Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction
Replies
-
this a review study and you have to look at the original studies it is based on to see if they hold up- garbage in, garbage out.. This is done to gain statistical power,
Not so sure why the surprise, though. With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass. Of course you will need more protein over baseline.
This review study was done by one of the most intelligent and honest men in fitness - Eric Helms.
He didn't just grab some random studies and peruse them - studies were included (or excluded) based on strident guidelines. He then spent the better part of a year going through those original studies and putting this together as part of his Masters (or was it PHD?).0 -
trained lean athletes.
Do you guys think this should change the recommendations for the overweight or newbies?
1g/pound LBM is the most often recommended amount and is usually stated as a minimum. This is still a solid recommendation for vast majority of people IMO.
The study cutoff for women was 35% and 23% for men, which I don't consider to be particularly 'lean'. So unless someone is obese, I think these numbers might well apply.0 -
Is there an English version of this? (for us non-sciency people)0
-
In for science, and confirmation that increasing my protein really has done me some good!
Great post QuietBloom!0 -
Is there an English version of this? (for us non-sciency people)
Eat at least 1.1 grams of protein per pound of fat-free mass per day.0 -
Subscribed for some more "goofy science".
I hate when facts get in the way...0 -
For all you calorie counters and people who like to do things scientifically, here is a web site where you can DOWNLOAD the complete Guyton and Hall physiology textbook for FREE.
It is the 2006 edition, so a little out of date, but it is a good starting point.
I must admit I haven't seen a lot of the goofy science posted here that I did when I first arrived a couple months ago. That is a good thing.
https://archive.org/details/Guyton
Oh no, not Steve again! :explode:0 -
Is there an English version of this? (for us non-sciency people)
Eat at least 1.1 grams of protein per pound of fat-free mass per day.
Thanks!
fat-free mass = LBM ??0 -
Is there an English version of this? (for us non-sciency people)
Eat at least 1.1 grams of protein per pound of fat-free mass per day.
Thanks!
fat-free mass = LBM ??
I believe that have slightly different definitions, but for our purposes yes.0 -
Laughing at Guyton's again?
I thought you had learned your lesson.
Just what is your background that makes you scoff at the medical standard for physiology?
I think that is a very fair question.
My copy of Guyton's doesn't really say anything about how much protein one needs to consume to maximize lean mass retention.
Granted, mine's the 9th ed, published in 1996. Have they added such a section since?0 -
trained lean athletes.
Do you guys think this should change the recommendations for the overweight or newbies?
1g/pound LBM is the most often recommended amount and is usually stated as a minimum. This is still a solid recommendation for vast majority of people IMO.
The study cutoff for women was 35% and 23% for men, which I don't consider to be particularly 'lean'. So unless someone is obese, I think these numbers might well apply.
Most of his support seems to come from the Garthe 2011 study which was on 'elite athletes' with BF% all below 30% and on fairly large calorie deficits.
I don't know... A review of six pretty narrow studies on young athletes, a few of which support his thesis, by a bodybuilder/juice bar entrepreneur about to go to market with a book about juicing.0 -
this a review study and you have to look at the original studies it is based on to see if they hold up- garbage in, garbage out.. This is done to gain statistical power,
Not so sure why the surprise, though. With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass. Of course you will need more protein over baseline.
I don't think anyone is surprised. And while it may be obvious you need more protein, it's not obvious just how much. This study is the latest published research showing us just how much.
Does it?
Varies for everyone. And if you counters really want data, keep track of your protein intake and your urinary and fecal nitrogen levels.
Have fun!
For all you calorie counters and people who like to do things scientifically, here is a web site where you can DOWNLOAD the complete Guyton and Hall physiology textbook for FREE.
It is the 2006 edition, so a little out of date, but it is a good starting point.
I must admit I haven't seen a lot of the goofy science posted here that I did when I first arrived a couple months ago. That is a good thing.
https://archive.org/details/Guyton
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Laughing at Guyton's again?
I thought you had learned your lesson.
Just what is your background that makes you scoff at the medical standard for physiology?
I think that is a very fair question.
Oh no. Guytons is a very good basic physiology textbook. I am laughing at you Steve, and your disdain for current scientific literature. I guess if I needed it broken down and condensed, I wouldn't like it either.0 -
Also, without getting into the rest of it, I'm going to look with a very jaundiced eye on anything said by someone who also says that strength gains only come with an increase in muscle mass. That shows fatal ignorance.this a review study and you have to look at the original studies it is based on to see if they hold up- garbage in, garbage out.. This is done to gain statistical power,
Not so sure why the surprise, though. With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass. Of course you will need more protein over baseline.
I don't think anyone is surprised. And while it may be obvious you need more protein, it's not obvious just how much. This study is the latest published research showing us just how much.
Does it?
Varies for everyone. And if you counters really want data, keep track of your protein intake and your urinary and fecal nitrogen levels.
Have fun!
For all you calorie counters and people who like to do things scientifically, here is a web site where you can DOWNLOAD the complete Guyton and Hall physiology textbook for FREE.
It is the 2006 edition, so a little out of date, but it is a good starting point.
I must admit I haven't seen a lot of the goofy science posted here that I did when I first arrived a couple months ago. That is a good thing.
https://archive.org/details/Guyton
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Laughing at Guyton's again?
I thought you had learned your lesson.
Just what is your background that makes you scoff at the medical standard for physiology?
I think that is a very fair question.
Oh no. Guytons is a very good basic physiology textbook. I am laughing at you Steve, and your disdain for current scientific literature. I guess if I needed it broken down and condensed, I wouldn't like it either.
Thanks for posting this interesting topic, QuietBloom!
(edit to fix weird quote issue)0 -
That shows fatal ignorance.
If only.0 -
trained lean athletes.
Do you guys think this should change the recommendations for the overweight or newbies?
1g/pound LBM is the most often recommended amount and is usually stated as a minimum. This is still a solid recommendation for vast majority of people IMO.
The study cutoff for women was 35% and 23% for men, which I don't consider to be particularly 'lean'. So unless someone is obese, I think these numbers might well apply.
Most of his support seems to come from the Garthe 2011 study which was on 'elite athletes' with BF% all below 30% and on fairly large calorie deficits.
I don't know... A review of six pretty narrow studies on young athletes, a few of which support his thesis, by a bodybuilder/juice bar entrepreneur about to go to market with a book about juicing.
As long as he isn't promoting juice 'cleanses' I don't have a problem with it as there is nothing wrong with juicing. It was clear in the topic that the study population was pretty specific. It just so happens that that study population closely resembles many of the posters here, so I thought it would be interesting.0 -
It looks like only two of the studies even included info on protein intake and those were on men only (39 men total).trained lean athletes.
Do you guys think this should change the recommendations for the overweight or newbies?
1g/pound LBM is the most often recommended amount and is usually stated as a minimum. This is still a solid recommendation for vast majority of people IMO.
The study cutoff for women was 35% and 23% for men, which I don't consider to be particularly 'lean'. So unless someone is obese, I think these numbers might well apply.
Most of his support seems to come from the Garthe 2011 study which was on 'elite athletes' with BF% all below 30% and on fairly large calorie deficits.
I don't know... A review of six pretty narrow studies on young athletes, a few of which support his thesis, by a bodybuilder/juice bar entrepreneur about to go to market with a book about juicing.
"Of these six studies, only in Walberg et al., (1988) and Mettler et al., (2010) were
different protein intakes compared to one another with well-matched groups and appropriate
controls in place for diet, training and time spent in the intervention. While well designed,
Walberg et al., (1988) and Mettler et al., (2010) provide information on a total of only four
protein intakes (0.8g/kg, 1g/kg, 1.6g/kg, and 2.3g/kg). While the time frame and range of protein
intakes are limited, these two studies suggest that as protein is increased FFM retention increases
as well."0 -
So Guyton's still really has nothing to say on whether or not protein requirements for muscle maintenance go up or down with calorie restriction. Not much has changed, I guess.0
-
I don't know if this has already been posted, but I thought I would throw it out there. I admit I was surprised at the conclusions (not surprised that protein requirements were higher than normally recommended, but surprised at just how high the recommended amount was.
_________________________________________________________________
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes.
Abstract
Caloric restriction occurs when athletes attempt to reduce body fat or make weight. There is evidence that protein needs increase when athletes restrict calories or have low body fat.
PURPOSE:
The aims of this review were to evaluate the effects of dietary protein on body composition in energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes and to provide protein recommendations for these athletes.
METHODS:
Database searches were performed from earliest record to July 2013 using the terms protein, and intake, or diet, and weight, or train, or restrict, or energy, or strength, and athlete. Studies (N = 6) needed to use adult (≥ 18 yrs), energy-restricted, resistance-trained (> 6 months) humans of lower body fat (males ≤ 23% and females ≤ 35%) performing resistance training. Protein intake, fat free mass (FFM) and body fat had to be reported.
RESULTS:
Body fat percentage decreased (0.5% to 6.6%) in all study groups (N = 13) and FFM decreased (0.3 to 2.7kg) in nine of 13. Four groups gained or did not lose FFM. They had the highest body fat, smallest magnitudes of energy restriction or underwent novel resistance training stimuli. Two groups lost non-significant amounts of FFM. The same conditions that existed in the groups that did not lose FFM existed in the first group. These conditions were not present in the second group, but this group consumed the highest protein intake in this review (2.5-2.6g/kg).
CONCLUSIONS:
Protein needs for energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes are likely 2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
this a review study and you have to look at the original studies it is based on to see if they hold up- garbage in, garbage out.. This is done to gain statistical power,
Not so sure why the surprise, though. With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass. Of course you will need more protein over baseline.
this from the guy who gets shot down in the threads every day …LOLZ0 -
Bookmarked to read later.0
-
The study cutoff for women was 35% and 23% for men, which I don't consider to be particularly 'lean'. So unless someone is obese, I think these numbers might well apply.
