Protein Shakes..Pros & Cons??

No expert but everyones different. I went through a phase of downing a ton of protien hsakes everyday and all i got was fat. Ive cut down and lost the fat and havent noticed any difference in strength. Then again i eat alot of salmon, tuna and chicken so im probably getting most of what i need from food.
 
i just drink them after workouts and eat loads, dont think they are that important to gain mass
 
A ton of lifters advocate 3gm per lb of body weight. The same lifters say that if you stack the two most anabolic compounds around you will get huge like them. What are these compounds you say? Nitrotech and Celltech! I have seen 4 full page reports of the scientific evidence that you can get ripped in 12 weeks. These same people who sell nitrotech are telling you to take 3gm per lb.

About the lifters who take so much protein I"m very curious about what is their total caloric intake and what percentage protein makes. Then I"m curious how much of that comes in shake form. 400 gm of protein is 1600 calories. If they are on a 2500 calorie diet that is insane. If they are on a 5,000 calorie diet maybe it is true.

This is the bodybuilding mentality at its best. More isn't always better.
 
funny how people want to learn how to put on lean muscle.. for me putting on weight period is hard. if you work out hard enough the lean comes automatically.

im trying to bulk the only way i ever have and the only way i think i possibly can. stuffing my self every 2 hours with protein and carbs and taking 2 scoop protein shakes with whole milk 2 times a day

today i had 2 steaks and a protein shake after school.. right now im gonna have like 4 slices of pizza.. and tonight im probably gonna buy some type of big hamburger or a subway sub.. or some sushi and wash it down with a nasty vanilla protein shake
 
Eclypse, interesting stuff, any sources so we dont just have to take your word for it?


I like to look at this whole how many proteins per/kilo in bigger perspective.

It seems like the whole debate revolves around eating food and then just ADD protein in the right amount. Like if carbs and fat and all that are considerad "food" and protein a luxury.
And why is that, well look at what food is cheap and easy available: CARBS and FAT. Its cheaper than fuck to eat rice, pasta, all kinds of bread, oats and so forth. And its easy to snack on also. (a sandwich and some juice in the afternoonbraek maybe?, almost all carbs)

Protein sources is more expensive and not that easy accessible. SO protein sources has become some kind of "extra" food (sunday steak-syndrom), which has rippled down and become "tradition" to be established so. So the "recommended" food proportions has also been reflecting the way we have been eating with easy accessible carbs.

I would like to turn this debate around and ask, how much carbs do one need? protein is not a luxury, it is food, just as natural and needed as carbs, and fat.

And for the proteinshakes, the point with those is that is it hard to snack on protein, and when you start eating more often, it is a problem to keep the same protein-level as one risk eating a lot of carbs since its cheaper.

Hope Im not coming off like a pussy bookworm, but I think this is worth atleast considering.
 
grady said:
You state this as a fact. Any reference to cite?

Just about every stength training article I have read advocates .5 to 1.5 gm protein/lb of bodyweight, which will usually call for an excess of the 15% of total caloric intake you specify.
Click to expand...
Well, first, thank you for calling me on that, Grady. Made me check my reference, which I'll list at the end of this post, and correct the "fact" floating in my head.

According to the American Council on Exercise (ACE), "non-athletes require only 12 to 15%" of their caloric intake as protein (141). Still, 0.5 to 1.5g/lb is excessive; athletes require 1.2 to 1.8g/Kg of body weight, which equates to 0.5 to 0.8g/lb of body weight (129).

ACE continues to explain that the amino acids (proteins) in supplements can throw off the body's natural amino acid balance and even prevent the absorption of essential amino acids, throwing off the body's chemistry in a very unhealthy fashion. There are other issues as well, including "dehydration, loss of unirary calcium, weight gain, and kidney and liver stress." (141)

Work Cited:​

Bryant, Cedric X. and Daniel J. Green, eds. ACE Personal Trainer Manual. San Diego: American Council on Exercise, 2003.
 
The kidney thing is overstated. It is a well known medical fact that you can lead as normal a live as you can with just one kidney. Thousands of people have just one [Through injury, from birth, or the following or others] and of these are hundreds who donated one of their kidneys to others.

The kidney is more of a filter. If there is more protein, well, you just excerete them away more, just like a filter would. It is not equated directly to more 'work', at least not an equal proportion. You put a more concentrated thing in n a more concentrated thing will come out.

I heard of it causing loss of some calcium tho, n m interested to know more. How does it do it?
 
