T Nation

2 Questions of Nutrition

So I was in my organic chemistry class the other day and my professor said that when you eat protein your stomach, due to acidity, denatures the proteins you eat.

If this is the case, then why do you have people who insist that cooking eggs, as well as other protein sources, is bad because cooking it changes the protein? Is it the same kind of denaturation/change?

On a side note, I do a large amount of competitive cycling. This summer im looking to pick up some weight though, so I asked a dietician if both goals are possible at the same time (to do large amounts of cardio and still pick up lean body mass, not burn fat and build muscle simultaneously).

They said that as long as I cover the amount of calories from cycling and eat enough (caloric excess needed to build muscle and cover the calories used during cycling), that I would be able to do both. Is it possible? Any thoughts?
/

(1) Think of the proteins as a wad of yarn, all tangled up. The denaturing process is the process of straightening and unfolding this ‘yarn’.

That being said, it is a process, when exposed to heat the bundles do not magically become straight lines, but they start to unfold. It is the same denaturation, but things usually get fully denatured in the stomach (since they are in there longer) but only partially when cooked.

It’s not bad at all, deamination is bad (taking off the amine group), denaturation (unfolding) is not.

(2) I don’t see why the cycling would have any impact on gaining mass outside of the caloric expenditure and the stressing of the leg muscles, so if you cover the calories, then I can’t see any reason why at least your upper body would progress normally (If the cycling is ‘excessive’ then maybe your legs will be a bit too tired to gain muscle at the same rate; not too sure on that one though)

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
(1) Think of the proteins as a wad of yarn, all tangled up. The denaturing process is the process of straightening and unfolding this ‘yarn’.

That being said, it is a process, when exposed to heat the bundles do not magically become straight lines, but they start to unfold. It is the same denaturation, but things usually get fully denatured in the stomach (since they are in there longer) but only partially when cooked.

It’s not bad at all, deamination is bad (taking off the amine group), denaturation (unfolding) is not.

(2) I don’t see why the cycling would have any impact on gaining mass outside of the caloric expenditure and the stressing of the leg muscles, so if you cover the calories, then I can’t see any reason why at least your upper body would progress normally (If the cycling is ‘excessive’ then maybe your legs will be a bit too tired to gain muscle at the same rate; not too sure on that one though)[/quote]

(1) So why then do some people insist on eating stuff raw?

(2) I’ll probably be on a bike for anywhere between 2 to 4 hours a day come summertime. Anywhere between 19 and 22.5 mph avg depending on distance and how many guys from my group show up. Does this change the above response?

Edit: By the way, the plan is to lift relatively early in the morning (8-9 A.M. start) and hit the road later in the day (noon-3 P.M. start). Leg day could be the death of my rides though.

Would extreme amounts of cycling make my legs bigger anyway or are the pics on tv just deceptive because of how small the upper body is on most cyclists? (currently 156, im only looking at trying get back to 165-170 lbs like when I played HS football a few years ago)

(1) Because when you eat it raw, you’re getting all the enzymes and all the nutrients that are originally in the food. For example, when you pasteurize milk, the enzymes are completely removed. But in raw milk, they are there, which is why even people who have dairy issues can tolerate raw milk.

(2) You have to calculate that in to your calorie expenditure, biking more just means you will need to eat more. As silver said, your legs might get too fatigued to grow, and the balance of fibers might change (type 1 versus type 2 and type 2x)… But that shouldn’t affect your upper body growth

(3) all cardio still uses muscle, so if you’re adding muscle then yes your legs would get bigger, but there’s a long list of factors that go into hypertrophy.

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
(1) Think of the proteins as a wad of yarn, all tangled up. The denaturing process is the process of straightening and unfolding this ‘yarn’.

That being said, it is a process, when exposed to heat the bundles do not magically become straight lines, but they start to unfold. It is the same denaturation, but things usually get fully denatured in the stomach (since they are in there longer) but only partially when cooked.

It’s not bad at all, deamination is bad (taking off the amine group), denaturation (unfolding) is not.

(2) I don’t see why the cycling would have any impact on gaining mass outside of the caloric expenditure and the stressing of the leg muscles, so if you cover the calories, then I can’t see any reason why at least your upper body would progress normally (If the cycling is ‘excessive’ then maybe your legs will be a bit too tired to gain muscle at the same rate; not too sure on that one though)[/quote]

@silverhydra

That is an excellent explanation.

So, curious - what is the difference between eating raw eggs and cooked? Or raw beef and cooked? Aside from the fact that cooking is supposed to kill bacteria, etc - I am asking about protein quality/availability/digestion.

