What is Ideal Protein?
As a male I have consumed soy products for almost 20 years, and at 46 I exercise regularly in the gym with no catabolism, and my testosterone levels are normal. Many many weight loss shakes contain fillers and weight loss accelerants to trick your body into short term — and unhealthy weight loss. There is plenty of variety on this diet and they have a good maintenance program. Good variety of foods. I have the chocolate and find the sweetener to be off-putting. The common thread in most advertisements selling ionic silver products labeled as colloidal silver is to claim that ions are silver particles, or they try to blur the distinction by using the terms interchangeably.
Need-to-Know Nutrition Basics
We have thousands of emails each month from mums on our plans who report improved milk supply from using our smoothies, but if your baby has any food sensitivities or suffers from colic we recommend talking to your Dr before changing your diet or using our products and plans. Our smoothie is a formulated meal replacement and has passed International Food Standards. It provides your body with over 24 vitamins and minerals and the focus is on optimal nutrition.
This means they cannot be used as a meal substitute as they do not contain enough nutrients and energy to fuel your body and consumers can often be mislead into thinking a product called a Shake is a meal replacement when it is not.
The smoothies are free from artificial sweeteners, additives, fillers, caffeine and weight loss accelerants Included in our smoothies are:. Natural ingredients in our smoothies help give a gentle sensation of feeling fuller for longer, helping to avoid eating large meals or over snacking.
It provides exceptional levels of bioactive whey protein fractions due in part to gentle processing at cold temperatures that ensure the protein is intact and non-denatured. You can see this from the chart on the label that shows our typical levels of bioactive fractions such as Beta-Lactoglobulin, Alpha-Lactalbumin, Immunoglobin, Lactoferrin, BSA and so on. Each of these fractions are partly responsible for many of the health giving properties attributed to whey protein.
There is quite a lot of controversy among nutritional experts about this. Although whey protein has a higher biological value than soy protein, a lot of scientific research has proven that soy protein can also offer a variety of health benefits. However, many people shy away from soy due to concerns over estrogenic proteins. For those of you who are bodybuilding and are trying to consume between 1.
Aside from providing a simple way to quickly and easily get your protein, ISOFLEX also absorbs rapidly and contains 4 proprietary complexes to augment absorption, improve recovery, and increase nutrient delivery. Highly valued in baby formula as it is the primary protein fraction in human milk. Together we can put an end to the scourge of Scoop Loss.
Gone are the days of digging through your protein to get your scoop. What is whey protein isolate? Is whey better than soy? Produced in a facility that also handles soy, egg, peanut, tree nut, fish, crustacean and shellfish products.
Supplement facts vary based on size and flavor. Contains Peanuts, Milk Whey. Contains Milk Whey , Coconut. The p -value increased from 0. In other words, calculating protein relative to lean body weight instead of total body weight did not strengthen the relation between protein intake and weight loss success: So everyone can check my analysis, I have uploaded the outputs of my analyses with protein based on bodyweight vs.
For example, in Hoffman et al. These subjects with a low protein intake could easily explain the trend in study towards better results in the higher protein group. Alright folks, the protein debate continues between Menno?
For those not following along, Menno respectfully critiqued my research and I responded in kind, and most recently he responded to my rebuttal https: I agree it is valuable evidence, but I would like to reiterate that there was a difference in mood state favoring the 2. In fact the first two he cites, I included in my original rebuttal to his blog.
This 8 week study is not a dieting study, the 2. And yes, Menno is correct the higher protein group lost more fat. The second study by Antonio which I also already brought up was comparison of 4. Once again, this is not a dieting study.
Not a dieting study. Now we get to Pasiakos , that actually was a dieting study I analyse this in my lit review by the way. But, he is incorrect about one thing, the researchers actually did find one statistically significant difference between the 2x and 3x RDA groups.
The 3x RDA group was the only group that had a statistically significant rise in post prandial muscle protein synthesis during energy deficit. Additionally, I would challenge the notion that this was a true study on people performing resistance training. Here is the exact quote from the study describing the training: Specifically, volunteers performed one single-joint movement per major muscle group 3 sets of 15 repetitions using workloads determined during the prestudy period.
Frequency, intensity, mode, and volume of resistive-type activities did not change during the d study. Unfortunately, then we get back to non-dieting studies. Verdjik is also not a dieting study, a deficit was not imposed, bodyweight was not statistically significantly different from pre to post. In fact, in the placebo group after 12 weeks bodyweight was Over 12 weeks, g of bodyweight loss. This is not a dieting study. As we move onto Campbell et al , again we are confronted with a study that is not on people dieting.
I will quote the authors: Menno is correct to say there were not significant differences in body composition, but it is worth pointing out that the authors stated the following: Finally we get to the last study Menno cites Maltais , which unbelievably, is also not a dieting study!
In this study on sarcopenic 65 year olds by the way all three groups increased their bodyweight from start to finish yes weight gain. However, at least in this case despite the study being misrepresented as a diet study, at least Menno represents the results accurately.
He correctly stated that no differences were found between the 1. A stated by the authors: Menno appropriately brings up the Campbell and Meckling study to prove this statement false. Well done, I concede that I forgot about this study and I will admit that yes, there is 1 study in existence that shows a statistically significant benefit to a lower protein intake vs a higher one. In the infographic I posted in my first rebuttal, there are indeed studies showing benefits of a higher intake than 1.
Additionally, there is a Hoffman study that might have found a benefit of 2. Even so, based on the change scores, it does appear there are likely some trends towards the 2. But it is difficult to evaluate as they did not report exact P values. Finally, to bring it up yet again my study did find a mood state benefit of comparing 2. As I stated in my initial response to Menno, these studies are not perfect, you can find flaws in each, and dismiss the findings if you choose…but when you have to dismiss 7 studies the 5 at the bottom of the infographic, my study, and the Hoffman study that I linked the table from , it should give one pause as to the strength of their claims.
To clarify, your position seems to be that Butterfield and Celejowa showing nitrogen balance not being maintained during slight deficits while consuming 2. That is not logically consistent and comes across as biased. Thank you Menno, and I still completely agree that based on the hard data, my lit review should be viewed as a hypothesis rather than fact. Finally, I want to applaud Menno for pointing out that statistically, due to compliance issues with consuming supplied protein supplements, some studies might show a trend towards a benefit of a higher protein intake that is actually just due to both groups consuming less than is reported.
If telling someone to consume 1. Okay…hmmmm…then what is a sensible general recommendation if we assume 1. Oh, maybe somewhere around 2.
Subscribe and get free access to our muscular potential calculator! A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: As pointed out above, this statement is not logical. The current recommended intakes of protein for strength is 1. Just because someone is in negative nitrogen balance, does not mean their protein intake is insufficient. You need a second study group consuming a different protein intake to assess the effect of protein intake on nitrogen balance.
This is simply logic. John is an investment banker. He sleeps 2 hours a day, works 18 hours a day, is on the verge of burn-out and trains 3 times a week doing P90x and CrossFit but stays far away from heavy weights because the local PT said they are unsafe. John has negative nitrogen balance. Now, what do you think is the cause of his negative nitrogen balance? As such, no prior research had demonstrated that protein needs are higher in a deficit.
The aim was to assess the weight loss success of the study groups as a function of their protein intake. In other words, Eric et al. Before we get to the actual results, we can already identify a problem with the data.
Only 6 studies were selected in the literature review. These studies differed in the rate of weight loss, the body fat percentage of the subjects, the training the subjects did, how muscular the subjects were and how much protein they consumed. So we have 5 relevant independent variables and just 6 studies. So even in the best case scenario, this review would be useful to generate an hypothesis.
In spite of these limitations, Eric et al. Researchers use these kind of p-ratios to assess the effectiveness of the diet. This gives us a measure of diet effectiveness.
When looking at the relation between 2 variables, you plot it. High-protein, low-fat, short-term diet results in less stress and fatigue than moderate-protein, moderate-fat diet during weight loss in male weightlifters: Setting aside differences in interpretation, I have addressed the main objective arguments of Eric below.
Eric pointed out that there is a distinct lack of studies of the optimal protein intake in cutting strength trainees:. No one needs research to know this is true.
However, more importantly, Eric is incorrect in saying this is all the literature we have in strength training individuals in a defict. The subjects were overweight women and they performed 3 full-body strength training sessions per week. Another explanation is that women need less protein than men. Here it is simply relevant that there is clearly no trend in the literature in favor of higher protein groups than 1. In fact, Campbell et al. As you can see in the figure below, there was a trend for better fat loss and more muscle growth in the group consuming 1 — 1.
If it sounds ludicrous that consuming more than 1. So if a study finds benefits of more than 1. We can actually calculate the probability that there is in fact a benefit of protein intakes above 1. For this to occur, every relevant study must have had a type II error. Statistical power of any study should generally be 0. In other words, even with these harsh assumptions the chance that the current research has all missed the benefits of protein intakes over 1.
The fact that not a single study has found statistically significant benefits of protein intakes above 1. There are quite a few relevant studies, even of strength trainees in a deficit, and not a single one of them has found statistically significant benefits of consuming more than 1.