Dr. Scott Connelly Seminar 2012

First of all - I'm a new member here and I would like to thank coach for creating this site and all members for filling its forum with great and helpfull posts. All the posts, logs, articles, videos, etc. are a great inspiration for me and my wife.

I recently found an interesting seminar from April 2012 done by Dr. Scott Connelly where he is presenting quite a different view on the modern nutrition "theories" - things like calorie formulas, low calorie diets, how much protein should we eat, how excessive comsumption of protein won't damage your organs, etc. Some of these points were known to me from other sources, some were very new.

Dr. Scott Connelly is an owner of a supplement company which makes me bit suspicious if the picture drawn there is complete. For example he is recommending eating 300 - 400 grams of protein and I'm not sure if this is not an overkill for average Joe like me who is not a 260 pounds heavy bodybuilding beast (on steroids). I've read in recent topic here about 2.2g - 2.4g of protein per kg being enough.

I would love to know what other members think about this seminar.

Thanks!

Part 1 - interesting part starting at 07:04 .

dQhIyzEZcWE

Part 2

JLRDM5Fb3oU

Part 3

FYathnapAbw

Hey welcome dzejkej!

I did listen to all of it.

He is a smart guy and an entertaining speaker.

He said some true things, and reached some conclusions from studies and ancedotes that don't prove much.

The animation of the protein factory was very cool

In summary, the points I agree strongly with are that:

1) The body is inefficent metabolising protein

What this means it that it effectively has something around 3.4 calories per gram, and not 4 as commonally ascribed.

So if you eat 100g, you only eating 340 calories not 400, or a savings of about 15%. This is the thermogenesis he

mentioned. A 15% caloric savings is substantial, so you can see why he wants you to eat 30-40% of your diet

in protein (besides buying his protein supplements to eat at that percentage).

2) It's filling

So even though the net calories are less, you feel like you have eaten more. This means that you are not likely

to overeat, and especially not eat back that 15% savings.

3) It builds lean tissue (muscle) esp. after resistance or HIIT

This of course leads to a greater resting energy expenditure, so you increase your burn 24 hours a day, not just during exercise.

4) It's true that the 3500cal deficit = 1 pound of fat loss is misleading

It probably has led people to do a lot of dumb things.

However I don't agree that:

1) This says anything like calorie balance doesn't hold true.

He just reworded it to say that stored energy = eaten energy - energy expended.

2) His studies prove a lot. They make good sound bites but not enough information is supplied.

But, for example a 1% change in bodyfat in the study is not measurable accurately and within the plus or minus range.

That's from one of his studies I could find:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20887742

3) Aerobic exercise is useless or negative. He refers to LISS but there are other types of aerobic exercise as well.

And LISS is useful for leaning out; bodybuilders have traditionally used it before contests.

And from a health and exercise recovery perspective, aerobic exercise has additional value.

Exclusively performing aerobic exercise is another story, and I do not agree with that either.

4) That you need >200g protein per day to benefit from its metabolic advantage.

In one chart he showed 3 meals of 30g which was odd. 1.8g/kg to 2.2g/kg are more than

enough. You can suppress appitite further with greater amounts however as Josh reguarly points

out, you should still be getting enough carbs for your activity level.

I'm not sure of studies recommending maximum safe intake, however some of the bodybuilder studies

are short-term. Josh I believe said something like 2.5g max, but I don't recall if was lb or kg.

I don't go anywhere near that. I am around 1.5-2g/kg usually on the low end, and am still seeing improvement.

Thanks for reply, FutureisNow .

Yes, that animation was pretty original .

I would love to have access to those slides so I can check the studies, but my search for them was not successful.

He demonstrated the invalidity of calorie to weight loss formula with the study where they asked people eating on calorie maintenance levels to consume extra protein each day for 6 months. At the end they measured that subjects lost fat even when eating tens of thousands extra calories in that 6 month span. That was very interesting and I would like to see the complete study.

I think Josh was mentioning 2.5g per kg previously, because 2.5g pre lb is even bigger intake than Dr. Connelly mentioned for an "average" bodybuilder .

dzejkej said:

Thanks for reply, FutureisNow .

Yes, that animation was pretty original .

I would love to have access to those slides so I can check the studies, but my search for them was not successful.

He demonstrated the invalidity of calorie to weight loss formula with the study where they asked people eating on calorie maintenance levels to consume extra protein each day for 6 months. At the end they measured that subjects lost fat even when eating tens of thousands extra calories in that 6 month span. That was very interesting and I would like to see the complete study.

I think Josh was mentioning 2.5g per kg previously, because 2.5g pre lb is even bigger intake than Dr. Connelly mentioned for an "average" bodybuilder .

True that 2.5g/lb would be around 450g at 180lbs. 400 was being a "star" to the Dr. But as you mentioned some of these guys may weigh a lot more than we do!

In any event, I didn't take that particular "overfeeding" study seriously because eating was not controlled, it was eating at will. So adding the supplement would of course reduce intake of normal food. The 86K "extra" calories is a joke becuase the particpants obviously cut back on a large portion of the other calories. What it may show though is that the whey supplement had a better metabolic impact than the carb and soy supplement. Some TEF - thermogenic effect of food - appetite suppression and better incorporporation into musculature. The carb supplement group put on a few pounds and some of that may be glycogen/water as well. The energy balance equation remains standing!

I thought the idea of a protein consumption "set point" interesting as a way of looking at hunger. If you don't get the amount

that you are "programmed" to get, you will tend to eat until you get it. So a low protein % diet leads to overeating trying to get

that "set" amount. I'm not sure it's proven but it's interesting.

Overall, he did a good job of combining basic truths, half truths, innuendo and occassional flights of fancy into an entertaining presentation that should sell product!

Thanks for the explanation .

FutureisNow said:

Overall, he did a good job of combining basic truths, half truths, innuendo and occassional flights of fancy into an entertaining presentation that should sell product!

That was exactly why I was suspicious. There is too much misinformation in the suplement industry to trust everything you hear .

First thing you should do is google Connelly and Progenex. It's been touched on during one thread here on the forum and google will do the rest for you.

dzejkej said:

He demonstrated the invalidity of calorie to weight loss formula with the study where they asked people eating on calorie maintenance levels to consume extra protein each day for 6 months. At the end they measured that subjects lost fat even when eating tens of thousands extra calories in that 6 month span. That was very interesting and I would like to see the complete study.

Actually, some time ago I came across a very interesting post on macros and basal metabolic rate:

http://www.nerdfitness.com/community/sh ... t-Only-BMR

Blairbob said:

First thing you should do is google Connelly and Progenex. It's been touched on during one thread here on the forum and google will do the rest for you.

I think the answer he got here from me was better than what's available random googling

It ain't random. 3 pages pretty much spelling what kind of guy he is. I'm trying not to say explicitly. Libel and all.

Blairbob said:

It ain't random. 3 pages pretty much spelling what kind of guy he is. I'm trying not to say explicitly. Libel and all.

I tried to address the content of the video not his character.

It's also better to understand the principles and logic so that they can be applied to any situation, rather than what people think about one individual.

I will look into Myotropics and a bit. Given who he is, I think you have to filter his words through that. Mainly I'm wondering how much of it is advertising to bodybuilders.