How much protein should one consume?

Options
135

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:

    https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

    They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:

    https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/

    I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.

    Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.

    https://examine.com/

    Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.

    I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?

    https://examine.com/about/#funded

    How is Examine.com funded?

    Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.

    For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).

    Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.

    Supplement Guides
    • The Examine.com Research Digest
    • Examine Plus
    • Fitness Guide
    • Whey Guide
    • Evidence-based Keto

    We do not allow:
    • Donors
    • Sponsors
    • Consulting clients
    • Advertisements
    • Affiliations

    We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.

    ***************

    Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them :lol: ) Of course they have ads.

    Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.

    I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.

    Yes, @lynn_glenmont please post the URL and a screen shot of the ad because I turned off my blocker, checked at least three pages, and did not see any ads.

    I also just checked after reading this discussion and found not a single ad.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    jm_1234 wrote: »
    For me personally, protein does not impact my weight loss or my feeling of fullness. My weight loss is due to calorie deficit whether I do high or low protein. My feeling of fullness is most impacted by a higher carb diet of beans and veg.

    I think (hope) most of us here generally agree that weight loss is due to deficit, not protein level, at least if one is tracking cals.

    I am like you in that I don't find that protein makes such a difference in my feeling of fullness. If hungry, it is something that can help me feel more satisfied, but there are other options, and I've definitely found that I don't need as much protein as I used to assume at, say, breakfast to feel satisfied until my next meal (and same with lunch).

    I think satiety is more complicated than macros, although if you make a single change and it is adding protein, I'd bet it can help many with satiety (especially if the protein isn't in liquid form or part of a chocolate bar, which are both forms that can be easily overeaten). (When traveling I used to sometimes grab a bar at the airport if there at breakfast or lunchtime, and my personal experience has not been that a higher protein bar (like Quest) is more filling than the same cals in a lower protein bar (like Kind), but obviously people have different experiences.

    Just IMO an interesting topic.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    jm_1234 wrote: »
    For me personally, protein does not impact my weight loss or my feeling of fullness. My weight loss is due to calorie deficit whether I do high or low protein. My feeling of fullness is most impacted by a higher carb diet of beans and veg.

    I think (hope) most of us here generally agree that weight loss is due to deficit, not protein level, at least if one is tracking cals.

    I am like you in that I don't find that protein makes such a difference in my feeling of fullness. If hungry, it is something that can help me feel more satisfied, but there are other options, and I've definitely found that I don't need as much protein as I used to assume at, say, breakfast to feel satisfied until my next meal (and same with lunch).

    I think satiety is more complicated than macros, although if you make a single change and it is adding protein, I'd bet it can help many with satiety (especially if the protein isn't in liquid form or part of a chocolate bar, which are both forms that can be easily overeaten). (When traveling I used to sometimes grab a bar at the airport if there at breakfast or lunchtime, and my personal experience has not been that a higher protein bar (like Quest) is more filling than the same cals in a lower protein bar (like Kind), but obviously people have different experiences.

    Just IMO an interesting topic.

    This likely a psychological thing, but my experience has been that foods that inherently have protein (for me, things like tofu, beans, and seitan) are more filling than foods with protein added to them, like protein bars.
  • Scottgriesser
    Scottgriesser Posts: 172 Member
    edited February 2020
    Options
    Whole bunch of thread derailing here... Stick to .8g/lb of LBM or more to maintain as much muscle as you can via diet. No harm in increasing that protein intake higher. It does not cause kidney failure. Certainly can have success at different numbers, but that is pretty much the standard recommendation for any body sculptor I've come across.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Options
    Scottgriesser wrote: »
    Whole bunch of thread derailing here... Stick to .8g/lb of LBM or more to maintain as much muscle as you can via diet. No harm in increasing that protein intake higher. It does not cause kidney failure. Certainly can have success at different numbers, but that is pretty much the standard recommendation for any body sculptor I've come across. And no, it won't help you lose more weight. The "increase in metabolism" is more accurately called maintaining muscle and since muscle tissue requires more effort to maintain than fat your BMR will be higher the more you have.

