Daily protein too high on MFP?

mmapags

That's it, you mentioned China Study 3 times. Wall! Read it!

I don't think the person this is directed to has any interest in facts. If they read, understood and admitted to facts they wouldn't be able to derail threads and attract as much attention to themselves. To speak to your point though, to keep referencing the China Study is pretty laughable.

MoreBean13

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

It was an answer to the OP's question.
Protein needs have to do with your size and your activity level, it makes no sense to base your needs on your total calories. I need the same amount of protein whether I'm in maintenance or a deficit, where I would have different total calories. It's based on your nitrogen balance, and has very little to do with your other macronutrients. I highly suggest you read this for a better understanding of how protein needs are assessed and what determines them:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_935_eng.pdf

It's a hefty read. I don't expect you to come back with an answer quickly.

CoachReddy

That's it, you mentioned China Study 3 times. Wall! Read it!

I don't think the person this is directed to has any interest in facts. If they read, understood and admitted to facts they wouldn't be able to derail threads and attract as much attention to themselves. To speak to your point though, to keep referencing the China Study is pretty laughable.

i attract attention from the same group of posters every time who happen to disagree with me.

there is ONE fact in nutrition, and that is this: Eat less than your TDEE to lose weight and eat more to gain weight. Everything else is conjecture.

CoachReddy

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

It was an answer to the OP's question.
Protein needs have to do with your size and your activity level, it makes no sense to base your needs on your total calories. I need the same amount of protein whether I'm in maintenance or a deficit, where I would have different total calories. It's based on your nitrogen balance, and has very little to do with your other macronutrients. I highly suggest you read this for a better understanding of how protein needs are assessed and what determines them:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_935_eng.pdf

It's a hefty read. I don't expect you to come back with an answer quickly.

that's something I'm totally interested in reading and I will when I get the time. thanks.

so all the fuss about macronutrient ratios like 40/30/30 etc etc is essentially meaningless? i mean that makes sense to me, just interesting that they're so prevalent.

etoiles_argentees

That's it, you mentioned China Study 3 times. Wall! Read it!

I don't think the person this is directed to has any interest in facts. If they read, understood and admitted to facts they wouldn't be able to derail threads and attract as much attention to themselves. To speak to your point though, to keep referencing the China Study is pretty laughable.

agreed. Done.

Sarauk2sf

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

Mine's only that high because of how many calories I need to eat daily. There's a big difference between someone eating 3,200 calories and taking in 120g of protein vs someone who eats 1,400 cal and 120g of protein.

1g of protein per lb of LBM is 1g of protein per LBM, irrespective of their calorie target - it *is* a reason not to use percentages though.

Sarauk2sf

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

Mine's only that high because of how many calories I need to eat daily. There's a big difference between someone eating 3,200 calories and taking in 120g of protein vs someone who eats 1,400 cal and 120g of protein.

Actually, no, there isn't. Especially in the context of every "study" you have given thus far. For cancer growth/reduction, kidney health, etc it would be the actual amount of protein consumed, not macro ratio.

It's not like your kidney suddenly becomes more efficient because your ratio to carbs/fats changes. Or the cancer for that matter. Of course, I reject the idea that protein even negatively affects health except for kidney health when protein is mega dosed (400+g protein).

Furthermore, all the science I've seen and every plausible argument leads me to believe health markers would be better in your 1400cal with 120g protein than yours, holding all else constant.

it's all completely relative. I'm not talking about two identical people eating 3,200 cal vs. 1,400. The amount of protein your kidneys can deal with changes depending on how big you are, your age, etc. there are a ton of factors. a 5 foot woman weighing 100 pounds compared to a 5'7" guy weighing 140 compared to a 6'5" guy weighing 270 will all require different amounts of protein... and different calorie intakes...

the studies I've referenced (The China Study for instance) talk about protein as a % of calorie intake.

ignoring the ad nausea repetition of the China lolly, how would a 100lb woman have the same LBM as a 140lb or a 270lb guy?

Yes they will need differing amounts of protein because they have different LBMs - that's what people have been saying all along but somehow you have yet to grasp it.

CoachReddy

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

Mine's only that high because of how many calories I need to eat daily. There's a big difference between someone eating 3,200 calories and taking in 120g of protein vs someone who eats 1,400 cal and 120g of protein.

Actually, no, there isn't. Especially in the context of every "study" you have given thus far. For cancer growth/reduction, kidney health, etc it would be the actual amount of protein consumed, not macro ratio.

It's not like your kidney suddenly becomes more efficient because your ratio to carbs/fats changes. Or the cancer for that matter. Of course, I reject the idea that protein even negatively affects health except for kidney health when protein is mega dosed (400+g protein).

Furthermore, all the science I've seen and every plausible argument leads me to believe health markers would be better in your 1400cal with 120g protein than yours, holding all else constant.

it's all completely relative. I'm not talking about two identical people eating 3,200 cal vs. 1,400. The amount of protein your kidneys can deal with changes depending on how big you are, your age, etc. there are a ton of factors. a 5 foot woman weighing 100 pounds compared to a 5'7" guy weighing 140 compared to a 6'5" guy weighing 270 will all require different amounts of protein... and different calorie intakes...

the studies I've referenced (The China Study for instance) talk about protein as a % of calorie intake.

ignoring the ad nausea repetition of the China lolly, how would a 100lb woman have the same LBM as a 140lb or a 270lb guy?

Yes they will need differing amounts of protein because they have different LBMs - that's what people have been saying all along but somehow you have yet to grasp it.

we literally said the same things... how are you not grasping that?

Sarauk2sf

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

Mine's only that high because of how many calories I need to eat daily. There's a big difference between someone eating 3,200 calories and taking in 120g of protein vs someone who eats 1,400 cal and 120g of protein.

Actually, no, there isn't. Especially in the context of every "study" you have given thus far. For cancer growth/reduction, kidney health, etc it would be the actual amount of protein consumed, not macro ratio.

It's not like your kidney suddenly becomes more efficient because your ratio to carbs/fats changes. Or the cancer for that matter. Of course, I reject the idea that protein even negatively affects health except for kidney health when protein is mega dosed (400+g protein).

Furthermore, all the science I've seen and every plausible argument leads me to believe health markers would be better in your 1400cal with 120g protein than yours, holding all else constant.

it's all completely relative. I'm not talking about two identical people eating 3,200 cal vs. 1,400. The amount of protein your kidneys can deal with changes depending on how big you are, your age, etc. there are a ton of factors. a 5 foot woman weighing 100 pounds compared to a 5'7" guy weighing 140 compared to a 6'5" guy weighing 270 will all require different amounts of protein... and different calorie intakes...

the studies I've referenced (The China Study for instance) talk about protein as a % of calorie intake.

ignoring the ad nausea repetition of the China lolly, how would a 100lb woman have the same LBM as a 140lb or a 270lb guy?

Yes they will need differing amounts of protein because they have different LBMs - that's what people have been saying all along but somehow you have yet to grasp it.

we literally said the same things... how are you not grasping that?

You really do not get it do you? I was pointing out that people have been saying that all along, but you do not seem to be able to grasp that.

Going back to your very original post

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein.

Most people on here are recommending 1g protein/lb LBM - yet here you are, doing exactly that!



ETA: if you are using % of calories then you are looking at it completely the wrong way.

tino124

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 this is why you look like an auschwitz survivor

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.

And this is why you look like an auschwitz survivor

sorry my skin's so pale.

CandiSki

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^Yup, totally agree that watching Forks over Knives can change a lot of perspectives on protein intake.

Also, I took an applied nutrition class when I was in college and there is a formula that can be used to calculate your protein intake based on weight and activity level. I will find the book later when I get home from work (still have the book because I thought it would be helpful to go over later on in life, which has proven to be the case) and re edit this. I calculated mine a couple of days ago and the most protein I can have for my body weight is around 83 grams, weighing 179 lbs.

Here is the info I have, if anyone cares:

This is an example. If someone weighs 200 pounds, to get a range of the RDA of how much protein should be eaten, the formula would be

200 lb / 2.2 lbs/kg = 91 kg
then
91 kg * .8g/kg = 72.8 grams of protein per day
then
91 kg * 1.0g/kg = 91 grams of protein per day

So, this means that a 200 lb person can eat between 72.8 and 91 grams off protein per day. This would be a person who exercises around 3 times per week.

For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day



Source: Thompson J., & Melinda M. (2012). Nutrition, an applied approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, Pearson Ed.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. :flowerforyou:

Sarauk2sf

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^Yup, totally agree that watching Forks over Knives can change a lot of perspectives on protein intake.

Also, I took an applied nutrition class when I was in college and there is a formula that can be used to calculate your protein intake based on weight and activity level. I will find the book later when I get home from work (still have the book because I thought it would be helpful to go over later on in life, which has proven to be the case) and re edit this. I calculated mine a couple of days ago and the most protein I can have for my body weight is around 83 grams, weighing 179 lbs.

Here is the info I have, if anyone cares:

This is an example. If someone weighs 200 pounds, to get a range of the RDA of how much protein should be eaten, the formula would be

200 lb / 2.2 lbs/kg = 91 kg
then
91 kg * .8g/kg = 72.8 grams of protein per day
then
91 kg * 1.0g/kg = 91 grams of protein per day

So, this means that a 200 lb person can eat between 72.8 and 91 grams off protein per day. This would be a person who exercises around 3 times per week.

For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day



Source: Thompson J., & Melinda M. (2012). Nutrition, an applied approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, Pearson Ed.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. :flowerforyou:

This does not relate to people on a deficit or on a bulk.

AnvilHead

This does not relate to people on a deficit or on a bulk.

...or engaging in regular training - especially strength training. Protein needs are affected by all these factors.

CandiSki

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^Yup, totally agree that watching Forks over Knives can change a lot of perspectives on protein intake.

Also, I took an applied nutrition class when I was in college and there is a formula that can be used to calculate your protein intake based on weight and activity level. I will find the book later when I get home from work (still have the book because I thought it would be helpful to go over later on in life, which has proven to be the case) and re edit this. I calculated mine a couple of days ago and the most protein I can have for my body weight is around 83 grams, weighing 179 lbs.

Here is the info I have, if anyone cares:

This is an example. If someone weighs 200 pounds, to get a range of the RDA of how much protein should be eaten, the formula would be

200 lb / 2.2 lbs/kg = 91 kg
then
91 kg * .8g/kg = 72.8 grams of protein per day
then
91 kg * 1.0g/kg = 91 grams of protein per day

So, this means that a 200 lb person can eat between 72.8 and 91 grams off protein per day. This would be a person who exercises around 3 times per week.

For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day



Source: Thompson J., & Melinda M. (2012). Nutrition, an applied approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, Pearson Ed.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. :flowerforyou:

This does not relate to people on a deficit or on a bulk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day

I'm not an expert, I am going by what I have read in a class. If you are an expert and know what you are talking about then fine. I am not saying that I know what protein intake should be for a person who is on a deficit or bulking. I am politely giving information that can be helpful and I do not want to start an argument (I am not a nutritionist or an expert, etc.). I am not forcing anyone to use this formula.

stubbysticks

I calculated mine a couple of days ago and the most protein I can have for my body weight is around 83 grams, weighing 179 lbs.

Oh noes...what happens if you go over???

CandiSki

Never mind.

Sarauk2sf

Here is the info I have, if anyone cares:

This is an example. If someone weighs 200 pounds, to get a range of the RDA of how much protein should be eaten, the formula would be

200 lb / 2.2 lbs/kg = 91 kg
then
91 kg * .8g/kg = 72.8 grams of protein per day
then
91 kg * 1.0g/kg = 91 grams of protein per day

So, this means that a 200 lb person can eat between 72.8 and 91 grams off protein per day. This would be a person who exercises around 3 times per week.

For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day



Source: Thompson J., & Melinda M. (2012). Nutrition, an applied approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, Pearson Ed.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. :flowerforyou:

This does not relate to people on a deficit or on a bulk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day

I'm not an expert, I am going by what I have read in a class. If you are an expert and know what you are talking about then fine. I am not saying that I know what protein intake should be for a person who is on a deficit or bulking. I am politely giving information that can be helpful and I do not want to start an argument (I am not a nutritionist or an expert, etc.). I am not forcing anyone to use this formula.

I was simply making a clarification. Protein needs increase when on a deficit or trying to gain muscle. Also, I am not sure why they are expressed as a maximum, they are not.

Edited to take off infini quotes

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^Yup, totally agree that watching Forks over Knives can change a lot of perspectives on protein intake.

Also, I took an applied nutrition class when I was in college and there is a formula that can be used to calculate your protein intake based on weight and activity level. I will find the book later when I get home from work (still have the book because I thought it would be helpful to go over later on in life, which has proven to be the case) and re edit this. I calculated mine a couple of days ago and the most protein I can have for my body weight is around 83 grams, weighing 179 lbs.

Here is the info I have, if anyone cares:

This is an example. If someone weighs 200 pounds, to get a range of the RDA of how much protein should be eaten, the formula would be

200 lb / 2.2 lbs/kg = 91 kg
then
91 kg * .8g/kg = 72.8 grams of protein per day
then
91 kg * 1.0g/kg = 91 grams of protein per day

So, this means that a 200 lb person can eat between 72.8 and 91 grams off protein per day. This would be a person who exercises around 3 times per week.

For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day



Source: Thompson J., & Melinda M. (2012). Nutrition, an applied approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, Pearson Ed.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. :flowerforyou:

This does not relate to people on a deficit or on a bulk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>For a very active person, someone who exercises 5-6 days a week the formula would be:

91 kg * 1.2g/kg = 109.2 grams of protein per day

I'm not an expert, I am going by what I have read in a class. If you are an expert and know what you are talking about then fine. I am not saying that I know what protein intake should be for a person who is on a deficit or bulking. I am politely giving information that can be helpful and I do not want to start an argument (I am not a nutritionist or an expert, etc.). I am not forcing anyone to use this formula.

how DARE you!

Nhizarms

Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low