HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 04:17:00 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:24:15 GMT
ETag: "246c83f-19a98-4a665313f91c0"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 105112
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

<html>
<head>
<title>The Protein Bible - TheTrainingStationInc.com&copy;</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.style7 {font-size: 12px}
.unnamed1 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size: 10px;}
.style24 {font-size: 10px}
.style25 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif}
-->
</style>
</head>

<body bgcolor="#999999" text="#000000">
<table width="700" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="10">
  <tr>
    <td height="23" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><table width="100%" >
      <tr>
        <td width="13%"><div align="left"><a href="index.html"><img src="logo_smallest.gif" alt="The Protein Bible" width="90" height="79" border="0"></a></div></td>
        <td width="84%"><h1 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Protein Bible</font></h1></td>
        <td width="3%"><div align="right"><a href="index.html"><img src="logo_smallest.gif" alt="The Protein Bible" width="90" height="79" border="0"></a></div></td>
      </tr>
    </table>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr> 
    <td height="816" bgcolor="#CCCCCC"> 
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Book 1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br>
        The First 5 Voices </font></p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Introduction<br>
        If there's one topic that consumes bodybuilders, it's protein. Protein 
        is the essential building block of the bodybuilder's diet, and we discuss 
        it, dissect it, dissolve it and devour it. We read protein supplement 
        labels as thoroughly as a prenuptial agreement. We time our meals and 
        activities so that our protein is consumed with the regularity of a stopwatch. 
        We spend as much time discussing the relative merits of protein rating 
        systems as we do the qualities of our President. </font> </p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proteins are chemical compounds 
        that contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen ---the same parts found in carbohydrates 
        and lipids ---but also contain nitrogen. Nitrogen is the key word in protein, 
        for 2 reasons: Because nitrogen must attach to 3 other atoms, it introduces 
        a complexity to the amino acids, which form proteins; nitrogen balance 
        is important to bodybuilders in that we want to keep a positive nitrogen 
        balance within our bodies to produce more useable protein.</font></p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The protein absorption process 
        is fairly straightforward. As described in Whitney and Hamilton's text, 
        Understanding Nutrition, the basics are easy to understand:<br>
        1) We chew and crush protein- loaded food in our mouths, mixing protein-rich 
        foods with saliva;<br>
        2) in the stomach, acids unravel protein strands and activate stomach 
        enzymes: The combination of pepsin and hydrochloric acid results in smaller 
        polypeptide chains;<br>
        3) in the small intestine, these polypeptide chains are split into dipeptides, 
        tripeptides and amino acids through the intestinal enzymes of pancreatic 
        and intestinal proteases. &quot;Then the enzymes on the surface of the 
        small intestinal cells hydrolize these peptides and the cells absorb them.&quot; 
        They're hydrolized into intestinal di- and tri- peptidases and the amino 
        acids are absorbed. (Paraphrased description courtesy of Understanding 
        Nutrition, Fourth Edition, by Eleanor Noss Whitney and Eva May Nunnelley 
        Hamilton. IBSN #0-314- 24247-3. Copyright 1987. West Publishing Company, 
        St. Paul, Minnesota.)</font></p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The amino acids which make 
        up the proteins sources we ingest, and the ones we internally produce, 
        vary widely in their chemical complexities. It's generally agreed that 
        there are 28 amino acids, but that includes cystine and ornithine. Of 
        these, there are 8 which are called essential amino acids: We need all 
        of these 8 within us to produce a complete protein internally. The remaining 
        are called non-essential amino acids. In the past few years the term &quot;conditionally 
        essential&quot; has popped up to describe non-essential amino acids which 
        are thought by some to be inadequately produced by the body for sufficient 
        maintenance of muscular mass by the bodybuilder, usually taurine and glutamine.</font></p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Beyond these generally accepted 
        conditions, the role of protein and the amino acids and their effects 
        on the bodybuilder are widely and vigorously debated. It's rare, outside 
        of politics and religion, to find the arguments so vehemently and hotly 
        contested. These arguments stem from beliefs, and some of these beliefs 
        are validated by current science, and some are not. But anecdotal evidence 
        sometimes predates scientific validation, making these beliefs worthy 
        of attention and description.</font></p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this edition of The Protein 
        Bible, The First 5 Voices, we've strived to include a number of opinions. 
        Like the rest of Max Muscle Bodybuilding and Fitness News, these opinions 
        are not necessarily ours, and we disagree with some of the information. 
        But they are the current and strong voices of experts in the field. As 
        such, they deserve a forum. Each piece is a valuable lesson in applied 
        science and belief. In that sense, the information presented and the responses 
        from readers echoes the dynamics surrounding the &quot;real&quot; Bible. 
        We welcome your response and opinion.</font></p>
    <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mike Falcon, Editor </font></p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td> 
      <p align="left">&nbsp;</p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td bgcolor="#CCCCCC"> 
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interview: Peter Lemon, Ph.D.<br>
        The World's Primary Protein Assimilation Expert</font></p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Peter Lemon Ph.D. is considered 
        one of- often the- leading authority on protein intake and its effects 
        on athletes and performance. His seminal research, widely published in 
        respected academic journals, has been used as the launching pad for numerous 
        expert opinions, studies, and observations. He is Chairman of the Exercise 
        Nutrition Department at The University of Western Ontario (Canada). In 
        this interview, using Dr. Lemon's research as a departure point, Max Muscle 
        editor Mike Falcon and Dr. Lemon discuss the quest for determining optimum 
        protein intake.</font></p>
      <p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MM: In looking over a number 
        of the pieces of research regarding optimal protein intake, I've noticed 
        that's there's been a gradual increase in protein intake recommendations. 
        Perhaps the most quoted piece for protein intake has been your piece for 
        the American Physiological Society, Protein Requirements and Muscle Mass/Strength 
        Changes During Intensive Training in Novice Bodybuilders (Journal of Applied 
        Physiology, 1992; 73[2]: p767-775). The funny thing I've noticed is that 
        even the people opposed to higher protein for athletes may take out selected 
        portions of your research to support their arguments. But you're clear 
        about recommended protein intakes for both beginning body builders and 
        advanced bodybuilders, which are rather high compared to what many others 
        have suggested, even when they use you as a resource. You've suggested 
        1.4 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day (.6 to 
        .73 grams of protein per pound) as an overall template. Your friend and 
        sometime research partner Tarnopolsky, suggests that even higher amounts 
        seem useful for elite weightlifters when he studied advanced lifters who 
        were taking 2.2 to 3.5 protein grams per kilogram of bodyweight per day 
        (editor's note: using this as an example, abbreviations hereafter will 
        be 2.2 - 3.5 pg/k [protein grams per kilogram of bodyweight]; to get the 
        grams of protein per pound, divide the number of grams of protein per 
        kilogram by the 2.2 pounds contained in each kilogram. For example, 2.2 
        to 3.5 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight equals 1 to 1.6 grams 
        per pound [2.2 divided by 2.2 =1; 3.5 divided by 2.2 = 1.5909, or 1.6]). 
        So what we're getting is that the latest research seems now to support 
        anecdotal information related by elite bodybuilders and powerlifters: 
        That somewhere in excess of a gram per pound of body weight is substantiated 
        and optimal.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: Well, yes. We have collaborated with Mark Tarnopolsky, and 
        our data clearly suggests that protein requirements are greater for active 
        individuals ---whether they're bodybuilders or other athletes ---than 
        the official dietary recommendations in either Canada or The United States. 
        But, if you look at these requirements, they were derived from people 
        who were essentially sedentary. In other words, the existing requirements 
        were derived from a different population than we're talking about now. 
        We need to look at the data for active people that has come out recently, 
        and that's what both Mark and I have been doing. We've used a couple of 
        different techniques. One is the nitrogen balance technique, which is 
        what's used to determine the requirements classically, and also some newer 
        techniques that involve metabolic tracers which allow you to follow where 
        a labeled amino acid goes when you give it to an individual, either through 
        injection or through diet. You can then make estimates of the rate muscle 
        is developing by measuring protein synthesis. It's kind of interesting, 
        because if you give more amino acids or more protein in the diet than 
        is necessary what happens is the excess is not stored in the body as muscle, 
        but is oxidized: used by the body as energy, and so you can tell when 
        you have exceeded the amount that an individual needs. When we do those 
        studies with bodybuilders we come up with numbers that exceed existing 
        recommendations by about 100%. The current recommendation is .8 grams 
        per kilo of bodyweight for all adults, but we're coming up with 1.5 -1.7, 
        depending on the study and the technique used. So, I think at this point 
        there will be some debate, relative to the exact amount required, but 
        there is a greater need for protein for these types of individuals. A 
        few years ago I visited McMaster University, where Mark Tarnopolsky is, 
        and we conducted several experiments. One involved giving differing amounts 
        of protein and studying the amount of protein synthesis using these metabolic 
        tracers. The athletes received .9 pg/k bodymass; 1.4 pg/k; and 2.4 pg/k. 
        The interesting thing was when the bodybuilders went from .9 to 1.4 there 
        was actually an increase in their rate of protein syntheses. So, in other 
        words, their muscle development was adversely affected by the .9 pg/k.<br>
        MM: But not by the 1.4 pg/k ?<br>
        Dr. Lemon: Exactly. Their protein synthesis rate was higher at the 1.4 
        pg/k level. This would indicate 1.4 pg/k was closer to what they need 
        to consume than the .9 pg/k, which has been the universal recommendation. 
