government replaces food pyramid

[Ironpants]

Alright, now provide a source for that other than the fact that you 'think' it happens.

Read....

How Negative Nitrogen Balance Can Occur: What To Watch For


As mentioned earlier, protein consumption is crucial are far as enhancing nitrogen balance is concerned. A negative nitrogen balance may result from consuming an insufficient amount of high biological value proteins, poor quality proteins (lunch meats, fatty meats, and vegetables for example), or protein sources lacking an optimal balance of the essential amino-acids.
On a more serious level, a continued negative nitrogen balance will result in the body consuming its own blood products to support the internal organs.

A severe lack of protein equates to fewer of the antibodies which are needed to fight infection - bacterial infections may result from this. The bloated stomach (seen in many third-world populations) ultimately results from the negative nitrogen imbalance induced bacterial infections, and death occurs soon after.

Proteins importance, in this instance, is underscored by the fact that regardless how many nutrients are consumed at this point, death will occur if protein is not supplied.


Insufficient carbohydrate and fat consumption. To support protein synthesis, good quality fats and carbohydrates should be available for energy purposes. If one consumes primarily protein, without considering the importance of the other macronutrients, the body may metabolize protein for energy purposes, thus lowering the nitrogen balance - valuable amino acids will be shuttled to vital organs thus depriving the muscles of exactly what they need for growth.

Like when someone under eats or goes into caloric deficit and makes protien the biggest macro they eat

Overtraining: Training involves breaking down muscle tissue. Protein and rest help to regenerate these tissues. Too much training, coupled with insufficient protein consumption will hasten a negative nitrogen balance.
Following a training session, muscles soak up nutrients (including protein) like a sponge. If training is undertaken to frequently, these nutrients might eventually fall short of supporting continued growth.

Bodybuilding.com - Nitrogen Balance: The Key To Muscle Growth.

 

[fittafeis]

weightlifter noobs can easily gain muscle on a calorie deficit. Not optimal, but possible.
For most people who have been training a while it would be close to impossible to gain any muscle mass or strength when on a chronic low(er) cal diet.

 

[Ironpants]

weightlifter noobs can easily gain muscle on a calorie deficit. Not optimal, but possible.
For most people who have been training a while it would be close to impossible to gain any muscle mass or strength when on a chronic low(er) cal diet.

When I first started I made intial gains in the first 3 months despite (unaware) not eating enough. I was sated but by techincal standards I was under maintaince calories. However if I tried doing that now I'd be screwed.

 

[mtruitt76]

Ironpants-your source does not support your position. The artile says may cause a negative nitrogen balance if carbohydrates and fats are ignored. In a cutting diet with protien set at 1.5g per lb of LBM protien would only make up 30-40% of calories. With a large deficit they might reach 50%, but that would only happen if they are running close to a 1000 calorie deficit which you should not do.

For example a 200 lb man with10% bodyfat would eat 270g of protien which is 1080 calories. An agressive cut would put his calories in the 2500 range where protien would be a little more than 40% of calories. He would have to drop below 2100 calories for protein to be 50% of calories. Protein will only comprise the majority of macros in a poorly designed cut.

Also the article stated that ignoring the other macros besides protein may result in a negative nitrogen balance. It did not state that it would necessarily result in a negative nitrogen balance.

You will need another source to validate your view.

 

[Ironpants]

Ironpants-your source does not support your position. The artile says may cause a negative nitrogen balance if carbohydrates and fats are ignored. In a cutting diet with protien set at 1.5g per lb of LBM protien would only make up 30-40% of calories. With a large deficit they might reach 50%, but that would only happen if they are running close to a 1000 calorie deficit which you should not do.

For example a 200 lb man with10% bodyfat would eat 270g of protien which is 1080 calories. An agressive cut would put his calories in the 2500 range where protien would be a little more than 40% of calories. He would have to drop below 2100 calories for protein to be 50% of calories. Protein will only comprise the majority of macros in a poorly designed cut.

Also the article stated that ignoring the other macros besides protein may result in a negative nitrogen balance. It did not state that it would necessarily result in a negative nitrogen balance.

You will need another source to validate your view.

The problem with that is if one asumes eating more protien will spare muscle mass, then naturally protien is going to make up the bulk of the diet for the person cutting calories. Sweekaters was making that asumption, saying that nitrogen balance could still be positive on a deficit if you simply eat enough of it (protien), meaning fats and carbs would have to be lowered of dropped completely. And yes it will result in a negative balance if protien out ratios fat and carbs because your body will simply be metabolizing protien for energy instead of tissue regenration.

EDIT Big article but this sentance pretty much explains what we are talking about here..

"It is well established that energy status has a profound effect on nitrogen retention. Energy above needs results in nitrogen retention, whereas an energy deficit results in losses;"

The Protein Paradox: Part II

 

[mtruitt76]

The problem with that is if one asumes eating more protien will spare muscle mass, then naturally protien is going to make up the bulk of the diet for the person cutting calories. Sweekaters was making that asumption, saying that nitrogen balance could still be positive on a deficit if you simply eat enough of it (protien), meaning fats and carbs would have to be lowered of dropped completely. And yes it will result in a negative balance if protien out ratios fat and carbs because your body will simply be metabolizing protien for energy instead of tissue regenration.

EDIT Big article but this sentance pretty much explains what we are talking about here..

"It is well established that energy status has a profound effect on nitrogen retention. Energy above needs results in nitrogen retention, whereas an energy deficit results in losses;"

The Protein Paradox: Part II

No one who has any clue about cutting diets ends up with a diet where protein makes up the bulk of the diet. Again look at cutting diets used by natural bodybuilders and the cutting diets endorsed by people like Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Layne Norton, etc. and you will see them recommending 1.5g per lb of LBM as the optimal range. Also the norm for cutting diets is a 500 calorie deficit with 700 being the upper limit. No one is out there recommending a 1000 calorie deficit for a cutting diet. So in within these parameters, protein will never make up a majority of the calories.

You are arguing about a situation that would only happen to an idiot. Who is following some weird of the wall diet. A smart dieter will include plenty of carbs to cover there energy expenditures and to spare protein. I don't have an issue with the statement that an energy deficit results in nitrogen loses, but the article did not state that and it does not necessarily follow an energy deficit results in a negative nitrogen balance. Notice the article says nitrogen loses and not negative nitrogen balance. Nitrogen loses could result in a lower positive nitrogen balance or even a neutral nitrogen balance. It does not necessarily mean a negative nitrogen balance.
Also a point of the article the lack of studies verify the energy expenditure of the test subjects.

One interesting statement from the article was this line.

A common misconception regarding nitrogen balance studies is that muscle hypertrophy is impossible when an individual is in negative nitrogen balance. In fact, muscle growth can occur when protein intake is insufficient by the stealing of amino acids from other organs. However, this process cannot continue indefinitely and a higher protein diet would likely prove superior (Lemon, 1995).

So it appears that even with a negative nitrogen balance it is possible to not only spare LBM, but gain LBM will in a negative nitrogen balance which goes against the very point you have been trying to make. The article does not support your view it actually contradicts your view.

However, all these points are moot in my opinion, since your are assuming that people will by default not diet correctly and have the majority of their macros be protein when anyone with any sense would not have a diet with a maco ration consisting primarily of protein.

 

[Sweekaters]

Arguing with ironpants is like bashing your head into a wall. Tell any bodybuilder or powerlifter that you are always going to lose muscle when you cut fat, and they will laugh you out of the room.

 

[CeleresVerraden]

i heard from a friend of mine in the military that potassium plays a role in muscle rebuilding. i have no reason to believe a military medic would lie to me, so can't you just get potassium and protein and save your muscles?

 

[CombatCyborg]

Martin Berkhan goes into some depth on gaining strength (hence lean muscle tissue) while on a calorie deficit. It's definitely possible, otherwise there'd be no such thing as body recomposition except in new lifters.

 

[Ironpants]

No one who has any clue about cutting diets ends up with a diet where protein makes up the bulk of the diet. Again look at cutting diets used by natural bodybuilders and the cutting diets endorsed by people like Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Layne Norton, etc. and you will see them recommending 1.5g per lb of LBM as the optimal range. Also the norm for cutting diets is a 500 calorie deficit with 700 being the upper limit. No one is out there recommending a 1000 calorie deficit for a cutting diet. So in within these parameters, protein will never make up a majority of the calories.

You are arguing about a situation that would only happen to an idiot. Who is following some weird of the wall diet. A smart dieter will include plenty of carbs to cover there energy expenditures and to spare protein. I don't have an issue with the statement that an energy deficit results in nitrogen loses, but the article did not state that and it does not necessarily follow an energy deficit results in a negative nitrogen balance. Notice the article says nitrogen loses and not negative nitrogen balance. Nitrogen loses could result in a lower positive nitrogen balance or even a neutral nitrogen balance. It does not necessarily mean a negative nitrogen balance.
Also a point of the article the lack of studies verify the energy expenditure of the test subjects.

One interesting statement from the article was this line.



So it appears that even with a negative nitrogen balance it is possible to not only spare LBM, but gain LBM will in a negative nitrogen balance which goes against the very point you have been trying to make. The article does not support your view it actually contradicts your view.

However, all these points are moot in my opinion, since your are assuming that people will by default not diet correctly and have the majority of their macros be protein when anyone with any sense would not have a diet with a maco ration consisting primarily of protein.

Everyone on here has been suggesting against me that nitrogen balance could be positive on a deficit if only protein % was higher enough, which isn't possible. They would have to lower the other two macros to the point where the scenario you just described would happen. It doesn't really mater what ratios of macros your eating if your eating below maintenance then your in a negative nitro balance.


Lol, you can't break thermodynamics. Your not going to be in a positive nitrogen balance when in a deficit. You can't build muscle mass when in a deficit. Thats tantamount to chopping up piece of your home and throwing it in your fire place to keep the heat running then saying your building an addition to your house. Your body is self metabolizeing so it's not going to be in a positive nitro balance (i.e. having an excess of protein to ensure muscle tissue building), it's going to be in a negative one because it's metabolizing proteins for energy balance.

 

[CeleresVerraden]

YouTube - ‪Gain muscle AND lose fat!‬‏

don't know how to embed videos, but this guy says you can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

 

[Ironpants]

negative nitrogen balance: Definition from Answers.com

A condition in which protein catabolism (breakdown) exceeds protein anabolism (synthesis) resulting in tissues losing protein faster than it can be replaced. A negative nitrogen balance may occur during physical or emotional stress, starvation, when an individual is on a very low calorie diet, or when the quality of protein is poor (e.g. when the diet is lacking essential amino acids). Adrenal cortical hormones, such as cortisone, released during stress enhance protein breakdown and the conversion of amino acids to glucose.

Read more: negative nitrogen balance: Definition from Answers.com

 

[Ironpants]

YouTube - ‪Gain muscle AND lose fat!‬‏

don't know how to embed videos, but this guy says you can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

Yes, that you can. But thats another topic entirely.

 

[mtruitt76]

Everyone on here has been suggesting against me that nitrogen balance could be positive on a deficit if only protein % was higher enough, which isn't possible. They would have to lower the other two macros to the point where the scenario you just described would happen. It doesn't really mater what ratios of macros your eating if your eating below maintenance then your in a negative nitro balance.

Everyone is suggesting protein in the 1.5g per lb of LBM range and as I have demonstrated already at that level protein would not make up a majority of the macros. So understand that at no point has any suggest the scenario you described. Also both sources you posted do not support your assertion. Could you please post a source that says if you are below maintenance then you are in a negative nitrogen balance.

 

[mtruitt76]

negative nitrogen balance: Definition from Answers.com

A condition in which protein catabolism (breakdown) exceeds protein anabolism (synthesis) resulting in tissues losing protein faster than it can be replaced. A negative nitrogen balance may occur during physical or emotional stress, starvation, when an individual is on a very low calorie diet, or when the quality of protein is poor (e.g. when the diet is lacking essential amino acids). Adrenal cortical hormones, such as cortisone, released during stress enhance protein breakdown and the conversion of amino acids to glucose.

Read more: negative nitrogen balance: Definition from Answers.com

Again this does not support your position. No one is advocating using starvation to lose weight or use a very low calorie diet. Everyone will agree that you will lose LBM in both circumstances. People are talking about deficits in the 400-700 range. Their point is that you can have a positive nitrogen balance with a calorie deficit in that range. Your source does not dispute that assertion.

Can you post a source that says you will be in a negative nitrogen balance on 400-700 cal deficit.

 

[mtruitt76]

bump for Ironpants

 

[Endo]

Lol, that's dick. :icon_lol:

 

[Ironpants]

Again this does not support your position. No one is advocating using starvation to lose weight or use a very low calorie diet. Everyone will agree that you will lose LBM in both circumstances. People are talking about deficits in the 400-700 range. Their point is that you can have a positive nitrogen balance with a calorie deficit in that range. Your source does not dispute that assertion.

Can you post a source that says you will be in a negative nitrogen balance on 400-700 cal deficit.

Bodybuilding.com - Protein Requirements For Bodybuilders: A Need For Re-Evaluation!

Yes it does. The assertion was that you could be in a positive balance while on deficit, no one said anyting about specific # of cals, just the notion you were eating less then the body required. Sweekaters said didn't say anything about 4-700 cal deficits, he just said deficits. Besides, your not even supposed to be going more then 500 according to most people. 700 is pretty close to 1000 which I'm sure you'll agree that is definatly starvation intake. Lyle Mcdonald himself suggests 50% below maintaince in his work which would definatly be starvation mode. The definition I posted doesn't even mention numbers, so one assumes that any thing below maintaince is starvation ifs it's chronically maintained that way unless of course you cycle calories.

Nitrogen Balance:


Nitrogen balance is a method of determining protein metabolism via input-output efficiency and the outcome of being anabolic or catabolic in terms of protein synthesis, balance or degradation.

Now, there are 3 simple states one can be:


Positive Nitrogen Balance: Protein intake is at a level that encourages weight gain.

Suggesting that you are not in a caloric deficit, you are eating surplus calories


Nitrogen Balance: Protein intake is at a level that maintains bodyweight.

Eating at maintaince calories

Negative Nitrogen Balance: Protein intake is at a level where weight loss occurs OR muscle proteins are at risk of being catabolized to make up the deficit.

Meaning you are in a coloric deficit, i.e. eating below your body's maintaince levels. Body will be excreting nitrogen meaning your in a negative balance because body is metabolzing amino acids.

Even if you were in a 3-500 cal deficit your body still needs 3-500 cals that it can't get, so it's gonning to metabolize the protien (since your eating so much to prevent muscle loss) for sustainance thus your in a negative nitrogen balance. Thermodynalmics doesn't canges based on how big or small the deficit is. You simply can't have a positive nitro balance when you are catabolic i.e eating deficit.


Seems everytime I give information the question standards change all of the sudden.

 

[Ironpants]

How To Achieve A Positive Nitrogen Balance And Why You Care


Here's one more thing if this isn't good enough for you I don't know what is...

If you think that a negative nitrogen balance is caused by not consuming enough protein, you're only partially correct. You also have to take in sufficient carbs and fats too. Yeah, protein is the primary building block of muscle tissue, complex carbs and healthy fats also play a vital role in protein synthesis. Without them, protein may be metabolized for energy purposes, which will ultimately result in a negative nitrogen balance. Overtraining can also result in a negative nitrogen balance. Remember, muscle growth occurs during recovery not training.

Proper nutrition, training hard and getting plenty of rest are the three essential keys to achieving and maintaining a positive nitrogen balance and getting big. First, you've got to take in more calories than you burn and make sure you're getting plenty of protein, along with sufficient complex carbs and healthy fats. Proper nutrition also includes making sure that you are consuming enough vitamins, minerals and other supplements that contribute to proper body function.

Oh shiiiiit, you need to be eating enough calories too?

 

[CeleresVerraden]

ironpants, i tried to remain neutral, but you've gone full retard. you keep talking about this idea of "nitrogen balances" and "you lose muscle in a deficit no matter what"

you said this... "Thermodynalmics doesn't canges based on how big or small the deficit is. You simply can't have a positive nitro balance when you are catabolic i.e eating deficit."

but in the video i posted, scooby said you can lose fat and gain muscle by being in a small deficit with plenty of protein. here's the crazy part.... you didn't disagree O:

so how can scooby tell you to eat at a deficit and still get muscle? i thought thermodynamics didn't matter if you were at a 1000 deficit or a 50 deficit, big or small.

also, i'd like to point out that everything you state, you state as fact that everyone should follow, when in actuality not everything works for everybody. some people can in fact be in a positive nitro balance and gain muscle while on a deficit, others can't. from now on, i want to see you posting your stuff as "this is an idea to consider when following your program, this makes the most sense to me and/or this worked for me but it may not be 100% accurate for you since bodies differ" if you don't, i refuse to take you seriously because then you'd be just another gym meathead who reads muscle magazines and thinks he can get as big as arnold in half a year.