Protein Absorption-moved from OT thread

JJayoo

The human body is only capable of digesting 7 grams of protein per hour fact

Will Heffernan

JJayoo wrote: »

The human body is only capable of digesting 7 grams of protein per hour fact

I've read that a lot on the internet so it must be true. At least now when I argue it I will be able to quote this research and send them a link to your post.

thegreatiam

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-how-much-protein-can-you-absorb-and-use-from-one-meal/#axzz2f9KsM2Fw

JJayoo

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I've read that a lot on the internet so it must be true. At least now when I argue it I will be able to quote this research and send them a link to your post.

I heard it this morning on Pat kenny's radio show which has one of the highest audiences on Irish radio. So it has to be true.

runawaybishop

JJayoo wrote: »

I heard it this morning on Pat kenny's radio show which has one of the highest audiences on Irish radio. So it has to be true.

Will has been away from Ireland for a while and is probably unaware of Pat Kennys' new venture into the world of competitive body building.

Will Heffernan

JJayoo wrote: »

I heard it this morning on Pat kenny's radio show which has one of the highest audiences on Irish radio. So it has to be true.

Seems pretty sound. If some person was on this Pat Kenny show you speak of and they were talking all sorts of rubbish and misleading people are other people allowed to call in and point out the fact? I would of done that if I was there...RTE would probably just shut the whole thing down though

Will Heffernan

runawaybishop wrote: »

Will has been away from Ireland for a while and is probably unaware of Pat Kennys' new venture into the world of competitive body building.

Probably just took it up last year and is now Mr Olympia. That happens heaps in Ireland now. It is all about overnight success and instant awesomeness.

runawaybishop

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Probably just took it up last year and is now Mr Olympia. That happens heaps in Ireland now. It is all about overnight success and instant awesomeness.

You should see his before and after pics on his blog.

Will Heffernan

runawaybishop wrote: »

You should see his before and after pics on his blog.

Don't be a hater.

JJayoo

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Seems pretty sound. If some person was on this Pat Kenny show you speak of and they were talking all sorts of rubbish and misleading people are other people allowed to call in and point out the fact? I would of done that if I was there...RTE would probably just shut the whole thing down though

This is pretty much my point, no one ever contradicts this rubbish.

Will Heffernan

JJayoo wrote: »

This is pretty much my point, no one ever contradicts this rubbish.

That sort of censorship happens a lot in Ireland in fairness.

amazingemmet

JJayoo wrote: »

This is pretty much my point, no one ever contradicts this rubbish.

Thing is if you called up and gave a perfectly backed up arguement no one would believe you and you'd probably be accused of being a creatine dealer.

JJayoo

But it's not censorship, it's just no one's arsed to make a counter argument.

Will Heffernan

amazingemmet wrote: »

Thing is if you called up and gave a perfectly backed up arguement no one would believe you and you'd probably be accused of being a creatine dealer.

That's true.

You could be expressing the truth and put across a balanced and well constructed argument. Even if no one was putting up a counter argument or refuting the facts that were self evident....even when the indefensible wasn't even attempting to be defended....a lot of the time the powers that be either shut down the debate or it is just easier for the masses just to go along with the status quo.

JJayoo

So instead of trying to refute poor information why not offer basic information to the general public. Most national newspapers would be happy to publish a 500 word article with each of their newspapers, well as long as they were getting it for free. Build up a series of basic articles and any exercises described could be demonstrated on an accompanying youtube channel.

Maybe boards.ie would contribute. Pick a few registered users to write basic articles and boards would get a bit of publicity by being mentioned in a widely circulated newspaper.

kevpants

JJayoo wrote: »

I heard it this morning on Pat kenny's radio show which has one of the highest audiences on Irish radio. So it has to be true.

I heard it too and the lady in question was pretty well balanced I have to say. Of course the first thought I had was that someone from the Internet would hear that silly microbiologist and come here to make an example of them because lol gainz YOLO.

She made the following points which are all debatable but i tended to agree on most of them.

- Isotonic drinks do exactly what they say, re-hydrate immediately but there is no need for them inside the first 90 mins (ish) of exercise and the majority of these drinks have far too many calories per serving for the standard casual gym goer or five a side player.

- Protein requirements way overstated by recovery drink manufacturers. 70g a day enough for most people. We can only absorb roughly 7g per hour in her view and that the way the body processes excess protein puts increased load on the kidneys. Roughly 20% of people, according to X University research, have a predisposition towards or increased risk of kidney disease. In her view placing this increased load on your kidneys at a young age not knowing if you are predisposed to kidney faiure is not wise.

