Is 200g protein enough?

[R1187]

Currently bulking back up to 170lbs before I start my next cycle.

Due to the way I burn through energy, I'm shooting for 4,000 calories/day.

Protein adds up to 200g, isn't this more than enough?

I hear crazy figures like 1.5 to 2x bodyweight, but that doesn't seem necessary, considering the average person who doesn't lift requires less than 60g/day.

Thoughts?

[Sean1332]

1.0g/lb of BW. That's plenty. Most on this board agree to that number.

[Jiigzz]

Currently bulking back up to 170lbs before I start my next cycle.

Due to the way I burn through energy, I'm shooting for 4,000 calories/day.

Protein adds up to 200g, isn't this more than enough?

I hear crazy figures like 1.5 to 2x bodyweight, but that doesn't seem necessary, considering the average person who doesn't lift requires less than 60g/day.

Thoughts?

Yup, that would be enough for your goals.

[hvactech]

1.0g/lb of BW. That's plenty. Most on this board agree to that number.

i even get less than that sometimes, especially bulking.

[OnionKnight]

i even get less than that sometimes, especially bulking.

same here

the most anyone should ever need is 2.5g/kg body weight. and thats for the ridiculously intense athletes running two days like the ufc fighters do to prepare for fights. the stuff that probly no one here does lol

those ridiculous 2-3xbody weight is unproven broscience more-is-better logic.

[Sean1332]

i even get less than that sometimes, especially bulking.

yup, I'm happy if I hit 200. I used to hit 400 every day when i first started and I made no gains comparable to now.

[JudoJosh]

Depends on what CHO intake is.

1.8*kg is what's needed if you are taking in enough carbs. However if you are lower on the carbs then you would want more protein

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Jiigzz]

same here

the most anyone should ever need is 2.5g/kg body weight. and thats for the ridiculously intense athletes running two days like the ufc fighters do to prepare for fights. the stuff that probly no one here does lol

those ridiculous 2-3xbody weight is unproven broscience more-is-better logic.

I believe the highest value i've seen studied was 2g/kgBW on adolescents. Endurance athletes do not require anywhere near this amount.

Only time I would say shoot that high is it you were on AAS or an endurance athelete who also strength trains. But even then thats just IMO and not based on anything at all.

[TexasGuy]

It's interesting to me that people get lost in the gray area of "what's best individually" where diets in general are concerned but will throw out an arbitrary number that sounds good for protein intake.

Sure, there probably is a fairly uniform number that keeps like 99% of the population from going catabolic but in the event of bulking, optimum intake for optimal gains should be the goal.

On that note, there are many variables to protein synthesis, two of which are acknowledged in this thread. Work load for sure, the aforementioned endurance athlete also weight training would incur more muscle damage needing to be repaired and would require more food in general to supply the necessary energy (Interestingly, some weight training routines incur significantly more muscle damage and require more muscular energy than others too...)

We've also mentioned steroids. Well, with the effect of mimicing testosterone in mind, one man to the next has varying levels of natural free test floating around. Perhaps you have higher levels of test than "average", you wouldn't want to underfeed your potential any more than you would want to underfeed a cycles potential.

These are only two aspects of protein requirements and synthesis. There is no magic number.

I started with the recommendation of 1 gram per pound years ago and made gains off of it.

As I became more advanced in bodybuilding style training after athletics, I experimented with routines coupling diets calling for 2-3 grams per pound. Scale weight changed noticeabley quicker, though my routines were also geared for growth as opposed to athleticism, I had more recovery time with athletic conditioning and drills out of the picture et cetera, so it is hard to say exactly what led to better muscle gain, or how big an impact more accurately.

I can say, however, that after experimenting with a variety of routines and protein intake levels post football, I recover much, much faster at around 1.5 to 2 grams per pound than less. I personally don't feel any difference at over two grams but then I'm a natural lifter, and my "sweetspot" is somewhere in the natural range of physiological responses.

All of that said, find your sweetspot. It may sound like bro science, but essentially it is finding where you respond best personally, considering your unique, physiological environment. You could get a panel of tests done to be super accurate but this is pretty unrealistic.

[Jiigzz]

It's interesting to me that people get lost in the gray area of "what's best individually" where diets in general are concerned but will throw out an arbitrary number that sounds good for protein intake.

Sure, there probably is a fairly uniform number that keeps like 99% of the population from going catabolic but in the event of bulking, optimum intake for optimal gains should be the goal.

On that note, there are many variables to protein synthesis, two of which are acknowledged in this thread. Work load for sure, the aforementioned endurance athlete also weight training would incur more muscle damage needing to be repaired and would require more food in general to supply the necessary energy (Interestingly, some weight training routines incur significantly more muscle damage and require more muscular energy than others too...)

We've also mentioned steroids. Well, with the effect of mimicing testosterone in mind, one man to the next has varying levels of natural free test floating around. Perhaps you have higher levels of test than "average", you wouldn't want to underfeed your potential any more than you would want to underfeed a cycles potential.

These are only two aspects of protein requirements and synthesis. There is no magic number.

I started with the recommendation of 1 gram per pound years ago and made gains off of it.

As I became more advanced in bodybuilding style training after athletics, I experimented with routines coupling diets calling for 2-3 grams per pound. Scale weight changed noticeabley quicker, though my routines were also geared for growth as opposed to athleticism, I had more recovery time with athletic conditioning and drills out of the picture et cetera, so it is hard to say exactly what led to better muscle gain, or how big an impact more accurately.

I can say, however, that after experimenting with a variety of routines and protein intake levels post football, I recover much, much faster at around 1.5 to 2 grams per pound than less. I personally don't feel any difference at over two grams but then I'm a natural lifter, and my "sweetspot" is somewhere in the natural range of physiological responses.

All of that said, find your sweetspot. It may sound like bro science, but essentially it is finding where you respond best personally, considering your unique, physiological environment. You could get a panel of tests done to be super accurate but this is pretty unrealistic.

I guarantee that most of the proteuns you had were deaminated given that the body CAN only synthesize what it requires in any specific time frame. Above and beyond this value the amino group is removed from the protein and the remainding carbon group is either used as fuel or stored as energy.

I belive most of your knowledge is derived from BB magizines that emphasize protein intake dispite real life studies on strength training athletes showing this notion to be false.

And FYI there are no studies on whether exogenous test (above supraphysiological values) actually increases protein synthesis markedbly as enhancing test this way is illegal.

If you want to talk anecdotal then fine, Whacked ( member here) consistantly eats less than 1g per pound yet has incredible results and great recovery. You cannot atribute growth to a higher protein intake considering other variables also changed (goals etc.).

Your obsession with excess protein is fine, but suggesting it to others when it is not based on anything makes it unfounded. Stop making articles and anecdotal evidence sound like it is science backed

/rant

[jimbuick]

same here

the most anyone should ever need is 2.5g/kg body weight. and thats for the ridiculously intense athletes running two days like the ufc fighters do to prepare for fights. the stuff that probly no one here does lol

those ridiculous 2-3xbody weight is unproven broscience more-is-better logic.

I do 2 a day training.

Am I not on here?!



I don't exist!!!

[TexasGuy]

I guarantee that most of the proteuns you had were deaminated given that the body CAN only synthesize what it requires in any specific time frame. Above and beyond this value the amino group is removed from the protein and the remainding carbon group is either used as fuel or stored as energy.

I belive most of your knowledge is derived from BB magizines that emphasize protein intake dispite real life studies on strength training athletes showing this notion to be false.

And FYI there are no studies on whether exogenous test (above supraphysiological values) actually increases protein synthesis markedbly as enhancing test this way is illegal.

If you want to talk anecdotal then fine, Whacked ( member here) consistantly eats less than 1g per pound yet has incredible results and great recovery. You cannot atribute growth to a higher protein intake considering other variables also changed (goals etc.).

Your obsession with excess protein is fine, but suggesting it to others when it is not based on anything makes it unfounded. Stop making articles and anecdotal evidence sound like it is science backed

/rant

You fail to acknowledge that bodybuilding and various "strength training" methods are not one in the same. There are no studies on bodybuilding and protein synthesis, period. We can deduct futile turnover, hormonal response and muscle damage to be greater for bodybuilding routines than other strength training routines, and applying studies conducted on anybody other than bodybuilders to bodybuilder needs is intellectually dishonest if anything. Quit advising people seeking bulking advice, (solidly a bodybuilding goal with few potential athletic carry over applications) to follow advice for powerlifters or "others".

You may continue to disregard studies posted either directly or within article discussions if you'd like but it doesn't make them not exist.

Picking and choosing which science based theories you will follow is fine, but discounting the rest so nonchalantly is intellectually dishonest as well.

I feel like you get your info. from a certain diets marketing literature and internet forum buddies posting random studies with no regard for the specific audience.

[TexasGuy]

Oh and just for fun, research low T and the effect bringing sufferers up to higher "natural" levels has on muscle mass and density.

You may have to do some deductive reasoning and all.

[TexasGuy]

I do 2 a day training.

Am I not on here?!



I don't exist!!!

And why are two a days the only training style intense enough to ellicit a higher need? What peer reviewed, double blind and controlled study shows that to be the case?

[jimbuick]

And why are two a days the only training style intense enough to ellicit a higher need? What peer reviewed, double blind and controlled study shows that to be the case?

Do you know how to read bro?

I was making a comment about him saying no one on here does 2 a day training, which is why I quoted it.

[Jiigzz]

You fail to acknowledge that bodybuilding and various "strength training" methods are not one in the same. There are no studies on bodybuilding and protein synthesis, period. We can deduct futile turnover, hormonal response and muscle damage to be greater for bodybuilding routines than other strength training routines, and applying studies conducted on anybody other than bodybuilders to bodybuilder needs is intellectually dishonest if anything. Quit advising people seeking bulking advice, (solidly a bodybuilding goal with few potential athletic carry over applications) to follow advice for powerlifters or "others".

You may continue to disregard studies posted either directly or within article discussions if you'd like but it doesn't make them not exist.

Picking and choosing which science based theories you will follow is fine, but discounting the rest so nonchalantly is intellectually dishonest as well.

I feel like you get your info. from a certain diets marketing literature and internet forum buddies posting random studies with no regard for the specific audience.

No, I get my data from studies based on years of research given my heading towards a post-grad in exercise physiology with emphasis on sport nutrition.

Last time I checked the studies were based on Resistance training, which, correct me if i'm wrong includes bodybuilding.

And here I go; A study which includes hypertrophy): Resistance exercise results in muscle hypertrophy RATHER THAN an increase in protein oxidationand mitochondrial biogenesis (Mckenzie 2000, Howarth et al 2007) If there are no changes in effeciancy of amino acid retention, there must, at some point be a protein intake in excess of basal requirements to provide the amino acids needed for anabolism. The extent of this need is a function of the basal state of training, duration and intensity of the program. An early study used NBAL and lean muscle measurements to estimate protein requirements during an iso-metric exercsie training program (Torun et al, 1977). Torun and collegues found that a daily protein intake 1.0g/KG was required to maintain a positive NBAL and kean mass accretion in males performing iso-metric exercise for 75minutes. Similar resukts were found in males doing circuit based exercises with both resistance and endurance training where even after 40 days adaptation period, protein requirements were 1.4g/KG/day.

Modest-intensity resistance exercise programs can attenuate nitrogen loss at protein intakes close to the US and Canadian recommended protein intake levels in older adults (Campbell et al, 1995). Although there may be the ability to achieve NBAL (through increased nitrogen utilization effeciency) with modest resistance exercise, this may be indicitve of accomodation and not adaptation because at the lower protein intake (0.8g/kg/day) Campbell and collegues also found that whole body synthesis was lower than for the group who consumed protein intakes of 1.6g/kg/day. This is another example of the utility of amino acid kinetics to provide inforamtion on the physiological adequecy of a given protein intake.

Now for the BODYBUILDING STUDY!!!. 6 Well trained bodybuilders (2 years training) and 6 sedentary individuals found that protein requirement for the BBers was only 12% higher (than the sedentary control group). The bodybuilders consumed 2.7g/KG/DAY while their counterparts consumed 1g/kg/day.

This study was followed up with 2 other studies; they used their reasoning to establish that inital protein requirements would be their highest during the adaptation phase of training, since most of the myofibullar protein accretion occurs within the first few months of exercise program commencement. One study followed 12 young unexperienced males who trained for 2 months 6 days a week, 2 hours per day, 70-85% 1RM and measured NBAL, muscle mass, muscle protein and strength before and after a 1 month period where they were randomized to received between 1.44g/KG/Day and 2.6g/KG/Day.
It was hypothesized that they would require about 1.66g/KG/day. Strength, muscle protein and lean mass gains were not different between the 2 groups.

The study went on further and used the conceptual framework put forth by Young and Bier and studied the protein kinetic respnse to graded protein intakes in young males who were performing weight training and HIIT. In this study we randomly allocated six sedenatry males and 7 athletes to receive a diet supplying protein at each of the 3 levels (0.86g/KG/day, 1.4g/KG/Day and 2.4g/KG/Day. They measured NBAL, whole-body protein synthesis, leucine oxidation (something you earlier bought up) and protein breakdown.The findings were that whole body synthesis was lower at .86g/KG/day but plateued at 1.44g/kg/day .

At protein inateks 0f 2.8g/KG per day LEUCINE oxidation increased nearly 2 fold, indicating that protein intakes above 1.44g/KG/Day are merely oxidized for energy.

Whew.

[hvactech]

off topic, does anyone break there macros down on a weekly scale vs daily?

[OnionKnight]

off topic, does anyone break there macros down on a weekly scale vs daily?

i used to do mine in an hourly scale but never weekly. only because if i did weekly, i would feel pressured towards the back end to compensate if ive been slacking. and time lost cant be recovered lol

[Jiigzz]

But hey, if you like what your articles say then by all means. But zero studies are in support of excess protein intakes and advising people that this will help is unsupported. Despite what the BB magizines say.

Does this mean i'm anti high protein diets? No. Given that there is no real danger with such a diet. But will it help you achieve your goals any faster? No. I have clients who consume from around 1.6g/KG/day (with my diet plan) and upwards of 2g/KG/day (their own plans) with little to no difference in either of their mass gains. Anecdotal for sure, but this corresponds with the research and so far, the research appears correct.

And they are bodybuilders

[OnionKnight]

But hey, if you like what your articles say then by all means. But zero studies are in support of excess protein intakes and advising people that this will help is unsupported. Despite what the BB magizines say.

Does this mean i'm anti high protein diets? No. Given that there is no real danger with such a diet. But will it help you achieve your goals any faster? No. I have clients who consume from around 1.6g/KG/day (with my diet plan) and upwards of 2g/KG/day (their own plans) with little to no difference in either of their mass gains. Anecdotal for sure, but this corresponds with the research and so far, the research appears correct.

And they are bodybuilders

are you an RD? i only ask because you said "your" plan and im in state for dietetics