Tuna shakes and the versatility of tuna in general!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_Hurley

I'm not sure how the numbers were measured and I'd have to search to find them. It was a medical physiology text and the numbers were maximum macronutient absorption/day. So I think protein was something like 600g, althogh apparently you can absorb literally kilograms of carbohydrates.

---

Oh ok that seems more than a fair assumption. I thought it was one of those textbooks that state more than 40gs of protein a day and your dick and kidneys evaporate.

Out of curiosity what is your educational background?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5151

Out of curiosity what is your educational background?

---

Not much. Hon B.Sc in Bio Sci. Spent most of my time at university in HK.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_Hurley

Not much. Hon B.Sc in Bio Sci. Spent most of my time at university in HK.

---

HK?
Interesting stuff. I am starting my B.Sc in January and am very excited for formal education on the topic. I have a feeling I will be a pain in the ass to many of my profs.

Funny enough I'm reading a paper that applies very well here. I'm going to post a few things up hopefully tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonnyO

High protein being hard on the kidneys is an old wifes tale.

And an abundance of protein will prevent your body from producing ketones! And its impossible to get into ketosis with carbs in there.

---

Ya this for only people with one kidney,and lack of water intake,when i did my Nutritionist.

I once did a recipe of shake with tuna and some diet coke and something else that i dont remember that somebody posted from another board.. I sipped it and figured out that i was a retard for doing so. As for the tuna patty i might try it sound good thank for the idea.

I blended tuna with some water once, it tasted like acid. Not recommended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_Hurley

Probably nothing, maybe constipation though. What I was trying to get at is it would be preferable to eat smaller amounts of protein more frequently.

I'm sure 5151 will argue this but eating 6 small meals is beneficial compared to 3 large meals. For starters. Large meals slow digestion. Also if you think about it. Food can only be absorbed through the walls of your intestines. There are also various transporters for different macronutrients but a smaller volume of food mixes better with the gastrointestinal juices and is more readily broken down and absorbed. So if you were to eat 6 meals containing 30g of protein (assuming the total volume is comparitively small) vs 1 meal containing 180g of protein. There is a good chance your body would be able to more readily utilize the protein from the smaller meals.
Everyone argues lower meal frequency slowing digestion is a bad thing which I really don't understand. The meals, which tends to be larger, have more time spaced between. Your body can only digest protein so quickly depending on source so force feeding more ever 2-3 hours isn't helping in many cases you have not digested the previous meal. In fact I haven't see any concrete evidence digestion does increase with frequent feedings. If you have some please share. I came across this abstract that states digestion increases with increased calorie intake but nothing about meal frequency

Quote:

---

Rapid orocecal transit in chronically active persons with high energy intake

A. Harris, A. K. Lindeman and B. J. Martin
Medical Sciences Program, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405.

Although chronic physical activity by humans can raise energy requirements and energy intake severalfold above sedentary levels, whether these increases alter digestive strategy remains unknown. To investigate this possibility, food passage rate (mouth-to-large intestinal lactulose transit) and absorption (xylose) were compared in a cross section of young men chosen to represent a wide range of daily physical activity and food intake. In 20 men (energy intake 1,272-5,342 kcal/day), resting mouth-to-cecum transit was faster in high caloric consumers (r = -0.69, P less than 0.01). In contrast, xylose absorption (n = 26; measured either as urinary xylose excretion or integrated breath H2 production from the sugar) was unrelated to food intake. Dietary fiber intake was uncorrelated with energy intake. This apparent human digestive strategy of rapid transit across the gut absorptive surface, without a sacrifice in absorption, parallels the adaptations made by several animal species similarly faced with increased energy demand at constant fiber intake. We therefore conclude that the hyperphagia of chronic exercise in humans may be linked with significant gastrointestinal adaptations.

---

. Side note: If any one as the full text I'd appreciate it.

Now, getting back to the maximum protein per meal issue. As was previously mentioned, the body can adapt to intake and demand. So it is very likely that the intestines of a bodybuilder are capable of absorbing more protein than an average person. I guess a lot of it would depend on the source of the protein. 130g of whey protein would be much easier to digest and absorb than the large amount of meat you would need to yield the same amount of protein. Also the total volume of the meal is a factor, as is the fat content and the amount of fiber is also important.
Would whey protein be easier? I don't think there are any concrete numbers on speed of digestion for meats. The numbers on whey are slightly increased but they are often over exaggerated. Here are the only numbers I could find:
(They are grams per hour)
Raw egg protein-->1.4g
Cooked egg protein-->2.9g
Pea protein-->3.5g
Milk protein-->3.5g
Soy protein isolate--3.9g
Casein isolate--6.1g
Whey isolate--8-10g
So what a 2g difference between whey and casein?
These are from this source: http://www.humankinetics.com/eJourna.../pdfs/5642.pdf
Note: They include pork tenderloin at <10g an hour but if someone actually bothers to read it I think you'll understand why I don't include that in my list.

Let's also keep in mind speed of digestion and % of digestion are two different things. Lyle McDonald just started an article series and the first installment was protein digestability:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...stibility.html
Note: look how high the numbers are do you really think whey digests any better? quicker perhaps but more completely to an extent it will change anything? me thinks not.
So maybe it would work ok although the other thing you have to think about is daily protein requirement. (I can already tell 5151 is going to have a field day with this.) I've done some research previously. From what I gathered for a high-level natural athlete you need approximately 2g/kg of lean mass/day. So 1g/lb of lean mass is a safe estimate. So lets use Jonnyo as an example 240lbs 10%bf = 216g/day. The issue of course is that studies are not done using competitive bodybuilders. However, the discrepancy between what science believes is necessary to maintain a positive nitrogen balance and what someone eats in a day is quite large. So do you really need 130g of protein in one meal and can your body effectively utilize it? Maybe, but I wouldn't do it. I like what you say here. There are some upper limits introduced in the paper I linked above which are probably at the higher end of what is often recommended. 1-1.5g/lb is good by me if natural. Obviously this depends on the diet. In times of low carb or dieting your protein intake needs to be HIGHER despite lower overall calorie totals. Eating retardely high amounts of protein is expensive, unnecessary and just more work.

---

In bold.

Man is this ever getting complicated. I say **** all this text stuff. Let`s look at the anecdotal evidence. Bodybuilders who eat smaller and more frequent meals do better than the ones who eat 2 or 3 big meals. Why does it have to be more complex than that? We can take all kinds of litterature and try to interpertrate things to what we want them to be, but it`s just not so. The person who chooses to beleive 3 meals a day is good is missing out on the post workout phenomenon. So what, this person would eat breakfast, lunch, then train and have one more meal. End of caloric intake for the day? Please tell me you`re joking. I only wish it were this simple in fact. No amount of arguing will ever convince me this is ideal. At least 2 should be eaten after training. Lets say a guy trains after breakfast. There is a post workout meal, then say 2 hours later one more meal, some people even eat sooner. What about the rest of the day? I must be missing something here 5151 with your saying that 3 meals is all bodybuilers need.

This is in no way an attack at you 5151. I really think you`re a smart guy and asset to this forum. At times I almost think you bring up topics to see how people will bebate you with them. Same goes for the whole glycemic thing. Screw all this medical text crap. I don`t care for it. All that matters to me is real life experience and the difference it has made with me and the people I`ve helped with it. The timing of high glycemic carbs and keeping them low at other times has made for better natural and juiced bodybuilders and saying this dosen`t matter is just horse shit. So let`s cut the text book quotes saying otherwise. No it`s not me refusing to see enlightment it`s quotes of literature that has zero application to bodybuilders which we all are.

I just realized I responded in the tuna shake recipie thread and this response is off topic, it was when reading the back and forths between O Hurley and 5151 that made me respond as I did. But in regards to tuna shakes... Gross, just very, very, gross!