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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[ul][li]“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. [/li][li]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. [/li][li]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.[/li][li]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.[/li][li]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. [/li][li]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.[/li][li]“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.[/ul][/li]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
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.
I can think of two:
- Name them.
- Cite something that supports this assertion.
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.
Agreed.
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.
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
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.
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”.
And here he is, buffed out, for his role in “Troy”.
See the difference?
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”.
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.)
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.
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.
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.’ "
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.
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.
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.
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
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.