what's too much protein when bulking?
Options
Replies
-
It was an example, nothing more. Point one you can't blindly say 1 number such as 1.0g of protien per LBM... Based off current recommendations this is what i made a while back when we did IPOARM ver 3.
Curious - under what context(s) would you recommend 10g/lb LBM, and why? Same question for 0g/lb LBM. I'm very interested to hear your educated scientific opinion of when such intakes would be appropriate. Context is obviously very important.I did.... 0-10g fits all contexts. yours only fits certain contexts. Mine is more accurate.
Notice it has a RANGE of protein intakes... Depends on your LBM and activity factor. Notice how the % of protein goes up with the activity level.
So, you are saying that these are the most optimal protein intake levels? Does your activity level differentiate between endurance and strength training? How about age? How about caloric deficit?
Cannot see a 0g or a 10g there.
ETA: wait a minute - you go on about protein not mattering and the recommendations being too high, yet your lowest setting is 1g per lb LBM....
Also, where are the multipliers from? what basis is protein requirements 1.1 g/lb/lbm is you are lightly active? Why is category 1 the same as 2 if they are supposed to have different requirements. That table makes absolutely no sense based on everything you have said so far.0 -
You recommended DEXA.... DEXA can be inaccurate. I thought you knew science? See the problem? (debunked)Like all other body fat estimation techniques, DEXA has numerous sources of error. There can be inconsistent results between different machines from different manufacturers, and even different results between machines from the same manufacturer. Software upgrades can change the algorithms that the device uses to calculate body composition. Different hardware and software configurations can result in different interpolations of soft tissue over bone, and different treatment of pixels of which a small portion is bone. The type of X-ray beam (fan beam or pencil beam) can also be a source of error; DEXA machines with fan beams can suffer from beam magnification (also known as parallax error). A final source of error is the same error that all 2-compartment models also have: the hydration of fat-free mass. In fact, a 5% variation in fat-free mass hydration can change your DEXA-determined body fat percentage by nearly 3%. This can be a problem when comparing different ethnicities or body types where fat-free mass hydration can vary. It can also be a problem when trying to measure change over time.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=260
Debunked? You like that word, but you might want to read your source before using it.
Let's see what the article said about skinfolds:There are many sources of error with this technique. First, the technique is highly sensitive to how skilled the technician is at grabbing the fat and pulling it away from the underlying muscle tissue. Improper technique can introduce error into the results.
...
skinfold testing is a prediction based off of a prediction. Skinfold testing equations, like the Jackson-Pollock equation, were developed off of hydrostatic weighing measurements (which themselves are predictions with error). Thus, if hydrostatic weighing can have an error rate of up to 5-6% in individuals, then skinfold testing equations are going to compound that error.
---
The individual error rates were huge, ranging from an overprediction of 10% to an underprediction of over 15%. For men, the error rates were no better. Using the Durnin and Womersley equation, the individual error rates got as high as 10-15% in both directions
and let's not forget that calipers are useless for the obese.
So you have an inexperienced operator using an inaccurate method on someone who is too fat to accurately use calipers. And this is the entire crux of your argument about your LBM.0 -
Your chart is wrong. It should say BMR instead of TDEE. The activity levels are included in TDEE, so the activity levels are irrelevant if you state what the TDEE is.
TDEE=BMR+NEAT+EAT0 -
Sara made a good point there - I don't see any reference to anything anywhere even near 0g or 10g.
Also, I'd like to hear more about how you rewrote IPOARM. Or maybe I should just ask Helloitsdan to clarify that for us instead.0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/978858-protein-needs-and-calculating
Here is great article based on actual research of body builders. So those actually eating in excess to build muscle, or cutting and needing to maintain for competition. And they are at healthy weight and bodyfat levels already.
http://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
Here are some highlights.I only included them if they controlled for sweating and dietary adaptation periods.
• 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.