[quote]Mutsanah wrote:

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
(1) Think of the proteins as a wad of yarn, all tangled up. The denaturing process is the process of straightening and unfolding this ‘yarn’.

That being said, it is a process, when exposed to heat the bundles do not magically become straight lines, but they start to unfold. It is the same denaturation, but things usually get fully denatured in the stomach (since they are in there longer) but only partially when cooked.

It’s not bad at all, deamination is bad (taking off the amine group), denaturation (unfolding) is not.

(2) I don’t see why the cycling would have any impact on gaining mass outside of the caloric expenditure and the stressing of the leg muscles, so if you cover the calories, then I can’t see any reason why at least your upper body would progress normally (If the cycling is ‘excessive’ then maybe your legs will be a bit too tired to gain muscle at the same rate; not too sure on that one though)[/quote]

@silverhydra

That is an excellent explanation.

So, curious - what is the difference between eating raw eggs and cooked? Or raw beef and cooked? Aside from the fact that cooking is supposed to kill bacteria, etc - I am asking about protein quality/availability/digestion.
[/quote]

The less heat that is applied to the proteins outside the body, the more will need to be applied inside the body; this will take more calories to digest (although the acid helps somewhat).

Remember the theory that cooking meat made our ancestors evolve? The premise of this theory is that less calories were needed to process the proteins, so more were allotted for evolution.

I know there are studies that ‘show’ raw protein to not be fully absorbed when compared to cooked, so I assume that they were not fully denatured in the stomach in those studies (thus passed into the intestine, were too big for the peptidase enzymes, and were pooped out). This doesn’t mean that they can’t be fully denatured though, as Hungry4more eats a fuck-ton of raw eggs, and in a recent thread (on liquid eggs whites) said in passing that he doesn’t have gastro-intestinal issues, which led him to believe they were fully absorbed.

So I doubt a change in quality, availability would depend on how your body reacts (some people may secrete less HCl or proteases, thus need to cook meat to fully absorb it all), and digestion would merely take more energy and longer for raw meat.

This is all my opinion from stringing together anecdotes and my (limited) knowledge of the alimentary canal; open for corrections from anybody.

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:
So I was in my organic chemistry class the other day and my professor said that when you eat protein your stomach, due to acidity, denatures the proteins you eat.

If this is the case, then why do you have people who insist that cooking eggs, as well as other protein sources, is bad because cooking it changes the protein? Is it the same kind of denaturation/change?

On a side note, I do a large amount of competitive cycling. This summer im looking to pick up some weight though, so I asked a dietician if both goals are possible at the same time (to do large amounts of cardio and still pick up lean body mass, not burn fat and build muscle simultaneously).

They said that as long as I cover the amount of calories from cycling and eat enough (caloric excess needed to build muscle and cover the calories used during cycling), that I would be able to do both. Is it possible? Any thoughts?
/[/quote]

I am a dietitian myself with an MS pending in nutrition and exercise physiology. Most RDs don’t know shit about body composition, weight training, and sports nutrition, so I hope the one you consult with knows what s/he is talking about.

Of course you can gain SOME muscle while cycling. But don’t plan on gaining the muscle mass of a 225+ powerlifter or successful or elite bodybuilder - people who have the most muscle mass in all of the physically competitive world - if you plan on excelling cycling. Gaining too much weight, fat or muscle, will hurt your performance secondary to increased difficulty in movement and excessive fatigue.

Any endurance athlete should be doing resistance training to improve power and strength and structural balance TO IMPROVE CYCLING… NOT gaining muscle mass for the sake of it. That is, weight training is a tool to increase performance. The sessions are upper- and lower-body or full-body sessions.

Anyway, you can’t burn the candle at both ends, and no one who knows about their chosen sport doesn’t attempt to. Bodybuilding requires 4 to 6 sessions per week in the gym and the aim of getting huge. Endurance sports require 4 to 6 days (and sometimes MORE) sessions per week and the aim of controlling weight for optimal performance.

The reason you have people whining that cooking meat is bad is because they don’t know what they’re talking about and in almost 100 percent of cases, are in no position to tell us about nutrition for optimal health.

And just remember that the talk of this issue should be only used for entertainment because most people successful with sports nutrition and performance don’t think of this shit.

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:
So I was in my organic chemistry class the other day and my professor said that when you eat protein your stomach, due to acidity, denatures the proteins you eat.

If this is the case, then why do you have people who insist that cooking eggs, as well as other protein sources, is bad because cooking it changes the protein? Is it the same kind of denaturation/change?

On a side note, I do a large amount of competitive cycling. This summer im looking to pick up some weight though, so I asked a dietician if both goals are possible at the same time (to do large amounts of cardio and still pick up lean body mass, not burn fat and build muscle simultaneously).

They said that as long as I cover the amount of calories from cycling and eat enough (caloric excess needed to build muscle and cover the calories used during cycling), that I would be able to do both. Is it possible? Any thoughts?
/[/quote]

I am a dietitian myself with an MS pending in nutrition and exercise physiology. Most RDs don’t know shit about body composition, weight training, and sports nutrition, so I hope the one you consult with knows what s/he is talking about.

Of course you can gain SOME muscle while cycling. But don’t plan on gaining the muscle mass of a 225+ powerlifter or successful or elite bodybuilder - people who have the most muscle mass in all of the physically competitive world - if you plan on excelling cycling. Gaining too much weight, fat or muscle, will hurt your performance secondary to increased difficulty in movement and excessive fatigue.

Any endurance athlete should be doing resistance training to improve power and strength and structural balance TO IMPROVE CYCLING… NOT gaining muscle mass for the sake of it. That is, weight training is a tool to increase performance. The sessions are upper- and lower-body or full-body sessions.

Anyway, you can’t burn the candle at both ends, and no one who knows about their chosen sport doesn’t attempt to. Bodybuilding requires 4 to 6 sessions per week in the gym and the aim of getting huge. Endurance sports require 4 to 6 days (and sometimes MORE) sessions per week and the aim of controlling weight for optimal performance.

The reason you have people whining that cooking meat is bad is because they don’t know what they’re talking about and in almost 100 percent of cases, are in no position to tell us about nutrition for optimal health.

[/quote]

Thanks for the info everyone. Im actually in the accelerated masters program for physicians assistant right now and ususally end up sitting in my ochem or micro bio classes wondering about how this applies to building muscle mass or improving endurance. I havnt hit any of the heavy hitter classes yet though, so Im still in the dark with a lot of this stuff.

Again, Im only looking to be about 170, so not too big by anyones standards. My current problem with cycling is that im starting to get pissed about losing the weight I had a couple years ago and am looking to get some of the good weight back. I think Lance Armstrong is like 165. Ill never hit the big time so I figure I might as well get a little bulk and keep enjoying the sport I love in the process. I think gaining some weight will make my overall wattage go up, and give me more power in a sprint situation (besides just asthetic appeal, this is the main carryover to performance).

Would you recommend stopping cycling for about a month to gain some mass before the actual season in my area starts (due to fatigue from deadlifts and squats and such), as to not mix goals and stall both, or just keep plugging away at both and it will happen?

Also, for what its worth, the Bodybuilding Bible thread actually was the kick in the ass to make me want to start lifting weights again, but I dont want to kill my cycling in the process.

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:
Also, for what its worth, the Bodybuilding Bible thread actually was the kick in the ass to make me want to start lifting weights again, but I dont want to kill my cycling in the process.[/quote]

You WILL kill your cycling if you train like a bodybuilder.

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:
So I was in my organic chemistry class the other day and my professor said that when you eat protein your stomach, due to acidity, denatures the proteins you eat.

If this is the case, then why do you have people who insist that cooking eggs, as well as other protein sources, is bad because cooking it changes the protein? Is it the same kind of denaturation/change?

On a side note, I do a large amount of competitive cycling. This summer im looking to pick up some weight though, so I asked a dietician if both goals are possible at the same time (to do large amounts of cardio and still pick up lean body mass, not burn fat and build muscle simultaneously).

They said that as long as I cover the amount of calories from cycling and eat enough (caloric excess needed to build muscle and cover the calories used during cycling), that I would be able to do both. Is it possible? Any thoughts?
/[/quote]

I am a dietitian myself with an MS pending in nutrition and exercise physiology. Most RDs don’t know shit about body composition, weight training, and sports nutrition, so I hope the one you consult with knows what s/he is talking about.

Of course you can gain SOME muscle while cycling. But don’t plan on gaining the muscle mass of a 225+ powerlifter or successful or elite bodybuilder - people who have the most muscle mass in all of the physically competitive world - if you plan on excelling cycling. Gaining too much weight, fat or muscle, will hurt your performance secondary to increased difficulty in movement and excessive fatigue.

Any endurance athlete should be doing resistance training to improve power and strength and structural balance TO IMPROVE CYCLING… NOT gaining muscle mass for the sake of it. That is, weight training is a tool to increase performance. The sessions are upper- and lower-body or full-body sessions.

Anyway, you can’t burn the candle at both ends, and no one who knows about their chosen sport doesn’t attempt to. Bodybuilding requires 4 to 6 sessions per week in the gym and the aim of getting huge. Endurance sports require 4 to 6 days (and sometimes MORE) sessions per week and the aim of controlling weight for optimal performance.

The reason you have people whining that cooking meat is bad is because they don’t know what they’re talking about and in almost 100 percent of cases, are in no position to tell us about nutrition for optimal health.

[/quote]

Thanks for the info everyone. Im actually in the accelerated masters program for physicians assistant right now and ususally end up sitting in my ochem or micro bio classes wondering about how this applies to building muscle mass or improving endurance. I havnt hit any of the heavy hitter classes yet though, so Im still in the dark with a lot of this stuff.

Again, Im only looking to be about 170, so not too big by anyones standards. My current problem with cycling is that im starting to get pissed about losing the weight I had a couple years ago and am looking to get some of the good weight back. I think Lance Armstrong is like 165. Ill never hit the big time so I figure I might as well get a little bulk and keep enjoying the sport I love in the process. I think gaining some weight will make my overall wattage go up, and give me more power in a sprint situation (besides just asthetic appeal, this is the main carryover to performance).

Would you recommend stopping cycling for about a month to gain some mass before the actual season in my area starts (due to fatigue from deadlifts and squats and such), as to not mix goals and stall both, or just keep plugging away at both and it will happen?[/quote]

Muscle mass will help you in cycling, running, rowing, and swimming - TO A DEGREE. Especially in sprinting.

There are no high ranking, weak, frail sprinters! So you’re right, in sprints, muscle can help - but again, up to a point. If you get too big, it’s a detriment.

I believe stopping cycling for a month is a bad idea. If you want to develop several qualities at once - AND you live a normal life - meaning you don’t have for multiple sessions per day - then you prioritize one and maintain others.

So if muscle mass is your concern, train more with weights (eg, three times per week with more volume) and do whatever you must to maintain your cycling ability. You don’t shit can one or the other. And being that you don’t have enough time, because you’re not an athlete, you don’t hammer both equally.

Thanks for the info.

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

[quote]Mutsanah wrote:

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
(1) Think of the proteins as a wad of yarn, all tangled up. The denaturing process is the process of straightening and unfolding this ‘yarn’.

That being said, it is a process, when exposed to heat the bundles do not magically become straight lines, but they start to unfold. It is the same denaturation, but things usually get fully denatured in the stomach (since they are in there longer) but only partially when cooked.

It’s not bad at all, deamination is bad (taking off the amine group), denaturation (unfolding) is not.

(2) I don’t see why the cycling would have any impact on gaining mass outside of the caloric expenditure and the stressing of the leg muscles, so if you cover the calories, then I can’t see any reason why at least your upper body would progress normally (If the cycling is ‘excessive’ then maybe your legs will be a bit too tired to gain muscle at the same rate; not too sure on that one though)[/quote]

@silverhydra

That is an excellent explanation.

So, curious - what is the difference between eating raw eggs and cooked? Or raw beef and cooked? Aside from the fact that cooking is supposed to kill bacteria, etc - I am asking about protein quality/availability/digestion.
[/quote]

The less heat that is applied to the proteins outside the body, the more will need to be applied inside the body; this will take more calories to digest (although the acid helps somewhat).

Remember the theory that cooking meat made our ancestors evolve? The premise of this theory is that less calories were needed to process the proteins, so more were allotted for evolution.

I know there are studies that ‘show’ raw protein to not be fully absorbed when compared to cooked, so I assume that they were not fully denatured in the stomach in those studies (thus passed into the intestine, were too big for the peptidase enzymes, and were pooped out). This doesn’t mean that they can’t be fully denatured though, as Hungry4more eats a fuck-ton of raw eggs, and in a recent thread (on liquid eggs whites) said in passing that he doesn’t have gastro-intestinal issues, which led him to believe they were fully absorbed.

So I doubt a change in quality, availability would depend on how your body reacts (some people may secrete less HCl or proteases, thus need to cook meat to fully absorb it all), and digestion would merely take more energy and longer for raw meat.

