Protein help! 1 gram/lb seems impossible!
Replies
-
This. The higher recommendations you see flying around here all the time are quite honestly intended for professional athletes and bodybuilders. The average human being simply doesn't need all that protein. Protein can be satiating, so eating more protein can help with calorie control, but for health reasons, it's unnecessary.So everywhere I look, it says that people should be aiming to eat 1 gram of protein for every pound of their body weight.
It is actually one gram of protein per one kilogram of body weight which equals out to be about 0.4 grams per pound. So, if you weigh 150 pounds, then your protein grams should be around 60 grams per day. So, you are on target.
As a general rule, between 10 percent and 15 percent of your total calories should come from protein according to the Weight Management Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center0 -
it's called whey.
lol....that is exactly what I thought when I read the topic. Whey protein is an amazing way to get all the protein you need. Alot of powders can pack in 40 to 50 grams in just one serving. I try to stay away from the ones with a lot of sugar. My favorite is Pro One Titan with Flax in chocolate (the vanilla bean flavor is just as good) . I mix it with water and frozen dark cherries in my Vitamix....SO DELISH!!!!0 -
1. A total myth that has been soundly debunked by science. The body processes what you eat, when you eat. It doesn't have a set limit where it just stops processing food.Two things:
1. The protein requirements are blown totally out of proportion. Most people's bodies cannot process more than approx. 120g protein a day, and even that is for a very fit, elite athlete.
2. You cannot compare the protein content of a vegetable based source to a meat-based source. Your average serving of beef or chicken contains approx. 25g protein per serving. An equivalent amount of beans, seeds, or nuts, only contains about 10.
2. What? I don't understand the point you are making there. 4 oz of sirloin steak has about 22 grams of protein and 240 calories. 2 oz (half the weight) of soybeans has about 250 calories and 22 grams of protein. So... Yeah, there's a serving of beans having just as much protein as a serving of beef. You might want to research before you make things up.0 -
Um, no. It was a question. I'm not sure why a question would need backing up. Unless you were in the study, study results won't answer my question. But the lack of an answer pretty much answers it.
Very cute but you know very well the proof source requested was for your assertion that Zangpakto's protein could cause kidney issues. Based on the subsequent study that was posted and in light of the fact you have posted nothing to indicate otherwise, it's clear you were wrong. Very simple.
No, not really. I never suggested the poster's diet could cause kidney issues for them. I only suggested that for some people eating very high protein, especially more grams of protein the total body weight in lbs, has the potential to cause kidney issues and ask how he knew it wasn't for him. At which time his panties went into an immediate wad.
And I wasn't wrong. Not everyone could safely eat that amount of protein. And I believe you all probably know that.
Dietary protein intake and renal function. Nutrition & Metabolism 2005, 2:25 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-2-25
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/25Conclusion
Although excessive protein intake remains a health concern in individuals with pre-existing renal disease, the literature lacks significant research demonstrating a link between protein intake and the initiation or progression of renal disease in healthy individuals. More importantly, evidence suggests that protein-induced changes in renal function are likely a normal adaptative mechanism well within the functional limits of a healthy kidney. Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.[
A similar link has already been posted. Some people find being right more important than the research that conflicts with that truth, unfortunately those same people find obscure out of date research to support their confirmation bias, kinda like what Taubes does........
Okay, okay. My question was wrong. I should never, ever ask someone how they know their body is functioning fine. Obviously it is. Why wouldn't be? Everyone's is. If there was something wrong an alarm would go off to tell us. My bad.
ETA: OP - sorry for hijacking your thread.0 -
I never use powders or supplements and I get 180 - 250g protein a day. If you're veggie who eats fish it's tough though. You'd have to have two fillets of fish with every meal.
The answer in general is fish, turkey and skinless chicken. For me red meat is harder to digest and generally more fatty.0 -
I have tried to help vegetarians with getting enough protein while lifting weights and the avg person needs around 95g-100g of protein a day (Notice I said avg person not athlete or body builder). The only way I could get them up to the required protein was using powders. There are a number of them out there even soy protein powders if you don't like milk proteins.
Here are the medical studies on this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1474076
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7550257
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/221504250 -
Um, no. It was a question. I'm not sure why a question would need backing up. Unless you were in the study, study results won't answer my question. But the lack of an answer pretty much answers it.
Very cute but you know very well the proof source requested was for your assertion that Zangpakto's protein could cause kidney issues. Based on the subsequent study that was posted and in light of the fact you have posted nothing to indicate otherwise, it's clear you were wrong. Very simple.
No, not really. I never suggested the poster's diet could cause kidney issues for them. I only suggested that for some people eating very high protein, especially more grams of protein the total body weight in lbs, has the potential to cause kidney issues and ask how he knew it wasn't for him. At which time his panties went into an immediate wad.
And I wasn't wrong. Not everyone could safely eat that amount of protein. And I believe you all probably know that.
Actually, we don't and studies have been published in this very thread to indicate this is not true. Why you insist on this nonsense in multiple threads is beyond me. You've been asked for any studies that indicate this multiple times and you've never come up with one. So this is just one misguided opinion you have that has no basis in fact. Just so we're clear.0 -
This. The higher recommendations you see flying around here all the time are quite honestly intended for professional athletes and bodybuilders. The average human being simply doesn't need all that protein. Protein can be satiating, so eating more protein can help with calorie control, but for health reasons, it's unnecessary.
I'm not a professional athlete or bodybuilder and I need a lot more than 60 grams of protein a day...0 -
It seems silly to see people making recommendations that aren't considering context.
Obesity/Leanness, training experience, training (high volumes of activity can increase protein oxidation for example) caloric intake, etc --
These are some of the factors that need to be considered assuming that the individual is looking at the effects of protein on lean body mass.
An overweight individual eating at maintenance and coming "straight off of the couch" will have a lower practical minimum than a lean athletic individual eating at a deficit.0 -
This shouldn't be that hard if you're having protein with every meal.
1 scoop of whey, 3x a day (or 4), at the very least is probably 60-80g already by itself.0 -
beans (raw soybeans excluded) and nuts are pathetic sources of protein...
Here's how I eat 225-250g of protein every day without supplements.
PBJ (or 2) for breakfast, 4-6 oz of meat around 10 AM, 6-8 oz of meat for lunch, 4-6 oz. mid afternoon, 6-12 oz for dinner, and some dairy after dinner (yogurt/milk/ice cream).
I eat fish, chicken, pork, and beef mainly for my meats.
She's a vegetarian ...0 -
For example, this study shows that older subjects lost LBM when getting the RDA protein recommendations of 0.8g/kg
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11382798
Do you guys even check these studies beyond the summary?
This is another bull**** study.
They had 10 subjects in total and NO control group. If you have any idea about clinical research or statistics you'll know that the "results" of this "study" are worthless.
Btw. the 10 subjects (!) were between the age of 55 and 77. Think about that.
lol
Yes I do. There are a bunch of other studies which I quoted earlier which you appear to have ignored - this was just an example that you have taken out of context.0 -
Vegetarians that insist that you can get plenty of protein without meat annoy the !@#$ out of me. You are obviously not one of them which is why you made that post. The simple fact is that beans, tofu, quinoa, etc. are not good sources of protein unless you're a vegetarian. You know how many beans you would need to eat to match the protein in one piece of chicken? Neither do I, but I know it's alot. Protein shakes are really the only way for vegetarians to get anywhere close to their bodyweight in grams without going over your cals.
Completely untrue.0 -
It's a myth! I posted a bunch on this the other night in a different thread. I'll see if I can go excavate it.
ETA:
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload.
• Walberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period.
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders.
• Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb.
• Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.
I've NEVER seen a study that said 1g/lb was optimal. And take a look at those studied-many of them are elite bodybuilders. YES, there are limitations to each study, as always. No one study will prove anything, but the BODY of research certainly suggests that there is nothing to back up the 1g/lb myth! Who are you going to believe, the research or the companies trying to sell you the products?0 -
For example, this study shows that older subjects lost LBM when getting the RDA protein recommendations of 0.8g/kg
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11382798
Do you guys even check these studies beyond the summary?
This is another bull**** study.
They had 10 subjects in total and NO control group. If you have any idea about clinical research or statistics you'll know that the "results" of this "study" are worthless.
Btw. the 10 subjects (!) were between the age of 55 and 77. Think about that.
lol
Yes I do. There are a bunch of other studies which I quoted earlier which you appear to have ignored - this was just an example that you have taken out of context.
That seems to be the specialty of this poster. Very little offered in the way of additional info though. I guess it's easier to criticize that to offer factual info. Got a lot of that going on in this thread.0 -
It's a myth! I posted a bunch on this the other night in a different thread. I'll see if I can go excavate it.
ETA:
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload.
• Walberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period.
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders.
• Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb.
• Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.
I've NEVER seen a study that said 1g/lb was optimal. And take a look at those studied-many of them are elite bodybuilders. YES, there are limitations to each study, as always. No one study will prove anything, but the BODY of research certainly suggests that there is nothing to back up the 1g/lb myth! Who are you going to believe, the research or the companies trying to sell you the products?
those studies done in a bulking or cutting phase?0 -
Dietary protein intake and renal function. Nutrition & Metabolism 2005, 2:25 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-2-25
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/25Conclusion
Although excessive protein intake remains a health concern in individuals with pre-existing renal disease, the literature lacks significant research demonstrating a link between protein intake and the initiation or progression of renal disease in healthy individuals. More importantly, evidence suggests that protein-induced changes in renal function are likely a normal adaptative mechanism well within the functional limits of a healthy kidney. Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.[
This is consistent with what I've read. The average, healthy individual can eat a damn lot of protein and still do perfectly fine.
So if you want to supplement, go for it. But don't scare other people into thinking that they need to, because they don't. Protein powder is convenient and keeps you full for long periods of time, but based on the RDAs, your food is gonna cover it just fine.
And to those of you that say "how hard is it to get whey/protein powder", you try doing that with a food budget of $15 a week. That's what I'm on, and I just barely make it with enough food week to week. No money for extras.0 -
It's a myth! I posted a bunch on this the other night in a different thread. I'll see if I can go excavate it.
ETA:
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload.
• Walberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period.
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders.
• Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb.
• Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.
I've NEVER seen a study that said 1g/lb was optimal. And take a look at those studied-many of them are elite bodybuilders. YES, there are limitations to each study, as always. No one study will prove anything, but the BODY of research certainly suggests that there is nothing to back up the 1g/lb myth! Who are you going to believe, the research or the companies trying to sell you the products?
Its not a myth. Maintenance level protein requirements are lower than those for people on a deficit or looking to gain.0 -
It's a myth! I posted a bunch on this the other night in a different thread. I'll see if I can go excavate it.
ETA:
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload.
• Walberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period.
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders.
• Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb.
• Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.
I've NEVER seen a study that said 1g/lb was optimal. And take a look at those studied-many of them are elite bodybuilders. YES, there are limitations to each study, as always. No one study will prove anything, but the BODY of research certainly suggests that there is nothing to back up the 1g/lb myth! Who are you going to believe, the research or the companies trying to sell you the products?
This research list excludes a few key studies that may indicate that under certain conditions, higher intake is beneficial. Oddly enough, since (I believe) the above is from Menno's work, I just linked a conversation on my wall between him and Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, discussing the studies that are relevant that are excluded from the above list. When you factor in these studies, it may make sense that intakes higher than .82g/lb lead to better LBM retention. In Mettler et al, 2.3g/kg was shown to NOT retain lean body mass.0 -
Non fat Greek yogurt!! It is loaded with protein! Tons of protein is the only way MY body will let go of stubborn weight... Good luck!0
-
Do consider your mineral intake alongside your chosen protein source - whey powders can contain a large amount of calcium but not a 'balance' of it's partner mineral magnesium, by contrast cottage cheese is quite low in calcium. Nuts and seeds vary widely - .pumpkin seeds and peanuts are better sources of magnesium than they are calcium.0
-
@sara I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I'm talking about it being a myth as far as it being a recommendation for the typical healthy diet, which the OP seems to be talking about. Not for people doing significant strength training.those studies done in a bulking or cutting phase?
There's cutting, maintenance, and bulking in the various studies.0 -
I'm in the same boat as you! Vegetarian (NO fish....that's pescetarian people!) I typically eat a soy patty at night, eggs in the morning, maybe peanut butter with veggies, fruit or a half sandwich for lunch or a snack, and manage between 50-70 grams of protein with a greek yogurt as a snack in between. Maybe you could add a whey protein powder if you want more protein when you're a little short for the day?0
-
This research list excludes a few key studies that may indicate that under certain conditions, higher intake is beneficial. Oddly enough, since (I believe) the above is from Menno's work, I just linked a conversation on my wall between him and Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, discussing the studies that are relevant that are excluded from the above list. When you factor in these studies, it may make sense that intakes higher than .82g/lb lead to better LBM retention. In Mettler et al, 2.3g/kg was shown to NOT retain lean body mass.
and that's the crux of the myth. If it "may" make sense, and eating more protein isn't harmful, why not do it? If you go over, some protein just gets "wasted", but at least you will have not have gone under what your body "may" have used...0 -
This research list excludes a few key studies that may indicate that under certain conditions, higher intake is beneficial. Oddly enough, since (I believe) the above is from Menno's work, I just linked a conversation on my wall between him and Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, discussing the studies that are relevant that are excluded from the above list. When you factor in these studies, it may make sense that intakes higher than .82g/lb lead to better LBM retention. In Mettler et al, 2.3g/kg was shown to NOT retain lean body mass.
It is from Menno. I would definitely be interested in hearing about these studies, as I hadn't been able to find any myself the other night. Are these conditions under which higher intake is beneficial typical for strength athletes?0 -
This research list excludes a few key studies that may indicate that under certain conditions, higher intake is beneficial. Oddly enough, since (I believe) the above is from Menno's work, I just linked a conversation on my wall between him and Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, discussing the studies that are relevant that are excluded from the above list. When you factor in these studies, it may make sense that intakes higher than .82g/lb lead to better LBM retention. In Mettler et al, 2.3g/kg was shown to NOT retain lean body mass.
and that's the crux of the myth. If it "may" make sense, and eating more protein isn't harmful, why not do it? If you go over, some protein just gets "wasted", but at least you will have not have gone under what your body "may" have used...
I agree in premise provided that personal preference, adherence, training performance needs are all in alignment with whatever "functional minimum" protein intake is set. So for example if my belief is that 1g/lb lbm is sufficient and all of the above conditions are met when I eat 1.1g/lb LBM, then I don't see an issue in going over to "cover your *kitten*" so to speak.
But at the same time I do think that the research is interesting and valuable since preferentially, some people may just want more carbs/etc.0 -
This research list excludes a few key studies that may indicate that under certain conditions, higher intake is beneficial. Oddly enough, since (I believe) the above is from Menno's work, I just linked a conversation on my wall between him and Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, discussing the studies that are relevant that are excluded from the above list. When you factor in these studies, it may make sense that intakes higher than .82g/lb lead to better LBM retention. In Mettler et al, 2.3g/kg was shown to NOT retain lean body mass.
It is from Menno. I would definitely be interested in hearing about these studies, as I hadn't been able to find any myself the other night. Are these conditions under which higher intake is beneficial typical for strength athletes?
Check your PM's.0 -
I agree that I have not seen a study recommeding 1 gram per lb.of body weight. I'm not sure that is a hill anyone is dying on. When I look at the data you've presented, most recommedations from these studies fall somewhere within .8 and 1.01 gram per lb of lean body mass (I only ran the detailed numbers of a few) assuming 10% BF. It's more if the subject has higher body fat.It's a myth! I posted a bunch on this the other night in a different thread. I'll see if I can go excavate it.
ETA:
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload.
• Walberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period.
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders.
• Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb.
• Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.
I've NEVER seen a study that said 1g/lb was optimal. And take a look at those studied-many of them are elite bodybuilders. YES, there are limitations to each study, as always. No one study will prove anything, but the BODY of research certainly suggests that there is nothing to back up the 1g/lb myth! Who are you going to believe, the research or the companies trying to sell you the products?
That appears to be in line with the most common recommedation I've seen both in this thread and elsewhere. What am I missing? How is this a myth based on these studies?
Edited to add: And what would the health risks be, if any, if this amount was exceeded? I saw nothing in the quick look that I did at a couple of the abstracts that said anything about this. In fact is this not the basis of the Low carb/ high protein diets that seem to have no adverse health effects?
ETA: Never mind! You anwered my question on adverse health effects while I was typing it! lol0 -
personally, I have nutrient and fiber goals that I try to meet with carbohydrate sources, and once those are met, I don't specifically go out of my way to consume more to meet a macro.
I'd rather eat fat and protein with my "discretionary" calories.
I was posting what i did off your actually linking the science (I'm way too lazy to track all that down) as to why 1g/lb is kind of the CYA recommendation and is generator of a lot of bro-science. Thanks for linking many of the actual hard science articles. I just wish I could still access more of the full articles (like when I was wasting time in grad. school researching some of these topics).0 -
@mmapags-are you looking at the controls?
Here's a break down of what was sufficient/recommended:
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) - 0.64g/lb
• Walberg et al. (1988) - 0.73g/lb
• Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) - 0.55g/lb
• Lemon et al. (1992) - 0.75g/lb.
• Hoffman et al. (2006)- 0.77g/lb
All these numbers are pretty easy to get from a regular diet0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions