how much protein should I be eating?

mdepew723

Last year I lot about 50 pounds using MyFitnessPal to track calories and lifting with a little cardio. The last few months, at the recommendation of a fitness trainer, I started paying closer attention to macros and set my protein goal to about 1g per pound of weight, and using that as a baseline to calculate calories overall with 40/40/20% protein, fat, and carbs, occasional swapping the carbs and fat (carb cycling).

I haven't lost any weight since, haven't gained any either, but my strength has gone through the roof. I'm concerned though, I want to start losing weight again, but I'm not sure what to set as my calorie goals. I love the strength I'm feeling but I still have a lot of weight to lose. If I could lose weight and maintain my strength gains, that would be ideal.

Is 1g per lb of weight reasonable for someone who is overweight? Should I keep the macro percentages and just lower the calories? Or should I keep the protein and lower the others? Not sure what to do here.

Thanks in advance!

tomcustombuilder

1 G is great depending on your weight. If you're very overweight then you go by lean weight for 1G per lb. Another good rule of thumb if overweight is 1G for every CM of height. If you're short you can go with a little less if you want.

Don't go by percentages, go by grams for macros.

What is your height and weight?

Retroguy2000

1g per pound bw is plenty, and if you're overweight it's overkill. Your fat doesn't need that protein.

1g per pound lean body mass is a good target. 1g per CM is a simple and decent estimate too. Since you've overweight you'd probably get identical results with 0.7g of bw.

You should be able to retain your strength while losing weight so long as you keep training.

mdepew723

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

1 G is great depending on your weight. If you're very overweight then you go by lean weight for 1G per lb. Another good rule of thumb if overweight is 1G for every CM of height. If you're short you can go with a little less if you want.

Don't go by percentages, go by grams for macros.

What is your height and weight?

I'm 6'1" and 323 lbs currently. Thanks for the responses!

tomcustombuilder

mdepew723 wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

1 G is great depending on your weight. If you're very overweight then you go by lean weight for 1G per lb. Another good rule of thumb if overweight is 1G for every CM of height. If you're short you can go with a little less if you want.

Don't go by percentages, go by grams for macros.

What is your height and weight?

I'm 6'1" and 323 lbs currently. Thanks for the responses!

So based on height it would be 185 grams which is pretty accurate. I’d use the 185 all through your continued losing. And adjust with carbs and fats.

PAV8888

I would aim for 1g of protein per lb of weight at BMI 25 Ibs as good enough to protect useful stuff. Beyond that by preference (you won't necessarily hurt or help anything by going a bit more or a bit less)

cmriverside

PAV8888 wrote: »

I would aim for 1g of protein per lb of weight at BMI 25 Ibs as good enough to protect useful stuff. Beyond that by preference (you won't necessarily hurt or help anything by going a bit more or a bit less)

Agree with this.

If I used tom's cm method, I'd be set to eat 170g protein. Um, heck no.

The (NIH) Guideline is 0.8-2.5g per kg body weight. So my safe range is 51-125g.

Not to mention that even 120 is hard for me to hit on the regular at 2000 calories.

Here's a good calculator: https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/

cmriverside

**edit to say:
I realized my math calculation above would be 51-159g..but my personal health factors limit me to no more than 130g protein a day, so my above "safe range" is a bit misleading if you are just looking at percentages.

tomcustombuilder

cmriverside wrote: »

**edit to say:
I realized my math calculation above would be 51-159g..but my personal health factors limit me to no more than 130g protein a day, so my above "safe range" is a bit misleading if you are just looking at percentages.

personal health issues can necessitate a different set of numbers. A healthy person will use a more standard approach. 130 can be perfectly fine depending on stats and goals.

170g with a 2,000 cal diet is less than 35% so it’s in the acceptable range if you go by percentages. Something that gives a spread of 51-159 I’d question.

AnnPT77

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

1 G is great depending on your weight. If you're very overweight then you go by lean weight for 1G per lb. Another good rule of thumb if overweight is 1G for every CM of height. If you're short you can go with a little less if you want.

Don't go by percentages, go by grams for macros.

What is your height and weight?

As an aside more in consideration of other readers, I'm thinking maybe that's an OK rule of thumb for men like OP, but maybe not for women.

I'm 5'5", close to average female height. So, 165 cm. Comparing that to 1g per pound, it implies a bodyweight in the middle of the overweight BMI range. Darned few women have the body composition to make BMI 27.5 a rational goal weight.

It's too heavy for a lot of men, too, but not as far off, so a little extra as a protein hedge is OK.

165g protein is serious overkill for a 5'5" woman, though. Besides, we're usually working to a lower calorie goal than similar-height men, too, so an excessive protein goal can make things difficult.

neanderthin

1g/lb should reflect goal weight and not current weight especially if you have a lot of fat to lose. I believe intake should be at a bare minimum .7-8g's/lb. Proteins quality is also important so that needs to be factored in as well and if most of your protein is coming from plant sources then your probably going to have to consume more. As well, I would keep protein representative of an amount as opposed to a percentage regardless. Personally 1g/lb represents about 25% from protein for me, for reference. The nuance is in the discussion around your goals.

kshama2001

neanderthin wrote: »

1g/lb should reflect goal weight and not current weight especially if you have a lot of fat to lose. I believe intake should be at a bare minimum .7-8g's/lb. Proteins quality is also important so that needs to be factored in as well and if most of your protein is coming from plant sources then your probably going to have to consume more. As well, I would keep protein representative of an amount as opposed to a percentage regardless. Personally 1g/lb represents about 25% from protein for me, for reference. The nuance is in the discussion around your goals.

Yes, it's lean weight, which is more easily expressed as goal weight.

Here's a reputable protein calculator:

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

I shoot for 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I achieve that, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from examine. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.

mdepew723

kshama2001 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

1g/lb should reflect goal weight and not current weight especially if you have a lot of fat to lose. I believe intake should be at a bare minimum .7-8g's/lb. Proteins quality is also important so that needs to be factored in as well and if most of your protein is coming from plant sources then your probably going to have to consume more. As well, I would keep protein representative of an amount as opposed to a percentage regardless. Personally 1g/lb represents about 25% from protein for me, for reference. The nuance is in the discussion around your goals.

Yes, it's lean weight, which is more easily expressed as goal weight.

Here's a reputable protein calculator:

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

I shoot for 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I achieve that, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from examine. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.

It says at least 176 up to 220. My goal weight is 230, so it would seem reasonable, based on responses here and this calculator to set my protein intake at 220-230. Does that sound about right?

I'm shooting for a weight I was very comfortable at. I looked and felt good at 230, and was strong, which is important to me because strength training is what keeps me motivated.

Thanks again for all the answers!

neanderthin

mdepew723 wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

1g/lb should reflect goal weight and not current weight especially if you have a lot of fat to lose. I believe intake should be at a bare minimum .7-8g's/lb. Proteins quality is also important so that needs to be factored in as well and if most of your protein is coming from plant sources then your probably going to have to consume more. As well, I would keep protein representative of an amount as opposed to a percentage regardless. Personally 1g/lb represents about 25% from protein for me, for reference. The nuance is in the discussion around your goals.

Yes, it's lean weight, which is more easily expressed as goal weight.

Here's a reputable protein calculator:

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

I shoot for 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I achieve that, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from examine. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.

It says at least 176 up to 220. My goal weight is 230, so it would seem reasonable, based on responses here and this calculator to set my protein intake at 220-230. Does that sound about right?

I'm shooting for a weight I was very comfortable at. I looked and felt good at 230, and was strong, which is important to me because strength training is what keeps me motivated.

Thanks again for all the answers!

My goal weight and current weight is 185 and eat about 180-190 g's of protein. My recomp is focused on strength and muscle mass which I'd like to increase and this formula for the last 5 years or so has worked well.

PAV8888

mdepew723 wrote: »

It says at least 176 up to 220. My goal weight is 230, so it would seem reasonable, based on responses here and this calculator to set my protein intake at 220-230. Does that sound about right?

I'm shooting for a weight I was very comfortable at. I looked and felt good at 230, and was strong, which is important to me because strength training is what keeps me motivated.

Thanks again for all the answers!

One issue is protein requirement and one issue is "weight I am most comfortable at" and I am aiming for.

I will exaggerate on purpose but a target weight of, for example, 350lb is a more than perfectly legit target for someone who has spent 20 years being above 500lbs.

I think we would agree, however, that a target weight of 350lbs is still likely to be in the obese range for most people--albeit a major health improvement for our hypothetical person. To me it would not make much sense to base MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT on treating that 350lbs as a normal healthy weight just because it is the target they feel will be best for them at this time.