        So this would clearly suggest that if you consume the current recommendation 
        and you're a bodybuilder, your results are going to be sub-optimal.<br>
        MM: What happened when the consumption went from 1.4 pg/k to 2.4 pg/k?<br>
        Dr. Lemon: That's really interesting, because protein synthesis did not 
        increase further. This suggests that at least in that population, the 
        2.4 pg/k exceeded the optimal amount of protein. So, we concluded that 
        somewhere between 1.4 pg/k and 2.4g/k would be optimal. That fits in with 
        some of the other work we've done with other measures, such as the nitrogen 
        balance technique that indicates an intake of about 1.6 pg/k to 1.7 pg/k 
        is optimal. If that's all correct ---and you'll get a debate from some 
        people because some of this work is fairly new ---then it means that bodybuilders 
        may be correct in their interpretation that their protein needs are higher, 
        but they're not as high as they think they are. As you mentioned earlier, 
        many of them consume diets in excess of 2 grams per kilogram, which would 
        appear to be excessive. I'm not sure exactly why that would be the case, 
        but I have 2 possible explanations. One is that if you were taking other 
        substances that were anabolic ---and certainly some bodybuilders do that, 
        taking substances and drugs that might enhance protein synthesis ---then 
        the higher protein intakes may be advantageous under those conditions. 
        That's one possibility. Another possibility is that there is some sort 
        of feed forward system if you're on a high protein diet for a longer period 
        of time than we've studied. Then that stimulates muscle growth. These 
        studies that we do are typically over a few weeks or perhaps a month, 
        That's because the controls we need are difficult to maintain for that 
        time or longer. But athletes clearly train for years. But you put some 
        one on a 3 pg/k diet per day for years and there may be some long-term 
        changes, so it's going to take a while to sort all of this out. But I'm 
        convinced that these individuals benefit from higher than recommended 
        intakes. Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think 
        that's optimal, based on what we've seen so far. Also, protein is expensive, 
        and if you're simply excreting the excess, there's no need to take in 
        so much. Until we get data suggesting that 2.5 pg/k or 2.7 pg/k is beneficial, 
        I'm not going to make that recommendation.<br>
        MM: You talk about wondering why they would perhaps increase their protein 
        intake, and what has been demonstrated to be optimal, and I think you 
        hit on 2 really interesting points: One is the use of steroids, or prohormones 
        or androgens to up the muscle mass. The second, which I see as going hand 
        in hand with many bodybuilders, is that we're almost in an obsessive compulsive 
        disorder where we would prefer to err on the &quot;safe&quot; side; the 
        &quot;safe&quot; side being taking in enough protein to handle our muscle-building 
        needs. This may not be safe at all.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: You have to remember that this response may be linear, as many 
        bodybuilders assume. Increasing dietary protein may improve muscle growth 
        up to some point, and then there may be a ceiling point or plateau. Beyond 
        that there may actually be some adverse effects. I know what you mean: 
        if 1.6 pg/k or 1/.7 pg/k is good, then 2.5 pg/k or 3.0 pg/k must be better. 
        Right? In fact, it may not be. It may be good to go from .9 pg/k to 1.8 
        pg/k or so ---whatever that optimum is ---but after that there may be 
        no more gain, with this possible exception: Unless you're ingesting another 
        anabolic agent that may allow you to benefit from more protein. But we 
        have not done those types of studies. However, some of the studies from 
        the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have shown some benefits from 
        very high protein intakes.<br>
        MM: Just how high are we talking about?<br>
        Dr. Lemon: We're talking about going from 2 grams to over 3 grams. Some 
        of these studies are not translated very well, and some are almost anecdotal 
        in their style, so we don't know how accurate they are. But that's where 
        a lot of the bodybuilders get their information, because that's where 
        strength athletes were very, very successful. I'm not sure all of that 
        is factual; certainly we haven't seen benefits to protein intakes that 
        high in individuals training and consuming a normal diet.<br>
        MM: That seems to be almost a universal lament, that these reports tend 
        to be so heavily anecdotal, or using samples groups that are either very 
        small or leave out the influences of many variables, and are really anecdotal 
        in methodology.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: A lot of it was secretive. They were obviously using it for 
        their own benefit. But I think they also used it as a technique to confuse 
        people in the West. Rumors would intentionally or unintentionally surface, 
        and they would make no attempt to refute them. They just let you believe 
        that. There's no reason to believe their science is any better than ours; 
        in fact, ours is much better than theirs ever was, because we have devoted 
        so much more money to this research and technology. But they certainly 
        applied the knowledge that either they obtained, or we obtained, to their 
        athletes much better than we did ---perhaps to the detriment of the individual 
        athletes themselves.<br>
        MM: You mentioned the downside of excess protein intake, and foremost 
        in my mind is kidney damage. Let's say that a bodybuilder wants to err 
        ---if indeed it is erring ---on the side of increased protein intake. 
        What can they do to protect or minimize potential adverse effects of excess 
        protein?<br>
        Dr. Lemon: Most of the adverse effects cited routinely, and kidney damage 
        is certainly near the top of the list, I believe is overstated in the 
        healthy individual. Certainly, if you look at research literature that 
        deals with people with abnormal renal function or disease, high protein 
        intakes can be hazardous. But I'm not aware of any data ---and I've looked 
        throughout the literature ---suggesting that a healthy kidney cannot handle 
        the type of protein loads we're talking about. The major concern (of excessive 
        protein intake) would be from a dehydration standpoint. In order to metabolize, 
        say, 2 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day, a lot more 
        nitrogen needs to be excreted from the body. And that gets excreted primarily 
        in the urine. Typically, what happens when you dramatically increase your 
        protein intake, is that the urine volume goes up substantially. We've 
        measured increases of 2 to 4 times on a high protein diet. If increased 
        water loss goes on routinely and one doesn't attempt to compensate for 
        it, one would become progressively dehydrated. This could become a problem, 
        particularly for athletes who have excessive fluid losses due to sweating. 
        One of the things that you commonly see recommended for individuals on 
        high protein diets is increased fluid intake. There's also concern about 
        calcium losses, and it's affect on osteoporosis, which is a serious bone 
        debilitating disease, primarily in women. But there have been some studies 
        that have shown protein supplements in high dosages can increase calcium 
        loss in the urine, and that calcium loss will come, eventually, from bones 
        and affect bone density. So I think the jury is still out on the potential 
        of that problem. However, this concern may also be overemphasized, because 
        the studies that showed this seemed to involve people who took protein 
        supplements, rather than those who increased protein intake via food sources. 
        So it may have something to do with the composition of the protein that 
        was consumed. Certainly, because of the problem of osteoporosis, which 
        is huge in the older population, we need to study this, because I would 
        hate to see 20 or 30-year-old bodybuilders in 2 or 3 decades having bone 
        problems due to high protein intake.<br>
        MM: What about offsetting this by taking in additional calcium in the 
        diet?<br>
        Dr. Lemon: Possibly. Certainly it's something that should be investigated. 
        But we should make sure it's actually a problem related to high protein 
        supplementation. High protein foods may differ from protein supplements, 
        because you may end up with micronutrient imbalances. This could be what 
        caused this calcium loss, and perhaps other imbalances as well. One thing 
        we need to keep in mind with supplementation is that we can get large 
        amounts of single nutrients that it's difficult to do with food. Creatine 
        is a good example of this. I don't see a lot of adverse effects from taking 
        creatine, based on our work so far. However, the point I'm trying to make 
        is that you can consume creatine on a daily basis in amounts that would 
        be impossible to consume from food. You could get the amount of creatine 
        contained in 10 pounds of meat fairly easily. We're having people do some 
        things that they couldn't do in the past, and many of these products hit 
        the market before there are clinical trials to determine exactly whether 
        they're safe or not. Worst case scenario? We could have large numbers 
        of people in North America suffering from adverse effects years after 
        because we haven't done any long-term studies. That's the problem I have, 
        not only with protein, but with any of these products. Even beneficial 
        compounds taken in large quantities could potentially lead to problems.<br>
        MM: You mentioned the amount of protein for elite bodybuilders, as opposed 
        to beginners. I'm wondering, if there isn't a relationship as well, between 
        the lean muscle mass of elite bodybuilders and the increased percentage 
        of bodyfat in beginning bodybuilders, as well as the general population. 
        Wouldn't it appear, that while the bodyweights of 2 240-pound men would 
        appear on the surface to be similar, that the person with 22% bodyfat 
        and the guy with 3% bodyfat may have different protein requirements because 
        they carry enormously different amounts of muscle mass that need to be 
        maintained.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: In the study we talked about earlier, in addition to the bodybuilding 
        group that went from .9 pg/k to 2.4 pg/k, there was also a control sedentary 
        group that ingested the same protein intakes, and as you might guess, 
        when the sedentary group went from .9 pg/k to 1.4 pg/k they did not increase 
        their protein synthesis. They simply oxidized the increased protein. So 
        you can't simply increase your muscle mass by ingesting more protein. 
        It would be nice if it were possible, but clearly people that are active 
        in exercise are different from those who are sedentary. Likewise, people 
        who have different body compositions, whether they are sedentary or active, 
        have different metabolic rates and may use any food source differently. 
        If I'm an athlete, training regularly, and I'm consuming a certain amount 
        of carbohydrate, I'm going to store that in my body as carbohydrate. If 
        I'm sedentary I'm going to store that as fat because I haven't been using 
        the carbohydrates in my body and don't need to replenish those stores. 
        Any nutrient we eat can be stores as fat in the body if we eat enough 
        of it and are sedentary enough.<br>
        MM: You mentioned the amino acid uptake, and one of the trends we're seeing 
        now in elite bodybuilders is the reliance on L-Glutamine. The argument 
        for L-Glutamine centers on its being the amino acid with the highest concentrations 
        in human muscle, and that because of this, ingesting additional amounts 
        might assist in both protein syntheses and faster repair of the muscle. 
        This is something we hear anecdotally all the time. We hear that ingesting 
        2 to 10 grams of L-Glutamine per day helps repair and prevents muscle 
        soreness. What's your take on this?<br>
        Dr. Lemon: I haven't actually studied L-Glutamine myself, but I have studied 
        some of the literature, and theoretically what you're saying is possible. 
        There are not a lot of good studies that have shown that, though. This 
        is simply a problem of the anecdotal reports being ahead of the science. 
        The problem with anecdotal reports is that there is a number of things 
        that could cause those effects. Just because you're taking L-Glutamine 
        and these things happen doesn't mean that it's due to L-Glutamine. You 
        need controlled studies to investigate that. But there is some interesting 
        information about the immune system. Glutamine is an important fuel for 
        the immune system. And there is some indication that the immune system 
        may be weakened in athletes that exercise on a regular basis. This may 
        be a symptom of overtraining, but a lot of athletes get upper respiratory 
        infections and it may be that there is competition for the amount of Glutamine 
        that is available for the muscle and the immune system.<br>
        MM: That's a fascinating point for me, because I see otherwise healthy 
        bodybuilders that do seem to have a fairly high incidence of common colds 
        and longer recovery periods. David Johns still sticks in our minds: here 
        was an otherwise healthy bodybuilder at the peak of his game who died 
        from Valley Fever, which usually strikes down only the old or weak. And 
        he succumbed rather quickly. This begs the question of how hard we push 
        the repair of our bodies when we subject it to long-term intensive weight-training.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: It's an interesting problem that needs to be pursued, but we 
        can't make the connection now, to say we have to supplement certain amounts 
        of Glutamine, but certainly there's the possibility it may be beneficial. 
        I'm concerned that severe exercise may affect the immune system. There 
        are individuals who suggest that even very severe health problems may 
        occur in athletes who train and come into this overtraining zone. People 
        point out the incidence of cancer in some very elite athletes. It seems 
        to be higher than you would expect. There's certainly no causal relationship 
        as yet, but it's interesting. Perhaps there is some connection, and we 
        need to find that if it's the case, but there's been a fair number of 
        athlete athletes who have succumbed. I don't know if there's any connection 
        ---there's certainly no evidence of that ---but it's crazy to believe 
        that exercise is good in all situations. It may be that here's a downside 
        too. Certainly, there are many bodybuilders out there who train harder 
        than they need to. And maybe taking some supplements or drugs that have 
        adverse effects contributes as well.<br>
        MM: You touched upon that there can be differences between athletes, and 
        that one of these differences may be their ability to absorb and utilize 
        protein. One of the things that intrigues me most about these studies 
        is the magic number: that over a period of about 2 hours the body can 
        digest 42 grams of protein. I'm wondering where that came from, and if 
        it isn't really a continuing enzymatic process that varies widely.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: My guess is that this comes from some theoretical calculations. 
        Frequently people will make calculations about how quickly you can develop 
        muscle and their divided that into an hourly basis and how much dietary 
        protein would need to be absorbed to provide that. I think that's where 
        that comes from.<br>
        MM: Then there are theories about what types of proteins you should take 
        at what time of day.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: If there is a window of time following a weight-training session, 
        then there needs to be studies where individuals are fed during that time 
        period and get evaluated, instead of reporting theoretically what might 
        be the best. Wee need to get that data.<br>
        MM: Well, one of the big things now is to ingest high protein and high 
        carbohydrates shortly after working out.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: I suspect that's advantageous, because the carbohydrate and 
        protein would stimulate insulin production, the most anabolic steroids 
        you have. And we know that following weight training there is a period 
        of increased protein synthesis, so one would speculate that additional 
        protein and energy during that time period would enhance the process. 
        However, there is not a lot of data in support of that. There is some, 
        and it's starting to come in now, but again the theories are out there 
        and are being tried by athletes, in the hope that they might work.<br>
        MM: The effective protein utilization is paramount to them, which brings 
        up HMB. You mentioned that protein is a relatively expensive energy source, 
        and this brings up the cost effectiveness of HMB. I have this question 
        in the back of my mind: if we're spending this money to prevent protein 
        catabolism, why don't we just take in a little more protein, which would 
        cost less than HMB.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: That's an interesting point, but we might think of examining 
        the catabolic process itself as well. I think that is what stimulates 
        the anabolic phase. I haven't tested this, but if you do something to 
        chemically minimize the catabolic phase, you may minimize the anabolic 
        phase and make the process counter-productive.overall.<br>
        MM: That's a unique take: What prompted that theory?<br>
        Dr. Lemon: For years. Bodybuilders have thought the process, simplistically, 
        is that you tear the muscle down and then the body's reaction to that 
        is to rebuild the muscle, and over enough times doing this, it rebuilds 
        bigger and better. Then you repeat it; it's like building a wall a little 
        bigger each time, adding brick by brick. And that may be exactly what 
        happens. Tearing down and damage certainly occurs ---you can look microscopically 
        at muscle and see the damage that occurs ---maybe that's the stimulus. 
        And nobody knows exactly what stimulates muscle to grow after exercise. 
        And then the body's reaction to compensate for that, and it's an overreaction. 
        If that's the case and you somehow minimize the damage, you may somehow 
        minimize the response and it could be a counterproductive strategy. People 
        thing simplistically that's there's a breakdown phase and a buildup phase, 
        and if you minimize the breakdown then the buildup will be better. And 
        I'm not sure that's the case. We need to study fundamentally how muscle 
        grows before we start making suggestions. Relative to HMB, the data's 
        very sketchy on that. There's some data out of Iowa State and that's primarily 
        where it's coming from. We need studies that replicate those results from 
        other areas and lands. But again, it's being sold and people are making 
        a lot of money. It may be beneficial, but I'm not convinced yet. These 
        are animal studies and while there are parallel, there are limits as well. 
        It's much more difficult to control variables in human studies. In animals 
        you can control virtually every variable, but in humans no matter how 
        rigorous it is they're free to do other things. It's not unusual to get 
        great data from an animal study and get questionable data in a clinical 
        trial. It's not easy to do that, but it needs to be done. I'm concerned 
        about supplement studies that are done quick and dirty and conclude these 
        fantastic results, when the results may have nothing to do with the supplements, 
        but could be a function of the way the study was done. Because the average 
        person doesn't know enough to interpret that; they just see the conclusions 
        and say, &quot;well this stuff must be great.&quot; We need to be careful, 
        especially in the early stages of a product, that, in fact, it does what 
        you think it does. And that there are not other possible explanations 
        for the results that you got.<br>
        MM: When you're talking about the 1.4 to 1.7 pg/k being optimal for bodybuilding, 
        I see studies on the web journals that cite your study and yet suggest 
        far less protein. There seems to be some reluctance to pull these numbers 
        up.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: We've also said we don't see a problem going up to about 2 
        grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight. These 1.5 pg/k to 1.7 pg/k 
        figures are not exact values. They're estimates based on the data we get, 
        and there is room for variables here, subject to subject. We've had people 
        who have done slightly better or slightly poorer; that's the average of 
        the group and there is variability around that.<br>
        MM: We've also noted that the protein proportion could be influenced by 
        lean mass weight and percentages; a larger muscular mass on a 240-pound 
        man with 3% bodyfat might indicate a need for more protein than a 240-pound 
        man not training who has 28% bodyfat. When meals are ingested, and how 
        large the meals are, seems to have some effect.<br>
        Dr. Lemon: Smaller and more frequent meals are advantageous. There's probably 
        some advantage to consuming protein and energy following the workout. 
        Whether that's an hour to 3 hours that's probably advantageous. I've heard 
        of people waking themselves up and eating well just before turning in. 
        But catabolism may be part of the overall process. The idea of looking 
        for the magic bullet...maybe here isn't anything. You can do very well 
        with eating a variety of foods, a lot of foods, and training hard.<br>
        MM: That echoes what both the country's leading strength trainer, Boyd 
        Epley from Nebraska, and a very successful top-level contender, Shawn 
        Ray say: Shawn says that simply by being in close contact with his body 
        ---the internal feedback he receives and is sensitized to ---that he has 
        an almost instinctual awareness of what's going on, and what his needs 
        are.<br>
    Dr. Lemon: Perhaps it's a lot simpler than we think. </font></p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td height="2"> 
      <p>&nbsp;</p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td bgcolor="#CCCCCC"> 
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">WHY WHEY? SOY IN YOUR FACE!<br>
        Written by Derek Cornelius</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're probably asking, &quot;What 
        the heck does he mean by that?&quot; The title will become evident once 
        you see the big picture of what is going on in the supplement industry 
        regarding protein powders. Do you remember many years ago, when weight 
        gainers were the big thing and protein powders were out? Then, in like 
        a storm, came the low calorie weight gainers (yeah, right!), the criticizing 
        of the high calorie diet, and the inundation of whey protein. These marketing 
        cycles are easy to discern:: promote something, then dispel it, promote 
        it again, then dispel it. This way, the supplement companies always have 
        something &quot;new&quot; to bring to the market. (This cycling prompts 
        me to predict that very shortly there will be resurgence in the high calorie 
        diet. It might be slightly modified, but a high calorie diet nonetheless. 
        Why recycle this disaster? Most supplement companies do not really care 
        what the truth about supplements is &#151; they will promote only what 
        is &quot;hot&quot; and is making money. And it's time for another new 
        product).</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Back to protein powders: Is 
        whey really better? Are you getting what you pay for? Studies have been 
        done to assess any differences in weight gain between individuals supplementing 
        with whey protein, soy protein, or egg protein. SURPRISE, SURPRISE! There 
        were no differences whatsoever (statistically speaking) between the effectiveness 
        of the proteins. Remember, all 3 of these proteins are designed to stimulate 
        growth, albeit in chicks, calves, etc.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, is one really better than 
        another? Whey proponents point to a variety of its advantages: 1) It has 
        an ultra high BV (biological value), exceeding, by far, every other protein. 
        One manufacturer claims that their protein has a BV of 168 &#151; over 
        50% better than egg protein! 2) Some companies also claim that their whey 
        protein is special because it has di- and tri- peptides. They claim that 
        these peptides enhance the immune system, and help to greatly increase 
        the BV of the protein. 3) Another claim is that whey contains certain 
        specific peptides that greatly enhance the immune system. 4) Finally, 
        it is claimed that whey has a significantly higher amount of glutamine 
        and the anti-catabolic branched chain amino acids than any other protein. 
        </font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are any of the above statements 
        regarding whey protein true? Yes, but just one. If processed correctly, 
        whey will have small amounts of peptides (lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, 
        immunoglobulin, etc.) that definitely enhance the immune system. These 
        peptides are NATURALLY OCCURRING and are not created by hydrolyzing the 
        protein (breaking large peptides into smaller ones). Many studies have 
        been completed regarding the effect of whey on the immune system and it 
        is generally recognized in the scientific community that whey positively 
        stimulates the immune system.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But the di- and tri- peptides 
        that you're continually hearing about regarding whey, however, have nothing 
        to do with these naturally occurring peptides. If processed using low 
        heat, any type of whey, including sweet whey (which is basically unprocessed), 
        will have these naturally occurring peptides. A hydrolyzed whey can have 
        di- and tri- peptides, but these do nothing for the immune system, are 
        not naturally occurring, and are basically worthless to the bodybuilder! 
        Virtually unmentioned in all the hype, whey also has been shown to have 
        a positive effect on a person's cholesterol and triglyceride profile. 
        With long-term use, characteristics like this become very important benefits 
        of supplementing with a particular protein. (As a note, several studies 
        have shown casein to have a negative impact on a person's cholesterol 
        profile!)</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now let's consider the other 
        claims about whey: The ultra-high BV, the di- and tri- peptides, and statements 
        about glutamine and BCAAs. This is where it gets interesting, and where 
        the public is being deceived and manipulated. I have researched this topic 
        rather thoroughly and have talked to experts in the field who work for 
        the companies which manufacture and process the raw, bulk products. I 
        have questioned several experts as to the quality of the various proteins 
        and have found a few interesting facts. First and foremost, BV and PER 
        are OUTDATED. The newest and most accurate measurement of a protein's 
        quality for a HUMAN is the PDCAAS, the Protein Digestibility Corrected 
        Amino Acid Score. It's a mouthful, and yet it's an excellent industry 
        standard.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">According to this scale, whey 
        is not necessarily the &quot;best&quot; protein. In fact, casein, egg, 
        soy, and whey are all considered a &quot;one&quot; (top score) on this 
        scale. Does this mean that all of the above proteins are equal? Not at 
        all (and we'll get into the pros and cons of each protein later in the 
        article). What it does mean is that all of the above-mentioned proteins 
        will supply the BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS for proteinaceous tissue growth 
        and recuperation as well as the next one. I also inquired about hydrolyzation 
        (breaking the proteins into smaller fractions like &quot;di and tri peptides&quot;). 
        What I found was that the hydrolyzed product caused less nitrogen retention 
        than a similar non-hydrolyzed whey. As a note: The hydrolyzed product 
        that I inquired about was reputed to be the best in the industry, with 
        a 27% hydrolyzation, no bitter taste, and a cost from the manufacturer 
        of greater than $8.00 per pound!</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Consider this and you'll quickly 
        realize that many supplement companies (who don't actually manufacture 
        the whey, but buy the raw product from a converter) are telling some &quot;fibs&quot; 
        about whey protein. For example, a BV of 168 is absolutely ludicrous. 
        Whey manufacturers sometimes still use BV and almost always rate whey 
        protein as a 94 BV! Thus, when you see this 168 BV listed on the label 
        of several manufacturers' whey protein, just turn your head, know you're 
        being scammed, and absolutely don't buy!</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If it doesn't further increase 
        nitrogen retention, then what's the point including and mentioning di- 
        and tri- peptides? There IS a good reason for hydrolyzing a protein and 
        having short peptides, but it has nothing to do with BV/nitrogen retention. 
        Instead, it has everything to do with how fast and easy the product is 
        absorbed in the gut. Regular, undigested whey will be broken down into 
        di- and tri- peptides via enzymes in a person's gut, and will be absorbed 
        as such; but the whole process just takes a little longer. Hydrolyzed 
        products are basically only useful in baby food or hospital situations 
        where a person's digestive system is not functioning optimally, or when 
        protein delivery is needed very quickly.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is there any benefit to the 
        bodybuilder in using a hydrolyzed product? To tell you the truth, I would 
        have to say NO, except possibly for the benefit of having a quickly absorbed 
        protein immediately after a workout to ensure the muscle tissue is flooded 
        with nutrients in a timely manner. Finally, the cost of hydrolyzed whey 
        is outrageous, and its taste (except that one top notch product) is usually 
        absolutely horrible. Trust me: if you're trying to induce vomiting, just 
        take a little hydrolyzed whey protein!</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Isn't the claim true about 
        whey having significantly higher amounts of glutamine and BCAAs? Sorry, 
        but NO! Whey does have the highest amounts of BCAAs of any protein, but 
        it does not contain significantly higher amounts. When it comes to the 
        amounts of glutamine, soy beats whey hands down. For every 100 grams of 
        protein, whey has 20.1 grams of BCAAs and 4.9 grams of glutamine. Perhaps 
        to your surprise, soy has 18.1 grams of BCAAs and a whopping 10.5 grams 
        of glutamine! Again, we have been lied to, and deceived. Of course it's 
        not hard to figure out why when you consider that soy isolate is no more 
        than one quarter the cost of a whey isolate. I think I am going to vomit 
        (too much hydrolyzed whey!!!!!!)</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay. You're asking, &quot;C'mon 
        Derek, what does all of this mean to us bodybuilders?&quot; I'll tell 
        you: You're being ripped off ROYALLY! Most companies are selling whey 
        protein concentrate (WPC) and saying that their product is ion-exchange, 
        etc, etc. Let me explain a few more details. Ion exchange really doesn't 
        mean anything in terms of the quality of the protein powder as a whole! 
        Any high quality, pure protein will be labeled an ISOLATE and this is 
        what you MUST look for. A true ion-exchange process CAN yield a good isolate 
        but it is by far not the only process around in order to get a superior 
        whey protein. An isolate will have very little fat and lactose, and will 
        be about 90% protein (the protein fractions are &quot;isolated&quot; from 
        the rest of the material). On the other hand, a WPC is vastly inferior, 
        with about 7% fat and lactose, and only 75% protein (The protein in WPC 
        is usually pretty good but who wants to deal with all of the fat and lactose?) 
        Interestingly, WPC costs less than half of what an isolate costs. Unfortunately, 
        both products look and taste about the same, so it becomes very hard to 
        know what you have. Basically, you have to trust the manufacturer (supplement 
        company) of the particular product.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here's the picture-the industry 
        through various articles in muscle magazines touts the benefits and characteristics 
        of a whey protein ISOLATE and turns around and uses a CONCENTRATE. Tell 
        me, who's the wiser? The supplement companies, that's who, and they're 
        a whole lot richer to boot! Some manufacturers will put 98% WPC in their 
        product and then put in 1% of a hydrolyzed product (remember this tastes 
        horrible!) and 1% of an isolate. Then, they can legally claim all types 
        of stuff on their label-di and tri peptides, ion-exchange, blah, blah, 
        blah! Some of you guys are probably getting a little angry and are asking 
        what can be done. To start, read the ingredient list very carefully. Look 
        for the terms WPC, Isolate, Hydrolyzed, etc. Also, look at the nutritional 
        specs. A true, high quality protein will have just about zero fat and 
        carbohydrates per serving. If it has even one or 2 grams of fat or carbs 
        per serving then you know you may have been had with a WPC. (Editor's 
        note: Of course, you really do have to look at the label closely: If a 
        manufacturer has included fructose, a fairly expensive complex fruit sugar 
        that assists in absorption through the slow release of insulin, you'll 
        find some carbs). To make matters worse, experts in the field have told 
        me that they have first hand evidence of supplement companies totally 
        mislabeling their product. If you purchase a product through a retail 
        outlet then all I can say is GOOD LUCK!</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about the other available 
        proteins &#151; egg, casein, and soy? How do these compare? First, let 
        me state that all of the above proteins are decent if processed correctly. 
        Each will provide the body very efficiently with the protein that it &quot;needs&quot;. 
        Before you say it, I know your response-&quot;That's all wonderful, but 
        what is the best protein for me, a bodybuilder/weightlifter?&quot; If 
        you were to use any ONE protein source then I would have to say that it's 
        a toss up between a soy isolate and a whey ISOLATE. WPC provides a good 
        protein; however the accompanying fat and carbs is something you do not 
        want. If I had my choice, I would pick a soy isolate. A soy isolate is 
        VERY cheap, has the highest score on the PCDAAS, is very soluble if instantized, 
        is extremely bland (a good thing), IMPROVES kidney function (unlike any 
        other protein), is anticarcinogenic, is anti-estrogenic, lowers LDL (bad) 
        and raises HDL (good) cholesterol, IMPROVES THYROID FUNCTION, etc, etc-the 
        list goes on and on. I would definitely stay away from casein and egg-white. 
        Casein has been shown to have detrimental effects on a person's cholesterol 
        profile and egg-white protein tastes poorly, is expensive, and consists 
        of about 10% carbohydrates. I would have to say that the way to go is 
        a 50/50 mixture of a whey protein ISOLATE and a soy protein isolate. Both 
        of these proteins have certain characteristics that the other one doesn't. 
        By combining the 2, a product could be developed that was very moderately 
        priced with the highest PDCAAS score, with no carbs or fats, with a significant 
        amount of glutamine and BCAAs, with immune stimulating, naturally occurring 
        peptides, with anticarcinogenic properties, with anti-estrogenic qualities, 
        which improves kidney function, which stimulates thyroid function (significantly), 
        and which mixes instantly and tastes great. Tell me, how can this be beat? 
        Unfortunately, at this time, there is no such animal in the protein supplementation 
        market.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As a final note, please be 
        sure that any protein you purchase is instantized. This means that the 
        protein will mix easily into a liquid like milk without clumping and sitting 
        on top. Instantization is worth its weight in gold as it prevents one 
        from having to use a blender in order to dissolve the protein into the 
        liquid. Manufacturers/processors use 2 methods to instantize. One is agglomeration 
        which is the process of creating larger and more irregular shaped particles. 
        This will allow the liquid to &quot;penetrate&quot; the protein powder, 
        thus preventing clumping. The other method is to lecithinate the powder. 
        With this process, lecithin is sprayed onto the particles of protein. 
        Lecithin, being an outstanding emulsifier, will greatly decrease the surface 
        tension between the liquid and the protein, thus allowing the protein 
        to easily dissolve. The best products on the market are both agglomerated 
        and lecithinated.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't stress enough that 
        everyone NEEDS to read the nutritional specifications on the back of the 
        label. This is where you can decipher (hopefully, if it's truthful) if 
        the product is a WPC or an isolate. From what I have seen, whey isolates 
        will sell for $40.00 or more retail for a kilogram(about 2 pounds). I 
        truly believe that with all of the scamming going on right now in the 
        whey market, I would be inclined to purchase an instantized soy protein 
        isolate. Right now, soy protein is &quot;out&quot; with very few claims 
        about it. I believe, at this time, you have a better chance of getting 
        what you pay for with soy than with whey. Currently, Syntrax Innovations 
        carries the only totally instantized soy ISOLATE in the industry. It is 
        agglomerated and lecithinated, tastes great, and is naturally sweetened. 
        (You can contact this company by calling (888) 321-BFIT or go to their 
    website at www.syntrax.com).</font></p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp; </td>
  </tr>
  <tr> 
    <td bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Protein Mythology<br>
        An Interview with Scott Murdoch, Ph.D., R.D.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Scott Murdoch, Ph.D., R.D. 
        is professor of nutrition at Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, 
        a naturopathic physician training university, and a widely respected expert 
        in the field of applied athletic nutrition. In this interview, Dr. Murdoch 
        answers questions regarding protein utilization and maximization posed 
        by max Muscle editor Mike Falcon. Dr. Murdoch's responses represent a 
        consistent, strong, and rational voice for The Protein Bible, Book I.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MM: One of the precursors of 
        this interview was seeing Peter Lemon's research about recommended protein 
        intake (see Lemon interview, page 60). In looking over a variety of articles 
        in a number of journals, it seem to me that his work is often used and 
        applied selectively: Whatever the argument, Lemon's works would be bent 
        to accommodate the writer's beliefs...<br>
        Murdoch: He's one of the top researchers in the field.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">How Much Protein per Meal?</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MM: Which would explain why 
        someone would want to pull him into their theses. But I've seen a range 
        of figures &#151; both high and low &#151; that tax my imagination: Even 
        Lemon can't figure out where they come from, but the most interesting 
        is how much protein you can ingest at one sitting that can be assimilated. 
        I keep hearing ranges from 25 to 42 grams per meal. Lemon wasn't familiar 
        with the research, such as it may be, but guessed that it was based on 
        mathematical models, taking daily protein use &quot;backwards.&quot; Most 
        of the studies I've seen are in vitro (test tube, in aqueous solution) 
        studies. The variables that other researchers say make this a difficult 
        number to pin down include the various sizes of people, their ability 
        to produce the digestive enzymes, their own unique profiles, and whether 
        or not they attenuate or increase their ability to digest after exposure 
        to large amounts of protein over a period of time.<br>
        Murdoch: I've never actually even heard a recommendation about how much 
        protein a person can take in, in one sitting. We usually wrestle with 
        the broader question of how much protein a person should take in, in one 
        day, and then making the decision on how an athlete is going to get that 
        protein and what kind of meal scheduling or snack scheduling or supplement 
        snack scheduling, etc. It is so individualistic because of all the variables 
        that depend on so many different factors that it would be a long stretch 
        to even make a recommendation for a per-meal sitting as far as I'm concerned.<br>
        MM: Virtually all the studies I've seen have been in vitro (test tube, 
        aqueous solution), which makes this even a greater stretch.<br>
        Murdoch: There are in vivo (in the person) studies, but not a lot. There 
        are several ways to go about this. Your can do nitrogen balance studies, 
        isotope labeling of certain amino acids, and both are good ways of beginning 
        to answer the question. A lot of them have been done in animals and to 
        extrapolate them to human use have some limitations. But the thing that's 
        most difficult to categorize is the status of the individual. For example, 
        in a number of nutrients the rate of absorption depends on the individual's 
        state. In an extreme example, take iron absorption; it can increase 3 
        times or more its normal amount just by an individual being iron-deficient. 
        And protein is at least in that category, and even more variable.<br>
        MM: That analogy seems even more appropriate when we saw that it appears 
        that individuals who were not used to taking in large amounts of protein 
        were more effective in utilizing it.<br>
        Murdoch: There's another primary issue, which is to come to some agreement 
        about how much protein an elite bodybuilder should be taking in the first 
        place. And those amounts shouldn't necessarily be more than 1.8 grams 
        of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day. I think the consensus is 
        that here's a range for athletes of 1.2 to 1.8 grams per day (per kilogram 
        of bodyweight). So when you see an athlete taking in more than 2.5 or 
        even 3 grams per kilo you're talking about a group that's taking in much 
        more protein than they could ever synthesize as lean body tissue.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you have 2 questions going 
        on: 1) Is it all being absorbed or is some of it going out through the 
        stool; 2) If it is all being absorbed then I guarantee you the excess 
        is going out in the urine. So, what you have is a detrimental situation 
        for these athletes, because all that extra amino acid cannot be stores. 
        There are small pools that can be stored, but not large amounts. As a 
        result it's very toxic and they have to get rid of it. It's unlike any 
        of the other macro-nutrients; they have to get rid of that nitrogen waste 
        product. If they don't get rid of it they'll run into all kinds of problems 
        down the road. They'll stress their body's functioning capacity which 
        could be detrimental to their performance if there's an exercise component 
        to the outcome.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anabolic Steroids &amp; Protein 
        Assimilation</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MM: What about athletes who 
        have shortened their recovery times through androgens, prohormones, or 
        straight-out anabolic steroids?<br>
        Murdoch: If you take a look at the body of nitrogen balance studies &#151;and 
        granted the ones that have been done have not death with individuals who 
        have been in a completely anabolic state cause by anabolic steroids &#151; 
        those are often less than 1.8 grams. Your question's a good one: how much 
        more synthesis could occur? I would be surprised if it were significantly 
        more than 1.8.<br>
        MM: What are the caps on this process that would indicate that as the 
        maximum?<br>
        Murdoch: For me, there are 2 things. One is taking a look at the nitrogen 
        body studies of elite bodybuilders. Say there were 12 bodybuilders in 
        the study. How many were in positive nitrogen balance and how many were 
        in negative nitrogen balance, and you typically find that the majority 
        are in nitrogen balance with much less than 1.8. That's the first thing. 
        That range of 1.2 to 1.8 is the ends of the spectrum; in other words, 
        to use more than 1.8, there has to be something very unusual going on 
        in that individual. The second reason I say that, is that the physiologically 
        the amount of protein synthesis that can occur over that seems to be pushing 
        the physiological envelope. It seems very difficult, if not impossible, 
        to get protein synthesis to stay higher than 1.8 pg/k for a long period 
        of time. I'm not sure what the advantage would be, other than having some 
        sort of enormous anabolic jolt where the individual has to eventually 
        come back down to some form of homeostasis, and they won't be able to 
        maintain it.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Staving Off Catabolism</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MM: Peter Lemon said pretty 
        much the same thing: I think what happens, when bodybuilders take massive 
        amounts of protein, is that they're hoping &#151; as they do with many 
        of the things they ingest &#151; to stave off catabolism. They arise at 
        2 or 3 in the morning to take a protein shake.<br>
        Murdoch: The irony of that is that the best way to stave off catabolism 
        of their lean body tissue is to eat carbohydrate foods.<br>
        MM: But, of course as bodybuilders approach contest time, carb becomes 
        a 4-letter word. We're also seeing immune system compromises in bodybuilders 
        that seem to be pretty severe.<br>
        Murdoch: That makes sense to me too, Think of the body's systems that 
        are being stressed by that protein intake.<br>
        MM: What happens when excess protein is ingested?<br>
        Murdoch: Revisit with me how protein gets broken down. The cycle at first 
        creates ammonia; that's the nitrogenous waste product from the amino acids. 
        The protein gets broken down into the amino acids; the amino acids have 
        to get dealt with. They're either utilized or they have to be broken down 
        to nitrogenous groups that's turned into ammonia. Our bodies can't handle 
        ammonia so we have a cycle called a ureaic cycle, and it turns that ammonia 
        very quickly into urea, or urine that gets very quickly excreted. So if 
        you have a large amount of protein that's not being utilized then you 
        have a large amount of urea, which is itself toxic. So the body tries 
        to get rid of it, which causes a diuretic effect, which in many bodybuilders' 
        eyes is a desirable thing. They're losing water so they look tighter, 
        but they're losing electrolytes as well, and run the risk of having electrolyte 
        deficiencies, which can cause all sorts of problems. One of the most severe 
        would be arrhythmia in the heart. On top of that you're stressing the 
        liver, which is trying to deal with this nitrogenous waste group. The 
        liver is being taxed greatly, as are the kidneys.<br>
        MM (Wells): A lot of guys will put themselves into what they call depletion, 
        running down their carbs until where they're eating virtually nothing 
        but protein. Then , when they eat carbs again to cause a rebound effect 
        and cause the glycogen to load more fully. Some of these run 3 or 4 days, 
        which is considered safe, but others will go 3 or 4 weeks.<br>
        Murdoch: Let me couch that in an area I'm really comfortable with. You're 
        talking about glycogen super-compensation or glycogen loading. A lot of 
        endurance athletes used to do that. They'd do that until 3 days before 
        the event and then they'd ingest massive quantities of carbohydrates to 
        get that rebound or super-compensation of muscle glycogen levels, so they'd 
        be able to last longer in the event. What the research has shown nicely 
        from muscle biopsies and computer manipulation of that routine, is that 
        in order to get the muscle carbohydrate level very high they don't have 
        to go through the deletion phase. If they just managed to increase the 
        total amount of carbohydrate in their diet they can get muscle glycogen 
        concentrations up to the same levels as they were producing in the traditional 
        muscle glycogen loading techniques.<br>
        MM: Then the rebound effect is somewhat untrue.<br>
        Murdoch: Well, it's not really untrue. You will get more than if you didn't 
        either increase the amount of carbohydrates after the depletion phase, 
        or just increase the amount of carbohydrates above your normal amounts 
        anyway. It's not untrue that super-compensation does occur; it is, however, 
        untrue that it's the only way to do it. Another point I'd like to make 
        is that they found that individuals did this 4 or 5 times, the body got 
        &quot;wise&quot; to it. They found that athletes were not able to get 
        their glycogen levels as high as when they first did that. There is a 
        potential problem in that this type of very extreme cycling has made the 
        body a little bit more leery about super-compensating than just taking 
        in more carbohydrates and exercising. That only speaks to endurance, which 
        is a far different goal, however. It's a functional power outcome. They 
        can be very different goals.<br>
        MM: I've noticed, from my own experience, that when I go high protein 
        it seems like the bodyfat burns faster. Let's say you eat a giant T-bone 
        steak and you can only use 40 or so grams of protein, leaving you another 
        60 grams unused. But does that unused protein have any caloric value?<br>
        Murdoch: In order for your body to break those amino acids down, it actually 
        cleaves the other components that are energetic in there. Nitrogen doesn't 
        have any caloric value in and of itself. It's the carbons and the hydrogen 
        that do, and the process of creating ammonia in urea is really just a 
        process of removing the nitrogen. So you still have all the calories. 
        What you're doing is excreting the toxic portion of this molecule that's 
        been created; this nitrogenous group. I disagree with the individuals 
        who say I feel like I burn more fat. You may note that you have changes 
        going on, but I don't believe those changes are a burning of fat. I believe 
        those changes are misinterpreted, and that what you're losing is the diuretic 
        effect of eating a lot of protein. You lose something, because you feel 
        it, but what you're losing is not fat. In fact it's physiologically impossible 
        to determine any loss of adipose tissue in a 2-week period, because the 
        most you could lose under most circumstances would be 3000 to 4000 calories 
        worth of pure adipose tissue, which would be about a pound. But it's always 
        a mixture of other endogenous fuels.<br>
        MM: We know some guys, who as contest time come closer, the fats are nothing, 
        the carbs go down to nothing, and the protein goes up to 700 or 800 grams 
        a day. Their thinking goes something like this: if my body's going to 
        burn fuel, it'll be excess protein which takes more energy &#151; stored 
        fat &#151; to burn.<br>
        Murdoch: It's a mixed up point of view. The health cost is too high from 
        a health perspective, even if the people don't care about it in the short 
        term. If the greatest concern is metabolic catabolism, then carbohydrates 
        stave off the process, even in lower amounts of protein intake than we've 
        talked about. It's not understanding the relationship.<br>
        MM: Peter Lemon had a though, that staving off catabolism may not be wise, 
        because the body has a wisdom about it, and that this sort of tidal effect 
        may be the signal that starts the body to grow again.<br>
        Murdoch: Interesting view. But the funny thing is that when you're working 
        out hard in the gym you're in the gym they believe they're in a catabolic 
        state, breaking down tissue. There's such a focused examination of protein 
        that what would help more is to understand the relationship between carbohydrates, 
        fats and protein.<br>
        MM: What, then, should they understand and alter?<br>
        Murdoch: they should keep their protein intake to no higher than 1.8 grams 
        of protein per pound of bodyweight. And they should make sure they're 
        getting enough calories. Not just protein calories, but calories from 
        carbohydrates, if not fats. Carbohydrates are not all the same; some have 
        a high glycemic response and some low. The bodybuilder would want low 
        glycemic response, as from beans and lentils.<br>
        MM: But what about insulin manipulation, using very high glycemic index 
        foods and complex carbohydrates and get the body ti secrete large amounts 
        of insulin, to help protein utilization.<br>
        Murdoch: There's no question that insulin's anabolic in nature, and forces 
        fuel into the cells. It's true for glucose and it's true for other things 
        as well. Even protein causes the release of insulin. But there's a point 
        at which you don't need that. In exercise, you don't need the same amount 
        of insulin going through the blood in order to get the cells to pull in 
        the same amount of glucose. We look at runners who have been running and 
        we feed them a carbohydrate drink and they don't have an increase in insulin, 
        and yet the amount of glucose that goes into the cell is effected by and 
        generated by the need of the cell, not the mechanism of insulin. There 
        are 2 ways to look at it: insulin can either become more sensitive in 
        smaller amounts, or/and the cell is really triggering the increase of 
        glucose uptake. But you don't want that massive anabolic effect of insulin, 
        because you don't need it and it's desensitizing the normal relation that 
        goes on to deal with all the other metabolic processes that go ion in 
        the body. It's super-overkill.<br>
        MM: Let's revisit protein as an insulin releaser.<br>
        Murdoch: It depends on the food and the amounts. But what's interesting 
        is that it tends to create the release of glucagon, which has a little 
        more balanced release of these regulatory hormones,. Whereas foods that 
        are high glycemic in nature will cause a very large of release of insulin 
        and none of glucagon.<br>
        MM: What about that range of protein, from 1.2 to 1.8 pg/k?<br>
        Murdoch: Based on elite athletes at the top...<br>
        MM: What about when they should take this?<br>
        Murdoch: Different protein containing foods have different digestibility, 
        I mean the amount of the protein food that gets broken up and ultimately 
        absorbed.<br>
        MM: Does that have something to do with the BV rating?<br>
        Murdoch: There are a few different measures, but digestibility is a good 
        one. Most are 90% or above. Animal sources are pretty high, but there 
        are some plant sources that are high too. The debate is that if it's 90%, 
        is it really significant? I think it only become significant in people 
        who are starving. Those individuals are really looking for every extra 
        gram they get, but I don't think it's significant for individuals consuming 
        over 100 grams of protein a day. You're talking about the difference between 
        180 and 160 grams of protein, as an example.<br>
        MM: What's a safe assumption for breaking daily protein down into meals?<br>
        Murdoch: When it's all said and done, it doesn't make a lot of difference. 
        I know that's not what you want to hear, because your readers are looking 
        for an edge, even one or 2 percent. But the truth is you have such a high 
        rate of digestibility with the majority of proteins anyway; if, for example 
        I broke it into 5 different sittings than 3 meal sittings, am I going 
        to be extracting more protein out of there? You might or might not be; 
        let's say you get an additional 2 percent, because you've already got 
        an enormous digestibility percentage anyway, but what does that mean? 
        That means you have an additional 2 percent available to do something, 
        and the truth of the matter is that you're eating more protein in the 
        first place. It's kind of a different emphasis, because the emphasis now 
        is to cut down on protein and put in some foods and macro nutrients that 
    furnish the calories because they aren't so toxic. </font></p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr> 
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
  </tr>
  <tr> 
    <td bgcolor="#CCCCCC"> 
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Selecting Quality Whey Protein<br>
        It's Not Such A Mystery After All!<br>
        By: Don Schwartz, Schwartz Laboratories LLC</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What should you look for in 
        a quality whey protein drink? What is the difference between why and whey 
        protein concentrate? What is ion exchange? Ultrafiltration? Microfiltration? 
        Is it possible to get quality product at an economical price? What does 
        all the verbiage in advertisements mean? How do you find quality in a 
        marketplace overloaded with marketing tactics?</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These are just a few of the 
        questions about whey and whey products that I have been asked in the past 
        few weeks. The following information will answer these questions and, 
        hopefully, help you in your search for quality whey proteins.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's start from scratch. In 
        order to do that, we must first discuss the origin of whey, which is the 
        by-product of the cheese-making process. Cheese is made from milk and 
        is basically made up of protein, fat, and minerals. The cheese-making 
        process involves pasteurizing raw milk and placing it into a silo containing 
        bacteria or inoculate. The bacteria reacts with the milk causing it to 
        curdle. This product is then transported to special heating vats containing 
        heating elements and cutting knives. Inoculated milk is cooked, causing 
        hard curd to form. There are also other processes to making cheese fat-free.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whey comes from cheese plants 
        in a condensed, liquid form. If whey is not handled properly from the 
        cheese plant, protein denaturalization or bacteria problems may occur. 
        Some plants have been known to add sodium diacitate or other agents to 
        whey so they can be sold for a market price. If it were dried at this 
        pint, it would only average about 11% protein and 61% lactose. Drying 
        facilities need to perform full microbiological evaluations on liquid 
        whey to insure high quality. Buyer beware! If you are purchasing straight 
        whey and think you're saving big money, you're not. This &quot;economical&quot; 
        product is most likely low in protein and high in lactose.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After whey is shipped from 
        cheese plants to a drying facility, it is processed. Whey protein concentrate 
        is defined as product obtained by the removal or separation of water, 
        lactose and/or minerals from whey through a variety of available processes. 
