Gaining Lots of Muscle the Hollywood Way--Fast

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Brandon Routh claimed last year on The Tonight Show that he had gained "22 lbs. of muscle," for his role as Superman.

Daniel Craig, aka James Bond, made the same claim of 20 lbs. of extra muscle for his recent debut in "Casino Royale."

Years ago, Mel Gibson made similar claims re: working out maybe 3 months before a film shoot, and gaining maybe 20 lbs. of muscle.

Just a few days ago, in an SDMB thread, a poster claimed that gaining 20-30 lbs of muscle (not muscle and fat) in just 3-4 months is quite possible--without steroids--if one follows a top-notch training program that includes some 200 grams of protein each day.

My understanding from earlier SDMB threads is that a man can gain a maximum of about 5-7 lbs. of muscle per year. The remaining weight gain, it was said, would almost certainly be mainly fat, although some people hide it better than others.

What is the straight dope on fast muscle gain, without steroids?

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

This was Daniel Craig's typical diet:

Breakfast: Big bowl of porridge with blueberries and honey, a banana and mango smoothie.

Mid-morning snack: A sandwich, rye toast, or nuts and seeds.

Lunch: Large piece of grilled chicken or fish, with mixed roasted veg and a bowl of brown rice or couscous.

Afternoon snack: Banana, berries, apples or pears.

Dinner: Healthy risotto or brown pasta.

Supper: Baked or steamed fruit.


WHERE ARE THE HUGE AMOUNTS OF PROTEIN?

[Doctor Who]

Check out this article I found while googling.

[Queen Bruin]

I'm guessing that the porridge and mango smoothie could be a whey supplement delivery system. Risotto could mean brown rice or even quinoa, which could add a good deal of protein. The "Large piece of grilled chicken or fish" is quite a bit as well - we'll assume he's eating two large boneless skinless chicken (half)breasts which is about 650k/cal and 120 grams of protein - a pretty typical body building meal (with a salad). So it can be done.

Husband body builds and has to eat pretty much constantly - hence the heavy snacking in the menu you provided. Since he has access to a world-class gym now my husband's put on about 5lbs of muscle in the past 6 weeks, but unfortunately most of his protein seems to come from Carl's Jr. and Payday bars.

IANA sports nutritionist.

[Rigamarole]

Everyone knows if you need to go from zero to hero in no time flat, there's only one way to do it...

You need a montage!

A sports-training montage!!!



(I just couldn't help myself.)

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

Check out this article I found while googling.

Interesting article, and it looks like the claims of enormous weight gain are bombast. Perhaps they're counting gain of lean muscle and not subtracting fat loss, but still probably vastly overstated at 20 or 30 lbs. Maybe this is a competative thing among actors, the way everbody tried to get a role gaining a lot of weight after DeNiro did so for Raging Bull and The Untouchables (as if this is somehow a commentary on acting skill.)

I'll note that when discussing nutrition they recommend a significant portion of carbohydrates (50%, with 30% protein and 20% fat), consumed early in the morning and after each exercise, illustrating the need for carbohydrates in protein digestion. So much for Atkins-type diets (unless you are grossly overweight and incapable of exercise).

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

This was Daniel Craig's typical diet:

Breakfast: Big bowl of porridge with blueberries and honey, a banana and mango smoothie.

Mid-morning snack: A sandwich, rye toast, or nuts and seeds.

Lunch: Large piece of grilled chicken or fish, with mixed roasted veg and a bowl of brown rice or couscous.

Afternoon snack: Banana, berries, apples or pears.

Dinner: Healthy risotto or brown pasta.

Supper: Baked or steamed fruit.


WHERE ARE THE HUGE AMOUNTS OF PROTEIN?

First of all, it's something of a myth that you need massive amounts of protein relative to the overall calorie balance. Sure, you're going to need protein to manufacture muscle--the human physiology has a very limited ability to synthesize its own proteins, particularly structural ones--but extra protein, or more protein that you've budgeted carbohydrates for, doesn't do you any good, and in fact takes extra energy to break down. (This is the justification for Atkins and other high protein percentage diets, which conveniently ignores the toxic byproducts.)

Still, I see quite a bit of protein here; the grilled chicken or fish, perhaps the sandwich, the risotto or brown pasta, and I'm guessing some protein supplements in the shake or porridge as well. I doubt Craig actually put on 20 lbs; if you see him in previous films like Layer Cake or Enduring Love (I don't recommend the latter) he's already in pretty smart shape, and another 20 lbs on top of that would have made him huge. I'd guestimate somewhere closer to 10 lbs of additional muscle, which is still pretty impressive.

Stranger

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

First of all, it's something of a myth that you need massive amounts of protein relative to the overall calorie balance. Sure, you're going to need protein to manufacture muscle--the human physiology has a very limited ability to synthesize its own proteins, particularly structural ones--but extra protein, or more protein that you've budgeted carbohydrates for, doesn't do you any good, and in fact takes extra energy to break down. (This is the justification for Atkins and other high protein percentage diets, which conveniently ignores the toxic byproducts.)

Stranger

Who knows if they are destined for the Kidney Dialysis Hall of Fame, but I've heard plenty of college-age blokes nonchalantly mention that they are ingesting some 200+ grams of protein daily. I'm sure a lion out on the Serengeti needs this kind of protein loading, but a 180-lb., Idaho State college sophomore hoping to get invited into Sigma Chi?

If there's anything the muscle community agrees on, it's protein. The more, the better. The diet I linked above is from a Brit trainer who is a major yoga enthusiast, not a charter member of Testosterone Nation.

I attribute some of the "I had to gain 35 lbs. of solid muscle" statements to the Tinseltown PR machine, but some of the gains these male stars make are impressive as hell. Makes me think steroids, hence the OP.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

If there's anything the muscle community agrees on, it's protein. The more, the better. The diet I linked above is from a Brit trainer who is a major yoga enthusiast, not a charter member of Testosterone Nation.

