New Research on Ideal Protein Intake = 1.67 g/kg/day maximum

[Amy-in-PHX]

. . . .

If that doesnt work, just claim the researchers to be weaker than some popular lifter who disagrees with the results as well -

Lol.

Here's an interesting one I ran across today, suggesting that both young and old (age >60) women are better than men of comparable ages, at protein synthesis. Lucky for us if true, since our total calorie needs are smaller. They tried administering hormones for a whole year (T for men; DHEA for both men and women) and did not ameliorate age-related declines. The fact that T did not work I find surprising!
Higher muscle protein synthesis in women than men across the lifespan, and failure of androgen administration to amend age-related decrements

Well, I do hope you're right about the 1g per pound being too high, since I found it to be more protein than I could enjoy eating.

[Amy-in-PHX]

Yes, I read some of that today, Keith, about calorie restriction and longevity/healthspan. Seems we may need to thread a needle between avoiding frailty due to insufficient protein/exercise, and overstimulating cell proliferation and possibly other bad things. I'm hearing you now. Caution makes sense.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

What is known about the incidence of proliferative / neoplastic disease (cancer) or disturbances in cell cycle function in weightlifters v general population?

[Amy-in-PHX]

What is known about the incidence of proliferative / neoplastic disease (cancer) or disturbances in cell cycle function in weightlifters v general population?

Right now I'm reading stuff about how women's muscle protein synthesis ability differs from men's. Have not done further reading yet on Keith's concern, and have not seen anything along those lines studied in a weightlifting population, specifically -- maybe Keith will post some links. Here is one I read yesterday, which the authors termed an overview of recent results of Calorie Restriction [CR] interventions in humans [dated 2017]:
Does eating less make you live longer and better? An update on calorie restriction
Under the heading "Long-Term CR [calorie restriction] Interventions in Humans" is this:

Furthermore, such CR with optimal intake of nutrients has decreased metabolic and hormonal risk factors for type-2 diabetes, CVD, stroke, cancer, and vascular dementia in the participants. The total cholesterol–HDL cholesterol ratio was 2.6 and the range of triglycerides was 50 mg/dL. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure was 110/70 mmHg, even in people in their late 70s, and C-reactive protein was almost undetectable. Serum TNF-α, interleukin (IL) 6, fasting glucose, and insulin showed low values, and insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR) improved. [footnotes omitted]

If I recall right, TNF-alpha is a marker of tumor activity or possible tumor generation. There's a sentence where they say that participants were consuming 1800 kcal/day for "an average of 15 years," and were careful to keep diet quality high and meet all nutrient needs.

Later on under the same heading, they say:

In the longer CALERIE-2 trial, bone mass significantly was reduced at sites of osteoporotic fractures as the hip and femoral neck and the lumbar spine. Such data might limit the application of CR for older persons, eventually affected by accelerated bone loss. However, results from CRON practitioners are consistent with those from animal studies indicating that CR reduces bone mineral density but improves quality and strength of bones through their reduced turnover and prevention of secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Since we are encouraged to consider our bone mass and health throughout our lifespans, I'm not sure it's valid for the authors to say that bone mass concerns "might limit the application of [Calorie Restriction] for older persons," but not for young and middle-aged people. And I'm not sure I want to rely on rodent studies re the health of my bones -- being an older female, myself. Bone density is one of the reasons I'm squatting and deadlifting, right now.

I should note that I have no statistical chops, or familiarity with the quality of various journals in which these things are published or with the work of the various lead researchers. So I have very limited ability to evaluate the quality of the research -- just what I see in the four corners of the papers, themselves. If anyone with statistics or research design knowledge wants to chime in with observations about the quality of the work, or happens to know that particular papers have been superseded by later work with different results, I'd be happy to hear about it!

[Keith Burnett]

What is known about the incidence of proliferative / neoplastic disease (cancer) or disturbances in cell cycle function in weightlifters v general population?

If something is "known", I have not found it. There ...I said it.....I did not dodge the question.

[Keith Burnett]

Right now I'm reading stuff about how women's muscle protein synthesis ability differs from men's. Have not done further reading yet on Keith's concern, and have not seen anything along those lines studied in a weightlifting population, specifically -- maybe Keith will post some links. Here is one I read yesterday, which the authors termed an overview of recent results of Calorie Restriction [CR] interventions in humans [dated 2017]:
Does eating less make you live longer and better? An update on calorie restriction
Under the heading "Long-Term CR [calorie restriction] Interventions in Humans" is this:

If I recall right, TNF-alpha is a marker of tumor activity or possible tumor generation. There's a sentence where they say that participants were consuming 1800 kcal/day for "an average of 15 years," and were careful to keep diet quality high and meet all nutrient needs.

Later on under the same heading, they say:

Since we are encouraged to consider our bone mass and health throughout our lifespans, I'm not sure it's valid for the authors to say that bone mass concerns "might limit the application of [Calorie Restriction] for older persons," but not for young and middle-aged people. And I'm not sure I want to rely on rodent studies re the health of my bones -- being an older female, myself. Bone density is one of the reasons I'm squatting and deadlifting, right now.

I should note that I have no statistical chops, or familiarity with the quality of various journals in which these things are published or with the work of the various lead researchers. So I have very limited ability to evaluate the quality of the research -- just what I see in the four corners of the papers, themselves. If anyone with statistics or research design knowledge wants to chime in with observations about the quality of the work, or happens to know that particular papers have been superseded by later work with different results, I'd be happy to hear about it!

Amy
The CR community is interesting but the practice is untenable for everyone but the most enthusiastic adherents.

I find all this research into aging and maintenance of healthspan dizzyingly contradictory.....and I have assumed that it is impossible for the lay person, or any person to comprehend ....for practical advice. However, there is no dearth of advice on the internet.

So...for the time being I don't trust even the best researchers "advice". What I tend to do is try and find out what they actually practice, personally (ie what real skin they have in the game)..and to a great degree this gets around much the statistics and methods problems with understanding their research. I've never heard one of them say, in available interviews, TED talks, or whatever...that they personally pursue a primary program of strength training, even close to the practice of SS. ( a program to promote growth). Phillips an exception....but not an "aging" researcher. Kind of a crossover.

Why is this so? I don't know. However, weight lifting with purpose requires lots of input/discipline....and is associated with certain negative stereotypes and (inappropriate) taboos. And with SS there is no disconnecting the mechanical load aspect and the eating. Otherwise YNDTP.

an interview worth watching/listening is the podcast of Dr Rhonda Patrick and interview with the Director of the Buck Institute, ERic Verdin.

[Keith Burnett]

Amy
Here's one for you.

The Role of the Molecular Clock in Skeletal Muscle and What It Is Teaching Us About Muscle-Bone Crosstalk. - PubMed - NCBI

[Keith Burnett]

What is known about the incidence of proliferative / neoplastic disease (cancer) or disturbances in cell cycle function in weightlifters v general population?

Sully
Perhaps a more thoughtful answer than the first one (which is the true one) is that I may have to ask Dr Phillips at McMaster if he has any insight . I think I will put it to Gibala, who I know will answer, and let him query Phillips.

[Keith Burnett]

Right now I'm reading stuff about how women's muscle protein synthesis ability differs from men's. Have not done further reading yet on Keith's concern, and have not seen anything along those lines studied in a weightlifting population, specifically -- maybe Keith will post some links. Here is one I read yesterday, which the authors termed an overview of recent results of Calorie Restriction [CR] interventions in humans [dated 2017]:
Does eating less make you live longer and better? An update on calorie restriction
Under the heading "Long-Term CR [calorie restriction] Interventions in Humans" is this:

If I recall right, TNF-alpha is a marker of tumor activity or possible tumor generation. There's a sentence where they say that participants were consuming 1800 kcal/day for "an average of 15 years," and were careful to keep diet quality high and meet all nutrient needs.

Later on under the same heading, they say:

Since we are encouraged to consider our bone mass and health throughout our lifespans, I'm not sure it's valid for the authors to say that bone mass concerns "might limit the application of [Calorie Restriction] for older persons," but not for young and middle-aged people. And I'm not sure I want to rely on rodent studies re the health of my bones -- being an older female, myself. Bone density is one of the reasons I'm squatting and deadlifting, right now.

I should note that I have no statistical chops, or familiarity with the quality of various journals in which these things are published or with the work of the various lead researchers. So I have very limited ability to evaluate the quality of the research -- just what I see in the four corners of the papers, themselves. If anyone with statistics or research design knowledge wants to chime in with observations about the quality of the work, or happens to know that particular papers have been superseded by later work with different results, I'd be happy to hear about it!

I just happened to run across this from Mark Sisson in my email box. It is a discussion about the Fast Mimicking Diet of Longo...ie whether it measures up to the hype. In this discussion he takes to task the idea of lowering IGF-1 as an "unmitigated good" for healthspan and lifespan and makes other critical distinctions regarding the human research. Of course this is where I feel things get dicey in understanding a possible "paradox" between the weight lifting and protein slugging growth program like SS and the benefits understood to be obtained by calorie reductions , low protein consumption, and a sort of vegetarianism (much of which is attributed to the lowering of IGF-1). Rather than subject anyone to my prejudices prior to their own reading..... I will say that alhtough Sisson not a researcher, he is well read and thoughtful.

It is a pleasant read with links as necessary. I'd be interested in comments.

Does the Fasting Mimicking Diet Live Up to the Hype? | Mark's Daily Apple

[PizzaDad]

If i only ate 100 grams protein a day i would starve. Even with increased fat and carb consumtion. I would lose muscle and store fat. 150-170 serms to keep me static.