In your particular 6ft 1" case 189 would be the top end of "normal" weight and 230, your target, would be considered just above the top of the overweight range, since overweight extends to about 227lbs for 6ft 1". Please note that these ranges have nothing to do with your appearance or even individual health. They ARE however the ranges that the estimator at examine.com is using.

plugging in 189lbs and "I am at a healthy weight" and 230lbs and "I am overweight/obese" and choosing, in all cases that you're "active" and seek to either gain muscle or lose fat (in both cases increasing the protein requirement from simple maintenance) we get: 137g a day minimum with benefits to 206g in the case of 189lbs AND: 125g to 157g in case of 230lb. Your current 323 and overweight/obese gets 176g to 220g

So... my read from all of the above information would be that my minimum daily target ought to be 137g (which is above an absolute minimum of 125g), and that I shoul feel fairly comfortable eating a bit more protein than that if I want to. Probably all the way up to 200g or so.

But, by the time I was getting to 200g, I would be seriously thinking whether there might be more optimal plays for my extra calories

Nowhere in the above discussion do I see where the minimum requirements would be in the 220 to 230 range

Would you survive eating in the 220 to 230 range? Absent unknown/existing kidney damage quite probably. But you may be giving up other nutrients in the pursuit of one that you're already taking in at more than sufficient quantity.

neanderthin

PAV8888 wrote: »

mdepew723 wrote: »

It says at least 176 up to 220. My goal weight is 230, so it would seem reasonable, based on responses here and this calculator to set my protein intake at 220-230. Does that sound about right?

I'm shooting for a weight I was very comfortable at. I looked and felt good at 230, and was strong, which is important to me because strength training is what keeps me motivated.

Thanks again for all the answers!

One issue is protein requirement and one issue is "weight I am most comfortable at" and I am aiming for.

I will exaggerate on purpose but a target weight of, for example, 350lb is a more than perfectly legit target for someone who has spent 20 years being above 500lbs.

I think we would agree, however, that a target weight of 350lbs is still likely to be in the obese range for most people--albeit a major health improvement for our hypothetical person. To me it would not make much sense to base MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT on treating that 350lbs as a normal healthy weight just because it is the target they feel will be best for them at this time.

In your particular 6ft 1" case 189 would be the top end of "normal" weight and 230, your target, would be considered just above the top of the overweight range, since overweight extends to about 227lbs for 6ft 1". Please note that these ranges have nothing to do with your appearance or even individual health. They ARE however the ranges that the estimator at examine.com is using.

plugging in 189lbs and "I am at a healthy weight" and 230lbs and "I am overweight/obese" and choosing, in all cases that you're "active" and seek to either gain muscle or lose fat (in both cases increasing the protein requirement from simple maintenance) we get: 137g a day minimum with benefits to 206g in the case of 189lbs AND: 125g to 157g in case of 230lb. Your current 323 and overweight/obese gets 176g to 220g

So... my read from all of the above information would be that my minimum daily target ought to be 137g (which is above an absolute minimum of 125g), and that I shoul feel fairly comfortable eating a bit more protein than that if I want to. Probably all the way up to 200g or so.

But, by the time I was getting to 200g, I would be seriously thinking whether there might be more optimal plays for my extra calories

Nowhere in the above discussion do I see where the minimum requirements would be in the 220 to 230 range

Would you survive eating in the 220 to 230 range? Absent unknown/existing kidney damage quite probably. But you may be giving up other nutrients in the pursuit of one that you're already taking in at more than sufficient quantity.

And you would be right. Taken to extremes most explanations will have a host of caveats or outliers. Cheers

cmriverside

neanderthin wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

mdepew723 wrote: »

It says at least 176 up to 220. My goal weight is 230, so it would seem reasonable, based on responses here and this calculator to set my protein intake at 220-230. Does that sound about right?

I'm shooting for a weight I was very comfortable at. I looked and felt good at 230, and was strong, which is important to me because strength training is what keeps me motivated.

Thanks again for all the answers!

One issue is protein requirement and one issue is "weight I am most comfortable at" and I am aiming for.

I will exaggerate on purpose but a target weight of, for example, 350lb is a more than perfectly legit target for someone who has spent 20 years being above 500lbs.

I think we would agree, however, that a target weight of 350lbs is still likely to be in the obese range for most people--albeit a major health improvement for our hypothetical person. To me it would not make much sense to base MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT on treating that 350lbs as a normal healthy weight just because it is the target they feel will be best for them at this time.

