricted mice had higher
> LBM, even though they had less muscle while young.
As a biologist and statistician you should know better. As was
mentioned at last week's conference and elsewhere in the literature,
the calorie restriction animal models have very limited relevance to
humans. It has not been demonstrated that the same applies to human
beings. Even the KLOTHO gene is species specific.
> What we need is a new journal, a hybrid between "Medicine and Science
> in Sports and Exercise" and "Experimental Gerontology".
If you look close enough, there are articles/studies associated with
exercise and sports medicine published in several of the genrontology
journals. Here's one place to start: J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci.
> > The studies are abundant. A recent review by Kevin Tipton and
Robert
> > Wolfe covers much of this in detail:
> >
> > Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
> > Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
Yeah, did you read it yet?
BTW, be sure to read other authors before you form conclusions. You
will find that the issue of protein and carb intake around exercise and
training is hotly debated. A few authors don't agree with Tipton, on
both sides of the 'fence', and for valid reasons. Other authors to
read: Ivy, Lemmon, Tanapolsky, Burns and one in Oz-land that I can't
recall the name of right now.
> JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ign0ramus18142 wrote:
> >>>> Actually endurance athletes can get away with a little less
protein
> >>>> although in the scheme of things it is not all that much less
really.
> >>>
> >>> actually, endurance athletes can thrive on significantly less
protein
"Thrive"? That does not imply that 'significantly less" protein is
optimal for performance. Although conclusions in research papers are
discordant, and may always be, the data suggests otherwise. Even the
Kenyan runners take in more protein than many realize. The question is
less how much, but may be more what proteins are being synthesized and
degraded and at what rate. Not all dietary protein is destined for
myofibrillar proteins. Another important point that is only now given
consideration is timing of protein intake; it may be more important
than overal total intake.
> >>Time to look up actual studies guys...
> >
> > The "real issue" is several issues. First, it's not an issue of
> > "athletes don't need more protein than ..." but rather, an issue of
> > "the average diet contains significantly less protein than ..."
> > Another significant issue is *when* the amino acids are available;
> > studies suggest that a high level of circulating essential amino
acids
> > immediately after resistance training, and over the next few hours,
> > are very beneficial for muscles protein synthesis. Inherent in
that
> > issue is how fast ingested protein is broken down and absorbed into
> > circulating EAAs. Also, highly glycemic carbohydrates prompt
insulin
> > release, which is helpful in preventing muscle protein breakdown
and
> > for increasing the expression of amino acid transporters in muscle
> > cells.
One reason 'fast' available proteins is so popular is not only because
of the rate that AAs are added to the total amino acid pool, but that
several of the EAAs induce an insulin response, with or without dietary
carbs. Ideally, or optimally, the goal is to 'top off' the AA pool
prior to exercise (endurance and resistance), then assuring a steady
state AA pool for the next 36-48 hours post-exercise (depending on
intensity and volume of both E and RT). Merits exist for dietary carbs
during and post-exercise, too(mediates hormonal response, total protein
catabolism, etc).
> Just to add to the "several issues" issue. Studies look at "optimal"
> in the sense of optimizing relatively short (many years) term
progress
> (e.g. strength, endurance, speed) in sports. But a substantial
> proportion of people have different goals, and many who don't have
> competition related goals have already reached fitness levels far
> above the average.
>
> Consider claims like these (PMID: 12699727) "restriction of foods
with
> a high glycemic index ... would avoid or delay many diseases of aging
> and might result in life extension".
The key words in the above excerpt are 'would' and 'might'. Diet
intervention to increase life span and avoid age-related diseases is
relative to overall lifestyle.
> Then the above "highly glycemic carbohydrates prompt insulin release,
> which is helpful in preventing muscle protein breakdown" is no longer
> optimal when sport and health related goals are considered
> simultaneously.
Again, relative to dose and duration. Your comment does not encompass
overall diet and/or lifestyle, thus your assumption is simplistic.
Intake of high glycemic carbs post-exercise has little relevance to
lifespan and disease prevention unless overall diet and lifestyle are
considered. Many athletes consume HGI carbs only post-exercise, when
the muscle tissue is most receptive for total body glucose clearance.
Otherwise, they eat low-GI carbs. This will most likely not affect
total health-related goals while benefiting sports performance. In
fact, if this reduces muscle loss, then the net benefit is positive,
not negative.
> Looked another way, one can define fitness oriented success by LBM,
> strength, and endurance measured many decades from starting the
> training program. Then (relatively) quick fixes like satiating body
> with nutrients become less and less appealing. For example, in (PMID:
> 14734642) they determined that old calorie restricted mice had higher
> LBM, even though they had less muscle while young.
As a biologist and statistician you should know better. As was
mentioned at last week's conference and elsewhere in the literature,
the calorie restriction animal models have very limited relevance to
humans. It has not been demonstrated that the same applies to human
beings. Even the KLOTHO gene is species specific.
> What we need is a new journal, a hybrid between "Medicine and Science
> in Sports and Exercise" and "Experimental Gerontology".
If you look close enough, there are articles/studies associated with
exercise and sports medicine published in several of the genrontology
journals. Here's one place to start: J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci.
> > The studies are abundant. A recent review by Kevin Tipton and
Robert
> > Wolfe covers much of this in detail:
> >
> > Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
> > Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
Yeah, did you read it yet?
BTW, be sure to read other authors before you form conclusions. You
will find that the issue of protein and carb intake around exercise and
training is hotly debated. A few authors don't agree with Tipton, on
both sides of the 'fence', and for valid reasons. Other authors to
read: Ivy, Lemmon, Tanapolsky, Burns and one in Oz-land that I can't
recall the name of right now.