    Considering that one of the people in the 'derailment' discussion is a moderator, I think we're good ;)
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Scottgriesser wrote: »
    Whole bunch of thread derailing here... Stick to .8g/lb of LBM or more to maintain as much muscle as you can via diet. No harm in increasing that protein intake higher. It does not cause kidney failure. Certainly can have success at different numbers, but that is pretty much the standard recommendation for any body sculptor I've come across. And no, it won't help you lose more weight. The "increase in metabolism" is more accurately called maintaining muscle and since muscle tissue requires more effort to maintain than fat your BMR will be higher the more you have.

    Considering that one of the people in the 'derailment' discussion is a moderator, I think we're good ;)

    Yes, and there's generally been a broad consensus (with one dissenter that I've noticed) on the answer, so I assume OP has that answer unless he/she wants to ask for more detail.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,732 Member
    edited February 2020
    Options
    Though I note Nony that moderator participation means they are not personally moderating the thread. Not unless they call a friend which any one of us can do anyway.

    To reiterate RDA is a consensus minimum that promotes basic health. RDAs are not always perfect. What is the RDA for iron and why? How is that 100% RDA iron intake level relevant to a male or menopausal female?

    There exists plenty of evidence, even backed by registered dietitian association recommendations, for 2x RDA for protein. Especially for athletes, elderly, and people losing weight. There exists some, but less in quantity, evidence for higher than 2x RDA. There exists little evidence for inducing damage to healthy kidneys, especially at the 2x RDA level.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Though I note Nony that moderator participation means they are not personally moderating the thread. Not unless they call a friend which any one of us can do anyway.

    Yes, but they're also presumably not going to participate in the apparent derailment if it could be viewed as breaching guidelines, one would think ;) I was specifically pointing out that a mod was engaging in the 'off topic' discussion, not just the thread.
  • saintor1
    saintor1 Posts: 376 Member
    edited February 2020
    Options
    0.36g/lbs is not for sedentary persons only - that is a fabrication, it is nowhere mentioned in the governmental sites, as this one;
    https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/dietary-reference-intakes/tables/reference-values-macronutrients-dietary-reference-intakes-tables-2005.html#fn_t1b29

    You weigh 140lbs? 50g will keep you up and running.
    You are more muscular and weigh 180lbs? 65g will keep you up and running.

    Now if you want to develop more muscular mass, you can guess that eating more of them will help you. Just a guess, though.

  • saintor1
    saintor1 Posts: 376 Member
    edited February 2020
    Options
    "Optimal" is a fabrication that just doesn't exist on these sites either...

    If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?

    Going over the RDA/AI calories has the risk of being fat, no studies needed.
    Going over the RDA/AI proteins has no significant risk until you pass 30-35%, studies-backed. It probably just goes in the toilets...



  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,419 Member
    Options
    saintor1 wrote: »
    "Optimal" is a fabrication that just doesn't exist on these sites either...

    If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?

    Going over the RDA/AI calories has the risk of being fat, no studies needed.
    Going over the RDA/AI proteins has no significant risk until you pass 30-35%, studies-backed. It probably just goes in the toilets...



    So, if the RDA/AI calories are 2600, that's the number of calories all of us should eat, regardless of circumstances?

    For many of us, that would have a very big risk - a certainty, actually - of becoming quite fat, quite quickly.

    "Optimal" is not so much a fabrication, as it is a very situation-specific, context-driven, possibly individual thing. There are very few things for which there is an "optimal" that applies to every person in every set of circumstances.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,732 Member
    edited February 2020
    Options
    saintor1 wrote: »
    "Optimal" is a fabrication that just doesn't exist on these sites either...
    Which sites? Optimal in our context is a generic amount that people have discussed based on various research papers they've read and which generally argues that a bit more protein than what is considered to be adequate helps people achieve better results during weight loss. And when trying to build muscle. And when they are older. Notably absent during the discussion was when they're pregnant, though this also applies at that time.

    I, most certainly, and I think most people who have put up a number will not tell you that unless you eat optimal protein you will die. Most of us will probably tell you that eating closer to optimal than to adequate might help you achieve slightly better results. Assuming that doing so doesn't impede you from meeting your caloric goals. And doesn't crowd out other nutrition.

    You are the one arguing for adequate or am I confused?
    "saintor1 wrote:
    If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?
    For some people 2600 would have them losing weight, among them myself since I lost more than 70lbs eating 2550 Calories, so yes, some people would probably have to aim higher. Though I had never heard of an RDA for Calories. Given that people come in different sizes, ages, and activity levels, I would hope that you would realize that there would definitely be an optimal caloric intake that would be different than the adequate one for many people!

