Another Protein Intake Thread

ewok53

New member
Awards
0
Hello everyone. So the topic of protein intake came across my mind today so I decided to search the interwebs on the "optimal intake" per kg/lb (total or LBM). Within the past couple of years, it looks like studies have backed an optimal intake of .82-1g prot/lbs. I started lifting about 5 years ago where the idea of optimum intake was 1.5-2g (sometimes even 3g!)/lb at the time. Since then, I've been stuck on the idea of having an intake of 1.5g prot/lb. I was wondering if anyone who lowered their protein intake from 1.5g+/lb to ~0.8/lb at some point in time could share their experience with me. Did anyone experience any differences? Pros/cons/etc? Need some confirmation on the matter cause it feels weird changing what I've been doing for a few years..

I'm considering changing from:
Protein: 1.5g/lb
Carbs: Fill with remaining cals
Fats: 0.5g/lb

To this:
Protein: 0.82-0.90g/lb
Carbs: Fill with remaining cals
Fats: 0.5g/lb
 

ewok53

New member
Awards
0
Also forgot to ask this. Prohormones/steroids increase protein synthesis right? If so, would someone on cycle increase their protein intake to a higher range?
 
Driven2lift

Driven2lift

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
0
Haven't dropped below 1g/lb in a few years

On cycle you would absolutely increase it
Most say 1.5g/lb is enough but many go higher
 

ewok53

New member
Awards
0
Ahh thanks. Yeah I should probably stick with around 1.5g/lb for now. Perhaps decreasing protein intake by a little and increasing carbs would work better at lower bodyfat % ranges. Maybe I'll try it out during my next cut.
 
bolt10

bolt10

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You could give it a try and see how it goes. 1.5 is more than enough and is fine if you enjoy eating lots of protein and need the satiating effects, but haven't really found it more effective than .8-1g per pound LBM personally.

Eating less than 1.5 also let's me eat more fats and carbs too.
 
Quads_of_Stee

Quads_of_Stee

Well-known member
Awards
0
You could give it a try and see how it goes. 1.5 is more than enough and is fine if you enjoy eating lots of protein and need the satiating effects, but haven't really found it more effective than .8-1g per pound LBM personally.

Eating less than 1.5 also let's me eat more fats and carbs too.
this. Been eating ~150/day @198 and am getting plenty of results
 
JXiiXViii

JXiiXViii

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I stick to about 1g per pound and have been fine. Never saw a need personally to go any higher. Plus like others have said, this leaves more room for carbs and fats.
 

bcruder

New member
Awards
0
Great observation given far too many trade-offs. Complicate with age, longevity and weight.

Increased recycling of damaged proteins promotes longevity but is inhibited by higher protein intake. Decreased calorie intake reduces muscle along with body fat but higher protein preserves it. Prior adaption to low-carb reduces neo-glycolysis but also reduces anaerobic capacity.

These may support both the low USDA recommendation of .5 gr per kg for younger non-athletes and your 1.5 gr per lb for younger athletes.

No single number may be correct for older folks. Although body fat has cosmetic negatives, older subjects tend to live longer when overweight but not obese. Strength level and muscle mass are inversely related to risk of death for older subjects.

Since they do not process protein as well, the minimum must be titrated to maintain muscle mass with little concern for fat. Carbohydrate must be titrated down depending on anaerobic activity. The latest DASH diet, Mediterranean diet and longevity diets like Gundry's Diet Evolution seem to agree.

Have I adequately confused everyone? ;-)
 

ewok53

New member
Awards
0
Lots of helpful replies so far, thanks guys.

Great observation given far too many trade-offs. Complicate with age, longevity and weight.

Increased recycling of damaged proteins promotes longevity but is inhibited by higher protein intake. Decreased calorie intake reduces muscle along with body fat but higher protein preserves it. Prior adaption to low-carb reduces neo-glycolysis but also reduces anaerobic capacity.

These may support both the low USDA recommendation of .5 gr per kg for younger non-athletes and your 1.5 gr per lb for younger athletes.

No single number may be correct for older folks. Although body fat has cosmetic negatives, older subjects tend to live longer when overweight but not obese. Strength level and muscle mass are inversely related to risk of death for older subjects.

Since they do not process protein as well, the minimum must be titrated to maintain muscle mass with little concern for fat. Carbohydrate must be titrated down depending on anaerobic activity. The latest DASH diet, Mediterranean diet and longevity diets like Gundry's Diet Evolution seem to agree.

Have I adequately confused everyone? ;-)
Hmm, I've read quite a bit on needing to increase protein intake relative to weight as body fat % goes down. But I'm guessing that nowadays the increase in intake does not have to be as much as previously thought. This goes hand in hand with the concept of ~1g/lb LBM. Using these values, an individual at 170 lbs 15% would have a protein intake of 0.85g/lb TOTAL weight while and individual at the same weight at 10% would have an intake of 0.90g/lb (total weight). An increase of 0.05g/lb for a decrease in 5% bodyfat, which is not that much.

I think finding and consuming the minimal required amount of protein (without there being a difference if you ate any more) and increasing carbs would be the optimum thing to do since it would increase muscle fullness. This would be especially useful during cutting where people start to look flat due to their lowered carb intakes, correct? A change from 1.5g/lb total weight to 1g/lb LBM and filling the difference leads to a pretty significant increase in carbs.
 
JXiiXViii

JXiiXViii

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Lots of helpful replies so far, thanks guys.



Hmm, I've read quite a bit on needing to increase protein intake relative to weight as body fat % goes down. But I'm guessing that nowadays the increase in intake does not have to be as much as previously thought. This goes hand in hand with the concept of ~1g/lb LBM. Using these values, an individual at 170 lbs 15% would have a protein intake of 0.85g/lb TOTAL weight while and individual at the same weight at 10% would have an intake of 0.90g/lb (total weight). An increase of 0.05g/lb for a decrease in 5% bodyfat, which is not that much.

I think finding and consuming the minimal required amount of protein (without there being a difference if you ate any more) and increasing carbs would be the optimum thing to do since it would increase muscle fullness. This would be especially useful during cutting where people start to look flat due to their lowered carb intakes, correct? A change from 1.5g/lb total weight to 1g/lb LBM and filling the difference leads to a pretty significant increase in carbs.
I think you're splitting hairs with the comparison of someone at 170 with 10% vs 15% bodyfat and their different protein numbers. I don't think most of us micromanage to that level.

Just keep it simple and if you're 170, consume roughly 170 grams of protein per day. I don't even focus on how much of it is LBM.

Now if you're obese, that kinda goes out the window as a 300 lb male at 40% bodyfat obviously doesn't need 300g of protein.

But for those of us who are active and relatively lean already, just do 1g per pound and be done with it.

And yes, if you can fill in more carbs, that will certainly help. I know everyone has their own preferences, but I don't think dropping carbs super low on a diet is necessary, and can actually be counterproductive. Carbs help keep your workout intensity up, which will already be suffering on restricted calories.
 

Similar threads


Top