Diário do gato de Schrödinger: LPO, powerlifting e umas paradinhas boribildi

[{..mAthEUs..} 4423]

12 minutos atrás, dgl123 disse:

 

 

Vou separar aqui pra ler mais tarde.

 

Eu estou fazendo uma coletânea com estudos high protein. Eu tinha achado uns muito bons um tempo atrás mas não sei o que fiz com os links.

 

Obrigado mais uma vez!

[Quântico 613]

Cuidado ai Shrodinger, vai sair mais um video do Muzy responde em breve e nesse o Muzy fala mal de fullbody (a entrevista ja estava no ar mas tiraram sei la pq, acredito que em breve sai no youtube de novo). Agora vamos ficar 100% murchos (na verdade to achando que não terei mais sossego na academia)!

Editado Agosto 11, 2016 às 16:58 por Quântico

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 11436]

Review do Lyle sobre o estudo de cima sobre proteína pós treino FB:

 

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/protein-amount-and-post-workout-protein-synthesis-research-review.html/

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 11436]

9 horas atrás, {..mAthEUs..} disse:

 

Vou separar aqui pra ler mais tarde.

 

Eu estou fazendo uma coletânea com estudos high protein. Eu tinha achado uns muito bons um tempo atrás mas não sei o que fiz com os links.

 

Obrigado mais uma vez!

 

Matheus,

 

Vou deixar aqui citado um post em que linkei 3 estudos do Jose Antonio sobre alta ingestão de proteinz:

 

Citar

 

Em 17/07/2016 at 13:16, _brunno_ disse:

outra coisa que eu não entendi tb foi a quantidade de proteina que ele falou, 3 ou foi 3,4g/kg(salvo engano) pra um natural?  Alguém aqui do forum tem artigos sobre alta ingestão de proteina pra naturais, é vc? rsrs 

Foi 3,4g. Ele meio que vomitou uma info aleatória. Ele estava se referindo ao estudo abaixo do Jose Antonio:

 

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-015-0100-0

 

Que sucedeu esse outro estudo em que o mesmo Jose Antonio testou 4,4g/kg:

 

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-11-19

 

Mais recentemente ele fez mais um avaliando marcadores de saúde em uma dieta alta em proteína (2,6-3,3g/kg/dia) e não houve problemas nos indicadores de saúde avaliados:

 

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-016-0114-2

 

Tem mais um ou outro estudo sobre isso, mas dá pra entender o recado: alta ingestão de proteína é saudável, além de potencialmente permitir uma melhor composição corporal, melhorando o particionamento de nutrientes. E meu entendimento hoje é que alta ingestão de proteínas (>3g/kg/dia) com saldo calórico pequeno (<300kcal pra mais ou pra menos) pode levar à recomposição corporal - ganho de massa com perda de gordura -, mas o processo é lento.

 

Sobre a questão do saldo calórico, segue post que eu fiz ano passado lá no diário:

 

Citar

Presentinho de natal pra galera. Review do Alan Aragon, extraído do AARR de outubro desse ano:

 

Spoiler

Effect of nutritional intervention on body composition and performance in elite athletes.

 

 

 

Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Sundgot-Borgen J. Eur J Sport Sci. 2013;13(3):295-303. [PubMed]

 

 

 

BACKGROUND: Strength training and positive energy intake are the most important factors related to lean body mass (LBM) gain. Most studies investigating weight-gain interventions are based recreationally active subjects and less is known about optimal weight-gain protocols in elite athletes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of nutritional guidance in an 8- to 12-week weight-gain period in elite athletes. DESIGN: Thirtynine elite athletes were randomised to either a 'nutritional counseling group' (NCG, n=21, 19.1±2.9 years, 70.9±8.9 kg) or 'ad libitum group' (ALG, n=18, 19.6±2.7 years, 75.0±5.9 kg). All athletes continued their sport-specific training which included an additional four strength-training sessions per week. NCG followed a meal plan providing a positive energy balance, while the ALG athletes had an ad libitum energy intake. Body weight (BW), body composition, one repetition maximum (1RM), 40 m sprint and counter movement jump (CMJ) were measured pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: Energy intake was higher in the NCG than in the ALG (3585±601 vs. 2964±884 kcal) and consequently BW increased more in NCG than in ALG (3.9±0.6% vs. 1.5±0.4%). Fat mass (FM) increased more in NCG than in ALG (15±4 vs. 3±3%), but gain in LBM was not different between groups. All 1RM results improved in both groups (6-12%), whereas 40 m sprint and CMJ remained unchanged, except for a significant decrease in 40 m sprint for the athletes in NCG.CONCLUSION: Athletes with nutritional guidance increased BW more, however, excess energy intake in a weight-gain protocol should be considered carefully due to undesirable increases in body fat. SPONSORSHIP: None specified. 

