Protein Requirements for Different Strength Qualities

i believe they callthat bulletproof coffee and keto dieters have recently started fadding on it pretty hard

 

no i'm not pulling your leg. yes, unsalted. i've been putting a little sliver in my morning coffee, like an 1/8 of a tablespoon, even.

it's amazing. if you drink coffee, you should try it. the butter give the coffee a wonderful sheen of fat, makes it so palatable.

the 2 tblsp. recipe is something else entirely.

 

Hmmm.... iv done ice cream in my coffee when I ran out of milk, I like heavy cream normally, and recently I've tried jello cofffee which was delicious. Why not, ill try a little butter in my coffee, might help lubricant the morning fuction.

 

Im assuming your lactose intolerant? Just an idea, if you have access to it and you feel brave enough to try it. Find a farmer that is willing to give you unpasteurized milk to try and see how your body reacts to it. My intolerance is very severe and has been for years, I still indulge once in a while but it comes at a price. I've noticed that unpasteurized milk doesn't upset me nearly as bad as store purchased milk, it's what I use in my coffee the only problem is there a lot of legalities in canada that make it hard to get. Not sure if it's the same in your neck of the woods.

 

If you're vegetarian hemp powder protein is great. It tastes quite decent, sorta nutty, the stuff I got is about 50% protein. Can just add it to foods or smoothies and such. Pretty cheap too, about £5-6 for half a kilo.

 

I have not seen any milk whether standard, 2%, or skim that has more or less sugar.

 

People sometimes get confused about "fat" saturated fat isn't to good for your heart. Better fat sources are olive oils, nuts, all others with low sat. fats. However, people assume that things like "I can't believe it's not butter" or other man made butters are better for you, which is no so. Most of them are made with hydrogenated oils which are TERRIBLE for your heart, which is why natural peanut butter is also always a good choice. A high quality fish oil or flax oil is very good for helping you in multiple ways.

So do you cut out butter completely? No, but 1 tablespoon is IIRC 100 calories with about 11 grams of fat.. 7 of them coming from saturated fats an then a little over 3 from mono which is ok. Olive oil is about 120 calories for the tablespoon, but only 2 grams of that are coming from sat. fat while 10 from mono and 1.5 or so in poly. It's a much better choice, but for many it doesn't have that much flavor. So sauté some garlic in it and eat it with your potatoes, rice, veggies, etc and have that as your fat source for that meal.

 

Dude, you seriously need to get off your high horse. I am 35 now and been lifting and reading about nutrition since I was 18 years old. I eat PLENTY of protein and I will be more than happy to post my kidney and liver function on here for anyone if they are really that curious. Maybe if you shut up long enough, you would actually learn something from someone who has been there.

 

You know that high protein diets are being linked to premature aging (and related conditions such as dementia) and increased incidents of cancer though, right? I mean, you've been reading about nutrition for over 15 years.

 

Oh, and since you have an issue with typing... here you go

Source:

Department of Physiological Chemistry, Institute of Physical Education and Kinesiotherapy, Free University of Brussels, Belgium.


Abstract


Excess protein and amino acid intake have been recognized as hazardous potential implications for kidney function, leading to progressive impairment of this organ. It has been suggested in the literature, without clear evidence, that high protein intake by athletes has no harmful consequences on renal function. This study investigated body-builders (BB) and other well-trained athletes (OA) with high and medium protein intake, respectively, in order to shed light on this issue. The athletes underwent a 7-day nutrition record analysis as well as blood sample and urine collection to determine the potential renal consequences of a high protein intake. The data revealed that despite higher plasma concentration of uric acid and calcium, Group BB had renal clearances of creatinine, urea, and albumin that were within the normal range. The nitrogen balance for both groups became positive when daily protein intake exceeded 1.26 g.kg but there were no correlations between protein intake and creatinine clearance, albumin excretion rate, and calcium excretion rate. To conclude, it appears that protein intake under 2. 8 g.kg does not impair renal function in well-trained athletes as indicated by the measures of renal function used in this study

 

and is this from animal proteins? Vegan diets? Which one? Is it because of the hormones that are injected into animals these days perhaps? How about people who get their own chickens and eat their eggs and them? How about people that eat only deer meat that they have killed or bought? There are no solid studies that prove any of that otherwise we'd have a lot more dead people from eating protein.

 

Lots of people die from Cancer, lots of people get dementia. How many of those people would have lived longer from a lower protein diet is impossible to answer, but the science shows that people who eat high protein diets show higher than normal levels of certain proteins that are linked with cancer and dementia incidences.