Based on the sound research, many review papers have concluded 0.82g/lb is the upper limit at which protein intake benefits body composition (Phillips & Van Loon, 2011). This recommendation often includes a double 95% confidence level, meaning they took the highest mean intake at which benefits were still observed and then added two standard deviations to that level to make absolutely sure all possible benefits from additional protein intake are utilized. As such, this is already overdoing it and consuming 1g/lb ‘to be safe’ doesn’t make any sense. 0.82g/lb is already very safe.
The picture below summarizes the literature. As you can see, 1.8g/kg (0.82g/lb) is the point at which additional protein intake ceases to yield any benefits.
A final objection that is often heard is that these values may be true during bulking or maintenance periods, but cutting requires more protein to maintain muscle mass. Walberg et al. (1988) studied cutting weightlifters and they still found 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass.
There is normally no advantage to consuming more than 0.82g/lb (1.8g/kg) of protein per day to preserve or build muscle. This already includes a very safe mark-up. There hasn’t been any recorded advantage of consuming more than 0.64g/lb. The only exceptions to this rule could be individuals with extraordinarily high anabolic hormone levels.0 -
In that group you have, you specifically said. "At minimum 1.0g protein." Minimum means MINIMUM.Let's talk about context:and to be honest, looking at your pictures. The higher BF% you are at the less protein is actually needed to maintain lean body mass.
Fuel availabilty is a factor on top of protein intake on where the energy is pulled from
Your responseI do agree with you to some extent. We also have to take in to consideration protein intake vs cutting and and bulking... Plus different body fat % (as you mentioned).
The leaner you are the more protein you need I'll give you that, also when you're cutting you need more protein(supposedly). I do agree with that, but the question is "how much?" the common recommendations are to high IMO. Nothing wrong with them, they work, I rather be eating something else then trying to "get my macros" in.
Hmmmm...debunked?
oh, and
you:I don't know the condition of the OP but for example if he's severely over weight
Where it is clear that the OP is not overweight and is looking to bulk (it says so in the title ffs).
And, you have mentioned my 'cookie cutter' recommendations before and I have clarified on a number of occasions, but it appears you have a very very short memory. I have pointed you to the thread I did and the fact that it mentions the cases where lower amounts would be ok (hint: higher BF%).
Where is the debunking again?
I can tell you with 100% certainty... It's not 1.0g per LBM for most people on MFP. (see how I applied context)
Looks at your chart, looks at your comment and laughs
Also, you failed to read...again0 -
I'm sorry, I must have missed where you specifically recommended 0.82g/lb. of protein per day. Wasn't your last standing point that your recommendation varied anywhere from 0-10g/lb LBM? Didn't you repeatedly state that a concrete recommendation was ridiculous and that it depended entirely upon context? So just so we have this straight, now you're saying that 0.82g/lb is a solid recommendation regardless of context and should be used by everybody?This article in 6 words: Consume 0.82g/lb of protein every day...
...The guy with bad science, who doesn't know what he is talking about, who makes things up, who education is crap. Was right, now the question is... where does this leave everyone else? (cough cough).
Allow me to quote from one of your prior posts, to ensure that you're able to recall what you said:You're right it's about context. Setting 1g minimum would be false in certain contexts. So the question is, "is 1g of protein minimum required?" Yes or No? The obvious answer is No. claims that "could be true" or "may not be true" really have no basis in science.
you can reword it... "protein intake per lbs of LBM should be 0-10g" is this true? YES. problem solved. You shouldn't have a fixed number when things are context dependent.0 -
I'm sorry, I must have missed where you specifically recommended 0.82g/lb. of protein per day. Wasn't your last standing point that your recommendation varied anywhere from 0-10g/lb LBM? Didn't you repeatedly state that a concrete recommendation was ridiculous and that it depended entirely upon context? So just so we have this straight, now you're saying that 0.82g/lb is a solid recommendation regardless of context and should be used by everybody?This article in 6 words: Consume 0.82g/lb of protein every day...
...The guy with bad science, who doesn't know what he is talking about, who makes things up, who education is crap. Was right, now the question is... where does this leave everyone else? (cough cough).
And isn't that about 1g/lb/lbm?0 -
In that group you have, you specifically said. "At minimum 1.0g protein." Minimum means MINIMUM.Let's talk about context:and to be honest, looking at your pictures. The higher BF% you are at the less protein is actually needed to maintain lean body mass.
Fuel availabilty is a factor on top of protein intake on where the energy is pulled from
Your responseI do agree with you to some extent. We also have to take in to consideration protein intake vs cutting and and bulking... Plus different body fat % (as you mentioned).
The leaner you are the more protein you need I'll give you that, also when you're cutting you need more protein(supposedly). I do agree with that, but the question is "how much?" the common recommendations are to high IMO. Nothing wrong with them, they work, I rather be eating something else then trying to "get my macros" in.
Hmmmm...debunked?
oh, and
you:I don't know the condition of the OP but for example if he's severely over weight
Where it is clear that the OP is not overweight and is looking to bulk (it says so in the title ffs).
And, you have mentioned my 'cookie cutter' recommendations before and I have clarified on a number of occasions, but it appears you have a very very short memory. I have pointed you to the thread I did and the fact that it mentions the cases where lower amounts would be ok (hint: higher BF%).
Where is the debunking again?
I can tell you with 100% certainty... It's not 1.0g per LBM for most people on MFP. (see how I applied context)
Looks at your chart, looks at your comment and laughs
Also, you failed to read...again
those recommendations on the chart is to prevent people like you coming to the topic and derailing it... You know i don't believe in 1g per LBM. good night...
lololol, then why post it? You are hilarious.0 -
Going to summarize what bales posted...
http://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/Take Home Messages
• There is normally no advantage to consuming more than 0.82g/lb (1.8g/kg) of protein per day to preserve or build muscle. This already includes a very safe mark-up. There hasn’t been any recorded advantage of consuming more than 0.64g/lb. The only exceptions to this rule could be individuals with extraordinarily high anabolic hormone levels.
• Optimal protein intake decreases with training age, because your body becomes more efficient at preventing protein breakdown resulting from training and less protein is needed for the increasingly smaller amount of muscle that is built after each training session. The magnitude of this effect is unclear.
This article in 6 words: Consume 0.82g/lb of protein every day.
The guy with bad science, who doesn't know what he is talking about, who makes things up, who education is crap. Was right, now the question is... where does this leave everyone else? (cough cough).
lolwut. Looks at post above.
0.82g/lb approximates 1g/lb/lbm /smh
Also, cognitive bias much (or at least misplaced cognitive bias)0 -
.82per lb is close enough to 1 gram per LBM.0
-
Yes. Yes it is..82per lb is close enough to 1 gram per LBM.0 -
Yes. Yes it is..82per lb is close enough to 1 gram per LBM.
Yep, especially when most of the studies cited use nitrogen balance as a proxy for muscle protein synthesis (and/or are of short duration) which underestimates protein requirements - kind of makes sense to round up a bit.0 -
Yes. Yes it is..82per lb is close enough to 1 gram per LBM.
Yep, especially when most of the studies cited use nitrogen balance as a proxy for muscle protein synthesis (and/or are of short duration) which underestimates protein requirements - kind of makes sense to round up a bit.
Actually, from the intro paragraphs,
" If the studies were based on unreliable methods such as nitrogen balance, a marker of lean body mass changes, I only included them if they controlled for sweating and dietary adaptation periods."0 -
Yes. Yes it is..82per lb is close enough to 1 gram per LBM.
Yep, especially when most of the studies cited use nitrogen balance as a proxy for muscle protein synthesis (and/or are of short duration) which underestimates protein requirements - kind of makes sense to round up a bit.
Actually, from the intro paragraphs,
" If the studies were based on unreliable methods such as nitrogen balance, a marker of lean body mass changes, I only included them if they controlled for sweating and dietary adaptation periods."
Yep - I knew about that already - still does not mean that they do not underestimate,0 -
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to stick with a minimum protein intake of 1g/LBM...
...because I'd rather be a little over than a little under...
...and protein is delicious.
(ETA: Well, that, and the recently popular claim that excess protein calories can't be stored as fat, so....bonus, I guess.)0 -
Is that why protein causes encaphalopathy with people that habe liver impairment? Cause it doesnt produce ammonia at all? Where does it say that it is temperature dependent? It jusy shows energy being released.
Which picture are you talking about 30% bodyfat and loose skin? When i was at 400lbs i was like 38% bodyfat I believe.
2% is minor compared to calipers which skill is dependent upon the person. Even then it doesnt take visceral fat into account.
I have challenged your experience but you got it deleted.
Yes still waiting for someone to tell me they cut down their protein and lost muscle mass. It's "my papers against your papers" so the only thing left is experience... I have been waiting all day. Anyone who has challenged anything I have said on the subject.I dont think PU actually realizes his presentation of information and general attitude is a problem with this community. Everyone has had a problem with his presentation of information and all of his claims
"If you cant spot the crazy person, its you"
You mean they're mad because I debunk everything they say... Oh that reminds how can protein be stored??? You where bashing that women about it. I am curious.
Orly?
You still follow off of calipers and believe that they are a proper way of measuring LBM. After you stated that, that means you dont know how LBM is properly measured.
Using inaccurate forms of measurement = / = cant determine your LBM.
Your experience has been flawed
You recommended DEXA.... DEXA can be inaccurate. I thought you knew science? See the problem? (debunked)
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=260Like all other body fat estimation techniques, DEXA has numerous sources of error. There can be inconsistent results between different machines from different manufacturers, and even different results between machines from the same manufacturer. Software upgrades can change the algorithms that the device uses to calculate body composition. Different hardware and software configurations can result in different interpolations of soft tissue over bone, and different treatment of pixels of which a small portion is bone. The type of X-ray beam (fan beam or pencil beam) can also be a source of error; DEXA machines with fan beams can suffer from beam magnification (also known as parallax error). A final source of error is the same error that all 2-compartment models also have: the hydration of fat-free mass. In fact, a 5% variation in fat-free mass hydration can change your DEXA-determined body fat percentage by nearly 3%. This can be a problem when comparing different ethnicities or body types where fat-free mass hydration can vary. It can also be a problem when trying to measure change over time.
This little chart you posted
This is not correct because ammonia has an equilibrium constant, it's temperature dependent, ammonia may not even be produced at all, depends on the temperature. SO your chart is wrong, (debunked)
You were more than 30% bodyfat. more like 35%+.
someone at 30% bodyfat would not have as much loose skin as you did. I was 30% bodyfat in my first progress pic at 235 and did look anything like you.
My first caliper measurements said I was 18% body fat at 215. That was before I even touched weights. LOL
Ammonia may not be produced at all? According to what?
LOL
About ammonia
NH3 + H2O <--> NH4+ + OH-
See the little arrows going back and forth? That means it's in equlibrium. Meaning products(NH4+(ammonium)) are being produced and reactants are being produced(NH3(Ammonia). It goes back and forth between the reactants and the products.
The reaction is exothermic, that means heat is released. Um... Here is a short explanation of La chatelier's principal.If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change and a new equilibrium is established.
Our reaction, "NH3 + H2O <--> NH4+ + OH-" If you add some NH4(ammonium) to the mix. It will relieve the pressure by making more NH3(ammonia). So it will be back in equlibrium. If I add more ammonia(NH3) it will make more ammonium to relieve the pressure.
Remember this is an exothermic reaction? Heat is released. This is what it looks like with heat(Energy). " "NH3 + H2O <--> NH4+ + OH- + HEAT" heat is now a product... Remember what you do to one side will effect the other side... If you decrease the temperature it will shift the reaction to the left... Making a lot more NH4(ammonium) than ammonia. It can get to the point where no ammonia is produced at all.0 -
Like, go away
In that group you have, you specifically said. "At minimum 1.0g protein." Minimum means MINIMUM.Let's talk about context:and to be honest, looking at your pictures. The higher BF% you are at the less protein is actually needed to maintain lean body mass.
Fuel availabilty is a factor on top of protein intake on where the energy is pulled from
Your responseI do agree with you to some extent. We also have to take in to consideration protein intake vs cutting and and bulking... Plus different body fat % (as you mentioned).