 

 

 

Study strengths

 

 

 

All subjects were highly trained athletes. Diets were designed on the basis of 4-day weighed food records that were analyzed via nutritional software. Thenutritional counseling group (NCG) was assigned a diet that was congruent with effective protocols seen in previous research involving athletic goals. All subjects in the NCG used food scales for the first week in order to gain familiarization with the targeted portion amounts. The ad libitum group (ALG), true to the definition, were simply instructed to eat as desired during the trial, while aiming at a gain of 0.7% of bodyweight per week. ALG received no counseling or guidance, while NCG underwent weekly sessions with a clinical dietitian and an exercise physiologist with an IOC diploma in sports nutrition. This stark contrast of treatments was a setup for some interesting and potentially useful results. 

 

 

 

Study limitations

 

 

 

Although a diligent effort was made to control the dietary variables in the NCG, participants were still subject to misreporting intake since the food was not prepared/provided by the research personnel. Although training was supervised, this supervision only occurred once per week, leaving room for the possibility of either missed or improperly executed training sessions. Although elite athletes were used, and they reported similar resistance training experience, the range of sports they were involved in was broad (rowing, kayaking, soccer, volleyball, taekwondo, skating, and ice hockey), which potentiates variability in terms of response across the subjects. Finally, the results seen might be limited to the profile of the subjects, who were involved primarily in endurance-dominant sports, rather than sports focused on strength/power. A final limitation was that ALG had 7 drop-outs, and NCG had 1, and the authors acknowledge that this could have confounded the results. 

 

 

 

The main findings are graphically depicted above (tabular data of body composition & performance can be seen here). Tabulated nutritional intake details can be seen here. Regarding body composition change, the most noteworthy result was that the NCG’s significantly greater gain in bodyweight was mostly from fat mass (FM). Specifically, NCG and ALG gained 1.7 & 1.2 kg LBM, respectively. FM gains were 1.1 & 0.2 kg, respectively. Along with NCG’s significant gain in fat mass was a significant drop in sprinting performance, while no significant difference was seen in ALG. 1RM strength increased significantly in both groups without any between-group differences. The fat gain in NCG can be explained by a 544 kcal increase from baseline intake, while ALG reported a 128 kcal decrease. It’s possible that these values were under-reported,¹⁸ with carbohydrate and fat likely receiving the bulk of the underreporting.¹⁹ The authors concluded that a 200-300 kcal (as opposed to a 500 kcal) daily surplus might better mitigate unwanted fat gain in elite athletes seeking to gain body mass. 

 

O estudo foi feito com atletas de elite e resulta em ganhos de massa magra e gordura bem diferentes nos dois grupos. O grupo com menor ingestão calórica (ad libitium, sem controle rígido, por isso sem um dado confiável do superávit) conseguir ganhar praticamente apenas massa magra (1,2kg de mm e 0,2kg de gordura), enquanto que o outro grupo, com superávit de 544kcal/dia ganhou bem mais gordura 1,7kg de mm e 1,2kg de gordura).

 

Na conclusão eles sugerem que seja feito um superávit de apenas 200-300kcal pra mitigar o ganho de gordura em um bulking (e não 500kcal como é comumente apregoado).

 

Abraços

 

Enfim, ainda tem mais coisas, mas eu tinha feito um post com uma coletânea de estudos nesse sentido e se perdeu no tópico low carb.

 

Abraços

 

 

Eu tenho reviews do AARR de alguns desses estudos - se quiser, só pedir. 

 

EDIT: vou lançar aqui dois reviews e uma entrevista no AARR sobre high protein:

 

Spoiler

Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial.

