Episode 62 Protein Beyond Limits: A Deep Dive into Muscle Synthesis with Dr. Jorn Trommelen

Join our fun conversation with Dr. Jorn Trommelan as we smash the myth of the 20-gram protein limit.   Don't miss this protein-packed episode that will leave you rethinking everything you thought you knew about the role of dietary protein in your body.

Episode 62 Timeline: 

2:29 How did Dr. Trommelen come up with the (milk) protein dosing for the 100-gram study?  Milk has the largest contribution to protein intake in the Western world.

3:22 Prior dose-response studies – well accepted that 20 g of protein is all you need in a single meal; anything else above that is oxidized.

4:05 This new study question was inspired by the copious consumption of BBQ meat!

5:09 Do we need to distribute protein throughout the day?

6:18 Snakes can eat >20% of their body mass in a single meal

7:05 Why the 0, 25, and 100 gram dose? This study is absurdly expensive! So for all the fake science peeps online that have never done a study, STFU.

8:20  25 gram dose was used as is the “upper limit” based on prior data; 100 grams for the simple reason that it is likely the upper limit of what a large male could likely eat in a single meal.

9:33 The exercise protocol was a basic whole-body resistance training regimen

10:37 Total protein intake vs. timing/distribution

13:00 What would you speculate on 100 grams of protein twice a day versus 50 grams of protein four times a day?

17:50 Your protein requirements are likely based on lean body mass? Perhaps…not much data.

21:00 What is the upper limit?  There is a practical upper limit in terms of how much you can consume.

22:25 What happens when professional eaters consume 80 plus hot dogs?

26:25 Protein intake in talented Dutch athletes – they seem to under-report protein intake by 25%

27:39 Dr. Trommelen is skeptical of the protein intake in the high-protein studies done by Jose Antonio. Are they over-reporting their intake?

29:00 Male bodybuilders are the group that does not over-report protein intake.

32:10 Compare acute feeding data vs what humans do in real-life (i.e., humans eat mixed meals throughout the day).

33:27 Most long-term studies are not “long-term.”

33:47 Most people over-estimate the role of protein vis a vis muscle growth.

37:40 Plant vs Animal based protein – the total anabolic response is lower? 

39:15 The issue with veganism is they eat less protein in general and the quality is lower.

43:27 What would happen if an endurance athlete chronically did pre-sleep protein?

45:22 Jorn gives thoughts on the 1.6 g/kg of protein daily as a “starting point” with the flexibility to elevate it as needed. Carbs and fats as needed.

50:39 Good to see higher protein recs for endurance athletes.

50:59 Endurance athletes are already probably at 1.5 g/kg/d. Why do folks recommend lower? It’s so silly.

About our guest:

Jorn Trommelen PhD works as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Human Biology. He is involved in research and education regarding the impact of exercise and nutrition on muscle mass and function. His research is part of the M3 research group and focuses on exercise and nutritional interventions to augment exercise performance and training adaptations in athletes.

About the Show

We cover all things related to sports science, nutrition, and performance. The Sports Science Dudes represent the opinions of the hosts and guests and are not the official opinions of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN), the Society for Sports Neuroscience, or Nova Southeastern University. The advice provided on this show should not be construed as medical advice and is purely an educational forum.

Hosted by Jose Antonio, PhD

Dr. Antonio is the co-founder and CEO of the International Society of Sports Nutrition and the co-founder of the Society for Sports Ne

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:02

Welcome to the Sports Science Dudes. I am your host, dr Jose Antonio, with my co-host, dr Tony Ricci. If you're a first-time listener, hit the subscribe button and like the show. You can find us on Apple Podcasts, spotify, rumble and YouTube. Especially guest today is Dr Jordan Trommeland. He earned his PhD and I will butcher this name at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. Tony's probably laughing at me. Jordan Trommeland works as a. I think you're still an assistant professor or an associate professor, I'm not sure.

Speaker 2: 0:36

Still an assistant professor bringing the coffee to the other professors?

Speaker 1: 0:39

Oh beautiful, beautiful. So you're an assistant professor at the Department of Human Biology. You're involved in research and education regarding the impact of exercise and nutrition on muscle mass and function. Your research is part of the M3 research group and focuses on exercise and nutritional interventions to augment exercise performance adaptations in athletes. So, jordan, I want to welcome you to the sports science dudes. Thank you for taking time out. I know the time zone difference is kind of a pain when you're in Europe and here, but we appreciate your time. Thanks for having me guys.

Speaker 1: 1:18

All right, let's start off on one of my favorite topics protein, and your group recently did that study looking at I believe it was the supplementation of casein, post-exercise recovery, and I think the thing that surprised people most was the dosing, the 100-gram dose, and how you assess that there was a increase in muscle protein synthesis over really a long period of time. I think it was 12 hours, is that correct? Yeah, you explain a little bit about how you came up with the dosing. I think there was a zero grams, 25 grams and 100. And I know there are people online saying why didn't you do 40? Because there were 20 or whatever. I mean, I'm sure there are good reasons for choosing it. People who don't do research oftentimes will just come up with random numbers and say, hey, you should do a zero, a 20, a 40 and a 100. I'm like you know this costs a lot of money. You can't just do every possible dosing. So explain how your group came up with the protocol and summarize the results.

