Ackshually, chud, protein will make you lose muscle! Posted on February 24, 2023 by Anonymous Ackshually, chud, protein will make you lose muscle!
Explains why people in jail get so jacked doing bodyweight only stuff
Steroids, also even by steroids standards they look skinny fat due to no weights because morons kept hitting each other with them
Source? Not everyone bigger than you is roiding you dyel
Many jails have weight rooms. Also the ones that don't have ways for the inmates to find a workaround. For example, a prison I did time in had pull-up bars on range and that was it. However, they served their milk and juice for meals in bags to the inmates. The inmates would collect the bags (each held about a half litre of fluid) and fill them with water, and then tie a knot to hold the water in. They would fill pillow cases with these to form weights. They even used this method to make weight belts for the pullup bar. I also saw them using each other as weights for things like bench press (one guy would use a towel to hang off of a cage encasing the PA system, doing pseudo pull-ups while standing on the hands of a second dude lying on his back using the first guy as weight). Interesting stuff.
what did you do
wtf does that have to do with this
furthermore most inmates look like fucking SHIT and are weak
link to actual study https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/2/afad018/7036280?login=false
> Participants (n=3,302) were 89% female (n=2,923), aged a mean of 72.1 (±7.3) years and composed of 858 (55%) monozygotic, 709 (45%) dizygotic twin pairs and 168 individual lone twins. Using optimal protein intake as the reference group (1.0–1.3 g/kg/day), there was no significant association between protein intake (neither high nor low) and low muscle strength, or between low protein intake and sarcopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39–1.25; P=0.229) in unadjusted models. High protein intake (>1.3 g/kg/day) was associated with low muscle mass (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.39–2.24; P<0.0001), while low protein intake was protective (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.40–0.67; P<0.0001). High protein intake was associated with sarcopenia (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.21–3.44; P=0.008), and this was robust to adjustment for demographic, anthropometric and dietary factors. The association between muscle strength and weight, body mass index, healthy eating index, protein intake and alpha diversity was not significantly influenced by shared twin factors, indicating greater amenability to interventions.
some to consider:
> 3302 participants, 89% female, predominantly white, average age of 72, min age 60
> all twins (45% identical, 55% fraternal)
> used twins to pare out influence from genetic factors
> 'optimal' intake was 1g-1.3g / kg / day (77 - 100g for a 170lb person)
> sarcopenia prevalence was ~2x greater in individuals consuming more protein (> 1.3g / kg)
> There was no significant association between protein intake and muscle strength in any of the models. There was a significant association between protein intake (high and low, when compared to the reference category) and muscle mass, robust to adjustment in all models. Low protein intake was protective of low muscle mass (OR 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40–0.67; P<0.0001), while high protein intake was associated with an increased odds of having low muscle mass (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.39–2.24; P<0.0001). In terms of sarcopenia, no significant association was noted for low protein intake; however, high protein intake was significantly associated with sarcopenia, and this was robust to adjustment in all models (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.21–3.44; P=0.008).
> High protein intake is associated with sarcopenia, even after adjustment for a range of covariates. This finding should be considered when advising increased protein intake for older adults without assessing baseline consumption
keep in mind that a single study will never, ever be sufficient proof of anything, but this actually seems like a solid study.
>average age of 72
>no one below the age of 60
yeah fuck this
So, average age of 72, mostly female, and none of them lifted weights? Yeah, aight.
So I should target 1 g/kg for my grandma?
was exercise activity controlled for?
how was muscle mass measured? did they simply look at "lean mass"?
low or high muscular strength wasn't associated with any protein intake so how did one protein intake level lead to muscle loss?
>minimum age of 60
>seems like a solid study
are you actually retarded? This study can be immediately thrown out considering it's all geriatrics, this is a study purely for old people, and not just older, fucking OOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLDDDD. Their bodies are breaking down, why would this be even remotely relevant to most people who would give a shit about this kind of study? Old bodies breakdown, who could have guessed, glad we did research to find that out.
Meanwhile ~~*they*~~ are promoting this study as if it applies to everyone and not the incredibly ancient, I'd like to see this study done with various age groups and then see the results, I don't even think people that old can really even build muscle, so of course they have sarcopenia, fuck off with that shit. fucking garden gnome.
Muscle mass is one of the most important factors for quality of life in older age, studying how to slow down muscle wasting is very important
Anon, are you retarded? The study was specifically about SARCOPENIA, ie MUSCLE-WASTING AS A RESULT OF OLD AGE. You literally don't even understand what the study or article are talking about to make a mistake like this.
>HURR DURR WHY IS A STUDY ON SARCOPENIA USING OLD PEOPLE?
>WHY IS A STUDY ON DIABETES USING FAT PEOPLE?
>WHY IS A STUDY ON PROSTATE CANCER FOCUSING ON MEN?
>WHY IS A STUDY ABOUT BREAST CANCER LOOKING ONLY AT WOMEN?
Of course they studied old people to find out how OLD PEOPLE lose muscle.
>Meanwhile ~~*they*~~ are promoting this study as if it applies to everyone and not the incredibly ancient
No-one is doing that except in your head anon.
> I don't even think people that old can really even build muscle
They can, especially with a high-cholesterol diet, see
Wow. How old are you and when did you start lifting? Do you watch Zyzz montages on YouTube?
>aged a mean of 72.1
Sarcopenia exclusively refers to muscle loss in old age.
Wow, people can't keep the muscles they packed on in theie youth through old age, in other new rain falls from the sky.
sugar is a muscle builder
sounds to me like the old people who notice that they're getting weak and having trouble doing stuff are more likely to start adding more protein to their diet as they're concernned
Who cares, they react differently to igf1 hgh and other hormones than men.
>study participants are mostly Old ladies
Why am I not surprised by this? Journalism is dead.
It's a study on sarcopenia, the age-related decline in muscle mass. Of course it's mostly old people in the study.
I'm not questioning the science morons, I'm questioning a clickbait article made to bait fitness. Why can't americans comprehend what they read?
I'm questioning the science lmao.
By what mechanism would eating more protein lead to more muscle loss?
Well, from what I've seen the study doesn't explain it, it just shows a correlation but doesn't take the time to look for the mechanism or account for confusion factors. This is modern nutrition/health science for you.
Read the study anon, in the discussion section they talk at length about possible causes, and the ways in which their data can or cannot rule out each explanation. They also talk at length about the limitations of their data.
The article headline is "High protein intake associated with sarcopenia".
What exactly is misleading or clickbaity about that? It's actually a completely accurate representation of the findings of the study, it even emphasises that the results were surprising, and makes no attempt to generalise the findings out to the rest of the population.
There are plenty of instances of shoddy journalism that poorly communicate or deliberately misrepresent the things they are talking about. This isn't one of them.
Its un nuanced it should say "single study says XXX" but it reports only the 'results'.
Because the article is specifically reporting on the results of this single study, it's not giving an overview of sarcopenia and summarising the entire body of evidence.
Take the L and move on, chud.
Why are you speaking like a retard?
Science 'journalism' is notorious for poor communication.
>Science 'journalism' is notorious for poor communication.
Yes, but in this instance they actually did quite a good job.
Probably because a retard like you wouldn't be able to read and understand the full article if it wasn't dumbed down
I never trust self reported anything as people for the most part have no idea what they actually eat.
>89% females, mean age of 72
Great so what does that have to do with ISTizens? I HATE soience cultists so much it's unreal
Hey young man theres plenty of 80 year old female lifters here sonny jim!!!
Here's an explanation:
Total protein intake is increasing with total caloric intake. The obeasts in /fph/ probably eat more protein than I do because they're eating 2x what I do. They're also probably weaker than me.