- Chocolate milk cheapest way of hitting the macros associated with recovery.

I massively agree on the protein requirements thing. I don't know enough to prove you don't need 2xBW to push your swole profile over the gainz precipice but I don't buy it.

TL:DR So called experts, pfffft, gainz4life, #whatsinyourstackbrah

Brian?

I'd have to agree with Señor Pants.

I only heard the first few minutes, but what she said held up well. Her point on protein supplements was that most people don't need them, she's right. What people need when trying to add muscle is more food. Her exact words were: "you need more calories to add muscle". Nothing wrong with that.

She then went on to champion chocolate milk over post workout supplements, again I agree. Most post workout supplements are whey and fancy sugar. Completely over priced. Chocolate milk had a 4:1 carb to protein ratio, near enough, which is what most PWO shakes have.

I do have issues with the 7g thing and the kidney harm thing, as far as I'm aware there's no proof of either.

kevpants

Brian? wrote: »

I do have issues with the 7g thing and the kidney harm thing, as far as I'm aware there's no proof of either.

I don't think there's massive proof anyway that's for sure.

But bear in mind on the 7g an hour thing she never said the remaining protein would be immediately excreted, just that it's absorbed slowly so a massive dose of 80g of protein in a 250ml drink is probably going to result in an excess.

The kidney thing is mentioned enough by old school bodybuilders and some scientists to think it's worth bearing in mind. Clearly it's not gospel but the thing about kidneys is you get one set, they don't recover. You mess them up and it's dialysis. There is proof that the kidneys have to work harder to excrete excess protein AFAIK.

Also bear in mind the whole thing was spoken from the point of view of parents worrying about their 13 or 14 year old kids. When you look at it from that perspective I think it's totally reasonable to raise these points. Caffeine got an honourable mention in there too as it appears in a lot of these drinks and the amount kids get needs to be monitored which is also totally reasonable.

I personally wouldn't let my teenager use protein supplements while they were still under my guardianship. I'm probably pretty unique amongst powerlifters from that perspective. I'm also a massive hypocrite who wouldn't let my kids do half the stupid stuff I do.

Zombienosh

I fully support Chocolate milk and or Strawberry milk.

amazingemmet

kevpants wrote: »

I massively agree on the protein requirements thing. I don't know enough to prove you don't need 2xBW to push your swole profile over the gainz precipice but I don't buy it.

I won't try and change your mind but get a copy of "the protein book" by lyle mcdonald and it'll give you all the info you need to make a decision one way or another.

JJayoo

kevpants wrote: »

I heard it too and the lady in question was pretty well balanced I have to say. Of course the first thought I had was that someone from the Internet would hear that silly microbiologist and come here to make an example of them because lol gainz YOLO.

She made the following points which are all debatable but i tended to agree on most of them.

- Isotonic drinks do exactly what they say, re-hydrate immediately but there is no need for them inside the first 90 mins (ish) of exercise and the majority of these drinks have far too many calories per serving for the standard casual gym goer or five a side player.

- Protein requirements way overstated by recovery drink manufacturers. 70g a day enough for most people. We can only absorb roughly 7g per hour in her view and that the way the body processes excess protein puts increased load on the kidneys. Roughly 20% of people, according to X University research, have a predisposition towards or increased risk of kidney disease. In her view placing this increased load on your kidneys at a young age not knowing if you are predisposed to kidney faiure is not wise.

- Chocolate milk cheapest way of hitting the macros associated with recovery.

I massively agree on the protein requirements thing. I don't know enough to prove you don't need 2xBW to push your swole profile over the gainz precipice but I don't buy it.

TL:DR So called experts, pfffft, gainz4life, #whatsinyourstackbrah

What are you trying to say? because she stated one thing that is true it cancels out a false statement? is that how it works? :rolleyes:

Her 7g statement, the only part of the interview that was mentioned on this thread, is based on the her belief that the human body can't process more than 160g of protein per day, so divide that day into 24 hours and you get 7g per hour.

So by saying "to add muscle/strength you need to eat extra calories" it makes the above statement true?

kevpants

amazingemmet wrote: »

I won't try and change your mind but get a copy of "the protein book" by lyle mcdonald and it'll give you all the info you need to make a decision one way or another.

Cheers. Does he spend much of it calling people "punk-ass bitch" and the like? Find it hard to absorb anything he writes (maybe less than 7g an hour... boom boom!) because I read it in this whiny, overly aggressive American twang. It's unfortunate the guy who appears to be one of the foremost authorities on nutrition also happens to be a facebook troll.