 

meh. i read some basic stuff. i just make sure to eat everything: mostly plants, some meat, very little sugar. i just let my body figure it out. hundreds of thousands of years of evolution has already done all the work for me.

Spoiler

<says giovanni peering from the heights of his saddle>

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21673053

A low carbohydrate, high protein diet slows tumor growth and prevents cancer initiation.

Abstract

Since cancer cells depend on glucose more than normal cells, we compared the effects of low carbohydrate (CHO) diets to a Western diet on the growth rate of tumors in mice. To avoid caloric restriction-induced effects, we designed the low CHO diets isocaloric with the Western diet by increasing protein rather than fat levels because of the reported tumor-promoting effects of high fat and the immune-stimulating effects of high protein. We found that both murine and human carcinomas grew slower in mice on diets containing low amylose CHO and high protein compared with a Western diet characterized by relatively high CHO and low protein. There was no weight difference between the tumor-bearing mice on the low CHO or Western diets. Additionally, the low CHO-fed mice exhibited lower blood glucose, insulin, and lactate levels. Additive antitumor effects with the low CHO diets were observed with the mTOR inhibitor CCI-779 and especially with the COX-2 inhibitor Celebrex, a potent anti-inflammatory drug. Strikingly, in a genetically engineered mouse model of HER-2/neu-induced mammary cancer, tumor penetrance in mice on a Western diet was nearly 50% by the age of 1 year whereas no tumors were detected in mice on the low CHO diet. This difference was associated with weight gains in mice on the Western diet not observed in mice on the low CHO diet. Moreover, whereas only 1 mouse on the Western diet achieved a normal life span, due to cancer-associated deaths, more than 50% of the mice on the low CHO diet reached or exceeded the normal life span. Taken together, our findings offer a compelling preclinical illustration of the ability of a low CHO diet in not only restricting weight gain but also cancer development and progression.

 

It's an interesting paper, but they do note that humans don't respond to low carb diets in the same way that mice do, so they can't be sure that the results carry over - they recommend a low carb low GI diet to make the human response more akin to the mouse response.

I'm not convinced by their experiment looking at the incidence rates of cancers because the sample sizes were too low. 3/10 vs 7/11 might be statistically significant, but it's hardly convincing.

 

HGH obviously is the new thing... all the movie stars, athletes, etc etc are all on it. It shows that it slows the aging process and can actually roll back a few years looks wise. The problem with it is that it's shown to cause cancer... BUT, only in people who already have a predisposition to it or who already have a tumor/s, so along with other areas that it helps with growth and repair.. it also increases tumor growth.

Where they are getting the protein causes cancer is that they are assuming that higher protein diets cause an increase in IGF-1 and thus an increased possibility of cancer. What they do NOT tell you is that one who does strenuous exercises also can increase their GH levels as well. Therefore if that is the case, then you may as well assume that exercise itself can also cause cancer... however, I have yet to see a study claiming such.

Whether you wind up with cancer depends on much more than just how much protein you consume. If you have a history of it... you have a greater chance no matter how you eat. If you have been exposed to a lot of radiation, you have a higher chance of it, yes, what a person eats could be a cause to cancer, but other factors such as the above that I mentioned IMO are much more likely to be the cause than just what you eat.

 

I haven't seen a paper linking IGF-1 with exercise. Not all growth hormones are the same.

And they're not assuming that high protein leads to IGF-1. They are showing that high protein diets leads to increases in IGF-1. and they are showing that high levels of IGF-1 leads to significantly increased risk of developing cancer, dementia and other age related diseases.

And yes, cancer incidence depends on a lot of factors, but that doesn't mean you should ignore ones that you can minimise. You're saying that you shouldn't bother moderating protein intake because it's only one factor that increases your risk of cancer - well, replace 'moderating protein intake' with 'to stop smoking' to see how silly that sentiment is.

 

@Boardeaux

why do you feel like you need more protein?

 

Nope.

Due to the higher energy density of fat compared to sugars you will find lower fat milks will have significantly lower total calories compared to non-skim milk. Yes low/no-fat milks tend to have more sugars in them but it's not a huge difference when you look at the labels.

So just choose milk depending on what your requirements and goals are.

I find it funny that you are normally the first to challenge people's claims with requests for supporting evidence such as papers yet post this kind of stuff with zero references.

And now onto practical suggestions for your original poster. If you can drink milk and eggs, then go for it. Whey protein concentrate/isolate is also a good source of protein if you are looking to increase intake. It's derived from milk so it should suit you. There are vegan protein powder options too.

 

I'm just tired of providing sources for people to come back at me with intuition, myths and old wives tales. It's not worth the effort of finding the papers again for people to ignore them.