That's about average, actually.0 -
Also, without getting into the rest of it, I'm going to look with a very jaundiced eye on anything said by someone who also says that strength gains only come with an increase in muscle mass. That shows fatal ignorance.this a review study and you have to look at the original studies it is based on to see if they hold up- garbage in, garbage out.. This is done to gain statistical power,
Not so sure why the surprise, though. With resistance training, the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass. Of course you will need more protein over baseline.
I don't think anyone is surprised. And while it may be obvious you need more protein, it's not obvious just how much. This study is the latest published research showing us just how much.
Does it?
Varies for everyone. And if you counters really want data, keep track of your protein intake and your urinary and fecal nitrogen levels.
Have fun!
For all you calorie counters and people who like to do things scientifically, here is a web site where you can DOWNLOAD the complete Guyton and Hall physiology textbook for FREE.
It is the 2006 edition, so a little out of date, but it is a good starting point.
I must admit I haven't seen a lot of the goofy science posted here that I did when I first arrived a couple months ago. That is a good thing.
https://archive.org/details/Guyton
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Laughing at Guyton's again?
I thought you had learned your lesson.
Just what is your background that makes you scoff at the medical standard for physiology?
I think that is a very fair question.
Oh no. Guytons is a very good basic physiology textbook. I am laughing at you Steve, and your disdain for current scientific literature. I guess if I needed it broken down and condensed, I wouldn't like it either.
Thanks for posting this interesting topic, QuietBloom!
(edit to fix weird quote issue)
While QuietBloom continues to laugh hysterically, here is part of the front-piece in Guyton's chapter on Sports Physiology for people who want to get serious.
Yes, strength comes from an increase in muscle mass.
"In general, most quantitative values for women—such as muscle strength, pulmonary
ventilation, and cardiac output, all of which are related mainly to the muscle
mass—vary between two thirds and three quarters of the values recorded in men.
When measured in terms of strength per square centimeter of cross-sectional area,
the female muscle can achieve almost exactly the same maximal force of contraction
as that of the male-between 3 and 4 kg/cm2. Therefore, most of the difference
in total muscle performance lies in the extra percentage of the male body that is
muscle, caused by endocrine differences that we discuss later."
Heh? That's not the same thing as "strength comes from mass".0 -
While QuietBloom continues to laugh hysterically, here is part of the front-piece in Guyton's chapter on Sports Physiology for people who want to get serious.
Yes, strength comes from an increase in muscle mass.
"In general, most quantitative values for women—such as muscle strength, pulmonary
ventilation, and cardiac output, all of which are related mainly to the muscle
mass—vary between two thirds and three quarters of the values recorded in men.
When measured in terms of strength per square centimeter of cross-sectional area,
the female muscle can achieve almost exactly the same maximal force of contraction
as that of the male-between 3 and 4 kg/cm2. Therefore, most of the difference
in total muscle performance lies in the extra percentage of the male body that is
muscle, caused by endocrine differences that we discuss later."
1) That passage does't say what you appear to think it says
2) Being able to ctrl+f an online copy of Guyton's doesn't make you an expert on physiology.
3) One can gain considerable strength with zero increase in muscle mass/size. This is a fact.0 -
Those are average for people of healthy BMI (2/3 of people are above healthy BMI) and those were his cutoffs, not his averages. I think all the men in the studies were in the teens.The study cutoff for women was 35% and 23% for men, which I don't consider to be particularly 'lean'. So unless someone is obese, I think these numbers might well apply.
That's about average, actually.0 -
If body fat was low enough, could you go with 1.1g x total body weight? If so, what do you guys think that cut off would be?0
-
Protein needs for energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes are likely 2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.
This is consistent with the often-mentioned "1g per pound of LBM".
That said, most people here aren't "severely lean" or athletes in any meaningful sense of the word, so can likely scale that down a bit.0 -
Now you are saying two different things, Steve....
First...the point is to gain strength and that only occurs with an increase in muscle mass
and now....Muscle strength is....mainly related to muscle mass0 -
"Muscle strength is....mainly related to muscle mass" is good enough for me.
Mainly.
Not only.0 -
Show me the facts, Johnny.
"Muscle strength is....mainly related to muscle mass" is good enough for me.
Waiting.
0 -
Also:
http://www.uml.edu/campusrecreation/staff/EP II Materials/Neuromuscular Adaptations to Training.pdf
"Increases in strength due to short term
(eight to twenty weeks) training are the
result of neural adaptations.
Neural adaptations can include improved
synchronization of motor unit firing and
improved ability to recruit motor units to
enable a person to match the strength
elicited by electrical stimulation."
But this is from an exercise physiology textbook, not Guyton's. So it's probably BS.0
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
- 427 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