Muscle building, debunking the turd
Discussion
For the upteeth time a client has pointed me toward this serial internet scammer:- http://www.themusclemaximizer.com/freeinfo.php?hop...
You've probably seen it before in some social post or other. Excluding the obviousness of a revelation that would feature in scientific journals the world over, yet hasn't, they did happen to give away the below screenshot:-
...which is nothing more than something that amounts to a pretty damn obvious, and basic, plan.
I mean, my breakfast always starts with a large bowl of porridge + allbran and a pint of milk, for an ectomorph (not mesomorph, check the title of the table) that can and has put in 1kg in a week on a bulking plan of my own, at will. (NB: that's "bulking", and probably 0.5kg of muscle and 0.5kg of fat/bone/axioms/capillaries etc.) A plan that is an ectomorphic endurance workout of 10+ 15-20 rep sets 5 times a week with 120-ish g of protein and 3g of omega 3 per day, protein mostly coming from semi-skimmed milk. i.e. not at all dissimliar to the apparently, mesomorphic, screenshot shown here.
Although WTF you would have slow digesting Caesin in a pint of skimmed milk after a workout for a mesomorph is somewhat... and seriously... misleading.
Just wondered if there were any comments from the others in the know from here or those who have seen or heard more/similar from this fraudster?
You've probably seen it before in some social post or other. Excluding the obviousness of a revelation that would feature in scientific journals the world over, yet hasn't, they did happen to give away the below screenshot:-
...which is nothing more than something that amounts to a pretty damn obvious, and basic, plan.
I mean, my breakfast always starts with a large bowl of porridge + allbran and a pint of milk, for an ectomorph (not mesomorph, check the title of the table) that can and has put in 1kg in a week on a bulking plan of my own, at will. (NB: that's "bulking", and probably 0.5kg of muscle and 0.5kg of fat/bone/axioms/capillaries etc.) A plan that is an ectomorphic endurance workout of 10+ 15-20 rep sets 5 times a week with 120-ish g of protein and 3g of omega 3 per day, protein mostly coming from semi-skimmed milk. i.e. not at all dissimliar to the apparently, mesomorphic, screenshot shown here.
Although WTF you would have slow digesting Caesin in a pint of skimmed milk after a workout for a mesomorph is somewhat... and seriously... misleading.
Just wondered if there were any comments from the others in the know from here or those who have seen or heard more/similar from this fraudster?
k are you trying to say?The quantity of protein per feeding really doesnt matter that much. As long as you're hitting the required protein macronutrient amount for the day that your goals require, that is the most important thing. Please lets have no more of this 'OMG your body can't digest/handle more 32.3253426g of protein in one sitting!!!111111!!!11'.....
Edited by Maxymillion on Saturday 14th July 02:25
^ Not according to the official science. And are you ok being blase on a site the features high on google searches for the unassuming public?
ACSM: 34.5g per sitting is your max, for everyone, no exceptions.
Ok, so I've had many an argument with a lecturer about how a 60Kg 5ft weakling can and needs to absorb protein at the same rate as a 100Kg 6"5ft man, but nevertheless this is officialdom.
But nearly DOUBLING that in one sitting?! Ok have maybe 40-45g to cater for that lost in the any cooking processes, but 65g?! I know if I eat 45g or more in one sitting I'm grufting like a trooper for 24 hours with seriously smelly stuff, sometimes getting a bit of gut ache (self-experimentation largely but sometimes forgetting what I had eaten and when!). This is the body working really hard with this over-indulgence and your kidneys ultimately need to deal with the fall-out.
Anyway, that was just the start from that 1 screenshot.
What about the slow absorbing Caesin, Whey and Lactose mix that is in the skimmed milk? For post workout golden hour? Turd. That's a mid-morning or mid-afternoon snack type uptake. Despite skimmed milk not being so great for insulin levels as it has a high Glycemic Load.
ACSM: 34.5g per sitting is your max, for everyone, no exceptions.
Ok, so I've had many an argument with a lecturer about how a 60Kg 5ft weakling can and needs to absorb protein at the same rate as a 100Kg 6"5ft man, but nevertheless this is officialdom.
But nearly DOUBLING that in one sitting?! Ok have maybe 40-45g to cater for that lost in the any cooking processes, but 65g?! I know if I eat 45g or more in one sitting I'm grufting like a trooper for 24 hours with seriously smelly stuff, sometimes getting a bit of gut ache (self-experimentation largely but sometimes forgetting what I had eaten and when!). This is the body working really hard with this over-indulgence and your kidneys ultimately need to deal with the fall-out.
Anyway, that was just the start from that 1 screenshot.
What about the slow absorbing Caesin, Whey and Lactose mix that is in the skimmed milk? For post workout golden hour? Turd. That's a mid-morning or mid-afternoon snack type uptake. Despite skimmed milk not being so great for insulin levels as it has a high Glycemic Load.
And what's his thrill with Strawberries? 304g? That a mahoosive bowl! Strawberries are a negative calorie food. How is that any good for someone who wants to bulk?
Must be for the Vitamin C content, but 100g gets you 100% DV.
Why not have Broccoli? It's better in all respects and has far more useful nutritional content, such as calcium, iron, potassium, protein, fibre...
But none of these for a post workout meal.
Must be for the Vitamin C content, but 100g gets you 100% DV.
Why not have Broccoli? It's better in all respects and has far more useful nutritional content, such as calcium, iron, potassium, protein, fibre...
But none of these for a post workout meal.
mattikake said:
^ Not according to the official science. And are you ok being blase on a site the features high on google searches for the unassuming public?
ACSM: 34.5g per sitting is your max, for everyone, no exceptions.
Ok, so I've had many an argument with a lecturer about how a 60Kg 5ft weakling can and needs to absorb protein at the same rate as a 100Kg 6"5ft man, but nevertheless this is officialdumb.
EFAACSM: 34.5g per sitting is your max, for everyone, no exceptions.
Ok, so I've had many an argument with a lecturer about how a 60Kg 5ft weakling can and needs to absorb protein at the same rate as a 100Kg 6"5ft man, but nevertheless this is officialdumb.
mattikake said:
^ Not according to the official science. And are you ok being blase on a site the features high on google searches for the unassuming public?
ACSM: 34.5g per sitting is your max, for everyone, no exceptions.
Ok, so I've had many an argument with a lecturer about how a 60Kg 5ft weakling can and needs to absorb protein at the same rate as a 100Kg 6"5ft man, but nevertheless this is officialdom.
But nearly DOUBLING that in one sitting?! Ok have maybe 40-45g to cater for that lost in the any cooking processes, but 65g?! I know if I eat 45g or more in one sitting I'm grufting like a trooper for 24 hours with seriously smelly stuff, sometimes getting a bit of gut ache (self-experimentation largely but sometimes forgetting what I had eaten and when!). This is the body working really hard with this over-indulgence and your kidneys ultimately need to deal with the fall-out.
Anyway, that was just the start from that 1 screenshot.
What about the slow absorbing Caesin, Whey and Lactose mix that is in the skimmed milk? For post workout golden hour? Turd. That's a mid-morning or mid-afternoon snack type uptake. Despite skimmed milk not being so great for insulin levels as it has a high Glycemic Load.
If this was true, the human race would have died out long ago chasing mammoths on the plains. Our bodies can cope with the digestion of more than 35g of protein per feeding. The response YOU have is not one that EVERYONE has. It is extremely easy to get 60+ g of protein per feeding now. Using a whey supplement for example with 30+g PRO per scoop. The key is learning what sources suit YOUR body/digestion best and start making those your 'go-to' sources.ACSM: 34.5g per sitting is your max, for everyone, no exceptions.
Ok, so I've had many an argument with a lecturer about how a 60Kg 5ft weakling can and needs to absorb protein at the same rate as a 100Kg 6"5ft man, but nevertheless this is officialdom.
But nearly DOUBLING that in one sitting?! Ok have maybe 40-45g to cater for that lost in the any cooking processes, but 65g?! I know if I eat 45g or more in one sitting I'm grufting like a trooper for 24 hours with seriously smelly stuff, sometimes getting a bit of gut ache (self-experimentation largely but sometimes forgetting what I had eaten and when!). This is the body working really hard with this over-indulgence and your kidneys ultimately need to deal with the fall-out.
Anyway, that was just the start from that 1 screenshot.
What about the slow absorbing Caesin, Whey and Lactose mix that is in the skimmed milk? For post workout golden hour? Turd. That's a mid-morning or mid-afternoon snack type uptake. Despite skimmed milk not being so great for insulin levels as it has a high Glycemic Load.
All foods provoke a spike in insulin levels. A spike in insulin levels Post-workout is not a bad thing.
The bottom line is thermodynamics. Calories in vs calories out while meeting sufficient micro/phyto nutrients. Carb GI, meal timing, sugars, milk, etc etc is irrelevant. If anyone refutes, then I hope they are ready to do so with references.
Edited by Maxymillion on Sunday 15th July 00:01
The amount of protein you can absorb in one sitting would be directly related to how much you can break down (which is no problem) and how much you can absorb (which IS a problem). This means the total size of your small intestines.
So, while there is a correlation between lifeform and small intestine size (maggot v man), I can find no evidence anywhere [on 'tinternet] for a correlation between a human persons' size that the overall surface area of small intestine and Villi (the things in that govern how much of any macro or micro nutrient you can absorb into your bloodstream).
Like everything in the human body there is atrophy or hypertrophy depending on environment, but there is only hypertrophy at pregnency or lactation, not adolescent or adult lifetime. So it would seem that if you were to be able to absorb more than 34.5g of protein per sitting, you would've had to generate this adaption at a very early age. If you didn't, tough.
In a nutshell, it seems the officialdom (of clever people) is, so far, correct or you'd have to have been a fat bastado baby.
So, while there is a correlation between lifeform and small intestine size (maggot v man), I can find no evidence anywhere [on 'tinternet] for a correlation between a human persons' size that the overall surface area of small intestine and Villi (the things in that govern how much of any macro or micro nutrient you can absorb into your bloodstream).
Like everything in the human body there is atrophy or hypertrophy depending on environment, but there is only hypertrophy at pregnency or lactation, not adolescent or adult lifetime. So it would seem that if you were to be able to absorb more than 34.5g of protein per sitting, you would've had to generate this adaption at a very early age. If you didn't, tough.
In a nutshell, it seems the officialdom (of clever people) is, so far, correct or you'd have to have been a fat bastado baby.
I am totally convinced you are a troll or you just love the sight of your own text with regards to a subject you are pretty clueless of.
You are posting nonsense. Strawberries are a 'negative calorie' food? Please could you explain what exactly you mean by that? I can assure you, strawberries have calories.
You are posting nonsense. Strawberries are a 'negative calorie' food? Please could you explain what exactly you mean by that? I can assure you, strawberries have calories.
Furthermore, Nutrient partitioning is 90% myth, you cannot reliably dictate what your body does with certain nutrients. It's mostly genetic. Calorific Surplus= weight-gain (muscle and fat with resistance training, fat without) and Calorific deficit= weight-loss (fat and muscle without resistance training, fat and minimal muscle with resistance training). That's about as much as anyone not on drugs needs to worry about nutrient partitioning in my opinion.
Maxymillion said:
Furthermore, Nutrient partitioning is 90% myth, you cannot reliably dictate what your body does with certain nutrients. It's mostly genetic. Calorific Surplus= weight-gain (muscle and fat with resistance training, fat without) and Calorific deficit= weight-loss (fat and muscle without resistance training, fat and minimal muscle with resistance training). That's about as much as anyone not on drugs needs to worry about nutrient partitioning in my opinion.
OK, now that makes sense! I was worried that I'd lost the ability to understand the written word (being fick doesn't help either!).
Lost_BMW said:
Que?
Small instestine surface area is the main factor in determining how much of any nutrient can be absorbed and, apparently, apart from a very early age (up to about 18 months old that I can find) there are little to no variation between humans. So it doesn't matter if you're a 6"5 meathead or a 5" weakling, you absorb at about the same rate.Most I can find is that 30g [34.5g] is largley heresay from an average of someone eating 6 times a day, trying to hit 180g total for the day = 30g per meal, or 5 times a day, 180g total = 36g etc.
I can find loads of people on forums claiming eat 30g to 200g in one sitting (!), but none provide scientific evidence to back it up. If there are scientific studies/papers done on this they aren't so easy to find.
Maxymillion said:
You are posting nonsense. Strawberries are a 'negative calorie' food? Please could you explain what exactly you mean by that? I can assure you, strawberries have calories.
Why are you so hostile? Are you this Kyle Leon himself? You know that tends to prompt it in return. E.g.:-It's a simple term, use commonly and simply. I'll keep it really simple and common for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_calorie_food
HTH.
Thermic Effect of Feeding counts.
Maxymillion said:
If this was true, the human race would have died out long ago chasing mammoths on the plains. Our bodies can cope with the digestion of more than 35g of protein per feeding. The response YOU have is not one that EVERYONE has. It is extremely easy to get 60+ g of protein per feeding now. Using a whey supplement for example with 30+g PRO per scoop. The key is learning what sources suit YOUR body/digestion best and start making those your 'go-to' sources.
Eating, digestion and absorption are 3 totally different factors. You can eat as much protein as you like, but there is no guarantee you can digest or absorb it all. Just being able to eat it and not die, proves nothing. Caveman wouldn't exist on a diet solely of Mammoth (likely a Red meat). They probably represented a once a week feast, maybe less, most of our diet coming from easily gathered foods which are carb/fat sources from plant or fish proteins. It's not the same as some maverick telling you to start your day, everyday, with a nice leg of Mammoth and don't worry about it festering away in your Illeum. I mean, there's a reason why so many americans suffer from bowl cancer - undigested Red meat festering away in their gut, causing infection, with unchecked free radical release, utimately causing cancer - from too much protein consumed in one go, daily.
