Protein?
Options
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Even as it is, 100g is probably not even the bare minimum you would need for your goals.You don't need that much. .8 per lb is enough. I'm 148 and I just talked to my trainer today, and he told me I need about 120-125 grams of protein a day. I do fairly vigorous weight lifting. Not super heavy, but work out hard. And actually to gain muscle, you need to up your carbs. Protein is to retain muscle.
Ok so I would only need about 100 grams a day then. I don't lift heavy as I just started. And I didn't know about the carbs, good to know. Thanks. So now look into carbs lol
Why?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Even as it is, 100g is probably not even the bare minimum you would need for your goals.You don't need that much. .8 per lb is enough. I'm 148 and I just talked to my trainer today, and he told me I need about 120-125 grams of protein a day. I do fairly vigorous weight lifting. Not super heavy, but work out hard. And actually to gain muscle, you need to up your carbs. Protein is to retain muscle.
Ok so I would only need about 100 grams a day then. I don't lift heavy as I just started. And I didn't know about the carbs, good to know. Thanks. So now look into carbs lol
Why?
Curious to see this too0 -
The National Academies of Science*--rather than the blog site of someone hoping you'll buy their book--sets the recommended amount at .8 g protein per kilogram of bodyweight (not LBM) per day. That number is supposed to be sufficient for 97% or 98% of the population. There's no indication that it is intended for someone trying to build significant amounts of new muscle, but you might ask yourself if you think you're in the top 3% of the population when it comes to resistance training. Personally, I treat it as a minimum, and aim to get another 20 grams of protein on top of that, which I don't find particularly hard, even though I don't eat a lot of meat. Lots of days I get more than that, but I don't stress if there are days here and there when I only get .8 g protein/kg BW.
*page 6 of this chart
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Global/News Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf
0 -
I get my protein from optimum protein powder mix. 24 grams per scoop of 30 gram size which is almost over half a cup to my untrained eye. I buy the banana strawberry flavor and mix it in a bit of hot water until dissolved then add ice cubes and water. and slam it. I take it 30 minutes prior to my workout as I lift weights almost every day.
On the days I lift more than usual I take an additional dose 30 min after workout but I still haven't figured out which way is the best. Of course don't forget if you are lifting weights you will be hungry more-so make sure you fuel your body with calories that count-complex carbs, veg/fruits, nuts and meats/proteins. I try to not eat junk food but I am human. I have started this journey 9 weeks ago. I haven't lost weight instead I have gained but it could be because I am building muscle. It doesn't take long for me to bulk up so I am using it to my advantage.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »The National Academies of Science*--rather than the blog site of someone hoping you'll buy their book--sets the recommended amount at .8 g protein per kilogram of bodyweight (not LBM) per day. That number is supposed to be sufficient for 97% or 98% of the population. There's no indication that it is intended for someone trying to build significant amounts of new muscle, but you might ask yourself if you think you're in the top 3% of the population when it comes to resistance training. Personally, I treat it as a minimum, and aim to get another 20 grams of protein on top of that, which I don't find particularly hard, even though I don't eat a lot of meat. Lots of days I get more than that, but I don't stress if there are days here and there when I only get .8 g protein/kg BW.
*page 6 of this chart
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Global/News Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf
So you start with the minimum, randomly throw on 20%, and ignore the recommendations of those who actually study optimum protein intake for strength sports? Seems legit.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »The National Academies of Science*--rather than the blog site of someone hoping you'll buy their book--sets the recommended amount at .8 g protein per kilogram of bodyweight (not LBM) per day. That number is supposed to be sufficient for 97% or 98% of the population. There's no indication that it is intended for someone trying to build significant amounts of new muscle, but you might ask yourself if you think you're in the top 3% of the population when it comes to resistance training. Personally, I treat it as a minimum, and aim to get another 20 grams of protein on top of that, which I don't find particularly hard, even though I don't eat a lot of meat. Lots of days I get more than that, but I don't stress if there are days here and there when I only get .8 g protein/kg BW.
*page 6 of this chart
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Global/News Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf
So you start with the minimum, randomly throw on 20%, and ignore the recommendations of those who actually study optimum protein intake for strength sports? Seems legit.
