Nutritional myths that just will not die - Protein!

When it comes to the topic of sports nutrition there are many myths and falsehoods that are floating around like a ghost among the shadows. That appear when you least expect it and work on the upper floors of a hard training athlete trying to make some progress.

Of all the myths that arise from time to time, the protein myth seems to be more entrenched and widespread. Just do not go away. The problem is that your group or perpetuating"Myth" can not be easily identified.

You see, the conservative nutritional and medical community believes it is the bodybuilders who perpetuate the myth that athletes need more protein and bodybuilding community believe that they (the conventional nutritional community) that perpetuates the myth that athletes do not need additional protein! Who is right?

The conservative medical community and nutrition is a strange group. Are rules to follow and maintain what I meanas the "double standard of nutrition." For example, if it comes to taking vitamin C supplements to prevent cancer, heart disease, colds and other illnesses that come back with "insufficient data to support the use of vitamin C as a preventive measure for these diseases" when in fact there are hundreds of literary studies that show the many benefits of this vitamin for the prevention and treatment of these diseases.

And, of course, if you sayI'm on a high protein diet because you are an athlete will say, "Oh, you do not want to, not needed and that will lead to kidney disease" without a single decent study to back up your claim! You see that they too are susceptible to myth lurking specter that spreads lies and confusion. In this article we want to address once and for all (hopefully) the protein myth that applies to what the average person tells you when you tell your doctor or some anemic "all you need areGDR "jets nutritionist that he or she is following a diet rich in protein.

Myth # 1 "The athletes need more protein"

I thought I would start to destroy the myth this article most annoying myth first. Lord, when will it go? Now the average reader person is probably thinking "that the world continues to believe that ridiculous statement?" The answer is a lot of people, including health education professionals and scientists who should know betterstill believe that this is true. Do not forget, the high-carbohydrate, low-fat recommendations, low-protein diet are alive and well in the medical field nutritionist, and of course the "do not confuse us with facts" media following close behind.

For half a century, scientists more or less crude methods and poor study design with sedentary people have held the firm belief that bodybuilders, strength athletes of various types, runners, and other highly active has not requested anymore protein than Mr. Potato Head ..... uh, I mean the average couch potato.

However, researchers in recent decades with better study designs and methods with real live athletes have come to a conclusion very different, a hard conclusion bodybuilders training have known for years. The fact that active people need protein actually much more than the RDA to avoid the loss of hard tissue gain muscle when dieting or increasing muscle tissue during the offseason.

In arecent review article on the subject of the best researchers in the field (Dr. Peter Lemon) states "... These data suggest that the RDA for those engaged in regular endurance exercise should be about 1.2 to 1.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight (150% -175% of the current RDA) -. 1.8 and 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day (212% -225% of the current RDA) To force professional "

Another group of researchers in the field of protein metabolism have reached similar conclusionsrepeatedly. They found that strength training athletes eating approximately the RDA / RNI for protein showed a reduction in protein synthesis throughout the body (losing muscle jack!) A protein intake of 0.86 grams per kilogram body. They came to a conclusion almost identical to that of Dr. Lemon in recommending at least 1.76g per kilogram of body weight per day for athletes strength training to stay in positive nitrogen balance and increases protein synthesis in the whole body.

Thissame research group later found that endurance athletes also need more protein / RDA RNI and that men catabolize (break down) more protein than women during endurance exercise.

They concluded "In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and U.S. recommended daily requirements for protein intake young healthy men. All I can say is that no, sh% # Sherlock?!

Now myintention to bid in the current investigation is not necessarily to convince the average athlete that they need more protein than Joe Shmoe couch potato, but rather to introduce readers to some of the figures presented by the current investigation.

How does this information relate to the eating habits of an average athlete and the advice found in the literature of the years was bodybuilding before this research ever existed? With some variations, the mostCommon Council on the recruitment of proteins that could be, and can be found in the bodybuilding magazines by various writers, coaches, bodybuilders, etc, is a gram of protein per kilo of body weight per day.

So for a guy 200 pounds that would be 200 grams of protein a day. No problem. So how does this advice fair with the previous findings of current research? Well, let's see. Being as scientists to work in kilograms (do not ask why) we have to do some conversion. A kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds. Therefore,200 divided by 2.2 gives 90.9. Multiply that times 1.8 (the upper part of the research of Dr. Lemon) and you get 163.6 grams of protein a day. What about the nutritionists, doctors and others who call (ed) us "protein dealers" while recommending the RDA and should be suitable for athletes?