 

Longland TM, Oikawa SY, Mitchell CJ, Devries MC, Phillips SM. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Jan 27. pii: ajcn119339. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]

 

BACKGROUND: A dietary protein intake higher than the Recommended Dietary Allowance during an energy deficit helps to preserve lean body mass (LBM), particularly when combined with exercise. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a proof-of-principle trial to test whether manipulation of dietary protein intake during a marked energy deficit in addition to intense exercise training would affect changes in body composition. DESIGN: We used a single-blind, randomized, parallel-group prospective trial. During a 4-wk period, we provided hypoenergetic (∼40% reduction compared with requirements) diets providing 33 ± 1 kcal/kg LBM to young men who were randomly assigned (n = 20/group) to consume either a lower-protein (1.2 g · kg-1 · d-1) control diet (CON) or a higher-protein (2.4 g · kg-1 · d-1) diet (PRO). All subjects performed resistance exercise training combined with high-intensity interval training for 6 d/wk. A 4-compartment model assessment of body composition was made pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: As a result of the intervention, LBM increased (P < 0.05) in the PRO group (1.2 ± 1.0 kg) and to a greater extent (P < 0.05) compared with the CON group (0.1 ± 1.0 kg). The PRO group had a greater loss of fat mass than did the CON group (PRO: -4.8 ± 1.6 kg; CON: -3.5 ± 1.4kg; P < 0.05). All measures of exercise performance improved similarly in the PRO and CON groups as a result of the intervention with no effect of protein supplementation. Changes in serum cortisol during the intervention were associated with changes in body fat (r = 0.39, P = 0.01) and LBM (r = -0.34, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that, during a marked energy deficit, consumption of a diet containing 2.4 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 was more effective than consumption of a diet containing 1.2 g protein · kg-1 · d-1 in promoting increases in LBM and losses of fat mass when combined with a high volume of resistance and anaerobic exercise. Changes in serum cortisol were associated with changes in body fat and LBM, but did not explain much variance in either measure. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01776359. SPONSORSHIP: Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

 

Study strengths

 

This is study was the first to ever compare protein intakes at 1.2 vs 2.4 g/kg. It was also innovative since it included both resistance training and high-intensity interval training (HIT) in the form of sprints. The subjects were provided all of their food and beverage intake. This is a very expensive and uncommon measure of control, but it eliminates the sometimes enormous error involved with self-selected/self-prepared/self-reported intake. Compliance (estimated to be 93%) was enforced via daily contact with research personnel. Serum urea was assessed to measure compliance to the prescribed protein intake. Exercise compliance was estimated to be greater than 96%. Pedometers were used to track non-exercise activity, and subjects were assigned to complete at least 10,000 steps per day (no significant differences in pedometer activity were seen between groups). In

 

Alan Aragon’s Research Review – January 2016 [Back to Contents] Page 6

 

untrained subjects having robust responses regardless of protocol. Subjects kept 3-day diaries weekly (2 weekdays, 1 weekend day) via online nutritional software. Free protein powder (whey) was provided as an option for the subjects who chose to utilize it to reach their protein intake target. Exercise performance testing was conducted by certified strength & conditioning specialists.

 

Study limitations

 

As acknowledged by the authors, self-reported dietary intake is subject to inaccuracy. However, they somewhat disclaimed this potential confounder by pointing out that the simple dietary addition of protein powder to habitual diets minimized the potential for misreporting. they also mentioned that not assessing hydration status could have the potential to confound body composition assessment. A small number of completers (11 subjects) was also acknowledged. A limitation I’d add is that the subjects were not on a standardized resistance training program. Subjects were reported to have “followed their own strength and conditioning program” but kept records of weekly volume load. This may not have been the best design move, since 4 of the 11 subjects could not do the exercise tests due to overuse injuries. This may have been avoided (or at least minimized) with professionally designed programming and supervision throughout the study.

 

Comment/application

 

The main finding was an overall lack of significant difference in any of the body composition, performance, and clinical parameters assessed. No adverse side effects were observed with the higher protein intake (3.3 g/kg/day, vs the normal intake of 2.9 g/kg/day). One of the nice and rather uncommon features of this study was the reporting of individual data.