        The most common processes include ultrafiltration, ion exchange, and microfiltration. 
        In describing these processes, a variety of terms are often used: Microfiltration 
        is a pressure driven membrane separation process using porous membranes 
        with cut off pore sizes in the regions of microns. To minimize the formation 
        of deposit layers, the fluid flow is erratic to the membrane, which is 
        generally termed as &quot;cross flow&quot; filtration. Ultrafiltration 
        is one of 4 main processes that use membranes to separate particles based 
        on pore size. The verbiage used in may ads contain terms like cross flow 
        and microfiltration. The main question is, do they indicate quality? The 
        answer is not necessarily yes. Read on!</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ultrafiltration is a separation 
        method that in which pressurized solution flows over a porous membrane. 
        Small molecules are permitted to pass throughout the membrane. Proteins 
        are retained by the membrane to form concentrated levels. Several years 
        ago, plants using ultrafiltration were processing one batch at a time. 
        Today the plants are using multiple stage ultrafiltration processes, utilizing 
        a re-circulation pump. This can relate to drying efficiencies after using 
        multiple stage ultrafiltration. The greater the number of stages, the 
        higher the solids. Some plants have up to 15 stages.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What do these processes mean 
        to body building protein supplements? There are many processes to create 
        whey protein concentrate, and as far as quality is concerned, there are 
        more factors revolving around the handling of the whey between cheese 
        plant and drying plant. If the drying plant is using quality whey and 
        updated equipment you will most likely be buying a quality product. Factors 
        that will equal poor quality are: 1. Improper handling; 2. Overheating 
        particles; 3. High bacteria equipment; 4. Additions to whey for stabilized 
        pH.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here are some basic buying 
        tips to use for your protein selections: </font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Don't be fooled by labeling. 
        The amino acid profile is important, as protein is made up of carbon, 
        hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Amino acids are the building blocks. Key 
        amino acids are important for muscle growth, such as lysine, methionine, 
        and glutamate. To determine if you are getting value, break down the label 
        as follows: take the serving size in ounces and divide it by the grams 
        of protein per serving. This will tell you the protein percentage of the 
        product. Cost should be determined by price per gram of protein, and/or 
        per gram of additives (such as creatine). Remember: When purchasing products 
        containing additives, make sure and determine if it is more economical 
        to purchase quality additives such as creatine in individual units. Does 
        the time and effort you save in adding your own creatine, for example, 
        offset the additional cost? If so, you should consider the savings. Always 
        make sure you are buying quality! You can purchase quality whey protein 
        at economical prices!!</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Good protein products do 
        not have to awful to be good. Whey protein concentrate in raw form has 
        a bland taste. There are natural ways to make it taste great.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Use products made by honest, 
        ethical companies who have the consumer's better interests as their motivation 
        to be in business.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would be difficult to find 
        a better source of protein than a high quality whey protein concentrate. 
        In my opinion, whey protein is the best source of protein for lean mass 
        gains. People with average builds are using whey protein concentrate to 
        make excellent gains. Use a quality product...make sure you are purchasing 
        whey protein concentrate.</font></p>
    <p></p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr> 
    <td> 
      <p>&nbsp;</p>    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr> 
    <td bgcolor="#CCCCCC"> 
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everything You Wanted To Know 
        About Protein But Were Afraid to Ask<br>
      by Dr. Lester L. Lee</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dr. Lester L. Lee, Pharm D., 
        M.D., and a Diplomate of the American Board of Sports medicine and, is 
        a monthly contributor to Max Muscle. As a medical advisor to the U.S. 
        Olympic Committee, and a member of their testing procedures team, he is 
        at the forefront of sports medicine and regularly treats and advises world-class 
        athletes, from bodybuilding to volleyball. He is a principal in Arista 
        Medical in Huntington Beach, California.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #1: I've heard that 
        your stomach should be empty before you eat again so that digestive enzymes 
        have a full change to replenish. Is that true? How does protein actually 
        get digested and turn into muscle? In answer to the first part of question 
        #1 &#151; not true. In answer to the second part of your question, a bit 
        of discussion on protein and amino acids is in order. Amino acids are 
        the chemical units or &quot;building blocks&quot; that make up proteins. 
        Proteins are a necessary part of every living cell in the body. The enzymes 
        and hormones that catalyze and regulate all bodily processes are proteins. 
        Proteins help to regulate the body water balance and maintain a proper 
        internal pH. Proteins are chained amino acids linked together by what 
        are called peptide bonds. Each individual type of protein is composed 
        of a specific group of amino acids in a specific chemical arrangement. 
        It is the particular amino acids present and the way in which they are 
        linked together in sequence that gives the proteins that make up the various 
        tissues their unique functions and characters.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The proteins that make up the 
        human body are not obtained directly from the diet. Rather, dietary protein 
        is broken down into its constituent amino acids, which the body then uses 
        to build the specific protein that it needs. Thus, it is the amino acids 
        rather than protein that are the essential nutrients. Processes of assembling 
        amino acids to make proteins, and breaking down proteins into individual 
        amino acids for the body to use, are continuous ones. When we need more 
        enzyme proteins, the body produces more enzyme proteins; when we need 
        more cells, the body produces more proteins for cells. These different 
        types of proteins are produced as the need arises.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are approximately 28 
        commonly known amino acids that are combined in various ways to create 
        the hundreds of different types of proteins present in all living things. 
        In the human body, the liver produces about 80% of the amino acids needed. 
        The remaining 20% must be obtained from the diet. These are called the 
        &quot;essential amino acids.&quot; The nonessential amino acids can be 
        manufactured in the body from other amino acids obtained from dietary 
        sources. The fact that they are termed &quot;nonessential&quot; does not 
        mean they are not necessary, only that they need not be obtained through 
        diet because the body can manufacture them as needed. Proteins are digested 
        by multiple enzymes in the intestine and are converted to muscle tissue 
        by process that will be discussed in the following question.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #2: Does taking testosterone 
        boosters make more protein get absorbed?Consuming testosterone enhancers 
        or boosters does not actually enhance the absorption of protein. Testosterone 
        is the primary sex hormone found in men. It is produced primarily by the 
        testes and controls a great number of metabolic functions. It is an androgen, 
        which stimulates growth and tissues in which it acts, one of them being 
        muscle. Testosterone has anabolic and androgenic affects. The anabolic 
        effects are isolated to be the ones which affect muscle tissue directly.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The steroid testosterone exists 
        as a molecule being carried through the entire body via the blood stream. 
        The steroid molecules exist in the blood along with countless others, 
        all of them have a message to deliver. Each message is meant to be delivered 
        to specific areas. These areas have receptor sites for that certain molecule. 
        Sites that get a message from a steroid molecule include: Skeletal muscles 
        cells, hair follicles, sebaceous glands, certain areas of the brain, and 
        certain endocrine glands. In other words, these areas have an affinity 
        for the steroid molecule. Once a receptor steroid complex is formed, it 
        travels to the center of the cell or the nucleus. It then binds to nuclear 
        DNA, (the deoxyribonucleic acid) and the process of transcription is amplified. 
        As a result of this process, messenger RNA (ribonucleic acid) that has 
        been formed, leaves the nucleus and binds to RNA in the cytoplasm of the 
        cell and transcription of messenger RNA takes place, allowing for protein 
        synthesis to occur. This increase in protein synthesis provides protein 
        molecules which are then used to increase the size and strength of a skeletal 
        muscle cell. The skeletal muscle now exists in an enhanced state, above 
        its maintenance level. To maintain its condition, pure stimulation (resistance 
        training) of the muscles similar to that which originally allowed the 
        muscle to grow is required.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The cycle of protein in the 
        body is constantly revolving. The amount of protein synthesized is roughly 
        equal to the amount broken down which creates the metabolic process of 
        renewing old tissue. Enhanced/elevated levels of testosterone override 
        this principal and make it possible for the muscle to exist in an enhanced 
        state for prolonged periods of time.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Another process that occurs 
        with elevated levels of testosterone is its influence on muscle cells, 
        and that is of increased nitrogen retention of the muscle. Nitrogen is 
        a component of protein. When more nitrogen is being held than released 
        by the muscle, it is then a positive nitrogen balance state. This condition 
        is synonymous with enhanced muscle growth. This retention of nitrogen 
        is actually a sign that muscle tissue is being deposited.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #3: I know that some 
        bodybuilders eat late at night, but they take only protein powder and 
        water. Sometimes they even get up in the middle of the night to eat protein. 
        What are the reasons for this? The harder and more intensely you train, 
        the more important dietary protein becomes to maximize the muscle/building 
        process. For the intense bodybuilder/weight lifter, I recommend a protein 
        intake of 2 grams per kilogram of quality protein per day. In other words, 
        if you weigh 220 pounds (100 kilograms) your protein needs would be upwards 
        of 200 grams of protein per day, in 5 or 6 divided doses.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In addition to providing muscles 
        with the important amino acids for growth, protein also has a significant 
        effect on insulin stability and energy levels. If you consume protein 
        with each meal, your body sugar level will fluctuate far less. Not only 
        does this factor aid in controlling your appetite, it also provides a 
        consistent environment for greater fat loss. It is a well documented fact 
        that consuming diets too high in carbohydrates causes blood sugar levels 
        to constantly fluctuate. Part of this has to do with the fact that there 
        are certain amino acids and protein in carbohydrate foods that act as 
        &quot;mood altering&quot; neurotransmitters, specifically tryptophan and 
        tyrosine.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is extremely impractical 
        to consume large quantities of protein from whole-food sources for a multitude 
        of reasons (guess them). In order to consume 200 or more grams of whole-food 
        protein a day, one would have to be consuming large quantities of meat 
        hourly. Not only is this impractical and inconvenient, it would also churn 
        your stomach. Also, to consume that great proportion of meat would produce 
        a significant amount of residue in your colon (i.e. poop). On a gram-per-gram 
        basis, protein powders are far less expensive than meat.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not having an abundant supply 
        of all of the important amino acids during the post-workout recovery period 
        could cripple ones body ability to recover and grow. A good time to have 
        a protein supplement is late in the evening. Consuming a late night or 
        early morning protein drink significantly improves protein metabolism 
        and aides in preventing the protein breakdown that occurs naturally while 
        you sleep. Scientific evidence supports the fact that maintaining high 
        levels of branch chain amino acids (as found in whey protein) in the bloodstream 
        actually prevents a large percentage of typical overnight protein breakdown 
        (catabolism). This cycle of feeding (during the daytime) and fasting (at 
        night while one slumbers) results in gains and losses of body protein. 
        For bodybuilders, this natural building up and taking down process is 
        counterproductive to muscle development. For the &quot;compulsive&quot; 
        bodybuilder, consuming protein before you sleep, as soon as you wake up, 
        and even in the middle of night is a possible mechanism of retarding protein 
        wasting.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When taking amino acids individually 
        for healing purposes, take them on an empty stomach to avoid making them 
        compete for absorption with amino acids present in foods. When taking 
        individual amino acids, it is best to take them in the morning or between 
        meals, with small amounts of vitamin B6 and vitamin C to enhance absorption. 
        When taking an amino acid complex that includes all of the essential amino 
        acids, it is best to take it one-half hour away from a meal, either before 
        or after.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #4: I'm a vegetarian 
        and I keep on seeing all sorts of information about amino acids balancing. 
        Do I want to take into a combination of vegetable protein sources to create 
        some sort of balance? Is the goal the same balance of amino acids we have 
        in our muscles? Vegetarians, especially vegans, would be wise to take 
        a form containing all of the essential acids to ensure that their protein 
        requirements are met. Current research supports the notion that by eating 
        a variety of legumes (nuts), as well as all other food groups throughout 
        the day, one can obtain the full array of essential amino acids required 
        for efficient protein metabolism.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A complete protein provides 
        the proper balance of all 8 essential amino acids that build tissue and 
        are found in foods of animal origin such as cheese, poultry, meat, eggs 
        and seafood. Incomplete protein lacks one or more of the essential amino 
        acids; foods such as seeds, nuts, grains, beans and some vegetables are 
        in this category.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Soybeans, however, do contain 
        all of the essential amino acids and are recognized as a complete protein. 
        There are some advantages and disadvantages with soybeans as your source 
        of protein. They have a significant amount of fat, though it is mostly 
        unsaturated. Soybeans, are a good source of omega-3 fatty acids which 
        have been shown to help reduce breast cancer and prostate cancer as well 
        as being a good source of fiber. The disadvantages arise when comparing 
        the biological value of protein sources. Not all proteins are created 
        equal. Scientists measure the quality of a protein by subtracting the 
        amount of protein lost in urine and feces from the amount consumed. The 
        remainder of the protein is retained by the body and then can be used 
        for muscle and connective tissue development, enzyme formation, and nutrient 
        storage among other purposes. This measurement is described as the biological 
        value of the protein. When this form of measurement first began, the whole 
        egg was at the top of the chart with a value of 100, thus, all other proteins 
        fell below this core. With the present day technology of high quality 
        whey protein such as Max Whey protein, scores over the 100 mark have been 
        achieved. So vegetarians need to consume a wide variety of vegetable and 
        whole grain sources to complete all of the essential amino acid requirements.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #5: Nobody seems to 
        be drinking milk anymore at my gym. Not even skim milk. Isn't non-fat 
        milk one of the best protein sources? Why don't guys at my gym want to 
        drink milk? Milk (lactose) is very difficult to digest. For those individuals 
        who lack the enzyme lactase, milk and milk by-products can lead to gastrointestinal 
        disturbances such as flatulence, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. With the 
        wide array of quality proteins now on the market, it is much simpler to 
        consume a higher quality protein that is easier on the digestive system. 
        Also, as previously noted on the biological value of protein chart, cows 
        milk has an BV value of 91 and casein only has a BV value of 77. With 
        the present day technology of high quality whey protein and protein isolate 
        blends, it is much more convenient if not efficient to consume a protein 
        drink.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #6: I want to take 
        in a lot more protein than I have been, but I can't eat 6 meals a day 
        because of my work schedule. Can I eat larger meals and take digestive 
        enzymes instead? Please refer to my discussion in question #3.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #7: Is there any advantage 
        to animal-based proteins like whey or egg over vegetable- based proteins 
        like soy and wheat? Please refer to my discussion to question #4 above. 
        As I mentioned previously, vegetarians need to consume a wide variety 
        of all vegetable and whole grain sources to complete their essential amino 
        acid requirements. For example, if an athlete chooses a complete protein 
        of soy products, taking into the consideration of a biological values 
        of only 74 or only 54 in the case of wheat, the athlete must consume a 
        far greater amount of vegetable protein to equal the benefits of animal 
        protein. The unfortunate consequence of this diet, is the athlete now 
        runs into the problem of too much starchy carbohydrates and fat in the 
        diet. This leads to too much bulk and residue produced in the digestive 
        system.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #8: Do women absorb 
        or use protein differently than men? Do they need the same amount of protein 
        as men do? Male and female athletes utilize and absorb protein in a similar 
        fashion. The efficiency of protein as an &quot;anabolic agent&quot; is 
        determined by testosterone, either endogenously (produce your own) or 
        pharmacologically enhanced. This question was partially answered as in 
        my discussion in question #2 above. Building muscle requires a vigorous 
        strength training program. It takes tremendous energy to feed this type 
        of exercise. A high-carbohydrate diet allows for the greatest recovery 
        of muscle glycogen stored on a daily basis, enabling the muscles to work 
        equally hard on successive days. Furthermore, studies done with strength-trained 
        athletes such as wrestlers and power lifters have shown that subjects 
        who consume a hypo energetic high-carbohydrate diet are better able to 
        maintain exercise performance than athletes consuming hypo energetic moderate-carbohydrate 
        diet.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Many athletes assume that protein 
        is the most important nutrient for accrual of muscle mass; however, we 
        often lose site that the best way to accumulate protein is to simply increase 
        energy intake (carbohydrates). For any given protein intake, increasing 
        total energy intake will improve nitrogen retention. When energy is performed, 
        the improvement in nitrogen retention is accomplished by increasing energy 
        intake is magnified. Conversely, if energy is not supplied in adequate 
        amounts, the protein consumed will be used as an energy source, and not 
        as a means of increasing muscle mass. Energy and protein intake interact 
        such that protein needs are greater when energy intake is reduced.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do women need the same amount 
        of protein as men do? This depends on the woman's physical or metabolic 
        needs. If individuals who have higher protein needs because they are growing, 
        e.g., children, adolescence, and/or women who are pregnant; or those whose 
        diets may be inadequate, e.g., dieters, vegetarians and/or the elderly, 
        begin a regular exercise program, an even greater intake of protein may 
        be necessary.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #9: I'm 50 years old 
        but still workout regularly. Do I have different protein needs than younger 
        men? If so, how do they differ? Assuming that there is no compromise to 
        either the kidney or liver systems of either work out groups, protein 
        requirements for athletes in both age groups if they are working out intensively 
        is the same.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Question #10: Can I use protein 
        for energy? What happens if I cut my fats and carbs to nothing. In response 
        to the first part of the question, why would you want to? Not only would 
        utilizing protein as a sole source of energy contribute to muscle wasting, 
        but also would place you into a ketotic state (acidosis). If I were to 
        ask a number of world experts in the area of exercise physiology what 
        the single most important nutritional factor affecting muscle gain would 
        be? The answer: Total dietary energy, specifically carbohydrate energy 
        (i.e., Carbomax). As I discussed in question #8 above, it takes a tremendous 
        amount of energy to fuel muscle growth. A high-carbohydrate diet allows 
        for the greatest recovery of muscle glycogen stored on a daily basis. 
        The best way to accumulate protein is to simply increase energy intake. 
        Again, for any given protein intake, increasing total energy intake will 
        improve significantly nitrogen retention. If energy is not supplied in 
        adequate amounts, the protein consumed will be used as an energy source, 
        and not as a means of increasing muscle mass. Branch chain amino acids 
        (valine, leucine, isoleucine) are used directly for fuel by muscles, and 
        that may spare other amino acids from being catabolized. However, this 
        is not an effective nor efficient way of utilizing branch chain amino 
        acids.</font></p>
      <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Significantly decreasing fats 
        and carbohydrates in diet have traditionally been utilized by bodybuilders 
        before a contest. This aids in obtaining the hard &quot;cut&quot; look, 
        since fats and carbohydrates tend to be hygroscopic (water retaining); 
        however, this diet approach is only performed a short time prior to the 
        contest. </font></p>
      <p align="center" class="style25"><a href="nutrition.html">More Nutritional Information </a></p>
      <p align="center" class="style25"><a href="Best_Protein_Powder_For_Building_Muscle.html">The Best Protein Powder for Building Muscle</a></p></td>
  </tr>
</table>
<div align="center">
  <p class="style24"><a href="index.html" class="style25">TheTrainingStationInc.com</a></p>
  <p>
    <!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
    <script type="text/javascript">
var sc_project=421723; 
var sc_invisible=1; 
var sc_security=""; 
    </script>
    <script type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js"></script>
    <noscript>
    <a title="tumblr visitor stats"
href="http://statcounter.com/tumblr/" target="_blank"><img
class="statcounter"
src="http://c.statcounter.com/421723/0//1/" alt="tumblr
visitor stats" ></a>
    </noscript>
    <!-- End of StatCounter Code -->
  </p>
</div></body>
</html>