Speaker 2: 2:29

Yeah. So a very small clarification the study was not casein, it was milk protein. Oh, milk, okay. Milk protein is, of course, 80% casein, but it's also 20% whey protein. One of the reasons why we took milk protein is because it has the largest contribution to protein intake in the Western world. You know, whenever you do a study, people are always gonna ask what about this protein? What about that protein? Again, we picked the protein that has the largest contribution to protein intake in the Western world. So, if anything, we have the most representative protein because it simply has the biggest contribution. Makes sense. But yeah, it does act like casein a lot.

Speaker 2: 3:17

So why this study? Well, there have been quite some studies, including even one from our lab, those response studies where different doses are compared, and for a pretty long time I would say up until a month ago it was very well accepted that about 20 grams of protein, that's all you need in a single meal, because your body simply can't use more for muscle protein synthesis, building off new muscle tissue, and if you take more, the majority will be burned for fuel called oxidation. So how did we come up with this study question? Well, there's a lot of reasons why. One of them was inspired by a barbecue. I remember that once I woke up middle of the night I went to pee and I kinda had like a let's call it a meat burp and I'm like, wait a minute, it's like 10 hours ago since I ate all this meat. I just feel I'm still digesting it and I'm like there's no like, if it's still in my GI tract, how could it possibly have reached my muscle and be built into that? So I'm like when you consume large doses of protein, it's not really fair if we do studies that are only a couple of hours long, like you have to give it a chance to digest and reach your peripheral tissue. So that was one thing. That's, of course, like fun practical anecdote.

Speaker 2: 4:57

I also looked at the data. One thing that like initially I was kind of in the protein distribution camp that you need to distribute your protein throughout the day to basically have the highest efficiency of your protein because the big meals most is wasted. But studies didn't really show that the majority of like longer term data didn't really support that protein distribution concept and I was just thinking those studies are underpowered, boring for the listeners, but just not enough subjects to clearly come to the right conclusion. But then time restricted feeding, intermittent fasting, became very popular and that's a very extreme model of theoretically suboptimal protein distribution. And still you didn't see differences in muscle mass. So I was like, if such a suboptimal distribution pattern, if you don't even see big differences there, like why are we arguing about four or five meals a day? Like something isn't adding up?

Speaker 2: 6:04

And then the last part that is just a very small part but I guess it adds to the larger body of evidence. In nature you have examples where, for example, snakes they ate 25% of their body mass in a meal. So if you're like a 100 kilogram bodybuilder, that's like a meal of 25 kilograms. Good luck with that. Of course that doesn't necessarily say something about humans, but at least somewhere in nature there is this concept that if you eat a big meal you can use it because they have done it's pretty cool to have done studies on these snakes and you see that they are digesting for like two weeks. Muscle protein synthesis is elevated for two weeks. So for all these reasons I just had the general idea is, when you give a large dose of protein, you need to give it a time to digest. You need to do studies that measure long enough to give the protein the chance to reach to the muscle, and that's what all these previous studies didn't do.

Speaker 2: 7:07

Then your other question why the 0.25 and 100 gram dose? Just to be blunt, this study is absolutely expensive, like we I won't bore you with the details, but we use the most amount of tracers built into the milk protein. Like, just the 100 gram dose is probably more expensive than most people's entire PhD project. Like, the methodology in this study was so absurdly insane and it's probably like most people just like oh, it's 100 grams of protein, you buy that for two euros or $3 a week, for $3 at the store, but it's like insane how expensive this study was. So you're limited with what you can do.

Speaker 2: 8:00

Because, like, rather than all these doses, we wanted the doses that we test. We wanted to measure muscle protein synthesis every possible way, digestion in every possible way, whole body protein synthesis, bunch more. But yeah, the more measurements, the less money for doses. So we picked zero. Just what happens if you don't have anything? We took 25 grams, which is kind of the upper limit of what's normally assumed to be the maximum dose 2225 and then 100 grams for the simple reason Again, a barbecue.

Speaker 2: 8:36

We did just a simple pilot in the lab and we looked at what, like let's call it the fitness bro guys, how much they could comfortably eat, like not overfeeding, like oh, I need to hit 150. Just how much protein would a bro eat without truly forcing it? So someone who likes protein and fitness and that ended up being about 100 grams. So we thought 100 grams is like in a normal setting, like no, it's not what you're gonna consume every meal, but that's more or less the practical upper limit of what can be consumed. And the only goal of us just to test that dogma is 25,. All you need. It's not to say you need 100 grams. Maybe at 50 grams there is a maximum we can get into that, but that's not the purpose. The main purpose was just to challenge 2025. Is all you need.

Speaker 1: 9:29

And the exercise describe the exercise protocol real quickly.

Speaker 2: 9:33

It was fairly basic. It was just a whole body exercise, resistance training. So from the top of my hat it was, I think, four sets of leg press, four sets of leg extension, I think, three sets of pull downs and three sets of chest press and more or less everything was like one rep in reserve. It was still volatile fatigue, but under some encouragement. So now yelling like come on, come on. But of course if you're a subject and the researcher is like you know, give it everything you got. Maybe one rep left in the tank. Most people go pretty hard. So it depends a little bit on the subject. Somewhere between one and two reps in the tank, some people hit failure on the set here and there.

Speaker 1: 10:28

So are you of the opinion that it's total protein intake over the course of the day that's paramount, and timing and distribution is secondary?

Speaker 2: 10:39

Yes. So I think that concept has been around for a long time, that it's probably the most important how much protein you get in a day. And then there's some debate to what the importance of protein distribution is. Or some people are like, ooh, this is really important because, again, you oxidize everything once your meal is too big. And then some people are like it probably doesn't matter at all.

Speaker 2: 11:06

I think with this, if you look at the evidence, like, what's supported that let's call it theory of protein distribution? It's not really the long-term studies that supported it. Again, there are some limitations in long-term studies where you want tons of subject before you can clearly see something. So I was always like maybe once we have a lot more data, at some point we can do a meta-analysis and then we'll see a small benefit. But really the only evidence was that mechanistic acute work where the idea is if you consume too much, you start oxidizing it all, and that just our data just showed that isn't true at all. So in my mind, most of the argument in favor of protein distribution is gone. Does that mean in practice you should not distribute your protein intake? Well, I don't think it's super important that you do, but if you're a competitive bodybuilder, why wouldn't you Like? It's not that difficult. But again, how much of an added value will it have? I think very little.

Speaker 1: 12:15

So it's sort of a six of one, half dozen of another. If, like, for instance, tony works with a lot of professional fighters and they train certainly more than once a day, sometimes hours per day. So speculate a little on if you have someone consuming 200 grams of protein a day, whether it matters if they're doing 100 in the morning, 100 in the evening, versus 50, 50, 50, 50, 50 spread out throughout the day. Will it matter? Here's the thing will it matter from a muscle protein synthesis standpoint or a recovery standpoint or what this? It might inhibit their hunger. So they're not thinking about food and said they're thinking about training.

Speaker 2: 13:03

I, like Richie, will be the judge of this, I guess, but the first thing that came to mind is good luck eating 100 grams of protein and getting a liver kick.

Speaker 1: 13:15

Like 100 grams of protein.

Speaker 2: 13:19

You'll lose 50 grams right there, like unless it's from, like, maybe, easy digestible protein powder, you're not gonna eat 100 grams of protein anyway. So these are very fun academic exercises, but anyone who works in practice know that protein is relatively tough on the stomach and too big of a meal is just not gonna sit well with training. Now let's ignore that for a moment. Do I think it matters for your physiology? Again, I would say I would say the higher your protein intake is, the smaller the chance that protein distribution has an added effect. Because, like if you look, for example, at my data, just with the more protein, just plasma amino acids rise much longer and they stay elevated much longer. Imagine if you have even more protein. So ultimately the goal of protein like protein quality is another discussion you can have, but ultimately the goal, I guess the main goal is to provide essential amino acids to your tissues so they can have, they have the building blocks and the signals for optimal functioning. As long as you eat enough protein, that protein is gonna digest during the whole day, so you will always have them available and your body has no clue whether that protein just came in on your empty stomach or that it came six hours ago and only now, it's true, your gut, which, while your stomach, I should say, and has been there for a couple of hours Like there's no difference, until it comes into the circulation. It was never accessible to your muscle anyway.

Speaker 2: 15:13

Now again, in practice, I wouldn't know why an athlete wouldn't wanna distribute it. Like it's so easy to distribute your protein. As you're aware, I've done quite some research on priestly protein and back then everyone's like you're pushing protein distribution. That doesn't really matter, which is really fun, because now I'm sort of on the other camp. But I'm like priestly protein is the easiest habit, like usually you're at home, like it's the easiest to just take one or two scoops of protein. It's more protein in the day. You possibly some distribution advantage. Why wouldn't you do it? So, from a practical point of view, why wouldn't you aim for some protein distribution? Now, what I don't want is that people stressing and setting their alarm and in the middle of the night I have to eat again or I have to run out of class or work because you need to eat every four hours. I think my study really shows that is absolutely not necessary. But in practice, why wouldn't you try to have some reasonable protein distribution?

Speaker 3: 16:22

Makes sense. Yeah, and one other quick question and, by the way, inspired by you and your team, I don't think you can see it. Well, there you go. I just had about 75 grams, so I want to thank you for that.

Speaker 2: 16:33

Excellent. It's light work. I expected more from you, but training guts, we'll get up there. We'll get up there.

Speaker 3: 16:43

And so, with the to our best assertion, even in a small, like with a lot of the fighters as you know, you're in weight class athletes if there was a caloric deficit, we still would probably make the same assertions regarding protein distribution and timing versus a large bonus. Might that be correct, or?

Speaker 2: 17:06

Yeah. So that triggers a few topics in my head. So obviously, with a lower caloric intake in general, there's just more pressure on your protein to use it as a fuel. Generally, because you're in a more catabolic situation, you try to keep your protein up, but just the general concept that protein distribution doesn't really have much added value. I don't see why energy status per se would impact that. Now what is interesting is if you ask me, what do I think this is super, not academic, but my guess is that probably your protein requirements scale based on the amount of lean body mass you have. That makes so much sense In practice.

Speaker 2: 18:02

There's not that much good evidence for it that a big guy needs all that much more protein than a small guy. It's partly because most of the studies are. There's not that many studies and they're not that good, but my gut feeling is based on the data I've seen. It's not like a guy that's two times as big needs two times the amount of protein. He probably needs more protein. So what does that mean in practice? That means that smaller athletes they almost surely have enough protein because almost any amount is good for them. I would just say if you're an athlete that's bigger than, let's say, the average subject in a study. You probably need a little bit more, but it's not like oh, I'm 20% heavier, I also need 20% more than the studies recommend.

Speaker 1: 18:58

Great. Did you address the concept of people argue about whether there's an upper limit? I think even the title of your paper suggested there is no upper limit. Pragmatically there has to be a limit and also physiologically, your gut and your small intestine can only handle so much. I guess. Address that issue both theoretically and pragmatically, that there has to be a limit somewhere. I mean there's a limit to height. Actually, I don't know. I was about to say there's a limit to body weight, but I'm not sure that's true because humans seem to be getting larger. But there has to be some sort of digestive limit.

Speaker 2: 19:39

Yeah. So this kind of gets into the debate like how should a title of a paper be? So I want to start with a big disclaimer. If you read the paper first of all, I know for sure I wrote the longest limitation section you'll ever see in a paper like this. So when someone says like, ooh, the title is kind of high P, I guess it is, but there's no way you mistake what I mean if you actually read the paper. Then number two, when you read the whole paper, you'll see that nowhere in the paper I say so.

Speaker 2: 20:17

This paper means you need to eat this much protein in a meal. Nowhere does it say this means this is how much protein you need to consume in a day. I don't even say protein distribution is nonsense. All I say is, hey, maybe protein distribution, that concept, maybe it can be a little bit more flexible. And if you know you won't have your next meal in the next couple of hours, you probably want to increase your meal so you can last up. That is the main practical lesson from this paper. Now, is there an upper limit? Of course there is. If there wasn't, I would be Ronnie Coleman, I would just slam protein shakes all day and that's just not going to work, unfortunately. So, yes, there is an upper limit. Now that might be related to several things. On one hand, just like you mentioned, a practical upper limit of how much you can consume Again, as I mentioned, we could pretty comfortably consume 100 grams of protein in a barbecue, but it's not like you'll do that six hours later again. So there's just so much you can eat on a day.

Speaker 1: 21:26

Joe, I'm sorry. Dina, have you ever watched the Nathan hot dog eating contest?

Speaker 2: 21:31

No.

Speaker 1: 21:32

Oh, okay.

Speaker 3: 21:34

Well, OHS.

Speaker 1: 21:35

Not that I would recommend you watch it, but in Long Island, new York, every year they have a hot dog eating contest and Tony correct me if I'm wrong, but in 10 or 12 minutes they can eat 70 to 80 hot dogs, I think.

Speaker 3: 21:47

Joey Chestnut's record's in the mid-80s. Yes, so 80 hot dogs, with buns, by the way. With buns right.

Speaker 2: 21:55

Dude, they dip them in water, right, they do, that's right, that's exactly right.

Speaker 1: 21:59

Yes, and you might be able to speculate on this. What happens to all? I mean, I know hot dogs have a lot of fat, but there's still a lot of protein in 80-something hot dogs. What happens to all of that? And professional eaters and I don't know if you have professional eaters in Holland, but we got professional eaters here.

Speaker 2: 22:21

So that's cool, we might.

Speaker 1: 22:23

Yeah, they would be.

Speaker 2: 22:24

I never really thought of that concept but we might have to recruit them for our study. Like I doubt we'll get a huge sample size, but it will be cool just to see, just to test some concepts. But my expectation there is that they would be like the snake, they would just be digesting that food for a couple of days. I don't know if you have any links to them. Like it would be interesting to just shoot them in emails like how much do you eat in the next two days? That might give some indication whether their gut is full and sends the signals to the brain so we're full, just stop eating. What's also very interesting is because I read all that snake research, for this is that the snake uses, like in the first day, most of the protein synthesis is to increase its gut. Like the villian is gut. They go completely nuts. They're like, oh, we have to digest this insane meal so all the organs start growing. It's not like, oh, all the protein is going to the muscle of the snake.

Speaker 1: 23:31

That's interesting. Yeah, well, I mean here in terms of real life snake consumption. We have pythons here that are consuming whole alligators.

Speaker 3: 23:39

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 23:40

Alligators whole. Yeah, and it's actually a problem in Florida because pythons are not indigenous to Florida and they're actually causing issues with alligators because, yeah, because you have videos of you see a python and it looks like there's an alligator basically inside the python. It's absolutely amazing. Well, let me ask you this I think Stu Phillips he's a big fan of the 1.6 grams per kilo total protein intake per day. I'm someone who thinks you can certainly go up to one gram per pound or 2.2 grams per kilo, depending on the person, depending on the athlete. Now, if you're dealing with high-end athletes, whether they're elite endurance athletes run, bike or swim or, in this case, elite fighters who train probably harder than 99.99 percent of humanity do you think 1.6 is enough?

Speaker 2: 24:44

It's a difficult question so I'll just share some of my thoughts. If you look at so that 1.6 is based on that meta-regression data from Stu and what they essentially do there is they look at all the studies on protein supplementation and then what protein intake that protein supplementation did it appear to stop resulting in additional gains? And then they do a breakpoint analysis to determine that. Now when you look at that graph, like I've done a breakpoint analysis and my R-squares are like 0.95 and higher and I'm like sweet, when you look at that graph, you see like okay, if I have to make a very rough estimation, the model says 1.6. I would consider that a good starting point to do more studies. But it's not like, oh see, when we design everything, like when we show all the data in it, it's very clear that at 1.6, everything stops. Now it's a lot of dots over the place. So I see it as a in general, like people love to say, like no, you have to look at meta-analysis, they're the highest form of research. But that's not really how it works. It's like when we throw a lot of different stuff together, then this comes out and that's then a starting point to design better studies and it keeps reiterating it's not like the meta-analysis and we're done. So I would consider that 1.6 is a good starting point to thinking what the maximum could be.

Speaker 2: 26:17

Now we've done a study in Dutch. From very talented young athletes all the way to some Olympic athletes. We've done a study where we looked at their protein intakes and then in a small sample of them we used nitrogen balance to see hey, what you reported with 24-hour questionnaires, how does that stack up with the nitrogen in your urine? And it seemed like they underreported protein intake by 25%. That's athletes. My assumption would be that an athlete is better aware of the protein in his diet than, let's say, college kids, let's call it that. So that just makes me think. If athletes are already underreporting protein intake by 25%, maybe the subjects in that meta-analysis where usually habitual protein intake is based on self-reported data, maybe that is also 25% underreported. So maybe you shift that up 25%. Is that true? I don't know, but seems very possible.

Speaker 2: 27:27

Now then the other question is how much higher do you need to go, and does it truly benefit daily athletes, for example? You've done some studies with higher protein intakes. There I am the other kind of skeptical in the sense that I don't know, but I would be skeptical that subjects truly eat that amount of protein for that duration. I think they might be overreporting. Yes, yes, dr Professor Antonio, yes, I ate everything. I don't know if they truly ate Like so. I'm skeptical of normal people because they underreport. And then I think people who are on those extreme diets they're probably overreporting to make you proud.

Speaker 2: 28:17

But then we get back to the question are higher protein intake beneficial? I would say possibly, like. This again really comes down to practical considerations Like how much effort is it to consume a little bit more protein? What are the downsides? I don't think there are many downsides in healthy elite athletes, even if it's just for the peace of mind, try to consume a little bit more protein Now if your athlete is reporting. I hate all these protein shakes you're giving me. That's probably not worth it, but I would add, the least experiment with it.

Speaker 1: 28:54

Yeah, I know from the self reports because I've done a lot of those chronic protein supplementation studies. I would say that, as you mentioned, almost everyone under reports except one group, male bodybuilders. If you ask a male bodybuilder what they eat, they know exactly to the gram carbs, fat and protein. So I guarantee you they weren't overreporting because those were male bodybuilders, particularly in the. We did a two year follow up and, knowing those guys, I know a lot of them personally. There was one guy who was averaging, I think, 400 grams a day and he was getting 400 grams a day. So I think, unless you're dealing with male bodybuilders, it is true that the population people are just not good at remembering what they eat. I think that's part of the issue.

Speaker 2: 29:47

Yeah. So it's two things. It's the remembering is just difficult, like people kind of know what they had for dinner but they forget the snacks and especially the drinks. But then the other aspect is socially desired answers, where you see that obese people tend to overreport. Of course they're not forgetting their meals, they just know that they eat too much so they intentionally leave it out because they may be ashamed of it.

Speaker 2: 30:20

So I'm just wondering like it might be different if you have a bit of a personal relationship with those bodybuilders. But bodybuilders they know, or at least think, that they have to consume very high amounts of protein. So I could, even if there was one day less. They're, like I'm not admitting, like in bodybuilding, like you know, hardcore, that's like that's their lifestyle. So I doubt if a bodybuilder slipped up for one day that they would admit it to you, although maybe if they, you know, if you have a bit of a relationship with them, then they would probably be honest.

Speaker 2: 30:56

And then the other thing is, depending on how the study is designed, subjects kind of change their behavior in when they know they have to keep a dietary record, for example. So that's an advantage of a surprise 24 hour recall, at like with a trained dietitian, you should be able to really drag all the information out of them. But if you just give them a dietary record, people like no, I'm not going to eat that because it's a hassle to write it down. So it's so interesting to me that I use like the most expensive research methodologies to measure, essentially like throwing a little bit of salt on a beach and then a year later counting exactly how much salt there is. We can do that. But then in the human body with you know where the amino acids go, but dietary intake we struggle measuring that in humans. That's just funny to me. Like should be the simplest thing in the world.

Speaker 1: 31:55

Yeah, I mean there's. There are, you know, certainly limitations doing the chronic work. What are your thoughts, though, on because you have a lot of acute data? You do a feeding, I mean, and others as well. Phillips lab, you do a feeding. You measure MPS over X number of hours. The question I always get, particularly from bodybuilders or strength power athletes, is well, how does that apply to me? Training for years, eating mixed meals multiple times throughout the day, a single feed of just protein doesn't in any way match what life actually is, and that's the, that's the common criticism of these acute feeding studies. What are your thoughts on that?

Speaker 2: 32:41

Yeah, so there's obviously some truth to that. And then, like, especially online, like usually, people are like in one or two camps like, oh, it's magnetistic work, so it doesn't count at all. Or they blindly believe it because, well, I've heard more about Dr Trommel and Dr Phillips and they're, you know, they're, everything they do is good, right, and neither of those approaches is how you, how you should think of this. So, in the ideal world, any concept you've tested, an acute study, you want to verify in a long term study.

Speaker 2: 33:24

The issue with the long term studies is that most long term studies are not long term studies. They're like four to six week studies with a handful of subjects and, for example, people just overestimate the effect of protein in general. If you look at studies where there's protein supplementation, about 80% of them doesn't even show that protein supplementation increases muscle mass. Now, I think we all agree yes, protein supplementation can increase muscle mass, but it's simply because if your study is too short, one group gains 100 grams, the other group gains 200 grams and you can't detect that difference. Now, if you follow those groups for a year, then it would be like two kilograms versus four kilograms. You can detect that difference. So long term studies are a thing of beauty, but they should truly be long term, with sufficient subjects and good measurement techniques. If you do that, that is the Holy Grail, of course, but very difficult, especially in athletes, because why would the government ever invest money in athletes? So that's the challenge with the long term studies. Now, with the acute studies, at the end of the day you're doing something pretty artificial. So you should never blindly trust a concept from acute study. So you'll have to do some extrapolation and for that you kind of have to understand the method, like something like there's plenty of studies where I think like interesting, I don't expect it to translate, and then there's a lot of things where I think, oh, yeah, that might translate as well. It's difficult to just in 10 seconds explain how that works. You just need a lot of experience with the method, so to speak. But so I'll give you an example. If I give you guys a liter of water and then we put you on a dexa, all of a sudden you've gained a kilogram of lean mass. We all know that's an artifact of, say, a dexa scan. As long as you know how dexa scans work, you can completely avoid that limitation. Now, if you give someone a liter of water, then you measure muscle protein synthesis. You'll see zero effect. Now does that mean that the muscle protein synthesis studies are better? No, they have a different set of assumptions. If you do studies where those assumptions are violated, then you know you can throw it in the trash in the same with long term studies. So what people really need is a good like.

Speaker 2: 36:07

My pet peeve in science is when things don't align. They pick oh, I like this the best, or at least I can wrap my head around this the best, so this is the best. And then we ignore everything else. If observational animal data, even cell studies, acute studies, long term studies, if they don't align, what you should say is hmm, these data don't seem to align.

Speaker 2: 36:30

In one of those types of research we're missing something. How are we going to align this? So that's basically what I did here. I said, like these long term intermittent fasting studies don't see much of a difference in muscle mass. These acute studies strongly suggest there is only 20 grams, one of the two. Something doesn't seem to add up In this case. I thought in the acute studies they're missing something. Namely, you have to measure longer. I think that's the approach people should take. They should like I know if I was younger and listening to that you want to just take, you want to have like a short answer like this is the best type of research. You want to just follow that. No, every type of research has pros and cons and unless you know the pros and cons, you have no clue if a single study is good or bad.

Speaker 1: 37:19

Let me ask you this what if you do a follow up to this study using a different protein source? Would you find anything different, particularly if you use a plant based source? Would you think the results would be different? Um?

Speaker 2: 37:38

So again, this study was designed as proof of principle that that 20 grams, 25 grams is not all you need in a meal. So I'm 99% certain that that general concept would be the same with a plant-based protein, that, also with a plant-based meal, your total anabolic response, as well as the duration, would be longer than with 25 grams. Having said that, if you would do everything the same just switch the type of protein I could see that the total anabolic response would be smaller with the plant-based protein compared to the animal protein. Having said that, it's very similar as with protein distribution. Ultimately, the goal of protein intake is just provide your body with all the building blocks you need.

Speaker 2: 38:35

Once you have 100 grams in a meal, even if it's a lower quality type of protein let's say, the protein quality is 15% lower than effectively you ate 85 grams of highly quality protein. So what are we talking about? Like you're said, so to speak? But yeah, so as a general concept, yes, I think protein choice can make a little bit of an impact on the anabolic response, but the higher your protein intake, the less relevant that is. If you're a vegan and you eat a lot of protein, it probably doesn't matter In practice. The issue with veganism is that a lot of them eat less protein in general and it's lower quality. Then things become an issue. If they all ate infinite amounts of protein, like the amount you give in your study, it really doesn't matter. Like they have everything they could possibly need.

Speaker 3: 39:38

Yeah, just a quick question to you on that. Somewhat follows up on that, and I apologize for asking questions that are mostly assertion. But do we, is there a disparity? Because there's so many genetic differences right from person to person that that that do any? What their metabolism is?

Speaker 3: 39:58

If I put in 100 grams in a group of 25 year olds. Comparable weight, comparable activity level, that rate of breakdown, and then the time it reaches the periphery is that almost a constant from person to person? Or just some people have more protease enzymes Not that it's going to make a significant difference over the course of a couple of hours, but I've always wondered what the capacity is for some. Some people have an inversion to protein. Is that important because it is sitting in the gut longer? So what if there was somebody else who might have greater protease enzymes and can knock down a 42 ounce for the house and they're ready to eat an hour again later? It might there be something with that.

Speaker 2: 40:40

Yeah, well, I would say yes. So first of all, like when I have data, I have of course data on all the individual subjects and then you see the values. You know there's quite a wide range in that. Now, what we do know with protein, especially like the higher quality protein, so most animal proteins like digestibility, so how much in total you digest and then absorb is almost 90% for everyone all of the time if it's like isolated, not when you start adding in fiber. However, one person might be digesting that meal a lot longer than someone else, for example, because they have less digestive enzymes. Another example is what you guys just brought up. I'm not going to put 80 hot dogs in my stomach, right? So there is this concept of in carbohydrates. It's very popular training the gut. That might apply here as well.

Speaker 2: 41:40

So that brings up another discussion point which ties in a little bit. What? Because they just mentioned with the acute studies? With an acute study you'll always have at least some amount where you wonder what happens if I do this more often. So on one hand you could speculate if you always do these absurd 100 grams meals, like in my study, we saw almost nothing got burned, wasted.

Speaker 2: 42:06

But if protein becomes a really relatively large percentage of your micronutrient intake, I could see a shift where your body says well, we have so much of this, we might as well start using it as a fuel. So there's no guarantee that if you keep doing this forever, your metabolic response is the same. Now you can also speculate the other way that your body thinks this is awesome. We're always getting a lot of protein. Let's up regulate our capacity to use it. This brings me back to the snake, where if a snake eats one of these large meals, the first thing the body says this is awesome, we're going to up regulate the gut so we can digest it all. So, who knows, maybe you become more anabolic. Right, like your body, like one. This is awesome. We have, like, so much Awesomeness coming in. Let's optimize anabolism, because things will always be good. Or it might be the opposite. Like. This is unnecessary to keep doing this. You never know for sure and that's why you always need a combination of research.

Speaker 3: 43:08

Right.

Speaker 1: 43:09

Now you did some work on a it was pre-sleep protein ingestion on mitochondrial protein synthesis. Is that correct? Yeah, what would you and obviously that would matter particularly to endurance athletes what would you speculate as to what would happen if an endurance athlete did that chronically?

Speaker 2: 43:27

Well, what do you hope that happens? Is that over time that would increase either mitochondrial abundance and our function? So, theoretically, more mitochondria is a higher capacity to use fuels and basically the way I think of endurance exercises. You're just a human furnace and whoever can burn the most fuel for the longest will win. So that is the theoretical benefit. Am I convinced that will happen? Not necessarily. It seems like the main limiting factor in endurance is more in the cardiovascular aspect, not necessarily in the muscle metabolism. How much can be oxidized there? So it's really difficult to say. I think that the benefits of protein are not limited to the mitochondria. That's just that study. My assumption would be that, for example, in this study we just discussed with 100 grams of protein, we very clearly saw that with more protein, plasma protein synthesis would also be higher. Based on that, you would expect that the priestly protein would also increase plasma proteins that carry oxygen, which might be more important than the mitochondria. But at the speculation, of course.

Speaker 1: 44:52

We're running out of time, but I want to get two last questions in One future research let the audience know. And two, when you're giving advice. So people are going to ask you for advice because you do a lot of great work, particularly with protein. What advice do you give? And let's just deal with two populations strength power athletes and endurance athletes Protein intake, carbon intake, fat intake I know you're a protein guy, but I'm sure you're asked about carbs and fat as well. In terms of dosing per day. What do you tell them?

Speaker 2: 45:22

Okay, so let's start with the strength athletes as a starting point. I would usually start with that 1.6. We discussed that. I don't think that's the holy grail, but I think that's a good starting point and from there ideally I would over time increase protein intake and just see how the athletes respond. So I see, ideally I want a large percentage of caloric intake in protein, because there's pretty much only upside. Of course you have to take into account carbohydrates and fat.

Speaker 2: 45:59

Now for strength athletes. I wouldn't worry that much about carbohydrates. I don't like ketogenic diets so I wouldn't go low carb, but I would leave it up to the preference of the athlete. Now for endurance, it's a little bit different. I would still use that starting point of 1.6 gram per kilogram per day, probably not all that much higher for an endurance athlete. But there carbohydrates become a lot more important. But there you really have to distinguish between what's your goal. Is it performance in the moment or is it training adaptations? There's some reasonable evidence that a high carbohydrate availability during training sessions kind of reduces the need for training adaptations. So training at least once a week with a low carbohydrate availability, so ideally overnight fasted and then a morning training without any carbohydrates and only after that you start to refuel. But during actual exercise, during performance, when you want to win there, you absolutely want to maximize carbohydrates oxidation rates. The way to do it is to have carbohydrate intake from 60 to all the way to 120 grams per hour.

Speaker 1: 47:23

Now 120 grams per hour is absurd.

Speaker 2: 47:26

You need to train gut. It's too long for now. And what's important there is that you consume your carbohydrates as a mixture of glucose and fructose, because they are absorbed in different transporters so your uptake rate is higher. But again, that's only during an event where you want to maximally perform, maybe very quickly for Richie. That multiple transportable carbohydrates concept is also pretty interesting for glycogen replacement, for example. If your athletes are doing a weight cut for weighing in, that same concept applies there. And again, that I see as this boring nutrient where you probably don't want to go under 20% of your energy intake, but it's more. You play around with it and usually, unless you avoid it in practice, most athletes end up above that anyway. So yes, I'm very protein centric. That's the first one. I always fill in from the micronutrients, then carbohydrates as needed and fat more or less fills in itself, as long as you stay above that 20% energy percentage.

Speaker 1: 48:40

Yeah, let me tell me before you comment just during. I want to tell you what I do with. My wife is a national class cyclist. She does time trials. She specialized in time trials 5K and 10K. Her carbon intake is maybe three grams per kilo, her protein intake is three grams per kilo and her fat intake is about one. And again, this is an N of one, but since I know her I live with her she does better on very high protein intake With a couple things. One, her body composition is better because if she's eating that protein she tends to be eating less carbs, so her body comes better. And two, she says she just physically feels better. She says she feels lighter. But again, a 5K and 10K time trial, it's not that I mean, it's fast.

Speaker 2: 49:30

Yeah, that's also like I would classify that more two words distinct spectrum than two to truly endurance, like that. That are the exercise durations where we don't recommend the high carbohydrates in takes, not even during exercise.

Speaker 1: 49:47

So I just wanted to. Tony, I didn't know if you had a comment about you know.

Speaker 3: 49:51

So it was just. I was just happy to hear you're starting with one six for the endurance athlete, which is now becoming a little bit more accepted. It's usually a one, two, a one one, because you know you had these absurd numbers in the past of I don't want to say they're absurd, but I mean there aren't that many people that I could eat to 10 to 12 grams of carbs per kilogram, right? And if doing so that pushes your protein at some given point that you know. I mean you're eating 4,000 calories and carbs per day, so that pushes your protein down almost point eight to one. So anyway, it was good to hear that a one six, 1.6 in the endurance athlete is a very solid start in a very good protein intake, as was considered previously.

Speaker 2: 50:38

So I am absolutely a science nerd and there's nothing more like than the complicated calculations that probably a max 10 people in the world understand. But I know enough about practice that, like, like injured, like we done studies on micronutrient intake in athletes, and endurance athletes, almost all of them. On average, they ate 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram per day, anyway. So anyone who comes with this recommendation of 1.2 is actually saying, oh, you should eat less than you're already doing. So I'm like, where does this come from? And make notes. And on top of that, that 1.5 gram, that is from that study where we saw that the ones we tested appear to under report by 25%. Okay, there is one point. So, unless you want to put out the message, no, you actively need to avoid protein, which I don't think is beneficial. So, yeah, occasionally doing a study and actually trying to track micronutrient intake, for example, gives a lot of perspective and I think the tracer studies are cool. But again, the more types of research you do, just the better overall picture you can form.

Speaker 1: 51:54

Yeah, you know I love that you do a lot of these acute studies, super expensive. I don't think people appreciate that. You know, and also trying to combine it with some of the chronic data and also you know, real world data, working with athletes and you'll see that it never isn't, it's never a clean fit. You're sort of trying to figure out okay, at the end of the day, I want the athlete to do well, but I'll see what the literature says and try to, you know, modify it for the athlete. But I'll tell you this Jordan, you do some amazing work. I love what you do. I agree.

Speaker 1: 52:25

By the way, if, for those of you on Instagram, your Instagram page is nutrition tactics, is that correct? Yeah, it's a great page. You haven't been on it for a while, though. It'd be nice if you put some new stuff on there.

Speaker 2: 52:38

Just to when I started doing this study, the we call it the barbecue study. At that moment I decided I'm no longer doing any podcast. Before that I was quite active because I kind of enjoy it, but I was like from the moment I started, like I have this hypothesis that this 20 grams is not optimal. It's still what's kind of evidence based. Do I really want to tell that? So I just stopped appearing on podcasts. I still was, you know, kind of active on the social media, for example Instagram, but it's been so busy lately. But I'm going to pick it up, don't worry.

Speaker 3: 53:15

I'm looking forward to it.

Speaker 1: 53:17

Any new projects? Could you tell the audience anything new coming up? Are you going to present XDSM or?

Speaker 2: 53:23

So I set up a new technique in our lab that can estimate protein requirements based on bread analysis. Pretty much so it's non-invasive, which will allow us to do a lot of work, because usually our studies are with muscle biopsies Good luck getting professional athletes to do that. So with this new tool, it gives us more opportunities to study understudied populations. So where I'm using it now is on the intensive care, because these people are fighting for their life. You're not going to go with biopsy needles while they're in a coma and then, if they make it, they wake up. It's like what the heck did you do? So just an example how it opens up new opportunities. But bodybuilders, elite athletes, all those things will come on the radar now. So hopefully, yeah, using that technique in every possible population. If there's Dutch bodybuilders, you're probably up next.

Speaker 1: 54:33

Tony, any last words? This has been really great with Jordan.

Speaker 3: 54:36

I love this Well that's my only words Fantastic, very just, incredible information and incredible work of which I learned from, and thanks for bringing it to us and bringing it to our industry. Truly, it's excellent work and needed and we appreciate it.

Speaker 1: 54:52

Thanks guys. Yeah, thanks, jordan, and I want to thank you for appearing on the Sports Science Dudes and we certainly look forward to any new cool science you're doing. So once again, thank you. I know it's late where you are and we appreciate your time, so thank you so much.