Protein help! 1 gram/lb seems impossible!

Firefox7275

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.

slkehl

@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.

GaiaGirl1992

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?

n0ob

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...

slkehl

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?

SideSteel

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.

SideSteel

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.

mmapags

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?

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.

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! lol

n0ob

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).

slkehl

@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

mmapags

@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

@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

Not vegan here but dairy doesn't agree with me so I use pea protein and brown rice protein.

n0ob

@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

beans (raw soybeans excluded)

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

No Marsupials?

mmapags

@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

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

@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

@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

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.