Upper limit on protein intake for health - Does it exist?

senecarr

ForecasterJason wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

And here ya go.

http://www.biolayne.com/uncategorized/myths-surrounding-high-protein-diet-safety/

But this goes back to my point in the OP "most studies on protein intakes aren't using intakes that high (or for very long)". Even the study that investigated an intake of 2.8g/kg is only a little over half of what's being discussed here (5.5g/kg, which is the same as 2.5g/lb). And that study was only carried out over 7 days.

That's an appropriate thing to bring up in the other thread, perhaps.

This thread doesn't have anything to do with 5.5g/kg, as that amount is never recommended or benefits claimed from it, to my knowledge.

The Institute of Medicine has not set an upper limit, but generally a number so high as 5.5 g/kg would be precluded by the need to get in enough from other foods/macros.

I agree. But at the same time, my question was also whether there is a protein intake at which it becomes dangerous (assuming calorie maintenance and fat/carb macros are not terribly low).
The interesting thing is that despite the incredibly high protein intake, the member in that other thread appears to be doing somewhat fine with the other macros (though her fat intake is a little low).

Just like water, I'm sure there's a level that is toxic. But throwing out random numbers and then complaining that there aren't studies looking at intakes that high seems rather ridiculous. And the OP of the other thread is incredibly light, so the gross amount of protein she was eating was not that high. I doubt that her kidneys are unable to process 200g of protein a day.

I understand that. But if that intake level (as a percentage of bodyweight) has not been studied, how can we be sure that it's not dangerous? Multiple people have suggested that there's no danger in doing that, but is that not extreme enough that we wouldn't know for sure?

Considering there are no studied benefits, it is the most costly macronutrient on a per calorie basis, rabbit starvation would tend to indicate people don't have the hepatic capacity to utilize more than 300g per day even as energy let alone building, why would anyone be looking to consume ultra high levels?

ForecasterJason

senecarr wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

And here ya go.

http://www.biolayne.com/uncategorized/myths-surrounding-high-protein-diet-safety/

But this goes back to my point in the OP "most studies on protein intakes aren't using intakes that high (or for very long)". Even the study that investigated an intake of 2.8g/kg is only a little over half of what's being discussed here (5.5g/kg, which is the same as 2.5g/lb). And that study was only carried out over 7 days.

That's an appropriate thing to bring up in the other thread, perhaps.

This thread doesn't have anything to do with 5.5g/kg, as that amount is never recommended or benefits claimed from it, to my knowledge.

The Institute of Medicine has not set an upper limit, but generally a number so high as 5.5 g/kg would be precluded by the need to get in enough from other foods/macros.

I agree. But at the same time, my question was also whether there is a protein intake at which it becomes dangerous (assuming calorie maintenance and fat/carb macros are not terribly low).
The interesting thing is that despite the incredibly high protein intake, the member in that other thread appears to be doing somewhat fine with the other macros (though her fat intake is a little low).

Just like water, I'm sure there's a level that is toxic. But throwing out random numbers and then complaining that there aren't studies looking at intakes that high seems rather ridiculous. And the OP of the other thread is incredibly light, so the gross amount of protein she was eating was not that high. I doubt that her kidneys are unable to process 200g of protein a day.

I understand that. But if that intake level (as a percentage of bodyweight) has not been studied, how can we be sure that it's not dangerous? Multiple people have suggested that there's no danger in doing that, but is that not extreme enough that we wouldn't know for sure?

Considering there are no studied benefits, it is the most costly macronutrient on a per calorie basis, rabbit starvation would tend to indicate people don't have the hepatic capacity to utilize more than 300g per day even as energy let alone building, why would anyone be looking to consume ultra high levels?

I agree, good point.