Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture
@mackinprof
Feb 26, 2024 • 11 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Recently an article got everyone's knickers in a twist about protein and CVD. Here's an easy to read summary of the paper with my pictorial essay medicalnewstoday.com/articles/eatin…
Note: this is a conclusion from mice only... it's translation to humans... 🧐 Image
High protein diets may contribute (!!) but we should revise dietary guidelines (???) In our 2020 paper also in mice 🐭 🤨 Image
We created diets in mice that mimicked what people are - at the highest end of intake... Image
Part I - 14 people! Part II - 9 people. Leucine - no reference or data 'cept for a 2020 paper in? You guessed it 🐁 😉

Activates a pathway in immune cells that's ASSociated with atherosclerosis... 🤔 Image
Now we 'pin down' the reason - now it's causal (??) Leu is the 'bad actor' 🫤 (in mice anyway and 22% is the magic threshold) Image
2020 study in 🐁🐭
Another dude thinks this is not a big deal (I'd agree)

Takeaway... 23 people and acute immune cell signalling
Mice and 22% protein that 'mimics' the higher end of what humans ingest
It's only Leu... Image
Time to have a hard think about what the science is and the message being pushed. The data are mildly interesting and give some food for thought. I stop (well) short of seeing this as a smoking (protein-filled) fun and the reason to change dietary guidance OR to issue a per meal or dietary threshold advice to people.

I note the absence of a disease incidence, or risk or any causative data in humans...

Carry on folks: exercise, fuel to meet your needs, enjoy time with friends, lower your stress, have purpose in life and you will live well

Also, don't drink Boost with more protein on top... and stop feeding your mouse >22% protein! 😉
Just appreciate the limitations of the data and the model and the design and the ex-vivo outcomes and the murine model before we blow the horn for protein 'causes' CVD (or even increases risk). Also #Science
sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reactio…
@threadreaderapp unroll svp

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Stuart Phillips (he/him)

Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mackinprof

Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture
May 30
Fat Burns. Carbs Win.Two scientists. One question. Does going low-carb hurt endurance performance?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916526000808
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916526000778
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652600078X
Louise Burke says yes. Tim Noakes says no. Theyx.com/i/article/2060751339299221509
The manifesto: academic.oup.com/edrv/article/4…
1. The Strawman of "Obligatory Fuel" and Muscle Rigor
Noakes builds his entire case against the Anaplerotic Theory (TAT) by claiming that if muscle glycogen depletion truly caused fatigue, ATP would have to fall low enough to produce muscle rigor. Since rigor never happens, TAT must be wrong.
This is a textbook strawman. Nobody in modern exercise physiology argues that fatigue equals ATP depletion to rigor levels. The actual mechanisms by which low glycogen impairs performance are well documented and have nothing to do with reaching rigor. They include reduced calcium release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, altered excitation-contraction coupling, changes in Na+/K+ ATPase activity, and reduced economy of ATP production due to lower CHO contribution per litre of O2. Noakes knocks down a position no current researcher holds, then declares the field disproven. That is not how science works.
2. The "Having Your Cake and Eating It" Result
Noakes' showcase finding, repeated throughout the review, is that 10 g/h of carbs during exercise rescued performance equally on both low-carb and high-carb diets in the Prins 2025 study. He treats this as the death blow to the high-carb model.
It is actually the death blow to his own model. The original Volek, Phinney and Noakes pitch for LCHF was that fat adaptation removes the need for exogenous carbs. If you require ingested carbohydrate during exercise to perform, then CHO is not optional; it is essential. Noakes has shifted the question from "do you need carbs" to "how few can you get away with," which is a completely different debate. The 10 g/h number is also conveniently tiny, but you can only spin it as a win if you ignore the fact that, without those carbs, his keto-adapted athletes underperform.
Read 9 tweets
Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture
Mar 25
The debate is not how to lift, it's whether you lift! A 🧵

1/10 Resistance training works. For all practical purposes, everyone gets stronger. That is a BIG deal.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jamd…
2/10 In older men & women, 12-24 weeks of RT improved lean mass, fibre size, strength & chair-rise performance. Across outcomes, the authors found no true nonresponders. Image
3/10 After 12 weeks, only 2 people failed to show a measurable gain in leg strength. After 24 weeks, only 1 did, and that person still improved chair-rise time. Everyone improved somewhere meaningful.
Read 10 tweets
Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture
Mar 15
1/
 Big update in exercise science: ACSM has revised its resistance training Position Stand for the first time since 2009. That is a 17-year gap, and a lot has changed. 🧵 pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…Image
2/
 This is not a small update. The new Position Stand synthesizes 137 systematic reviews and data from more than 30,000 participants, making it the most comprehensive evidence summary to date on resistance training prescription.
3/
 The big headline: resistance training works. Compared with doing nothing, it improves strength, hypertrophy, power, muscular endurance, contraction velocity, gait speed, balance, chair stand performance, and timed up-and-go.
Read 13 tweets
Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture
Jan 27
🧵 Epidemiology: its uses, abuses, and limits, especially in exercise & lifestyle research

1/
 Statement “epi is useless,” especially after high-profile lifestyle studies with implausible effect sizes or overfit curves. Frustration is understandable; the conclusion is too blunt.
2/
 Epidemiology is fundamentally descriptive, not magical.
It’s very good at answering “what tends to travel together?”
It is much worse at answering “what should you do?”
3/
 Where epi works well:
• Identifying large, consistent signals (e.g., smoking, inactivity)
• Flagging inequities and population-level patterns
• Generating hypotheses worth testing more rigorously
Read 13 tweets
Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture
Jan 19
1/ NEED vs SUFFICIENT: why this lifting debate misses the point.

There’s a big difference between what is needed and what is sufficient for muscle and strength adaptations. Confusing the two is where gym arguments go off the rails.

Thanks @foundmyfitness for reigniting 😂
2/ The simple truth: nothing is strictly needed in terms of load, rep range, or lifting style to gain muscle or strength.

Heavier loads work.
Lighter loads work.
Both are sufficient when training is done well.
bjsm.bmj.com/content/57/18/…
3/ Same story for health.

Resistance training improves health across a wide range of loading schemes. There is no “magic” zone you must (need to) train in to get benefits.

journals.lww.com/acsm-healthfit…
Read 19 tweets
Stuart Phillips (he/him) Profile picture
Dec 31, 2025
We show (again) that: Resistance training load does not determine resistance training‐induced hypertrophy across upper and lower limbs in healthy young males physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP…
New paper in The Journal of Physiology:
Resistance training load does NOT determine hypertrophy when effort is matched.
Heavier ≠ better for muscle growth. 🧵👇
2/
 20 young men trained their arms and legs unilaterally for 10 weeks.
• One limb: heavy load (70–80% 1RM, 8–12 reps)
• Other limb: light load (30–40% 1RM, 20–25 reps)
All sets to volitional fatigue.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(