More protein = more muscle?

[MVP]

by Will "MVP" Riggs

Nutrition is the most misunderstood concept in bodybuilding, mostly by beginners. More beginners are acknowledging however that protein is needed to build muscle; this is a plus because if you do not give your body the amino acids it needs, it can steal it from the muscles, resulting in the breakdown of muscle tissue. This is called "catabolism". But what happens to the body when the body receives an excess in protein though? The truth is it can be very toxic if you consume more protein than your body actually needs.

How much protein do you need? Isn't the general rule of thumb 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight? If you are consuming less than that, does that mean the body cannot build muscle? If you consume more than that, does that mean the body will build muscle at a faster pace? These are all questions we have asked ourselves once in our lifetimes (or more). In reality, a nutritional diet that is balanced would incorporate anywhere from 12-20% protein of the overall caloric intake. In other words, about 1.5-2g of protein for every kilogram of your bodyweight (kg = lbs / 2.2); for non athletes, about 0.8-1.2g of protein for every kilogram of bodyweight. This is because muscle tissue is broke down into micro tears during resistance training, protein and amino acids then recuperate the muscle tissue.

So, would more protein automatically mean more muscle? The answer is no, more protein doesn't mean more muscle. The body only uses what protein that is needs before manufacturing the rest as other elements or excreting them. When protein is the highest source of food, it isn't used as much to recuperate muscle tissue (since it's the most readily available nutrient) and is used more as glucose to supply the body with energy (needed before you can build muscle ). When protein is converted to glucose, it generates ammonia; ammonia is a toxic chemical that can cause fainting, dizziness, sickness, burning, or even death. The liver must then convert ammonia to urea to be excreted through urine, a phenomenon that demands a lot of water during high protein turnover; thus can increase the risk of potential dehydration.

When the body first receives its protein, it is converted into amino acids, the amino acids are used to make enzymes or make other proteins. If an insufficient supply of energy is available then the amino acids are converted to glucose, resulting in above. But what happens to these amino acids if there IS an adequate amount of carbohydrates and fat available for energy? Would it still be used as the dominant energy nutrient? As long as the correct amount of carbohydrate and fat is available (more carbs and fats in ratio to protein), amino acids usually won't be used for energy; however, if you still consume an excess protein, it can still damage the liver and kidneys. Excessive amounts of amino acids are unnecessary the body, the body will take the amino acids that it needs and then strip the remaining amino acids of their nitrogen, the non-nitrogen parts of the amino acids can be used for energy, effecting the usage of carbohydrates and generating ammonia, or converted to fat. The remaining nitrogen that was stripped must be excreted by the kidneys and liver, causing negative effects to the liver and kidneys; thus can cause kidney stones or osteoporosis.

Bodybuilders and other competitive athletes that consume 2 and 3 grams of protein for each pound of their own weight are usually on anabolics and supplements that allow their muscles to absorb more protein. For the natural lifters, it really isn't necessary. We'll witness the same muscle gains as them, just with less negative effects that come with it (like kidney damage). Ideally, you'll want during bulking cycles 50% of your total caloric intake carbohydrates, 30% fats, and about 20% protein. This doesn't mean 100g of protein for a 100lb lifter, as mentioned; yet you have to eat over maintenance to gain muscle. So you should be eating enough total calories that you are getting enough protein and it's being used to build muscle. Too little is unnecessary and so is too much. Don't buy into the whole "more muscle" hype. For a 200 pound person, try to consume around 1.5-2g of protein for each kg of bodyweight, so around 150g should be sufficient. Try to use this formula.

Carbohydrates = bodyweight in KG * 4-6 (depended upon factors).
Protein = bodyweight in KG * 1.5-2 (depended upon factors).
Fat = bodyweight in KG * 2-3 (depended upon factors.

So if you are 220 pounds, this would be a good caloric intake:

100 * 5 = 500 * 4 = 2,000 calories from carbohydrates (500 g)

100 * 2 = 200 * 4 = 800 calories from protein (200g)

100 * 3 = 300 * 4 = 1200 calories from fat (300g)

This would bring your caloric total to about 4,000 calories. You could adjust depended upon metabolism, time of year, temperature, humidity, activity level (to name a few). With this formula you would still pack on muscle mass, without the expense of damaging your body.

Article Source: More Protein = More Muscle?

[bamazav]

Originally Posted by MVP

Ideally, you'll want during bulking cycles 50% of your total caloric intake carbohydrates, 30% fats, and about 20% protein.

Explain this. ^^^^


IMHO, this is where many get into trouble. They read, 50% in carbs, 2000 calories from carbs.... "I can eat all kinds of crap and I will bulk." Now this works for some, who are disciplined to eat complex carbs, who watch the junk, but they are the minority. I would be careful with the blanket statements. This approach will work for some, the traditional 40/30/30 PFC will work for others and some have found success with a 50/30/20 PFC. My eating 50% carbs is why I ballooned up and got fat.

[MVP]

Originally Posted by bamazav

Explain this. ^^^^


IMHO, this is where many get into trouble. They read, 50% in carbs, 2000 calories from carbs.... "I can eat all kinds of crap and I will bulk." Now this works for some, who are disciplined to eat complex carbs, who watch the junk, but they are the minority. I would be careful with the blanket statements. This approach will work for some, the traditional 40/30/30 PFC will work for others and some have found success with a 50/30/20 PFC. My eating 50% carbs is why I ballooned up and got fat.

For some reason I didn't get your comment until just now.

You are definitely right. I am a writer for E-Zine Articles and was going through my old articles and was looking for some I thought I would share on this forum, but yes you are definitely correct. I wrote this about 2 years ago. That is way too many carbs. Back then I was on the carb train.

[bamazav]

Originally Posted by MVP

For some reason I didn't get your comment until just now.

You are definitely right. I am a writer for E-Zine Articles and was going through my old articles and was looking for some I thought I would share on this forum, but yes you are definitely correct. I wrote this about 2 years ago. That is way too many carbs. Back then I was on the carb train.

I have nothing against carbs, per se. The problem is that 50% opens the door for far too many simple carbs in my opinion. I am carb sensitive so I have to watch mine. I can keep my carbs under 200 g but if too many of them are simple, I start holding water.

As a public speaker and writer, advise I was given when I was younger ( I am one of the Geezers on the board), I will share with you. Watch general or blanket statements, because they will usually come back to bite you.

[MVP]

Originally Posted by bamazav

I have nothing against carbs, per se. The problem is that 50% opens the door for far too many simple carbs in my opinion. I am carb sensitive so I have to watch mine. I can keep my carbs under 200 g but if too many of them are simple, I start holding water.

As a public speaker and writer, advise I was given when I was younger ( I am one of the Geezers on the board), I will share with you. Watch general or blanket statements, because they will usually come back to bite you.

I too am carb sensitive, if you haven't seen my recent pics, but I can't just blame carbs since I have been on a fast food diet the last 5 years.

Anyway, in this article, I was writing out ACSM guidelines. ACSM, ACE recommends you to consume 50% of your total calories being carbs. This was probably back when we thought glucose was the bodies preferred energy source; before they admitted it was really fatty acids.

Anyway, I've already mentioned you were right and that is too many carbs. Like I said, I wrote this a long time ago and found it on my E-Zine collection and decided I would share.

[bamazav]

Originally Posted by MVP

I too am carb sensitive, if you haven't seen my recent pics, but I can't just blame carbs since I have been on a fast food diet the last 5 years.

Anyway, in this article, I was writing out ACSM guidelines. ACSM, ACE recommends you to consume 50% of your total calories being carbs. This was probably back when we thought glucose was the bodies preferred energy source; before they admitted it was really fatty acids.

Anyway, I've already mentioned you were right and that is too many carbs. Like I said, I wrote this a long time ago and found it on my E-Zine collection and decided I would share.

Hey buddy, we're good. I am not trying to pick a fight or anything, just offering some older brother type advise.

[MVP]

Originally Posted by bamazav

Hey buddy, we're good. I am not trying to pick a fight or anything, just offering some older brother type advise.

Oh, I know man. I'm glad you mentioned this. I haven't re-read this article since I wrote it. I just browse through my E-Zine list and decided to post a couple of articles on here. You were definitely right though; that's way too many carbs.