 

 

 

The effects of a high protein diet on indices of health and body composition - a crossover trial in resistance- trained men.

 

Antonio J, Ellerbroek A, Silver T, Vargas L, Peacock C. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2016 Jan 16;13:3. [PubMed]

 

BACKGROUND: Eight weeks of a high protein diet (>3 g/kg/day) coupled with a periodized heavy resistance training program has been shown to positively affect body composition with no deleterious effects on health. Using a randomized, crossover design, resistance-trained male subjects underwent a 16-week intervention (i.e., two 8-week periods) in which they consumed either their normal (i.e., habitual) or a higher protein diet (>3 g/kg/day). Thus, the purpose of this study was to ascertain if significantly increasing protein intake would affect clinical markers of health (i.e., lipids, kidney function, etc.) as well as performance and body composition in young males with extensive resistance training experience. METHODS: Twelve healthy resistance-trained men volunteered for this study (mean ± SD: age 25.9 ± 3.7 years; height 178.0 ± 8.5 cm; years of resistance training experience 7.6 ± 3.6) with 11 subjects completing most of the assessments. In a randomized crossover trial, subjects were tested at baseline and after two 8-week treatment periods (i.e., habitual [normal] diet and high protein diet) for body composition, measures of health (i.e., blood lipids, comprehensive metabolic panel) and performance. Each subject maintained a food diary for the 16-week treatment period (i.e., 8 weeks on their normal or habitual diet and 8 weeks on a high protein diet). Each subject provided a food diary of two weekdays and one weekend day per week. In addition, subjects kept a diary of their training regimen that was used to calculate total work performed. RESULTS: During the normal and high protein phase of the treatment period, subjects consumed 2.6 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 0.8 g/kg/day of dietary protein, respectively. The mean protein intake over the 4-month period was 2.9 ± 0.9 g/kg/day. The high protein group consumed significantly more calories and protein (p < 0.05) than the normal protein group. There were no differences in dietary intake between the groups for any other measure. Moreover, there were no significant changes in body composition or markers of health in either group. There were no side effects (i.e., blood lipids, glucose, renal, kidney function etc.) regarding high protein consumption. CONCLUSION: In resistance-trained young men who do not significantly alter their training regimen, consuming a high protein diet (2.6 to 3.3 g/kg/day) over a 4-month period has no effect on blood lipids or markers of renal and hepatic function. Nor were there any changes in performance or body composition. This is the first crossover trial using resistance- trained subjects in which the elevation of protein intake to over four times the recommended dietary allowance has shown no harmful effects. SPONSORSHIP: None listed.

 

Study strengths

 

This study breaks ground since it’s the first randomized crossover intervention examining the effects of a genuinely high protein intake (>3 g/kg/day), and it’s also the first to do this while including progressive resistance training as well as assessing a range of clinical parameters (including glucose, lipids, and renal function). The subjects were resistance-trained, which minimizes the confounding potential of novice or

 

As seen above, although the mean changes (average changes of the groups) were not significant between the normal and high protein condition, it’s interesting to note the individual responses. 2 of the 11 subjects gained fat mass in the high- protein condition (while the rest showed vary degrees of reduction), and 2 of the 11 subjects in the high-protein condition gained fat-free mass in the (while the rest showed pretty flat lines, indicating minimal difference). These relatively deviant responses are common in study samples, and they merely underscore the importance of bearing in mind that the results reported in research represent the group mean, but still may not necessarily apply to the individual. This is where personal trial and error comes into play. Research findings, if applied to practice, are best seen as relatively objective starting points from which to make changes if necessary. Individuals may sometimes be hypo- or hyper-responders rather than fit neatly into the presumptions of the data.

 

Another interesting and useful aspect of this study was the case- reporting of markers of kidney function in the two subjects with the highest protein intakes (table here). Despite protein intakes of 4.66 and 6.59 g/kg in the high-protein conditions, all renal parameters (blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, and ratio of BUN to creatinine) remained within normal reference ranges. In addition to these null findings, no adverse changes were seen in blood lipids, glucose, or hepatic function. These results strongly challenge the age-old lore that protein intakes above the current ‘official’ recommendations are cause for health concern. In this study, protein intakes in the high- protein group averaged approximately 4 times the RDA of 0.8 g/kg.

 

And now for perhaps the most interesting finding, which was the lack of significant difference in body composition between the normal and high-protein conditions. Here are the reported nutrient intakes:

 

And here are the body composition results, this time expressed as group means rather than individual data:

 

A highly intriguing finding is the lack of significant differences in body composition between normal and high-protein conditions despite a significantly higher intake in the high- protein group (by 369 kcal). Adding to this interesting finding is the lower fat mass in the high-protein group compared to baseline, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. Once again, we see a case of the “disappearing” protein, as observed in previous research by the same investigators.1,2 On a provocative note, The authors pointed out – as I did earlier – that 9 of the 11 subjects in the high-protein group showed a decrease in fat mass. They speculated that the study may have been underpowered (too few subjects) to detect a statistically significant loss of fat mass in the high-protein group – implying that a type II error (false-negative result) could have occurred. Bear in mind that this occurred in the group that was assigned significantly more calories.

 

So, how did the protein calories seemingly disappear? The authors propose 4 potential mechanisms: 1) increased thermic effect of exercise (TEE), 2) increased non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), 3) higher thermic effect of feeding (TEF), and inhibition of lipogenesis in the liver.3 I would add to these speculations that the additional protein consumed in the high-protein condition induced greater satiety,4 thereby driving down the intake of the other macronutrients, and thus reducing total caloric intake. It’s possible that this decrease was unconscious, and thus not reflected in the dietary records. Either that, or the subjects actually over-reported protein intake (purposely or not) in order to appease the demands of the research personnel. Another possibility is that the potential for the high-protein group to have experienced higher fecal energy losses.5

 

The findings of the present study extend the consistent body of literature showing that increased dietary protein is an effective modality for fat loss and/or the control of fat gain. In addition, it’s apparent that clinical concerns traditionally attributed to high-protein diets (particularly kidney dysfunction) are not likely a concern in folks without pre-existing disease.

 

 

 

Interview with Anya Ellerbroek about her upcoming

 

high-protein study (> 3 g/kg/day).

 

By Alan Aragon

 

I had the privilege of interviewing researcher and all-around

 

cool person Anya Ellerbroek about her recently completed

 

protein intake study. As of this writing, the poster presentation

 

was only seen by those who attended the ISSN conference earlier

 

this month. A full-size image (PDF) of the poster presentation

 

can be downloaded here. Thanks, Anya!

 

 

 

First off, I want to thank you once again for taking the time out of

 

your rockstar schedule to do this interview. I know that you were

 

recently involved with another very interesting high‐protein study

 

(4.4 g/kg vs 1.8 g/kg). What inspired the present investigation?

 

I'm interested the conceptual process and the planning of its

 

fundamental design framework.

 

 

 

It truly is my pleasure!! 

 

After the 4.4g/kg/d study was published many asked about the

 

effects on the kidneys and liver. They wondered why we did not

 

do blood work with that because everyone is concerned with the

 

high protein effects on the liver and kidney functions. And with

 

that study we did not control training regimen. So, the idea was

 

to lower the protein intake to 3.3 g/kg/d (since most highly

 

trained people already eat that much protein, or at least the ones

 

we were testing), get the blood work done, and provide them

 

with a hypertrophy training regimen. All subjects were not

 

allowed to do cardio. We thought about controlling the carb

 

intake as well, but decided not to because we were afraid that

 

subjects would not adhere to all the requirements. Short answer:

 

The blood work was the key in this one.

 

The 2.2 g/kg/d was added to compare and see if we can find any

 

statistical difference with LBM, % fat, and strength.

 

I didn't get to put this on the poster. Here are the performance

 

test results in case you find it interesting (larger image here):

 

 

 

Very interesting, thanks for the data. With the present study,

 

what was your hypothesis or expectations prior to testing? Which

 

results (either body comp and/or blood work) were not surprising

 

to you, and which ones did you find to be unexpected?

 

 

 

Our hypothesis was that we would either find no negative effect

 

on the liver or kidney function (I know Dr. Antonio was pretty

 

sure we wouldn't find anything), or maybe a slight negative trend

 

in the higher protein diet on the liver and kidney functions. But

 

there was not even a trend in the negative direction. So that was

 

nice to see. Dr. Antonio hypothesized that if you combined

 

traditional bodybuilding training with a very high protein diet

 

that you should experience gains in LBM above baseline (and

 

better than the lower protein group).

 

We also didn't think we would see a statistical difference in the

 

%fat, and LBM, because both are regarded as high protein

 

intake. So, seeing that it did make a difference was unexpected.

 

What's surprising is that both groups gained the same amount of

 

LBM...but the high group actually lost more fat (even though

 

their kcals were a lot higher).

 

From the 4.4g/kg/d study, we knew that if the subjects kept their

 

carb intake the same or lowered it, we would find a greater

 

difference in the LBM and %fat. Those that increased carb

 

intake also increased % fat. So, maybe having a higher protein

 

intake 3.3g would leave them less room to increase the carb

 

intake and therefore result in lower %fat (I am just adding this as

 

I am thinking about this).

 

 

 

That makes sense. What procedural or methodological aspects

 

were most challenging about carrying out this particular study?

 

 

 

The most challenging procedural aspects were organizing and

 

planning the subjects testing dates and times. The logistics of it.

 

We had to factor in their free time to come to the university, the

 

professors time to help with the body composition testing, the

 

lab availability (other professors using the lab for other testing),

 

the coach's time to strength test the subjects in the athletic

 

training center, and then of course my time (or other people that

 

helped out with testing).

 

We had to find subjects that were willing not to do cardio. It's

 

easier to find guys who are ok with that, but harder to find girls

 

that are willing not to do cardio for 8 weeks. We couldn't take

 

any college athletes for this one, because of the cardio aspect.

 

Having the subjects comply with getting the blood work done,

 

continuously log their food, and exercise. And many were on

 

beef protein and did not like that (if that counts as a challenging

 

aspect)!! The actual Bod Pod and strength testing was the easy

 

part!! 

 

Here is what I couldn't add to the poster (larger image here):

 

 

 

Excellent, thanks for the fine details. What do you feel are the key

 

limitations to your study, and do you have future plans for

 

conducting or publishing follow‐up work or similar work you'd be

 

willing to fill us in on?

 

PS ‐ is the present study in peer review yet? Just want to get a

 

remote idea of when it might hit formal publication. Thanks!

 

 

 

The key limitation is trusting that the subjects are doing what

 

they say (or logging) that they are doing. We used MyFitnessPal

 

for them to track their food intake, because the app is easy to use

 

and I can see their food logs every day. We have to trust that it is

 

accurate.

 

As careful as we are with picking subjects that are reliable and

 

trustworthy, we have to hope that they are at least doing 80% of

 

what they are saying that they are doing.

 

We are currently conducting a 1 year high protein study with 14

 

highly trained male subjects. They are cycling 2 months on 3.3

 

gr/kg/d and 2 months on 2.2gr/kg/d. Body composition, strength

 

testing, and detailed blood work is being done every 2 months

 

(liver, kidney, and hormonal panel). We are now finishing the

 

first 2 month testing. Some of the data will come out before the

 

year is done. This time, we don't have a specific hypertrophy

 

training program.

 

The study is going into review in the next 2 months. I believe

 

Dr. Antonio is finishing writing it up now. He believes that it

 

will be out by the end of the year. 

 

Agora um post de uma dicussão com o Edu sobre esses estudos:

 

Agora um post contendo uma coletânea de post que fiz sobre proteinz:

 

Uma tabelinha contendo alguns desses estudos com high protein e recomposição corporal:

 

 

 

Um maluco fez o tópico abaixo com alguns estudos, mas nem li pq ta mto bagunçado. De repente dá pra lapidar algo:

 

 

Vê se faz um tópico reunindo esses estudos todos sobre high protein! Posso colaborar (só nunca tive saco pra reunir e organizar as ideias direitinho rsrsrs).

 

Abraços

 

EDIT: Acabei juntando tudo que escrevi sobre proteinz aqui nesse post (acho). Tá bastante bagunçado, quem sabe um dia organizo isso em um tópico... Nutrição é mais chato de escrever pq dá mais polêmica, então tem que ser mais bem feito.

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 11436]

Post do Agu no FB:

 

Citar

Dose response for protein intake on muscle protein synthesis after different types of exercise

In yesterday’s post, I discussed a new study that showed that 40g of whey protein was superior to 20g for stimulating a muscle protein synthetic response when consumed after whole-body resistance exercise.

To follow on that post, I thought I’d put this new study into context of the existing research and show you why 40g hasn’t suddenly appeared out of nowhere as the new ‘per meal’ dosing standard. 

In the image, I’ve plotted the data from three studies (linked below) that have looked at the differences in protein synthesis following doses of either 20g or 40g of protein. As the responses are different across each study, for clarity I’ve fixed the 40g dose at 100% and expressed each 20g dose as a percentage of each respective 40g dose.

As you can see, the greater amount of muscle mass someone trains, the greater the difference will be between the protein synthetic responses between consuming 20g and 40g of protein after exercise.

In other words, at rest, going from 20g to 40g didn’t affect the protein synthetic response. When looking at leg exercise alone, going from 20g to 40g of protein after such exercise resulted in a 10% and 12% increase in muscle protein synthesis in the Moore (2009) and Wizard (2014) studies, respectively. Differences are emerging, but they don’t become significant until the Macnaughton (2016) paper, which showed a 19% increase in muscle protein synthesis when taking 40g of whey after whole-body resistance exercise, compared to 20g of whey.

Why is this the case? I’m not entirely sure. Though the authors of the study conclude, “that more protein is necessary for the increased stimulation of MPS following whole-body compared to unilateral or bilateral resistance exercise”. 

Moore et al. 2009 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056590
Witard et al. 2014 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24257722
Macnaughton et al. 2016 - http://physreports.physiology.org/content/physreports/4/15/e12893.full.pdf

https://www.facebook.com/josephagunutrition/posts/633767480130884:0

 

[Felipefabri 647]

Tá com fome? Come proteína! Um dos assuntos mais interessantes esses da ingestão de proteína, o impacto na composição corporal, o aumento da taxa metabólica pós prandial, aqui tem uma coletânea que se quiser organizar se resume em tudo isso, mano. 


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24834017 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23107522
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15282028
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

[Ricardo Queiroz 5760]

Concordo, se for pecar pelo excesso que peque na proteína hehehehehe

[{..mAthEUs..} 4423]

Lucas, obrigado! Deu um pouco de trabalho mas consegui pegar tudo.

 

Quem sabe mais pra frente não rola um tópico sobre o assunto, explicando certinho os benefícios de uma alta ingestão de proteinas e também desmitificando fisiologicamente o mito de alta ingestão de proteinas trazer risco aos rins.

[Felipefabri 647]

Se vale de teste individual, claro que aliado aos ergogenicos mas em um dos meus testes para um campeonato do ano passado em uma dieta low carb baseada em peixes e puddings de whey protein eu batia razões de 10g/kg, meu excedente calórico era absurdo, e no fim tive alta redução do bf%, bati o menor bf% até hoje na minha vida com incremento de 0,300g MM em um período de 40 dias, depois disso eu nunca mais tive nem coragem de investir tão alto na alimentação de novo, mas realmente espantou..

[Lucas, o Schrödinger 11436]

34 minutos atrás, Felipefabri disse:

Se vale de teste individual, claro que aliado aos ergogenicos mas em um dos meus testes para um campeonato do ano passado em uma dieta low carb baseada em peixes e puddings de whey protein eu batia razões de 10g/kg, meu excedente calórico era absurdo, e no fim tive alta redução do bf%, bati o menor bf% até hoje na minha vida com incremento de 0,300g MM em um período de 40 dias, depois disso eu nunca mais tive nem coragem de investir tão alto na alimentação de novo, mas realmente espantou..

 

Isso "confirma" a tese de disappearing protein do Jose Antonio. Ele sugere que um excedente calórico feito de proteínas (altíssima ingestão de proteína) tende a não produzir ganho de peso. 

 

Citar

Once again, we see a case of the “disappearing” protein, as observed in previous research by the same investigators.