The leaner you are the more protein you need I'll give you that, also when you're cutting you need more protein(supposedly). I do agree with that, but the question is "how much?" the common recommendations are to high IMO. Nothing wrong with them, they work, I rather be eating something else then trying to "get my macros" in.
Hmmmm...debunked?
oh, and
you:I don't know the condition of the OP but for example if he's severely over weight
Where it is clear that the OP is not overweight and is looking to bulk (it says so in the title ffs).
And, you have mentioned my 'cookie cutter' recommendations before and I have clarified on a number of occasions, but it appears you have a very very short memory. I have pointed you to the thread I did and the fact that it mentions the cases where lower amounts would be ok (hint: higher BF%).
Where is the debunking again?
I can tell you with 100% certainty... It's not 1.0g per LBM for most people on MFP. (see how I applied context)
Looks at your chart, looks at your comment and laughs
Also, you failed to read...again
those recommendations on the chart is to prevent people like you coming to the topic and derailing it... You know i don't believe in 1g per LBM. good night...0 -
Yes. Yes it is..82per lb is close enough to 1 gram per LBM.
Yep, especially when most of the studies cited use nitrogen balance as a proxy for muscle protein synthesis (and/or are of short duration) which underestimates protein requirements - kind of makes sense to round up a bit.
Actually, from the intro paragraphs,
" If the studies were based on unreliable methods such as nitrogen balance, a marker of lean body mass changes, I only included them if they controlled for sweating and dietary adaptation periods."
Dietary adaptation period for protein/nitrogen balance seems to be 10 to 14 days. Studies of 1-3 weeks that don't take that into consideration should be tossed out.
Is that what you did? I'm not being snide, just trying to understand here without going into each study.0 -
I was just just curious...about your degree. I said above, "the microbiologist" so i wasn't sure if I was correct. Just wanted to clarify. I'll remember that "biomedical engineer."side note, what is your degree in again? Microbiology, or just general biology?
I'm saying my degrees don't matter. I wasn't studying nutrition or bulking then.
But my background is biomedical engineering (BS,MS,DEA) with minor in biology and biomaterials. My research was focused on cell adhesion molecules, actin and biotin metabolism, TIRF microscopy, valves, hip implants and osteogenesis.
I taught biosensors and biological transport (a systems approach to fluid dynamics, bioavailability, etc.) and based on that and my readings I do try to address specific questions as I may.
Any recommendation I make with regards to bulking is based on what I read and personal experience as per above thread. And it seems that Sara has very strong experience/knowledge on protein recommendations for bulking. One starting point of my reading was a thread she posted a while back.
Talked to a counselor to make sure I am on track with everything, thinking multiple majors.my A lot of my biochem course are also used in chemical engineer. I was talking to a counselor about nutrition, kinestiology, dietetics. After our discussion i decided to throw dietetic in to the mix. This is way down the road though, not now... Notice there is quiet a few microbiology courses I need. So that's where you come in, i thought you where a microbiology, so was a bit interested.
My mother was a biologist. My grandfather was a self taught micro photographer and naturalist - just found some of his slide boxes from when I was 8 or so. My daughter just finished her first year in biology (no specialization planned in th area - she intends to use in for forensic anthropology).
Sincere good luck on your studies - I'd probably be attracted to more pure neurobiology or genetic/microbiology today.
Btw - for the ammonia equation the body is pretty much a heat sink and temp is constant, I'd think.
Also, proteins-> AA -> free serum AA <--> active cell transport or albumin synthesis <--> intracellular AA <--> protein synthesis : this is the cellular storage of protein. (Plasma protein storage alone is about 30 to 60 g of bioavailable AA. )
Also also, urea released is readsorbed (most likely) from bacterial protein synthesis in the lower colon in nutritionally significant manner. Urea excretion is primarily urine - these are te essential issues with the diagram.
Also also also any diet that recommends 0 g protein or 10 g/lb woud be a bad idea. Neither extreme would be heathy.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions