The Protein Myth

Options
245

Replies

  • Hendrix7
    Hendrix7 Posts: 1,903 Member
    Options
    There is a difference between minimum protein requirements and optimal protein intake.
  • 3RachaelFaith3
    3RachaelFaith3 Posts: 283 Member
    Options
    here's why I have protein shakes after workouts:
    1. because protein is good for muscles
    2. protein fills me for longer
    3. I get hungry and it serves as a great snack
    4. I add in lots of other healthy things that provide nutritious calories for my diet
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options
    Why would mfp set it too low really?

    It sets protein at the RDA recommendation which presumes a maintenance level of calories for people not engaged in high intensity training specifically weight training.

    Protein requirements rise when in a calorie deficit and / or engaged in rigorous training.

    Having said that the "zomg you must consume a protein shake within 30 minutes of a workout or your muscles will fall off" line in daft....
  • BeachGingerOnTheRocks
    BeachGingerOnTheRocks Posts: 3,927 Member
    Options
    For me, it is simple.

    I like protein. I feel better when I eat 100 grams of protein a day. That's slightly over 1g/LBM, but not much over. It's easy to eat that much protein, and I have gotten hella stronger eating this way over the past few months.

    I also like fat. I feel better when I eat around 50-60g/day.

    I also like carbs. I have no idea how many carbs I eat in a day because I don't track it. I guess that depends on how many calories I consume. I'm guessing it's a lot when I eat 2400 calories.

    Science? In a way. Hypothesis ==> trial. Trial ==> feel better. Feel better ==> better performance.

    I was my own test subject. If anyone would like to see the results of the study, my diary and photo album is open.
  • haroon_awan
    haroon_awan Posts: 1,208 Member
    Options
    Edit: nvm
    Yep.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    Why would mfp set it too low really?

    It sets protein at the RDA recommendation which presumes a maintenance level of calories for people not engaged in high intensity training specifically weight training.

    Protein requirements rise when in a calorie deficit and / or engaged in rigorous training.

    Having said that the "zomg you must consume a protein shake within 30 minutes of a workout or your muscles will fall off" line in daft....

    Bingo. Well said.
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    Options
    MFP set my protein goal at 46g a day, which for me personally was way too low. I usually get 100-150g a day, or at the lowest like 80g.

    When you lose weight quickly, your body can often get rid of muscle just as much as it does fat. Then you end up looking flabby. Eating a lot of protein supposedly helps your body hold on to more muscle than it would otherwise. That's just what I've heard though, and I'm too lazy to do research right now :P

    If you're feeling fine eating lower amounts, I don't see why you can't. I do think what MFP sets you at is the bare minimum you need, so it definitely wouldn't hurt to increase it some. Especially if you're doing ANY kind of strength training, not just heavy lifting. Your muscles will thank you.

    Also, I personally feel like I look a hell of a lot leaner when I eat a mostly-protein diet. That could be different for everyone though.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    OP: nobody is making claims that suboptimal protein intakes mean zero progress. That's a bit of a strawman.

    Regarding the recommendation for higher intake, johnnythan covered it---on my phone so I can't click the study but hopefully it's the schoenfeld/Aragon meta. If not I'll link it later.

    The RDA rec for protein is based on old data using nitrogen balance. Nitrogen balance is a poor indicator of lbm status due to NB measuring whole body nitrogen. It's not tissue specific.

    There's research showing significant benefit specifically comparing the RDA to 2xRDA and 3xRDA and the higher protein intake is superior.

    Phone posting so I'm being short.
  • _SABOTEUR_
    _SABOTEUR_ Posts: 6,833 Member
    Options
    Weight loss comes from a Net calorie deficit.

    You will lose muscle as well as fat.

    Lifting heavy and eating higher than normal levels of protein will help offset the muscle loss, so your weight loss is mostly fat. This also has the benefit of you maintaining a higher metabolism as you lose weight so you don't end up having to drastically reduce your calories to continue losing weight.

    This is why a higher % of protein is recommended by those in the know.
  • Willowana
    Willowana Posts: 493 Member
    Options
    My doctor recommended I up my protein. It keeps me full longer. He's the one that recommended protein shakes to me. And, regardless of whether or not it's the 'proper' way or the most healthiest....it's working for me. If I don't have some source of protein with every meal, whether meat, dairy or vegetable based, I get cranky and feel like binge eating. So, to each their own. It works for me.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    OP: nobody is making claims that suboptimal protein intakes mean zero progress. That's a bit of a strawman.

    Regarding the recommendation for higher intake, johnnythan covered it---on my phone so I can't click the study but hopefully it's the schoenfeld/Aragon meta. If not I'll link it later.

    The RDA rec for protein is based on old data using nitrogen balance. Nitrogen balance is a poor indicator of lbm status due to NB measuring whole body nitrogen. It's not tissue specific.

    There's research showing significant benefit specifically comparing the RDA to 2xRDA and 3xRDA and the higher protein intake is superior.

    Phone posting so I'm being short.

    Here's the Shoenfeld Aragon nutrient timing paper:
    http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5

    The one I linked to is the "Contemporary Issues in Protein Requirements and Consumption for Resistance Trained Athletes" meta by Wilson in 2006.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    OP: nobody is making claims that suboptimal protein intakes mean zero progress. That's a bit of a strawman.

    Regarding the recommendation for higher intake, johnnythan covered it---on my phone so I can't click the study but hopefully it's the schoenfeld/Aragon meta. If not I'll link it later.

    The RDA rec for protein is based on old data using nitrogen balance. Nitrogen balance is a poor indicator of lbm status due to NB measuring whole body nitrogen. It's not tissue specific.

    There's research showing significant benefit specifically comparing the RDA to 2xRDA and 3xRDA and the higher protein intake is superior.

    Phone posting so I'm being short.

    Here's the Shoenfeld Aragon nutrient timing paper:
    http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5

    The one I linked to is the "Contemporary Issues in Protein Requirements and Consumption for Resistance Trained Athletes" meta by Wilson in 2006.

    Thanks.
  • ebailey710
    ebailey710 Posts: 271 Member
    Options
    Same thing goes with calories on MFP. It had me originally set to 1200. I was starving, cranky, and tired. Decided to up my calories and have never looked back. There was no huge disclaimer about it being "too low." It also had my fiber set too low. Just because MFP gives you a certain amount doesn't mean it's correct.

    *I know your question was about protein but I was just trying to give a comparison.

    I agree. My calories are set at 1720, but I rarely eat that little, especially when working out. I was always starving to the point of headaches and dizziness. My friend had told me that the 1720 was to lose the 2 pounds a week I wanted if I were laying in bed all day. Someone working out regularly should have more of everything. Calories, protein, fibers, etc. I wish MFP were set up to incorporate that a little better. Or at least let people know.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    I've read that using a percentage based protein recommendation as opposed to the gram recommendation based on body weight can err too low, especially for people cutting calories. I remember a teen on here who was confident he was getting enough protein on nowhere near enough calories (under 1200 and he was not yet 18) because he was hitting the percentage that MFP recommended. When I referred him to the accepted standard formula in the USA (not for body builders or athletes), he wasn't hitting it. He did say that motivated him to get more protein, which hopefully meant more calories too.

    I know I feel better when I get more protein, which is often double what MFP recommends for me on the default settings.
  • Loftearmen
    Loftearmen Posts: 380
    Options
    Even a lot of nutritionists, exercise physiologists and kinesiologists will argue that it is unnecessary for anyone, including bodybuilders, powerlifters, strongmen and football players, to consume more than 100 grams of protein per day; however, how many of these nutritionists, physiologists and kinesiologists have a 600lb squat or 22" biceps? I would venture to say very few if any. Athletes are always ahead of the scientific curve because they don't require a 10 year long, triple blind university conducted study to know that something works. They try it once and if it works well for them they keep it. The moral of the story? If you are doing any sort of resistance training it is important for you to be eating a lot more protein that mfp recommends. I aim for 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight per day weather I am cutting or bulking at the time. This much may not be necessary for everyone but it's a good place to start.
  • Erica_theRedhead
    Erica_theRedhead Posts: 724 Member
    Options
    When you work out hard you can form micro tears in your muscles. Eating protein can help you body recover and reform the muscles to make them stronger, hence why we work out.

    As far as why everyone needs to eat more protein on a daily basis, I can think of two reasons. First, protein fills you up for longer. It is relatively low calorie for the amount of time that it sustains you, and is digests slowly and causes less of an insulin spike than carbs. This helps delay the wasting of energy which can lead to fat synthesis.

    Secondly, I think our bodies were originally designed to eat different ratios of protein/carbs/fat. Back when our species started, our carbs came from mainly fruits and vegetables, and our diet was focused on meat, fish, legumes, etc, which have high protein contents. As we evolved and started processing foods, I think the fat and carbs increased while our protein remained the same or decreased.

    When people say "eat more protein" it's because a lot of people A. simply don't eat enough protein or B. eat it in such a small quantity when compared to fat and carbs that it's not going to help with their overall health or body composition.
  • NZhellkat
    NZhellkat Posts: 355 Member
    Options
    Just to play Devil's Advocate here, too much protein is worse than not enough. Your body will dump the excess protein in your urine. Which adds unnecessary stress and possible damage to your kidneys. So play it safe when you adjust your protein levels.

    Having said that, I have just upped my protein intake.
  • kennethmgreen
    kennethmgreen Posts: 1,759 Member
    Options
    OP's post are hidden from all but her friends, so there is not much context to go by. Posting a "rattle the cage" topic in that manner is suspect.
  • ratbasterd3
    Options
    Steak & Eggs diet , everyday !! LBS LOST : 21.3
    BODYFAT : 6.6% LOST ......~RB3
  • BeachGingerOnTheRocks
    BeachGingerOnTheRocks Posts: 3,927 Member
    Options
    Just to play Devil's Advocate here, too much protein is worse than not enough. Your body will dump the excess protein in your urine. Which adds unnecessary stress and possible damage to your kidneys. So play it safe when you adjust your protein levels.

    Having said that, I have just upped my protein intake.

    Pretty sure that the NIH has compiled almost a century of studies that say this isn't true.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262767/