protein debate -berardi

7/31/2019 Protein Debate -Berardi

1/26

The Protein Debate

Berardi vs. Phillips

by Dr. John M. Berardi

About The Debate

What you're about to read is a protein needs debate between John Berardi, Ph.D. of the

University of Texas at Austin and Stuart Phillips, Ph.D. of McMaster University in Ontario.

Be prepared; this isn't your typical Internet debate between two partially brain damaged 17year olds calling themselves biggunz252 and punkmass101. This is an intellectual argument

between two established experts working in research labs on the very topic of the debate.

This debate came about via a "journal club." In Ontario, theres a small community of

scientists, coaches, and students who get together periodically (via email) for this club.

What happens is that each month one member of the journal club sends out a bunch of

articles for the others to read and later discuss. Ideas, debates, future research and

coaching strategies are derived from these sessions.

Recently, the journal club topic was protein needs and two articles were up for discussion.The first was a T-Nation article by John Berardi entitled The Protein Prejudice. The

second was a scientific review article by Stuart Phillips entitled Protein Requirements

and Supplementation in Strength Sports.

After discussing these articles, the members of the journal club invited Drs. Berardi and

Phillips to debate the issue. This debate is what weve published below. To get the most out

of it, you may want to follow the links above and check out what started the whole fracas.

Sign In | Sign Up

T NATION | Protein Debate http:/ /www.t-nation.com/free_onl ine_ar ticle/sports_body_training_performance_nutr ition/the_protein...

1 av 26 10 05 2012 02:11


2/26

Dr. Phillipss Response to "The Protein Prejudice"

I've read Dr. Berardi's paper and have found it generally sound, but lacking in sufficient

evidence to truly be considered "truth" in some areas (not many to be honest); however,

I'm pleased to hear that John is in-line with the general thesis that lifting weights reducesprotein "requirements."

As far as "optimization," this is a far more difficult question and even John knows that this

hasn't been answered satisfactorily, or at least not to a degree that would make me offer

the advice that lifters should "eat more proteina lot more". While it's easy to say "eat

more protein" and counsel athletes to do this, what you have to ask at this point is: What

are the dividends of eating more protein over and above requirement? Likely few, but then

since they'll never have tried doing anything else, do you get stronger, leaner etc. because

of, or in spite of what you do?

In a recent review (Nutrition 20: 689-695, 2004) I examined the evidence for whether

resistance trained athletes "need" more protein. The answer is likely the opposite. On this

John and I can agree. I also pointed out in the same review, after taking relevant nitrogen

balance data and regressing it through zero nitrogen balance, that resistance trained

athletes require more protein than sedentary individuals. The problem is that, by all

standards, most milk, egg and meat-eating North American males eat way more protein

than they need.


2 av 26 10 05 2012 02:11A O | i b h / / i /f l i i l / b d i i f i i / h i


3/26

Also, I take issue with Dr. Berardi's interpretation of the requirement (i.e., the RDA) being

"eating just enough protein to prevent deficiency." In fact, the basis of the RDA is a muchlower protein intake than 0.8g protein/kg/d, but addition of safety margins means that

97.5% of the population is covered. Thus, it may well be that your individual requirements

are far less than the RDA, but you'd have to participate in a study to find out exactly where

you are.

The problem with all of this discussion about requirements and using nitrogen balance is

the method is badly flawed. Hence, trying to talk about a requirement or even optimizing

protein intake based on findings from nitrogen balance studies is like trying to

circumnavigate the globe using a map before we knew the earth wasn't flatthe instrument

is badly flawed so it'll lead you, ultimately, in the wrong direction.

My feeling on the whole issue of protein consumption is that it appears to be beneficial to

consume a higher than normal protein intake during a period of weight loss to prevent loss

of lean body mass. Lifting weights will only augment this effect and will have the more

potent effect in terms of allowing one to hang on to as much protein as possible during

energy deficit. I know, the scientist finally agrees with the strategy tried and tested by


3 av 26 10 05 2012 02:11T NATION | P t i D b t htt / / t ti /f l i ti l / t b d t i i f t iti /th t i


4/26

to "optimize" training, along with the flawed N balance approach, one could argue that

athletes can simply consume more and more and more protein since it's impossible to

define a true ceiling. I suppose to answer the question of optimization I'd define it thusly: a

protein intake that allows maximal functioning of all synthetic processes that require amino

acids and that prevents excessive oxidation of amino acids and production of urea.

The closest any study has come to measuring something like this is a study by Tarnopolsky

et al in 1992 (J. Appl. Physiol. 93(5): 1986, 1995) in which he showed that despite an

estimated protein intake to maintain nitrogen balance being somewhere around 1.7 g

protein/kg/d, but that the synthetic ofallbody proteins (including muscle) was maximal at a

protein intake of 1.4 g protein/kg/d, with no further increase up to 2.4 g protein/kg/d!

It did appear that the RDA for protein wasn't sufficient to maximize the synthetic rate of

body proteins. Hence, faced with these data I'm not sure that one can argue that a protein

intake of more than 1.4 g protein/kg/d is necessary or even beneficial for protein requiringprocess.

