The truth about how much protein you really need.
11-14-2009 04:26 PM
The truth about how much protein you really need.
The Truth on How Much Protein You Really Need Per Day to Build Muscle - Fitness Spotlight : Fitness Spotlight
Just wondering what some thoughts on this are. It is from this blog I read occasionally. Most of the people on there are paleo or something similar which isn't my style but it is usually pretty level headed.
I do think this is true to some extent. If you eat protein in every meal, you'll be ok.
11-14-2009 04:55 PM
I agree about the getting most of your intake from real foods, I don't bother with whey anymore as I prefer to eat and can always organise my time to ensure I have meals pretty soon after training.
The problem with the author's thoughts is that no-one really knows how much protein one needs per day, some of the older work by Lemon et al. (1992) indicated that protein needs are increased with the 'early stages of training' but didn't improve N-Balance with intakes of protein above 1.32-2.62g/kg/LBM. However, N-Balance is hardly the most accurate representation of skeletal muscle protein turnover and most of the guys on here are highly trained so this theory hardly applies to them
Some of the newer work by guys like Witard, Tipon (and even Layne Norton to an extent) suggest that the current recommendations are more than enough (1.8-2.0g/kg/LBM), as this data is based upon much longer-term studies than the original Lemon work.
I'm still interested though why guys likes Poliquin continue to advocate very high protein intakes (>4.0g/kg/LBM)...
11-14-2009 07:00 PM
I am going out on a limb here, but i would say, RESULTS.
Originally Posted by UKStrength
IMO, protein needs vary with each individual.
11-14-2009 07:35 PM
Hmm good article and I guess I eat too much protein but I feel like it really helps. Protein pulsing sounds pretty good I never read about that before until now. Think I’m going to check into that.
11-14-2009 08:37 PM
Pretty good find ive always been on that doubt the insane amounts of protein we should take but ive followed it because it hasnt been proven otherwise. I feel as someone stated getting your protein from whole foods is all you need but for the most part people wont argue with there results but i personally am going to try to lower my protein intake and see what happens.
11-15-2009 01:30 PM
This is a really good article but I cant see this changing the general consensus for a long time, lots of people have spent too much effort managing diet to dismiss there principles.
I think we underestimate our bodies ability and also micromanage diet too much to make us feel like we are doing more and pushing things along.
Since going over BTFFTM again and incorporating calorie/carb cycling and also coming across how the "starvation mode" is exaggerated I now tend to view my body processing foods in a 3 day time frame instead of a 24hr time frame.
I am going to run a little self experiment this week and monitor my body temperature throughout the day as eating raises it and temperature is a good indicator of metabolism, just to see if the 6 meals a day for metabolism works or not.
11-15-2009 01:43 PM
For me, for 2-3 years i have been lifting, ive been taking in bodyweight or slightly less in protein, and i've put on tons of muscle
11-15-2009 04:17 PM
ditto, high protein has only helped me stack on muscle
11-15-2009 05:15 PM
Eating More Meals Does Not Speed Up the Metabolism 2
Originally Posted by ItsHectic
I think it is more of a preference thing. If you eat 3,000 calories a day it doesn't matter if you eat it in one sitting or 6. Of course, one sitting would be impossible. If it was possible it wouldn't be comfortable. As far as "keeping your metabolism" running though it's dumb. Our body isn't a car.
I think lots of it has to do with marketing. Supplements companies want us to think we need to eat every 3 hours and eat 2g/lb body weight. Is consistently eating enough protein and steady meals important? Of course! Just like you said Hectic, I think we under estimate our body's ability to micro manage and just do what it's supposed to. It is much more about the bigger picture.
11-15-2009 06:55 PM
the study is flawed. but not about how much you should intake at each sitting, but about how much protein an athlete should intake.
the numbers they use, pretty much all of them, from all sources, are from the nitrogen retention test. which test how much nitrogen your body releases. and it does this from various sources, (skin, hair, nails, feces). i forget the specifics, but if you want too look it up, go for it.
I deleted my notes from the presentation i gave on this subject in one of my exs classes, but there is a new test called the amino acid indicator technique or something, that is more accurate, and shows the recomended daily intake should be higher, around 1.5-2g's per lb.
and the conclusion of my presentation came to be that we dont really know how much protein should be consumed due to the metabolic pathways being too complex, maybe in the future, but as for now, if it's working for you, keep doing it, otherwise change it.
11-15-2009 07:10 PM
As everyone has mentioned i doubt this will change anything right now people who saw gains with high amount of protein per day will of course stick to that. If it aint broke dont fix it i mean it may be true you can still gain as much or close to as much with less but my feeling is people dont want to take the risk there already have been ingesting high amounts of protein so why stop.
11-15-2009 07:17 PM
Whats funny is that 2 of the studies he's using contradict each other. Which just goes to tell me its not all that simple The contradiction is
APS increased in a dose-dependent manner and also reached a plateau at 20g ingested protein. Leucine oxidation was significantly increased after 20 and 40g protein were ingested.
so the first study says no more than 20g of protein in a single meal or you get "loss" of muscle thru oxidation, where the 2nd one shows that taking in 80% of your needs in a single meal gives higher nitrogen retention than even spread meals. And that 80% is far higher than 20g
After a controlled period, 15 elderly women (mean age: 68 y) were fed for 14 d either a pulse diet (n = 7), providing 80% of the daily protein intake at 1200, or a spread diet (n = 8), in which the same daily protein intake was spread over 4 meals. Both diets provided 1.7 g protein•kg fat-free mass (FFM). Protein accretion and daily protein turnover were determined by using the nitrogen balance method and the end product method (ammonia and urea) after an oral dose of glycine. Nitrogen balance was more positive with the pulse than with the spread diet. Protein turnover rates were also higher with the pulse than with the spread diet, mainly because of higher protein synthesis in the pulse group than in the spread group.
11-19-2009 07:40 PM
I laugh at the 160lb kids on here eating 400 grams per day. All your body is going to do is convert half of it to glucose and fat and strain the kidneys
Unless u have 250lbs of LBM and are on 3g of gear per week u can't give me a reason to believe it's beneficial to eat that much
12-07-2009 12:46 PM
My guess is that the people in the 1st study had already eaten a decent protein meal sometime before there training therefore didn't need much more protein after.
Originally Posted by EasyEJL
I think this is a very interesting topic, although its not a lot of evidence its more than what I can find on anything contradicting it, a lot of the stuff we follow seems to be based on well-that-seems-to-make-sense logic rather than scientific studies.
Its funny cause as for routines everyone follows a different routine and respects other peoples choices but when it comes to diet god forbid you don't eat 6 times a day.
One thing I find very interesting is if you speak to any nutritionist or go to any health site you will get that magnesium is found in green leafy vegetables, well I dont eat many of them so how have I not wound up with a deficiency, after doing some digging I found out that a lot of the nutrients that you supposedly only get from vegetables are found in meat anyway.
I have never come across anything so misleading in life than the information we get on diet.
12-09-2009 12:31 AM
here's an obvious question for you guys on this topic.
Since the two scenarios are
A. 2g"ish" of protein for LBM "traditional thought process"
B. We're taking more protein than we can benefit from as the author of the article suggests.
My question is this: Why bother even trying B?
-With exception to those tards who take a gross excess and over work their kidneys, most people take a reasonable amount that their body can handle, even if it's a little over the perfect ratio. It seems to me I'd rather have a little too much protein (option B), than risk having too little and hinder potential gain(option A).
I mean it's obviously still theory crafting, so I'd rather just air on the side of caution and take a reasonable, but solid amount of protein. I see no benefits from even trying Option A.
12-09-2009 08:27 AM
General consensus is on a calorie deficit you need more protein, and for clean bulking you do too.
Unused protein gets converted to sugar for energy, excess carbs get converted to fat, so it acts as a sort of buffer to not make it so easy for your body to store any excess fat from calories when bulking.
On a cut it is believed you need more protein because you would be on a low carb low fat diet, fat = fat and carbs = weight gain, protein seems to be the safe choice you can go excess in for the same reasons as above.
I think there is more anecdotal evidence from bodybuilders than there is scientific evidence to say its safe to get a lot of calories from protein to keep BF down. But I dont see any evidence that suggests staying 2g to 1kg of LBM and increasing fat intake would be any worse than keeping fat low and increasing protein, its just a combination of peoples fear of fat and playing it safe because of the belief that excess protein is anticatabolic. Although carbs are anti catabolic too.
The 2g protein to 1kg LBM is based on that you are at or above maintenance calories and having enough carbs.
12-09-2009 08:36 AM
I remember a couple years ago here there was a bit of talk about a 33/33/33 macro split, a few people were doing it, I wonder what happened with that?
12-09-2009 11:06 AM
Optimum protein intake does differ from individual to individual. I find that my body type is very efficient and don't need to take in crazy amounts of protein. A less efficient body type (ecto) may have much greater needs per lb than I do. One thing I know for sure is if I overdo the protein, it's just more calories and I have hard time keeping fat down. When I diet down protein intake may be slightly higher to achieve the macro-nutrient balance I require. I used to go much higher during a cut but since have increased my fat intake ratio from 10% to 20%.
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage! Rage! against the dying of the light!!
12-10-2009 05:44 PM
couple of questions here. First, the (ecto) body style statement. Forgive my ignorance on the issue, but what are the body types or could you refer me to a place to learn about it.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't protein a negative caloric substance? Or is that true as long as the protein is used and not an excess gram of protein?
12-10-2009 07:00 PM
Not nearly so much as you are thinking. The first (edit 2nd) study said 30g in a meal. So lets do the math for an elderly woman:
Originally Posted by EasyEJL
150lbs / 2.2lbs per kg x .8g protein per kg (recommended intake) = 54g of protein per day
54g x 80% = 43g in one meal.
An extra 13g over the 30g limit. That fits in pretty well with the point that pulsing protein may allow better protein utilization.
Similar Forum Threads
By iron addict in forum Exercise Science
Last Post: 11-30-2012, 09:28 AM
By brizspot in forum Post Cycle Therapy
Last Post: 04-22-2009, 03:47 PM
By footster in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 07-21-2008, 05:45 PM
By BAD_MO_FO in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 03-31-2004, 03:02 PM