If you read an article please be careful of who wrote it. Many articles are written by the same people who sell you protein shakes. Even if they are not by those people specifically, somtimes they have a very good reasons (financial) to hype up the protein content one should take. Biochemists have come up with the smaller numbers because they actually know the minute reactions that go on in the body during protein synthesis. Supplement companies with their own "research" come up with their own, higher, numbers. I would think that it is somewhere in between, with error on the side of the biochemists.
 
you guys are amazing.

MAdmick do you no think the guy in your avatar is "roided"? lol. roids... who calls it that?
do you think all you have to do is pop one 12week cycle of two of the most anabolic drugs and you will be the hulkster? haha. a lot of you guys have less than 1-3years lifting under your belt. for those with more lifting experience and continue to think follow the other lemmings you need to wake up from that zombie state. btw two anabolic compounds stakced is not a good cycle.

RJKD12- reread my post, yes i said enhanced lifters advocate 2-3gm per lbs.

ace certificate that's a joke as well. people pop those out from a cracker jack box. haha how many of your aerobics instructors and ace card carrying holders bench 315lbs for reps or squat 500plus?


this is a strength and power forum. are you guys here to learn how to build strength and power sputing 15% of caloric intake is all that is needed by ace or the american nutritional council. haha.
 
peregrine said:
RJKD12- reread my post, yes i said enhanced lifters advocate 2-3gm per lbs.
Click to expand...

Reread my post.

I was joking, do you also think that enhanced lifters take cell tech and nitrotech? Why not compare it to total overall caloric intake instead of lb of bodyweight? I think that would be much more helpful.

Also, I won't take 2-3 grams per pound because some meathead said so. I would prefer some lab put it to the test and compare .5-1g per lb, 1-2 gram per lb and 2-3 gram per lb and see what the differences are. You are going off of literature nitrotech tells you. If you are not, please let me know where you are getting your information. Bill Phillips recommended to take 20 grams of creatine a day in a shake with his HMB and glutamine. Please, of course he says that. He would recommend 50 grams a day if he could. Open your eyes.
 
Rjkd12 said:
Reread my post.

Open your eyes.
Click to expand...

haha your kind of kewt when you're sassy.

i use celltech not nitro. it gives me 1333% better absorbtion.
 
Eclypse said:
Well, first, thank you for calling me on that, Grady. Made me check my reference, which I'll list at the end of this post, and correct the "fact" floating in my head.

According to the American Council on Exercise (ACE), "non-athletes require only 12 to 15%" of their caloric intake as protein (141). Still, 0.5 to 1.5g/lb is excessive; athletes require 1.2 to 1.8g/Kg of body weight, which equates to 0.5 to 0.8g/lb of body weight (129).

ACE continues to explain that the amino acids (proteins) in supplements can throw off the body's natural amino acid balance and even prevent the absorption of essential amino acids, throwing off the body's chemistry in a very unhealthy fashion. There are other issues as well, including "dehydration, loss of unirary calcium, weight gain, and kidney and liver stress." (141)

Work Cited:​

Bryant, Cedric X. and Daniel J. Green, eds. ACE Personal Trainer Manual. San Diego: American Council on Exercise, 2003.
Click to expand...
Seems like you can't trust shit in this world.
 
Haha... I wasn't being sassy, I was mocking you.

I"m so glad you came back and carnal left. This board is so much better now.
 
Peregrine, I didn't quote ACE, but I would just as easily quote the NSCA, and if you dismiss the NSCA, I call you a fool.

2-3g/lb of bodyweight has no scientific support. Do I think Arlovski roids? Hell yes! Who says "roids"?

Everyone.

BTW, the ACE-certified CPT at my gym quotes (and eats by) those numbers and he squats six hunny (and he's natural). So now I have just as much opinion backing by big squatters as you (or more, actually), and you have dick for science.

Nuff of that shit.
 
Oh yes, peregrine, I'm certainly going to take your advice over that of a Doctor in Exercise Physiology's, especially with your ungrounded bashing. Care to actually found your arguments, as I have, or are you just going to sling filth with that appropriately brown belt of yours? Prove to me the poor quality testing procedures of ACE. Prove to me the American Nutritional Council's ineptitude in comparison to seasoned iron-shovers.

Like Ted-P said, you can't trust anything anymore, especially things coming out of America. Hell, I'd say anything out of anywhere, but I've only been here for long enough to know better, so I won't pass some kind of blind judgment on other cultures. Companies have absolutely no responsibility to the consumers other than following laws and taking money. Make note:

Companies do as little as possible to follow the law and as much as possible to get your money.

With supplements, there is no FDA regulation or research. You have to find research done by scholars, people with master's and doctorate degrees, and not by the company that wants you to buy their product.

Also, there's a huge difference between people who blindly ingest whatever is suggested and scholarly research. For the former, they have busted their asses and then attribute their edge and their glory to some mistake they made. Mind you, the mistake is somewhat logical, enough to make sense to the ignorant public, which is why they will attest to it blindly. This is where the scholarly research comes in; it tests the validity of the fact that people spread like wildfire. Did you ever notice that wildfire just burns everything in its path without thinking, regardless of the cost to others? Funny, that.

So, who do you trust? The people that spread the "logical enough" idea around, be them the corporations that infect the populace or the infected populace themselves, or the ones that have the education, the resources, and done the hard work to make sure it's true?
 
heres my 2 cents.

pro's:
1. great time saver. i got a hectic ass schedule.. you dont always hve time to cook or even eat and digest. it takes seconds to make and its settles fairly fast. so if you stop off at home to pick up your gear and out the door again it's great.

2. weight... i like to get huge but not at the expemse of other things like speed, stamina etc. Too much protien WILL make you fat in my experience. but in moderation to SUPPLIMENT your healthy diet it's a great tool. i'll still take a healthy meal over one of those things any day. it's hard to eat healthy when you dont have lots of time.

3. most protien shakes have a mixture of stuff. L-glut etc etc... so it's a one stop chug a lug... i personally found L-glut to help take away pain. not so much from protien or creatine like some of my friends like to say. Might be placebo might not be. i tried and experimented and found what works for me.

cons:

1. LOTS of junk out there. i've used a lot of stuff that did shit. then i got stuff i swear by. iso flex protien shake with No2 and L glute and stuff to help promote insuline is some i love and swear by. it makes you a bit light headed if you take too much and havent adjusted yet, but it helped me lose wieght, gain size and a great pump form the No2. one of the few things i've used that worked so well i could see results.

2. expensive. it add up over time if you use it a lot.

3. taste like shit. none taste good.. only less shitty.
 
Madmick said:
Peregrine, I didn't quote ACE, but I would just as easily quote the NSCA, and if you dismiss the NSCA, I call you a fool.

2-3g/lb of bodyweight has no scientific support. Do I think Arlovski roids? Hell yes! Who says "roids"?

Everyone.

BTW, the ACE-certified CPT at my gym quotes (and eats by) those numbers and he squats six hunny (and he's natural). So now I have just as much opinion backing by big squatters as you (or more, actually), and you have dick for science.

Nuff of that shit.
Click to expand...

burned, thanks for the help
 
the main thing for me is that they taste like shit over time

i have drank many many different shakes in my life and all
flavors start tasting like crap in the end

also i question their usefulness for someone who is not an elite
bodybuilder
 
everyone differs genetically and the body strives to maintain homoestasis. with that protein requiremnets and other variables cause differences. i am still a believer in a higher protein diet for the majority of athletes who are serious about their sport.

i didn't know this place turned into a scientific journal, i thought htis was the forum for strength and power. not 15% protein a day or less. here is some food for thought:

1. body composition- many of you kids eclypse included aspire to be mma fighters or in games where weight classes are important. having more lean mass is important in most of these sports as it allows one to have the potential for greater power.
so with an athlete with the same workout what do you think would occur with a change in the macro ratio of the intake.? such as:
70% carbohydrate, 15% protein, 15% fat diet to a diet containing 40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 30% fat
same total intake, same expenditure.
he would recomp.
Effect of protein intake and physical activity on 24-h pattern and rate of macronutrient utilization. Am J Physiol. 1999 May;276(5 Pt 1):E964-76
this study shows how an increase in protein at the expense of carbs will lead to a negative fat balance. basically better nutrient partitioning.
2. maybe on a 2250kcal diet, 365gm of carbs per day using the 65% ratio is not a lot, but if a person were eatting 4500kcal a day that is 730gm of carbs. what do carbs do to the body? what happens with all that insulin? how about the athletes insulin sensitivity levels over time? does insulin insensitivty pose a certain risk? how about diabetes?
3. yes there maybe some natural 600pound squatters who advocate a 65%C 15%P 15%F ratio, but tell me what his bf ratio is. also tell me he used that diet to gt to 600lbs and his greatest gains were from 15%p a day. i doubt this guys bf is under 6-8%. if it is he is genetically gifted and lucky, most people cannot be that lean on such a diet while continuing to be powerful and large.
 
so here is where i sit
if you want to be stronger, leaner and have better recovery then consider a diet with a ratio near
40% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 30% fat



if you want to continue to be soft, use most of your time doing serious endurance work, or have no aspiration of getting larger and stronger with a leaner body, not just a larger fat self then use the 70% carbohydrate, 15% protein, 15% fat diet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,984
Messages
55,459,385
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top