JJayoo wrote: »

What are you trying to say? because she stated one thing that is true it cancels out a false statement? is that how it works? :rolleyes:

Her 7g statement, the only part of the interview that was mentioned on this thread, is based on the her belief that the human body can't process more than 160g of protein per day, so divide that day into 24 hours and you get 7g per hour.

So by saying "to add muscle/strength you need to eat extra calories" it makes the above statement true?

What? Sorry my post seems directed at you. It kinds was but only because you happened to be the guy calling out the latest radio interview with a so called expert.

I don't really get the question but I think what you mean is that I'm saying what she said was flawless. I'm not. If you got 5 reputable fitness or nutrition people to talk uninterupted for 20 mins they'd probably all say loads of things I think sound like sense and loads that don't. She said more sensical things than most.

To open up the debate, do you think it's ludicrous to suggest we can only absorb a certain amount of protein per day/per hour or do you just think she's low balled the figure?

I hope I'm not coming across as some kind of self professed expert. I find nutrition quite boring but I feel my disinterested state makes me better able to detect bullshit.

amazingemmet

kevpants wrote: »

Cheers. Does he spend much of it calling people "punk-ass bitch" and the like? Find it hard to absorb anything he writes (maybe less than 7g an hour... boom boom!) because I read it in this whiny, overly aggressive American twang. It's unfortunate the guy who appears to be one of the foremost authorities on nutrition also happens to be a facebook troll.

All his books are fine, well written as these types of things go. I recommend them all.

RidleyRider

They don't come often enough, but when these types of discussions come they're a brilliant read!

JJayoo

kevpants wrote: »

To open up the debate, do you think it's ludicrous to suggest we can only absorb a certain amount of protein per day/per hour or do you just think she's low balled the figure?

I hope I'm not coming across as some kind of self professed expert. I find nutrition quite boring but I feel my disinterested state makes me better able to detect bullshit.

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/13240/4141/17th_September_2013_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_2

48:11 mark if anyone wants to listen to it.

She gave some good/basic advice but it doesn't detract from her 7g statement.

Maybe the problem is that she doesn't make it clear which portion of the population she is speaking about. She mentions elite athletes/bodybuilders early in her interview but finishes speaking about 13/14 year olds.

But if she believes that a person regardless of age/weight can only absorb 7g per hour then she is way off.

She also said that the average person doesn't need anymore than 70g per day, so does she expect them to divide that 70g into 10 servings throughout the day.

It's just this one point that I found off.

kevpants

JJayoo wrote: »

She also said that the average person doesn't need anymore than 70g per day, so does she expect them to divide that 70g into 10 servings throughout the day.

It's just this one point that I found off.

Maths and stuff.

Like I said above she didn't say the 1 hour time scale was a cut off or a countdown timer after which the meal is ejected. The implication is that protein is absorbed slowly. At least I don't think she meant it that way.

The way I understood it was that a meal containing 28g of protein would take roughly 4 hours before all of it was absorbed. You don't have an hour to get all your absorbtion in.

Inspector Coptoor

When I'm teaching the chapter on food in 2nd year science, & when I'm teaching a TY module in biology, my mantra for teenagers as a teacher & rugby coach is:
Eat real food
&
Earn your treats.

As 50-70kg teenager, these kids don't need supplements apart from maybe a multi-vit & a fish oil or two.

I give them sample meals, outline overly high carb tendencies & promote eating some protein with every meal as well as bringing carbs to a 40-50% level as posed to 65% plus.

I tell them to eat a bit more on training days & that after training is the perfect time to have a chocolate milky a banana & some chocolate - earn your treats.

I also then get them to design a 5 meal diet for a day when they are training consisting of breakfast, lunch & dinner aswell as pre & post workout/training snack.

They then critically assess each others work & try to assess if the meal is balanced and if it's too low in protein &/or too high in carbs.

I go I to more detail with the TY students.

7g an hour for protein mightn't be that low a figure for a 13/14 year old, I would take issue with that figure for a fully grown 80-110kg man however.

Orla K

She also said that any protein over 168g and we just expel it. Don't know where she got that exact figure came from.

Inspector Coptoor

Exactly.
For what age person?
What weight?
If we're talking about teenagers?
Are they going through PHV?

Real lack of specific info there

kevpants

Orla K wrote: »

She also said that any protein over 168g and we just expel it. Don't know where she got that exact figure came from.

