Insider info on protein strategy

michael300891

New paper to be published soon by Professor Phillips. The best protein strategy for building muscle is to consume 0.25g/kg bodyweight regularly throughout the day and DOUBLING that dose before bed.

Havn't reviewed the paper myself but I have been informed conclusions are pretty strong.

Just thought i'd share for anyone hunting for that cutting edge research

---

Doctoral Researcher in Exercise Adaptation and Metabolism

jayche

The best time is exactly 45 minutes after your workout or you just wasted your time because your muscles will go catabolic and deteriorate.

toddis

IN for the bro

erickirb

The best time is exactly 45 minutes after your workout or you just wasted your time because your muscles will go catabolic and deteriorate.

But what if I ate protein 30 minutes before training?

As long as you get enough leading up to training and within 24 or so hours after you will have no problem. In other words, hit your daily protein min requirement and it wont matter when you do it.

sheepysaccount

So...0.25g/kg at each meal? Or overall?

solarpower03

Put the link to the paper

michael300891

The best time is exactly 45 minutes after your workout or you just wasted your time because your muscles will go catabolic and deteriorate.

But what if I ate protein 30 minutes before training?

As long as you get enough leading up to training and within 24 or so hours after you will have no problem. In other words, hit your daily protein min requirement and it wont matter when you do it.

What he is saying is the new research is suggesting that what you said is not necessarily true.

I'm waiting to see the paper before making judgements.

Really although there is an anabolic window after exercise, it's probably a lot longer than 45 minutes, but if you want maximal anabolism it is important to get protein in there at some point particularly with high leucine content.


Totally respect waiting before judgements! Personally, it's a sound theory to me that protein intake before bed is important, and conducted by probably the fore-front protein research lab in the world, but still you can't be sure until you scrutinise the method yourself.

And yes, for most people getting total daily protein intake is all that's important. This is almost certainly talking about the maximal protein synthetic response i.e. getting everything you can out of it for the elite athlete, protein timing probably not important for the average weightlifter.

That being said, the research on leucine trigger hypothesis makes it pretty clear that for eliciting the maximal response, protein timing is important, but to what extent we are not yet sure.

Just thought id cc a response on a PM about protein requirements in general as my response may be of interest to others:






"Hi Carl, yeh the work is really conflictual and difficult to understand so Ill try and actually explain the history a little to make it clearer.


- Most early research was done using Nitrogen balance studies (in other words, the amount of protein breakdown products you urinate). This found that you needed in excess of 2lb / 1lb of lean body weight to be in a "Positive nitrogen balance" with most people believing that a positive nitrogen balance meant you were acquiring protein and thus building muscle. Unfortunately, this method is vary inaccurate for many reasons including oxidation of protein.

- However, most bodybuilders still use those numbers.

- Modern research uses stable isotopes and find the benefits of protein above 1.8g/kg/day are negligible.



The following numbers have been produced by some of the top labs using these techniques:

0.8g/kg/bodyweight is RDA - so this is for maintenance / everyday individuals

1.2g/kg/bodyweight is to build mass - you don't need any more than this if you are in energy surplus

1.8/kg/bodyweight is the maximal where an effect is seen, and this is only recommended to preserve lean mass, if you are exposed to extreme negative energy deficit, or intensive endurance training where losses in lean body mass are expected and not really necessary to the average bodybuilder.



Really I would suggest 1.2g/kg/bodyweight for you is fine, which is about 2.5lb/bodyweight.

I wouldn't worry about expressing against your lean mass as calipers and electrical impedence measures to calculate lean mass are usually far from the actual values so just express against your total body weight for simplicity.


Combining that with the latest research, the main point to take if you take the results as accurate, is that there should be a really good focus on pre-bed protein intake, Personally I would recommend casein sources if possible, from a supplement or cottage cheese, milk, dairy etc."

michael300891

Put the link to the paper

As I said before, it's unpublished, paper to be published soon, just thought some may be interested in the conclusions. I will add as soon as it's available.

michael300891

So...0.25g/kg at each meal? Or overall?

They suggest, throughout the day, I am not sure on the specific timings at this point.

As I should have made clearer though, this is about getting the absolute maximal response, for most people just getting the total protein in throughout the day vs maximal isn't really necessary.

katylil

0.25g per kg bodyweight seems very LOW to me!

