UK-Muscle.co.uk Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
fuelled by MM5
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
Like all of mentzers stuff he tries to break things down into a theoretical reasoning but fails to look at any clinical data

if you look at alot of work out there they estimate the energy cost of building a pound of muscle is closerto2600kcals not 600kcals so that obviously puts the energy cost higher and the amount needed to be added to maintenance higher

add to this it has been shown there is a linear relationship between protein synthesis and energy intake above maintenance (Chiang & Huang, Am J Clin Nutr 1988) as such eating above maintenance creates even more muscle building by virtue of an internal environment geared towards muscle building - i.e training + increased kcals doesn't = 1+1=2 but to a degree 1+1 =3 if the calories are ramped up even further

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p> </o:p>

If you look at the majority of studies the one set theory is the same - most studies in meta analysis tend to favour around 3 sets with experienced lifters

<o:p> </o:p>

With mentzer it always seem his rationalization tends to ignore clinical data in his theorizing <o:p></o:p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
good post Glen,

While some controversy exists regarding how much protein we need in

our daily diets, most reputable sources recommend about one-half gram per

kilo (2.2 pounds) of bodyweight. To be on the safe side, the RDA Committee

(providing for disease, stress and other possible problems) recommends .80

grams per kilo of bodyweight. For a 220-pound bodybuilder, daily protein

requirements would be 80 grams.

But the needs of bodybuilders are different because they train heavy and

are growing muscle, you say? The fact is that protein requirements are dependent

solely on the individual's bodyweight, not physical activity. Under normal

circumstances, protein is not a fuel source, so our need for it is not contingent

on activity levels.

he certainly does seem to go against what is the "norm"
 

·
fuelled by MM5
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
again ignore all the clinical studies out there

if you look at the consesus statement which is the bible for conservative sports dieticians the evidence presented in there (lemon, tarnopolsky etc etc) indicates nitrogen balance at 1.7g/kg/d

added to that I personally dont want to be in balance (surely the goal of weight training is to positive nitrogen balance) - then add to this the studies which actually look at protein intake and muscle and strength gains (dragan et al and others all presented in the consesus staement as well0 and they indicate itakes of 3.5g/kg/d are more beneficial
 

·
Rising from the ashes
Joined
·
8,231 Posts
Also, this simplistic view completely ignores digestive and systematic efficiency. I am sure we all remember from basic high school science that there is no such thing as 100% perfect energy transfer.

Most petrol engines, for example, only harness 20 to 35% of the energy from the petrol they burn, the majority of the rest being burnt of as heat.

Not an entirely unreasonable analogy, given that first and foremost our bodies must regulate temperature within very fine limits, burning calories or dumping heat as necessary.

Just because you eat X calories, Y amount of protein, doesn't mean thats what all makes it to blood for use, and even if it does, doesn't mean it will reach at a time or manner condusive to muscle gain.

Without being too crude, I am sure we have all had food "go right through us" which kinda roughly proves my point.

So the end total of materials required to be ingested to build muscle, going by Glens more paper-realistic figures, and then taking efficiency into consideration, will be markedly higher than theoretical amounts.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top