T Nation

School Textbook Nutrition Quote

“If you get more protein than you need, it will be stored as fat.”

It is needed.

  1. It’s stupid

  2. it’s technically true.

  3. “need” to avoid deficiency is different from “need to grow” or “need to perform optimally”.

  4. It’s much less likely to happen than lipogenesis from excess carbs/fat intake. It is almost always used in other capacities first.

Picture didn’t attach the first time…

Thankfully, my professor has more sense than whoever wrote that book…

Thank you for the picture btw, very interesting.

What’s your take on the Urea Cycle? My professor tells me scientists think that might be one of the leading reasons some people develop Rheumatism.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
3) “need” to avoid deficiency is different from “need to grow” or “need to perform optimally”.
[/quote]

“It won’t help eating large amounts of proteins if you want your muscles to grow. Only training will make your muscles grow bigger.”

I know we lift big and whatnot, but we eat big too, right? We all agree diet is one of, if not the most, deciding factor in weight gain/loss and whether it’s fat or muscles, no?

Stupid book is stupid…

[quote]ZeroSleep wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
3) “need” to avoid deficiency is different from “need to grow” or “need to perform optimally”.

“It won’t help eating large amounts of proteins if you want your muscles to grow. Only training will make your muscles grow bigger.”

I know we lift big and whatnot, but we eat big too, right? We all agree diet is one of, if not the most, deciding factor in weight gain/loss and whether it’s fat or muscles, no?

Stupid book is stupid…[/quote]

Yes but the quality of the diet makeup and it’s food quality trump Big calories and pure big eating.

I just noticed that Picard’s arm is photoshopped in that double facepalm pic.

Taking these textbooks as the end-all be-all is a bad habit that a lot of people have developed. Take the test, get the “answers” right, but form your own opinions from facts that science provides. Go to seminars, read articles from peer reviewed journals, and read other books. Most people in the Exercise Science field know the theory behind hypertrophy and strength gain, but have never practically applied it, unless it was on a mouse or rat. These Professors and Lecturers have all the “knowledge”, but my entire college career I only had one Lecturer, a TA, who even picked up a weight.

Absorb as much as you can, most of it is useful, but a lot of the textbook info is antiquated.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Yes but the quality of the diet makeup and it’s food quality trump Big calories and pure big eating. [/quote]

True. But when it reccomends a minimum of 10%, and a maximum of 20% proteins, but want me to eat at least 50-60% carbs and 25-30% fat…

[quote]ZeroSleep wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Yes but the quality of the diet makeup and it’s food quality trump Big calories and pure big eating.

True. But when it reccomends a minimum of 10%, and a maximum of 20% proteins, but want me to eat at least 50-60% carbs and 25-30% fat…[/quote]

Protein is way too low there.

[quote]Nards wrote:
I just noticed that Picard’s arm is photoshopped in that double facepalm pic.[/quote]

Good eye, Nards.

Bet my intro to nutrition book can trump yours, here are some gems:

  • ‘More research is needed on the use of creatine supplements, especially on the potential for liver and kidney damage’

  • ‘High protein intake may contribute to bone loss and kidney disease’

Actually, there are few stealable quotes; my book pisses me off more by the way stuff is organized.

  • Talks briefly about supplementation, mentions protein, creatine, DNP, Anabolic Steroids, and Ephedrine. (Seems like someone is trying to make some association here…)

  • Has a sole citation ‘proving’ that protein supplements do nothing for muscle gain, the study had men having 20g of soy with breakfast.

  • Mentions steroids effectivly half the time protein or creatine is ever mentioned

  • Lacks citations, there is maybe 1 or 2 in controversial areas, but none at the end of the book

  • Pisses me off most Spend half the weight management chapter talking about medical procedures, such as stomach stapling, that ‘help’ with obesity. Nothing about overeating except a blurp about ‘more calories in than out’

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

  • Has a sole citation ‘proving’ that protein supplements do nothing for muscle gain, the study had men having 20g of soy with breakfast.

  • Lacks citations, there is maybe 1 or 2 in controversial areas, but none at the end of the book

  • Pisses me off most Spend half the weight management chapter talking about medical procedures, such as stomach stapling, that ‘help’ with obesity. Nothing about overeating except a blurp about ‘more calories in than out’[/quote]

WOW. That is just… facepalm

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
Bet my intro to nutrition book can trump yours, here are some gems:

  • ‘More research is needed on the use of creatine supplements, especially on the potential for liver and kidney damage’

  • ‘High protein intake may contribute to bone loss and kidney disease’

Actually, there are few stealable quotes; my book pisses me off more by the way stuff is organized.

  • Talks briefly about supplementation, mentions protein, creatine, DNP, Anabolic Steroids, and Ephedrine. (Seems like someone is trying to make some association here…)

  • Has a sole citation ‘proving’ that protein supplements do nothing for muscle gain, the study had men having 20g of soy with breakfast.

  • Mentions steroids effectivly half the time protein or creatine is ever mentioned

  • Lacks citations, there is maybe 1 or 2 in controversial areas, but none at the end of the book

  • Pisses me off most Spend half the weight management chapter talking about medical procedures, such as stomach stapling, that ‘help’ with obesity. Nothing about overeating except a blurp about ‘more calories in than out’[/quote]

And THIS is why nutritionists should have to fucking take biochemistry. I don’t even know how one would go about drawing some of those conclusions…

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

  • ‘High protein intake may contribute to bone loss and kidney disease’
    [/quote]

Isn’t it true that if you don’t consume enough calcium with a high protein intake that your body will take calcium from your bones to help process the protein?

What a load of crap.

[quote]Bunyip wrote:
silverhydra wrote:

  • ‘High protein intake may contribute to bone loss and kidney disease’

Isn’t it true that if you don’t consume enough calcium with a high protein intake that your body will take calcium from your bones to help process the protein?[/quote]

Recent article for you on the topic of protein. Half way down the effect of protein consumption on bones is addresses.

The problem with proposing any ‘fact’ in regards to metabolism is that its just too hard to prove. As you can clearly see though, the urea cycle provides pyruvate and acetyl CoA for the creation of fatty acids. Its just that some amino acids have a higher propensity for conversion to fatty acids than others. Its only logical to assume that excess in ANY for of energy intake will cause it to be stored in the form of fat. What do you think happens to excess amino acids in the blood stream, that they just go right into the muscle tissue and instantly become muscle fibers? The blood stream can only hold so many amino acids and once that limit is reached the conversion to fat will be begin. That being said, it probably takes a lot of excess protein for that to happen.

[quote]limitatinfinity wrote:
Bunyip wrote:
silverhydra wrote:

  • ‘High protein intake may contribute to bone loss and kidney disease’

Isn’t it true that if you don’t consume enough calcium with a high protein intake that your body will take calcium from your bones to help process the protein?

Recent article for you on the topic of protein. Half way down the effect of protein consumption on bones is addresses.

Thanks for that.