Or maybe I'm calculating and/or reading this wrong? With my numbers that only gives me about 16g of protein a DAY?!

At the moment I aim for about 140g per day which is 1g for every 1lb of my bodyweight.

eric_sg61

0.25g per kg bodyweight seems very LOW to me!

Or maybe I'm calculating and/or reading this wrong? With my numbers that only gives me about 16g of protein a DAY?!

At the moment I aim for about 140g per day which is 1g for every 1lb of my bodyweight.

Read the OP again...........he said .25g/kg regularly THROUGHOUT the day

tedrickp

Very interested in seeing this study. I was doing the Cracking the Muscle Code program (paid coaching plan from Adam Bornstein, Brad Schoenfeld aka Rad Broenfeld and Alan Aragon) before I had to pull out due to injury.

They had me on a similar protocol as the study mentioned in the OP. Not the doubling before bed but 6 meals per day with at least 20g of protein each meal (was based on my goal weight not current weight). I was surprised since I had just read Alan and Brads review on nutrient timing - but they said that in general not to worry about timing, but for maximal muscle growth (retention in my case) the jury was still out.

They are also using the Cracking the Muscle Code as a study of sorts - so be interesting to see how their study and the study mentioned in the OP's post mesh.

Michael - has the study you mentioned been through the peer review process? Any ETA on publishing?

michael300891

0.25g per kg bodyweight seems very LOW to me!

Or maybe I'm calculating and/or reading this wrong? With my numbers that only gives me about 16g of protein a DAY?!

At the moment I aim for about 140g per day which is 1g for every 1lb of my bodyweight.

Read the OP again...........he said .25g/kg regularly THROUGHOUT the day

Yes I would guess (based on their previous similar research), that it's between 4 and 6 doses of 0.25g/kg throughout the course of a day, making the total between 1.25g/kg/day and 1.75g/kg/day depending on the how they did the before bed doubling of intake.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Cheers, Mike.

michael300891

Very interested in seeing this study. I was doing the Cracking the Muscle Code program (paid coaching plan from Adam Bornstein, Brad Schoenfeld aka Rad Broenfeld and Alan Aragon) before I had to pull out due to injury.

They had me on a similar protocol as the study mentioned in the OP. Not the doubling before bed but 6 meals per day with at least 20g of protein each meal (was based on my goal weight not current weight). I was surprised since I had just read Alan and Brads review on nutrient timing - but they said that in general not to worry about timing, but for maximal muscle growth (retention in my case) the jury was still out.

They are also using the Cracking the Muscle Code as a study of sorts - so be interesting to see how their study and the study mentioned in the OP's post mesh.

Michael - has the study you mentioned been through the peer review process? Any ETA on publishing?

Yes the 6 meals a day thing has been put out quite extensively, although theres been almost a full circle back to people just getting the total intake right.

I think probably, getting 6 'meals' or hits of protein, is important if you want that absolute top-level response, but for most people who fail to get their daily macro nutrients right, it's just an extra bit of complication which is why daily macronutrient intake has become so popular again. - People spending so much time worrying about timing and missing the bigger picture.

As for peer-review, it is going through the process now, I am aware of the conclusions based on informal communications with the lab. However, Stuart Phillips research lab is arguably the world leading protein research lab, and so this was not conducted in some broscientists basement so it will go/is going through the review process and it's not just somebody writing stuff on a website.

ETA probably 2-4 weeks.

raven_ous

In to see where this goes.

1.4-2g of protein per kg of bodyweight is beneficial for individuals engaged in intense exercise:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20048505
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278045
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908291
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500966

2-3g/kg is beneficial for athletes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434

Older subjects lost lean mass getting the RDA protein recommendations (.8g/kg):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11382798

Double the RDA outperformed the RDA for individuals in a calorie deficit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/495538
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046715

Triple the RDA outperformed the RDA for individuals in a calorie deficit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027

Subjects with a 1.5g/kg protein intake lost fat and gained lean mass:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10838463

Of people that don't exercise, high protien intake causes less lean-mass loss:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17299116

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake

The current Recommended Daily Allowance (“RDA”) for protein is currently 0.8g/kg which is 0.36g/lb. They do not set any additional recommendations for those involved in endurance or resistance training.


Putting the research that indicates protein requirements increase for those who exercise or those at a deficit aside for now, both of which have studies showing that protein requirements increase for, the fundamental issue with the basis for the RDA’s recommendations is that it is based on studies using nitrogen balance as a proxy for protein synthesis. We will be creating a follow up post to discuss why protein requirements increase when at a deficit and/or exercising.