Maxymillion said:
All foods provoke a spike in insulin levels.
Food in general or macro-nutrient food types? "Spike" is a very specific choice of word. Most foods will create an increase if carbs are present, but a "spike" surely only refers to mono/di-saccharide stuff? Of which of course lactose is a disaccharide.Maxymillion said:
A spike in insulin levels Post-workout is not a bad thing.
Post exercise insulin increase is guaranteed and has been known for years... doesn't mean you want to prolong it or exacerbate it with certain foods.http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/51/su...
Maxymillion said:
The bottom line is thermodynamics. Calories in vs calories out while meeting sufficient micro/phyto nutrients. Carb GI, meal timing, sugars, milk, etc etc is irrelevant. If anyone refutes, then I hope they are ready to do so with references.
Irrelevant you say? Not being one to ever underestimate the laws of thermodynamics, but based on your over-simplified point that goes against most of what the scientific community says, I think it is you who needs to be providing references... or I suspect, really, needs to elaborate.This study says what you eat and in what proportions post exercise, do affect insulin sensitivity and metabolic response.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/10012...
I'm only really interested in fact, science, proven results etc., than what some maverick says to scam people across the internet. I read something about exercise intensity and resistance exercise a while ago as well, but I can't find the article now. Similar results but not aerobic-based.
Maxymillion said:
Furthermore, Nutrient partitioning is 90% myth, you cannot reliably dictate what your body does with certain nutrients. It's mostly genetic. Calorific Surplus= weight-gain (muscle and fat with resistance training, fat without) and Calorific deficit= weight-loss (fat and muscle without resistance training, fat and minimal muscle with resistance training). That's about as much as anyone not on drugs needs to worry about nutrient partitioning in my opinion.
Insulin response and insulin sensitivity is a major factor, not just genetics. But then you have to factor in exercise intensity, exercise type, nitrogen balance etc.Odd that you cite insulin earlier in a retort, but omit what it actually does and just how many different processes it switches on and off in the human body, particularly relating to glycolysis, gluconogensis, proteolysis, esterification, lipolysis, lipid synthesis, glycogen synthesis, amino acid uptake etc. I mentioned insulin relating to Glycemic Load, not Glycemic Index - a prolonged effect on top of what is already an increase, but it was a minor point - semi-skimmed is better generally. The point was more about the speed of absorption, but maybe this guy is not going to push whey protein shakes and is all natural. I'm going off just one screenshot that was given away.
And how do you explain where BCAA's come from if you don't eat them? Diet, type and timing is at least as critical as genetics and exercise. It's not so simple or straight-forward. You know this because we have been trying to work this out for 50 years or more, without clear results.
Anyway, I was kinda after input, rather than abuse, ta. Not trolling, being genuine.
mattikake said:
The amount of protein you can absorb in one sitting would be directly related to how much you can break down (which is no problem) and how much you can absorb (which IS a problem). This means the total size of your small intestines.
Amount you can break down is a problem. Your liver can only metabolise around 200-300g of protein per day. It can actually be dangerous to eat more protein than this per day (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation ), though if you have a balanced diet other than this you're unlikely to be too badly affected. People eating 200g of protein per sitting aren't getting any more benefit than those eating 30-40g per sitting; they're just wasting money.As for how we coped with chasing mammoths and such without dying - that's got nothing to do with protein intake. Most animals, and especially those adapted for cold climates, such as mammoths have significant amounts of body fat. It is the fat from eating mammoths that our ancestors would have got a large amount of calories from, not the protein from their meat.
Also the issue with red meat and bowel cancer isn't to do with protein overconsumption or it would be seen with any meat or high protein food. It's more likely to do with large amounts of saturated fats in red meat and the effect of having to digest that on the bowels.
Edited by Flibble on Sunday 15th July 16:23
Negative calorie foods are a load of tosh.
Eating 20 strawberries = say 100 calories. Eating 200 strawberries = 1000 calories. Do you really think eating 200 strawberries is going to BURN MORE calories than you'd use to walk 10 miles? (roughly 100cal per mile) Common sense dictates otherwise.
If you ended up on an island where unlimited strawberries were the only food, I don't think you'd loose weight then die. Odd how the strawberry diet has never caught on....
Eating 20 strawberries = say 100 calories. Eating 200 strawberries = 1000 calories. Do you really think eating 200 strawberries is going to BURN MORE calories than you'd use to walk 10 miles? (roughly 100cal per mile) Common sense dictates otherwise.
If you ended up on an island where unlimited strawberries were the only food, I don't think you'd loose weight then die. Odd how the strawberry diet has never caught on....
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff