Jake Shields = Vegetarian MMA fighter?? where do you get protein?

[cgracie14]

Vegetarians are inferior.

Why do you think ubereem eats horse meat?

sounds bitch-made to me

 

[AW9000+]

Question for ya madmick...it sounded from your previous posts that your against eating soy based protein, any reason why? I know there's been some negative things said against soy but thought most of it was unsubstantiated?

 

[Madmick]

Question for ya madmick...it sounded from your previous posts that your against eating soy based protein, any reason why? I know there's been some negative things said against soy but thought most of it was unsubstantiated?

I'm against eating unfermented soy products like Tofu (examples of fermented soy products that are okay are Soy Sauce or Miso soup).

The reason was an epic post by one of the smartest posters in the history of Sherdog, Entropy, where he collated about 20 different studies (with their full texts) showing increased estrogen production (without a correlating testosterone increase) from the ingestion of unfermented soy products like Tofu.

I think the site jettisoned all past posts a couple of years ago, but you could try looking for Entropy's post on the matter. It was either in here, or more likely, in the S&P forum when a diet issue was raised. That's where he spent most of his time. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the threadstarter.

 

[EddieLovesYou]

I'm against eating unfermented soy products like Tofu (examples of fermented soy products that are okay are Soy Sauce or Miso soup).

The reason was an epic post by one of the smartest posters in the history of Sherdog, Entropy, where he collated about 20 different studies (with their full texts) showing increased estrogen production (without a correlating testosterone increase) from the ingestion of unfermented soy products like Tofu.

I think the site jettisoned all past posts a couple of years ago, but you could try looking for Entropy's post on the matter. It was either in here, or more likely, in the S&P forum when a diet issue was raised. That's where he spent most of his time. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the threadstarter.

A lot of the "soy = estrogen" talk comes from the fact that soy is high in PHYTOestrogens, which studies have shown have no significant affect on the human body.

Not to mention that your average junk/fast food eating omnivore probably intakes the same amount of soy, if not more, than a vegan with a clean, varied diet. But yeah I agree tempeh > tofu by far

Been vegan for over 7 years but just started training earlier this year. I've had no problem putting on lean muscle mass using SS even though I ride my bike to work everyday, run regularly, and have a jiu-jitsu class once or twice a week. I just eat a varied diet without any supplements besides protein powder: http://www.plantfusion.us/

 

[animalistik]

I'm against eating unfermented soy products like Tofu (examples of fermented soy products that are okay are Soy Sauce or Miso soup).

The reason was an epic post by one of the smartest posters in the history of Sherdog, Entropy, where he collated about 20 different studies (with their full texts) showing increased estrogen production (without a correlating testosterone increase) from the ingestion of unfermented soy products like Tofu.

I think the site jettisoned all past posts a couple of years ago, but you could try looking for Entropy's post on the matter. It was either in here, or more likely, in the S&P forum when a diet issue was raised. That's where he spent most of his time. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the threadstarter.

Is increased estrogen a health concern? Or would it just affect performance related things?

 

[Madmick]

Is increased estrogen a health concern? Or would it just affect performance related things?

It's not always a bad thing. For example, when you take steroids, your endogenous estrogen production rises as your body tries to maintain a more natural ratio. Everything about our secondary sex characteristics is determined by these ratios; women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen. It's the ratios that determine what biological consequence results, ultimately.

But yes, the posts Entropy made suggested serious negative side effects for just about any goal shared by the male posters on this forum. I dug up that thread where Entropy rained knowledge on me:
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f13/vegan-muscle-building-301000/index4.html#post7335365
I've linked his first post in that thread at #32. The next page is where Entropy just starts fucking going off. He goes on for about 5 pages. He did that regularly, too: he would footnote all of his posts with proper references to all the studies and everything else he synthesized.

If you still think it's okay to ingest unfermented soy products after reading all that, then be my guest. I won't touch the stuff, anymore.

 

[TSD-Bulldog]

He absorbs protein transdermally through his opponents when he takes them down and lays on top of them for the whole fight.

Whey protein + transdermal smothering protein transfer method = most complete protein sources any fighter could consume. And to think this is all vegetarianism.

 

[Aaron Perls]

Is increased estrogen a health concern?

If you even have to ask this, they've gotten to you...

 

[Aaron Perls]

where are you getting these figures from? 2g of protein per pound of lean body mass is ridiculous. I'm 230 pounds, probably sit around 9% bodyfat. That would mean i'd need over 400 grams of protein a day. seriously guys?

