Is 200g protein enough?

JudoJosh said:
Reading your post are gonna give me aneurysm. I have never seen someone so dismissive to science and at the same time attempts to use science as a basis for their brolore. Sigh...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Where have I dismissed science, other than the contradictions of your off topic posts for leucine which were totally ignoring the context of leucine's role to begin with? I've been clear that the LG type diets and relatively low protein can ellicit growth. Never had a single contention against that notion.

I have shown scientific evidence for the benefit of "excess" protein being more effective. So has Jiigz, inadvertently. Hopefully he will realize that angle is one that should be studied with an open mind instead of taking on a personally argumentative and defensive stance. Hell, with his professional ambition, he could make some bad ass discovery and we will all be paying Jiigzz a **** ton of money for developed products catering to BB specific science. But anyways I then gave better detail for my anecdotal beliefs that are continually called in to question, this is not a middle finger to science by any means.

I would love to see better conducted follow up studies on bodybuilders. High volume, high intensity, high frequency, two a days.... tons of unanswered questions although the indication is that yes, bodybuilding routines ellicit a physiological response much differently than documented "others" in the weight room.

All I ever get in reply is "OMG, this is just ridiculous. I can't believe it's so ridiculous I'll just ignore it", then if a reply is actually given it's off topic or winds up supporting me anyways.

I'm not dismissing science, I'm discussing better science on top of good science where optimal gains are concerned.
 
TexasGuy said:
Where have I dismissed science, other than the contradictions of your off topic posts for leucine which were totally ignoring the context of leucine's role to begin with? I've been clear that the LG type diets and relatively low protein can ellicit growth. Never had a single contention against that notion.

I have shown scientific evidence for the benefit of "excess" protein being more effective. So has Jiigz, inadvertently. Hopefully he will realize that angle is one that should be studied with an open mind instead of taking on a personally argumentative and defensive stance. Hell, with his professional ambition, he could make some bad ass discovery and we will all be paying Jiigzz a **** ton of money for developed products catering to BB specific science. But anyways I then gave better detail for my anecdotal beliefs that are continually called in to question, this is not a middle finger to science by any means.

I would love to see better conducted follow up studies on bodybuilders. High volume, high intensity, high frequency, two a days.... tons of unanswered questions although the indication is that yes, bodybuilding routines ellicit a physiological response much differently than documented "others" in the weight room.

All I ever get in reply is "OMG, this is just ridiculous. I can't believe it's so ridiculous I'll just ignore it", then if a reply is actually given it's off topic or winds up supporting me anyways.

I'm not dismissing science, I'm discussing better science on top of good science where optimal gains are concerned.
Click to expand...


No worries man. You have to take it all with a grain of salt. I have a hard time doing that myself. I have to remember that when others don't want to consider experience as something to value more than the latest and greatest pseudo study...it's their loss!

Besides, internet boards tend to worship science like its absolute and perfect in nature. They forget that science is built around imperfect people, lol. Either way, it comes off offensive when you challenge what others have been practicing.
 
fueledpassion said:
I agree that 1g to 1.5g is enough for most people to grow, but if they were capable of 2-3g per lb of mass, I'd certainly encourage it. 2g is better than 1g, but 1g is good for slow growth nonetheless. However, I also reserve a special place for carbs since they are the preferred energy source for muscle contractions and high-intensity activity. I just cant believe that this board still holds strongly to their high fat diets - that is so 1970's bodybuilding.

At Texas, ur last paragraph I believe is referring to an insulin-glucagon axis. The ratio of protein to carbs affects this hormone balance, which is the main factor in body composition. The other factors are fat intake and activity, of course.
Click to expand...

In regards to protein synthesis; here is a huge 'in-between' between 1g.lb and 2g.lb in which optimal protein synthesis occurs. Even then it was shown in 1.44g.KG (not pound) to be optimal, studies reinforced this by showing an increase in lost amino acids in urine with higher value consumption rates.

Excess protein intakes are so 1970's bodybuilding
 
Jiigzz said:
In regards to protein synthesis; here is a huge 'in-between' between 1g.lb and 2g.lb in which optimal protein synthesis occurs. Even then it was shown in 1.44g.KG (not pound) to be optimal, studies reinforced this by showing an increase in lost amino acids in urine with higher value consumption rates.

Excess protein intakes are so 1970's bodybuilding
Click to expand...

Yet other studies show oxidation to be irrelevent to the MPS effect of the "excess" protein. And the TEF values he mentioned as well, outside of MPS specifically lending to benefits of a high protein diet.
 
fueledpassion said:
Sure.

Shafrir E. Fructose/sucrose metabolism, its physiological and pathological implications. Sugars and sweeteners, Kretchmer N & Hollenbeck CB, Eds. CRC Press, 1991, p 63-98

Paige DM, Clinical Nutrition. C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, 1988 p 703-704

the embarrassing thing about it is that this information has been around for 20 years. It also doesnt surprise me that the largest bodybuilders came up in the era of GH and good nutritional information. Now everyone tells u something to sell a product rather than help u get lean and healthy...

Furthermore, I recommend u research fructokinase and its metabolic pathway as well as how detrimental "high fructose corn syrup" has been on our society since food companies started using the cheap sweetener in place of other sweeteners like maltodextrin and sucrose (which is cheap, too).

And more...

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed (This one is a good supporting write-up)

and more...Invalid Link Removed

while this guy tries to defend fruit just a little, he actually supports my earlier post claiming that fructose either stores as liver glycogen or gets converted into tricglycerides (fats) and released into the bloodstream. Neither of these processes take the glycogen to the muscle right away, which makes fruit less useful in sports activities such as running and weight-lifting. It also steals room for other glycogen form starches to be stored in the liver, which further increases the likelihood of causing fat storage via insulin. Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, those are arguments against high-fructose corn syrup which is synthetically manufactured for additional sweetning. One of those articles you posted doesn't state any negitive effects, just lists how glucose and frutcose convert to glycogen; well at least it attempts to in plain english. While HFCS is essentially bad for you, that does not imply that Crystalline Fructose is.

Because HFCS is essentially fructose/glucose mixed into one molecule.
 
TexasGuy said:
Yet other studies show oxidation to be irrelevent to the MPS effect of the "excess" protein. And the TEF values he mentioned as well, outside of MPS specifically lending to benefits of a high protein diet.
Click to expand...

What studies? And please, if I must post BBing evidence, so must you.

In any case, you have your anecdotal evidence and can of course continue to live by that reasoning. I have mine with other BBers and strength athletes who show no difference in body compostition or recovery times with varying protein intakes.

In the end the decision is yours to make and this debating is going nowhere with neither side conceiving so instead i'll leave it there. Others reading this thread can decide on whose advice to follow.
 
One last post what I must say is that this debating has lead me to re-read certain notes and make things far more apparent than they previously were (typically you may read a textbook with already ingrained ideologies about what you expect to find, so you tend to ignore everything else- or at least I do); in any case, fueledpassion is right on the money about nutrient partitioning and the likes, the only part I do not agree with is the Fructose- HFCS part which made to seem as though HFCS is the primary monosaccaride found in fruit, which isn't the case.

His points on CHO and protein and nutrient partitoning are in-line with my own views however I still do not advise increasing protein intake above 1.8g/kg of BW per day unless the requirements of the other macronutrients are met; post exercise I always advise drining gatorade type drinks (as insulin infusion decreases protein degradation) while also supplementing with BCAA's (which I do not include as a part of protein intake as these on their own will not transcript into proteins) as BCAA's increase the sensitivty of the muscle to the protein stimulatory effects of insulin. BCAAs also seem to slow down protein degradation. One more point on this is that hyperaminoacidemia has been shown to increase protein synthesis and amino acid transport.

Interesting.
 
Layne norton has some good information on this subject. Check him out on youtube.
 
Adressing to the OP intial question: it depends on one's diet and personal response to macros ratio.
I do ingest 2,5-3gr per kg, because I can see that's what suites me better, above that and I get fat, lower and I can't gain weight. Also I do not respond to high carb diet, so my carbs never go above 40% of the macros wich also makes my body need more protein to convert into glycogen.
So it all depends on how do you react to the macros ratio and your goal weight. There may be generic scientific research but that what it is: an average number that a scientific study gets from a research. For exemple, there are many scientific studies that show that an healthy men's body can only digest 25-30gr of protein per meal and all above that goes to fat. So, acording to that logic, someone of my size wich the healthy weight is around 220lbs, to get enough protein for muscle building purposes, acording also with many studies that 2,5gr per kg is the upper limit that one should take, I would have to take 250gr of protein dailly divided in more than 8 meals with 30gr of protein each! C'mon guys, that just isn't realistic despite being stated on scientific research. Not saying that it's worthless data but rather that is more a general guideline for someone starting to explore this world of nutrition from wich each one should find it's own measures :) For me is 300gr of protein daily, spreaded throughout 4-5 meals, for you those 200gr might be enough, too much or not enough ;)
 
this thread has gotten way outa hand with "science" based facts. does every post have to break down into paragraphs every time?
 
hvactech said:
this thread has gotten way outa hand with "science" based facts. does every post have to break down into paragraphs every time?
Click to expand...

This... If it works for you who gives a **** what other people are doing.
 
A good way to make sure you get enough Protien it would be 1-1.5 grams per pound of bodyweight,dont need more.I have been at this for over 28 years and have trained with alot of Mr.Universes and Mr Worlds of the past plus went to school for this.Should be good with 1-1.5 grams
 
dabronx70 said:
A good way to make sure you get enough Protien it would be 1-1.5 grams per pound of bodyweight,dont need more.I have been at this for over 28 years and have trained with alot of Mr.Universes and Mr Worlds of the past plus went to school for this.Should be good with 1-1.5 grams
Click to expand...



Invalid Link Removed
 
dabronx70 said:
I have been at this for over 28 years and have trained with alot of Mr.Universes and Mr Worlds of the past plus went to school for this.Should be good with 1-1.5 grams
Click to expand...

are the top pro's only eating BW to 1.5x BW? i imagine they are eating more but i guess things change a bit when u toss insulin and peptides in there
 
I weigh 205lbs so what I said is plenty.
 
dabronx70 said:
Does it look like I lift?
Click to expand...

Don't mind Jim. He is a smart ass some times! Don't take him as serious as you are. :D
 
So from various threads and very knowledgeable members of this forum. .5 protein per lb and biceps are worthless? Sound accurate? Lmao sorry had to!

:D
 
OnionKnight said:
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.
Click to expand...

I spent time with several dietian that work for fighter in the UFC, many of them have very different veiws on diets. It is very indiviualized. What one fighter does does not mean it will work for the next. Another thing to remember, bodybuiolding is its own sport. a diet a fighter does may not work for a person wanting to build mass. Fighters diet to stay within a range of body weight while maximizing strenght and cardiac endurance. A body builder wants muscle mass.

Also remember you never calculater by body weight. You should calculate by Lean Body Mass of LBM. Once you do that the amunt of protein needed goes down.
 
joltx said:
if your natural you dont need that much protein bulking
Click to expand...

Depends, each body is different and each body's needs are different. If a person is 250 6-6 at 10% they may need 200 plus grams of carbs a day. While a female at 5-2 120lbs and 15% bf may need much less. Approx 75g a day.


My natural bulks are done at 300g protein. That is what my dietian puts me on, I do we'll on it, no kidney issues or health issues, so I stick with it. Right now I am 6-2 230 at 11%. So pretty much it's 1.5g per lb of lean mass. At The international sports science network classes they advocate 1.4 to 1.7g per lb of lean body mass while bulking and building mass.

I am not saying I think I need 300g of protein, but I stuck to the diet I am given and that's what it's built on. I think 220g would be adequate, but I would have to alter my carbs and fats to make up calories.
 
02sixxer said:
At The international sports science network classes they advocate 1.4 to 1.7g per lb of lean body mass while bulking and building mass.
Click to expand...

Any studies to back this up? I've been staying at about 1g/lb some days go close to 1.5g and some days I only hit 0.75.
 
tnubs said:
Any studies to back this up? I've been staying at about 1g/lb some days go close to 1.5g and some days I only hit 0.75.
Click to expand...

hvactech said:
me too and continue to make gains
Click to expand...

To be fair, he never said you wouldn't gain at less, or even more, than that. He only said that is what that particular association advocated.

Don't know why you need studies to show an organizations particular beliefs.
 
jimbuick said:
To be fair, he never said you wouldn't gain at less, or even more, than that. He only said that is what that particular association advocated.

Don't know why you need studies to show an organizations particular beliefs.
Click to expand...

i wasnt disputing sixxer's post, just saying i eat less than 1g per bodyweight of protein
 
I weigh 185 and eat around 220-240g of protein. When I'm lean bulking that's perfect for me since I can get more kcals without adding excess carbs/fat.
 
tnubs said:
Any studies to back this up? I've been staying at about 1g/lb some days go close to 1.5g and some days I only hit 0.75.
Click to expand...

hvactech said:
me too and continue to make gains
Click to expand...

I just tried to pull them up, they are on the website. However, I am not a member so I cant. It's $250 for their membership. I go to their confrences each year. In April last year they spoke about protein and amino needs while building muscle. I got the numbers from the presentation. I am not arguing you can build mscle without that number. I am at the lower end of protein intake reccomended by them and the biggest I ve ever been. However, I wont act like I am natural. I have ran PH's many times. I believe if I went to 5 organizations all on the same topics, I would hear 5 different opinions. I believe they all would be correct in their own right. But thats because we have many different body types. I am a Mesomorph, a Ecto and Endo would have totally different needs. That should be considered when planning a diet for cutting, bulking, or maintaining.

Jim thanks, that was all I was trying to do is just say what the ISSN states about protein needs.
 
EatMoar said:
I weigh 185 and eat around 220-240g of protein. When I'm lean bulking that's perfect for me since I can get more kcals without adding excess carbs/fat.
Click to expand...

Thats kinda where I stand too.
 
jimbuick said:
To be fair, he never said you wouldn't gain at less, or even more, than that. He only said that is what that particular association advocated.

Don't know why you need studies to show an organizations particular beliefs.
Click to expand...

I only said that because the college nutrition classes(including sports nutrition) I took all drilled in like 1.5g/1kg and all numbers below 1g/1lb and threw all these studies at us showing how athletes are eating too much protein and its going to waste. i just assume they would have some reasoning for recommending a higher dose? i've just never heard of protein consumption that high be recommended before by school system. **** if theres any benefit to it, id be eating it, but ive noticed no enhanced gains with extra high protein consumption
 
tnubs said:
I only said that because the college nutrition classes(including sports nutrition) I took all drilled in like 1.5g/1kg and all numbers below 1g/1lb and threw all these studies at us showing how athletes are eating too much protein and its going to waste. i just assume they would have some reasoning for recommending a higher dose? i've just never heard of protein consumption that high be recommended before by school system. **** if theres any benefit to it, id be eating it, but ive noticed no enhanced gains with extra high protein consumption
Click to expand...

This conversation happened a few pages ago. "Excess" protein has been shown to positively influence MPS and nitrogen retention regardless of oxidation.
 
jimbuick said:
Don't know why you need studies to show an organizations particular beliefs.
Click to expand...

Considering the organization is named International Sports SCIENCE Network I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume there be some sort of reference to scientific literature from which they base their statements from.

tnubs said:
i've just never heard of protein consumption that high be recommended before by school system.
Click to expand...

The ISSN is not a school or higher education authority. They are a completely made up organization which imposes itself onto the industry as a authority. They are similar to other organizations such as ASCM, ACE, NSCA but hold less weight in the field



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh said:
Considering the organization is named International Sports SCIENCE Network I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume there be some sort of reference to scientific literature from which they base their statements from.

The ISSN is not a school or higher education authority. They are a completely made up organization which imposes itself onto the industry as a authority. They are similar to other organizations such as ASCM, ACE, NSCA but hold less weight

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S(TM)II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

You missed my point (I think)

I was not saying whether they had any or not. Merely that he was sharing that associations beliefs, he never said if it was correct or not.
 
The ISSN is a little more credible than some posters would have you believe:

"The International Society of Sports Nutrition is recognized as the only not-for-profit academic-based society dedicated to sports nutrition and growing the science of applied nutrition. The ISSN conferences, tutorials, lectures and courses have been recognized (vis a vis attaining continuing education credits) by the American Dietetic Association, National Strength and Conditioning Association, American College of Sports Medicine, American Council on Exercise, American Physical Therapy Association, National Association of Athletic Trainers and other organizations as well. Members of these organizations can earn continuing education credits by attending ISSN Conferences and Symposia. The ISSN is also recognized by many Universities as offering the latest, cutting edge and non-biased information about the science and application of sports nutrition and supplements."

Invalid Link Removed

To flippantly disregard them is a little more telling than the above suspicion (slander?) itself.
 
TexasGuy said:
The ISSN is a little more credible than some posters would have you believe:

"The International Society of Sports Nutrition is recognized as the only not-for-profit academic-based society dedicated to sports nutrition and growing the science of applied nutrition. The ISSN conferences, tutorials, lectures and courses have been recognized (vis a vis attaining continuing education credits) by the American Dietetic Association, National Strength and Conditioning Association, American College of Sports Medicine, American Council on Exercise, American Physical Therapy Association, National Association of Athletic Trainers and other organizations as well. Members of these organizations can earn continuing education credits by attending ISSN Conferences and Symposia. The ISSN is also recognized by many Universities as offering the latest, cutting edge and non-biased information about the science and application of sports nutrition and supplements."

Invalid Link Removed

To flippantly disregard them is a little more telling than the above suspicion (slander?) itself.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Wikipedia to me ;)
 
EatMoar said:
Sounds like Wikipedia to me ;)
Click to expand...

No he just copied the paragraph from the ISSN website who obviously think pretty highly of themselves.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
I don't wan to argue about such a petty thing. But as far as ISSN, I have been to a few of their conferences and all of Europa Universities. The ISSN has very good doctors teaching. Matter of fact the last one I went to, had an entire college class their. The resume I the teachers expand from university professors to profession level athletic organizations dietians, to scientist for pharmaceutical companies. Not once was was something stated without scientific evidence that they felt supported their claim. Weather it was from biopsies, blood results, studies using controlled environments am controlled groups. I have been to many other conferences. ISSN's have been some of the best. I have learned things and use it for me and my clients.

I apologize to the op for for starting this in you thread. And will end with do what works for you. Hell my cousin just has to walk in a gym and he comes out 10lbs heavier. He is beastly an does not have to work for it. Great genetics. I have to eat good and stay up on my cardio to keep a chiseled body.

Live you all am, sorry to ruffle feathers.
 
TexasGuy said:
This conversation happened a few pages ago. "Excess" protein has been shown to positively influence MPS and nitrogen retention regardless of oxidation.
Click to expand...

Was this actually shown? All I remember reading was a theory by Layne Norton. Not saying he was wrong, but it was a theory.
 
Jiigzz said:
Was this actually shown? All I remember reading was a theory by Layne Norton. Not saying he was wrong, but it was a theory.
Click to expand...

Just a theory, not a fact. Some people like to think their words are facts, and I do not mean Layne Norton.
 
There are no facts in science.

And what Norton proposed is a hypothesis not a theory since no actual testing has taken place.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh said:
There are no facts in science.

And what Norton proposed is a hypothesis not a theory since no actual testing has taken place.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

But but but...it is a fact the universe is still expanding! Haha I kid I kid...anyhow strictly speaking you are right, it was merely an uncontested hypothesis.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Here are a couple of links in relation to the essay, which references it's own studies all of you are free to read.

Science works both ways, it's not just there to prove you right in an argument about bodybuilding diets. Please take the links in context of the essay if you feel a discussion is warranted. I'm not interested in an off topic tangent.

The theories presented in the essay are backed by solid science. Read it. Check its references. It is a study supported "best practice" protocol. Nothing personal, bros, read it with an open mind for your own benefit. Or don't, **** it.

Edit: A better format for the jci.org link Invalid Link Removed

Edit again, my cell phone copy pasted are all ****ed up. Click the .gov link and then full text or show all.
 
If your in college without any other support other than yourself just stick to 1g/lb.. Protein is too expensive yo..i went food shopping yesterday and almost cried when i swiped my debit card
 
I eat 1.5 to 2.0 grams per lb. body weight and that is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top