protein question

[kid largo]

Hi guys,

My sister is studying biochemistry and is always raving on about how her lecturers are huge and they all say supplementing protein is useless.
She told me she recently had some lectures on Protein Synthesis so I had a flick through her notes and this is what one part said:

Quote[/b] ]
From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"Protein Supplements and Exercise", R Wolfe.

Determination of whether supplements are beneficial has been hampered by the failure to select appropriate endpoints for evaluation of a positive effect. Furthermore, studies focused at a more basic level have failed to agree on the response of protein metabolism to exercise. An additional complication of dietary studies that is not often taken into account is amount of energy intake. Because of these and other complications, studies at the whole body level have not yielded a clear picture of the need for, or response to, dietary protein or amino acid supplements. Consequently, it is necessary to examine this issue at the tissue level.

So I looked up the article, which can be found in full here:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/2/551S

It goes on to say, however it is important to note that this quote WAS NOT in the notes:

Quote[/b] ]
In untrained subjects, both muscle protein breakdown and synthesis are increased in response to exercise. Amino acid intake further stimulates muscle protein synthesis after exercise as a consequence of stimulating amino acid transport into the intramuscular compartment. The stimulatory effect of amino acids after exercise is greater than the effect of amino acids on muscle protein synthesis when given at rest. These data suggest that not only may the exact composition and amount of an amino acid supplement be important, but the timing of ingestion of the supplement in relation to the exercise must be considered in designing future studies to evaluate the efficacy of amino acid supplements.

Obviously this is one of the most disgustingly selective uses of quoting I have come across. Why do these academics have such a hard stance against protein supplementation? Could it be because academics tend to be of the left-leaning anti-capitalist persuasion? Is anti-protein supplement sentiment just confined to this particular university (of Melbourne)? WHY GOD WHY!!?

PS. Please refrain from telling me the benefits (or lack thereof) of protein supplementation.

Thanks,
Adam.

 

[Brak]

I don't know...but I have noticed that it seems to be trendy for people "in the know" to go out of their way to debunk things. Seems like these days more credibility is being given to the people who say not to use/do something because it hasn't been proven to help than the people who are suggesting things that could help because all available information seems to suggest that it would. I was thinking about this the other day.

People with less than superior genetics looking for anything that will help are being told by poeple with superior genetics (who can get big without any help) that none of these things (whatever they may be) are worth wasting money on because they got big without out them and have yet to see anything that "proves" that it helps. The sad thing is that many of these huge people come off as experts because they are huge, then all they have to do is criticize someone else's approach because they didn't need it to get huge and it hasn't been "proven" to work.

Naysayers make me upset...granted, I don't want ot be wasting my money on snake oil any more than the next guy. But I also know that the word placebo exists because it is different than being a simple ineffective fake...placebos have proven the power of the mind and belief in something...I think this has degrees and even goes the opposite way. I.e. Even things than can work may be less effective if the seed of doubt has been planted by some naysayer who finds it easier to say someone else's suggestion isn't proven to be effective than it is to make a good suggestion of their own.

Brak

 

[kid largo]

Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 22 2004,10:47)]

Quote[/b] ]
Seems like these days more credibility is being given to the people who say not to use/do something because it hasn't been proven to help than the people who are suggesting things that could help because all available information seems to suggest that it would.

Thats true, probably because if you reject something as ineffective you definitely aren't trying to rip someone off, then you're honest I guess.
Last year I took a few sociology subjects, and because of the amount of global injustices by transnational corporations and powerful countries that you read about everyday, it's hard to not take a cynical position. Maybe these academics get exposed to soo many scams and misleading products they just say screw all of them.

Quote[/b] ]
But I also know that the word placebo exists because it is different than being a simple ineffective fake...placebos have proven the power of the mind and belief in something...I think this has degrees and even goes the opposite way. I.e. Even things than can work may be less effective if the seed of doubt has been planted

Definitely true there. I have posted this question to another couple of forums a while ago and most people just reply that they are idiots and whats in books are crap.. or something like what you said (but with a lot more bite&#33:

Quote[/b] ]
who finds it easier to say someone else's suggestion isn't proven to be effective than it is to make a good suggestion of their own.

Don't get me wrong, that isn't an attack and I thank you for your post, but its important to establish that these people are extremely well educated, as impartial as they come, and it's there lifes goal to make significant contributions to the science behind the sport.