20 grams, not 20%. On the theory that if the recommendation is only for maintenance, and not for anyone who is lifting, 20 grams a day (600 grams, or 21 ounces, a month) should be sufficient for any muscle-building I would be doing. I'm a natty woman in my 50s. There's no way I'm putting on over a pound of muscle a month.
And .8 g/kg BW/d is not the minimum. It's sufficient for 97% to 98% of the population. I treat it as a minimum for my own dietary planning, out of an excess of caution, because a little extra isn't going to hurt me.
If you want to consume more protein, feel free. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince you otherwise. I'm just trying to reassure someone* who apparently is just starting lifting (and thus probably not in need of what some studies suggest may provide incremental benefits to serious, male lifters looking for every last bit of an edge -- or, as you say, "optimum protein intake for strength sports") that they don't necessarily need to strive for 1 g/lb BW/day, and that there are other, science-based sources that suggest a lower number. If you have studies showing benefits for higher amounts of protein for overweight, late-middle-aged women with some heavy-lifting experience but who have plenty of low-hanging fruit to harvest in their strength-training efforts, I'd love to see them.
As for the legitimacy of sources, I prefer the National Academies of Science to websites that either sell books or supplements. They clearly have a financial interest in convincing people that they need more protein, and that they have the answer.
*(two someones, actually, since @JackieMarie1989jgw expressed similar concerns, and wanted to know why she was seeing it expressed in both kilograms and pounds -- plus any similarly situated lurkers).0 -
Sorry, my bad. I was trying to phrase it the other way to say that you could eat less (like 85-90g) and that would probably be sufficient. In other words, the bare minimum you need for your goals is most likely less than 100g.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Even as it is, 100g is probably not even the bare minimum you would need for your goals.You don't need that much. .8 per lb is enough. I'm 148 and I just talked to my trainer today, and he told me I need about 120-125 grams of protein a day. I do fairly vigorous weight lifting. Not super heavy, but work out hard. And actually to gain muscle, you need to up your carbs. Protein is to retain muscle.
Ok so I would only need about 100 grams a day then. I don't lift heavy as I just started. And I didn't know about the carbs, good to know. Thanks. So now look into carbs lol
Why?
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »The National Academies of Science*--rather than the blog site of someone hoping you'll buy their book--sets the recommended amount at .8 g protein per kilogram of bodyweight (not LBM) per day. That number is supposed to be sufficient for 97% or 98% of the population. There's no indication that it is intended for someone trying to build significant amounts of new muscle, but you might ask yourself if you think you're in the top 3% of the population when it comes to resistance training. Personally, I treat it as a minimum, and aim to get another 20 grams of protein on top of that, which I don't find particularly hard, even though I don't eat a lot of meat. Lots of days I get more than that, but I don't stress if there are days here and there when I only get .8 g protein/kg BW.
*page 6 of this chart
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Global/News Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf
So you start with the minimum, randomly throw on 20%, and ignore the recommendations of those who actually study optimum protein intake for strength sports? Seems legit.
20 grams, not 20%. On the theory that if the recommendation is only for maintenance, and not for anyone who is lifting, 20 grams a day (600 grams, or 21 ounces, a month) should be sufficient for any muscle-building I would be doing. I'm a natty woman in my 50s. There's no way I'm putting on over a pound of muscle a month.
Okay, 20 grams. But, is the 20 grams not random? Or do you have some study saying the National Academy is wrong? Or is your own declared trust in them also limited? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with adding a little extra, but it seems you're telling me these reports are the gospel and yet you're not betting your own performance on them. If you bothered to read what I wrote above, you'd also see that I wasn't pushing the full 1 gram per pound of lean body mass on the OP.And .8 g/kg BW/d is not the minimum. It's sufficient for 97% to 98% of the population. I treat it as a minimum for my own dietary planning, out of an excess of caution, because a little extra isn't going to hurt me.
So it is sufficient? Sufficient for what? Health? That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about optimal intake for building and retaining muscle mass. Those are two different subjects. You must understand this yourself because you are adding 20 grams to what the esteemed National Academies is actually calling "adequate."
If you want to consume more protein, feel free. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince you otherwise.
