T Nation

Accelerate your Muscles Growth

Many consider training more frequently as a positive factor to contribute to muscles growth. Just from the top of my head DC says training body parts/muscles groups/muscles more than ounce a week is a plus. Chad Waterbury has been advocating high frequency training for many years and others do to.

About 70 years ago bodybuilding was turned from a sport into a very lucrative industry for Weiders. They sold tons of proteins and generated tons of profits. Before that were strong man, big man without powder and believe me most people were simply too poor to buy/eat that much proteins.

It is likely that many train each body part ounce weekly because the high protein diet is very taxing for humans and they need a long time to eliminate residues. Personally i can train 6 days on upper/lower split because my small muscles generate small amounts of residues and my protein intake is about 0.8 gram/pound.

I would be very interested to see the results some with more muscle mass could get training more frequently with less proteins. I think 1.2 0r 1.0 gram/pound is enough. Well many studies say so even some say 0.8 is enough.

If you want to participate you are more than welcome.

The calories not eaten might serve for lowering fat percentage or replaced by good carbs depending on your situation.

There is no need to waste your time writing about 1.5 or 2 or more being needed i have allready read those arguments.

Thanks!

Read this. Dave Tate got up to 290 pounds, eating less than 200 grams of protein ON HIS GOOD DAYS! Depending on your training, your metabolism etc, I don’t think we need that much protein. I have even made decent gains with less than 150 grams of protein, at a BW of about 200 pounds.

But, here’s the problem: If you eat so little protein, this means that you must get all you other calories (which is a fuckload) from carbs and fats. I am pretty sure carbs won’t be only rice and pasta, it will be all kind of unhealthy shit. This is the problem I believe with low protein diets. Not the fact that you won’t gain muscle or strength, but the fact that your health will get all fucked up, like Dave’s. So yeah, as long as you get the necessary calories in, you will gain, but most probably you will damage your health too.

OP makes me LOL

What kind of “residue” are you talking about???

You seem to be combining two issues here… the protein isn’t ingested with the hopes of using it as a metabolic substrate (hence why most on a high protein diet eat a high carb meal near training times). Protein metabolism is not ideal and I am pretty sure no one has said that in a long time.

The point in high protein consumption is more amino acid availability whenever DNA translation is occurring and more availability in processes like the calcineurin/IGF pathways.

Im still very interested in hearing about this residue that is caking my insides because I eat a large amount of protein.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...pubmed/22215165

some may find this interesting.

Essentially, low-protein group lost LBM,.

High protein group (3.0g/kg) gained slightly more LBM than mormal protein group (1.8g/kg).

OP I remember you saying you were at one with the Dalai Lama’s presence did he advocate TBT or split training?

I tend to agree that 1 g/lb of protein works…FOR THE AVERAGE TRAINING POPULATION

The reason the large amounts of protein don’t work for most is because most of them do not have a lot of lean body mass (200 lbs <10%bf)

But think about competitive bodybuilders and powerlifters that are over 200 lbs and very lean. They carry so much muscle mass that it becomes very costly to keep. The more muscle you have, the more calories you need to eat to maintain your size. So eventually 1 g/lb doesn’t work anymore. They also tend to be the people that everyone gets advice from, because they are the best, and that means they give out diet advice too.

Why would you want to try and use the smallest amount of protein possible? Don’t you want to push yourself beyond what is purely necessary?

People still ate a fuck-ton of protein before powders were invented - have you heard of eggs, meat and milk? LOL

Besides, the OP is clearly ignorant of basic biology, and appears to be a conspiracy theorist.

Inb4 butthurt replies.

[quote]Consul wrote:
Why would you want to try and use the smallest amount of protein possible? Don’t you want to push yourself beyond what is purely necessary?

People still ate a fuck-ton of protein before powders were invented - have you heard of eggs, meat and milk? LOL

Besides, the OP is clearly ignorant of basic biology, and appears to be a conspiracy theorist.

Inb4 butthurt replies.[/quote]

I don’t get the mindset either, other than maybe trying to save some money since protein rich foods tend to be more expensive.

So excess protein consumption impedes recovery? Well, this is a first…

[quote]roybot wrote:
So excess protein consumption impedes recovery? Well, this is a first…[/quote]

Its because of the residue. And small muscles create less residue… therefore healthier people have smaller muscles

Proteins are bad. They form nano-tubes which penetrate cell walls and release intracellular fluids to the interstitial spaces throughout the body.

Thats why people get bloated.

Stick to a diet of butter drizzled over white bread, sprinkled with cinnamon, and toasted to a crispy golden brown. You’ll be a lean mean fighting machine and there will be no worries about those bulky muscles contaminating your interstitia.

I would assume that only feeding the LEAN mass the required protein is the key.

EDIT: It’s hard to be serious after SkyzykS’ hilarious post!

lol

It’s amazing certain people can even work the internet, let alone their proteinz

@ niksamaras
Thanks for the article.
Some people in Australia eat purple potatoes at every meal. I forgot their name but i am pretty sure it is a variety of sweet potatoe/yam. Some people in south america rely on potatoes to survive. They grow many varieties so if it rains alot some are lost. If it is very dry some are lost. Some insect might eat some varieties but enough will be produced to keep them alive.

In artica people are healthy with lots of fats by eating them raw. We have options, some are healthy.

Some people in the Chinese province of Guangxi eat lots of rice.

Some guppies eat their young.

Some beetles eat poop.

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Some people in the Chinese province of Guangxi eat lots of rice.

Some guppies eat their young.

Some beetles eat poop.

[/quote]
And some Canadians Be Happy

FTR, I don’t follow the OP’s reasoning. At all. Also, to be fair, I don’t think that English is his first language.

However, isn’t it reasonable to imagine that that for everything there is a point of diminishing returns, a point where more stops being better and more still becomes counter productive or even harmful? It’s certainly true with training, total calories etc. I have only the most basic understanding of human biology myself, so forgive my ignorance but, I am curious.

Regarding “residue”: I’m not sure what OP was referring to, but what about free radicals, urea and other waste products of digestion and cellular metabolism? As far as I know increased LBM doesn’t increase our kidneys’ ability to excrete urea, and while I doubt that this is really harmful in someone with healthy kidney function it is another process our organs must undergo and every process causes strain/more waste products. As for free radicals, I think we can agree that they contribute to inflammation, catabolism, accelerated aging, disease etc and other things we generally aren’t too keen on.

Unfortunately, free radicals seem to be produced every time our bodies utilize oxygen. As far as I know, oxidation takes place when the body converts amino acids into cellular energy and thus free radicals result. Consequently, higher demands are placed on our bodies stores of antioxidants. Also, as an aside, the more muscle tissue one has, the more metabolic processes are underway at any given time and so the more free radicals are being produced. Obviously not arguing against having muscle, just a thought.

Another demand “excess” protein intake places on the body is that the body must use buffering agents to maintain ph balance which must be tightly controlled at all times. This process may or may not be harmful in the long term, but it still bears considering. Another issue would be the digestive demands of processing proteins down to amino acids and simply moving large quantities of flesh through the intestines (I am unsure how much we can really assimilate at a sitting although I am familiar with the rules of thumb).

There is obviously an enzymatic and energy cost associated with this that should be considered when trying to figure the net benefit of consuming protein beyond a certain quantity. As far as I know our bodies can’t store excess protein. Amino acids are converted into molecules that are either used (inefficiently) for energy or preferably synthesized into new tissue and the rest is just excreted. Increasing protein intake, again as far as I know, does not increase the rate at which our bodies can utilize amino acids for protein synthesis, provided an adequate quantity is available. However, our bodies must still process and eliminate all that we take in thus incurring the attending metabolic costs, regardless of whether it benefited us at all.

What I’m driving at in this ridiculously long post (sorry) is that, given the metabolic, financial, and ultimately ecological cost of food in general and protein specifically in this case, doesn’t it bear considering where the point is at which we are getting the maximum benefit (relative to our goals) from the minimum amount of food?

Those nano-tubes are a bitch too.

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding “residue”: I’m not sure what OP was referring to, but what about free radicals, urea and other waste products of digestion and cellular metabolism? As far as I know increased LBM doesn’t increase our kidneys’ ability to excrete urea, and while I doubt that this is really harmful in someone with healthy kidney function it is another process our organs must undergo and every process causes strain/more waste products. As for free radicals, I think we can agree that they contribute to inflammation, catabolism, accelerated aging, disease etc and other things we generally aren’t too keen on. Unfortunately, free radicals seem to be produced every time our bodies utilize oxygen. As far as I know, oxidation takes place when the body converts amino acids into cellular energy and thus free radicals result. Consequently, higher demands are placed on our bodies stores of antioxidants. Also, as an aside, the more muscle tissue one has, the more metabolic processes are underway at any given time and so the more free radicals are being produced. Obviously not arguing against having muscle, just a thought.
[/quote]

This is all true, but…
Free radicals activate transcription factors.
More activated transcription factors = more transcription of DNA.
More transcription produces more mRNA.
More translation of mRNA = more polypeptides.
More polypeptides = more structural and functional proteins or muscle.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

What I’m driving at in this ridiculously long post (sorry) is that, given the metabolic, financial, and ultimately ecological cost of food in general and protein specifically in this case, doesn’t it bear considering where the point is at which we are getting the maximum benefit (relative to our goals) from the minimum amount of food?

[/quote]

That was an excellent and well reasoned post. Haven’t heard much along those lines of reasoning since the days of L. Lowery and John Berrardi.