We'll see. The current RDA is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight: 200 divided by 2.2 x 0.8 = 73 grams of protein per day for a person who weighs 200 pounds. So who was closer, the bodybuilders or the armPresident scientists? Well, we'll see! 200g (what bodybuilders have recommended for an athlete than 200 pounds) - 163 g (upper limit of the recommendations of the ongoing investigation into a person of 200 pounds) = 37 grams (the difference between what bodybuilders should eat and ongoing research).

Like the RDA pushers fair? Hey, if they happen to call us "protein pushers" who come to call them "RDA dealers! However, 163 g - 73 G = (drum role) 90 grams! Therefore, it seems that the bodybuilding community haswas much more precise information on protein needs of strength athletes than the average nutritionist and I do not think this comes as a surprise to any of us.

So if the average bodybuilder to reduce your protein intake a little "of this data? No, and I'll explain why. As with vitamins and other nutrients, you identify what appears to be the exact amount of the compounds necessary for the effect you want (in this case positive nitrogen balance, increased protein synthesis, etc)and add a safety margin to take into account biochemical individuality of different people, the fact that there are sources of protein low grade that the person may be eating, and other variables.

So the current recommendation by the majority of bodybuilders, coaches, writers and others of one gram per kilogram of body weight, does a good job of taking into account current research and add a safety margin. One thing is certain, a little protein "is also much less damaging to the 'objective of athletes (s) to increase muscle mass very little protein, and this makes the RDA Advisory dealers only much more .... idiot, for lack of a better word.

There are some other points that seem important to take into account when we recommend additional protein in the diet of athletes, especially strength training athletes. In low season, strength training athletes needs not only adequate protein but adequate calories. Assuming our friend (the bodybuilder 200 pounds) to eatabout 3500 calories a day, since it is supposed to split his calories up?

Again, this is where bodybuilding community and the conservative nutritional and medical community will have a fork ... again. The conservative types would say "this is not easy, you just tell the bodybuilder who should form the bulk of their calories from carbohydrates."

Now let's assume the bodybuilder does not eat too many carbohydrates. Now the problem is quite high in carbohydratesfight different article, so I just do not go in depth about it here. Suffice it to say that those who regularly reads articles, books, etc, by people like Dan Duchaine, Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale, Barry Sears, PhD, Udo Erasmus PhD, I and others know why the high carb diet bites the most big fat loss and muscle mass (Actually, recent research suggesting that carbohydrate restriction, not calorie restriction per se, is what is responsible formobilizing fat stores).

For the sake of argument and lack of space, we will take our friend bodybuilder 200 pounds refuses to eat a diet high in carbohydrates for their own reasons, whatever.

What else can you eat? He is left with fat and protein. If you divide your diet or 30% protein, 30% fat, carbohydrates and 40%, going to eat 1050 calories as protein (3500x30% = 1050) and 262.5g of protein a day (1050 divided by 4 = 262.5 .) So what we have is an amount (262.5g), whichmeets the current investigation, has a margin of safety, and a component added to the caloric needs of energy and people who are tired of a diet rich in carbohydrates, hich is a large percentage of the Community / Training bodybuilding strength. Here are some other reasons for the high protein intake such as hormonal effects (ie effects of IGF-1, GH, thyroid), thermal effects, etc. but I think I did the right spot.

So there's a time when the bodybuilder who wants to go beyondthe percentage of calories> from protein, 30%? Of course, when you are dieting.

It is well known that carbohydrates are "protein sparing" and the protein it requires greater percent of calories when you reduce calories. Furthermore, diet is a moment that the preservation of lean body mass (muscle) is a luxury. Finally, calories decrease the quality and quantity of protein in the diet is the most important variable for maintaining muscle tissue (which applies to nutritional factors), and, of course, proteinnutrient is the least that can be converted into body fat.

In my opinion, the above information bodes well for the high protein diet. If I tell the average RDA pusher you are eating 40% protein while on a diet, they will tell you that 40% is far too much protein. But is it? To say that our friend has dropped his 200 pounds to 2,000 calories in an attempt to reduce body fat for a competition, the weather in the summer at the beach or whatever. Let's do the math. 40% x 2000 = 800 calories of protein or 200 g (800divided by 4). So as you can see, it is actually eating less protein per day in low season, but is still in the field of current research with the margin of safety and / or bodybuilding current recommendations intact.

In short? High protein diets are better for reducing body fat mass, muscle gain, and help hard training bodybuilder achieve his (or her!) Objectives, and it is obvious that endurance athletes also benefit from more diets protein uselessRDA and obsolete.

Myth # 2 "high protein diets are bad for you"

Then, the average person reads the above information on protein needs and benefits of a diet rich in protein, but remember in the back of their mind another myth about the use of the protein. "I thought high protein diets are bad for the kidneys and give you osteoporosis," they exclaim with conviction and indignation. But what are the medical facts behind these claims and why so many people, including some doctors professionals and nutritionists, still believe?