If big eating is associated with being sedentary then protein will be associated with sarcopenia
Lol bullshit! I used whey (and still go) religiously after I workout. The shot works but you can skip it if you want (egg whites work too as they’re fast digesting)
Sounds anecdotal. Imagine how jacked you ACTUALLY coulda gotten by not downing protein like an addict
>Common Cold is Deadly According to Science!!!
Recent study found that 90% of people die in 1st week after catching common cold. study participants were 10 95 year old men.
I heken love science!
This seems like bullshit as the older you get the more protein you need, multiple studies done that prove that. You even need bigger protein meals to trigger protein synthesis the older you are 65+ so young guys can get linear response from 5 to 50g and old guys need 30+ to 50 to even get a response. Also exercise will lower their response down to 15 to 20grams range. Insulin also plays huge factor, when young insulin is a growth hormone extremely anabolic, the older you get it just becomes a glucose dispenser and less anabolic.
I won't look at the study. Did they mention anything about exercise?
Of course, higher protein intake won't help against old age muscle loss
>Considering sarcopenia is not routinely diagnosed in clinical practice , one might consider this unlikely; however, these individuals may have had another event that led to a dietician referral, so it cannot be ruled out.
>It is worth highlighting that our cohort has a healthy volunteer bias, with a healthier diet and higher protein intake than average, and therefore is distinct from a clinical inpatient or multi-morbid and/or frail population. Thus, our results indicate that for older adults who are relatively ‘healthy’, exceeding recommended protein intake may possibly be more detrimental to muscle health than insufficient protein intake.
these misleading studies are getting out of hand, I wonder what they'll come up with next
shit, meant articles, not studies
This isn't actually particularly surprising to me.
A previous interventional study on sarcopenia found no relationship between protein intake and increased lean body mass in the elderly following resistance training, but it DID find a strong relationship between dietary cholesterol and increased lean body mass.
Eat your egg yolks.
>Age-related muscle loss (sarcopenia) is a prevalent condition associated with disability and mortality. Exercise and optimal nutrition are interventions to prevent and treat sarcopenia, yet little is known, outside of protein, of the effect of common nutrition recommendations and medication use on exercise-related muscle gain.
>We observed a dose-response relationship between dietary cholesterol (from food logs) and gains in lean mass that was not affected by variability in protein intake. Serum cholesterol and the serum cholesterol lowering agent statin were also independently associated with greater increases in lean mass. Dietary cholesterol was not associated with serum cholesterol or the significant reduction in blood pressure observed, but trends were observed for altered plasma C-reactive protein.
I don't care
I will continue to eat a high intake of protein and exercise.
sarcophagus penis? that sounds awesome sign me up
Most flawed fucking study I’ve ever seen, and easily the most extrapolative article title I’ve ever read. This is not even Clickbait, it’s propaganda. Science has become a complete fucking joke.
Please explain the flaws.
The older you get the MORE protein you need per meal to trigger protein synthesis and the higher your overall maintance protein total becomes as you age due to age related cell degradation.
>>We observed a dose-response relationship between dietary cholesterol (from food logs) and gains in lean mass that was not affected by variability in protein intake. Serum cholesterol and the serum cholesterol lowering agent statin were also independently associated with greater increases in lean mass. Dietary cholesterol was not associated with serum cholesterol or the significant reduction in blood pressure observed, but trends were observed for altered plasma C-reactive protein.
Protein is not the only component in muscle growth, and it may not even be the most important one.
Obviously cholestrol is important for building muscle due to it being a building block of many hormones. You cant hammer the nail(protein) without the hammer(hormones). As you age hormones go down so you become less effective at producing and using hormones, take insulin for example, when young its a potent growth hormone + glucose dispenser, as you age it becomes just a GD and not as anabolic.
Yet protein intake variability had no effect on gains in lean mass, only cholesterol. Beyond a very low amount, perhaps as little as 60-80g daily, elderly natty lifters don't benefit from additional protein.