Okay. That's very helpful.I'm just trying to reassure someone* who apparently is just starting lifting (and thus probably not in need of what some studies suggest may provide incremental benefits to serious, male lifters looking for every last bit of an edge -- or, as you say, "optimum protein intake for strength sports") that they don't necessarily need to strive for 1 g/lb BW/day, and that there are other, science-based sources that suggest a lower number.
Right. Other studies focused on general health and not muscle building or retention. Again, see what I posted above.If you have studies showing benefits for higher amounts of protein for overweight, late-middle-aged women with some heavy-lifting experience but who have plenty of low-hanging fruit to harvest in their strength-training efforts, I'd love to see them.
Please take a look at what I posted above. It seems to me that more needs to be done here. We know what you're posting is simply "adequate" or "sufficient" for health, and we know that the Helms article is suggesting more for the final stages of a cut for male lifters. Agree it's a grey area.
As for the legitimacy of sources, I prefer the National Academies of Science to websites that either sell books or supplements. They clearly have a financial interest in convincing people that they need more protein, and that they have the answer.
*(two someones, actually, since @JackieMarie1989jgw expressed similar concerns, and wanted to know why she was seeing it expressed in both kilograms and pounds -- plus any similarly situated lurkers).
I have no interest in playing the Appeal to Authority game. What you posted is concerned with adequate intake for health. It's not a matter of the legitimacy of the source, but about what that source is actually saying. Again, read what I posted above. In regard to "clearly have a financial interest in convincing people" because these folks want to "sell books or supplements" take a look at what I posted. It might help to actually open posted links before going off on people and pulling the shill card.
Here's some additional reading on the subject: http://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-3-1-70 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Sorry, my bad. I was trying to phrase it the other way to say that you could eat less (like 85-90g) and that would probably be sufficient. In other words, the bare minimum you need for your goals is most likely less than 100g.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Even as it is, 100g is probably not even the bare minimum you would need for your goals.You don't need that much. .8 per lb is enough. I'm 148 and I just talked to my trainer today, and he told me I need about 120-125 grams of protein a day. I do fairly vigorous weight lifting. Not super heavy, but work out hard. And actually to gain muscle, you need to up your carbs. Protein is to retain muscle.
Ok so I would only need about 100 grams a day then. I don't lift heavy as I just started. And I didn't know about the carbs, good to know. Thanks. So now look into carbs lol
Why?
I have a feeling that most of us are going to agree it's something around that number for the OP. Which, ironically, isn't much off from what the other poster above was saying while she was accusing me of using shill sources. If OP is like many she's not actually trying to build maximum muscle mass and simply trying to retain a reasonable amount while dieting.0 -
Here is an interesting recent study that published last year....
Recent developments in understanding protein needs - How much and what kind should we eat?
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549?src=recsys&journalCode=apnm&#.VxP3yb4YE4f
The PDF
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549
Abstract
A novel method has been developed to determine protein requirements, which is called Indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO). This technique has been validated by comparison with the “gold standard” nitrogen balance”. Using IAAO we have shown that minimum protein requirements have been under estimated by 30-50%. The National Academy of Sciences have for macro-nutrients proposed “Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges”, which for protein is 10 to 35% of total energy. In practice, we suggest 1.5-2.2 g/kg/d of a variety of high-quality protein
Take-home points
•
Recent evidence indicates the current RDAs substantially underestimate minimum
protein requirements throughout the lifespan.
•
The AMDR of 10 to 35% of calories from protein for
adults allows considerable flexibility to recommend protein intakes above the
current RDA.
•
In practice, 1.5 to 2.2 g/kg/day of high-quality protein constitutes a reasonable recommendation for adults as part of a complete diet.
•
High-quality animal proteins require far less energy intake to meet essential
amino acid needs than lower quality plant proteins0 -
wow you guys just confused me more than I was before
0 -
-
I try to eat .8 grams per pound of body weight. simple as that. not that I ever even get close to it.0
-
LOL! OP, the general consensus among veteran MFPers who look way fitter than I do is 0.8 g per lb of body weight. So if you are 132 lbs, that would be 105 grams. Mind you, it's just a guideline, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. :drinker:1
-
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Okay, 20 grams. But, is the 20 grams not random? Or do you have some study saying the National Academy is wrong? Or is your own declared trust in them also limited? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with adding a little extra, but it seems you're telling me these reports are the gospel and yet you're not betting your own performance on them. If you bothered to read what I wrote above, you'd also see that I wasn't pushing the full 1 gram per pound of lean body mass on the OP.