    "saintor1 wrote:
    Going over the RDA/AI proteins has no significant risk until you pass 30-35%, studies-backed.

    OK: if you agree with the above statement, then for the sake of all the baby **kittens** in this world why are you sitting there arguing that people should NOT eat more than 50g of protein for kitten's sake? :frowning:
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited February 2020
    Options
    saintor1 wrote: »
    If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?

    This calorie comparison is odd, since obviously (as others have pointed out) the right amount of cals is going to vary depending on goals (weight loss), size, lean mass percentage, and, of course, activity.

    Re protein, as I cited above, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), and Dietitians of Canada all recommend higher protein intakes for athletes (meaning people who are physically active) because of the role in repair and maintenance of muscle. The same reasoning would apply to people doing other things that tend to be hard on muscle, i.e., weight loss, especially if it is at the same time as vigorous exercise programs and, especially, lifting programs (which usually are intended to protect and if possible gain some muscle).

    Also, as explained above (with a link to Jack Norris, a vegan RD), vegans and older people should get more than the minimum recommended, the former to make sure all amino acids are covered and the latter because as you get older you tend to lose muscle which is generally not good for overall fitness and health.

    The recommendations are not that high -- 0.55 g-0.9 g/lb for the athletes as a minimum, and at least .45 g for vegans, for example. But they contradict the claim that 0.36 g/lb is what all should be aiming for unless actively trying to build muscle (many are trying to build some muscle, though).

    As the Examine piece explained, there is some evidence of possible other benefits from more protein (although it's not conclusive yet), and many find from personal experience that increasing protein as a percentage of overall diet can help with satiety (although one should experiment to see if that's true for you, as for some of us it seems not to matter much).

    As an analogy, I think the current recommendations for veg are only something like 3 servings (along with 2 servings of fruit). There's some evidence, though, that more may be better, and many of us (me included) like to eat quite a bit more and believe that that's likely going to have some benefits nutritionally, as well as it helping us (in some cases) with satiety, even if the recommendations don't say everyone needs to do that. Same with protein -- I think the indication for some benefits (especially if one is in a group that engages in activity that requires more rebuilding of muscle or which is more likely to lose muscle) is there in the research to date, even if the RDA just focuses on what we need to not have a deficiency.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:

    https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

    They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:

    https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/

    I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.

    Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.

    https://examine.com/

    Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.

    No, they aren't.
    They may have ads asking you to subscribe to their site but they don't receive funds from supplement companies to advertise products.

    Per their "About Us" page, "100% of [their] revenue is generated from additional research synthesis that [they] sell to health professionals and individuals."

    In other words, they make money by providing even more research than is found on their free site to those who are willing to pay for it.
    They don't make money by advertising supplements.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    nationalvillage3215 wrote: »
    Amount of protein and how it correlates to weight loss has always been confusing to me. Seems like a lot of products are pushing high protein content. When I have had problems losing weight I have been told to cut back on protein (weight watchers). Everything I read says for women 60 grams per day is all that is required to maintain a healthy level. MFP also calculated 60 grams to be my daily macro. However in the last week and a half I have followed the Cleveland Clinic 1200 calorie 3 day meal plan and the protein per day is anywhere from 88 to 130 grams. I have been more successful with this meal plan than any other 1200 calorie daily diet so far! Go figure.

    From what I've learned, WW coaches know little more than how to encourage you to count points and weight you in every week.
    Most that attempt to offer nutritional advice should not.

    The official Weight Watchers recommendations are to pay attention to what fills you up/satisfies you more (higher protein, fat, or carbs) and skew your selections towards those foods. It has been several years so it may have changed but this is how it was last time I went.

    That may still be the case.
    I'm just speaking of the individual coaches. Being a WW coach isn't exactly like being an RD (or even a nutritionist, really, and that's a low bar).
    The things I've heard after "my WW coach said..." don't instill much confidence.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    edited February 2020
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:

    https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

    They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:

    https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/

    I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.

    Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.

    https://examine.com/

    Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.

    Call me a skeptic but the fact that Examine.com is ad free (as in zero ads for anything other than their own subscription service, not even Google Adsense sidebar ads) has me squinting at the claim that "they looked like native ads."

    How can nonexistant ads look native?

Categories