In your particular 6ft 1" case 189 would be the top end of "normal" weight and 230, your target, would be considered just above the top of the overweight range, since overweight extends to about 227lbs for 6ft 1". Please note that these ranges have nothing to do with your appearance or even individual health. They ARE however the ranges that the estimator at examine.com is using.

plugging in 189lbs and "I am at a healthy weight" and 230lbs and "I am overweight/obese" and choosing, in all cases that you're "active" and seek to either gain muscle or lose fat (in both cases increasing the protein requirement from simple maintenance) we get: 137g a day minimum with benefits to 206g in the case of 189lbs AND: 125g to 157g in case of 230lb. Your current 323 and overweight/obese gets 176g to 220g

So... my read from all of the above information would be that my minimum daily target ought to be 137g (which is above an absolute minimum of 125g), and that I shoul feel fairly comfortable eating a bit more protein than that if I want to. Probably all the way up to 200g or so.

But, by the time I was getting to 200g, I would be seriously thinking whether there might be more optimal plays for my extra calories

Nowhere in the above discussion do I see where the minimum requirements would be in the 220 to 230 range

Would you survive eating in the 220 to 230 range? Absent unknown/existing kidney damage quite probably. But you may be giving up other nutrients in the pursuit of one that you're already taking in at more than sufficient quantity.

And you would be right. Taken to extremes most explanations will have a host of caveats or outliers. Cheers

Thanks to you and to Ann for elaborating on the tiny details.

Ann is right, that cm per grams is high for women. Thanks, @AnnPT77 Your post said what I didn't think was necessary, but I should have known better.


@tomcustombuilder - And, the 0.8-2.5g per KILOGRAM of LEAN WEIGHT number I gave was from the NIH, not something I pulled out of thin air. I wish people on this site would start using kilograms when they talk about this, but I know that isn't going to happen. I'm even in the U.S. and it irks me that all the calculators use kilograms and yet when we talk about it in this forum we say pounds. That is a huge difference, and why that 59g is not out of the range of (just barely) enough - it's calculated by kilograms.

Just for the record, I never said I wasn't healthy. No known health problems, I just have no desire to eat 170g of protein a day which is what you're saying if I used centimeters (5'7".) Unnecessary, expensive, no thanks. In order to get enough fat and for the way I like to eat, 100-120g protein is plenty for a 140 pound woman not in a calorie deficit. This whole argument is very nuanced, though, and I'm sure there were many day when I was overweight that I was way over my (recommended) protein and nothing bad happened. I'm glad others are willing to elaborate on the finer details. This forum? It takes a village to explain stuff.

tomcustombuilder

I was responding to OP with protein options, not women, and not people that are not extremely overweight. Those others will have different needs. Use sensible amounts.

mdepew723

PAV8888 wrote: »

mdepew723 wrote: »

It says at least 176 up to 220. My goal weight is 230, so it would seem reasonable, based on responses here and this calculator to set my protein intake at 220-230. Does that sound about right?

I'm shooting for a weight I was very comfortable at. I looked and felt good at 230, and was strong, which is important to me because strength training is what keeps me motivated.

Thanks again for all the answers!

One issue is protein requirement and one issue is "weight I am most comfortable at" and I am aiming for.

I will exaggerate on purpose but a target weight of, for example, 350lb is a more than perfectly legit target for someone who has spent 20 years being above 500lbs.

I think we would agree, however, that a target weight of 350lbs is still likely to be in the obese range for most people--albeit a major health improvement for our hypothetical person. To me it would not make much sense to base MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT on treating that 350lbs as a normal healthy weight just because it is the target they feel will be best for them at this time.

In your particular 6ft 1" case 189 would be the top end of "normal" weight and 230, your target, would be considered just above the top of the overweight range, since overweight extends to about 227lbs for 6ft 1". Please note that these ranges have nothing to do with your appearance or even individual health. They ARE however the ranges that the estimator at examine.com is using.

plugging in 189lbs and "I am at a healthy weight" and 230lbs and "I am overweight/obese" and choosing, in all cases that you're "active" and seek to either gain muscle or lose fat (in both cases increasing the protein requirement from simple maintenance) we get: 137g a day minimum with benefits to 206g in the case of 189lbs AND: 125g to 157g in case of 230lb. Your current 323 and overweight/obese gets 176g to 220g

So... my read from all of the above information would be that my minimum daily target ought to be 137g (which is above an absolute minimum of 125g), and that I shoul feel fairly comfortable eating a bit more protein than that if I want to. Probably all the way up to 200g or so.

But, by the time I was getting to 200g, I would be seriously thinking whether there might be more optimal plays for my extra calories

Nowhere in the above discussion do I see where the minimum requirements would be in the 220 to 230 range

Would you survive eating in the 220 to 230 range? Absent unknown/existing kidney damage quite probably. But you may be giving up other nutrients in the pursuit of one that you're already taking in at more than sufficient quantity.

I get what you're saying. I'm not very knowledgeable of this stuff so bear with me.
230 is also based on my body fat%. Currently it measures at 323 lbs 39%, and according to online calculators 230 gets me closer to 15%, which I have no idea how accurate all that is since it's just a projection, but hitting 20% or less is also my goal which from what I can based on my current mass is in line with my goal of 230.

tomcustombuilder

mdepew723 wrote: »

PAV8888 wrote: »

mdepew723 wrote: »

It says at least 176 up to 220. My goal weight is 230, so it would seem reasonable, based on responses here and this calculator to set my protein intake at 220-230. Does that sound about right?

I'm shooting for a weight I was very comfortable at. I looked and felt good at 230, and was strong, which is important to me because strength training is what keeps me motivated.

Thanks again for all the answers!

One issue is protein requirement and one issue is "weight I am most comfortable at" and I am aiming for.

I will exaggerate on purpose but a target weight of, for example, 350lb is a more than perfectly legit target for someone who has spent 20 years being above 500lbs.

I think we would agree, however, that a target weight of 350lbs is still likely to be in the obese range for most people--albeit a major health improvement for our hypothetical person. To me it would not make much sense to base MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT on treating that 350lbs as a normal healthy weight just because it is the target they feel will be best for them at this time.

In your particular 6ft 1" case 189 would be the top end of "normal" weight and 230, your target, would be considered just above the top of the overweight range, since overweight extends to about 227lbs for 6ft 1". Please note that these ranges have nothing to do with your appearance or even individual health. They ARE however the ranges that the estimator at examine.com is using.

plugging in 189lbs and "I am at a healthy weight" and 230lbs and "I am overweight/obese" and choosing, in all cases that you're "active" and seek to either gain muscle or lose fat (in both cases increasing the protein requirement from simple maintenance) we get: 137g a day minimum with benefits to 206g in the case of 189lbs AND: 125g to 157g in case of 230lb. Your current 323 and overweight/obese gets 176g to 220g

So... my read from all of the above information would be that my minimum daily target ought to be 137g (which is above an absolute minimum of 125g), and that I shoul feel fairly comfortable eating a bit more protein than that if I want to. Probably all the way up to 200g or so.

But, by the time I was getting to 200g, I would be seriously thinking whether there might be more optimal plays for my extra calories

Nowhere in the above discussion do I see where the minimum requirements would be in the 220 to 230 range

Would you survive eating in the 220 to 230 range? Absent unknown/existing kidney damage quite probably. But you may be giving up other nutrients in the pursuit of one that you're already taking in at more than sufficient quantity.

I get what you're saying. I'm not very knowledgeable of this stuff so bear with me.
230 is also based on my body fat%. Currently it measures at 323 lbs 39%, and according to online calculators 230 gets me closer to 15%, which I have no idea how accurate all that is since it's just a projection, but hitting 20% or less is also my goal which from what I can based on my current mass is in line with my goal of 230.

230 at 15% won’t happen, not even close.

Your goal should be to look in the mirror and like what you see, BF% is really a meaningless number. It’s rarely accurate and serves no real purpose. X% can look totally different from one person to the next.

Retroguy2000

230g is a lot for someone who's 6' 1". It's not dangerous, and if it helps you feel satiated so you can get back into the habit of losing pounds, that's fine. You don't need 230g though. That's on the very high end of what you'd be targeting if around goal weight and lifting. I think 200g is a good target for you currently, which is about 1g per pound lbm via a lbm calculator.

But whatever, the biggest thing is getting back into your caloric deficit habit. Using a rough TDEE estimate, you can probably maintain a reasonable deficit with 200g protein being 30% of your total calories. Factoring in additional exercise, that might put you on a 1 pound per week loss plan. If that 200g is 40% you might be on a 2 pounds per week loss plan.