1 gram of protein per lbs myth
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
[. . .]
(emphasis added)
Just an aside, I love this sterling editing at dietitian.com, but I think the formula is incomplete. Should be: "So take your weight, divide by 2.2, then multiply by 1, then multiply by 1 again, then divide by 1, then add 0."
When do I get my check from dietitian.com?
Cheers!0 -
martyqueen52 wrote: »BB.com is loaded with preteens and morons. They all read "TRAIN" magazine and believe all the BS in bodybuilding magazines.
I can't find the study, which there are MULTIPLE ones, including from Alan Aragon & Layne Norton.... but, you only need 0.82g per lb.
Anything else, is overkill or personal preference. People who use steroids and other drugs, need a lot more. I go way over my limit due to I love meat, and yogurts.
Actually, I think steroid users need less IIRC.
0.82g/lb approximates 1lb/LBM - which is what the article in the OP suggests. The requirement however is context dependent - as in, for example, how lean someone, their level of activity, whether at a deficit or not - all of these factors mean that optimal amount of protein is higher.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because he thinks that being women in our 40s, some of us are idiots who couldn't possibly know anything. That's not the first time he's slipped. I believe I've been referred to as 'some grandma with her Readers Digest', when I was newer here.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
I agree and that's why it makes no sense when people say stuff like that. Specially a 40 something year old that doesn't understand protein requirements or what bodybuilders think. It's just more assumptions by that member as always.
Why bring age into it (unless relates to protein requirements)?
In fairness, he has never indicated or implied that I am an idiot nor that I do not know anything, quite the opposite in fact. My age is irrelevant (which is why I made the comment in the first place as I was surprised age was brought up).0 -
No, I do not think women in their 40's are idiots. Far from it. What I do have an issue is when that specific little group here, they know who they are give random advice and it's usually some off base stuff. I was not talking to you nor was I talking to Sara. That member I replied to specifically constantly does that.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Because he thinks that being women in our 40s, some of us are idiots who couldn't possibly know anything. That's not the first time he's slipped. I believe I've been referred to as 'some grandma with her Readers Digest', when I was newer here.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
I agree and that's why it makes no sense when people say stuff like that. Specially a 40 something year old that doesn't understand protein requirements or what bodybuilders think. It's just more assumptions by that member as always.
Why bring age into it (unless relates to protein requirements)?martyqueen52 wrote: »BB.com is loaded with preteens and morons. They all read "TRAIN" magazine and believe all the BS in bodybuilding magazines.
I can't find the study, which there are MULTIPLE ones, including from Alan Aragon & Layne Norton.... but, you only need 0.82g per lb.
Anything else, is overkill or personal preference. People who use steroids and other drugs, need a lot more. I go way over my limit due to I love meat, and yogurts.
So you think that's the only site with idiots and morons? There are none on site at all? We all read Train magazine? Interesting, I've never even seen one. There are actually some very intelligent people over there as well as over here. And idiots and bro science believers on both.
For the record, Aragon posts there (as does Layne).
There are actually some really knowledgeable people on the forums - you just need to weed them out.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.
Hey no problem. Honestly I hate the whole topic of protein because there is just so much information out there and the results are so varied. I've read everything from 1.2gms / kg to 1.8gm's kg for athletes and as high as 2.3gm's / kg for strength athletes and horse jockeys. You want to talk about an area of research that suffers from research bias, the subject of protein seems to be ripe with it. I think when you look at the collective body of evidence I think a couple things are clear, anything above 2.3gm's / kg for non-precontest bodybuilders is definitely excessive, but athletes in particular can hit 1.6gm's / kg. There are studies that say athletes can do like 1.4 but I've read more that say 1.6 - 1.8, so that is what I would stick to in the case of athletes. Not that I'm 100% right and absolute, that's just what I see more frequently in work I've read for school so that is what I would stick with, other quantities would likely work fine as well.
Aside from the actual research, it's interesting to listen to the actual researchers talk. Layne Norton has a podcast and has talked about this subject-matter. Since Dr. Norton did his PhD work on Protein, I would say his opinions have considerable merit. The ISSN has a podcast called "We Do Science! The Guru Performance Podcast" and you get all kind of researchers on from Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, etc.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
I agree and that's why it makes no sense when people say stuff like that. Specially a 40 something year old that doesn't understand protein requirements or what bodybuilders think. It's just more assumptions by that member as always.
Why bring age into it (unless relates to protein requirements)?
Generally, bb'ers (at least competitive ones) do tend to err on the high side as they are trying to eek out every advantage. While not a bb'er, my target is a little under 1g/lb BW at maintenance and a little over 1g/lb BW when on a cut. I tend towards high protein naturally so its not an issue for me to hit it, usually even without protein powder.
I've seen those on BB.com who are trying to hit 2, 3 and even 4g/lb because of broscience. For a person that is 200+lbs that a LOT of protein to eat. I just don't see how someone can eat that much, of course, they are probably eating a lot of chicken, tuna and protein shakes and bars.
Well, in fairness, BB.com is a howling void of idiocy and insecurity. Avoid.
LOL, they have guys there that argue that you can do a workout every other day and that it works out to 4 or 5 times a week! You can't write comedy like that!
lol, you should check out t-nation sometimes... lol.
Oh, I used to go there all the time, and it's a VERY interesting place.
I saw a thread about a geared lifter that wanted to compete once in a non-tested pl meet, and posters were flippin' tables over him being geared, but wanting to compete USAPL just for the experience in a meet.
Why would he pick USAPL if he was on gear?0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »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.
Hey no problem. Honestly I hate the whole topic of protein because there is just so much information out there and the results are so varied. I've read everything from 1.2gms / kg to 1.8gm's kg for athletes and as high as 2.3gm's / kg for strength athletes and horse jockeys. You want to talk about an area of research that suffers from research bias, the subject of protein seems to be ripe with it. I think when you look at the collective body of evidence I think a couple things are clear, anything above 2.3gm's / kg for non-precontest bodybuilders is definitely excessive, but athletes in particular can hit 1.6gm's / kg. There are studies that say athletes can do like 1.4 but I've read more that say 1.6 - 1.8, so that is what I would stick to in the case of athletes. Not that I'm 100% right and absolute, that's just what I see more frequently in work I've read for school so that is what I would stick with, other quantities would likely work fine as well.
Aside from the actual research, it's interesting to listen to the actual researchers talk. Layne Norton has a podcast and has talked about this subject-matter. Since Dr. Norton did his PhD work on Protein, I would say his opinions have considerable merit. The ISSN has a podcast called "We Do Science! The Guru Performance Podcast" and you get all kind of researchers on from Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, etc.
I am not so sure its research bias (well, more than average), but there are just so many variables - leanness, natural v gears, trained v untrained, deficit v surplus, and all the grey in between.
The Protein roundtable on Youtube is a great listen, which I am sure you have probably done - with Aragon and Helms
I am going to the Fitness Summit in May with SideSteel (well that's the current plan anyway) which I am really looking forward to - the line up is excellent. You jelly?
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »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.
Hey no problem. Honestly I hate the whole topic of protein because there is just so much information out there and the results are so varied. I've read everything from 1.2gms / kg to 1.8gm's kg for athletes and as high as 2.3gm's / kg for strength athletes and horse jockeys. You want to talk about an area of research that suffers from research bias, the subject of protein seems to be ripe with it. I think when you look at the collective body of evidence I think a couple things are clear, anything above 2.3gm's / kg for non-precontest bodybuilders is definitely excessive, but athletes in particular can hit 1.6gm's / kg. There are studies that say athletes can do like 1.4 but I've read more that say 1.6 - 1.8, so that is what I would stick to in the case of athletes. Not that I'm 100% right and absolute, that's just what I see more frequently in work I've read for school so that is what I would stick with, other quantities would likely work fine as well.
Aside from the actual research, it's interesting to listen to the actual researchers talk. Layne Norton has a podcast and has talked about this subject-matter. Since Dr. Norton did his PhD work on Protein, I would say his opinions have considerable merit. The ISSN has a podcast called "We Do Science! The Guru Performance Podcast" and you get all kind of researchers on from Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, etc.
I am not so sure its research bias (well, more than average), but there are just so many variables - leanness, natural v gears, trained v untrained, deficit v surplus, and all the grey in between.
The Protein roundtable on Youtube is a great listen, which I am sure you have probably done - with Aragon and Helms
I am going to the Fitness Summit in May with SideSteel (well that's the current plan anyway) which I am really looking forward to - the line up is excellent. You jelly?
Yeah, "variables" is probably a more correct word instead of "bias". I've heard about the Fitness Summit and yes I am jealous. LOL! Unfortunately I'm sure I'll be eyes-deep in finishing research papers and final exams.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
I agree and that's why it makes no sense when people say stuff like that. Specially a 40 something year old that doesn't understand protein requirements or what bodybuilders think. It's just more assumptions by that member as always.
I was curious as to how old she was…. Thanks for letting me know
0 -
0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
I agree and that's why it makes no sense when people say stuff like that. Specially a 40 something year old that doesn't understand protein requirements or what bodybuilders think. It's just more assumptions by that member as always.
Why bring age into it (unless relates to protein requirements)?
Generally, bb'ers (at least competitive ones) do tend to err on the high side as they are trying to eek out every advantage. While not a bb'er, my target is a little under 1g/lb BW at maintenance and a little over 1g/lb BW when on a cut. I tend towards high protein naturally so its not an issue for me to hit it, usually even without protein powder.
I've seen those on BB.com who are trying to hit 2, 3 and even 4g/lb because of broscience. For a person that is 200+lbs that a LOT of protein to eat. I just don't see how someone can eat that much, of course, they are probably eating a lot of chicken, tuna and protein shakes and bars.
Well, in fairness, BB.com is a howling void of idiocy and insecurity. Avoid.
LOL, they have guys there that argue that you can do a workout every other day and that it works out to 4 or 5 times a week! You can't write comedy like that!
lol, you should check out t-nation sometimes... lol.
Oh, I used to go there all the time, and it's a VERY interesting place.
I saw a thread about a geared lifter that wanted to compete once in a non-tested pl meet, and posters were flippin' tables over him being geared, but wanting to compete USAPL just for the experience in a meet.
Why would he pick USAPL if he was on gear?
If I remember correctly, it was the only comp within a reasonable distance.
I understand the situation. Now that my doctor has me on TRT, in order for me to compete in anything I have to make a 4 hour drive to Seattle.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Don't mind me, just doing a little cleaning.0 -
We're back.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
[. . .]
(emphasis added)
Just an aside, I love this sterling editing at dietitian.com, but I think the formula is incomplete. Should be: "So take your weight, divide by 2.2, then multiply by 1, then multiply by 1 again, then divide by 1, then add 0."
When do I get my check from dietitian.com?
Cheers!
LOL, yeah but I decided not to editorialize that little part. I did get a chuckle out of it! 0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »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.
Hey no problem. Honestly I hate the whole topic of protein because there is just so much information out there and the results are so varied. I've read everything from 1.2gms / kg to 1.8gm's kg for athletes and as high as 2.3gm's / kg for strength athletes and horse jockeys. You want to talk about an area of research that suffers from research bias, the subject of protein seems to be ripe with it. I think when you look at the collective body of evidence I think a couple things are clear, anything above 2.3gm's / kg for non-precontest bodybuilders is definitely excessive, but athletes in particular can hit 1.6gm's / kg. There are studies that say athletes can do like 1.4 but I've read more that say 1.6 - 1.8, so that is what I would stick to in the case of athletes. Not that I'm 100% right and absolute, that's just what I see more frequently in work I've read for school so that is what I would stick with, other quantities would likely work fine as well.
Aside from the actual research, it's interesting to listen to the actual researchers talk. Layne Norton has a podcast and has talked about this subject-matter. Since Dr. Norton did his PhD work on Protein, I would say his opinions have considerable merit. The ISSN has a podcast called "We Do Science! The Guru Performance Podcast" and you get all kind of researchers on from Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, etc.
Thanks for the Podcast reference. I'm going to check that out!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 mind frame.
I have to break my streak of not replying to your posts because you were right. It doesn't make sense.
I typed .8/lb instead of .8/kg. I'm not even sure why. I think I was reading about the pounds per X and must've had it in my brain, but honestly don't know why I typed pounds instead of kilos.
.8g/kg of body weight. 169/2.2 (.8) = ~62
I should get 62. 40 is an impressive day. I have to spend my whole day trying to take in extra just to get to 40 or 45 and never feel very well when I do, so I don't usually go that high. I still battle myself with the idea that maybe I'm a freak of nature and really don't need much protein. I don't know what it's going to take to get me on the protein train. I think I need my albumin to come in low or something. I should eat more of it. Working on it.
So, do some name-calling. Revel in the fact that I was wrong and you were right. Have yourself a little "I was RIGHT!" party.
If you want to dredge up arguing whether massive amounts of protein are required or whether an adequate amount of calories and protein will suffice, save your time. I'm not going over it again, haven't changed my mind and will stipulate that you don't agree, think nobody should pay me attention and that you think I'm an idiot.
I have studied Muscle Dysmorphia, but haven't ever talked to anyone who had it about their feelings, etc. I have talked to people who enjoy their muscle building, but not a lot - not about their workouts, emotions, stuff like that. Not really. It's not like you can just pepper people with really personal questions, so I don't know who just likes to lift v. who has Muscle Dysmorphia anymore than I can tell who is underweight from who has anorexia without asking some questions.
I don't suggest I know a lot about the group, either in general or the ones who have a problem. I do know that many of them like to take in more protein than anyone has suggested could be of any benefit, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
They eat extra protein. I eat extra fruit. Can't really be too high up on a horse, even if wanted to, which I do not.
0 -
I see crying. We don't need that.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I try and space major intake every 4 hours, casein before bed. Follow your nose... if you're clearing rooms or having fun in elevators, your either not blending your protein well enough or you're taking too much. That's my rule of bum. err, thumb.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
How would you address the mainstream rec to eat a maximum of 35% protein?stevencloser wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »Well, yes. But they recommend that as a minimum because they see no need for much more. The end of that article puts it like this: "There’s no need to go overboard on protein. Though some studies show benefits of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets in the short term, avoiding fruits and whole grains means missing out on healthful fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients."
I'm not arguing against anyone's chosen level. I think there are all kinds of goals and schools of thought.
That's not what minimum means at all and that's not what that quote implies either.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein
I don't think you're really getting minimums and maximums. I eat (roughly) 1g per lb bodyweight (I'm aware I could achieve what I want on less, I just like my meat) that's 25% of my calories. If I was at deficit it'd be 30%.
Well under the maximum and well over the minimum
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
- 426 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