Also, at the recent Experimental Biology conference, data from Mike Rennies laboratory

showed for the first time a dose response curve of muscle protein synthesis with oral dose

of essential amino acids. They reported that oral dose of essential amino acids (EAA) at

which muscle protein synthesis (i.e., the controlling and regulated variable determining

muscle protein accretion) was only 10g a similar dose of EAA is present in 500ml of

skim milk!

Also, data from Mike Rennies lab (Bohe et al. J. Physiol. 532: 575-579, 2001) shows thatin the face of available amino acids that muscle protein synthesis is turned off after 1-2

hours. Hence, it doesn't appear that amino acid supply a) has to be large, and b) isn't

limiting for the process of synthesizing new muscle proteins.

How about a simple calculation to hammer home my point? Lets say a hypothetical

individual, Fred, weighs 90kg and in one year gains 10kg (22lb) of muscle. Not mass

muscle. Thats a pretty impressive rate of gain and something most of us would be happy


4 av 26 10 05 2012 02:11 T NATION | ProteinDebate http:/ /www t nation com/free onl ine ar ticle/sports body training performance nutr ition/the protein


5/26

really he's gained 2.5kg of muscle or protein (i.e., 2500g). That means he's gained: 2500g

protein / 90kg / 365d or ~ 0.076 g protein/kg/d. Now, if we assume that the RDA is

sufficient to cover all of Freds other protein needs, which is likely a large overestimate,

then what Fred would be required to eat on a daily basis is:

0.8 g protein/kg/d + 0.076 = 0.876 g protein/kg/d to gain 22lb of muscle

Whoa, hold on you say, it takes six times as much protein consumption to lay down the

equivalent amount of muscle (estimate from Mr. Colgan and the Colgan Institutea hotbed

of muscle research). In truth, I'm never sure where this number comes from since literature

from the animal science area indicates that to lay down protein at rates sufficient to

support weight gain in a growing steerwho in 180 days will lay down 226kg of mass, of

which 60% is proteinyou need only consume the mass gained x 2 in terms of protein

content, but lets say its six. Okay, so now you need to consume:

0.8 g protein/kg/d + 0.456 g protein/kg/d = 1.256 g protein/kg/d to gain 22lb of muscle

Now, what if this person were smart and consumed some extra energy? Well, we know that

this spares protein (Garza et al. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 29: 280-287, 1976). Also, we know that

resistance exercise, consistent with its anabolic nature, is conservatory for muscle protein.

Hence, resistance exercise, as John freely acknowledges, results in a reduction in protein

requirements due to overall protein retention. This is particularly true in skeletal muscle

when you havent eaten (Phillips et al. Am. J. Physiol. 273: E99-E107, 1997).

Now, if all of this true, then my estimates above are even higher than they need to be. So

protein requirements to "optimize" muscle mass gains aren't large, certainly no larger than

what most lacto-ovo, meat-eating North American males consume on a habitual basisthis

was my ultimate point in recent review.

However, as for the benefits John maintains accompany consumption of protein, my

response is below (Johns assertions in bold, my comments below):


5 av 26 10 05 2012 02:11 T NATION | ProteinDebate http:/ /www t-nation com/free onl ine ar ticle/sports body training performance nutr ition/the protein


6/26

actually thermogenic and can lead to a higher metabolic rate. This means greater fat loss

when dieting and less fat gain during overfeeding."

True, and likely a benefit of eating more protein.

John wrote: "Increased GlucagonProtein consumption increases plasma concentrations

of the hormone glucagon. Glucagon is responsible for antagonizing the effects of insulin in

adipose tissue, leading to greater fat mobilization. In addition, glucagon also decreases the

amounts and activities of the enzymes responsible for making and storing fat in adipose

and liver cells. Again, this leads to greater fat loss during dieting and less fat gain during

overfeeding."

Effect is negligible. Associated with protein ingestion is actually a pronounced insulin

response unless the protein load is enormous. John knows this.

John wrote: "Increased IGF-1 Protein and amino-acid supplementation has been shown

to increase the IGF-1 response to both exercise and feeding. Since IGF-1 is an anabolic

hormone that's related to muscle growth, another advantage associated with consuming

more protein is more muscle growth when overfeeding and/or muscle sparing when dieting."

What is the true significance of this? Even John would have a hard time finding data to

support the thesis that greater circulating IGF-1 after exercise or feeding results in greater

lean mass gains. (We have data showing that even with no change in IGF-1 you can get

hypertrophy Journal of Applied Physiology, in review.) This is hyperbole at best!

John wrote: "Reduction in Cardiovascular RiskSeveral studies have shown that

increasing the percentage of protein in the diet (from 11% to 23%) while decreasing the

percentage of carbohydrate (from 63% to 48%) lowers LDL cholesterol and triglyceride

concentrations with concomitant increases in HDL cholesterol concentrations."

True. Losing weight also reduces cardiovascular disease. Also, what about elevated

homocysteine, an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, on high protein


6 av 26 10 05 2012 02:11 T NATION | ProteinDebate http:/ /www t-nation com/free onl ine ar ticle/sports body training performance nutr ition/the protein


7/26

colleagues has demonstrated that reducing the carbohydrate ratio from 3.5:1 to 1.4:1

increases body fat loss, spares muscle mass, reduces triglyceride concentrations,

improves satiety, and improves blood glucose management."

