Holy shit, look what I found on MSN!

[Grizzly]

http://articles.health.msn.com/id/100101230

This article actually makes sense. I'm friggin' amazed!

[Bob Smith]

Wow is right, thats actually a good article.

[Madcow2]

OMG! Common sense is actually going mainstream. Down with voodoo training.

[Grizzly]

I only read it with the intention of picking it apart and, lo and behold, the article was good. I'm still reeling in amazement.

[Blue09]

What are your thoughts on #2? I had a bloody tampon-fest with some guys over at (I believe) Anabolic Research over that. They actually said that this whole article was crap, ESPECIALLY #2. I felt that they were correct, you're body can only use so much of ANYTHING, the rest is waste and/or can become harmful to the body. They were saying you should get 2g per bodyweight, 1.5 at the VERY LEAST....they used professional bodybuilders as their source of information.....

[Grizzly]

I'll tell you the answer before old Bobby Smith can get to it. According to the most up to date and reliable scientific research, .9 to 1.25 grams/lb of bodyweight is more than sufficient.

[CyniQ]

When I read #4. I thought, "What? stretching?? But then I read #5. Ahhhh.

Weak as kittens... LOL. I love that phrase.

[Bob Smith]

Originally Posted by Blue09

What are your thoughts on #2? I had a bloody tampon-fest with some guys over at (I believe) Anabolic Research over that. They actually said that this whole article was crap, ESPECIALLY #2. I felt that they were correct, you're body can only use so much of ANYTHING, the rest is waste and/or can become harmful to the body. They were saying you should get 2g per bodyweight, 1.5 at the VERY LEAST....they used professional bodybuilders as their source of information.....

Morons with no clue.

# 1 - slow training has been PROVEN to be useless for muscular growth (and safety).

# 2 - More protein doesnt equal more muscle. More calories equals more muscle. And Grizz correctly stated what the research shows. Athletes dont need more than ~1.25g/lb.

# 3 - The only study that shows squats are bad goes all the way back to the 60s I believe it was. And it was a terribly designed study. More recent, and better designed, studies show that squats are safe for knees. Squats are more frequently used now in rehab than leg extensions are. Extensions are bad for knee health.

# 4 - Another garbage idea that BBers love to believe in. BBers still get their training information from the 1960s when training a bodypart once a week was considered the best. That has long since been shot to hell, but only BBers didnt read the memo. More frequent lifting (keeping same weekly volume) equals better results. And unless the soreness is because of injury and not from a little workout stress, you can certainly lift while mildly sore.

# 5 - Again, show in numerous studies that stretching does not prevent injuries. So unless you are a gymnast, you have no reason to stretch enough to be able to do splits or to put your feet behind your head. Stretch as much as is required to get your range of motion and then stop. Excessive stretching can actually weaken the joint and allow for too much bending when under pressure.

# 6 - I think swiss balls are crap and are simply another infomercial gimmick. The whole "lift in an unstable environment" has been grossly overdone and taken to extremes that are not beneficial.

# 7 - I dont necessarily think that free weights should be used exclusively, but I think about 90%+ of a persons workout should be free weights. EMG research shows more muscle activity with free weights than with machines.

[CyniQ]

Did you guys notice that in #7 they quote "Greg Haff, Ph.D., director of the strength research laboratory at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas."???

Did I mention that I'm from Texas?? What country are you from??

[Grizzly]

The name of that university pisses me off. It confuses me every time. I keep thinking it's in Iowa or Kansas or somewhere in the Midwest, but it's in Texas. It's craziness I tell you.

[PDP]

Originally Posted by Blue09

What are your thoughts on #2? I had a bloody tampon-fest with some guys over at (I believe) Anabolic Research over that. They actually said that this whole article was crap, ESPECIALLY #2. I felt that they were correct, you're body can only use so much of ANYTHING, the rest is waste and/or can become harmful to the body. They were saying you should get 2g per bodyweight, 1.5 at the VERY LEAST....they used professional bodybuilders as their source of information.....

The amount of protein required for maximal hypertrophy in individuals using AAS may differ from "regular" individuals.

The research on maximal protein intake is more annecdotal when AAS use is invloved.

A few years ago I wrote a brief post on protein intake that I think was also posted on this board. Here is a portion of it:

************************************************** **

There is an ongoing debate amongst scientists as to the correct amount of protein required to maintain and produce a positive nitrogen balance in the body. Of course it is believed that a positive nitrogen balance will aid the body in the process of accruing lean mass, something as bodybuilders we are hoping to achieve.

The literature on this subject shows a wide variance in the amount empirically shown to maintain and place a subject in a nitrogen surplus. The lower bound for protein intake by “regular” athletes required to maintain nitrogen balance has been shown to be the RDA of 0.8g/kg/day (Pivarnik et al.) Other studies have seemingly confirmed this lower bound for maintenance (i.e. Tarnopolsky et al. at 0.9g/kg/day.) When the studies examined athletes engaged in strength/power sports such as weightlifting the research tends to show that a balance of nitrogen can be maintained in the range of 1.3 to 1.62g/kg/day (Laritcheva et al, Consolazio et al, Fern et al, Whalberg et al, Campbell et al.) The real discrepancy seems to occur when studies are compared that postulate the levels of protein required to place the body in a state of nitrogen surplus thought to be necessary (i.e. as close to optimal as can be surmised,) for muscular hypertrophy. These studies show a range of 1.3 to 3.5g/kg/day (Laritcheva et al, Consolazio et al, Fern et al, Whalberg et al, Campbell et al, Lemon et al, Dragan et al, Maesta et al.) This translates to anywhere from approximately 130g to 280g a day for a 200lb. subject! (Of course this is assuming good bio-availability of protein, adequate caloric intake etc.)

If one considers the more extreme postulations then one would expect that muscular hypertrophy could be aided significantly by the intake of around 1.5g of protein per pound of bodyweight. This fits reasonably well with the anecdotal evidence forwarded by many bodybuilders that 300g of protein daily for a 200lb lifter is sufficient.

This, however, leads into another problem. If you are like most athletes the quest to obtain the so-called requisite amount of protein everyday can sometimes be a chore. It is generally accepted that the best way to do this is to spread ones protein intake (and for that matter caloric intake) throughout the day into approximately 6 smaller meals. Many readers may quickly do the math and see that larger athletes will require the intake of 60g (or more) of protein per meal to meet their daily protein needs. This quantity of protein ingested at each meal seems to fly in the face of another generally accepted belief, that only approximately 30g of protein can be absorbed in any one sitting. This view is characterized by the following quotation found at a popular “fitness” website:

“The body can only digest approximately 30gm of protein per meal. This limit is because most food protein sources consist of very long chain proteins. It takes your body time and vast amounts of digestive enzymes to break them down. Your body does not have a limitless supply of these digestive juices, so when they run out so does your protein absorption.”

Many authors, doctors and scientists share this view. For example, almost all of the recent “Protein diet” books that have flooded the market make this claim (or a variant of it.) As one can see, if this rule of thumb if believed, it would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for a larger athlete to obtain the requisite daily intake of protein thought to be necessary for adequate muscular hypertrophy. In contrast to this view there have been others who have argued that there exists no verified limit on protein absorption. One such author is Brad Schoenfeld, CSCS, he states the following:

“There is a prevailing belief that the body can only process 30 grams of protein at a sitting. I can't even begin to count the number of times that I've heard this "30 gram rule" cited by so-called fitness experts. The fact is, however, there's simply no science to back up the claim. To understand why, a little physiology is in order.

The digestion of protein takes place in the small intestine and is facilitated by various "enzymes" and "transporters". Protein is broken down into its constituent components, the amino acids, which are then taken up by the intestinal cells (called enterocytes). Enzymes speed up the breakdown and assimilation of protein, and transporters assist the amino acids in their passage through the intestinal cells and into the bloodstream. Both enzymes and transporters are very sensitive to the presence of amino acids. When protein intake is increased, the body increases the amount of protein enzymes and transporters in the intestines to accommodate increased protein consumption. Hence, increased protein consumption is met by increased protein absorption.”

In conclusion it can be argued that approximately 1.5g/lb of protein is required for adequate muscular hypertrophy. This amount of protein should be consumed in approximately 6 meals over the course of the day. The argument that only 30g of protein can be absorbed per sitting has limited empirical support and is not consistent with the anecdotal evidence suggested by many successful bodybuilders.

[johnsmith182]

Dr. Lon Kilgore is the director of the strength lab at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls.

Dr. Haff is not, was not involved in the strength program at all when he was there, and is not employed there anymore.

MWSU has one of the top, maybe the top, applied research facilities and staff in the US. Dr. Kilgore should get all the credit for that.

[CyniQ]

Originally Posted by johnsmith182

Dr. Lon Kilgore is the director of the strength lab at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls.

Dr. Haff is not, was not involved in the strength program at all when he was there, and is not employed there anymore.

MWSU has one of the top, maybe the top, applied research facilities and staff in the US. Dr. Kilgore should get all the credit for that.

That's interesting. What a freakin hack. Can't believe everything you read, huh?