Why should I have to read what you wrote above? I wasn't responding to you (in my first post in this thread); I was responding to the OP. You're the one who responded to my post.
No, we're not. The OP was asking whether she really needed to consume 1 g protein/lb BW/d as a beginning lifter and indicated that she found this to be a huge challenge. Then another person in the thread questioned why she sometimes saw 1 g/lb and other times saw 1 g/kg. I was responding to them. You're talking about optimal intake for building and retaining muscle mass, and I have the only studies I've seen supporting 1 g protein/lb/day looked at serious male lifters looking to get every last bit of benefit out of their workouts. No proof that it's optimal for me or the OP, although there is a long history of medical studies that included no female subjects being extrapolated to women, so you're in good company.So it is sufficient? Sufficient for what? Health? That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about optimal intake for building and retaining muscle mass. Those are two different subjects. You must understand this yourself because you are adding 20 grams to what the esteemed National Academies is actually calling "adequate."I'm just trying to reassure someone* who apparently is just starting lifting (and thus probably not in need of what some studies suggest may provide incremental benefits to serious, male lifters looking for every last bit of an edge -- or, as you say, "optimum protein intake for strength sports") that they don't necessarily need to strive for 1 g/lb BW/day, and that there are other, science-based sources that suggest a lower number.
Right. Other studies focused on general health and not muscle building or retention. Again, see what I posted above.
Am I missing something? The only link I see that you posted above is to a site by someone hawking a book.Please take a look at what I posted above. It seems to me that more needs to be done here. We know what you're posting is simply "adequate" or "sufficient" for health, and we know that the Helms article is suggesting more for the final stages of a cut for male lifters. Agree it's a grey area.
I agree that some people may see benefits that are worthwhile to them from eating more protein.
I see many posters, especially women, essentially being told that if they're not consuming at least 1 g protein per pound, they're sacrificing massive amounts of LBM and are wasting their time in the gym, and so these women are twisting themselves in knots to eat more protein than appeals to them, possibly making it harder for them to stick with their goals (by making their food choices less appealing), and wasting money on protein supplements (or spending extra money on food for what is typically the most expensive macro) so that they can meet some nutritional ideal of elite male body-builders.
So, I guess that's a grey area.
again, I'm only seeing one link that you posted above, and when I click on it, it's selling a book.
As for the legitimacy of sources, I prefer the National Academies of Science to websites that either sell books or supplements. They clearly have a financial interest in convincing people that they need more protein, and that they have the answer.
*(two someones, actually, since @JackieMarie1989jgw expressed similar concerns, and wanted to know why she was seeing it expressed in both kilograms and pounds -- plus any similarly situated lurkers).
I have no interest in playing the Appeal to Authority game. What you posted is concerned with adequate intake for health. It's not a matter of the legitimacy of the source, but about what that source is actually saying. Again, read what I posted above. In regard to "clearly have a financial interest in convincing people" because these folks want to "sell books or supplements" take a look at what I posted. It might help to actually open posted links before going off on people and pulling the shill card.
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »
Okay, 20 grams. But, is the 20 grams not random? Or do you have some study saying the National Academy is wrong? Or is your own declared trust in them also limited? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with adding a little extra, but it seems you're telling me these reports are the gospel and yet you're not betting your own performance on them. If you bothered to read what I wrote above, you'd also see that I wasn't pushing the full 1 gram per pound of lean body mass on the OP.
Why should I have to read what you wrote above? I wasn't responding to you (in my first post in this thread); I was responding to the OP. You're the one who responded to my post.
No, we're not. The OP was asking whether she really needed to consume 1 g protein/lb BW/d as a beginning lifter and indicated that she found this to be a huge challenge. Then another person in the thread questioned why she sometimes saw 1 g/lb and other times saw 1 g/kg. I was responding to them. You're talking about optimal intake for building and retaining muscle mass, and I have the only studies I've seen supporting 1 g protein/lb/day looked at serious male lifters looking to get every last bit of benefit out of their workouts. No proof that it's optimal for me or the OP, although there is a long history of medical studies that included no female subjects being extrapolated to women, so you're in good company.So it is sufficient? Sufficient for what? Health? That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about optimal intake for building and retaining muscle mass. Those are two different subjects. You must understand this yourself because you are adding 20 grams to what the esteemed National Academies is actually calling "adequate."I'm just trying to reassure someone* who apparently is just starting lifting (and thus probably not in need of what some studies suggest may provide incremental benefits to serious, male lifters looking for every last bit of an edge -- or, as you say, "optimum protein intake for strength sports") that they don't necessarily need to strive for 1 g/lb BW/day, and that there are other, science-based sources that suggest a lower number.
Right. Other studies focused on general health and not muscle building or retention. Again, see what I posted above.
Am I missing something? The only link I see that you posted above is to a site by someone hawking a book.Please take a look at what I posted above. It seems to me that more needs to be done here. We know what you're posting is simply "adequate" or "sufficient" for health, and we know that the Helms article is suggesting more for the final stages of a cut for male lifters. Agree it's a grey area.
I agree that some people may see benefits that are worthwhile to them from eating more protein.
I see many posters, especially women, essentially being told that if they're not consuming at least 1 g protein per pound, they're sacrificing massive amounts of LBM and are wasting their time in the gym, and so these women are twisting themselves in knots to eat more protein than appeals to them, possibly making it harder for them to stick with their goals (by making their food choices less appealing), and wasting money on protein supplements (or spending extra money on food for what is typically the most expensive macro) so that they can meet some nutritional ideal of elite male body-builders.
So, I guess that's a grey area.
again, I'm only seeing one link that you posted above, and when I click on it, it's selling a book.
As for the legitimacy of sources, I prefer the National Academies of Science to websites that either sell books or supplements. They clearly have a financial interest in convincing people that they need more protein, and that they have the answer.
*(two someones, actually, since @JackieMarie1989jgw expressed similar concerns, and wanted to know why she was seeing it expressed in both kilograms and pounds -- plus any similarly situated lurkers).
I have no interest in playing the Appeal to Authority game. What you posted is concerned with adequate intake for health. It's not a matter of the legitimacy of the source, but about what that source is actually saying. Again, read what I posted above. In regard to "clearly have a financial interest in convincing people" because these folks want to "sell books or supplements" take a look at what I posted. It might help to actually open posted links before going off on people and pulling the shill card.
It's a grey area north of of the very low targets provided with RDA. Several other people have also posted other studies and links to studies that provide additional information showing this.
I used the Alan Aragon link because he raises the point of distinguishing between male/female when calculating protein intake in that summary. I even referenced the paragraph for the OP. His monthly research review is very well respected. You are discounting everything simply because he wrote a book, and you missed the internal link to the Helms study. I'm posting the paragraph and link to the study here for the OP and lurkers:
"This next one is sort of an optional tweak. It’s not crucial since overdoing protein a little bit is rarely ever a bad thing, especially for dieters. Although using target bodyweight (in pounds) as a protein gram target will still work for women, they can choose to shoot lower with this type of protein target since women typically have a lower proportion of lean mass & higher proportion of fat mass. A more technical protein target would be approximately 1-1.4 g/lb of lean mass (as reflected in recent work by Helms, et al). Just remember that basing protein intake on target bodyweight is merely a proxy for lean mass plus a safety buffer. Let me emphasize the important principle that the numbers derived from formulas are not The Gospel; they are merely educated estimations."
There is an internal link to the Helms study in that paragraph of the page, but here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24092765/
You will note that this study uses both male and female athletes.
As for anyone telling the OP she is wasting time in the gym, I don't see that and I certainly didn't say it. I'll also say that my wife and I rarely use protein powder or other protein supplements and we both regularly hit our protein targets. We do keep powder in the house (on occasion) but it's not a crutch or necessity. It's simply a matter of eating lean meats and dairy with plenty of vegetables to round out the diet.
Finally, I linked yet another study that you simply ignored. It's also worth reading.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions