Is 200g protein enough?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... Last
  1. Advanced Member
    R1187's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  172 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    520
    Rep Power
    33433
    Level
    21
    Lv. Percent
    5.08%

    Is 200g protein enough?


    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?

  2. Diamond Member
    Sean1332's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  217 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    12,330
    Rep Power
    3827593
    Level
    92
    Lv. Percent
    57.64%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    1.0g/lb of BW. That's plenty. Most on this board agree to that number.
    Controlled Labs Board Rep
    sean@ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility.
  3. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by R1187 View Post
    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.
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    hvactech's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,771
    Rep Power
    2850135
    Level
    79
    Lv. Percent
    87.23%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean1332 View Post
    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.
    LG Sciences forum representative
    www.lgsciences.com
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/company-promotions/249846-lg-sciences-would.html
  5. Senior Member
    OnionKnight's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  208 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    466001
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    18.49%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by hvactech

    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.
  6. Diamond Member
    Sean1332's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  217 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    12,330
    Rep Power
    3827593
    Level
    92
    Lv. Percent
    57.64%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by hvactech View Post

    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.
    Controlled Labs Board Rep
    sean@ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility.
  7. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,066
    Rep Power
    2762303
    Level
    81
    Lv. Percent
    35.49%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: Is 200g protein enough?


    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
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  8. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by OnionKnight View Post
    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.
  9. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    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.
  10. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    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
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable
  11. Diamond Member
    jimbuick's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10,637
    Rep Power
    7726995
    Level
    99
    Lv. Percent
    90.57%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by OnionKnight View Post

    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?!

    Name:  s-ERMAHGERD-MEME-large.jpg
Views: 7169
Size:  10.5 KB

    I don't exist!!!
    Body Performance Solutions Representative

    Check out our products at www.bpsnutrition.net
    Check out our FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Body-Performance-Solutions/191322614238042
  12. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    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.
  13. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    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.
  14. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    I do 2 a day training.

    Am I not on here?!

    Name:  s-ERMAHGERD-MEME-large.jpg
Views: 7169
Size:  10.5 KB

    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?
  15. Diamond Member
    jimbuick's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10,637
    Rep Power
    7726995
    Level
    99
    Lv. Percent
    90.57%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    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.
    Body Performance Solutions Representative

    Check out our products at www.bpsnutrition.net
    Check out our FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Body-Performance-Solutions/191322614238042
  16. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    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.
  17. Elite Member
    hvactech's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,771
    Rep Power
    2850135
    Level
    79
    Lv. Percent
    87.23%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    off topic, does anyone break there macros down on a weekly scale vs daily?
    LG Sciences forum representative
    www.lgsciences.com
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/company-promotions/249846-lg-sciences-would.html
  18. Senior Member
    OnionKnight's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  208 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    466001
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    18.49%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by hvactech
    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
  19. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    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
  20. Senior Member
    OnionKnight's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  208 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,390
    Rep Power
    466001
    Level
    44
    Lv. Percent
    18.49%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    are you an RD? i only ask because you said "your" plan and im in state for dietetics
  21. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    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
    Thank you for posting a study on bodybuilders. Within "strength training" there are multiple types of training with various physiological effects. Strength training is a mighty wide umbrella and you know this. I will be repping you later for the BB study, it wont let me from a phone. I'm like three days behind updates unless I use a computer.

    What I find most interesting is that bodybuilders do, in fact, require more protein. 12% more is pretty significant too. A larger sample would be fantastic, as would various training protocols (volume vs frequency for example) potential differences for BBers carrying significantly more muscle than others and a variety of other variables. 6 subjects make a weak study but it definitely points to greater protein needs for BBers. It's a shame follow up studies utilized beginners and then even general athletes.

    I don't know what muscle mags you are referring to but I've posted an essay by Layne Norton and some studies in a different thread you must be referring to. I find it odd you would be so dismissive of Norton considering your ambition. And leucine was recommended as a part of a whole protein source ingested with carbs in a 2:1 ratio, don't take it out of context.
  22. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Thank you for posting a study on bodybuilders. Within "strength training" there are multiple types of training with various physiological effects. Strength training is a mighty wide umbrella and you know this. I will be repping you later for the BB study, it wont let me from a phone. I'm like three days behind updates unless I use a computer.