This is all my opinion from stringing together anecdotes and my (limited) knowledge of the alimentary canal; open for corrections from anybody.
[/quote]

Man, if that theory is correct, I’m going back to cro magnon because I eat a whole lotta raw eggs and eat my grass fed beef raw too. Even at restaurants I order med rare or even rare. Granted, I do take multi-enzymes with meals, ACV diluted in water in between among other things. When I began to eat my proteins raw my digestion and elimination improved dramtically.
I’m no university expert on the subject, just reading and trial and less error along the way. Vince GIronda’s diet ideas actually got me started on that path and it has evolved from there. I don’t think he is right on everything as science has also progressed in 30-40 years but he sure was ahead of the curve…

[quote]Mutsanah wrote:

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

[quote]Mutsanah wrote:

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
(1) Think of the proteins as a wad of yarn, all tangled up. The denaturing process is the process of straightening and unfolding this ‘yarn’.

That being said, it is a process, when exposed to heat the bundles do not magically become straight lines, but they start to unfold. It is the same denaturation, but things usually get fully denatured in the stomach (since they are in there longer) but only partially when cooked.

It’s not bad at all, deamination is bad (taking off the amine group), denaturation (unfolding) is not.

(2) I don’t see why the cycling would have any impact on gaining mass outside of the caloric expenditure and the stressing of the leg muscles, so if you cover the calories, then I can’t see any reason why at least your upper body would progress normally (If the cycling is ‘excessive’ then maybe your legs will be a bit too tired to gain muscle at the same rate; not too sure on that one though)[/quote]

@silverhydra

That is an excellent explanation.

So, curious - what is the difference between eating raw eggs and cooked? Or raw beef and cooked? Aside from the fact that cooking is supposed to kill bacteria, etc - I am asking about protein quality/availability/digestion.
[/quote]

The less heat that is applied to the proteins outside the body, the more will need to be applied inside the body; this will take more calories to digest (although the acid helps somewhat).

Remember the theory that cooking meat made our ancestors evolve? The premise of this theory is that less calories were needed to process the proteins, so more were allotted for evolution.

I know there are studies that ‘show’ raw protein to not be fully absorbed when compared to cooked, so I assume that they were not fully denatured in the stomach in those studies (thus passed into the intestine, were too big for the peptidase enzymes, and were pooped out). This doesn’t mean that they can’t be fully denatured though, as Hungry4more eats a fuck-ton of raw eggs, and in a recent thread (on liquid eggs whites) said in passing that he doesn’t have gastro-intestinal issues, which led him to believe they were fully absorbed.

So I doubt a change in quality, availability would depend on how your body reacts (some people may secrete less HCl or proteases, thus need to cook meat to fully absorb it all), and digestion would merely take more energy and longer for raw meat.

This is all my opinion from stringing together anecdotes and my (limited) knowledge of the alimentary canal; open for corrections from anybody.
[/quote]

Man, if that theory is correct, I’m going back to cro magnon because I eat a whole lotta raw eggs and eat my grass fed beef raw too. Even at restaurants I order med rare or even rare. Granted, I do take multi-enzymes with meals, ACV diluted in water in between among other things. When I began to eat my proteins raw my digestion and elimination improved dramtically.
I’m no university expert on the subject, just reading and trial and less error along the way. Vince GIronda’s diet ideas actually got me started on that path and it has evolved from there. I don’t think he is right on everything as science has also progressed in 30-40 years but he sure was ahead of the curve…
[/quote]

It sounds good if you were trying to lose, but I dont think it will make as much as an impact on your progress as the actual types of food you eat.

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:

It sounds good if you were trying to lose, but I dont think it will make as much as an impact on your progress as the actual types of food you eat.[/quote]

Yes, I will have to admit that it all makes sense logically and looks great on paper. However, it is very difficult to see if any of it is significant.

I have no clue whether any of this makes a salient difference over time, but like drinking cold water (where, logically, it takes energy to warm it up) I take it on faith on cutting diets since there is no harm in doing so.

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:

It sounds good if you were trying to lose, but I dont think it will make as much as an impact on your progress as the actual types of food you eat.[/quote]

Yes, I will have to admit that it all makes sense logically and looks great on paper. However, it is very difficult to see if any of it is significant.

I have no clue whether any of this makes a salient difference over time, but like drinking cold water (where, logically, it takes energy to warm it up) I take it on faith on cutting diets since there is no harm in doing so.
[/quote]

There was a stat on that a few years ago. Somthing like youll lose 3 lbs a year of bodyfat just by virtue of your body having to warm it up. Another thing, think of all the calories you save by not drinking coke and the like.