Protein help! 1 gram/lb seems impossible!

12346»

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    @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 diet

    I wasn't as the control groups were sedentary on the few I pulled up. I was looking at the recommedation for individuals in training as that is what applies to me. (It is all about me after all. lol). For the sedentary or individuals not training I agree that the recommendations you listed above are fine. As Sidesteel said, getting enough is all that matters. Erring on the slde of a little too much seems to have no adverse health effects. To go into multiples of body weight seems to be a waste of time and money but again does not seems to have any adverse health effects.
  • slkehl
    slkehl Posts: 3,801 Member
    @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 diet

    I wasn't as the control groups were sedentary on the few I pulled up. I was looking at the recommedation for individuals in training as that is what applies to me. (It is all about me after all. lol). For the sedentary or individuals not training I agree that the recommendations you listed above are fine. As Sidesteel said, getting enough is all that matters. Erring on the slde of a little too much seems to have no adverse health effects. To go into multiples of body weight seems to be a waste of time and money but again does not seems to have any adverse health effects.

    I'm open to the possibility that for strength athletes, added protein *may* help, though from what I've read, it seems sketchy. I will have to go back and read those other articles Sidesteel mentioned.

    When I say it's a myth, I'm talking about recommendations for the average American, as the OP seems to be. It's nowhere near the RDA, but a lot of people think that's a number they should be aiming for in a healthy diet.
  • SlenderSuze
    SlenderSuze Posts: 41 Member
    Not vegan here but dairy doesn't agree with me so I use pea protein and brown rice protein.
  • n0ob
    n0ob Posts: 2,390 Member
    @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 diet

    I wasn't as the control groups were sedentary on the few I pulled up. I was looking at the recommedation for individuals in training as that is what applies to me. (It is all about me after all. lol). For the sedentary or individuals not training I agree that the recommendations you listed above are fine. As Sidesteel said, getting enough is all that matters. Erring on the slde of a little too much seems to have no adverse health effects. To go into multiples of body weight seems to be a waste of time and money but again does not seems to have any adverse health effects.

    I'm open to the possibility that for strength athletes, added protein *may* help, though from what I've read, it seems sketchy. I will have to go back and read those other articles Sidesteel mentioned.

    When I say it's a myth, I'm talking about recommendations for the average American, as the OP seems to be. It's nowhere near the RDA, but a lot of people think that's a number they should be aiming for in a healthy diet.

    I agree...1g/lb is absolutely laughable for a need for the average joe/jane.
  • quitter1973
    quitter1973 Posts: 35 Member
    beans (raw soybeans excluded)

    I eat fish, chicken, pork, and beef mainly for my meats.

    No Marsupials?
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    @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 diet

    I wasn't as the control groups were sedentary on the few I pulled up. I was looking at the recommedation for individuals in training as that is what applies to me. (It is all about me after all. lol). For the sedentary or individuals not training I agree that the recommendations you listed above are fine. As Sidesteel said, getting enough is all that matters. Erring on the slde of a little too much seems to have no adverse health effects. To go into multiples of body weight seems to be a waste of time and money but again does not seems to have any adverse health effects.

    I'm open to the possibility that for strength athletes, added protein *may* help, though from what I've read, it seems sketchy. I will have to go back and read those other articles Sidesteel mentioned.

    When I say it's a myth, I'm talking about recommendations for the average American, as the OP seems to be. It's nowhere near the RDA, but a lot of people think that's a number they should be aiming for in a healthy diet.

    I had to go all the way back to read the OPs post and question!! That all seems to have gotten lost in all the tangents and subterfuge!
  • n0ob
    n0ob Posts: 2,390 Member
    beans (raw soybeans excluded)

    I eat fish, chicken, pork, and beef mainly for my meats.

    No Marsupials?

    I've eaten marsupial before (I'm from Louisiana). Also eaten rattlesnake, squirrel, and nutria.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    @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.

    The recommendations though are for people at maintenance (and there are some studies that show that they may be a bit low even for that).

    I agree that 1g/lb LBM is not required for people who do not do any significant exercise and are not at a deficit and are not at a very low BF% - i.e. the 'average' person.

    ETA: the quote was not my post, but mine was similar in nature. I only saw one re cutting and that was over such a short period it's conclusions are very limited - will go back and look at the studies to see if there are more.

    Totally as a side note, there is a general lack of studies in relation to requirements for strength training for women. I suspect that their requirements may well be less.
  • Matt_Wild
    Matt_Wild Posts: 2,673 Member
    @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 diet

    Would love to see figures for the bodybuilder looking to gain significant muscle. I know the above would lose me muscle, hand over fist.
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    Totally as a side note, there is a general lack of studies in relation to requirements for strength training for women. I suspect that their requirements may well be less.

    I had wondered that also. I have heard 1gr/LBW for men and .8 for women but like you pointed out already there is no studies really available. Basing it on LBW already lowers the total amount for most women and that might be all that matters since going over by the difference really does not seem to be an issue.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    @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 diet

    Would love to see figures for the bodybuilder looking to gain significant muscle. I know the above would lose me muscle, hand over fist.

    This was the range they fell in :
    "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."
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    If you aren't opposed to meat substitutes (some are due to processing and/or soy), you can get a lot of protein from those.

    Stores like Sam's Club sell the "restaurant size" Boca Burgers--100 calories, 18 g protein, vegan. You can find meat substitutes like tofu pups (45 calories, 9 g protein) in health food stores and some grocery stores. Check out the fake deli meats, both frozen and refrigerated. You'll get lots of variety.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Totally as a side note, there is a general lack of studies in relation to requirements for strength training for women. I suspect that their requirements may well be less.

    I had wondered that also. I have heard 1gr/LBW for men and .8 for women but like you pointed out already there is no studies really available. Basing it on LBW already lowers the total amount for most women and that might be all that matters since going over by the difference really does not seem to be an issue.

    The difference between men and women's LBM would definitely make it 'self governing' to an extent. The thing that interests me (or at least makes me pause) is the fact that we have 1/16 of the testosterone and build muscle at less than half the rate but we have more than half the LBM of guys (assuming some kind of weight/leanness here). I use the 1g/lb LBM approach as in my mind, I do not know how much lower women would be, if at all, so it is better to over-shoot, especially as there are no negatives of doing so, as I have no pre-existing medical condition that would say otherwise.
  • etoiles_argentees
    etoiles_argentees Posts: 2,827 Member
    okay, I hope you all realize that all the actual studies and texts do NOT use LBM, it's kg. Always has been, always will.
    Sara, sending you stuff tomorrow, too tired now. Women do not need what men do.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    okay, I hope you all realize that all the actual studies and texts do NOT use LBM, it's kg. Always has been, always will.
    Sara, sending you stuff tomorrow, too tired now. Women do not need what men do.

    Thanks - any studies would be interesting to see.

    The studies are in total body weight, primarily due to the inaccuracies of calculating BF%. The LBM is not a bad proxy to use however as it does give some weight (no pun intended) to the fact that leaner individuals actually need more protein. If you take two 200lb guys, one with a BF% of 30% and one with a BF% of 10%. The leaner guy will need more - hence there is a certain amount of logic to LBM being used. The problem comes with people confusing the numbers are they are in g/kg/total body weight v the b/lb/LMB - the conversions often get messed up people's explanations.
  • wackyfunster
    wackyfunster Posts: 944 Member
    I accidentally 2g/lb today.
  • jules1984
    jules1984 Posts: 439 Member
    I have the same problem, I can't have casein - the protein in milk. This takes out all dairy and whey products. All the low carb - high protein snacking suggestions are whey shakes, milk, or some form of cheese.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Honestly 1g/lb isn't bad.. I am about 135lbs and today I've had about 189g of protein without issue :/

    How do you know it was without issue? How can tell whether this much protein is slowly damaging your kidneys?

    High protein is not bad for the kidneys. They are even using high fat, higher protein and low carb way of eating to treat kidney disease.

    I have first hand experience with kidney disease also before you try to start arguing with me. My mom had kidney disease and the Dr's tried to get her to eat this way but she refused due to the fact that she didn't like to eat in the first place. My mom ended up cutting her own life short due to her anorexic ways.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/06/01/high-protein-low-carb-diet-safe-for-kidneys/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42689095/ns/health/t/low-carb-high-fat-diet-could-replace-dialysis/

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/low-carbohydrate-high-fat-ketogenic-diet-may-reverse-kidney-failure-in-people-with-diabetes/

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420184429.htm
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    High protein is not bad for the kidneys. They are even using high fat, higher protein and low carb way of eating to treat kidney disease.

    I have first hand experience with kidney disease also before you try to start arguing with me. My mom had kidney disease and the Dr's tried to get her to eat this way but she refused due to the fact that she didn't like to eat in the first place. My mom ended up cutting her own life short due to her anorexic ways.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/06/01/high-protein-low-carb-diet-safe-for-kidneys/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42689095/ns/health/t/low-carb-high-fat-diet-could-replace-dialysis/

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/low-carbohydrate-high-fat-ketogenic-diet-may-reverse-kidney-failure-in-people-with-diabetes/

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420184429.htm

    tmi

Categories