    What I find most interesting is that bodybuilders do, in fact, require more protein. 12% more is pretty significant too. A larger sample would be fantastic, as would various training protocols (volume vs frequency for example) potential differences for BBers carrying significantly more muscle than others and a variety of other variables. 6 subjects make a weak study but it definitely points to greater protein needs for BBers. It's a shame follow up studies utilized beginners and then even general athletes.

    I don't know what muscle mags you are referring to but I've posted an essay by Layne Norton and some studies in a different thread you must be referring to. I find it odd you would be so dismissive of Norton considering your ambition. And leucine was recommended as a part of a whole protin source ingested with carbs in a 2:1 ratio, don't take it out of context.
    The leucine part was just part of the study,it wasn't in direct reference to the layne norton, just something I found interesting. The sample size is indeed small and the follow up should have been with them but i think the reasons were that there is higher protein needs at the commencement of the training program rather than 2 years down the track.

    I don't dismiss norton or that essay mainly because I can't link to it from my phone to read it. In any case, if high protein diets work for you or you find them easier to manage then by all means. I have nothing against them at all.

    The reason I argue against them is primarily a cost issue. Amatuer lifters often feel like they cannot undergo hypertrophy training templates due to the high cost of protein. So i just try show them theres more to it. Hence my passionate stance haha
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable
  23. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,066
    Rep Power
    2762303
    Level
    81
    Lv. Percent
    35.49%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: Is 200g protein enough?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    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.
    We should be friends I'm on a similar path myself
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  24. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    We should be friends I'm on a similar path myself
    ah always good to find someone in a similar path.
  25. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    The leucine part was just part of the study,it wasn't in direct reference to the layne norton, just something I found interesting. The sample size is indeed small and the follow up should have been with them but i think the reasons were that there is higher protein needs at the commencement of the training program rather than 2 years down the track.

    I don't dismiss norton or that essay mainly because I can't link to it from my phone to read it. In any case, if high protein diets work for you or you find them easier to manage then by all means. I have nothing against them at all.

    The reason I argue against them is primarily a cost issue. Amatuer lifters often feel like they cannot undergo hypertrophy training templates due to the high cost of protein. So i just try show them theres more to it. Hence my passionate stance haha
    Well that makes sense then because he specifically addresses oxidation and the irrelevence of oxidation on "excess" protein signaling metabolic reactions for MPS and then goes on to defend this position with multiple studies referenced. It's not a Mens Fitness write up or some ****. It's a compilation of relevent studies organized in a university essay.

    I get that cost can be a limiting factor. I agree that muscle can be built with 1 gram per pound, possibly even less though I sure wouldn't want to be the guinea pig, even if that does allegedly work for a guy around here. I mentioned making gains at one gram per pound before discussing my own experimentation and was clear about my own anecdotal experience. I can't deny remarkably improved recovery times with the only real change inside of a training protocol being extra protein.

    And for clarity sake for others reading this thread who may not have read the thread we are actually discussing, I'm posting the article again:

    http://www.biolayne.com/wp-content/u...-Tech-2008.pdf

    The discussion is relevant here, it just wouldn't make much sense from the outside looking in. And I'd appreciate you reading the article before discounting it.
  26. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    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.
    I'm agreeing with you, bro, and using your post to add to the conversation.
  27. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,066
    Rep Power
    2762303
    Level
    81
    Lv. Percent
    35.49%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: Is 200g protein enough?


    Yes it is an interestig theory but there doesn't exist a single study that demonstrates a lbm gain with supplemental leucine over control. In fact that evidence we have refutes his claim by demonstrating supplemental leucine does exactly nothing for increasing overall lbm.

    " Until now, there is no evidence that chronic leucine supplementation is efficient in promoting muscle mass "

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110810

    leucine in three divided doses through the day made no difference in LBM in healthy exercising men
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321567

    And of I remember correctly there exist research that supports the notion the isoleucine and valine need to be present on free form in a 2:1:1 ratio with ff-leucine in order for leucine to be effective but I can't seem to find it at this time.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  28. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    Yes it is an interestig theory but there doesn't exist a single study that demonstrates a lbm gain with supplemental leucine over control. In fact that evidence we have refutes his claim by demonstrating supplemental leucine does exactly nothing for increasing overall lbm.

    " Until now, there is no evidence that chronic leucine supplementation is efficient in promoting muscle mass "

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110810

    leucine in three divided doses through the day made no difference in LBM in healthy exercising men
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321567

    And of I remember correctly there exist research that supports the notion the isoleucine and valine need to be present on free form in a 2:1:1 ratio with ff-leucine in order for leucine to be effective but I can't seem to find it at this time.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
    Yet again, if you would read the essay, you would see he recommends a complete protein source high in leucine content, along with carbs in a 2:1 carbrotein ratio, with the effect of "excess", leucine rich protein positively initiating supraphysical levels of MPS as demonstrated in a lab setting, outlined in the article and referenced. Leucine supplementation alone does not apply though you keep throwing it out there.

    Not only that, "healthy, exercising men" is a pretty broad statement. There are severe limitations to most studies out there regarding application to bodybuilding. I'm not sure why this is ignored repeatedly. Surely you understand the signficance of limitations.

    It makes zero sense to argue blindly. Read it. Read the referenced studies. Don't just blindly post random studies based on key words in a discussion forum that have no bearing to the essay in question.

    Edit: evidently ratios turn in to smileys. That is carb to protein
  29. New Member
    danieltx13's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  215 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Age
    27
    Posts
    400
    Rep Power
    40367
    Level
    18
    Lv. Percent
    71.43%

    This debating is pointless. The body is not a textbook. Study results will not apply to every individual. The only way to figure out how much protein you need is to experiment with different diets and macro splits and find the one that works best for achieving your goals. Don't blindly follow broscience or academic science. Learn all you can, do real life trial and error, and eventually you'll find what's best for you.
  30. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by danieltx13 View Post
    This debating is pointless. The body is not a textbook. Study results will not apply to every individual. The only way to figure out how much protein you need is to experiment with different diets and macro splits and find the one that works best for achieving your goals. Don't blindly follow broscience or academic science. Learn all you can, do real life trial and error, and eventually you'll find what's best for you.
    The sweet spot.


    This is what I'm saying, and do have scientifically based information to boot. Limiting people to one gram per pound across the board is going to short change a number of trainees, as can be seen in scientific literature as well as anecdotally across decades of trainees feeling out best practice for personal recovery.
  31. Senior Member
    ricroc's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  191 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,204
    Rep Power
    3030544
    Level
    65
    Lv. Percent
    36.73%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    I've always fallen to the trap of the usual bro-science of shooting for 1.5g/lb of protein and upwards of 2g/lb. I've tried diets to account for these values, but often times would come up short. Worse, I was mainly filling in the gaps with whey and other protein shakes and having read the various threads on this forum, I've realized how much better whole food is for you. Then I realized how much carbs have in regards to gaining mass and once I dialed those in better, I saw some gains. I looked a tad soft, but my weight was increasing which at the time, was my primary goal. When I only concentrated on shooting for that 1.5g/lb, I didn't have much success, and my muscles certainly did not feel fuller.

    On my new cycle, I'm shooting for at least 1g/lb. This is more economical (which was stated in one of the posts) and for me, easier to ingest. I'm dialing in my macros as I continue, trying to get more dietary fat via whole foods and trying to limit my use of shakes. One, they get pricey and two, food-food is better for you. Too soon to tell is I'm prospering from the 1g/lb, but at least I don't feel sick to my stomach.
  32. Professional Member
    tnubs's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,248
    Rep Power
    23620
    Level
    40
    Lv. Percent
    37.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Re: Is 200g protein enough?


    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    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.

    You sure the extra recovery isn't just from increased total calories?
    CELTIC LABS REP
  33. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by tnubs View Post
    You sure the extra recovery isn't just from increased total calories?
    yes.
  34. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by ricroc View Post
    I've always fallen to the trap of the usual bro-science of shooting for 1.5g/lb of protein and upwards of 2g/lb. I've tried diets to account for these values, but often times would come up short. Worse, I was mainly filling in the gaps with whey and other protein shakes and having read the various threads on this forum, I've realized how much better whole food is for you. Then I realized how much carbs have in regards to gaining mass and once I dialed those in better, I saw some gains. I looked a tad soft, but my weight was increasing which at the time, was my primary goal. When I only concentrated on shooting for that 1.5g/lb, I didn't have much success, and my muscles certainly did not feel fuller.

    On my new cycle, I'm shooting for at least 1g/lb. This is more economical (which was stated in one of the posts) and for me, easier to ingest. I'm dialing in my macros as I continue, trying to get more dietary fat via whole foods and trying to limit my use of shakes. One, they get pricey and two, food-food is better for you. Too soon to tell is I'm prospering from the 1g/lb, but at least I don't feel sick to my stomach.
    I'm glad you are happy with your diet however your previous problem wasn't 1.5 grams of protein but your lack of whole food and carbs.

    Again, the essay and it's referenced studies demonstrating positive MPS effects with "high" levels of protein ingested frequently is there to read. You can ignore it if you want but it would be pretty bro to ignore science you simply don't like.

    If it's a money issue, that is another story altogether. Get by the best you can I guess. Generally speaking, I'm not interested in others finances and the inability to afford quality protein doesn't negate the positive benefits of ingesting high levels of quality protein frequently, as discussed in the linked yet completely ignored studies and essay.

    I am interested in the data demonstrated by the study posted by Jiigz showing bodybuilders do, in fact, require more protein than "others" (though I would like to see more variables under the microscope as it is a pretty weak study, though it does demonstrate a higher need for protein for bodybuilders) and the essay with its corresponding references I posted.

    You can all argue with me anecdotally if you'd like but don't go throwing bro science around when you just simply ignore the available science contradicting your personal anecdotes. The problem is, most studies people are using to base their protein guidelines around do not even involve bodybuilders. This is a giant limitation,especially considering a study in this very thread demonstrating bodybuilders requiring more protein than other "weight trained" individuals.

    I'm getting tired of playing Pete and Repeat. So far, any argument to the science backing protein intake over what seems to be the common protocol on this website has either been off topic, loosely discusses "weight training" in general without acknowledging severe limitations where bodybuilding is concerned or, oddly, is supportive of increasing protein above "others" where bodybuilding is concerned.


    Read it or don't, I don't care. If you choose to ignore various physiological responses brought on by different training styles, scientific evidence pointing to benefits of protein over and above the seemingly popular amount and would rather let off topic studies ride.... by all means, knock yourself out.
  35. Senior Member
    ricroc's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  191 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,204
    Rep Power
    3030544
    Level
    65
    Lv. Percent
    36.73%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    You can all argue with me anecdotally if you'd like but don't go throwing bro science around when you just simply ignore the available science contradicting your personal anecdotes. The problem is, most studies people are using to base their protein guidelines around do not even involve bodybuilders. This is a giant limitation,especially considering a study in this very thread demonstrating bodybuilders requiring more protein than other "weight trained" individuals.

    I'm getting tired of playing Pete and Repeat. So far, any argument to the science backing protein intake over what seems to be the common protocol on this website has either been off topic, loosely discusses "weight training" in general without acknowledging severe limitations where bodybuilding is concerned or, oddly, is supportive of increasing protein above "others" where bodybuilding is concerned.


    Read it or don't, I don't care. If you choose to ignore various physiological responses brought on by different training styles, scientific evidence pointing to benefits of protein over and above the seemingly popular amount and would rather let off topic studies ride.... by all means, knock yourself out.
    Wow! I was just adding my own experience. I was not challenging anyone on anything about what had been stated. I'm not sure how that got misconstrued. I thought these forums were a way to express our own individual paths, to share in our own experiences. I know there are those that have this approach and that was my aim, to join in on the discussion.

    I didn't think I was arguing in any sense, and I am not. I felt that others perusing this thread might see that someone is following another path, nothing more. And my reference to bro-science should have been clarified to state from the usual BB mags that are out there.
  36. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Quote Originally Posted by ricroc View Post
    Wow! I was just adding my own experience. I was not challenging anyone on anything about what had been stated. I'm not sure how that got misconstrued. I thought these forums were a way to express our own individual paths, to share in our own experiences. I know there are those that have this approach and that was my aim, to join in on the discussion.

    I didn't think I was arguing in any sense, and I am not. I felt that others perusing this thread might see that someone is following another path, nothing more. And my reference to bro-science should have been clarified to state from the usual BB mags that are out there.
    My mistake then.
  37. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by danieltx13 View Post
    This debating is pointless. The body is not a textbook. Study results will not apply to every individual. The only way to figure out how much protein you need is to experiment with different diets and macro splits and find the one that works best for achieving your goals. Don't blindly follow broscience or academic science. Learn all you can, do real life trial and error, and eventually you'll find what's best for you.
    Science can understand how the body works because most peoples bodies respond in similar ways; a protein molecule does the same job in my body as it does for yours. Blindly ignoring science because you think your way is better without testing yourself your own NBAL, Urea excretion etc. is worth nothing in real world application.

    Chances are the amount of protein you are consuming far exceeds your bodies capability or need to synthesize it; yet by some placebo effect you think it helps further enhance recovery.

    If you disregard nutrition as science worth following, then I suggest you do the same with all other sciences. Including the advice given by M.D's as, like you said, the body is not a textbook.
  38. Elite Member
    Jiigzz's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,712
    Rep Power
    5317492
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    98.97%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    yes.
    Can be sure sure of this? Can you attribute it to protein alone given that this was not the only variable that changed?

    I highly doubt it.
  39. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,707
    Rep Power
    719743
    Level
    56
    Lv. Percent
    15.78%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    There should be more considered than just "how much" protein. For instance, an equally important question is "what type". I for one believe 1 -1.5g per lb of body weight is sufficient for 95% of lifters out there. This is assuming that u r taking BCAA's throughout the day and that u r also eating a high carb, low fat diet. Protein to carb ratios are important in controlling the insulin-glucagon axis. Hit ur target caloric level with high quality proteins and carbs, while keeping fat minimal and you'll see results. For instance, to burn fat, lower the carbs and raise the protein. To build muscle, less protein is needed bt more carbs will be necessary for the added insulin secretion.

    The most important aspect of protein is not its "muscle building properties", but rather that it takes more energy and a longer amount of time to break down proteins than it does carbs. If I eat a 1:1 ration of protein to carbs, and it 200-400kcals above maintenance everyday, I wont necessarily wind up bigger than had I chosen to eat a 1:2 ratio of prot to carbs. It just means that I'd wind up mich, much leaner in the process which is why olympia lifters generally have juch higher protein requirements.

    Also, consider that nitrogen retention is ultimately what ur trying to do. And you lose nitrogen when u sweat, therefore, hih intensity training demands more protein. This also holds true with Trenbolone, since it makes u sweat TONS, it also requires lots of protein to be effective.
  40. Senior Member
    uvawahoowa's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,482
    Rep Power
    31244
    Level
    29
    Lv. Percent
    98.75%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by hvactech View Post
    off topic, does anyone break there macros down on a weekly scale vs daily?
    I figure tdee over the course of a week then figure my daily macros based on that so that my higher calorie workout days and my lower calorie off days add up to total tdee for the week
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Am I getting enough calories? And is my protein shake OK?
    By iDShaDoW in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-13-2008, 05:13 PM
  2. Is one bottle enough?
    By goyard in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-09-2005, 10:50 AM
  3. is 4 weeks enough?
    By julius kelp in forum Cycle Info
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2003, 11:36 AM
  4. When else besides PW is whey protein okay to consume?
    By JohnGafnea in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-04-2003, 01:42 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-19-2002, 07:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in