Going back to your earlier post
>The older you get the MORE protein you need per meal to trigger protein synthesis and the higher your overall maintance protein total becomes
It isn't obvious that this is the case, given the results of this study which found protein intake was not determinant of lean mass gains.
1 study is going against all others anon. Its meaningless. You might actually be retarded lmao gaining muscle at 65+ is very hard. You need an extra 10g of protein for every hour you exercise on top of base amount. Having less protein wont increase gains, it will make them lose more lean mass.
>1 study is going against all others anon.
Hardly. Few studies have actually examined dietary cholesterol + lean mass, and the few that have show the same thing: more cholesterol correlates with increased lean mass.
>Two groups of 20–28 year old, healthy, untrained adults underwent 10 days of either high CL (HC: 14mg/kg lean/day, ~800mg/day, n=8) or low CL (LC: 3.5mg/kg lean/day, <200mg/day, n=7) diet followed by acute bouts of high intensity unilateral leg exercises (leg press & extension: 5 sets, reps to failure, 85% of max strength, emphasis on eccentric contraction) where one leg was exercised while the other leg served as the non-exercise control. Biopsies were taken from vastus lateralis muscle 22h after exercise and cumulative myofibrillar protein synthesis (FSR) was measured using 2H2O as a tracer.
>A significant difference in FSR (relative to control) was observed between the groups (HC: 94.6±23% vs. LC: −65.4±25%, p<0.01) with ANCOVA analysis (covariates: exercise history, lean mass, & degree of muscle soreness after RE). Our data suggest that CL may affect the anabolic response to RE possibly through its effect on membrane stability, inflammatory response, and lipid rafts/cell signaling.
Why are you even mentioning cholest? We are talking about protein. I never said cholesterol isnt important. I said ops study about high protein is bullshit. Higher protein is better the older you get due to your cells response to protein degrading as you age. The same could be said about high hormones with low protein doesnt equate to more lean mass gain. It just means you hold more lean mass easier if you have the right amount of protein to sustain the lean mass + replacement of aminos around the body.
>Higher protein is better the older you get due to your cells response to protein degrading as you age
Except the OP study finds the opposite, and the other study I referred to (the one that highlighted a link between cholesterol and lean mass) also found no link between protein intake and lean mass increase.
Protein is obviously important, but it is not self-evident that more is always better, as these studies indicate.
In 1 study kek. Then never make any gains or have a lean body then anon, follow and live by your study go ahead.
It's two studies, anon.
>and gains in lean mass that was not affected by variability in protein intake.
Woah 2 lol. Who funded them? And what was the goal of said studies? Do you train with anyone old? I train my 67 year old dad and weve done multiple diets over the last 3 years. One thing is the higher the protein the better his recovery, the harder his muscles get and the better his body comp has been eg lean mass less fat. Weve done mid to low protein and its trash. Highish fats mid to low carb and high protein has been really good. We cycle his carbs around weight training aswell.
Anon your anecdotal evidence doesn't matter.
Neither does yours anon. Youd need multiple 5 to 10 plus studies replicating the results for it to mean anything.
Only 2 studies have directly measured it in humans, and both found the same result.
Dietary cholesterol is now a likely confounding factor in all existing studies of protein intake + lean mass change wherein dietary cholesterol was not controlled for. That is, protein intake may be masking a signal from dietary cholesterol, as many animal protein sources such as eggs and fatty red meat are also sources of dietary cholesterol.
Anecdotal evidence is the only thing worth anything anymore anon. Sorry, but it's time to quit being a retard and drinking cum from the only people more corrupt than politicians. I hate you midwits more than I hate anyone.
The only midwit here is you.
Fucking mind blowing
>le science is.. BAD
earth shattering. what a takedown.
Science died long before you were even alive you absolute clown.
>Anecdotal evidence is the only thing worth anything anymore anon.
I'm not the one rejecting empiricism in favour of anecdotes anon, nor equating all scientific endeavours with some vague notion of "heckin scientism".
I agree real world is the only meaninfull information. I siad that back to that anon because hes a fag that sucks off studies.
Do you know how stupid you sound anon. "Huurrr mmmaybe hormonesss pppplay a role in mmmuscle huurrrrr" woah...really? Again its a chain of a few factors that result in mass. You need hormones amino acids and you need stress via exercise. There are MULTIPLE hormonal and enzymatic pathways involved in the process. Its not huurrr its all cholesterol same as hurrr its all aminos.
Different anon, keep in mind we are talking about elderly population here. Maybe something changes with the metabolism as we age and protein becomes more inefficient. I haven't read the study, but I wonder if calorie deficit plays a role, it would make sense (high protein->higher satiety->less calories consumed->muscle wasting).
Pretty based for making your dad work out, if you've figured out what works just stick to it. It's a shame the participants weren't doing any form of resistance training throughout the OP study. I've read a book by a local doctor, he is adamant that everyone should train through their entire life. My grandma is 80 and still does mild exercise and stretching, and stays functional and independent thanks to those
Again its not maybe its A FACT YOUR CELLS BECOME LESS SENSITIVE TO PROTEIN ETC AS YOU AGE go and learn basic biochemistry.
>learn basic biochemistry
No, I will remain an uninformed intuition chad
Quote from the article;
"The environmental impact of animal sources of protein, particularly red meat, in the context of the global climate crisis must also be considered."
And of what relevance is that to the study? Absolutley absurd stuff, I genuinley wonder if the researchers had motives.
Good catch. Yeah that makes it seem ideologically motivated
Was calorie intake factored in? Did the ratio of fat and carbs have any effect? It would've also been good to see how it affects resistance training older men. Really interesting stuff tbh, it's funny how diet is such an unknown factor still despite being studied very much.
Oh I swear nutrition is mostly voodoo outwith a few basic principals.
>consume less of the material that creates muscle if you want more muscle
Guess I'll start pouring less gas into my car to get more MPG.
You'll get better mileage out of your gas driving at 60mph than at 100mph though.
If I already drive at 60mph, how the FUCK am I going to get better mileage with less gas?
In this analogy, gas isn't protein, gas is your entire diet. Protein would be analagous to some particular fraction of gasoline, such as hexane or octane. High octane fuel does not provide more mileage than regular fuel.
>protein = gas
>get more protein = get more muscle
>get more gas = get more miles
The fuck are you even arguing about, you stupid cunt?
>>get more protein = get more muscle
Except this study did not find this to be the case for this particular population.
Neither did this study:
Wanting something to be so does not make it so. The world is full of unintuitive facts like this.
Are you a 70 year old woman, you retard?
Is this board meant for 70 year old women, you retard?
Are 70 year old women the main demographic for fitness, you retard?
This thread is (ostensibly) discussing the results of the study posted in OP. No-one except you is trying to draw conclusions from the OP study towards the general population.
You too will grow old one day, anon.
>moving the goalposts after your analogy and muh particular population don't make sense
Yeah I accept your concession.
>You too will grow old one day
Into a 70 year old woman?
Find the first post using the retarded car analogy anon. Clue: It wasn't mine.
Depends entirely on your aero, engine, transmission, tires, etc etc etc.
The real point is womens bodies behave and react slightly differently to hormones than men. Men and women are actually different sexes and not the same.
So high hormone production/levels with high protein = optimal lean mass and if in surplus lean mass gain. Thats it. Saying its one or the other isnt true. As there are multiple protein enzime systems that play apart .
Probably true, people in past centuries ate amssive amounts of protein per day and, as fat assures me daily, those guys were extremely short and small.
Not my problem
I'll take the broscience of 60's-70's bodybuilders over these pencil-neck geek studies anyday, these studies are like fucking horoscopes.
There will be actual "humans" who believe this. Real people with familes and jobs who get to vote, who will read this article and believe it.