I, personally, at a bodyweight of about 175-ish right now, try to consume about 40-50 grams of protein, whether it be in the form of meat, protein bars, shakes, etc., about every 3 waking hours, every day...this remains constant unless I'm going very low-carb, which will mean that protein intake increases...

So, have I answered your question...NO...but I honestly don't believe there is a clear-cut answer...try different things and see how you feel, look, etc., and judge by how your own body reacts!

Just my 2 cents, hope it makes sense!

So, somebody like harmonic would only need something like maybe 80 grams of protein. lol

Where do I ever start? I wanted to write to you regarding good ol' Dr. Marcus' rehashed ideas on protein cycling. I say rehashed because Gironda was pushing low protein cycles years ago. Tom Platz talked about it in "Big Beyond Belief" as did Akerfeldt last year in his 'ABCDE' series in MM2K. Dr. Marcus' approach is far more extreme than either approach, advocating 20-40 grams of protein for long periods of time, up to a month.

I'm sorry guys, but I think one of your infamous "Gang of Five" is defective. First he makes this big deal about why you should listen to him, because he's a smart cookie, and because he "knows" how to do research, and because he's a "real" bodybuilder. Well I'm not a "real" bodybuilder (just a wanna-be with small arms), but I do have a background in exercise physiology and nutrition. More importantly, I know how to access Medline to check on the claims being made by all the B.S. artists in the world of bodybuilding. And this article was full of it.

First, he talks about how protein depletion jacks GH to the ceiling, and it doesn't come down for several days after protein is re-fed, citing Guyton's textbook of medical physiology (pg. 939). This is true (I checked my copy), at least for children suffering from Kawashiorkor (that's a good model for bodybuilders), but he's being awfully reductive. GH isn't the be-all, end-all anabolic hormone; what about looking at what happens to testosterone levels or IGF-1? Of course, GH is the big rage right now (i.e., all the B.S. GH supplements flooding the market) so it makes sense that he'd play up the role of GH in growth. Also, if you really want to jack GH to the ceiling, try total starvation. Of course, no one would be dumb enough to recommend starvation for growth. Oh wait, that came later in the article.

That's when the article really got bad. First he claims:

"Other benefits of protein cycling include more efficient function of the liver and kidneys and a decrease in organ size. We all know that a smaller liver is great, especially to those of us with protruding guts secondary to liver hypertrophy."5

Citing 5) Differential effects of plane of protein or energy nutrition on visceral organs and hormones in lambs. J Anim Sci 1995 Jun;73(6):1674-1688 Wester TJ, et. al.

Now this would be fascinating if it occurs, and admittedly, it could be beneficial. So I looked up the abstract (don't have access to the journal, sadly). And it does state:

"By week seven of restriction, liver mass in ER and PR was decreased to 50% of controls (P. 5)."

So he's correct, sort of. But, the next sentence says:

"Return of liver mass, on an empty body weight basis, occurred by d 2 of repletion (P. 1)."

Wow, four weeks of protein malnutrition and any advantage of a reduced liver size is gone within two days! That sure sounds worth it to me. Of course, he probably didn't expect anyone to actually look up his studies (we all know that citing a bushel of studies automatically gives you credibility) to see if he was correct or not.

Finally, to prove his brilliance, he states:

"Hey, don't be afraid of losing muscle and wimp out...many of our current ideas about building muscle are stupid and based on the ideas of peons and pencil necks. For instance, I have discovered, in the literature and through self-experimentation, that muscle can be built during complete starvation...but that's another topic for another day."6

Citing 6) Effect of food restriction on rat muscle hypertrophy... Brown-CR. Comp-Bioch- Physiol-A. 1990; 95(3): 321-4

Now I am truly amazed. Not only has he solved the problems of bodybuilding, he has figured out how to create something from nothing and break a fundamental law of thermodynamics. I had to check this one out. First off, the correct reference is:

Effects of food restriction on stretch induced muscle hypertrophy in chickens of various ages. - Brown CR, et. al. - Comp Biochem Physiol A 1990;95(3):321-324

Well, chickens and rats are both animals, I suppose, but it would be nice if he could get the references correct if he's going to bother citing them in the first place. Anyway, this study looked at muscle growth in an ISOLATED MUSCLE during chronic stretch during starvation. And after 6 days, that muscle had grown by 200%. So the good doctor is sort of correct.

Of course, the effects on one muscle don't tell us anything about whole body protein synthesis. I wonder if the good doctor can tell me WHERE the nitrogen and amino acids are coming from during total starvation to allow for whole body protein synthesis. The last time I checked, humans could not fix nitrogen from the air like plants do. And if you look at the huge amount of starvation literature (hint, Dr. Marcus, do a Medline search on George F Cahill, Jr or a very recent paper by OE Owen in the Am J Clin Nutr), the loss of body protein is massive during the initial stages of starvation. I would speculate the amino acids/nitrogen that were incorporated into the chicken's wing came from the breakdown of other muscles. Sorry, Dr. Marcus, you can't make something out of nothing.

So to be honest, I'm totally perplexed by this article. He mangles the facts, he can't even get his references correct, and I have to wonder what his motivations are. Perhaps a new low protein MRP offered only through test.net? Perhaps he's trying to prove how dangerously hardcore he is.

Dr. Marcus, I thought the first rule of medicine was "First, do no harm". Can you explain how encouraging protein malnutrition or outright starvation fits with your Hippocratic oath?

Oh, one more thing, in his most recent Gang of Five answers, Dr. Marcus makes the strange statement that protein from grains and vegetables should not be counted towards the daily total of 20-40 grams. So if I eat 20 bagels per day (approx. protein content 10 grams/bagel) for a total of 200 grams of protein, but nothing else, does that mean I can count my protein intake as zero for that day? I think someone needs a refresher in human physiology. Amino acids are amino acids, and the point of this strategy is to down-regulate amino acid oxidation, so the source is irrelevant.

Anyway, I've talked long enough. I'll look forward to comments by the esteemed Dr. Marcus regarding my criticisms of his article.

Sincerely,

Lyle McDonald

_____________________________________________

The Protein Conspiracy
How Much Do You Really Need?
by Cy Willson

can already hear some protein cycling fanatic screaming that a continually high protein intake will do nothing but make your body more "efficient" at oxidizing amino acids or disposing of them. Okay, Mr. Big Pants, I guess I'll have to prove to you that this isn't the case at all.

First, let's go over the basic premises of protein intake and metabolism. It's been concluded that the average adult body contains 10 kg of protein and 6 of those are metabolically active. This pool turns over a continuous rate of 3 to 5 g/kg of body weight through synthesis and degradation of protein. This accounts for approximately 20% of the basal metabolic rate (BMR). Most of the amino acids released daily via proteolysis of muscle tissue are cycled back into protein synthesis. It's thought that as much as 50 g of protein are degraded per day, therefore 50 g or 0.8 g/kg is sufficient enough to maintain a neutral balance.(4)

It's also thought that breakdown occurs when intramuscular levels of amino acids reach a low concentration and the body begins to break down additional protein to fulfill these amino acid requirements within the muscle tissue.(1) This is basically the rationale behind post-workout protein intake. By creating muscle tissue damage while lifting, you've consequently created a synthesis response. By ingesting some additional protein after exercise, it selectively inhibits the breakdown by increasing the intramuscular levels and supplies more substrate for synthesis, thus packing a double punch!

Now that I've refreshed your memory (or bored the hell out of you) with that tidbit of info, let's continue and see why a reduction of protein intake just isn't necessary. While it's true that oxidation rates increase in response to a protein "overload," it's not true that the body becomes more efficient at oxidizing it compared to any other amount of protein taken in. Your oxidation rates increase because the other requirements for protein were met. Consequently, your body is using the excess as an energy source, which is better than storing it as fat.

It isn't as if your body says "I kinda like this here oxidization thing, let's keep doing it." There's no adaptive mechanism occurring here. The only time there's a need for worry about oxidation rates is when they're elevated simultaneously with a lowered protein intake (basically a fasting state). It's then that muscle tissue is catabolized extensively.

Besides, if this whole protein-cycling thing were true, wouldn't a continuously high protein intake of around 2.07 g/kg cause an increase in degradation? Well, in one study, it was found that on a scaled protein intake of 0.36 g/kg, 0.77 g/kg, 1.5 g/kg, and 2.07 g/kg, the highest intake revealed the highest protein-synthesis rate and the lowest degradation rate.(3) It was also found that 2.5 g/kg compared to a low protein intake resulted in a higher utilization rate.(2)

In another study, two groups of normal, healthy people were given either 0.9 g/kg (control group) or 2.5 g/kg (high protein group). The results revealed that the high protein group, but not the control, saw a significant retention of nitrogen. Here's the best part. In the control subjects, the rate of nitrogen excretion didn't change in response to fasting. However, leucine oxidation did increase, indicating a state of catabolism. The high-protein group displayed a decrease in nitrogen excretion when fasting! This shouldn't be happening according to the protein-cycling proponents, but it is. (So there!)

Not only that, but oxidation wasn't increased in response to fasting, while leucine rate of appearance increased, indicating that the whole-body protein synthesis was higher in the high-protein group.(5) Basically, the more protein you consume before some type of fast (like bedtime), the less nitrogen you'll excrete and the less leucine will be oxidized. Therefore, less muscle tissue will be broken down.

Hopefully, I've now completely eradicated the idea of lowering protein intake from your noodle. Now I'd like to move on to some ideas on protein timing and patterning, one of which might just change the way you think about post-workout shakes!

hazmat: i got that off of T-mag, it isn't my idea. i think protein should be consumed constantly throughout the day with a massive amount coming directly after training and continued for several hours after the workout.