Thread: Is soy bad?
View Single Post
Old 06-08-2013, 02:13 PM   #14
Kleurplaay
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Points: 2,525, Level: 30 Points: 2,525, Level: 30 Points: 2,525, Level: 30
Activity: 11% Activity: 11% Activity: 11%
 
Kleurplaay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 516
Fav Exercise: Deadlift
Fav Supp: dat dere eggs
Reputation: 24487
Kleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributorKleurplaay is a dedicated contributor
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SecondsOut View Post
hence the legitimacy of taking digestability into account. if a person gives a recommended protein intake without considering how much of that protein is absorbed then no one -- not even the person giving the recommendation -- can even be sure how much protein you actually need or how much you use. if i consume 100 grams but only absorb 50 grams and someone recommends i consume 100 grams, then what does that even mean? it's a vague recommendation at best and nonsense at worst.
Obviously I don't think you should listen to people who just make up recommendations, but there have been studies that have looked into the effects of protein on athletic performance and recovery, these studies found a connection between certain amounts of protein eaten and improved performance/recovery. What I mean to say is that these studies (the best studies we have on how much protein is required) only measured protein eaten and did not take into account absorbability or protein quality, yet they found that a certain point more protein is no longer better.

That being said, 90% of reports on this subject have actually reported protein recommendations far lower than what most people consume, which makes sense: why risk eating too little protein if you can just eat some extra to make sure you've eaten enough? This is why I do not think accounting for absorbability and protein quality is really needed, most people consume plenty even after taking into account the 'loss' (if you will call it that) of protein due to low PDCAA scores.

I 100% agree with you that 'sensible' is very subjective term, but I'd argue that for people who cannot eat 'sensibly' it'd be far more beneficial to learn a bit more about other aspects of nutrition than protein absorbability and quality. (edit: After reading my own post I thought I'd clarify that by 'sensibly' I do not in any way want to allocate judgement to the way people eat. All I mean by 'sensible' in this context is 'in a way beneficial to the goals that that person is trying to reach' which for us would be lifting weights.)

To sum it up: I don't think absorbability is something the majority of people should worry about since I don't think it is important for them. Obviously you all know yourselves better than I do and can assess for yourself if it is something you wish to consider when choosing foods. Just making a case for the people who want to keep it simple and just lift weights. Nutritional science is not for everyone.

Last edited by Kleurplaay; 06-08-2013 at 02:19 PM.
Kleurplaay is offline   Reply With Quote