IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags body building , marketing , muscle building

Reply
Old 17th September 2013, 06:03 PM   #1
Roma
Master Poster
 
Roma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,073
271 grams of protein daily ?

Just looking over some magazines in the library today, I found a diet that recommends 271 grams of protein every day; lots of meat and eggs and protein powder that they are marketing of course.

I was thinking that so much protein might cause kidney problems or some other types of health concerns. My "friend" disagreed and said that because it was a diet in a Muscle Building magazine and there was an asterik above the diet that said it was only for the purposes of muscle building by body builders that the diet must be safe.

So could someone please tell me if this is a safe diet or an unsafe diet and bad marketing gimmick for the purpose of selling their protein powder ?

thank-you
__________________
I only know what I want to know.
Roma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:13 PM   #2
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
That's not abnormally high when on a high muscle gain cycle for taller bodybuilders. That's not too far outside intakes I've done when on building push. To be clear, that's when someone is on a very heavy weight training kick and trying to add a lot of size.

But as far as I know, it's not a regular diet. It's not even done every day for short periods of time. On a regular basis? I don't know.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 09:13 PM   #3
ThunderChunky
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,456
Depends on how much lean body mass you have and whether or not your are juicing. For regular non-juicers 1-2g protein per day per pound of lean body mass is a very common range.

ETA: No kidney problems: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/25

Last edited by ThunderChunky; 17th September 2013 at 09:17 PM.
ThunderChunky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 12:21 AM   #4
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
The classic formula for bodybuilders is, iirc, 1gm protein per lb of bodyweight, but some reckon this is too high. Sounds like the recommendation you read would be unsafe for your wallet, but a healthy body will process and excrete the surplus .

eta: The myth of 1gm/lb optimal protein intake for bodybuilders.

"Based on the sound research, many review papers have concluded 0.82g/lb is the upper limit at which protein intake benefits body composition (Phillips & Van Loon, 2011). This recommendation often includes a double 95% confidence level, meaning they took the highest mean intake at which benefits were still observed and then added two standard deviations to that level to make absolutely sure all possible benefits from additional protein intake are utilized."
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury

Last edited by GlennB; 18th September 2013 at 12:37 AM.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 12:49 AM   #5
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
271?

Why the excessive accuracy, I wonder? Why not 270g, or 275g? It isn't a conversion, as far as I can tell, because 271 grammes is 9.5592 ounces. I wonder if this is perhaps an attempt to appear to have derived the figure through a meticulous scientific study, rather than just plucking a number out of the air.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 05:08 AM   #6
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,788
"97.7 % of statistics are made up. When you make up a stat, put a '7' in it for luck".
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 05:13 AM   #7
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
"97.7 % of statistics are made up. When you make up a stat, put a '7' in it for luck".
"Note to self: Do not juxtapose these two quotes."
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 08:42 AM   #8
Roma
Master Poster
 
Roma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,073
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
271?

Why the excessive accuracy, I wonder?
No, it wasn't for accuracy, the diet story was in a magazine which offered several suggested daily amounts (3 meals plus snacks ), the amounts varied between 271 and 265 and 270, it was just that 271 was the highest number among the examples that I read.
__________________
I only know what I want to know.

Last edited by Roma; 18th September 2013 at 08:46 AM.
Roma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.