Yeah I don't think it's possible to have a perfect 15 minute interview on supplements that doesn't throw out a few head scratchers but for a show like Pat Kenny's with his listenership I was pretty happy it was so refreshingly free of facepalm moments. I could imagine a similar conversation on Liveline getting completely out of hand for example. As usual Pat had done his research and didn't ask any stupid questions, knew the whey drinks were for recovery, that isotonic drinks were about rehydration. Easier to get decent info across when not being interviewed by a moron.

Inspector Coptoor

kevpants wrote: »

Yeah I don't think it's possible to have a perfect 15 minute interview on supplements that doesn't throw out a few head scratchers but for a show like Pat Kenny's with his listenership I was pretty happy it was so refreshingly free of facepalm moments. I could imagine a similar conversation on Liveline getting completely out of hand for example. As usual Pat had done his research and didn't ask any stupid questions, knew the whey drinks were for recovery, that isotonic drinks were about rehydration. Easier to get decent info across when not being interviewed by a moron.

Yeah, you're bang on there Kev.
He may be Pat the Plank, but his analytical mind was honed from his training while doing the PhD in Chem Eng.

He is a good interviewer

Orla K

kevpants wrote: »

Yeah I don't think it's possible to have a perfect 15 minute interview on supplements that doesn't throw out a few head scratchers but for a show like Pat Kenny's with his listenership I was pretty happy it was so refreshingly free of facepalm moments. I could imagine a similar conversation on Liveline getting completely out of hand for example. As usual Pat had done his research and didn't ask any stupid questions, knew the whey drinks were for recovery, that isotonic drinks were about rehydration. Easier to get decent info across when not being interviewed by a moron.

Yeah, I've heard far worse interviews. Pat to be fair to him has always done proper interviews well but he's just no good and the lighter stuff.

The best thing she said was about kids drinking calorie dense isotonic after about 15min of exercise, although I still think the protein part will contribute to the protein is steroids crowd.

Mellor

Orla K wrote: »

She also said that any protein over 168g and we just expel it. Don't know where she got that exact figure came from.

24(hours) x 7g

So assuming, 7g per hour is the average rate of absorption. Average guy is about 170lbs or so - That would suggest 1g per lb body weight per day. Pretty standard, no?.
I think it just sounds low when broken down to a per hour figure. I imagine the metabolic pathway for protein from mouth to muscle is quite complex, so when she says the body can absorb 7g per hour, I imagine she is taking about full absorption, not simply digestion. Eating anything over 7g in a single hour won't disappear, it'll just sit waiting to be absorbed.



also, off-topic thread, :rolleyes:

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

24(hours) x 7g

So assuming, 7g per hour is the average rate of absorption. Average guy is about 170lbs or so - That would suggest 1g per lb body weight per day. Pretty standard, no?.
I think it just sounds low when broken down to a per hour figure. I imagine the metabolic pathway for protein from mouth to muscle is quite complex, so when she says the body can absorb 7g per hour, I imagine she is taking about full absorption, not simply digestion. Eating anything over 7g in a single hour won't disappear, it'll just sit waiting to be absorbed.



also, off-topic thread, :rolleyes:

See there it is... when you look at the whole picture, it kinda makes sense. Kinda.


Presumably this is quite easily studied? Feed normal healthy people up to a limit, look at urinary/fecal excretion for markers of undigested protein, work it out from there.

Anyone know if it's been done?

Will Heffernan

Hanley wrote: »

See there it is... when you look at the whole picture, it kinda makes sense. Kinda.


Presumably this is quite easily studied? Feed normal healthy people up to a limit, look at urinary/fecal excretion for markers of undigested protein, work it out from there.

Anyone know if it's been done?

Yes.

Heaps of studies. The problem is that people talk about protein as if it is a single thing. Different proteins have different rates of absorption there's an enormous difference between how fast you absorb egg versus steak.

If people really want to see studies let me know....there are heaps. Maybe tell me what you are interested in particular.

Will Heffernan

Just as an aside you need to think about a few things talking about stuff like protein absorption...as per usual...here's a list of things to consider in no particular order.

1. There are difference between individuals.
2. Differences between proteins.
3. Differences depending on how the proteins are prepared.
4. Then you have to look at the studies:
a) Were they fasted examinations.
b) Were they all done in the morning or midday or evening.
c) Were they singular protein examinations.
d) Are they singular or multiple feeding examinations.

So any way...that's some things to think about. When someone starts quoting absorption rates you need to ask who was the study on? What type of protein was used? How was absorption measured? Were the people fasted when fed and were they fed one protein or multiple proteins and were they fed one time or multiple times and what time of day or night were they fed.

On and on it goes...some of the science isn't great and by that I mean it isn't particularly applicable.

MrPain

Hanley wrote: »

Presumably this is quite easily studied? Feed normal healthy people up to a limit, look at urinary/fecal excretion for markers of undigested protein, work it out from there.

Anyone know if it's been done?

Here is very good peer reviewed review on the literature surrounding protein.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F7003706_A_review_of_issues_of_dietary_protein_intake_in_humans%2Ffile%2F9c960514d545ac59a2.pdf&ei=hWs5UrisD-Wf7gagl4CwAg&usg=AFQjCNEAoUX7QDescBrwOjlv0e93r5AYCA&bvm=bv.52288139,d.ZGU&cad=rja

Will Heffernan

MrPain wrote: »

Here is very good peer reviewed review on the literature surrounding protein.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F7003706_A_review_of_issues_of_dietary_protein_intake_in_humans%2Ffile%2F9c960514d545ac59a2.pdf&ei=hWs5UrisD-Wf7gagl4CwAg&usg=AFQjCNEAoUX7QDescBrwOjlv0e93r5AYCA&bvm=bv.52288139,d.ZGU&cad=rja

I don't think it is a very good paper actually....but that's just me...and I am a bit gun shy with regard being considered as being 'off topic' even in the 'off topic' thread and don't want to get in trouble for personal criticisms like...ahhh...Bilsborough has never actually been a resident of a planet I like to call Earth and has never witnessed any of the things that occur here when people eat protein'. I actually remember reading this paper when it came out and laughing...it is always so obvious when a 'scientist' starts off with a belief and the does whatever they can to back it up. As much as I would like to point out all the errors in this paper I have to worry about defamation these days even when pointing out the truth.

Maybe others can point out the obvious retarded bits and I'll just signal my approval by 'thanking' those posts

Zombienosh

I'm going to do a scientific study on how awesome strawberry milk is...........
It will consist mostly of pictures of me drinking said milk.

When I say mostly I mean that's all it will consist of.

The hard scientific proof will be in the happy belly and smile on my face post study.

Will Heffernan

Zombienosh wrote: »

I'm going to do a scientific study on how awesome strawberry milk is...........
It will consist mostly of pictures of me drinking said milk.

When I say mostly I mean that's all it will consist of.

The hard scientific proof will be in the happy belly and smile on my face post study.

That study has been done plenty of times...I actually did a chocolate milk study not long ago....it was the only time I got my results back and was happy that they were positive.

Will Heffernan

Just as an aside and because it might surprise people...or maybe not...but in light of the discussion re bodybuilding and whether it is a sport or not I have been reading a lot of papers relating to bodybuilding.

Personally if I was a bodybuilder or a power/strength athlete I would of rung up Pat Kenny and asked her what she knew about protein absorption rates in body builders and power and strength athletes. I would have asked her like I am asking you guys now if you know what other adaptations occur in these athletes which makes all the figures and numbers that have been discussed in this latest discussion irrelevant?

Brian?

A subject well worth it's own thread.

Theresalwaysone

Absorb?

Brian?

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Absorb?

Corrected.

Theresalwaysone

Brian? wrote: »

Corrected.

I was discussing an absorption just before i posted

Genuinely double guessed myself... googled it and all.

Brian?

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Genuinely double guessed myself... googled it and all.

I am currently so confused on the two I don't know which is which right now

runawaybishop

Off topic thread gets too many on topic posts
Posts merged into topical thread
off topic posts ensue

kevpants

runawaybishop wrote: »

Off topic thread gets too many on topic posts
Posts merged into topical thread
off topic posts ensue

Now watch the conversation die.

Can someone who knows a bit tell me what the most likely outcome is from knocking back a protein shake with like 80g of protein in it. Given the speed at which say, whey protein in a moderately trained man in his 20s would be absorbed, how much of that would be wasted?

Given digestion is about transit, stuff moves along and on its way fairly sharpish all going well, my underqualified, underdeveloped yet highly analytical mind suspects there just isn't time to make use of that much protein.

Is there anything that can be done to speed up absorption? Like for example iron is apparently more easily absorbed in the presence of vitamin C. Is there anything that performs a similar role with protein? I do recall a lot of unconvincing arguments about carbs+protein making insulin transport protein to the muscles but it all sounded a bit "theoretical" to me the last time I attempted to understand any of this.

Disclaimer: If this gets too technical at some point someone's going to have to break out the sock puppets to explain this to me.

Another one. Vegans. When they talk about how you don't need meat and only a minimal amount of protein is required, they always post a picture of a silverback gorilla. Everyone rolls their eyes and bleats on about a different species etc. and we all agree it's a ridiculous argument. But seriously, can someone actually explain how an animal manages to grow, maintain and repair that much meat on a diet of green shoots? Like presumably the same processes loosely apply to them as us? I'm not advocating veganism, I just can't explain muscular things that don't eat protein. Can anyone? I re-wrote this paragraph twice to try to not sound like a vegan troll but I can't do it. I promise I'm not.

thegreatiam

kevpants wrote: »

Now watch the conversation die.

Can someone who knows a bit tell me what the most likely outcome is from knocking back a protein shake with like 80g of protein in it. Given the speed at which say, whey protein in a moderately trained man in his 20s would be absorbed, how much of that would be wasted?

Given digestion is about transit, stuff moves along and on its way fairly sharpish all going well, my underqualified, underdeveloped yet highly analytical mind suspects there just isn't time to make use of that much protein.

Is there anything that can be done to speed up absorption? Like for example iron is apparently more easily absorbed in the presence of vitamin C. Is there anything that performs a similar role with protein? I do recall a lot of unconvincing arguments about carbs+protein making insulin transport protein to the muscles but it all sounded a bit "theoretical" to me the last time I attempted to understand any of this.

Disclaimer: If this gets too technical at some point someone's going to have to break out the sock puppets to explain this to me.

Another one. Vegans. When they talk about how you don't need meat and only a minimal amount of protein is required, they always post a picture of a silverback gorilla. Everyone rolls their eyes and bleats on about a different species etc. and we all agree it's a ridiculous argument. But seriously, can someone actually explain how an animal manages to grow, maintain and repair that much meat on a diet of green shoots? Like presumably the same processes loosely apply to them as us? I'm not advocating veganism, I just can't explain muscular things that don't eat protein. Can anyone? I re-wrote this paragraph twice to try to not sound like a vegan troll but I can't do it. I promise I'm not.

1st part, you will absorb it slowly. some is stored. The article in post 3/4? from marks daily apple explains it all quite well.

thegreatiam wrote: »

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-how-much-protein-can-you-absorb-and-use-from-one-meal/#axzz2f9KsM2Fw

2nd part, gorillas have enough testosterone in their blood to kill a rugby scrum. plus they eat loads of food, all day. Protein is not just in meat, its in seeds and plants too, just not as much. so gorillas eat more and more often. hard to get a picture of a gorilla that isnt eating.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

If you read the stickies and squat past parallel you can digest 12g per hour fact...

If a single molecule of carbs are in with the protein it will all turn into fat deposited on your head fact.

If you do cardio before weights the protein turns into toxins. fact

If the protein is not from wheat feed Buddhist cows it will turn into "fat muscle". fact.

If you trainer has fraudulent before and after photos, any protein you eat will turn to excrement. fact.

Your protein absorption rate is inversely directly proportionally proportional to the sum of your dead lift, squat and bench divided by your body-fat percentage. fact.


If you lost weight by manipulating your macros regardless of what it was then that's the only way to do it. Fact.

Half naked selfies on boards allow more glutamine into your system enhancing your delta muscle fibers and leading to being shredded. fact.

Wearing vibrams, foam rolling for longer than you workout and swinging from the gym like a monkey can enhance your digestive enzymes, greatly improving your good protein absorption rate. Fact.

Questions?

runawaybishop

kevpants wrote: »

Another one. Vegans. When they talk about how you don't need meat and only a minimal amount of protein is required, they always post a picture of a silverback gorilla. Everyone rolls their eyes and bleats on about a different species etc. and we all agree it's a ridiculous argument. But seriously, can someone actually explain how an animal manages to grow, maintain and repair that much meat on a diet of green shoots? Like presumably the same processes loosely apply to them as us? I'm not advocating veganism, I just can't explain muscular things that don't eat protein. Can anyone? I re-wrote this paragraph twice to try to not sound like a vegan troll but I can't do it. I promise I'm not.

You will often see direct comparisons to tests/studies conducted on animals applied to humans. Point out to yon vegans that Humans are not Silverback Gorillas, we have oodles of Myostatin and they do not. This means we consume/metabolise muscle, they don't really.