1% milk is the cheapest protein source available

[rstrohkirch]

I don't think 115g of protein on a 1450ish calorie consumption would be something I consider normal. Assuming 4 small meals in a day, that's 28g per meal. Or you're doing something like double scoop protein shake.

 

[ElFenix]

I don't think 115g of protein on a 1450ish calorie consumption would be something I consider normal. Assuming 4 small meals in a day, that's 28g per meal. Or you're doing something like double scoop protein shake.

it was a slice of pizza and 4 chicken tacos. all nutrition info from mfp.

a 'normal' day i eat 6 chicken tacos and drink a glass of milk. that's 138g of protein and 1440 calories, per mfp.

 

[rstrohkirch]

I believe your numbers are correct but you'd need to be putting about 3oz of chicken on each taco. Or about 1 to 1.5 uncooked chicken breasts a day. I eat 12oz to 14oz of chicken per day across 3 meals so I know it's not really that much to spread it across 6 tacos.

 

[mike8675309]

Protein ..... it's also an issue of the protein source because different sources are absorbed differently by your body.

Go read here to get started:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905294/

The key word is bio availability. Your body best uses whey. Cooked eggs are also well absorbed by the body.

A complete non-issue if you eat enough calories. No one who is eating enough calories has ever had a protein deficiency. For general fitness, you don't need all that much protein.

 

[ElFenix]

I believe your numbers are correct but you'd need to be putting about 3oz of chicken on each taco. Or about 1 to 1.5 uncooked chicken breasts a day. I eat 12oz to 14oz of chicken per day across 3 meals so I know it's not really that much to spread it across 6 tacos.

I measure it out, 2 ounces cooked chicken per taco.

 

[rstrohkirch]

I measure it out, 2 ounces cooked chicken per taco.

That sounds about right. I measure everything pre-cooked.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

A complete non-issue if you eat enough calories. No one who is eating enough calories has ever had a protein deficiency. For general fitness, you don't need all that much protein.

I'm just informing people that protein from different sources is no apples/apples.

If you exercise alot or lift weights, this is an important topic to be aware of.

And if on a diet, you need protein otherwise your body will get it from muscle.

 

[daveybrat]

Not sure if milk is a good protein source at all

Not sure where you are getting your information but Milk is very high in protein.

 

[mike8675309]

I'm just informing people that protein from different sources is no apples/apples.

If you exercise alot or lift weights, this is an important topic to be aware of.

And if on a diet, you need protein otherwise your body will get it from muscle.

You are completely wrong. As I said, you find no one who is eating enough calories that has a protein deficiency. If you are on a caloric deficit you will always lose muscle mass. A higher protein intake during that period will reduce the rate of that loss, but you still lose it.
Bio-availability is bro science thrown around by companies to sell protein supplements or justify eating 12 chicken breasts for lunch. Eat enough calories, you will get plenty of protein for the majority of people. Body builders and competitive strength atheletes may need to focus much closer on their macros, but still don't need to worry about bioavailability.

 

[mike8675309]

Not sure where you are getting your information but Milk is very high in protein.

It's also high in saturated fat, cholesterol, and a number of risks related to casein content, Bovine Leukemia risks, and association with increased hip fracture in old age.
So while it may be high in protein, I wouldn't consider it a "good" source of protein

 

[ArchAngel777]

If you are on a caloric deficit you will always lose muscle mass. A higher protein intake during that period will reduce the rate of that loss, but you still lose it.

This is very misleading. Lean Mass is lost via a diet, but that isn't necessarily muscle at all. Often it is the glycogen depletion, which itself stores much water, dropping LBM weight and the size of the muscle. However, no muscle is necessarily catabolized. Nothing significant, at least. Your body isn't stupid. It didn't evolve a perfect fat storage mechanism, just so that it could cannibalize the hell out of costly and useful muscle tissues.

It stores fat for a reason - to be used in deficits and starvation. Only when fat stores get very low, does the body need to synthesize from alternate sources. It used to be thought that bodyfat cannot provide amino acids, but common sense, common obersation of past studies, always seems to elude that this was not correct. We have discovered evidence of glucose-neogensis from body fat stores. There is still much to learn here and I suspect we will learn quite a bit more in the next 50 years.

Anyhow, according to many people, based on my past eating experience, I should be a twig with a ton of body fat, for the way that I have rebounded over the decade. But guess what? I have more muscle than ever have, at this point. What really happens (no citation) is that we lose water, which is technically LBM (anything non-fat is) and this does shrink the muscle (because muscle is mostly water) and so people think at the end of a diet that they a small, weak, flat and that they lost a ton of muscle. No, they lost LBM and it will come back as soon as you feed it what it needs. There may be some mechanisms where it won't come back if you actually got to the starvation point, but almost no one has the willpower to voluntarily pull that off. I know that when I get down to around 8%, it is nigh impossible to keep my hunger in check. All of these losses have rebounded my LBM within a few days of caloric surplus.

 

[mike8675309]

This is very misleading. Lean Mass is lost via a diet, but that isn't necessarily muscle at all.
...
Your body isn't stupid. It didn't evolve a perfect fat storage mechanism, just so that it could cannibalize the hell out of costly and useful muscle tissues.
...
It stores fat for a reason - to be used in deficits and starvation. Only when fat stores get very low, does the body need to synthesize from alternate sources.
...
It used to be thought that bodyfat cannot provide amino acids, but common sense, common obersation of past studies, always seems to elude that this was not correct. We have discovered evidence of glucose-neogensis from body fat stores. There is still much to learn here and I suspect we will learn quite a bit more in the next 50 years.

Anyhow, according to many people, based on my past eating experience, I should be a twig with a ton of body fat, for the way that I have rebounded over the decade. But guess what? I have more muscle than ever have, at this point. What really happens (no citation) is that we lose water, which is technically LBM (anything non-fat is) and this does shrink the muscle (because muscle is mostly water) and so people think at the end of a diet that they a small, weak, flat and that they lost a ton of muscle. No, they lost LBM and it will come back as soon as you feed it what it needs. There may be some mechanisms where it won't come back if you actually got to the starvation point, but almost no one has the willpower to voluntarily pull that off. I know that when I get down to around 8%, it is nigh impossible to keep my hunger in check. All of these losses have rebounded my LBM within a few days of caloric surplus.

I see where your pov is not matching up with mine and I will point out that your pov is incorrect. You are looking at muscle loss during dieting as a visual thing, an aesthetic thing. I am speaking of in from a phyiscal thing. When on a caloric deficit, you will lose muscle mass along with fat. It's a scientifically proven fact via STRENGTH tests, as well as blood tests finding byproducts of muscle conversion. How much muscle mass you lose is HIGHLY dependent on your activity level and resistance training in combination with your diet macro breakdown.

There are numerous studies that show this. Here is just one
Resistance Training Prevents Muscle Loss Induced by Caloric Restriction in Obese Elderly Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946208/
It remains unclear as to what extent resistance training (RT) can attenuate muscle loss during caloric restriction (CR) interventions in humans.
Our conclusion is that CRRT is able to prevent almost 100% of CR-induced muscle loss while resulting in FBM and BM reductions that do not significantly differ from CR.

 

[Ackmed]

Milk is one of the few things in life that I will not go cheap or off brand on. Grew up on powered milk, never had real milk but on certain occasions. We always get whole milk, have since the beginning. Just a much better taste. I don't care about the extra fat. Seems like a silly thing to worry about to me, skimping on milk.

 

[ArchAngel777]

It's a scientifically proven fact via STRENGTH tests, as well as blood tests finding byproducts of muscle conversion. How much muscle mass you lose is HIGHLY dependent on your activity level and resistance training in combination with your diet macro breakdown.

Strength rebounds almost completely the first week, and by week 2 you will be right where you left off. The lack of strength has has very little, if any relevance to the loss of muscle. It is a temporary thing while under caloric restriction. It is the reason why at the end of my diet my max DL was 295, and within 2 weeks I was at 385, a few pounds more than when I started dieting 3 months before.

You will note that I don't contest that there will be some muscle loss, I said that it is rather insignificant, provided you don't get near starvation levels. Lean Mass is not the same thing as muscle. Muscle is lean mass, of course, but most studies cite "Lean Mass", which is anything except fat. food, glycogen and even adipose tissue also is known to contain water as well. Around 12% or so. So these items are "Lean Mass", yet not muscle.

As long as you eat some level of protein, whatever muscle you lose on your diet, the majority will be back within a week and strength will return as well. It is almost impossible to exercise too hard on a caloric deficit: something will give, either your body via too tired to do anything, or insatiable hunger. I suppose if you abuse stimulants, it could be possible to lose more lean mass, but you would have to go out out your way... You are an outlier if you end up significantly weaker after ending your diet + 2 weeks retrain/refeed. Again, this assumes you are still weigh training each muscle group at least once a week. If you don't train at all, of couse you will eventually lose it, but even that takes time. The body does not willingly and easily give up muscle tissue. It is vital tissue and the body knows this.

 

[mike8675309]

You will note that I don't contest that there will be some muscle loss, I said that it is rather insignificant, provided you don't get near starvation levels.
..

Re-read what you wrote:
isn't necessarily muscle at all.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Re-read what you wrote:
isn't necessarily muscle at all.

Well, then you obviously quit reading. In the same paragraph

However, no muscle is necessarily catabolized. Nothing significant, at least.

And, I stand by that. The overwhelming majority of lean mass lost while dieting is NOT muscle tissue.

 

[mike8675309]

Well, then you obviously quit reading. In the same paragraph



And, I stand by that. The overwhelming majority of lean mass lost while dieting is NOT muscle tissue.

Fine, stand by anecdotal evidence, I'll stand by science-based evidence. Science validates that if you eat a caloric deficit you will lose lean muscle. The amount of muscle you lose can be impacted by the amount of protein in your diet, and the volume or resistance training you do.

Oh, and which paragraph?
In that one paragraph you stated multiple positions:
>> but that isn't necessarily muscle at all.
Then you said:
>> However, no muscle is necessarily catabolized.
Then you threw out
>>Nothing significant, at least

I chose to dispute the one you based on more statements than the others.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Fine, stand by anecdotal evidence, I'll stand by science-based evidence

🙄

I find it laughable you think studies on human physiology, which use a term like LBM is being science based, when you don't even know (or care to know) or acknowledge what LBM actually is or isn't. you don't seem to understand much about LBM and seem to conclude that LBM is synonymous with muscle. But don't worry, a ton of people make that mistake.

That said, you don't actually seem to want to engage, just point out pedantic things. Once you understand what LBM is and is not, feel free to engage. Until then, I'll just ignore your tendency to cherry pick your cited studies and bias to your plant based, anti-keto diet.

But for anyone else in this thread: "Scientific Studies" are used to support Keto, Plant based diets, Paleo, Mediterranean diets, Indian diets, fasting, etc... All of them "appeal" to "Scientific" studies. Why? You can cherry pick anything you want from them because they are often not controlled. Human physiology is far more complex than most people realize. We have only scratched the surface.

Have you even read, or held in your hands, the volume works for Ancel Keys on the Minnesota Starvation experiment? I doubt it. Read up on it and learn something.

Edit **

Let's throw some studies around, since you like to claim, you know, that you are scientific and all - I love the arrogance, BTW.

Dr Jason Fung on fasting. He will pull from credible sources (cherry picked? Possibly, what isn't these days?) https://idmprogram.com/fasting-and-muscle-mass-fasting-part-14/

Excerpt from Dr Jason Fung:
But let’s look at some clinical studies in the real world. In 2010, researchers looked at a group of subjects who underwent 70 days of alternate daily fasting (ADF). That is, they ate one day and fasted the next. What happened to their muscle mass?


Their fat free mass started off at 52.0 kg and ended at 51.9 kg. In other words, there was no loss of lean weight (bone, muscle etc.). There was, however, a significant amount of fat lost. So, no, you are not ‘burning muscle’, you are ‘burning fat’. This, of course, is only logical. After all, why would your body store excess energy as fat, if it meant to burn protein as soon as the chips were down? Protein is functional tissue and has many purposes other than energy storage, whereas fat is specialized for energy storage. Would it not make sense that you would use fat for energy instead of protein? Why would we think Mother Nature is some kind of crazy?


That is kind of like storing firewood for heat. But as soon as you need heat, you chop up your sofa and throw it into the fire. That is completely idiotic and that is not the way our bodies are designed to work.

This one is interesting: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160127132741.htm

Interesting take from a natural bodybuilder - build muscle, lose fat? Possible?: https://mennohenselmans.com/gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/

Protein requirement 1g/per pound myth? Maybe: https://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

Look, there are hundreds of studies. Don't pretend you are the only person who uses science here. It is insulting. You may disagree, and I am OK with that, but don't throw around arrogant assertions that you are "science" I am merely "anecdotal". I use both, because I understand you can make the science say what you want it to say.

 

[mike8675309]

...
This one is interesting: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160127132741.htm
...

Not a study. An article about a study. That study can be found here:
Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/103/3/738/4564609

I wouldn't trust that study to apply to anyone other than people new to resistance exercises, i.e. newbie gains. You can see this in the participants in the study.

All participants were recreationally active (i.e., played noncompetitive sports or engaged in some form of physical activity 1–2 times/wk); however, no participants were regularly performing resistance exercise nor were they regularly performing structured progressive aerobic or anaerobic training.

Interesting take from a natural bodybuilder - build muscle, lose fat? Possible?: https://mennohenselmans.com/gain-muscle-and-lose-fat-at-the-same-time/

The first study I look at this guy references is inconclusive.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/103/3/738/4564609

No significant differences were detected between VLCKD and WD in all strength tests. Significant differences were found in body weight and body composition: after VLCKD there was a decrease in body weight (from 69.6 ± 7.3 Kg to 68.0 ± 7.5 Kg) and fat mass (from 5.3 ± 1.3 Kg to 3.4 ± 0.8 Kg p < 0.001) with a non-significant increase in muscle mass.

And the even the non-significant increase is questionable since they used skinfold measurements which have enough room for error, which is likely why they called it non-significant. They might as well called it non-increase.

Look, there are hundreds of studies. Don't pretend you are the only person who uses science here. It is insulting. You may disagree, and I am OK with that, but don't throw around arrogant assertions that you are "science" I am merely "anecdotal". I use both, because I understand you can make the science say what you want it to say.

Every statement I made backed up by a study you refuted by talking about how your body reacted to things. That's anecdotal data, not science. I'm not insulting you, I'm stating a fact. When you try to back up your data with science that is essentially blog articles from universities or bodybuilders, then I have to go dig up the relevant studies, I have to wonder are you even reading the studies or just the abstracts?

It appears that we are now arguing about if you said you might lose some muscle on a caloric deficit or not which in the end is something I feel we both agree on. The original point of this thread was if milk is a good source of protein (it isn't) so we are far afield of it. I'll stop now, if you want to keep it up, start a new post.