Protease IMO is essential to get the most out of your protein intake. Protease are specific enzymes that hydrolyze (breakdown) proteins and liberate amino acids for use.
I take it twice a day right before my largest protein intakes of the day.
So true. When i read articles on protein, I have to very aware of the groups used as the subjects for the research, which ranges from rats to the elderly. Many studies merely state "a group of males who underwent 1 hour of resistance training." Then all too often, the upshot is that one should consume .80-1grm of protein per lb of body weight. I feel this is too ambiguous. I like Sam's approach where LEAN BODY MASS should be the benchmark for protein intake. What if someone is 30%+ bf and weighs 250 lbs? Will 375 grams of protein actually result in an increase of muscle mass? I personally doubt it. We have to take nutrient partitioning into consideration. Much of that protein might just be converted into fat.
So true. When i read articles on protein, I have to very aware of the groups used as the subjects for the research, which ranges from rats to the elderly. Many studies merely state "a group of males who underwent 1 hour of resistance training." Then all too often, the upshot is that one should consume .80-1grm of protein per lb of body weight. I feel this is too ambiguous. I like Sam's approach where LEAN BODY MASS should be the benchmark for protein intake. What if someone is 30%+ bf and weighs 250 lbs? Will 375 grams of protein actually result in an increase of muscle mass? I personally doubt it. We have to take nutrient partitioning into consideration. Much of that protein might just be converted into fat.
Blast...I was reading an excellent article on macro percentages by Muscular Development. He basically laid out what a lean bulk should look like if you're natty and if you're enhanced. The enhanced was 50% protein, 35% carbs, and 15% fats, and the natty one looked very different. http://www.musculardevelopment.com/articles/chemical-enhancement/3040-the-best-diet-for-drug-free-vs-chemically-enhanced-bodybuilding-muscular-development.html#.WDxQzkVMHMI
Check it out and tell me what you think?
Got our reading assignments for the day that's for sure lol! (Glad i actually fit the category of physical attributes namely 200-220 lbs, and 10-14% bf). Great reading material for an otherwise boring day at work 
The thing that stood out most for me was that a 3000-3200 cal diet when thermogenic chemicals are being utilized. I'm taking in between 3200 & 3500 cals per day but no real thermogenic chems, unless ghrp is considered one.
I actually read another MD article this morning, but it didn't make the distinction between natty and chemically enhanced. Was going to post the link, but this thread already addressed the concern.
I dig rediscovering older threads, and bringing new life to them.
I believe i am running something quite close to that ratio for the most part, though I'm carb cycling for now, next week I'm planning on going with a straight ahead approach as I near the end of this cycle.
You've been running a keto diet for a while, right? The article mentioned it a few times. How'd you like it?
I've been running a clean bulk diet that created from SF's post. Working quite well. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head tho, but it goes low carb, moderate carb, high carb. The total cals stay consistent, the only changes are in the protein and carbs, fat stays the same. I was using hemp seeds and olive oil as my primary sources for fat, but recently switched to coconut oil. It kinda gives me a bit of acid stomach for some reason.
Tibetans put yak butter in their tea, pretty good stuff!
I feel like i have more energy since taking the coconut oil, that's for sure. I would like to give straight MCT a go. Shits expensive