Before you guys post, make sure you A. Do a tiny bit of research and B. Have a study to back up your claims if they are far fetched.

That's for adding muscle in a timely fashion, not maintaining or building slowly.

You're maintenance level is probably around 3500 calories a day, right? (Maybe more even: I don't know how active you are). 400 grams of protein a day would be 1600 calories, that's 45% of your daily calories from protein. That's totally reasonable. Why does 400 grams of protein sound like a lot to you, but the fundamentally flawed FDA recommendation to you of eating 612 grams of carbs sounds reasonable?

When you're big, you eat a lot.

Edit: my guess is that like most of us, you were brought up to believe that those light and fluffy carbohydrates are "free food", where fat and protein consumption is something you really have to watch, so you look at your diet in terms of hitting the minimum necessary amounts of fat and protein, and using carbs as filler for the rest. In reality, it should be the opposite. You should consume the minimum amount of carbohydrate necessary to fuel your daily high-level activity, and use fat and protein as the "filler" bulk of your diet.

 

[turbozed]

That's for adding muscle in a timely fashion, not maintaining or building slowly.

What does "in a timely fashion" mean, exactly? Unless a person is untrained, going through puberty, or taking steroids, there's an limit to how much muscle you can build in a given amount of time. Most scientific research puts this at about a couple pounds per month. Even at this maximum limit, 2g of protein per lbs is obviously not necessary, and even 1g per kg is likely sufficient.

You're maintenance level is probably around 3500 calories a day, right? (Maybe more even: I don't know how active you are). 400 grams of protein a day would be 1600 calories, that's 45% of your daily calories from protein. That's totally reasonable. Why does 400 grams of protein sound like a lot to you, but the fundamentally flawed FDA recommendation to you of eating 612 grams of carbs sounds reasonable?

This is obviously a strawman argument. Nobody ever stated on this thread that FDA recommendations were better. To argue that the only macronutrient strategies available are either the carb-heavy FDA recommendations or your obviously uninformed protein-heavy recommendation is patently absurd and you shouldn't expect anybody take that argument seriously.

When you're big, you eat a lot.

Yes, but that's beside the point. You don't have to eat 2g of protein per lbs for maximizing muscle growth, or for any other reason for that matter.

Edit: my guess is that like most of us, you were brought up to believe that those light and fluffy carbohydrates are "free food", where fat and protein consumption is something you really have to watch, so you look at your diet in terms of hitting the minimum necessary amounts of fat and protein, and using carbs as filler for the rest. In reality, it should be the opposite. You should consume the minimum amount of carbohydrate necessary to fuel your daily high-level activity, and use fat and protein as the "filler" bulk of your diet.

My guess is that supplement companies, playing on your desire for optimal physical performance and relying on your ignorance of basic biological and metabolic processes, have brainwashed you into thinking that if you don't eat massive amounts of protein, your muscles with wither away. This is just not the case, and you'd save yourself a lot of money and inconvenience if you'd be skeptical of these claims and investigate the subject more honestly and thoroughly.

Replies in red.

 

[Aaron Perls]

Replies in red.

How is 45% of your daily calories a "massive amount" of protein?

The 2g is pretty standard for a hypertrophy program. I'm assuming most of us aren't shooting for hypertrophy. But 2g per pound isn't that much.

Again, it came out to be about 45% of his daily calories. Does that seem excessively high? A 45%p/40%f/15%c macro break down seems pretty on target, depending on level of physical activity (lower carbs for sedentary people).

If you're not getting your calories from protein, you're getting them from something else. Again, I'll suggest that this only seems like a lot of protein, if you're looking at calories from carbohydrates as "free" or in some sense benign. No one needs 1600 calories from carbohydrates a day, and that's going to produce a more negative effect on the body and its performance that 1600 calories of protein, even if you only really "need" 800 of them to be protein, you still have to hit your caloric goals.

 

[Madmick]

The 2g is pretty standard for a hypertrophy program. I'm assuming most of us aren't shooting for hypertrophy. But 2g per pound isn't that much.

No, it's not standard. It is excessively high. Only sites like T-Nation make this number sound reasonable, and only because they want to deceive you into believing that everything you've ever learned is holding you back...that'll make it much easier to sell you Beta-fucking-Alanine when they need to take your lunch money. 2g/lb is ridiculously superfluous.

How is 45% of your daily calories a "massive amount" of protein? Again, it came out to be about 45% of his daily calories. Does that seem excessively high? A 45%p/40%f/15%c macro break down seems pretty on target, depending on level of physical activity (lower carbs for sedentary people).

If you're not getting your calories from protein, you're getting them from something else. Again, I'll suggest that this only seems like a lot of protein, if you're looking at calories from carbohydrates as "free" or in some sense benign. No one needs 1600 calories from carbohydrates a day, and that's going to produce a more negative effect on the body and its performance that 1600 calories of protein, even if you only really "need" 800 of them to be protein, you still have to hit your caloric goals.

How do you not regard 45% as massively high? Even the revolutionary high-protein books that began making the NY bestseller lists (like Barry Sears' books) about 15 years ago didn't argue this number.
The older/FDA model: 60-75% Carbs, 15-25% Protein, 10-20% Fat
The revolution model: 40% Carbs, 30% Protein, 30% Fat
And now you're trying to argue that 15% higher than that isn't massive? You lack a sense of scale.

I've always found Fred Hatfield aka Dr. Squat's list as the most specific necessary, and the most reasonable:
Power Protein Plus | Dr. Squat - Dr. Fred Hatfield

ESTIMATE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING APPROXIMATE DAILY PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS
Formula: Lean Bodyweight (in pounds) x Requirement Factor = Daily Protein Requirement (in grams)
Requirement Factors:
.5 - Sedentary, no sports or training
.6 - Jogger or light fitness training
.7 - Sports participation or moderate training 3X week
.8 - Moderate daily weight training or aerobic training
.9 - Heavy weight training daily
1.0 - Heavy weight training daily plus sports training,or "two-a day" training

Even if you train like a professional athlete; he only has you requiring 1g per pound of lean mass (not even your total bodyweight). And this guy performed heavier lifts in all of the major 5 lifts at age 55 than any of the guys at T-Nation ever did (including Tate and Thibaudeau).

 

[Aaron Perls]

How do you not regard 45% as massively high? Even the revolutionary high-protein books that began making the NY bestseller lists (like Barry Sears' books) about 15 years ago didn't argue this number.
The older/FDA model: 60-75% Carbs, 15-25% Protein, 10-20% Fat
The revolution model: 40% Carbs, 30% Protein, 30% Fat
And now you're trying to argue that 15% higher than that isn't massive? You lack a sense of scale.

I've always found Fred Hatfield aka Dr. Squat's list as the most specific necessary, and the most reasonable:
Power Protein Plus | Dr. Squat - Dr. Fred Hatfield

Even if you train like a professional athlete; he only has you requiring 1g per pound of bodyweight.

All those models are incredibly carb biased. It would seem less so if you pulled up at least one example that recommends fat as the primary macro, which a number of the paleo-ish diets do.

Carbs are the only non-essential macro, so what brain-child decided we "need" more of them than anything else? Again, it comes back to the lipid theory myth. Why do you think you need all those carbs?

It comes back to a simple understanding of how your body utilizes the different macros. Carbs are ONLY an energy source, you either burn it off as energy, store it as muscle or liver glycogen, and once those are full, you store it as fat: energy for later. High-intensity activity, like anaerobic activity, burns carbs/glycogen as primary fuel. Low-intensity aerobic activity burns fat.

Unless you're doing high-intensity activity all day, your carbohydrate requirements are very low. Very few people need 1gr per pound of body weight a day, which for the example we were using would put us at about 800 calories (assuming he's active) so about a little over 20% of daily calories. Okay, so 40%f, 40%p, 20% c for an active person.

Look at what MOST (not the couple of exceptions you can point to) elite athletes eat and their macro-breakdowns. They are all doing high-protein, high-fat diets, where you treat carbohydrates as what they are: fuel for high-intensity physical activity.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

Bottome line is only people who are pedaling supps and or taking advertising money from those companies state that you need 2g per lb of bodyweight.

 

[Madmick]

All those models are incredibly carb biased. It would seem less so if you pulled up at least one example that recommends fat as the primary macro, which a number of the paleo-ish diets do.

Carbs are the only non-essential macro, so what brain-child decided we "need" more of them than anything else? Again, it comes back to the lipid theory myth. Why do you think you need all those carbs?

It comes back to a simple understanding of how your body utilizes the different macros. Carbs are ONLY an energy source, you either burn it off as energy, store it as muscle or liver glycogen, and once those are full, you store it as fat: energy for later. High-intensity activity, like anaerobic activity, burns carbs/glycogen as primary fuel. Low-intensity aerobic activity burns fat.

Unless you're doing high-intensity activity all day, your carbohydrate requirements are very low. Very few people need 1gr per pound of body weight a day, which for the example we were using would put us at about 800 calories (assuming he's active) so about a little over 20% of daily calories. Okay, so 40%f, 40%p, 20% c for an active person.

Look at what MOST (not the couple of exceptions you can point to) elite athletes eat and their macro-breakdowns. They are all doing high-protein, high-fat diets, where you treat carbohydrates as what they are: fuel for high-intensity physical activity.

See, that's funny. Apparently you know what most elite athletes are doing even though you provided one fewer example than me (that would be zero). In fact, most athletes are still on more traditional models. The entire Stanford swim team (men and women) are still on the Sears' 40-30-30 split. None of the senior staff on the US Olympic team advise paleo splits: women like Susie Parker-Simmons, Laura Anderson, and Shawn Dolan.
Resources & Fact Sheets | Team USA
These are the people who actually train Olympic medalists. Check the breakdown of macronutrients in the Shakes PDF. Guess what's top? That's right, carbohydrates.

Furthermore, I have better than a "basic" understanding of how our bodies digest the different macronutrients. You think this is some hot new topic: "paleo" diets. In fact, formal study of Ketogenic diets go back to the 1920's. They first used it as a means of trying to treat epilepsy. They made their first round of comebacks in the 1970's with the Atkins diet. I read a book over a decade ago called "Protein Power" espousing almost the exact same plan as Lyle McDonald's stuff. You're just regurgitating texts you've read at T-Nation and by McDonald without having ever investigated the actual studies from which the claims are made. It's all anecdotal.

The overwhelming bulk of studies on the issue have linked excessive protein to kidney strain and excessive fat to a million diseases (like cancer, heart disease, and even diabetes: high-glycemic carbs aren't the only culprit, grasshopper).

 

[animalistik]

It's not always a bad thing. For example, when you take steroids, your endogenous estrogen production rises as your body tries to maintain a more natural ratio. Everything about our secondary sex characteristics is determined by these ratios; women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen. It's the ratios that determine what biological consequence results, ultimately.

But yes, the posts Entropy made suggested serious negative side effects for just about any goal shared by the male posters on this forum. I dug up that thread where Entropy rained knowledge on me:
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f13/vegan-muscle-building-301000/index4.html#post7335365
I've linked his first post in that thread at #32. The next page is where Entropy just starts fucking going off. He goes on for about 5 pages. He did that regularly, too: he would footnote all of his posts with proper references to all the studies and everything else he synthesized.

If you still think it's okay to ingest unfermented soy products after reading all that, then be my guest. I won't touch the stuff, anymore.

Well, you can't say that man isn't thorough. He also seems to be advocating against fermented soy too because, even though it's better than unfermented, it still has many negative effects.

 

[JSN]

It's not always a bad thing. For example, when you take steroids, your endogenous estrogen production rises as your body tries to maintain a more natural ratio. Everything about our secondary sex characteristics is determined by these ratios; women produce testosterone and men produce estrogen. It's the ratios that determine what biological consequence results, ultimately.

if i remember correctly, i think the increase in estrogen levels is actually a byproduct directly of the increased testosterone levels (le chatelier's principle). that's why dudes will take aromatose inhibitors- they'll end up with really high estogen levels, and that's when gyno sets in. the thing about steroid hormones that's different than a garden variety molecular signal is that they just diffuse right into cells and induce transcription, so you don't really get that whole rate interplay you see with signal transduction or action potentials oftentimes where signals are running antagonistic to each other.

 

[quikkick]

While I'm adamantly opposed to ingesting any soy protein, tofu, or soybeans, I do use soy sauce, and several store cereals and breads that I consume are made with soybean oil. Should I shun these as well? I really can't afford any additional estrogen.
Has anyone ever made an aromatase inhibitor thread?

 

[Madmick]

Well, you can't say that man isn't thorough. He also seems to be advocating against fermented soy too because; even though it's better than unfermented, it still has many negative effects.

Yeah, but we talked about it later, and he acknowledged that the intake of fermented soy products (because their flavor is so potent) usually amounted to quantities that were insignificant/irrelevant to those eliciting negative side effects in the studies. He said he put soy sauce on rice, for example.

Yeah, but fuck...nobody every really stepped to Entropy, and the ones who did always got their asses handed to them. I think I heard about him losing one debate, before I began posting at Sherdog, and that was it.

 

[Stun Gun]

Protein powder and soy products