Ja, @ 9-10 zonder een significante form break down. Forced reps en halve reps is waar het nu niet om gaat.
Goed dat je daar op komt. Helms et al. hebben een review waarbij een inname van 2,3-3,1g/kg lichaamsgewicht wordt aanbevolen voor atleten (met een laag vetpercentage) die tijdens een vetverliesfase aan krachttraining doen. Deze review wordt ook aangehaald in de paper evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation.
Als ik Menno mag geloven hebben de nummers geen wetenschappelijke grondslag en komt het er eerder op neer dat het een hypothese is dan dat het echt bewezen is. Zie spoiler.
Menno Henselmans: Helms is definitely a smart guy. I agree with basically everything in the introduction. The paper is well researched and innovative, but the conclusion does not align with the results. [Edit: this ended up being quite story. Skip to the summary at the end if you want a quick answer.]
Essentially, the methodology of the study is to compare lean mass retention across studies and link it to protein intake. Ideally, this would have been a meta-review, but the study is not quantitative, so it's a systematic review. There are only 6 studies included in the review and there are several factors discussed that influence muscle retention: initial fat percentage, rate of weight loss and protein intake. I'd add to this, as discussed in my article, that training experience is also very important, not to mention food choices (e.g. amino acid profile), nutrient timing (CRPT), training program design, etc. This alone means the findings can at best be highly preliminary: 6 studies cannot possibly distinguish properly between so many confounding factors.
As for the results, Helms et al. perform a qualitative analysis for the former factors and note that Mettler and Maestu et al. found relatively high lean mass retention and also consumed more protein than other groups. This correlation can have numerous other causes than protein intake. Mettler et al. studied semi-novice participants who were in poor shape based on their physiological profile (e.g. 16% fat) and then put on a high volume resistance training program consuming more than enough protein. Of course they did well. Maestu et al. observed (inter)nationally competitive bodybuilders dieting for a competition. It's safe to say these guys did more to maintain muscle mass than just consuming enough protein, so they cannot be compared to ordinary gym goers recruited to participate in a study. (Note that neither study had a relevant control group. The comparison is wholly across studies, not within.)
The conclusion advocates protein intakes far higher than those studied in RCTs. These numbers have no scientific basis. They are not estimates from a meta-analytic model that evaluates muscle retention based on protein intake while controlling for all the studied factors, which would have been the preferred study design (if there were enough data).
[Geek alert: skip this paragraph if you're not interested in statistics] Since I was intrigued, I plotted protein intake against delta FFM/BW and calculated a moving average trend line. There was no initial pattern and the trend approximated verticality when the period was stretched. This indicates lean mass retention does not consistently increase across studies when protein intakes are higher. The best fit was actually a higher-order polynomial trend, which would indicate some absurd non-linear relation between protein intake and muscle retention. This basically means that there is insufficient data to make a quantitative analysis, let alone a qualitative one.
In sum, in the presence of several well controlled RCTs that can establish causality, like the recent Pasiakos study that clearly shows no benefits of consuming more than 1.6 g/kg protein a day, a qualitative and correlational review like this one based on only 6 studies cannot make meaningful inferences about protein intakes higher than those studied. This paper provides an intriguing hypothesis, but the direct research, especially the Pasiakos study probably published during the writing of this paper, does not support the hypotheses from this paper that more than 1.8 g/lb of protein is optimal while cutting.
Bron: http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
Essentially, the methodology of the study is to compare lean mass retention across studies and link it to protein intake. Ideally, this would have been a meta-review, but the study is not quantitative, so it's a systematic review. There are only 6 studies included in the review and there are several factors discussed that influence muscle retention: initial fat percentage, rate of weight loss and protein intake. I'd add to this, as discussed in my article, that training experience is also very important, not to mention food choices (e.g. amino acid profile), nutrient timing (CRPT), training program design, etc. This alone means the findings can at best be highly preliminary: 6 studies cannot possibly distinguish properly between so many confounding factors.
As for the results, Helms et al. perform a qualitative analysis for the former factors and note that Mettler and Maestu et al. found relatively high lean mass retention and also consumed more protein than other groups. This correlation can have numerous other causes than protein intake. Mettler et al. studied semi-novice participants who were in poor shape based on their physiological profile (e.g. 16% fat) and then put on a high volume resistance training program consuming more than enough protein. Of course they did well. Maestu et al. observed (inter)nationally competitive bodybuilders dieting for a competition. It's safe to say these guys did more to maintain muscle mass than just consuming enough protein, so they cannot be compared to ordinary gym goers recruited to participate in a study. (Note that neither study had a relevant control group. The comparison is wholly across studies, not within.)
The conclusion advocates protein intakes far higher than those studied in RCTs. These numbers have no scientific basis. They are not estimates from a meta-analytic model that evaluates muscle retention based on protein intake while controlling for all the studied factors, which would have been the preferred study design (if there were enough data).
[Geek alert: skip this paragraph if you're not interested in statistics] Since I was intrigued, I plotted protein intake against delta FFM/BW and calculated a moving average trend line. There was no initial pattern and the trend approximated verticality when the period was stretched. This indicates lean mass retention does not consistently increase across studies when protein intakes are higher. The best fit was actually a higher-order polynomial trend, which would indicate some absurd non-linear relation between protein intake and muscle retention. This basically means that there is insufficient data to make a quantitative analysis, let alone a qualitative one.
In sum, in the presence of several well controlled RCTs that can establish causality, like the recent Pasiakos study that clearly shows no benefits of consuming more than 1.6 g/kg protein a day, a qualitative and correlational review like this one based on only 6 studies cannot make meaningful inferences about protein intakes higher than those studied. This paper provides an intriguing hypothesis, but the direct research, especially the Pasiakos study probably published during the writing of this paper, does not support the hypotheses from this paper that more than 1.8 g/lb of protein is optimal while cutting.
Bron: http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
30-5-2014
squat
5x60kg
5x100kg
3x130kg
2x155kg
paused bench press
3x60kg
2x80kg
1x95kg
3x102,5kg @ 8,5-9
3x117,5kg (sling shot) @ 8,5
deadlift
3x100kg
2x140kg
2x5x175kg @ 6,5
chins
3xbw
2x20kg
1x28kg
5x32,5kg @ 9
5x45kg - super mini band @ 9
Comment:
Mijn rechter knie voelde wat geirriteerd. Uit voorzorg ben ik niet zwaarder gegaan met de squats.