From a physiological perspective, you're only going to be able to process so much protein efficiently relative to carboydrate intake. The extra protein doesn't hurt you in the short term (the long term effects of high protein intake are debatable) but short of using anabolic steroids you're only going to put on muscle mass at a given maximum rate, regardless of how much protein you ingest.

One thing the diet you posted (I'll assume it's an accurate representation of Craig's training diet) is that there is no information about his workout. The linked article focuses on lifting and strength exercises; I wonder if Craig did a lot more aerobic exercise, given the amount of stuntwork he had to do. Running or swimming isn't going to build up muscle like lifting will, of course, but it would explain the large amount of carbs in the diet.

Stranger

[Burrido]

You'll always gain quite a bit of mass quickly if you are a beginner. It's when you are seasoned that the gains will slow down dramatically. Like the article stated, these people have lots of hired help and lots of downtime.

[groman]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

Who knows if they are destined for the Kidney Dialysis Hall of Fame, but I've heard plenty of college-age blokes nonchalantly mention that they are ingesting some 200+ grams of protein daily. I'm sure a lion out on the Serengeti needs this kind of protein loading, but a 180-lb., Idaho State college sophomore hoping to get invited into Sigma Chi?

Except protein and fat are the ones we need. Carbohydrates are the ones you could have almost zero of and stay alive and moving. We're an upright omnivorous social predatory animal and outside of established cultures in the wild I would expect most of our dietary requirements to be filled by hunting. Besides our brains, our only real amazing evolutionary adaptation is endurance running - we can pretty much run anything down. We're not the lion on the Serengeti, but if you were on the Serengeti I wouldn't expect to be digging up any hoagies or a rice bowls.

I have never seen a single study that shows that lack of carbohydrates is in any way damaging to the human body when the caloric requirements are met. Excess of certain proteins, overcooked meats, saturated fats, excess of proteins when in a severe caloric surplus and an improper fat/protein balance can lead to health problems. Eating an ok balance of lightly cooked protein and fat should be ok. Most carbs we eat have to go through so much processing just so we can digest the stuff it's amazing we bother at all. Now I eat a lot of carbs, but I happen to not like most of them (hence I am a little biased) and if grains got eliminated from our diets I wouldn't particularly miss any of them (maybe except for buckwheat and grain alcohol).

[Capa84]

So when these actors say they did it without anabolics, is there any real reason to believe them?

[Epimetheus]

Originally Posted by Carnac the Magnificent!

If there's anything the muscle community agrees on, it's protein. The more, the better. The diet I linked above is from a Brit trainer who is a major yoga enthusiast, not a charter member of Testosterone Nation.

"Muscle community" != Science. The muscle community is full of steroid ridden and genetic muscle freaks (predisposed to larger muscle mass), typically they would get big on anything. Also, many of the "muscle community" read bodybuilding magazines which are primarily funded by the manufacturer protein powders, bars and the likes. Of course they want you to believe that you need to eat that much protein.

ACSM, thats American College of Sports Medicine, suggests only 15-20% of your diet be Protein (55-60% Carbs, and 20-30% fat).

I think I would trust ACSM before I trusted Brock the steroid ridden Janitor.

[robardin]

Originally Posted by Epimetheus

ACSM, thats American College of Sports Medicine, suggests only 15-20% of your diet be Protein (55-60% Carbs, and 20-30% fat).

That's interesting. Is there an online cite for this?

I went to the ACSM website, where they list an available brochure entitled Questioning the 40/30/30 Diet, but they don't actually have it online as a PDF or HTML document. Too bad, I'm interested in hearing this angle, as most guides I've read to weight training, not muscle mags but "Idiot's Guide" and other "Intro to Fitness" types of books, recommend reducing carbs and increasing protein -- not necessarily to 200g of protein a day, but to something approximating the "40/30/30" balance of carbs/protein/fat referred to by the title of the ACSM pamphlet.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by groman

Except protein and fat are the ones we need. Carbohydrates are the ones you could have almost zero of and stay alive and moving. We're an upright omnivorous social predatory animal and outside of established cultures in the wild I would expect most of our dietary requirements to be filled by hunting...I have never seen a single study that shows that lack of carbohydrates is in any way damaging to the human body when the caloric requirements are met.

Let's review some basic nutritional biochemistry: You can convert fats and proteins to carbs via gluconeogenesis, but that is inefficient and produces toxic byproducts. Getting out of carb/protein/fat balance is more than just calorie trade-offs; it forces your body to shift over to breaking down fats and proteins to sythesize needed glucose via gluconeogenesis for glycosis and aerobic respiration; while burning up fats is desirable (to a certain extent), using needed proteins for glycosis isn't. The reactions are inefficient and produce waste products that have to be scavenged. During lipolysis (in which unbound fatty acids are released from fat cells) ketones are produced; these are processed out by the liver, but when carbohydrate starvation is occuring they're produced in excess which leads to ketosis. This can reduce pH levels in the body as well as stressing the liver and kidneys.

In addition, with carbohydrates you get a number of compounds that contribute to the process of glycosis that may not be present in sufficient quantities of high protein or high fat foods, leading to incomplete digestion. Taken to an extreme, this results in fermentation (or anaerobic respiration) and the production or lactic acid as well as ketones from side reactions. This is neither desirable nor maintainable. In any case, you would not want to take any diet to the extent that your blood glucose level falls out of the appropriate range.

Converting from protein>glucose>fat is highly inefficient; a high protein diet without sufficient fats or starved of easy fuel carbs will result in some degree of nutritional starvation (hence, the applicability to high protein reducing diets like Atkins), and it's quite possible to die from having too lean or carb-poor a diet, regardless of how much protein you consume. You're certainly not going to be able to maintain an aerobically active lifestyle without a majority share of carbohydrates. Humans are not historically primary carnivores like the large cats, but scavenger/gatherers who are opportunistic hunters similar to ursines. This can be seen from the length and construction of the human digestic tract which is much longer than that of pure carnivores. We do require sources of protein to fuel our abnormally oversized brains, and in prehistory the only way to regularly and reliably obtain the requisite proteins (and energy rich lipids) was from dense animal source muscle protein, but with a few isolated populations it has never comprised the bulk of any natural diet (and those that do also have a very high fresh saturated fat percentage which typically includes a fair amount of carbs and a lot of vitamins).

To make the analogy to construction, proteins are like bricks, fats are the mortar that holds them together, and carbohydrates are the cast you use to pay the bricklayers. You can try paying the bricklayer in bricks and mortar, but it's going to cost you a lot more and he's only going to take a certain amount before he quits. Pumping in more lean proteins is a game of diminishing returns; the guy eating two pounds of red meat every day in addition to a henhouse full of eggs is probably excreting a significant amount of that protein back out.

Epimetheus makes a very good point; most of these guys are not trained nutritional experts and have essentially no knowledge of nutritional biochemistry or human physiology beyond what they've read in muscle rags. They know what "works" in terms of building muscle mass, but that doesn't mean that it's the most effecient or healthy in the long term, and the magazines themselves have every incentive to sell the notion of high protein diets in order to sell protein supplements.

Whether or not these actors use anabolic steroids is unknown, but it's clear that there's little reason for them to do so; as the cited article makes clear, it's leanness, not muscle bulk, which gives the kind of definition that makes actors look "buff" and muscular. If you want to look like Lou Ferrigno in mere months then you're probably going to be popping steriods like Pez, but if you just want to look like Daniel Craig, you need to burn up the fat percentage to single digit levels while focusing on some definition rather than bulk muscle growth.

robardin, reducing carbohydrates (in moderation) is advisable if you are doing strictly anaerobic strength training and trying to reduce body fat percentage, particularly on off-days. However, this is more about reducing fat than increasing muscle mass, and has to be carefully managed in order to keep from reducing muscle growth. I don't have a specific cite for you offhand, but this is basic human physiology, regardless of what any bodybuilder tells you about eating nothing but pure protein shakes and a banana a day.

Stranger

[Doctor Who]

Originally Posted by Capa84

So when these actors say they did it without anabolics, is there any real reason to believe them?

I would tend to believe them. Why? There's no real need to use anabolics for them because they have the time (all day, everyday), motivation (millions of dollars), and money (aforementioned millions of dollars) to bulk up without taking shortcuts. They can afford the best nutrition and the best fitness gurus to assist them.

There's really no reason for them to take shortcuts with the potential for a massive PR disaster.

Also, on preview, what Stranger said re: steroids.

[Epimetheus]

Originally Posted by robardin

That's interesting. Is there an online cite for this?

I went to the ACSM website, where they list an available brochure entitled Questioning the 40/30/30 Diet, but they don't actually have it online as a PDF or HTML document. Too bad, I'm interested in hearing this angle, as most guides I've read to weight training, not muscle mags but "Idiot's Guide" and other "Intro to Fitness" types of books, recommend reducing carbs and increasing protein -- not necessarily to 200g of protein a day, but to something approximating the "40/30/30" balance of carbs/protein/fat referred to by the title of the ACSM pamphlet.

I can't find a direct site to ACSM, I did find this article on the NSCA, and this one on usa swimming.

ACSM has changed their site recently and it isn't as navigable, and google doesn't turn up much. I also learned the recommendations through my Nutrition course.

[ultrafilter]

But see Dr. Lowery's opinion for a good argument in favor of higher protein intake for athletes.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

But see Dr. Lowery's opinion for a good argument in favor of higher protein intake for athletes.

If you carefully read the entire article, you'll see it is saying exactly the same thing I did above (including using the bricklayer analogy), to wit:

We need more than just "bricks" (amino acid building blocks), we also need "gas for the brick layer's equipment" (calories from carbs and healthy fats)...If we hearken back to our glutamine highlights, we can see that glutamine is a good thing metabolically. Yet researchers have shown that if a person eats a high-protein diet at the expense of carbohydrates, his muscle and (circulating) glutamine concentrations actually fall.(10) Yep, fall – despite the ample protein and glutamine intake. So you see, there are good reasons why we need carbs--and fats--along with our beloved protein....So, as free-living (beaten down) athletes, we probably need protein more than many nutritionists think... as the recent revival of amino acid research suggests. But should we be consuming 300+ grams per day while eating next to zero carbs and/ or fats? Definitely not.

Now, he's indicating that higher protein levels are necessary for atheletes--a fact nobody denies--but that's just a component of overall higher calorie intake, including a balance of fats and carbohydrates.

Stranger

[Capa84]

Originally Posted by Doctor Who

I would tend to believe them. Why? There's no real need to use anabolics for them because they have the time (all day, everyday), motivation (millions of dollars), and money (aforementioned millions of dollars) to bulk up without taking shortcuts. They can afford the best nutrition and the best fitness gurus to assist them.

There's really no reason for them to take shortcuts with the potential for a massive PR disaster.

Also, on preview, what Stranger said re: steroids.

Which sounds suspiciously like, "why would baseball players use steroids? They have all the time and money and incentive to bulk up without taking shortcuts."

[groman]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

In addition, with carbohydrates you get a number of compounds that contribute to the process of glycosis that may not be present in sufficient quantities of high protein or high fat foods, leading to incomplete digestion. Taken to an extreme, this results in fermentation (or anaerobic respiration) and the production or lactic acid as well as ketones from side reactions. This is neither desirable nor maintainable. In any case, you would not want to take any diet to the extent that your blood glucose level falls out of the appropriate

My problem with that is not that I don't think it's right. My problem with that is that to me that seems like thinking one is smarter than they really are. We are in a situation where we don't have to rely on eating every kind of edible junk we come upon. To me cooked carbohydrates feel untested by evolution -- sure lots of things are untested but these are so recent that for all we know they're the only cause of all cancers. Met anybody who's had cancer and never eaten a cooked carbohydrate? I'm not making a claim here, just a hypothetical. To me a protein/fat diet is the reasonable "default" from which you can experiment - a fundamental basic diet from which we can build science. Unfortunately all the science on the subject seems to make the assumption that carbs are safe to eat for humans. You see life-long vegetarians and vegans occasionally, and studies surrounding protein consumption, but I've yet to see long-term study about people who have avoided grains their entire life. People look at Atkins like it was the most counterintuitive thing in the world like to me it doesn't like a weight loss diet, it just looks like a step in a more natural direction. To me avoiding grains is in the same category as eating organic foods and avoiding frying and refined sugars. Bread's bread, be it cake or pasta. It's an opinion not a statement of long term benefit of it . I'm just saying it should be a reasonably safe default.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by Capa84

Which sounds suspiciously like, "why would baseball players use steroids? They have all the time and money and incentive to bulk up without taking shortcuts."

A suddenly underperforming baseball player facing intense competition from minor leaguers does not have "all the time" to bulk up. Moreover, professional athletes aren't exactly grounded in the scientific method. Some players will resort to using any performing-enhancing substance, if that "anything" might (or might not) give them a 2 percent performance edge and if they believe their opponents have a drug-aided competitive advantage.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by groman

My problem with that is not that I don't think it's right. My problem with that is that to me that seems like thinking one is smarter than they really are. We are in a situation where we don't have to rely on eating every kind of edible junk we come upon. .... I'm just saying it should be a reasonably safe default.

The only credible way of resolving this matter is for you and Stranger to link a photograph of you striking a Mr. Universe pose. The best poser will be declared the winner of this debate.

Female dopers are encouraged to enter.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Capa84

Which sounds suspiciously like, "why would baseball players use steroids? They have all the time and money and incentive to bulk up without taking shortcuts."

Well the difference is that actors just need to look big and strong, not actually be bigger and stronger than a bunch of other guys in peak condition.

Also, they want to look lean and fit, not massive like a freakin monster.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by Capa84

Which sounds suspiciously like, "why would baseball players use steroids? They have all the time and money and incentive to bulk up without taking shortcuts."

Again, actors don't need actual strength; what they are looking for is definition. To that end, stripping off fat is just as effective, if not moreso, than adding muscle mass.

Stranger

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by groman

We are in a situation where we don't have to rely on eating every kind of edible junk we come upon. To me cooked carbohydrates feel untested by evolution -- sure lots of things are untested but these are so recent that for all we know they're the only cause of all cancers. Met anybody who's had cancer and never eaten a cooked carbohydrate? I'm not making a claim here, just a hypothetical. To me a protein/fat diet is the reasonable "default" from which you can experiment - a fundamental basic diet from which we can build science. Unfortunately all the science on the subject seems to make the assumption that carbs are safe to eat for humans. You see life-long vegetarians and vegans occasionally, and studies surrounding protein consumption, but I've yet to see long-term study about people who have avoided grains their entire life. People look at Atkins like it was the most counterintuitive thing in the world like to me it doesn't like a weight loss diet, it just looks like a step in a more natural direction. To me avoiding grains is in the same category as eating organic foods and avoiding frying and refined sugars. Bread's bread, be it cake or pasta. It's an opinion not a statement of long term benefit of it . I'm just saying it should be a reasonably safe default.

Okay, first of all, nobody is arguing that highly processed, refined, stripped and bleached carbs are the best form of carbohydrates to eat. It is universially agreed that "natural" carbs--those that are accompanied by fiber and other nutrients--are much better for you than bleached flour or refined sugars. But it's very clear from human physiology that we can't and are not evolved to exist primarily on proteins and lipids. We require carbohydrates in significant quantity to power the mechanisms of the TCA cycle. This is an fundmental physiological fact.

The reason you don't see any long term studies of people who have a minimal lifelong carbohydrate intake is because, with spare exceptions, no one lives with this kind of diet. Even the Alutiiq and Aleut people who have diets that are primarily fish and red meat with a high fat content also get a substantial amount of carbs from eating the meet freshly killed and fresh or dried berries. You cannot live on proteins and fats alone.

Stranger

[groman]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

We require carbohydrates in significant quantity to power the mechanisms of the TCA cycle. This is an fundmental physiological fact.

You cannot live on proteins and fats alone.

Cite? If your argument is the Krebs cycle, every animal uses the Krebs cycle and quite a bit of animals can subsist on proteins and fats alone. Are you saying they require the stomach contents of their kills to survive? Are you saying cats will die without carbohydrates?

I'm not saying that it's better to avoid all carbohydrates, but grains and cooked tubers are probably one of the weirdest things we eat. The nutritionist claims that we need 60% of our diet to come from carbs baffle me. I can understand 5%, even 10%, but where the hell would you find 60% of your diet in carbs before agriculture, especially up north?

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by groman

Cite? If your argument is the Krebs cycle, every animal uses the Krebs cycle and quite a bit of animals can subsist on proteins and fats alone. Are you saying they require the stomach contents of their kills to survive? Are you saying cats will die without carbohydrates?

Cows can survive on grains or even cellulose vegetation alone; does this mean that we should be able to as well?

Animals that subsist significantly on protein and fats have (a) digestion systems and enzymes for breaking down such into more usable compounds, (b) side processes that help them both process fats into carbohydrates and tolerate and eliminate toxins at levels outside of the human range of tolerance, and (c) still get a significant amount of carbohydrates via fresh meat. Human beings are very clearly not evolved to be primary carnivores; comparative anatomy with carnivores versus omnivores, and examination of H. sapiens closest evolutionary species bears this out emperically, and basic nutritional biochemistry establishes that high protein portions of total calorie intake in humans results in undesirable and detrimental byproducts.

And yes, cats require carbohydrates, albeit not in the same proportion as omnivores. Since their lifestyle is a largely sedentary one--in between frenetic, anaerobic bursts of activity--they can tolerate both the buildup of toxins and the less efficient conversion of lipids and proteins into carbohydrates.

Stranger

[groman]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Cows can survive on grains or even cellulose vegetation alone; does this mean that we should be able to as well?

Except cows are herbivores. Humans, like many other animals are omnivores. Many different animals can be considered omnivores. There's chimps, there's pigs, there's humans, there's bears and one could also make a case for most canids. I am claiming that our upright posture combined with pack nature and amazing running ability are recent evolutionary adaptations not found in other primates that signify that H. Sapiens is a predatory omnivore, like bears and foxes, rather than scavenger/gatherer omnivore like rats, chimps or pigs. Now, albeit recent, these adaptations still have had several orders of magnitude more time to settle in than agriculture, without which significant grain consumption is impossible.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Animals that subsist significantly on protein and fats have (a) digestion systems and enzymes for breaking down such into more usable compounds

As do I. I have been eating raw fish almost every day (I'm on a business trip to Tokyo) for almost three weeks now and I am fairly sure that it gets digested just fine, and actually a lot easier than the rice. Back in the States I routinely eat rare steak with no immediate ill effects.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

(b) side processes that help them both process fats into carbohydrates and tolerate and eliminate toxins at levels outside of the human range of tolerance,

I have that too. I have two healthy kidneys. The only major byproduct of protein digestion I am aware of is excessive ammonia (nitrogen waste) excreted as urea.
The rest seems like speculation about calcium leeching which I admit might be an issue but requires further study.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

and (c) still get a significant amount of carbohydrates via fresh meat.

I admit I do not know how much carbs you can get from fresh meat. Are you saying humans are unable to get those carbs? If a mammal is getting insufficient carbohydrates but excessive proteins, in general gluconeogenesis will occur. "Fresh meat" implies that these carbs break down rapidly, correct? However, that's hardly a reason to start baking cakes or making rice bowls. That is a good reason to stop eating carrion though

Agriculture developed mostly because of climate change, not because of any particular need. Things just started growing everywhere and a lot of large prey animals went extinct, and agriculture became easier and more reliable than a HG lifestyle. With it, however, came major health problems. Average height went down, vitamin D and iron deficiency soared. Then, the consistent overabundance of food that stored well caused a population boom, with which came increased infections and society. At least that's what I remember from college biology, and could very well be wrong.

What you are saying intrigues me to a degree and checking Amazon I found this book . I am putting it on my list, but the only two used copies available are $500 a pop. I'll see if I can find it in a library and will be sure to check it out so next time I actually have reasonable citations to back up my claims (or different claims if I am convinced otherwise, I suppose).

Anybody can recommend any other reading on the subject?

[ultrafilter]

Originally Posted by groman

Anybody can recommend any other reading on the subject?

As far as I know, Dr. John Williams is one of the foremost experts on what our prehistoric ancestors ate. You might be interested in this article aimed at a general audience.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by groman

I am claiming that our upright posture combined with pack nature and amazing running ability are recent evolutionary adaptations not found in other primates that signify that H. Sapiens is a predatory omnivore, like bears and foxes...I admit I do not know how much carbs you can get from fresh meat. Are you saying humans are unable to get those carbs? If a mammal is getting insufficient carbohydrates but excessive proteins, in general gluconeogenesis will occur. "Fresh meat" implies that these carbs break down rapidly, correct?...Agriculture developed mostly because of climate change, not because of any particular need. Things just started growing everywhere and a lot of large prey animals went extinct, and agriculture became easier and more reliable than a HG lifestyle. With it, however, came major health problems. Average height went down, vitamin D and iron deficiency soared. Then, the consistent overabundance of food that stored well caused a population boom, with which came increased infections and society.

• "Amazing running ability"? I beg to differ. Humans have a good ability to move moderate to long distances at speed, but we are easily outpaced by any number of other predators which are better suited to cursorial hunting.
• Bears (with the exception of the polar bear and the extinct short-faced bear) are not predatory carnivores by any stretch of the imagination; for the most part their diet consists primarily of fruits, nuts, berries, honey, insects, carrion, and the occasional opportunistic kill. Kodiaks and some grizzlies do have as a substantial portion of their diet fish (salmon), but this is only for a portion of the year (prior to hibernation), and their average calorie breakdown is roughly the same has humans, with a substantial portion of strict carbohydrates.
• Carbohydrates from fresh meat, blood, and stomach contents are limited and are tehe first thing to break down. Even eating fresh raw red meat from the grocery store is not going to give you a significant portion of requisite carbohydrates.
• Gluconeogenesis is, again, a very inefficient process which generates serveral byproducts that are toxic in quantity to human beings. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this.
• Several of your claims regarding the genesis and effects of agriculture are both oversimplified and questionable, specifically the claim that agriculture was purely a result of climate change. (Please cite.) Early agriculture was likely of the seasonal cultivate and return sort, and was a supplement to seasonal gathering of fruits, native vegetables, and hunting. Only with later high density populations was hunting and animal husbandry insufficient to provide adequate protein sources.
• Tubers and roots are probably some of the oldest cultivated crops in the world, and are easily cooked or otherwise made edible by roasting or mashing into paste. Grains, particularly refined grains that require processing to eat, certainly came much later. The chickpea is probably the earliest cultivated grain, and it requires soaking to make it edible. Before that, carbohydrates most likely came from fruits and edible roots, which grow extensively in the tropical, subtropical and temperate regions bands.
• "Things just started growing everywhere and a lot of large prey animals went extinct," Prey animals as a class did not "become extinct" but were largely replaced by domesticated verions. Many primary predators, large land herbivores, and keystone species were reduced or extinguished in competition. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is inadequate for high population densities and there is still considerable discussion on the impetus for population increase; there wer obviously a number of interlaced factors which compelled/allowed/amplified the ability to establish permanent settlements.

We've ventured far afield from the original point, though, which is this: diets with high percentages of protein are unhealthy or at least suboptimal (for an otherwise healthy person), and endlessly increasing protein intake does not translate to increased muscle mass. As a human being, you require carbohydrates to efficiently and completely break down proteins, and without them you generate excessive amounts of waste products that have to be scavenged from your system. You can argue for the "caveman diet" all you like, but it doesn't change the facts of human biochemistry.

Stranger

[groman]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

[list][*]"Amazing running ability"? I beg to differ. Humans have a good ability to move moderate to long distances at speed, but we are easily outpaced by any number of other predators which are better suited to cursorial hunting.

Human beings DO have an amazing running ability. Compared to other animals we can run for a practically infinite amount of time. For a large prey animal that leaves tracks a group of scary human runners with sticks is doom. It might outrun us the moment it takes off, but a human being can easily run a horse down to death. A cornered horse might fight back but we have spears, and it's probably not much of a challenge to a group of human men with sticks after a day long run.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

[*]Gluconeogenesis is, again, a very inefficient process which generates serveral byproducts that are toxic in quantity to human beings. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this.

I can think of two:
- Name them.
- Cite something that supports this assertion.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

We've ventured far afield from the original point, though, which is this: diets with high percentages of protein are unhealthy or at least suboptimal (for an otherwise healthy person),

I will agree to "Diets with high percentages of protein are sufficient but possibly suboptimal for an otherwise healthy person." I will need a good cite before I believe that a "healthy diet" gets less healthy with a calorie-for-calorie replacement of bulk of carbs with bulk of proteins.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

and endlessly increasing protein intake does not translate to increased muscle mass.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

As a human being, you require carbohydrates to efficiently and completely break down proteins, and without them you generate excessive amounts of waste products that have to be scavenged from your system.

Very possible. We also have mechanisms dealing with that waste. At the very least completely eliminating carbohydrates out of your diet kills you the slowest (as compared to completely eliminating fats or proteins), possibly even slow enough to be negligible over the length of the average human lifespan.

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

You can argue for the "caveman diet" all you like, but it doesn't change the facts of human biochemistry.

No it doesn't, and I wasn't arguing a caveman diet. I was arguing a hunter-gatherer diet. It doesn't have to be better, but it has to be sufficient or we'd be extinct. Sufficient diet for hundreds of thousands of years is also a good starting point and a reasonable default.

Neither one of us has provided any citations for our claims. ultrafilter linked us to a very interesting article that supports most of my assertions and has a good reference section at the end. I suggest you at least read it.


Groman

[ultrafilter]

As Stranger pointed out, the first article I linked to (post #17) does offer support for his claim that increased protein intake without an increase in carbohydrate intake isn't all that great a thing to do.

[Enter the Flagon]

What needs to be mentioned here is the fact that taking steroids will greatly enhance a person's ability to look "lean and fit" - mostly by minimizing the loss of muscle that almost inevitably occurs when one attempts to cut bodyfat to a minimum. A person who is on steroids can actually lose fat and gain muscle at the same time, a feat which is nearly impossible without some sort of anabolic "augmentation".

Let's also recognize that actors have strong incentives to get in the best shape possible - namely multi-million dollar contracts, fame, peer recognition and prestige - just like the aforementioned major leage baseball players.

As an example of a guy who sports the kind of combination of low bodyfat/high muscle mass that is difficult to achieve without even moderate doses of anabolic steroids, let's look at some pictures of Brad Pitt.

Here's Brad in very good shape for his role in "Fight Club".

Not bad

And here he is, buffed out, for his role in "Troy".

Damn!

See the difference?

[ultrafilter]

Pitt was 165 lbs. for his role in Fight Club, and maybe 30 lbs. heavier in Troy, a movie that happened five years later. Neither physique is particularly impressive, and certainly not a "combination of low bodyfat/high muscle mass that is difficult to achieve without even moderate doses of anabolic steroids".

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Originally Posted by Enter the Flagon

Let's also recognize that actors have strong incentives to get in the best shape possible - namely multi-million dollar contracts, fame, peer recognition and prestige - just like the aforementioned major leage baseball players.

And let's also recognize the fact that actors get to have the very best personal trainers and can train full-time. I work 9-5. I have family obligations too. So I can only have a few opportunities to seriously work out each week.

If your full-time job is to eat sleep and work out for three months you will bulk up faster than the average guy.

As for protein, Brandon Routh was consuming about 200 grams a day, according to his nutritionist.

Still even with that in mind, the guys who pack on 20 lbs in two or three months amaze me (and make me a little dubious about how natural it all was.)

[daffyduck]

Anyone interested in the most current information available on the subject of sports nutrition should read "Nutrient Timing" by John Ivy, Ph.D. and Robert Portman, Ph.D.

If you're interested in building muscle, you should consider a study from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Galveston which compared the effects of a carbohydrate supplement, an amino acid supplement, and a carbohydrate/amino acid supplement on protein synthesis in athletes following exercise. The carbohydrate/amino acid supplement increased protein synthesis 38% more than the protein supplement and 100% more than the carbohydrate supplement. Miller, S.L., Tipton, K.D., Chinkes, D.L., et al., "Independant and combined effects of amino acids and glucose after resistance exercise," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35: 449-455, 2003.

Clearly, as a general statement, carbohydrates are just as important to muscle building as protein. This isn't new to bodybuilders. No bodybuilders starve themselves of carbohydrates in a bulking phase.

As for how much protein should be consumed daily, the goal is to maintain a positive nitrogen balance. How much protein is necessary to do this is obviously going to be different for an athlete undergoing intensive strength training vs. a sedentary individual. No one knowledgeable about nutrition is saying that athletes seeking to improve strength and muscularity have the same dietary requirements as your average couch potato. There is no such thing as the "one size fits all" diet and protein recommendations for athlets in strength training should not be construed as optimal for anyone other than athletes undergoing strength training.

Reviewing a couple of recent studies will shed some light on the question of how much protein is recommended for athletes undergoing intensive strength training.

"Fern and colleagues found a greater gain in muscle mass over four weeks of training in bodybuilders who consumed 3.3 grams versus 1.3 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. It was also noted that when the bodybuilders consumed the higher protein concentration, a significant amount was oxidized and not retained. This suggests that protein intake exceeded that which could be used for protein synthesis."

So 3.3g/kg establishes an upper limit even for highly trained bodybuilders.

"Lemon and colleagues found that approximately 1.5g/kg of body weight per day were required to maintain zero nitrogen balance in strength athletes undergoing intense training."

So 1.5g/kg establishes a lower limit.

So a man weighing 185 lbs. undergoing intensive strength training (me), needs to take in what would be between one and two pounds of cooked chicken a day to get bigger. I would say that is way more than your average diet, but as I said, athletes undergoing intensive strength training aren't average guys and it would be foolish to say their requirements are a proper diet for everyone.

I'll provide the study citations for anyone who contacts me. They're legit.

My personal take on the 20 lbs of muscle in 12 weeks claim is that in the case of actors, it's bullshit. If you're talking about a highly trained bodybuilder who already had significant muscle mass and who atrophied during a six month hiatus from training, then I'd say it would be possible for someone like that to REGAIN 20 lbs of muscle in 12 weeks without AAS.

As a final comment - Professional bodybuilders are a breed apart from the average muscle head at your local gym. These guys make a living from being big and lean and you can't get that way if you're ignorant about training and nutrition. Steroids aren't miracle drugs and they're not going to get you into the pro ranks unless you combine them with exceptional training and exceptional nutrition. They may not have a Ph.D. in sports nutrition, but I can assure you that they have extensive practical knowledge gained from years of experiment. In other words, if you want to know how to get big and lean, the words of the guys who have actually done it are worth considering.

[Burrido]

Originally Posted by Enter the Flagon

As an example of a guy who sports the kind of combination of low bodyfat/high muscle mass that is difficult to achieve without even moderate doses of anabolic steroids, let's look at some pictures of Brad Pitt.

A physique like his can be achieved by normal means. It could be done by bulking up months (years) in advance and burning off calories prior to principal photography. It's what professional bodybuilders do. They are not cut all year, rather actually quite overweight most of it. In addition it only needs to be maintained until shooting ends.

[Enter the Flagon]

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

Pitt was 165 lbs. for his role in Fight Club, and maybe 30 lbs. heavier in Troy, a movie that happened five years later. Neither physique is particularly impressive, and certainly not a "combination of low bodyfat/high muscle mass that is difficult to achieve without even moderate doses of anabolic steroids".

First note that I used the word "difficult", instead of the word "impossible".



Dr. Harrison Pope, M.D., a Harvard Medical School specialist in steroid abuse, was interviewed for an article in Men's Health magazine, March 2003. Here's an excerpt:

"Steroids have become so common, in fact, that Dr. Pope believes most of us no longer recognize a steroid-enhanced body when we see one. They're all around us, bulging with injection-enhanced muscle but posing as clean. Because there are certain dimensions that cannot be attained without chemical help, Dr. Pope adds, he can walk through the mall or grab a stack of magazines and swiftly pick out many of the steroid users. The numbers, he says, are astonishingly high: 'I once grabbed six men's magazines at random, and I'm certain that more than half of them had steroid-enhanced men on the covers.' "

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by groman

Human beings DO have an amazing running ability. Compared to other animals we can run for a practically infinite amount of time. For a large prey animal that leaves tracks a group of scary human runners with sticks is doom. It might outrun us the moment it takes off, but a human being can easily run a horse down to death. A cornered horse might fight back but we have spears, and it's probably not much of a challenge to a group of human men with sticks after a day long run.

Actually, a human being can easily outrun a horse from a standing stop to 10m. However, I challenge you to "run a horse down to death". Certainly a very fit, athletic human being can maintain a running trot longer than a thoroughbred, but then the thoroughbred is evolved (by artificial selection) to run short sprints, not long distances. In any case, horses are not cursorial hunters by any stretch of the imagination, and from an evolutionary point of view need not run faster than a potential predator but merely faster than the slowest members of the pack. Compared with cursorial hunters like wolves or dingos, humans are below the mean.

Originally Posted by groman

I can think of two:
- Name them.
- Cite something that supports this assertion.

See ketone bodies. Production of ketones is part of the normal (and in moderation, healthy) anaerobic metabolism, but encouraging overproduciton leads to alterations in blood pH levels, liver dysfunction, failure of proper glucose regulation (causing weight cycling), and long-term damage to liver and kidneys.

Originally Posted by groman

I will agree to "Diets with high percentages of protein are sufficient but possibly suboptimal for an otherwise healthy person." I will need a good cite before I believe that a "healthy diet" gets less healthy with a calorie-for-calorie replacement of bulk of carbs with bulk of proteins.

Seriously? Even the hard-core protein-adoring Atkins Diet acolyates acknowledge the need for carbohydrates. They prefer, quite reasonably, the complex carbs that are take longer to break down and are self moderating, albeit at lower levels than generally recommended. The idea that human beings can completely supplant carbohydrate requirements with protein is so far afield from nutritional biochemistry I'm not even sure where to begin addressing your claim; it's as if you were claiming that gravitational force was due to what color the world is.

Originally Posted by groman

No it doesn't, and I wasn't arguing a caveman diet. I was arguing a hunter-gatherer diet. It doesn't have to be better, but it has to be sufficient or we'd be extinct. Sufficient diet for hundreds of thousands of years is also a good starting point and a reasonable default.

Neither one of us has provided any citations for our claims. ultrafilter linked us to a very interesting article that supports most of my assertions and has a good reference section at the end. I suggest you at least read it.

I'm not sure what yoiu read, but Williams' article (as cited by ultrafilter) clearly indicates that (a) the typical diet of the hunter-gatherer (caveman in the colloqual sense, although clearly our ancestors rarely lived in caves) is far from "typical", and (b) it certainly consisted of a substantial amount of carbohydrates. The notion that humans don't need and would possibly be better off without a substantial portion of carbohydrates in their total calorie budget is without precident, and seeing as how it is far afield fromm the O.P.'s query, fodder for a differnt thread entirely, albeit one I don't think I can add anything more to.

Stranger

[groman]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Actually, a human being can easily outrun a horse from a standing stop to 10m. However, I challenge you to "run a horse down to death". Certainly a very fit, athletic human being can maintain a running trot longer than a thoroughbred, but then the thoroughbred is evolved (by artificial selection) to run short sprints, not long distances. In any case, horses are not cursorial hunters by any stretch of the imagination, and from an evolutionary point of view need not run faster than a potential predator but merely faster than the slowest members of the pack. Compared with cursorial hunters like wolves or dingos, humans are below the mean.

A very fit, athletic, exceptional human being can maintain a running trot longer than any other land animal. At least to the best of my knowledge. The most exceptional human being in this regard, in fact has the following record:
from here

24 hr "290,221 m" World Record Yiannis Kouros GRE Sri Chinmoy SUI 05/03/98

That averages out to be about 7.5 miles per hour. Do you really think any prey animal can trot at an average of 7.5 miles per hour for 24 hours non-stop?

But that's a world record. However, I think if you will find that a large fraction of humans who are fit and have been doing so their entire life can run about as much as they can walk. Perhaps not nearly as fast as Yiannis Kouros but certainly not so slow as to let the animal they are tracking recuperate and cool down properly.


Note this article: Man beats horse

The horse had time to stop, and if you notice the man must have been well ahead of the horse at 16km before the end, because the article states the horse galloped for the last 16km, since almost certainly he could not have outrun a galloping horse and yet he still won. I have an inkling that if the horse was required to always stay ahead of the man, it would not live to the end of the race.

[groman]

Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train

Seriously? Even the hard-core protein-adoring Atkins Diet acolyates acknowledge the need for carbohydrates. They prefer, quite reasonably, the complex carbs that are take longer to break down and are self moderating, albeit at lower levels than generally recommended. The idea that human beings can completely supplant carbohydrate requirements with protein is so far afield from nutritional biochemistry I'm not even sure where to begin addressing your claim; it's as if you were claiming that gravitational force was due to what color the world is.

Bulk. The word bulk to mean means most, not all. This is starting to smell of PETA propaganda. I'm not arguing that you can have an optimal diet with 0 carbs. You can survive with practically 0 carbs, and you can have a very good diet with 10-20% carbs. You are yet to show anything that refutes that.

[Stranger On A Train]

Originally Posted by groman

A very fit, athletic, exceptional human being can maintain a running trot longer than any other land animal. At least to the best of my knowledge. The most exceptional human being in this regard, in fact has the following record:
from here

24 hr "290,221 m" World Record Yiannis Kouros GRE Sri Chinmoy SUI 05/03/98

That averages out to be about 7.5 miles per hour. Do you really think any prey animal can trot at an average of 7.5 miles per hour for 24 hours non-stop?

You are again missing the point. Yes, a human being can maintain a trotting pace over long distances, but other cursorial hunters can do the same, at a faster rate and with more aggression. You are comparing apples to oranges between humans and horses, which (again) as pack animals do not need to outrun potential predators over long distances but merely need to outrun their slower herdmates. At any rate, your cursorial hunter-gatherer will require carbohydrates in order to chase down prey over long distances; running in the anaerobic range for a long duration will result in detrimental loss of lean muscle mass.

Originally Posted by groman

Bulk. The word bulk to mean means most, not all. This is starting to smell of PETA propaganda. I'm not arguing that you can have an optimal diet with 0 carbs. You can survive with practically 0 carbs, and you can have a very good diet with 10-20% carbs. You are yet to show anything that refutes that.

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not a vegetarian, I'm not advocating vegetarianism, and your ad hominin attack does nothing to bolster your argument. Although you keep insisting that I cite basic facts in nutrtional biochemistry--like the fact that you require carbohydrates in quantity to efficiently process protein--you've neglected to provide even a single citation to bolster your own extraordinary claims. Until you do so (and preferably in your own thread that doesn't continue this hijack any further), I'm done with this discussion.

Stranger

[Nava]

Originally Posted by groman

Cite? If your argument is the Krebs cycle, every animal uses the Krebs cycle and quite a bit of animals can subsist on proteins and fats alone. Are you saying they require the stomach contents of their kills to survive? Are you saying cats will die without carbohydrates?

The biggest % of the liver's weight is glucogen; doesn't get much more "carbs" than that! And yet most people think of it as "meat" and therefore "protein".

You want to see my aunt's cats fight, give chopped liver to only one of them.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by groman

A very fit, athletic, exceptional human being can maintain a running trot longer than any other land animal. At least to the best of my knowledge. The most exceptional human being in this regard, in fact has the following record:
from here

24 hr "290,221 m" World Record Yiannis Kouros GRE Sri Chinmoy SUI 05/03/98

That averages out to be about 7.5 miles per hour. Do you really think any prey animal can trot at an average of 7.5 miles per hour for 24 hours non-stop?

But that's a world record. However, I think if you will find that a large fraction of humans who are fit and have been doing so their entire life can run about as much as they can walk. Perhaps not nearly as fast as Yiannis Kouros but certainly not so slow as to let the animal they are tracking recuperate and cool down properly.


Note this article: Man beats horse

The horse had time to stop, and if you notice the man must have been well ahead of the horse at 16km before the end, because the article states the horse galloped for the last 16km, since almost certainly he could not have outrun a galloping horse and yet he still won. I have an inkling that if the horse was required to always stay ahead of the man, it would not live to the end of the race.

With due respect, please take this discussion elsewhere, and try to focus on my OP. This is beyond silly.