I have reported on pro bodybuilding shows for the various newspaper kiosk magazines. Yes I know. Don't rub it in. At least it suggests embalming corpses. Probably.
Anyway, after a show, the various "journalists" and photographers gathered in hotel bars, and one fool invariably began to compare modern bodies with those of the past, probably similar to baseball writers who sat around after a game debate Mike Trout is better than Willie Mays.
The general consensus was almost always that the boys from the golden age of bodybuilding – people like Arnold, Zane, Dickerson, etc. – were much more symmetrical; that they actually had waists, rather than what looked like the Nazis securing their underground bunkers.
We attributed this lack of narrow waists to drug excesses. The growth hormone that modern people used was indiscriminate in its effects; it made many things bigger; not only their muscles, but also their skulls, joints, and apparently also their visceral organs, forcing their trunks and waists to balloon outward to make fun of symmetry.
At least that's what we thought. Damn it, everyone thought that. However, it turns out that something else may also play a role in the growth of these visceral organs and in the expansion of these midsections, something that many non-drug-consuming recreational lifters could be vulnerable to: excess protein.
I don't child you. It's what Paul T. Reidy of the Department of Kinesiology at Miami University in Ohio just theorized in a recent issue of the Journal of Nutrition.
Before You Go Freaky I Need To Tell You The amount of protein Reidy fears that it could cause visceral organ growth is above the daily 1.6 grams per kilogram that most of us are in power – and recommend bodybuilding business.
So relax. At least for a few minutes.
In his comment, Reidy writes that while sports nutrition has made progress in determining protein needs, its "hyperfocus on skeletal muscles has gradually overlooked protein metabolism throughout the body."  Reidy was particularly interested in a study from 2019 in which a group of experienced lifters took part, who had usually ingested around 2.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight.
When analyzing the lifters, the scientists used a method called "indicator amino acid" oxidation "(IAAO), which is only minimally invasive instead of muscle biopsies and which tracks the levels of an" indicator "amino acid.
The IAAO method resulted that the lifters consumed 2.4 grams of protein per kilogram, their muscle protein synthesis (MPS) reached a maximum of about 2.0 grams per kilogram, which of course is not only many times higher than the recommended daily dose (0.8 grams per kilogram), but also higher than the approximate amount e 1.6 to 1.7 kilograms per pound that is now generally recommended by scientists for men with strength training.
Reidy explains that the figure of 2 grams per kilogram is puzzling is because strength training usually increases the body's amino acid efficiency for MPS he for some reason, in the 2019 study above, the lifters needed even more protein to reach the maximum MPS, although they are probably more efficient in recycling
Where did all the extra protein go?
So here's the dilemma: Why did these lifters supposedly need 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram to maximize whole-body MPS if they should have shown more efficient protein metabolism?  Second, the lifters in the study consumed 2.4 grams per kilogram, which was not only more than the recommended amount from the study (2.0 grams per kilogram), but also more than the 1.6 grams per kilogram (around 144 grams for) a 200 pound lifter) recommended by the vast majority of muscle protein synthesis studies beyond which there appears to be no additive benefit.
Where the hell was / is all this extra protein?
Sure, part of it was probably oxidized, but Reidy believes that a lot of it would enlarge her internal organs.
He believes that research in general is plagued by researchers who refer to total muscle mass as an indication of muscle mass. Changes in lean mass in the trunk region where the viscera are naturally located.
Reidy believes that they should instead rely on changes in lean mass in the appendix (arms and legs) that are more likely to reflect changes in the functional muscle caused by resistance training.
He explains that studies dealing with changes in muscle mass after strength training and protein supplementation are rarely reported, but more than half of the increase in total muscle mass can be attributed to increased muscle mass in the trunk. The visceral tissue is located .
In other words, researchers attribute changes in muscle mass to muscles only if the results indicate that some of these changes in muscle mass may be attractive. This is due to increased internal organ growth.
He concludes with the following considerations:
"We can possibly assume that a protein intake of more than 1.6 grams per kilogram can serve to promote hypertrophy of the visceral organs … if so, which are these?" acute and chronic effects and long-term health effects? "
What has to do with this disturbing theory?
Reidy can stand on something. As evidence, look at the old-time bodybuilders I talked about at the beginning of the article. They didn't take anything close from 2.4 grams of protein per kilogram, sure, they had protein powders, but they were raw, had low bioavailability, and tasted horrible.
Instead, these bodybuilders ate large amounts of wasp waist, which made it much more difficult You can bet that your protein intake was much closer to the 1.6 grams per kilogram recommended by most experts than to the 2 to 3 or even 4 grams per kilogram that today's monsters ingested.
Perhaps this explains why the Golden Agers did not grow large, disproportionate guts, of course we cannot ignore the fact that the classic cars do the opposite Today, lifters had no access to GH, which also seems to play a role in the growth of the visceral organs.
So yes, many of them. The extensive viscera that we see today can be attributed, at least in part, to the GH that is routinely used by today's top bodybuilders, but part of the commonly observed 7-month pregnant appearance could also be due to long-term "protein overdose". "
If so, leave Reidy's observations as a warning to those of us who think the more protein the better." Protein intestine "is not only aesthetically uncomfortable, it can also have long-term health effects.
Science discovers how much protein you need
4 great protein puzzles finally solved
- Paul T. Reidy, "Muscle or nothing! Where does the excess protein go in men with high protein intake who do weight training?" The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 150, Issue 3, March 2020, pages 421-422.