Are protein shakes worth it?

[jbhasban]

Creatine will hit its peak level, it won't stagnate. There is no reason to go off creatine for a while unless you for some reason want to lose the benefits that it gives.

L-arginine is the most useless supplement ever. Its all placebo and there is no study to suggest otherwise.



Just to be correct, your body breaks down muscle tissue all of the time.

Just to be completely correct, L-arginine is a good vasodilator. A lot of people take it for erectile dysfunction. It has less side effects than viagra but requires you to be taking it much more often than viagra. As for being effective as a workout supplement, yeah, it has no benefit.

[Deleted]

Just to be completely correct, L-arginine is a good vasodilator. A lot of people take it for erectile dysfunction. It has less side effects than viagra but requires you to be taking it much more often than viagra. As for being effective as a workout supplement, yeah, it has no benefit.

Sorry, should have been more clear. Yes, L-arginine has its uses. It does not however when used as a sports supplement.

[Seani]

If your focus is loosing weight, I would not worry as much about protein shakes. Protein shakes are typically whey protein that is required for muscle mass and bulk. The idea of replacing Carbohydrate intake with protein consumption is useful only because your replacing a substance (Carbs) that is naturally easy to digest and create energy from, with one that is harder to digest (protein).

[Bonkura]

Creatine will hit its peak level, it won't stagnate. There is no reason to go off creatine for a while unless you for some reason want to lose the benefits that it gives.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12701809

"Recent findings in healthy humans indicate that the beneficial effect on muscle function and muscle total creatine content may disappear when creatine is continuously ingested for more than two or three months."

I'll try dig for some studies regarding L-arginine (AAKG) while your off creatine.

[jbhasban]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12701809

"Recent findings in healthy humans indicate that the beneficial effect on muscle function and muscle total creatine content may disappear when creatine is continuously ingested for more than two or three months."

I'll try dig for some studies regarding L-arginine (AAKG) while your off creatine.

I love findings that are both old and completely inconclusive. "May" and from 2003. Anyways, no study has definitively indicated whether creatine should be cycled or not. I personally do not take creatine because I am a non responder.

[Bonkura]

I love findings that are both old and completely inconclusive. "May" and from 2003. Anyways, no study has definitively indicated whether creatine should be cycled or not. I personally do not take creatine because I am a non responder.

I love people being subjective about shit that isn't subjective.

[jbhasban]

I love people being subjective about shit that isn't subjective.

I have naturally high creatine (and creatinine) levels. My doctors were worried about it for awhile and thought I may have some renal failure (further tests showed this not to be true). There is only so much creatine your body can utilize.

[Bonkura]

I have naturally high creatine (and creatinine) levels. My doctors were worried about it for awhile and thought I may have some renal failure (further tests showed this not to be true). There is only so much creatine your body can utilize.

Wasn't referring to that but you subjectively dismissing my source just because you think it's old and thus not reliable, instead of just providing more recent studies or anything at all to prove me wrong.

[jbhasban]

Wasn't referring to that but you subjectively dismissing my source just because you think it's old and thus not reliable, instead of just providing more recent studies or anything at all to prove me wrong.

The mere fact that it is old isn't what makes it not credible. The fact that the study is 10 years old and the fact that I cannot find a study that confirms its results through repetition tends to suggest that the study is not credible. That and the study, on its face, states that it is a preliminary result.

I do not need to find contravening studies. The lack of studies confirming the results is sufficient. If the study were from 2011 or so, I would consider its results more credible.

[Bonkura]

The mere fact that it is old isn't what makes it not credible. The fact that the study is 10 years old and the fact that I cannot find a study that confirms its results through repetition tends to suggest that the study is not credible. That and the study, on its face, states that it is a preliminary result.

I do not need to find contravening studies. The lack of studies confirming the results is sufficient.

That was just one freaking link. Have you honestly combed through the entire internet to make sure there is no other sources claiming this? If not, bring your subjectivism elsewhere because you're not proving shit with it and just end up being annoying.

[Deleted]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12701809

"Recent findings in healthy humans indicate that the beneficial effect on muscle function and muscle total creatine content may disappear when creatine is continuously ingested for more than two or three months."

I'll try dig for some studies regarding L-arginine (AAKG) while your off creatine.

I don't see this study being viable to claim anything other than supplementing with creatine for prolonged period will not always peak your creatine levels. As this study isn't freely available I can't comment on how they reached their conclusion. But there are several long-term creatine studies available (10weeks-5years) that creatine levels stay elevated throughout the period supplementing. Abstracts aren't always useful and can often deceive, unless you find some conclusive information i still call BS on this.

Btw just to my previous post. If you really want to cycle, a few weeks will not cut it. You need atleast a month to reach baseline.

Good luck finding anything about L-Arginine as a useful sports supplement. A fast google search show over 10 studies which all have the same result, L-Arginine have no effect on either trained or untrained individuals.

[Deleted]

Just to be correct, your body breaks down muscle tissue all of the time.

Of course but that's nitpicking and confusing someone who doesn't understand what that means.

To put it another way then: Not eating for six hours won't make you lose muscle mass as long as your daily intake is on target.

[gamingmuscle]

Yeah, I'd be careful with protein. Most of them are laced with chemicals that are harmful to the body. As a former bodybuilder and former supplement whore, stay away from it. Most of it is toxic and it's best to just eat natural. Heck it's best to just eat like a vegetarian. It's still your life though. If you wanna trade 3 years of looking big and buff (which most girls laugh about anyway) for a lifetime of irreversible internal damage, go for it. YOLO.

Nevermind...I have heard about this...and forgotten.

[Neazy]

Of course but that's nitpicking and confusing someone who doesn't understand what that means.

To put it another way then: Not eating for six hours won't make you lose muscle mass as long as your daily intake is on target.

My understanding is that eating smaller meals every 2-4 hours keeps your body in an anabolic state where it builds more muscle. So while not eating for 6 hours won't make you lose any muscle, you would gain more muscle if you ate more frequently.

[jbhasban]

My understanding is that eating smaller meals every 2-4 hours keeps your body in an anabolic state where it builds more muscle. So while not eating for 6 hours won't make you lose any muscle, you would gain more muscle if you ate more frequently.

There is no direct evidence of this. This idea stems from experiments that measure serum amino acid levels and not on experiments that measure muscle growth. The idea is that having higher amino acid levels throughout the day will keep your body in an anabolic state while having bursts of amino acid levels will not provide for optimal growth. In the first, such logic, while completely possible, is an assumption. It is equally logical to believe that your body will build even more muscle during the bursts. However, I think most of your muscular repair happens when you are asleep and so it makes very little difference, if any, how often you eat for muscle growth purposes.

[Deleted]

My understanding is that eating smaller meals every 2-4 hours keeps your body in an anabolic state where it builds more muscle. So while not eating for 6 hours won't make you lose any muscle, you would gain more muscle if you ate more frequently.

This is a myth which stems from a true observation. The thing is, which is an important distinction to make is the difference between full body protein synthesis and skelatal muscle protein synthesis (ie Sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy). While these two processes are pretty much linked together, the end result can be quite different.

Skeletal muscle protein synthesis happens to only accounts for a tiny percentage of the entire muscle protein synthesis, and therefor doesn't require huge amounts of available amino acids throughout the day, it can make due with very little. Now before someone goes saying "Oh but you need x grams per kg bodyweight a day", that is entirely true. But most of those protein is used for whole-body protein synthesis, which is more about keeping your organs healthy than building muscle, only when your in excess does the amino acids gets to build muscle. But being at excess at some points during the day is enough to keep your skeletal muscle protein synthesis going.

---------- Post added 2013-03-06 at 09:34 PM ----------

Yeah, I'd be careful with protein. Most of them are laced with chemicals that are harmful to the body. As a former bodybuilder and former supplement whore, stay away from it. Most of it is toxic and it's best to just eat natural. Heck it's best to just eat like a vegetarian. It's still your life though. If you wanna trade 3 years of looking big and buff (which most girls laugh about anyway) for a lifetime of irreversible internal damage, go for it. YOLO.

Lol, name some known protein brands which contain any dangerous chemical. Any soda, candy or alot of packaged foods, heck even non-organic vegetables most likely contain more dangerous chemicals than you would find in a Whey product.

[Neazy]

There is no direct evidence of this. This idea stems from experiments that measure serum amino acid levels and not on experiments that measure muscle growth. The idea is that having higher amino acid levels throughout the day will keep your body in an anabolic state while having bursts of amino acid levels will not provide for optimal growth. In the first, such logic, while completely possible, is an assumption. It is equally logical to believe that your body will build even more muscle during the bursts. However, I think most of your muscular repair happens when you are asleep and so it makes very little difference, if any, how often you eat for muscle growth purposes.

No doubt it's only a tiny difference and how much you eat, how much you sleep and how hard you exercise are all more important factors for building muscle. But I think it's a fair assumption to make and it's better to try and eat as often as you can.

This is a myth which stems from a true observation. The thing is, which is an important distinction to make is the difference between full body protein synthesis and skelatal muscle protein synthesis (ie Sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy). While these two processes are pretty much linked together, the end result can be quite different.

Skeletal muscle protein synthesis happens to only accounts for a tiny percentage of the entire muscle protein synthesis, and therefor doesn't require huge amounts of available amino acids throughout the day, it can make due with very little. Now before someone goes saying "Oh but you need x grams per kg bodyweight a day", that is entirely true. But most of those protein is used for whole-body protein synthesis, which is more about keeping your organs healthy than building muscle, only when your in excess does the amino acids gets to build muscle. But being at excess at some points during the day is enough to keep your skeletal muscle protein synthesis going.

I don't think this is right. The FDA recommends a 50g minimum of protein a day for someone to stay healthy (assume all of this 50g goes towards full body protein synthesis). Even if you double that amount needed to 100g to account for someone who's active, that's still well short of the 200-300g most places recommend for people trying to build muscle. That means 100-200g of the protein people eat is going to their muscles, which is not a "very little" amount.

[Deleted]

No doubt it's only a tiny difference and how much you eat, how much you sleep and how hard you exercise are all more important factors for building muscle. But I think it's a fair assumption to make and it's better to try and eat as often as you can.

Except that this is almost always quoted as gospel, that you need to "stoke the fires of metabolism" and all that crap. And of course this leads to people eating lots of tiny meals, never feeling full and finally failing because they're trying to force themselves into a diet which at best might have a statistically insignificant advantage of others.

Personally I've tried the "many small meals" thing but it just drove me crazy, my appetite doesn't work that way, I can't have a small snack in the morning, another small two hours later, then a very light lunch, then another snack, then a light dinner, then another snack and maybe finally a last tiny snack before bed. All this leads to for me is that I go around feeling hungry all the time, I wake up hungry, I'm hungry all day long and I go to bed hungry. Even after eating one of these mini-meals I still feel hungry.

What does work for me though is sort of the "opposite", I eat a light lunch and a big dinner (for a total of 2,800 - 3,200 kCal with 180 - 200 grams of protein). Two meals per day and I've never felt better (or been in better shape for that matter and I haven't noticed any exercise-related problems because of this which makes sense since no recent research has shown that there would be any such problems). This is also commonly known as intermittent fasting (although in my case it's a "light" version of it as I eat a 400 - 500 kCal lunch).

[Deleted]

I don't think this is right. The FDA recommends a 50g minimum of protein a day for someone to stay healthy (assume all of this 50g goes towards full body protein synthesis). Even if you double that amount needed to 100g to account for someone who's active, that's still well short of the 200-300g most places recommend for people trying to build muscle. That means 100-200g of the protein people eat is going to their muscles, which is not a "very little" amount.

First of all, unless your a bodybuilder with 100-150kg lean body mass you would never need those amounts of protein. I have yet to see a study that suggests anything above 1,8-2grams of protein per kilo bodyweight yields any better results.

Secondly, what is minimum recommended isn't neccesarily a optimal number, and just because your body can make due with lesser amounts doesn't mean it won't benefit or use more if it is available. What i am trying to explain is also a serious simplification of a bunch of fysiological processes. I'm not going to go in depth with this, but assuming that the majority of intaken proteins are used to build muscle is wrong, besides keeping your body organs and living fuctions healthy, proteins are first used to rebuild what is used during muscle breakdown (process that happens all the time), as well as muscle tear (from for example resistance training), before anything goes to building your muscle bigger and stronger.

Your body is extremely efficient to use nutrients, and if you were to assume 200 grams of protein were directed to skeletal muscle protein synthesis you would expect a lot more muscle build. While I don't have any sources for this, I've heard Layne Norton and other educated people say that, at the very best of your day with everything done right, you would be lucky to build 10 grams of skeletal muscle. Only half of that is build in averagely built.

[Neazy]

Except that this is almost always quoted as gospel, that you need to "stoke the fires of metabolism" and all that crap. And of course this leads to people eating lots of tiny meals, never feeling full and finally failing because they're trying to force themselves into a diet which at best might have a statistically insignificant advantage of others.

Personally I've tried the "many small meals" thing but it just drove me crazy, my appetite doesn't work that way, I can't have a small snack in the morning, another small two hours later, then a very light lunch, then another snack, then a light dinner, then another snack and maybe finally a last tiny snack before bed. All this leads to for me is that I go around feeling hungry all the time, I wake up hungry, I'm hungry all day long and I go to bed hungry. Even after eating one of these mini-meals I still feel hungry.

What does work for me though is sort of the "opposite", I eat a light lunch and a big dinner (for a total of 2,800 - 3,200 kCal with 180 - 200 grams of protein). Two meals per day and I've never felt better (or been in better shape for that matter and I haven't noticed any exercise-related problems because of this which makes sense since no recent research has shown that there would be any such problems). This is also commonly known as intermittent fasting (although in my case it's a "light" version of it as I eat a 400 - 500 kCal lunch).

How long were you eating more often for? The first day or 2 you feel hungry but after that you should be fine. If you actually felt hungrier when you were eating more often than you were either doing it wrong or you didn't stick with it long enough.

First of all, unless your a bodybuilder with 100-150kg lean body mass you would never need those amounts of protein. I have yet to see a study that suggests anything above 1,8-2grams of protein per kilo bodyweight yields any better results.

Secondly, what is minimum recommended isn't neccesarily a optimal number, and just because your body can make due with lesser amounts doesn't mean it won't benefit or use more if it is available. What i am trying to explain is also a serious simplification of a bunch of fysiological processes. I'm not going to go in depth with this, but assuming that the majority of intaken proteins are used to build muscle is wrong, besides keeping your body organs and living fuctions healthy, proteins are first used to rebuild what is used during muscle breakdown (process that happens all the time), as well as muscle tear (from for example resistance training), before anything goes to building your muscle bigger and stronger.

Your body is extremely efficient to use nutrients, and if you were to assume 200 grams of protein were directed to skeletal muscle protein synthesis you would expect a lot more muscle build. While I don't have any sources for this, I've heard Layne Norton and other educated people say that, at the very best of your day with everything done right, you would be lucky to build 10 grams of skeletal muscle. Only half of that is build in averagely built.

I'm still skeptical. Last I heard someone who's completely natural and who has been training for a while can gain 2/5ths to 1/2 of a pound of muscle in per week with a good routine and diet. That's more than 210 grams of muscle per week or over 30g per day. I assume you need more than 1g of protein to build 1g of muscle because we're not completely efficient, so the numbers would be a lot higher than 10g of protein/day going to your muscles.

But we're going off topic. Eating more often is better for your full-body protein synthesis. You even admitted as much. So it makes sense that someone who wants to get as much as he can out of his workouts would eat meals more often.