For starters, the negative health claims of the high protein diet on renal function is based on information gathered by people with existing kidney problems. Shows one of the jobs of the kidneys is the excretion of urea (generally a non-toxic compound) that is formed from ammonia (a very toxic compound) which comes from protein in our diet. People with severe kidney problems, the expulsion of> Urea put more emphasis on the kidneys and then the logic is that a high protein diet must be hard for the kidneys for healthy athletes.

Now, medical and scientific facts. There is no scientific study published in a couple of reputation - reviewed in healthy adults with normal renal function, which showed no renal dysfunction that never for a diet high in protein. None of the studies with healthy athletes that I mentioned above, or otherI have read research showed renal abnormalities at all. In addition, animal studies done using high protein diets also did not show any kidney dysfunction in healthy animals.

Now do not forget, in the real world, where millions of athletes have followed protein diets for decades, there has never been a case of renal failure in a healthy athlete that was determined was caused solely by a protein-rich diet. If the high protein diet has actually been canceledstrain on the kidneys, which have seen many cases of kidney abnormalities, but we have none.

From a personal perspective as a trainer for many athletes from different sports, I have known bodybuilders eating much more than the research suggested above (above 600 grams a day) showed no kidney problems or kidney dysfunction, and I personally read damn blood tests! In short? 1 to 1.5 grams or protein per kilo of body weight will have absolutely no evileffects on renal function of a healthy athlete, period. Now, of course, much of this can be harmful and I suppose it is possible that a healthy person can eat enough protein for a sufficiently long period of time to effect kidney function, but it is very unlikely and has not yet been demonstrated in science literature in healthy athletes.

And what about the claim of osteoporosis? This is a bit "more complicated, but the conclusion is the same. The pathology of osteoporosis involves a combinationmany risk factors and physiological variables, such as macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fats), micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.), hormonal profiles, lack of exercise, sex, family history, and few others.

The theory is that the protein intake increases the acidity of the blood and the body must use minerals from bone stores to "buffer" the blood and bring the blood acidity down, thus reducing one of the bones minerals. Even if there was aclear link between a diet high in protein and osteoporosis in all populations (and are) no athletes have some of the risk factors because they tend to get plenty of exercise, calories, minerals, vitamins and have positive hormonal profiles.

Fact of the matter is that some studies have shown that athletes have denser bones than sedentary people, there are millions of athletes who follow high protein diets without signs of bone loss early, and we now have former athletes are elderlywith high rates of osteoporosis.

In fact, a recent study showed that women receiving extra protein from a protein supplement had increased bone density in a group of not getting the extra protein! The researchers theorized this was due to an increase in IGF-1 is known to be involved in bone growth.

I might recommend a diet high in protein for super sedentary postmenopausal women? Probably not, but we're not talking about you, we're talking about athletes. FundOnline? A high protein diet does not lead to osteoporosis in healthy athletes with very few risk factors for this affliction, especially in the ranges of protein intake that have been discussed in this article.

Myth # 3 "All proteins are created equal"

How many times have you heard or read this ridiculous statement? Yes, in a sedentary couch potato who does not mind that his head is the same shape as the cushion on which is seated, the protein quality is of little interest. However,Research has shown repeatedly that different proteins have different functional properties may benefit athletes.

For example, protein concentrate, whey (WPC) has been shown to improve immunity to a variety of challenges and intense exercise has been shown to affect parts of the immune response. WPC is also exceptionally high in branched chain amino acids are amino acids that are oxidized during exercise and had many benefits forathletes. We also know soy has many uses for athletes, and this is covered in its entirety on the site Brinkzone in another article.

However, it could go on all day about the various functional properties of different proteins, but not necessary. The fact is that science is rapidly discovering that proteins with different proportions of amino acids (and other components found within the various protein foods) have very different effects on the human body and it is these functional propertiesthat bodybuilders and other athletes can use to their advantage.

In short? People who believe that all proteins are alike continue to eat a low protein and nowhere while they laugh all the way to a muscular, healthy body, low in fat!

Conclusion

Over the years above myths have been floating around for so long has been accepted as true, although there is little or no research to prove and a lot of research that refutesthat! I hope this article has been helpful in clarifying some of the confusion for people over the myths surrounding protein and athletes. Of course, now I have to face even tougher myths such as "all fats are fat and are bad for you," "supplements are a waste of time" and my favorite, "a calorie is a calorie. "

The next time someone gives you a difficult time in their protein intake, a copy of the latest study on the topic and give it to them. If this fails, the roleThe largest bodybuilding magazine you can find and hit hem over the head with it!