1 gram of protein per lbs myth
Replies
-
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant. I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references.
Did you read all of his references? If not, that's not a realistic claim. How do you know a set of information is good unless you read it?The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
Unfortunately, more current research on the same topic can absolutely make the older research irrelevant or invalid.
It may - but unless there is something out there that contradicts it, then just because something is older, does not make it invalid.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant. I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references.
Did you read all of his references? If not, that's not a realistic claim. How do you know a set of information is good unless you read it?The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
Unfortunately, more current research on the same topic can absolutely make the older research irrelevant or invalid.
Newer research should be taken into consideration with older research and the body of evidence should be evaluated as a whole to make conclusions. You don't simply discard research based on date.
Yes I have read all of his references. Why are you assuming otherwise?
I don't disagree, but newer studies can correct for flaws in older research and make the older irrelevant. At one point there was research indicating that Creatine was harmful to the kidney's of healthy individuals and there is much more current research that that rebukes the older research.
I didn't assume anything, was curious as to how you formed your opinion.
They can do that with studies that are 2 years old just as easily as ones that are 20 years old.
Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.0 -
Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?0 -
RDA is not a one-size fits all proposition. Your activity and needs will determine the best macro and micro nutrient value for you...Sedentary adults may not need as much, but bodybuilders, both figurative (weight lifters) and literal (pregnant women) need to fuel very specific tasks which use more protein, and therefore should have more in their diet.
The caloric needs of those two groups of people are also higher, so this doesn't mean skimping on other important nutrients. Just that protein is a macronutrient that is particularly in demand in those bodies.0 -
This is from dietitian.com:
"The RDA for protein for adult males is 63 grams per day. Athletes can maintain protein equilibrium (muscle building equals muscle breakdown) on 1 gram of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. So take your weight, divide by 2.2 then multiply by 1. In fact most persons can achieve protein equilibrium (positive nitrogen balance) at 0.6 to 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram per day.
According to Dr. Carol Meredith at the University of California at Davis, muscle protein synthesis decreases during exercise and nearly doubles during recovery. Research she has shows that additional protein (studies of 1.35 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day) does not increase muscle mass or strength. In addition resistance exercise like weight lifting is a powerful anabolic (building) process that improves protein synthesis (increased muscle mass).
In fact what athletes need is increased caloric intake (60 calories per kilogram of body weight per day) which may contain protein food sources as well. One inherent problem with increasing protein from food sources, is you are probably also increasing fat content."
I have read other research which shows that Lucine oxidation starts in strength athletes at around the .8g/lb of body weight range so at the most you need would be that. 1g/lb of body weight is just easy to figure out and not harmful to healthy people. Sure I know that much of that is going to be converted to glucose but I like high protein foods so I'll often get above the 1g/lb range.
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago. That's why I agree with some of what he's said. My point contention was simply that his sources and interpretation is not absolute and I think some of the sources are too old. I know what the expectations of the professors in my school are and these are individuals that are not only teachers but also researchers and professionals in the fitness industry. Being that they are professionals I do think there is much merit to what they expect that's all.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
Did not realize we were arguing and thought it was a discussion *shrug*. To me, you seemed to have an objection to newer studies not being included (or older studies being included). I was wondering what ones you thought were missing, or which older ones may have newer ones calling them into question, as if you knew of any, I would like to look at them to the 'mix' of relevant studies.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago. That's why I agree with some of what he's said. My point contention was simply that his sources and interpretation is not absolute and I think some of the sources are too old. I know what the expectations of the professors in my school are and these are individuals that are not only teachers but also researchers and professionals in the fitness industry. Being that they are professionals I do think there is much merit to what they expect that's all.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
Because MFP!
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago. That's why I agree with some of what he's said. My point contention was simply that his sources and interpretation is not absolute and I think some of the sources are too old. I know what the expectations of the professors in my school are and these are individuals that are not only teachers but also researchers and professionals in the fitness industry. Being that they are professionals I do think there is much merit to what they expect that's all.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
You edited after I responded.
I do not think anyone is saying that his sources and interpretations are absolute. However, other studies/reviews I have seen, including the ones by Helms (who is a researcher in the fitness industry), are not contradictory from what I see when looked at, at a high level.
ETA: to clarify, by at a high level, I mean the general conclusion as it it does not go into the ranges/discussions that say Helms does.
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
Did not realize we were arguing. To me, you seemed to have an objection to newer studies not being included (or older studies being included). I was wondering what ones you thought were missing, or which older ones may have newer ones calling them into question, as if you knew of any, I would like to look at them to the 'mix' of relevant studies.
Like I said above, my objection to the older research is related to the standards I'm held to in my MS program, that's all. After a year of them being pounded into us with wonderful deductions to grades because of poor research choices I tend to follow them pretty strictly, perhaps a little looser outside of the confines of class but still pretty closely.
I don't have time to really research the topic directly but here are some resources I had saved from previous classes. A couple of these might be applicable to this thread, but probably not too much. I don't recall exactly why I saved these, I think we were looking at Vegan athletes at the time. This isn't APA format, but who's grading? LOL
Secondary Source Examples:
MARK A. TARNOPOLSKY. Building muscle: nutrition to maximize bulk and strength adaptations to resistance exercise training. European Journal of Sport Science, March 2008; 8(2): 6776
Joel Fuhrman and Deana M. Ferreri. Fueling the Vegetarian (Vegan) Athlete. Current Sports Medicine Reports
John D Bosse1,2* and Brian M Dixon1. (2010). Dietary protein to maximize resistance training: a review and examination of protein spread and change theories. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2012, 9:42
Matthew Stark1, Judith Lukaszuk1*, Aimee Prawitz1 and Amanda Salacinski2. (2012) Protein timing and its effects on muscular hypertrophy and strength in individuals engaged in weight-training. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2012, 9:54
Eric R. Helms, Caryn Zinn, David S. Rowlands, and Scott R. Brown. (2014). A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2014, 24, 127 -138
ELIZABETH CHERRY. (2006). Veganism as a Cultural Movement:A Relational Approach. Social Movement Studies. Vol. 5, No. 2, 155–170
Not really related to protein but here are a couple primary source pieces that I had used for something related to carbs.
Stuart D.R. Galloway, Matthew J.E. Lott, and Lindsay C. Toulouse. Preexercise Carbohydrate Feeding and High-Intensity Exercise Capacity: Effects of Timing of Intake and Carbohydrate Concentration. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2014, 24, 258 -266
Ste´phanie Vieillevoye • Jacques R. Poortmans, Jacques Duchateau • Alain Carpentier. (2010). Effects of a combined essential amino acids/carbohydrate supplementation on muscle mass, architecture and maximal strength following heavy-load training. Eur J Appl Physiol (2010) 110:479–488
The above study from Galloway, Lott, and Toulouse is actually very interesting and actually applied it to my own training and found the results to carry over.
0 -
So the RDA rec is 50ish grams (minimum) and the bodybuilding rec is 1g./lb. LBM, so probably double that for a woman (more for a man), also a minimum. All I've said is that these two schools of thought exist. Even Sidesteel's Erik Helms quote shows that's hardly a controversial opinion."meet nutrient requirements" implies a minimalist approach.
Why is anyone arguing there are not multiple schools of thought? They're not saying the same thing. One is recommending a minimum double or triple the other. Which is fine, but the issue isn't black and white.
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago. That's why I agree with some of what he's said. My point contention was simply that his sources and interpretation is not absolute and I think some of the sources are too old. I know what the expectations of the professors in my school are and these are individuals that are not only teachers but also researchers and professionals in the fitness industry. Being that they are professionals I do think there is much merit to what they expect that's all.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
You edited after I responded.
I do not think anyone is saying that his sources and interpretations are absolute. However, other studies/reviews I have seen, including the ones by Helms (who is a researcher in the fitness industry), are not contradictory from what I see when looked at, at a high level.
ETA: to clarify, by at a high level, I mean the general conclusion as it it does not go into the ranges/discussions that say Helms does.
No, I was probably editing while you were typing; I wouldn't do that.
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago. That's why I agree with some of what he's said. My point contention was simply that his sources and interpretation is not absolute and I think some of the sources are too old. I know what the expectations of the professors in my school are and these are individuals that are not only teachers but also researchers and professionals in the fitness industry. Being that they are professionals I do think there is much merit to what they expect that's all.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
You edited after I responded.
I do not think anyone is saying that his sources and interpretations are absolute. However, other studies/reviews I have seen, including the ones by Helms (who is a researcher in the fitness industry), are not contradictory from what I see when looked at, at a high level.
ETA: to clarify, by at a high level, I mean the general conclusion as it it does not go into the ranges/discussions that say Helms does.
No, I was probably editing while you were typing; I wouldn't do that.
Sorry, that's what I meant. You edited after I started to respond but before I clicked post reply - should have been clearer.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?
If I had time to research this topic on my own I definitely could, I actually had to do a fair amount of research on Protein a couple semesters ago.
Why are we arguing about something stupid again?
Did not realize we were arguing. To me, you seemed to have an objection to newer studies not being included (or older studies being included). I was wondering what ones you thought were missing, or which older ones may have newer ones calling them into question, as if you knew of any, I would like to look at them to the 'mix' of relevant studies.
Like I said above, my objection to the older research is related to the standards I'm held to in my MS program, that's all. After a year of them being pounded into us with wonderful deductions to grades because of poor research choices I tend to follow them pretty strictly, perhaps a little looser outside of the confines of class but still pretty closely.
I don't have time to really research the topic directly but here are some resources I had saved from previous classes. A couple of these might be applicable to this thread, but probably not too much. I don't recall exactly why I saved these, I think we were looking at Vegan athletes at the time. This isn't APA format, but who's grading? LOL
Secondary Source Examples:
MARK A. TARNOPOLSKY. Building muscle: nutrition to maximize bulk and strength adaptations to resistance exercise training. European Journal of Sport Science, March 2008; 8(2): 6776
Joel Fuhrman and Deana M. Ferreri. Fueling the Vegetarian (Vegan) Athlete. Current Sports Medicine Reports
John D Bosse1,2* and Brian M Dixon1. (2010). Dietary protein to maximize resistance training: a review and examination of protein spread and change theories. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2012, 9:42
Matthew Stark1, Judith Lukaszuk1*, Aimee Prawitz1 and Amanda Salacinski2. (2012) Protein timing and its effects on muscular hypertrophy and strength in individuals engaged in weight-training. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2012, 9:54
Eric R. Helms, Caryn Zinn, David S. Rowlands, and Scott R. Brown. (2014). A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2014, 24, 127 -138
ELIZABETH CHERRY. (2006). Veganism as a Cultural Movement:A Relational Approach. Social Movement Studies. Vol. 5, No. 2, 155–170
Not really related to protein but here are a couple primary source pieces that I had used for something related to carbs.
Stuart D.R. Galloway, Matthew J.E. Lott, and Lindsay C. Toulouse. Preexercise Carbohydrate Feeding and High-Intensity Exercise Capacity: Effects of Timing of Intake and Carbohydrate Concentration. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2014, 24, 258 -266
Ste´phanie Vieillevoye • Jacques R. Poortmans, Jacques Duchateau • Alain Carpentier. (2010). Effects of a combined essential amino acids/carbohydrate supplementation on muscle mass, architecture and maximal strength following heavy-load training. Eur J Appl Physiol (2010) 110:479–488
The above study from Galloway, Lott, and Toulouse is actually very interesting and actually applied it to my own training and found the results to carry over.
^^thanks.
As I noted, the Helms one is not contradictory at the high level, will have a look at those others to see if covered by, or at least considered in, his analysis (his was pretty extensive). Just for my own nerd reasons I am wondering whether the Tarnopolsky one was not used as it was specifically looked at and excluded for a specific reason (as mentioned by SideSteel, there were a couple excluded - I cannot recall which ones though without looking into it further) - Menno used his other studies. I am actually interested in the vegan ones - just for nerd reasons, so thanks for those as I had not really looked into it and its an interesting topic to me. Thanks for the other links also.
FWIW, I have a generalized concern with older studies - not that they are older, but tend, moreso than more recent studies (or at least that's my impression) to use nitrogen balance as a proxy for protein requirements, which tends to underestimate requirements.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
srs?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »It's 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body mass.
and you got flagged for that...
It must be a "totes accurate" flag. Or just a flag troll.
Maybe some people think flagging a post is the same as "liking" a post? Or perhaps they think flagging it is like marking it to find again later?
Never mind... I just started the flag process to see what happens. It is quite clear that flagging is to be used for improper posts.
yup. She didn't warrant a flag for that. It's dumb.
The flag is gone. Poof. Disappeared. It's magic
I should flag it for the lulz.
You wouldn't dare
You know my style better than that... lol.
