this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
359 points (85.0% liked)
Perry Bible Fellowship
645 readers
224 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the webcomic known as the Perry Bible Fellowship, created by Nicholas Gurewitch.
https://www.patreon.com/perryfellow
New comics posted whenever they're posted to the site (rarer nowadays but still ongoing). Old comics posted every day until we're caught up
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I asked you for a citation or a reference on the >50g of protein sink.
You never apologize for being incorrect or insulting people, do you?
I never claimed a >50g of protein sink. What I said, was that we typically can not utilize more than 40-50g for repairing muscle tissue (per meal). That is the number I recall from biology in college roughly 13 years ago. It would seem that we've since concluded that optimal intake for the purpose of repairing muscle tissue is much lower per meal. While I was wrong about the number, I was far closer to the modern number than what was claimed by mr "Vegan Death Cult"-guy, and parroted by you for his defense.
The study you linked, and this one both claim a much lower "limit" per meal, so while my information was outdated, it's outdated in the opposite direction of what is being argued. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5828430/
If you feel insulted, that's on you. And why you feel like people have to apologize for being mistaken when they change their mind when presented with new, more accurate information is beyond me. I'm not going to apologize for learning. And what a wonderful thing to learn, we need even less protein per meal for muscle tissue regeneration than I initially thought. That's great news.
I haven't concluded this.
It really doesn't. It says given the current literature we cannot map a direct MPS benefit for greater consumption in 20 something men doing body building.
Thanks for the paper, I'll put it on the read queue.
Because your insulting everyone you speak with in conversations, your the one creating offense. I'm not opposed to you onboarding new information but the shear hubris you demonstrate "You didn't read this", "you dont understand science", etc is really insulting to everyone.
While you may not have concluded that. It would seem that the authors of the study you, yourself linked. Have. And the authors of the study I linked have as well.
Yes, MPS is the goal here. That's mainly what you want Protein for.
I just find it hard to believe you would read a study that disproves your claim, and then link it as some kind of "gotcha-moment". It doesn't support your argument. It does the exact opposite. So, the logical conclusion of why someone would do that. Is that they did not read it. But if you did read it, and understood that it does in fact not support your argument. Feel free to indulge me in why you would link it.
If you take offense to being told that I don't think you read the study you linked since it literally disproves your own argument. Then so be it. And I don't know what else to say about the guy who doesn't think human beings can survive and thrive on a non meat diet. We're talking elementary school level of education that is desperately lacking. Now that is slightly insulting. To the parents and teachers who failed him.
Perhaps it is my illiterate nature, but I would say they made the more nuanced and validated statement "the current literature we cannot map a direct MPS benefit for greater consumption in 20 something men doing body building."
That is a very limited context, which the authors are very careful about speaking to its limited implications in overall health and health goals.
It doesn't, the paper has depth and nuance and a careful review of it makes it clear the simplistic sound bite take away is too simplistic, which was my entire point, and still is my entire point.
I didn't say this.
Yet another insult.