In the Layman study overweight women consumed either 68g protein/d (0.8 g/kg/d) and

239g CHO/d (2.8g/kg/d) or 125g protein/d (1.45 g protein/kg/d) and 171g CHO/d (2 g

CHO/kg/d). The higher protein group saw the effects outlined. However, what I might point

out is that most, if not all, lacto-, ovo-, meat-consuming North American males are getting

that amount of protein anyway.

Hence, it would be foolhardy, based on these data, to conclude that eating more than this

would have more benefit. Besides, if you're not losing weight but rather gaining weight,

what's the effect of consuming extra protein? Do blood lipid levels go up? What about

homocysteine? The Layman study does nothing to address these questions, which are

very real possibilities.

John wrote: "Increased Protein TurnoverAs I've discussed before in my article,

'Precision Nutrition For 2002 And Beyond,' all tissues of the body, including muscle, go

through a regular program of turnover. Since the balance between protein breakdown and

protein synthesis governs muscle protein turnover, you need to increase your protein

turnover rates in order to best improve your muscle quality. A high protein diet does just

this. By increasing both protein synthesis and protein breakdown, a high protein diet helps

you get rid of the old muscle more quickly and build up new, more functional muscle to take

its place."

This effect has never been shown in muscle. Forwhole bodyprotein turnover, a study by

Tarnopolsky (Journal of Applied Physiology 73(5): 1986-1995, '92) shows that whole body

protein turnover increases with increasing protein intake, but I suspect that this is due to

more rapidly turning over tissues gut and liver and not muscle.

In any event, it can't be stated as fact that higher protein intakes help "get rid of the old

T NATION | Protein Debate http:/ /www.t nation.com/free_onl ine_ar ticle/sports_body_training_performance_nutr ition/the_protein...

7 26 10 05 2012 02 11 T NATION | ProteinDebate http:/ /www.t-nation.com/free onl ine ar ticle/sports body training performance nutr ition/the protein...


8/26

John wrote: "Increased Nitrogen StatusEarlier I indicated that a positive nitrogen status

means that more protein is entering the body than is leaving the body. High protein diets

cause a strong positive protein status and when this increased protein availability is

coupled with an exercise program that increases the body's anabolic efficiency, the growth

process may be accelerated."

I'm not sure what increased N status means, but I think it means increased nitrogen

balancewhich is true, if you consume more protein you go into higher and higher nitrogen

balance. Herein lies the greatest problem with the studies carried out by Lemon and

Tarnopolsky: that is, reliance on nitrogen balance to determine protein needs.

Take for example the data from Tarnopolsky et al (J.Appl.Physiol. 68(1): 187-193, 1988),

which is constantly cited and even Lemon et al (J.Appl.Physiol. 73(2): 767-775, 1992),

another citation classic. Look at the nitrogen balances that these subjects are in when

consuming intakes of protein of 2.4-2.5 g protein/kg/d the mean in Tarnopolsky's '88paper is 14g of nitrogen/d and in Lemon's paper at 1.6-1.7 g/kg/d, the Nbal is 9g N/d.

Now, if protein is 16% by mass nitrogen then 14g/d means that these subjects were gaining

87.5g protein/dTarnopolsky '88. Or according to Lemon, 56.25 g protein/d. Hence, by

these calculations, these subjects, if they kept consuming these protein intakes, should

gain 365d x 87.5g/d = 31.9kg of protein (i.e., muscle, unless your gut, liver, or skin are

growing, which seems unlikely) per year. I think we can all agree this isn't possible even

with good lifting, good nutrition and even steroids.

It's a little more reasonable in the Lemon study but still means the subjects would've gained365d x 56g/d = 20.4kg/year. Quite simply, nitrogen balance can't be used as a good

method to understand protein requirements. This has been recognized for a while

nowHegsted Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 21(5): 352-357, 1968.

John wrote: "Increased Provision of Auxiliary Nutrients Although the benefits mentioned

above have related specifically to protein and amino acids, it's important to recognize that

we dont just eat protein and amino acids we eat food. Therefore, high protein diets often

T NATION | Protein Debate http:/ /www.t nation.com/free_onl ine_ar ticle/sports_body_training_performance_nutr ition/the_protein...

8 26 10 05 2012 02 11 T NATION | Protein Debate http:/ /www.t-nation.com/free onl ine ar ticle/sports body training performance nutr ition/the protein...


9/26

to get most of your protein from food, rather than supplements alone."

True enough. All are possibilities. In the final analysis, requirement or optimization, the

argument is moot. Available evidence (Tarnopolsky Journal of Applied Physiology 73(5):

1986-1995, '92) as well as hypothetical calculations aren't consistent with thetremendously elevated protein needs John says must exist. Optimization can't, using

nitrogen balance, be defined since nitrogen balance consistently (and falsely) shows a

positive Nbal with increasing protein intakes.

Now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying to consume the RDA for protein and that wasnt

my message in my reviewbut supplementation with protein (above and beyond a good

diet) appears unnecessary. Timing may be marginally important, but this is a comparatively

minor part of the equation. In the end, protein supply is rarely limiting!

Accumulating evidence does suggest that during periods of weight loss, to prevent leanmass losses, higher protein intakes would help reduced protein loss how high hasnt

been determined, however. I'm sticking to my concluding statement in my review, since I

see no true evidence to support any other recommendation otherwise; namely, that

12-15% of ones energy should come from protein.

If youre an 80kg male whos lifting 6d/week (1-2h/d) then you likely require something like

3800kcal/d, then that means that 12% = 114g protein or 1.4 g protein/kg/d, which

incidentally has been shown in hard-training individuals to maximize the synthetic rates of

all proteins in your body (Tarnopolsky Journal of Applied Physiology 73(5): 1986-1995,

'92).

Dr. Berardis Response to Dr. Phillipss Comments:

I appreciate you taking the time to construct an amazingly thorough and fair response to

what can be, at times, a volatile debate. Your respectful demeanor is just what these types

of exchanges need in order to stay on track and really make a meaningful contribution.

| p _ _ p _ y_ g_p _ _p

9 26 10 05 2012 02 11 T NATION | Protein Debate http:/ /www.t-nation.com/free_onl ine_ar ticle/sports_body_training_performance_nutr ition/the_protein...


10/26

rational way.

That said, lets roll up our sleeves and get down to the business at hand discussing

protein intake. And, since its really difficult to discuss one macronutrient in isolation of the

others, especially when our end is applied nutrition, we should probably touch on overalldietary strategy a bit also.

To begin with, though, I need to bring up a side issue that should be clarified before moving

on. The "Protein Prejudice" article that was referenced in your response was actually

published back in March of 2003, nearly two years ago. Why make this point? Well, in the

two years that have passed, certainly new data have emerged that warrant discussion

(some of which you referenced in your letter, yet I wasn't privy to at the time that the article

was written).

This brings up a very important lesson for all of those reading this exchange. Many readingthis are very interested in the applied side of this field and may want to publish articles in

print or electronic formats. Here's a caution directed at them: publish something on the

Web today and regardless of how you feel about what you wrote ten years from now, youll

have to live with it. Now, in this specific case, the "Protein Prejudice" article, I dont regret

anything and I still stand behind my comments two years later.

Okay, that digression aside, one more note with respect to the original article. This was

published on a site targeted to lay readers without the scientific training we have and are

more interested in, if you will, applied nutrition. As a result, the article wasn't intended to be

an exhaustive review of the literature. Therefore, comparing one of your more recent

literature reviews to one of my short, two year old, magazine articles isnt exactly an

apples to apples comparison. So I'm glad were getting this chance to speak directly!

Now, lets get down to your comments. It should come as no surprise to anyone whos read

many of my articles that I'm in full agreement with nearlyeverything Dr. Phillips has

commented on. Therefore, for the blood thirsty, you wont get your blood here. However, I

| p _ _ p _ y_ g_p _ _p



11/26

Dr. Phillips wrote: "I have read Dr. Berardi's paper and have found it generally sound, but

lacking in sufficient evidence to truly be considered 'truth' in some areas"

I agree. In fact, much of my "lay" writing is more speculative than most scientists would feel

comfortable with. If I were writing a literature review, certainly, there would be leaps that I

simply couldnt and wouldnt take.

But in this type of forum, where I'm writing to an "applied" crowd, I feel that I do have free

rein to take the literature that's available and make a few speculative leaps at some things

beyond what the literature tells us explicitly. In this sense, without the ability of science to

demonstrate verisimilitude, my speculations are just that my best guesses based on

what we do know in the literature andwhat I see in practice.

Any scientist worth his or her own salt would agree that were barely scratching the surface

of whats yet to be known, explored and discovered. Yet we still have to make decisions

every day, based on incomplete evidence. And thats where much of my writing leads me.

I look to the scientific literature but since, in parallel to my scientific training, I run a

successful coaching/consulting practice one in which I attempt to rigorously control

whats possible to be controlled in free living clients and document what I see I also look

to the "clinical" results that I see every day. Finding this balance is difficult but thats my

mission and the express mission of my company, Science Link.

Our tag line is this: "However Beautiful the Strategy, You Should Occasionally Look at the

Results." By striving to find the balance between research and results, applied and basic,

clinical and laboratory, I know that I can find support for ideas that work and drive new

ideas in the process. This is what I get excited about!

Of course, its critical to be true to the rigorous data we've got:

"Science is merely an extremely powerful method of windowing what's true from what feels

good; without the error-correcting machinery of science we are lost to our subjectivity..."



12/26

"clinical" and "laboratory" observations is critical in making recommendations/decision for

daily life (including nutrition and exercise research).

Heck, this is why I wanted to open up this conversation. Dr. Phillips might be one of the

smartest guys around in our field and his input on this question is invaluable. I think I'm apretty smart cookie too. What a cool chance to really break new ground, get a bunch of

new ideas stimulated, and open up a running dialogue that blends clinical and laboratory.

So even if my article isnt true in the scientifically verifiable sense of the word true, I'm just

happy that it might stimulate enough discussion so that we can better get after the "truth."

Dr. Phillips wrote: "Hence, trying to talk about a requirement or even optimizing protein

intake based on finding from nitrogen balance studies is like trying to circumnavigate the

globe using a map before we knew the earth wasn't flat the instrument is badly flawed so

it'll lead you, ultimately, in the wrong direction."

This is a fantastic analogy. I agree that the N balance studies are flawed, but unfortunately

until you start publishing your more recent data, Dr. Phillips, they represent the bulk of

whats out there and available for review (especially two years ago when I wrote the

article).

This area is poorly researched. Thats due to a lack of governmental funding for areas

considered more recreational than of major public health concern. So think of us as miners

with small head lamps in a dark cavern thats not been well explored. We can make

guesses as to whats ahead of us in the cavern. These guesses are based on the smallamount of light we can see with and the small amount that were seeing.

So I remain open to the suggestion that one day someone will find a way to rip the roof off

that cavern and I might feel very, very silly about my guesses when its exposed in its

entirety. But I dont believe that I can be faulted for reporting on what I see, what I guess,

and how I interpret both.

12 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



13/26

Now, although very interesting, these data arent a good justification for a lower protein

requirement/optimization point. In fact, I distinctly remember bringing these data up at

ACSM at a session Dr. Phillips was moderating. I believe the consensus was that it would

be nearly impossible to duplicate (with the diet) the "steady rate" amino acid infusion

program of this study. In essence, when you eat protein you get peaks and troughs and itsprobably the change in amino acid concentrations that stimulate the protein synthetic

mechanisms, not a threshold.

Now, Rennies more current data may suggest otherwise; I cant wait to read it in print. But

as of our last conversation, it was Dr. Phillipss opinion that amino acid changes in the

blood are what govern synthesis, not having an amino acid concentration above a certain

threshold. This means that each time we eat more protein wed get a bump in PS. So I

dont really see how this comment is relevant interesting, yes relevant, I'm not sure.

Now, concerning what you wrote about "Fred," of course, these are all guesses but thepoint is well taken. However, just how meaningful are they? Probably about the same as

suggesting that burning an extra 20kcal/day by gardening would lead to an increase in

monthly caloric expenditure by 600kcal and in yearly expenditure by 6000kcal. This surely

means the person would lose just short of two pounds per year from gardening for three

minutes a day!

Forgive the absurd example, but the point is that the body makes constant adjustments,

adjustments designed at the maintenance of homeostasis in the face of such subtle

perturbations. As a result, with all the "slop" room in the calculation above, its really hard to

say what exact amount of "extra" protein is needed to pack on more muscle mass. I do getyour point that according to even very liberal assumptions, it doesnt seem like much, and

perhaps athletes dont need much more protein for enhancedprotein accretion. But lets

not forget the big picture here (below).

Dr. Phillips wrote: "As far as optimization, this is a far more difficult question and even John

knows that this hasn't been answered satisfactorily, or at least not to a degree that would

13 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



14/26

One man might define "optimal protein intake" as a protein intake that allows maximal

functioning of all synthetic processes that require amino acids and that prevents excessive

oxidation of amino acids and production of urea (Dr. Phillipss choice). And another might

define "optimal protein intake" as the protein intake that, when combined with sport-specific

physical training, produces ideal body size and composition for that particular sport (which Iwould choose when working with an athlete or writing an article with athletes as a target

audience).

But regardless of the choice of the "optimal" definition, both are pretty damn hard to test

and with the current literature there's very little evidence as to what is the optimal intake for

either definition. Of course, there's some evidence, but as Dr. Phillips rightfully pointed out,

its based on some old N balance data thats probably not valid anyway. So were back to

square one. Not much evidence.

So what do we do in these circumstances? Dr. Phillips gets back to the lab and beginsmeasuring this stuff with some cool measurement techniques hes got at his disposal. Me,

since I dont have my own lab yet, I wait for Dr. Phillips to publish his work. But, in the

meantime, I experiment with my athletes.

1) Improvements in body composition

Now, I concede that protein intakes above what the typical North American lacto-ovo, meat

eating male gets are probably not going to pack on additional muscle mass directly from the

additional amino acid load. However, as stated in the article, perhaps the other

components of the protein foods are making an impact with respect to muscle mass.

But even more importantly, muscle mass isn't the only endpoint I choose when measuring

body composition. For most performance (aerobic or anaerobic) and physique athletes, the

relationship between fat mass and lean mass is critical not just the absolute amount of

muscle mass. Consider this: some of the athletes with the highest absolute amounts of

lean mass on the earth are sumo wrestlers. Need I say more?

14 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



15/26

If I have an athlete that needs to continue to train hard and perform at a high level yetneeds to lose body mass/body fat to achieve the right body comp for his sport, would I alter

his macronutrient recommendations or would I keep them the same as I would with an

athlete who has no fat to lose? Its a toughie

Of course, we dont want to put this athlete on a calorie restricted diet (or, at least, in a

large calorie deficit) as that might compromise performance ability and/or recovery. So how

do we get the fat off?

Heres what Id do. My solution (and its worked time and time again) is to replace some

carbohydrates from the diet with protein. The thermic effect of the protein may allow formore energy expenditure while still taking in a large amount of total energy and, importantly,

micronutrients. Perhaps the balance of glucagon to insulin may alter nutrient partitioning.

Or there might be something else at work (perhaps something on the

neurochemical/neurohormonal level) that we dont even have enough evidence to

speculate on.

Now, let me give a specific example of how this manipulation might be carried out and what

15 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



16/26

1000kcal/day (via weighed food records with the staff nutritionist), but going from a 70%

carbohydrate, 15% protein, 15% fat diet to a diet containing 40% carbohydrate, 30%

protein, and 30% fat (based on food selections I recommended).

Food selection and timing improved, of course, with my recommendations so thats anothervariable. But, in the end, the major change was an increase in kcal and an increase in

protein at the expense of carbs. (Again, I concede there could be other factors at work,

error in dietary reporting, etc., but these errors would also be present in any chronic

training/nutrition study and therefore shouldn't create a knee-jerk dismissal mentality. These

data are interesting and need to be considered!)

To a similar end, I also have examples of athletes maintaining body mass (while losing fat

mass and gaining lean mass) after an increase in protein intake at the expense of some

carbohydrate. Importantly, this isnt a low carb diet. These are alterations that simply

reduce carb intake percentages from the 60s and 70s to the 40s and 50s while oftenincreasing energy intake.

So my point is that for most athletes, body composition improvement is often the goal

not absolute muscle mass. And from what Ive seen, increased protein intakes (with the

appropriate dietary shifts) are much more effective at achieving the alterations most

athletes need less fat plus preserved muscle, or less fat plus more muscle while still

training hard and recovering appropriately.

Perhaps the best paper demonstrating the potential for an effect here is the Forslund paper

(Effect of protein intake and physical activity on 24-h pattern and rate of macronutrientutilization. Am J Physiol. 1999 May;276(5 Pt 1):E964-76.) They showed increased protein

intakes (at the expense of carbohydrate) lead to a negative fat balance and a positive

protein and carbohydrate balance vs. "normal" protein intakes.

Surely this gives some indication that an increased protein intake at the expense of

carbohydrate can lead, at least, to acute shifts in macronutrient balance, the cumulative

16 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



17/26

Now, like "optimal," the word "recovery" can be a nebulous term. So let me clarify. Using

both subjective and objective markers of recovery (POMS, resting heart rate, heart rate

variability, quality of sleep indices, and daily performance), Ive found that my athletes can

train with more density when the typical sports nutrition recommendations of 60-70%

carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 25-35% fat are altered in favor of an increased percent

protein intake and reduced percent carb intake as mentioned above (as long as rapid

post-exercise carbohydrate replenishment strategies are utilized in order to ensure quick

resynthesis of muscle glycogen during the most "glucose tolerant" part of the day

post-exercise).

Of course, I often see large changes in body mass/composition with these shifts so

perhaps its not necessarily the protein increase or dietary shift thats creating the effect

but the simple loss of "nonfunctional baggage" as I call it (i.e. body fat). Again, interesting

reports none the less.

Now, a clarification has to be made in response to Dr. Phillipss comment "but then since

they will never have tried doing anything else, do you get stronger, leaner etc. because of,

or in spite of what you do."

While some coaches may fall victim to this, with each athlete I attempt rigorous reporting

and outcome-based experimentation. I don't put all athletes on the similar diet; instead I

use the first month or two as a trial period to see which strategies/changes produce the

best results and then I do more of what has seemed to work.

With that said, these two benefits are the basis of my recommendation for "more protein

a lot more." But lets remove the "a lot" ambiguity and put some numbers on it. After all, an

80kg athlete eating 4000 kcal/day and taking in 30% of those calories from protein would

be getting about 300g protein/day (3.75g/kg), and this is a lot more than 0.8 or even

1.4g/kg.

Interestingly, even at your recommendation of 15%, a 65kg Tour de France cyclist,

17 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



18/26

But mathematics aside, my point remains firm myself and many of those I teach through

my seminars and writing report very similar effects with this type of dietary shift. I have

some guesses as to why these things occur but I have no firm scientific support on all of

these benefits.

However, its important to note that there arent any firm scientific objections either! And

this is critical. If I'm doing things that fly in the face of scientific evidence, I'm willing to

reappraise and throw out the chaff. However, in the absence of both scientific approval and

rejection, theres no cause to suggest that my methods are wrong simply that they might

not be completely scientifically verified or even verif iable as of yet.

Would I love the support, yes. It would silence some of the critics (although theyll still yap

away; some people just want to criticize). However, I dont really need it. The best test of

my consulting efforts is this success with clients and repeat business.

Dr. Phillips wrote: "Hence, it doesn't appear that amino acid supply a) has to be large and

b) isn't limiting for the process of synthesizing new muscle proteins."

Agreed, but again, I'm not merely interested in the synthesis of new muscle proteins alone.

Its the balance between fat mass and lean mass I'm most concerned with. And heres a

major problem with the lower protein recommendations. When you have an athlete

overfeeding to gain mass or simply eating a lot of total dietary energy to support energy

expenditure, the current recommendation is to shove carbs down their throats! At

4500kcal/day and 65% carbohydrate, were talking over 730g carbohydrate per day. Now,

while carbohydrate energy does impact athletic performance and does spare protein, could

there be too much of a good thing?

Getting 730g carbohydrate in the typical 4-5 meals an athlete might eat/drink means huge

carbohydrate loads that, with subsequent huge releases of insulin, could lead to reductions

in fat mobilization and oxidation throughout much of the day especially if this chronic

high insulin dump leads to neutralization of the improved insulin sensitivity most athletes

18 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



19/26

Certainly not more than the associated insulin response accompanying a huge

carbohydrate load. At least with the protein load, some counter-regulatory glucagon is

released. So my question to you is this: If you had to overfeed an athlete (or simply have

an athlete ingest a very large daily energy intake) in an attempt to maximize the lean mass

to fat mass ratio and you had to choose a macronutrient to "overeat," what would it be andwhy?

(Keeping in mind "overeat" might not be well defined in this context another way of

saying it might be "choose a macronutrient to eat more of.") This question assumes that

theyre getting adequate daily energy intake. That's a big assumption for most recreational

athletes and some elite athletes, but not much of one for the athletes I work with directly.

As for your remarks about higher protein consumption being beneficial during weight loss, I

agree 100%. During periods of weight loss, theres no question or really any reason for

equivocation the research is c lear.

Dr. Phillips wrote: "Also, what about elevated homocysteine, an independent risk factor for

cardiovascular disease, on high protein diets?"

Is this a legitimate concern or simply a secondary or tertiary debate point? Admittedly, I'm

not an expert on homocysteine and heart disease so forgive any ignorant comments. I'm

assuming that the speculation here is that high dietary methionine would lead to higher

serum homocysteine concentrations as a result of methionines demethylation via the

methyltetrahydrofolate reductase enzyme pathway?

If so, recent literature shows that a) dietary methionine increases homocysteine to a

lesser extent than free methionine and b) the dietary cysteine and serine attenuate any

increases in homocysteine as a result of methionine intake. (Verhoef Dietary serine and

cystine attenuate the homocysteine-raising effect of dietary methionine: a randomized

crossover trial in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Sep;80(3):674-9.)

Furthermore, if this is the onlypotentially serious health consequence of a higher protein

19 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



20/26

offer other benefits) as discussed in: Treatment of coronary heart disease with folic acid:

Is there a future? Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2004 Jul;287(1):H1-7. Review.

Heres the conclusion from that paper:

The view that a raised plasma tHcy level is causal in the development of vascular disease

is an attractive hypothesis if only because folic acid offers an easy, inexpensive, and

generally safe means of lowering it. This review challenges the hypothesis that tHcy is

causal and raises the possibility that an increased tHcy is an epiphenomenon.

Moreover, there's evidence that the beneficial vascular effects with folic acid are only

achieved in pharmacological doses. Low-dose folic acid will reduce plasma tHcy, but a high

dose may be required to produce the beneficial effects on vascular function, which occur

before and apparently independently of homocysteine lowering.

The current clinical trials are on the whole, designed to test the homocysteine hypothesis

of vascular disease using relatively low doses of folic acid. While these trials willundoubtedly show that folic acid lowers tHcy effectively, it's unlikely that the expected

reduction in cardiovascular events will be seen. However, it's important therefore not to

discount treatment with folic acid if these trials are negative, because it's possible that

high-dose folic acid may have a beneficial effect on outcome via mechanisms independent

of homocysteine lowering. Elucidation of these mechanisms is important in the drive to

develop effective treatments for prevention of CHD.

20 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



21/26

moot. Available evidence as well as hypothetical calculations aren't consistent with the

tremendously elevated protein needs John says must exist."

Yes and no. For protein status or positive protein "balance" perhaps. But isnt focusing

on this one outcome variable a bit too isolationist for you as an inquisitive individual? After

all, isn't there so much more to nutrition than focusing on one physiological outcome

protein turnover? Aren't athletes (even just physique athletes) after something much more

than just an improvement in protein synthesis?

As mentioned earlier, athletes are after the balance between lean mass and fat mass.

They're after optimal biochemical conditions for performance. And they're after recovery of

every system, from muscular to neural to immune. In my estimation, focusing on the protein

status response to protein intake alone is committing an error, perhaps the same error

many sports nutrition people are making with their chronic focus on high carb diets.

Think about it, high carb diets evolved to be the recommendation for athletes because of

the original studies showing that high carb diets lead to high muscle glycogen. And high

muscle glycogen seemed to correlate with good performance (in endurance events, no

less). So the sports nutrition community has based its entire recommendations on one

thing muscle glycogen. What about all the other stuff that supports training, immune

function, etc .?

Now, with this as an analogy, are we doing the same thing if we stick to the argument that

since aminos aren't limiting one potential body comp outcome protein turnover that

we can ignore protein from there on out?

From this perspective, I'm not quite sure either of us can jump to any conclusions with firm

protein intake recommendations for athletes until we answer a few important questions,

such as:

1) Could altered intakes of protein impact immune function?

21 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



22/26

3) Could they impact the neurochemical/neurotransmitter balance in the body?

4) Could they impact hormones that lead to body comp changes?

5) Could they lead to alterations in physiological set points for cellular function?

6) Could they alter CNS function?

7) Could they offer other nutrients that support body comp changes?

8) Might individual differences govern the responses to each of the seven aforementioned

questions?

Until these questions are answered, each of our conclusions about whats best for

athletes, from a dietary perspective, are based only on a very small glimpse of what might

be going on when we alter macronutrient intakes. So I guess this is where we reach the

impasse.

Dr. Phillips wrote: "I'm sticking to my concluding statement in my review, since I see no true

evidence to support any other recommendation otherwise; namely, that 12-15% of ones

energy should come from protein."

I agree that the literature has little to offer in the way of comprehensive dietary suggestions

for athletes seeking to find their best competitive body composition, immune function, CNS

balance, etc. However, sometimes we have to operate in the void where literature is

lacking. To operate within that void, Ive done some pretty cool, albeit loosely controlled

experiments on small sample sizes to come up with my own conclusions. And in this realm,

I'm sticking to my recommendations more protein.

Of course, this statement "more protein" is a gross oversimplification. Caveats include,

macros cant be viewed in a vacuum; "more protein" must be matched by appropriate shifts

in dietary carbohydrate and fat, and these suggestions may have behavioral implications in

free living humans that cant be controlled.

22 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



23/26

volume of books. And so on. So youve gotta stop somewhere, leaving stuff out along the

way, based on your judgment.)

One more caveat, Dr. Phillips. I'm sure that we can agree to disagree, but lets do so

officially at ACSM where, regardless of its low protein content (usually 0.3 0.5%), youd

better let me buy you a beer! Thanks for the discussion and the forum to share these types

of ideas.

One More Response from Dr. Phillips:

I do have to admit that there's a metabolic advantage to consumption of higher than normal

protein: provision of muscle building blocks, BCAA, establishes good hormonal

environment, better macronutrient mix for lean/fat mass gain, and Layman's work shows

improved loss profile, too.

I suppose what it comes down to is where exactly this point is: 1g/kg/d, 1.5g/kg/d, 2g/kg/d,

more? Surely at some point, the protein simply can't be shoved into the system and is

oxidized and the N is turned into urea. Since N (i.e., ammonia) is toxic to most species then

our enzymatic machinery would be elevated to deal with the excess protein/N.

Hence, once you've started eating "high" protein you'd better continue doing it, because

suddenly downshifting to lower protein would result in degradation of that protein higher

peaks of protein synthesis maybe, but lower valleys when not eating or when consuming

lower than your body is set up to process (this is theoretical but does have some

experimental support).

Eventual consequences of high protein Homosyteine (not likely too big of a deal), kidney

(no), bone loss (no, in fact the opposite is likely true), association with fat (maybe, if

protein is purely from animal sources), expense (it's all relative, but potentially yes, if highly

purified supplemental forms are consumed). Anything else, I don't think so.

23 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



24/26

chat with Don Layman last week in Houston where he and I were giving talks to the

International Livestock Congress (beef protein). He presented some terrific data and

agreed that likely 1.4-1.5g/kg/d is a good intake when you're losing weight (in women). Men

are likely similar. As for gaining weight, your points are well taken and many I can't argue

with since no good data exist to support either.

If there's one area I think you and I (and Dr. Ivy also at University of Texas) can agree on,

it's that immediate post-exercise nutrition has a very large impact on gains we're just

about to submit some very solid data on this issue. This isn't to say that later on isn't

important, but the immediate 1-2 hours after exercise is important, particularly for

resistance training athletes.

One More Reply from Dr. Berardi

I agree with your comments above on protein. Therefore, in the end, it appears that the

only real negative to eating a lot of protein is the fact that you'd need to keep intake high

always (unless you know when you'll want it low and ramp down slowly).

I've had to do this with my athletes for sure, especially athletes like cross country skiers

who travel out to a glacier to train and live for a few weeks. Altitude, sleeping in tents,

skiing all day, not much in the way of nutritional volume... gotta find some anti-catabolic

strategies for them.

24 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



25/26

So really it just becomes a preference thing. However, all else being equal, with all the

extra metabolic processing needed for protein, you do drive up energy expenditure without

much risk, something that many athletes could benefit from (body comp wise).

Whats Next?

After completing the debate, Drs. Berardi and Phillips shook hands and walked back to their

neutral corners content with a great discussion. In fact, rumor has it theyre even

considering collaborating on a few research projects to get at the heart of some of these

protein questions. See what can come of a healthy discussion!

About the Debaters

Dr. John M. Berardi is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human

performance and nutrition. In addition to being a prolific author, Dr. Berardi is also a

sought-after speaker and a consultant to Olympic, professional and elite athletes, as well

as executives and recreational weightlifters serious about achieving optimal results. For

more information about John, his team and the services he offers, visit

www.johnberardi.com.

Dr. Stuart M. Phillips graduated with a B.Sc. in Biochemistry, from McMaster University in

25 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11



26/26

Branch with Dr. Robert Wolfe. Currently, his research program is fuelled by grants from The

Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering research Council, The Canadian Institutes for

Health Research, A Premiers Research Excellence Award, a CIHR Career Scientist

Award, and, more recently, the US National Dairy Council. As well, he has a very

enthusiastic and hard-working group of graduate students! To read more about Dr. Phillips,check out his faculty web site at: http://www.mcmaster.ca/kinesiology/faculty

/phillips.cfm.

1998 2005 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

PUBLISHED 04-26-05 19:20Discuss | Rate |Add Favorite | Print Version

Home | Free Articles | Forums | Store | Search

1998-2012 T NATION LLC

Privacy Policy | Acceptable Use Policy | Technical Support | [email protected] | 800-525-1940

26 av 26 10.05.2012 02:11

protein debate -berardi

Documents