True but I like to think you are nicer than you come across in the forums… you know, giving you the benefit of the doubt
You might be on to something.0 -
I go with the .8g/lb rule...and I don't even get that much. If I'm in the 30s, it's a big day. I just don't like protein foods. Working on it.
I think most bodybuilders like to go over whatever that highest number that has been proven to be of any use (1.2?) might be, but it's not a big deal. If they want to eat more protein, good for them.
Wish I could absorb some of that love for protein. Totally jealous.0 -
Eat as much or little protein you want. I tend to at least try to hit my numbers so to make sure not to negate my lifting progress. Especially while in a deficit0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
So the RDA rec is 50ish grams (minimum) and the bodybuilding rec is 1g./lb. LBM, so probably double that for a woman (more for a man), also a minimum. All I've said is that these two schools of thought exist. Even Sidesteel's Erik Helms quote shows that's hardly a controversial opinion."meet nutrient requirements" implies a minimalist approach.
Why is anyone arguing there are not multiple schools of thought? They're not saying the same thing. One is recommending a minimum double or triple the other. Which is fine, but the issue isn't black and white.
If you are talking about a optimal point where protein needs are met then that's a fact of biology and you don't get your own facts. Now, if you are talking about filling out your macros, because you need to get your calories from somewhere, then sure I can say there are two schools of thought.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I go with the .8g/lb rule...and I don't even get that much. If I'm in the 30s, it's a big day. I just don't like protein foods. Working on it.
I think most bodybuilders like to go over whatever that highest number that has been proven to be of any use (1.2?) might be, but it's not a big deal. If they want to eat more protein, good for them.
Wish I could absorb some of that love for protein. Totally jealous.
Those 2 lines together make no sense at all. 30s is a big day bUT then you go .8 rule. So you're at least 100g short. OK I get it
Also, don't make assumptions about bodybuilders. You have none clue of the mminds frame.
Considering how varied body builders are there is no real way to understand what a person things or believes just from that description alone. Some are very scientific and have advanced degrees in health and life sciences (nutrition, biology, biochemstry, exercise physiology etc are rather common) on one end and those who are bros on the other and and people from everywhere in between.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The RDA is a minimum to stave off malnutrition for the average sedentary person....critical thinking has gone critical.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
0
-
Who gets to decide what are facts of biology? Authorities differ. Even the OP link admits that.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
So the RDA rec is 50ish grams (minimum) and the bodybuilding rec is 1g./lb. LBM, so probably double that for a woman (more for a man), also a minimum. All I've said is that these two schools of thought exist. Even Sidesteel's Erik Helms quote shows that's hardly a controversial opinion."meet nutrient requirements" implies a minimalist approach.
Why is anyone arguing there are not multiple schools of thought? They're not saying the same thing. One is recommending a minimum double or triple the other. Which is fine, but the issue isn't black and white.
If you are talking about a optimal point where protein needs are met then that's a fact of biology and you don't get your own facts. Now, if you are talking about filling out your macros, because you need to get your calories from somewhere, then sure I can say there are two schools of thought.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Who gets to decide what are facts of biology? Authorities differ. Even the OP link admits that.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
So the RDA rec is 50ish grams (minimum) and the bodybuilding rec is 1g./lb. LBM, so probably double that for a woman (more for a man), also a minimum. All I've said is that these two schools of thought exist. Even Sidesteel's Erik Helms quote shows that's hardly a controversial opinion."meet nutrient requirements" implies a minimalist approach.
Why is anyone arguing there are not multiple schools of thought? They're not saying the same thing. One is recommending a minimum double or triple the other. Which is fine, but the issue isn't black and white.
If you are talking about a optimal point where protein needs are met then that's a fact of biology and you don't get your own facts. Now, if you are talking about filling out your macros, because you need to get your calories from somewhere, then sure I can say there are two schools of thought.
Biology isn't a soft science. There may be reasons why they advocate one position or another but the facts aren't debatable. If your markers indicate a max at a certain level that's the max you can absorb, their may be reasons to take higher amounts but not for muscle building purposes. However, if you can show that there is some benefit to muscle building beyond the normal maximums, and some evidence shows this, then there may be a reason for higher intake for muscle building. This is where there may be room for debate but it's not schools of thought it's looking for additional evidence to support a theory.0 -
Yeah I heard a friend say it was a myth too. I wonder though if I have as much lean body mass as he does in body weight since he only consumes like 50-60 grams of protein a day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions