Daily protein too high on MFP?

xLyric

Women are recommended to get ~46 grams of protein a day, or 10-35% of their caloric intake (according to the internet...). So why does MFP want me to get 120 grams? I thought I needed to get a protein shake mix since I keep netting about 38g under, but that's still 82g, way more than women are supposed to need.

Am I misunderstanding something? Does MFP use a different way measure? (I'm going to feel dumb if it's just that MFP doesn't show it in grams, haha.)

JuliannaEP

What's your exercise like? You need to up your protein depending on your exercise and MFP recalculates your daily recommendations when you input exercise. I usually take in about 60 or so grams of protein w/o a shake, but MFP says that I should be getting about 45 w/o exercise. What is your daily recommendation from MFP before exercise? If it's 120, then you can go and adjust it just so you don't feel defeated. Maybe open your diary for public viewing so I can take a look at it. Either way, unless your heavily working out or trying to build a lot of lean muscle mass, that sounds way too high.

WendyTerry420

MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.

chrishgt4

MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.

This.

120 is still probably too low unless you're on 1200 cals/day

jenndymond

A good standard (ie if your not heavy lifting ect.) for just normal eating and going to the gym is 40/30/30. So 40% of your calories should be derived from carbs, 30% from protien, and 30% from fat. (It takes some playing around but inputting numbers into MFP, and doing some research was the way I figured out how to set my macros)

A good base for protien if your working out regularly and dont want to loose muscel is 1g per lb of lean body mass (not total mass)

Hope this helps.

Yeller_Sensation

I'd barely survive if I subsisted on only 46g of protein a day because of my strength training three times a week. My minimum goal is 100g a day (my current weight is 105 lbs). I reached 165g yesterday, and every single gram of that was from food sources.

xLyric

My diary is open now. MFP has it on 120g without exercise, and I set the ratio to 40/30/25 I think, based on another member's recommendation. I don't do any strength training, and when I do exercise it's cardio.

I don't understand how, if women are supposed to get 46 grams (I'm getting this from webmb I think), but 30% of my caloric intake according to MFP is 120? That doesn't make sense.

xLyric

Another source says that a relatively inactive adult should get 0.4 times their body weight. Which would mean, on days I don't exercise, 80 is perfectly fine for me, if not more than I need. MFP seems to be set really really high.

stubbysticks

My diary is open now. MFP has it on 120g without exercise, and I set the ratio to 40/30/25 I think, based on another member's recommendation. I don't do any strength training, and when I do exercise it's cardio.

I don't understand how, if women are supposed to get 46 grams (I'm getting this from webmb I think), but 30% of my caloric intake according to MFP is 120? That doesn't make sense.

If your total calorie goal is 1600 & you're going for 30% protein, then 480 calories should come from protein. Protein is 4 calories per gram, hence the 120g. If you go with 46g that only comes to 11.5% of your total calories. Personally I think it's important to get lots of protein in if you do any exercise, not just strength training, because cardio + calorie deficit will cause you to lose muscle mass as well as fat. Extra protein will help preserve the muscle mass you have.

crazyellybean

MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.

This.

You really can't get too much protein (unless your really over doing it) your body can process up to 30g of protein an HOUR... don't be afraid of going over protein.. more protein is better for you, it helps build back up your muscle and helps your muscles recover faster!

46g of protein is really low... even without strength training.

BlueObsidian

My diary is open now. MFP has it on 120g without exercise, and I set the ratio to 40/30/25 I think, based on another member's recommendation. I don't do any strength training, and when I do exercise it's cardio.

I don't understand how, if women are supposed to get 46 grams (I'm getting this from webmb I think), but 30% of my caloric intake according to MFP is 120? That doesn't make sense.

MFP didn't set it high. You changed your macros, and that is the level you set it at. It just took 30% of your calorie target and converted that to grams of protein. If you don't like it, change your macros again. I'm not sure why you are stuck on this 46 grams number. That is really low.

Faye_Anderson

120g is not going to harm you, if anything it will fuel your body better, the webmd suggestions are the MINIMUM intake needed :flowerforyou:

xLyric

My diary is open now. MFP has it on 120g without exercise, and I set the ratio to 40/30/25 I think, based on another member's recommendation. I don't do any strength training, and when I do exercise it's cardio.

I don't understand how, if women are supposed to get 46 grams (I'm getting this from webmb I think), but 30% of my caloric intake according to MFP is 120? That doesn't make sense.

MFP didn't set it high. You changed your macros, and that is the level you set it at. It just took 30% of your calorie target and converted that to grams of protein. If you don't like it, change your macros again. I'm not sure why you are stuck on this 46 grams number. That is really low.

Supposedly, 46 grams is the daily recommended intake for females. Or, 10-35%. So I guess, 10% for me would be 40, 35% would be 140. Unless I'm doing the math wrong. I guess that makes sense, I was just confused.

Thanks for your help, everyone.

AKDonF

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

chrishgt4

My diary is open now. MFP has it on 120g without exercise, and I set the ratio to 40/30/25 I think, based on another member's recommendation. I don't do any strength training, and when I do exercise it's cardio.

I don't understand how, if women are supposed to get 46 grams (I'm getting this from webmb I think), but 30% of my caloric intake according to MFP is 120? That doesn't make sense.

MFP didn't set it high. You changed your macros, and that is the level you set it at. It just took 30% of your calorie target and converted that to grams of protein. If you don't like it, change your macros again. I'm not sure why you are stuck on this 46 grams number. That is really low.

Supposedly, 46 grams is the daily recommended intake for females. Or, 10-35%. So I guess, 10% for me would be 40, 35% would be 140. Unless I'm doing the math wrong. I guess that makes sense, I was just confused.

Thanks for your help, everyone.

We've seen that you've written this a few times but the answer still stands that as a rule, MFP tends to underestimate protein and that you should be aiming for 1g per lb of lean body mass. Especially if you are exercising.

CoachReddy

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.

pamela387

I have the opposite problem. With a 1290 calorie diet for 155lb woman, it sets my target at 47 grams protein. Ridiculously low.

cbrrabbit25

My diary is open now. MFP has it on 120g without exercise, and I set the ratio to 40/30/25 I think, based on another member's recommendation. I don't do any strength training, and when I do exercise it's cardio.

I don't understand how, if women are supposed to get 46 grams (I'm getting this from webmb I think), but 30% of my caloric intake according to MFP is 120? That doesn't make sense.

MFP didn't set it high. You changed your macros, and that is the level you set it at. It just took 30% of your calorie target and converted that to grams of protein. If you don't like it, change your macros again. I'm not sure why you are stuck on this 46 grams number. That is really low.

This!

chels0722

30% of the calories you consume everyday should come from protein sources. So if you burn lots of calories that number is going to go up. If you haven't already, change your macro goals on MFP. A well rounded carb/fat/protein ratio is is 40/30/30. As long as you are meeting these percentage goals in your calories you should be fine. It doesn't have to be exact, because that can just make things more difficult, but try to get those macros roughly to that ratio and you're set.

Edit: But try not to consume over 30% of your calories from protein. Protein is more difficult for the body to digest, so too much protein can be taxing on your organs, your liver mostly.

mammacano

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.

^This^ However, the study (The China Study) named animal protein the culprit. Watch the documentary Forks over Knives (You can find it on Netflix). It will open your eyes to the effects of animal protein on your body.

trojanbb

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.


And FYI, this study doesn't apply to normal populations. Most people aren't already poisoned by aflatoxin, like in the study.

^This^ However, the study (The China Study) named animal protein the culprit. Watch the documentary Forks over Knives (You can find it on Netflix). It will open your eyes to the effects of animal protein on your body.

All of it is complete BS.

The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings. If you google the study, you will find hundereds of reasons why the original findings are flawed and don't even support the argument you two are making. Plant proteins caused cancer at the same rate as animal proteins.

High protein diets do not cause cancer any more than low protein or plant based diets. There is no science supporting the low protein argument.

CoachReddy

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.

^This^ However, the study (The China Study) named animal protein the culprit. Watch the documentary Forks over Knives (You can find it on Netflix). It will open your eyes to the effects of animal protein on your body.

All of it is complete BS.

The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.

High protein diets do not cause cancer any more than low protein or plant based diets. There is no science supporting the low protein argument.

there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.

why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?

CoachReddy

All of it is complete BS.

The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.

also: source? (not from a blog, please)

trojanbb

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.

^This^ However, the study (The China Study) named animal protein the culprit. Watch the documentary Forks over Knives (You can find it on Netflix). It will open your eyes to the effects of animal protein on your body.

All of it is complete BS.

The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.

High protein diets do not cause cancer any more than low protein or plant based diets. There is no science supporting the low protein argument.

there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.

why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?

You have really sound argumentation and logic. Fascinating. That might be the most illogical post I've ever seen from you.

There have been plenty of sources shown to you in response to the hundreds of posts you've made on this exact same topic.

CoachReddy

source please.

CoachReddy

Fine, I'll list them.

The China Study is supported by:

American Institute for Cancer Research
Food and Nutrition Board, US National Academy of Sciences
Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine
Preventative Medicine Research Institute and founder Dean Ornish MD
Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention

and a massive number of MDs and PhDs, a Nobel Prize winner, and yes, even a former President who almost died of heart disease and subsequently adopted a plant-based diet. It would take me days to list all the sources and all the studies that go into this book. I'll bet those of you who rail against it have never even read the introduction.

When this much information is slapping you in the face and you still refuse to even look into it... well... what does that say about YOUR logic?

cmriverside

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

CoachReddy

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

this isn't a documentary.

(and can you really find a documentary that contradicts the china study?)

cmriverside

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

this isn't a documentary.

(and can you really find a documentary that contradicts the china study?)

I just happened to have my post in behind yours. I wasn't talking about the China Study... I was talking about the huge number of Netflix docu-dramas with hysterical premises and sensationalist styles.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I could not care less about the China study, so I'm not even talking to you.

.

CoachReddy

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

this isn't a documentary.

(and can you really find a documentary that contradicts the china study?)

I just happened to have my post in behind yours. I wasn't talking about the China Study... I was talking about the huge number of Netflix docu-dramas with hysterical premises and sensationalist styles.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I could not care less about the China study, so I'm not even talking to you.

.

fair enough.

xLyric

Okay guys, I didn't mean for this to turn into a giant debate. As far as getting my sources from "they" and the internet, the FDA says at least 50 grams. And Mayo Clinic say 10-35%.

When I started this question I hadn't seen the 10-35% information, just one source that said 46, which is why MFP's recommendation of 120 seemed so high. Now I know that I should get between 40 and 120 grams.