Tests using the nitrogen balance methodology look to assess net nitrogen status. Simplistically, are nitrogen losses more or less than nitrogen intake? Protein is the only macronutrient to contain nitrogen and so this was used as a proxy for protein recommendation. There are a number of limitations of this method which understates protein requirements, that include:

a) Nitrogen losses can be understated. Understating can come from, among other things:

i) Just not capturing all the losses – they are estimated by measuring nitrogen in urine, feces, sweating, breathing and other secretions.

ii) Limited time period in which the losses are assessed. Many of the studies are very short term but urea turnover (re nitrogen in urine) is relatively long term (up to a few days).

iii) Not setting the individuals in the tests to a balanced state at the beginning properly.


b) The formulas to convert nitrogen losses into protein requirements have been called into question, both from the intake by way of dietary protein and the output sides


c) The assumption that nitrogen usage relates to purely to protein synthesis for skeletal muscle growth/repair, whereas in reality, it is used by the body for more than just that.


d) It does not tell you what is optimal. Adequate =/= optimal.


A significant amount of research has been done to assess whether the RDA recommendations are optimal or even adequate. We will be posting a more detailed write up at some time, but many of the studies can be found here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake


In summary, the methodologies used in the RDA underestimate protein requirements.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/869015-fundamental-flaws-with-rda-recommendations-for-protein

michael300891

In to see where this goes.

1.4-2g of protein per kg of bodyweight is beneficial for individuals engaged in intense exercise:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20048505
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278045
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17908291
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500966

2-3g/kg is beneficial for athletes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434

Older subjects lost lean mass getting the RDA protein recommendations (.8g/kg):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11382798

Double the RDA outperformed the RDA for individuals in a calorie deficit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/495538
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046715

Triple the RDA outperformed the RDA for individuals in a calorie deficit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027

Subjects with a 1.5g/kg protein intake lost fat and gained lean mass:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10838463

Of people that don't exercise, high protien intake causes less lean-mass loss:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17299116

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake

The current Recommended Daily Allowance (“RDA”) for protein is currently 0.8g/kg which is 0.36g/lb. They do not set any additional recommendations for those involved in endurance or resistance training.


Putting the research that indicates protein requirements increase for those who exercise or those at a deficit aside for now, both of which have studies showing that protein requirements increase for, the fundamental issue with the basis for the RDA’s recommendations is that it is based on studies using nitrogen balance as a proxy for protein synthesis. We will be creating a follow up post to discuss why protein requirements increase when at a deficit and/or exercising.


Tests using the nitrogen balance methodology look to assess net nitrogen status. Simplistically, are nitrogen losses more or less than nitrogen intake? Protein is the only macronutrient to contain nitrogen and so this was used as a proxy for protein recommendation. There are a number of limitations of this method which understates protein requirements, that include:

a) Nitrogen losses can be understated. Understating can come from, among other things:

i) Just not capturing all the losses – they are estimated by measuring nitrogen in urine, feces, sweating, breathing and other secretions.

ii) Limited time period in which the losses are assessed. Many of the studies are very short term but urea turnover (re nitrogen in urine) is relatively long term (up to a few days).

iii) Not setting the individuals in the tests to a balanced state at the beginning properly.


b) The formulas to convert nitrogen losses into protein requirements have been called into question, both from the intake by way of dietary protein and the output sides


c) The assumption that nitrogen usage relates to purely to protein synthesis for skeletal muscle growth/repair, whereas in reality, it is used by the body for more than just that.


d) It does not tell you what is optimal. Adequate =/= optimal.


A significant amount of research has been done to assess whether the RDA recommendations are optimal or even adequate. We will be posting a more detailed write up at some time, but many of the studies can be found here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake


In summary, the methodologies used in the RDA underestimate protein requirements.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/869015-fundamental-flaws-with-rda-recommendations-for-protein

Some great points here, and I agree with most and less so with others:

- I particularly agree that the RDA is way to low especially with sarcopenia in the elderly (loss of muscle mass with ageing). The problem there being, that the RDA is not specifically defined to prevent losses in muscle mass. Like I would suggest to those with expected losses in muscle mass (endurance athletes, energy deficit etc) I would personally recommend up to 1.8g/kg to limit those expected losses.

- Nice summary of the issues with NBAL work.

- The studies below are talking about 1.6 - 2.4g/kg. I would certainly recommend 1.8g/kg for severe energy deficit, However there is a key point missing in the argument for such high protein intake here. Each study has compared doubling/tripling protein intake e.g. 2.3g/kg against 1g/kg. YES tripling the RDA will prevent losses in LBM to a greater extent (or promote muscle protein synthesis) than the RDA, but is tripling any better than doubling? We don't know.

Double the RDA outperformed the RDA for individuals in a calorie deficit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/495538
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046715

Triple the RDA outperformed the RDA for individuals in a calorie deficit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027


- If you read this paper, it is a review and not an original study. What their conclusion is that although theres no real evidence for going this high, there's no negative effects (i.e. no kidney failure etc)

2-3g/kg is beneficial for athletes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434





In review of the above points, I think really what is missing, is that there is very little evidence suggesting 3g/kg (for example) is better than 2g/kg when you look at modern stable isotope research methods. But equally, there is no harm in going this high if within total energy goal.

As for the studies on fat loss, I personally think any advantage to higher protein intake is due to a reduction in associated CHO intake, but that's personal opinion and the jury is definitely still out for whether that's correct or not.

Just as a final note, in the recommendation of "up to 1.8g/kg." What I am really saying, is: I would recommend having at least X amount (up to a maximum of 1.8g/kg) as an 'at least' recommendation, but with no negative consequences of going higher.

In other words, if you want 3g/kg/day go for it, it wont do any harm, there's just no evidence to say it's necessary or advantageous.

Interesting read though

tedrickp

I think probably, getting 6 'meals' or hits of protein, is important if you want that absolute top-level response, but for most people who fail to get their daily macro nutrients right, it's just an extra bit of complication which is why daily macronutrient intake has become so popular again. - People spending so much time worrying about timing and missing the bigger picture.

As for peer-review, it is going through the process now, I am aware of the conclusions based on informal communications with the lab. However, Stuart Phillips research lab is arguably the world leading protein research lab, and so this was not conducted in some broscientists basement so it will go/is going through the review process and it's not just somebody writing stuff on a website.

ETA probably 2-4 weeks.

Thanks for the heads up and I have heard of Stuart Phillips - if it is the same guy out of McMaster.

michael300891

I think probably, getting 6 'meals' or hits of protein, is important if you want that absolute top-level response, but for most people who fail to get their daily macro nutrients right, it's just an extra bit of complication which is why daily macronutrient intake has become so popular again. - People spending so much time worrying about timing and missing the bigger picture.

As for peer-review, it is going through the process now, I am aware of the conclusions based on informal communications with the lab. However, Stuart Phillips research lab is arguably the world leading protein research lab, and so this was not conducted in some broscientists basement so it will go/is going through the review process and it's not just somebody writing stuff on a website.

ETA probably 2-4 weeks.

Thanks for the heads up and I have heard of Stuart Phillips - if it is the same guy out of McMaster.

That's the one mate. Pretty much anything you need to know on protein from scientifically backed sources can be found in this quick review written by him last year:

http://www.mrugby.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/GSSI-Protein-Consumption-and-Resistance-Exercise-Maximizing-the-Anabolic-Potential.pdf

The key points section is amazing!

cwsreddy

In to read later. Interesting stuff.

_Terrapin_

I think probably, getting 6 'meals' or hits of protein, is important if you want that absolute top-level response, but for most people who fail to get their daily macro nutrients right, it's just an extra bit of complication which is why daily macronutrient intake has become so popular again. - People spending so much time worrying about timing and missing the bigger picture.

As for peer-review, it is going through the process now, I am aware of the conclusions based on informal communications with the lab. However, Stuart Phillips research lab is arguably the world leading protein research lab, and so this was not conducted in some broscientists basement so it will go/is going through the review process and it's not just somebody writing stuff on a website.

ETA probably 2-4 weeks.

Thanks for the heads up and I have heard of Stuart Phillips - if it is the same guy out of McMaster.

That's the one mate. Pretty much anything you need to know on protein from scientifically backed sources can be found in this quick review written by him last year:

http://www.mrugby.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/GSSI-Protein-Consumption-and-Resistance-Exercise-Maximizing-the-Anabolic-Potential.pdf

The key points section is amazing!

BUMP