Eric Helms - Protein research
Sarauk2sf
Posts: 28,072 Member
So, I did a poll on my FL for a topic for my 20,000th post (sad I know!), suggesting I could do a thread on acronyms or a nerdy protein one. I got a resounding…nerd!...so here it is.
The primary focus of this post is on the research conducted by Eric Helms et al. which can be found here: http://journals.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/Helms_ijsnem_2013_0054-in press.pdf titled "A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes"
This link is to a research paper that looked to prior studies conducted in an attempt to apply the results for recommendations for protein for lean, resistance trained athletes. Helms et al. also conducted a trial with regard to this, titled “Physiological Effects of Protein Modification in Resistance-trained Athletes During Caloric-restriction: a Double Blind Crossover Study", which I cannot find a link to so believe that it is still under review, but I have referenced here.
Eric Helms is a drug-free competitive body builder and powerlifter, one of the founders of 3D Muscle Journey, or 3DMJ ( http://www.3dmusclejourney.com ), and has a significant amount of education and experience in the fitness and nutrition field.
His bio, taken from the 3DMJ site, includes his qualifications as follows:
“Eric has a comprehensive array of certifications in the fields of personal training, performance enhancement, sports nutrition and strength and conditioning. He has a Bachelor’s in Sports Management: Fitness and Wellness, and a Master’s in Exercise Science & Health Promotion: Performance Enhancement & Injury Prevention from the California University of Pennsylvania. He also has a Master's of Philosophy from AUT in Auckland, New Zealand with a thesis titled "Exploring protein and macronutrient intakes in lean bodybuilders during caloric restriction." He’s continuing his studies as a PhD student in Strength & Conditioning researching auto-regulation in resistance training at AUT.”
And yes, I am a fangirl, both of 3DMJ generally and Helms’ individually…as is SideSteel. I would recommend subscribing to their YouTube channel as their videos are extremely informative.
So, onto the topic at hand.
Background
There is a significant amount of research on the topic of protein requirements that can be found. Unfortunately, much of it has its limitations and there is a distinct lack of it that can be found to cover protein requirements in resistance trained, lean athletes. For example, there is research that is on obese/overweight people, untrained people, athletes on steroids, people eating at maintenance, and that which uses nitrogen balance as a proxy for protein requirements (some of the limitations for which are described here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/869015-fundamental-flaws-with-rda-recommendations-for-protein) . The studies also usually use 2 variables when it comes to looking at what is better – which is usually one that is actually inadequate (often based on the RDA recommendations) and one which is higher - which means that it does not show what is optimal, but just what is better. So, gleaning an optimal (or close to optimal) amount of protein for a trained individual who is lean, or relatively lean, is a challenge. Point of note: getting a better handle on optimal amounts of protein is also important on the flip side of ‘getting enough’ in that ‘getting too much’ can result in forcing other macros to levels that at too low for more optimal performance and/or body functions and hormonal balance.
As Helms works primarily with lean individuals that are trained, this was obviously an area of interest for him and as such, was the focus of his thesis/research. That is not to say that people of a higher BF% than competitive bodybuilders were not included in the review, they were.
There is significant evidence that indicates that as someone’s caloric deficit increases, so does their protein requirement. In simplistic terms, the less energy you have from carbs, the more will be drawn from protein (a process called gluconeogenesis). This means that you will have less protein available for muscle protein synthesis. In other words, there will be less available for muscle repair and as such, maintenance of LBM. Also, there is evidence that the lower someone’s body fat is, the greater the need for protein as there just are fewer stores of available energy. Another factor that has evidence suggesting a higher protein requirement is someone’s activity levels (and this can vary for different activities e.g. endurance v strength training). For most of us maintaining LBM while dieting is extremely important and we want to ensure that we are doing everything we can to ensure that. So, someone on a calorie restriction, who is active, and particularly someone who is lean will have a greater need for protein to mitigate possible LBM losses. It should be noted that the RDA, while mention is made to an increased requirement for active people, is only applicable to people at maintenance, of average activity (which would not be much) and average BF% - and even their recommendations in those circumstances have been shown to be suboptimal (see link above as well as here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake).
Helms' Research
The papers of Helms et al. reviewed protein requirements from two angles:
1) Looking at prior studies that had been done (see link above).
2) Conducted their own study using 2 different protein intake levels (intervention study).
Limitations of the studies should be noted: the number of prior studies that fit the criteria and therefore could be used was limited (6); the dietary intake in the intervention study was self-reported (but did include a meal plan); body fat % assessments have, as usual, inherent inaccuracies; the intervention study was short in nature (2 weeks), and; the caloric restriction was relatively high compared to what you would generally see in practice, at 40% less than maintenance (used to be more comparable to other studies).
Review of Prior Studies:
I am not going to go into all the details here with regard to the first paper, as it would not be much of a write up then, and just a regurgitation of the paper, which can be found in the link provided at the top. In summary however, the studies were limited to:
- Resistance trained athletes on a caloric deficit.
- Body fat% was limited to below 23% for men and below 35% for women.
The basic findings were:
- The individuals with the highest BF% and who had new training stimuli (i.e. newbie gains) and smallest deficit either gained or maintained LBM – they also had the higher protein intake.
- The results of the studies imply that the higher protein levels are more preservative of LBM, however, there could be a net detrimental impact should fats and carbohydrates be reduced to below certain minimum levels in very lean individuals (i.e. if/when the negative impact of low fats and low carbohydrates outweigh the preservative benefit of higher protein). Sara’s nerdy side note: it would be interesting to see the impact on females re fats as fats are important for testosterone production, something women are less impacted by.
- The results also indicate that the severity of energy restriction is an extremely important aspect of LBM retention.
Recommendations:
- A range of 2.3 – 3.1g/kg/LBM (1 – 1.4g/lb/LBM) is generally the most preservative of LBM, with leaner athletes being on the higher end of the range.
Intervention Study:
As noted above, Helms et al. conducted their own trials with regard to protein requirements in resistance trained male athletes on a caloric restriction.
The trial was a double blind cross-over study on 13 male resistance trained athletes. They were split into two groups – high protein (2.8g/kg/lbm), low fat (HPLF) and moderate protein (1.6g/kg/lbm), moderate fat (MPMF). Carbohydtrates were kept constant. Calories were restricted to 40% below their prior consumption for both groups. The 2.8g/kg/lbm (1.27g/lb/lbm) was selected as this is the amount, on average, that resistance trained athletes habitually consume and the 1.6g/kg/lbm (0.72g/lb/lbm) was selected as this is a common recommendation within sports nutrition guidelines.
Fats comprised an average of 15% and 35% of total caloric intake for the HPLF and MPMF groups, respectively.
The starting BF% of the participants averaged 13.2% for these who started in the HPLF group and 14.1% for those who started in the MPMF group. They were provided with a meal plan and either protein or a protein/maltidextrose mix. A 25 – 49 day wash out period was used before the participants swapped from one intake group to the other.
Body fat was assessed using eight-site skinfold measurements conducted by an anthropometrist.
Findings:
- Strength maintenance was similar between the groups but varies amongst individuals.
- Fatigue, mood and diet satisfaction were most negatively impacted by those in the MPMF group (reminder however, this was only a 2 week trial).
- Reduction in body fat was similar between the two groups.
- The leanest individuals reported the greatest impact to fatigue and mood.
- LBM loss was less in the HPLF group compared to the MPMF group, by approximately 0.4kg, or 0.9lb. However, this should be assessed in light of the short duration of the study.
Practical application:
- While erring on the higher protein side *may* not provide significant impact on strength, or even body composition in the longer term (more studies are needed to form a definitive conclusion between the two protein intakes used), it may well increase diet adherence and mitigate stress and fatigue.
- Smaller caloric deficits than used in the study (TDEE – 40%) are recommended for LBM retention and diet adherence, stress management etc and will allow for a better macronutrient profile to maintain better performance and mitigate risks of hormonal imbalances.
In Summary
What this means for us in the ETP group. Well, nothing really new, but it confirms our current stance, which we lay out here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets of:
- Reasonable caloric deficit (what is reasonable will depend on how lean someone is), and;
- At least 1g/lb/lbm for people with ‘average’ body fat, more when leaner, less when overweight/obese.
The primary focus of this post is on the research conducted by Eric Helms et al. which can be found here: http://journals.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/Helms_ijsnem_2013_0054-in press.pdf titled "A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes"
This link is to a research paper that looked to prior studies conducted in an attempt to apply the results for recommendations for protein for lean, resistance trained athletes. Helms et al. also conducted a trial with regard to this, titled “Physiological Effects of Protein Modification in Resistance-trained Athletes During Caloric-restriction: a Double Blind Crossover Study", which I cannot find a link to so believe that it is still under review, but I have referenced here.
Eric Helms is a drug-free competitive body builder and powerlifter, one of the founders of 3D Muscle Journey, or 3DMJ ( http://www.3dmusclejourney.com ), and has a significant amount of education and experience in the fitness and nutrition field.
His bio, taken from the 3DMJ site, includes his qualifications as follows:
“Eric has a comprehensive array of certifications in the fields of personal training, performance enhancement, sports nutrition and strength and conditioning. He has a Bachelor’s in Sports Management: Fitness and Wellness, and a Master’s in Exercise Science & Health Promotion: Performance Enhancement & Injury Prevention from the California University of Pennsylvania. He also has a Master's of Philosophy from AUT in Auckland, New Zealand with a thesis titled "Exploring protein and macronutrient intakes in lean bodybuilders during caloric restriction." He’s continuing his studies as a PhD student in Strength & Conditioning researching auto-regulation in resistance training at AUT.”
And yes, I am a fangirl, both of 3DMJ generally and Helms’ individually…as is SideSteel. I would recommend subscribing to their YouTube channel as their videos are extremely informative.
So, onto the topic at hand.
Background
There is a significant amount of research on the topic of protein requirements that can be found. Unfortunately, much of it has its limitations and there is a distinct lack of it that can be found to cover protein requirements in resistance trained, lean athletes. For example, there is research that is on obese/overweight people, untrained people, athletes on steroids, people eating at maintenance, and that which uses nitrogen balance as a proxy for protein requirements (some of the limitations for which are described here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/869015-fundamental-flaws-with-rda-recommendations-for-protein) . The studies also usually use 2 variables when it comes to looking at what is better – which is usually one that is actually inadequate (often based on the RDA recommendations) and one which is higher - which means that it does not show what is optimal, but just what is better. So, gleaning an optimal (or close to optimal) amount of protein for a trained individual who is lean, or relatively lean, is a challenge. Point of note: getting a better handle on optimal amounts of protein is also important on the flip side of ‘getting enough’ in that ‘getting too much’ can result in forcing other macros to levels that at too low for more optimal performance and/or body functions and hormonal balance.
As Helms works primarily with lean individuals that are trained, this was obviously an area of interest for him and as such, was the focus of his thesis/research. That is not to say that people of a higher BF% than competitive bodybuilders were not included in the review, they were.
There is significant evidence that indicates that as someone’s caloric deficit increases, so does their protein requirement. In simplistic terms, the less energy you have from carbs, the more will be drawn from protein (a process called gluconeogenesis). This means that you will have less protein available for muscle protein synthesis. In other words, there will be less available for muscle repair and as such, maintenance of LBM. Also, there is evidence that the lower someone’s body fat is, the greater the need for protein as there just are fewer stores of available energy. Another factor that has evidence suggesting a higher protein requirement is someone’s activity levels (and this can vary for different activities e.g. endurance v strength training). For most of us maintaining LBM while dieting is extremely important and we want to ensure that we are doing everything we can to ensure that. So, someone on a calorie restriction, who is active, and particularly someone who is lean will have a greater need for protein to mitigate possible LBM losses. It should be noted that the RDA, while mention is made to an increased requirement for active people, is only applicable to people at maintenance, of average activity (which would not be much) and average BF% - and even their recommendations in those circumstances have been shown to be suboptimal (see link above as well as here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake).
Helms' Research
The papers of Helms et al. reviewed protein requirements from two angles:
1) Looking at prior studies that had been done (see link above).
2) Conducted their own study using 2 different protein intake levels (intervention study).
Limitations of the studies should be noted: the number of prior studies that fit the criteria and therefore could be used was limited (6); the dietary intake in the intervention study was self-reported (but did include a meal plan); body fat % assessments have, as usual, inherent inaccuracies; the intervention study was short in nature (2 weeks), and; the caloric restriction was relatively high compared to what you would generally see in practice, at 40% less than maintenance (used to be more comparable to other studies).
Review of Prior Studies:
I am not going to go into all the details here with regard to the first paper, as it would not be much of a write up then, and just a regurgitation of the paper, which can be found in the link provided at the top. In summary however, the studies were limited to:
- Resistance trained athletes on a caloric deficit.
- Body fat% was limited to below 23% for men and below 35% for women.
The basic findings were:
- The individuals with the highest BF% and who had new training stimuli (i.e. newbie gains) and smallest deficit either gained or maintained LBM – they also had the higher protein intake.
- The results of the studies imply that the higher protein levels are more preservative of LBM, however, there could be a net detrimental impact should fats and carbohydrates be reduced to below certain minimum levels in very lean individuals (i.e. if/when the negative impact of low fats and low carbohydrates outweigh the preservative benefit of higher protein). Sara’s nerdy side note: it would be interesting to see the impact on females re fats as fats are important for testosterone production, something women are less impacted by.
- The results also indicate that the severity of energy restriction is an extremely important aspect of LBM retention.
Recommendations:
- A range of 2.3 – 3.1g/kg/LBM (1 – 1.4g/lb/LBM) is generally the most preservative of LBM, with leaner athletes being on the higher end of the range.
Intervention Study:
As noted above, Helms et al. conducted their own trials with regard to protein requirements in resistance trained male athletes on a caloric restriction.
The trial was a double blind cross-over study on 13 male resistance trained athletes. They were split into two groups – high protein (2.8g/kg/lbm), low fat (HPLF) and moderate protein (1.6g/kg/lbm), moderate fat (MPMF). Carbohydtrates were kept constant. Calories were restricted to 40% below their prior consumption for both groups. The 2.8g/kg/lbm (1.27g/lb/lbm) was selected as this is the amount, on average, that resistance trained athletes habitually consume and the 1.6g/kg/lbm (0.72g/lb/lbm) was selected as this is a common recommendation within sports nutrition guidelines.
Fats comprised an average of 15% and 35% of total caloric intake for the HPLF and MPMF groups, respectively.
The starting BF% of the participants averaged 13.2% for these who started in the HPLF group and 14.1% for those who started in the MPMF group. They were provided with a meal plan and either protein or a protein/maltidextrose mix. A 25 – 49 day wash out period was used before the participants swapped from one intake group to the other.
Body fat was assessed using eight-site skinfold measurements conducted by an anthropometrist.
Findings:
- Strength maintenance was similar between the groups but varies amongst individuals.
- Fatigue, mood and diet satisfaction were most negatively impacted by those in the MPMF group (reminder however, this was only a 2 week trial).
- Reduction in body fat was similar between the two groups.
- The leanest individuals reported the greatest impact to fatigue and mood.
- LBM loss was less in the HPLF group compared to the MPMF group, by approximately 0.4kg, or 0.9lb. However, this should be assessed in light of the short duration of the study.
Practical application:
- While erring on the higher protein side *may* not provide significant impact on strength, or even body composition in the longer term (more studies are needed to form a definitive conclusion between the two protein intakes used), it may well increase diet adherence and mitigate stress and fatigue.
- Smaller caloric deficits than used in the study (TDEE – 40%) are recommended for LBM retention and diet adherence, stress management etc and will allow for a better macronutrient profile to maintain better performance and mitigate risks of hormonal imbalances.
In Summary
What this means for us in the ETP group. Well, nothing really new, but it confirms our current stance, which we lay out here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets of:
- Reasonable caloric deficit (what is reasonable will depend on how lean someone is), and;
- At least 1g/lb/lbm for people with ‘average’ body fat, more when leaner, less when overweight/obese.
0
Replies
-
1st !!!
0 -
Oh yeah great post very informative.0 -
I was revisiting this very subject just yesterday! Trying to hit my protein at my current body weight can be challenging. Thanx for posting this0
-
Great 20,000th post!0
-
Information assimilated.
Thanks Sara. 0 -
:drinker:
^^^^^^ those are protein shakes. just so there's no confusion.0 -
Great post, Sara! :drinker:0
-
Well done Sara! Thanks for the info. You're the only person I've ever known to hit 20000 posts. And what a post it was!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Hard to top that. Might be time to quit...you know, end on a high note. ????????
NO.
She can only quit when she posts full nudes in here.
Same goes for SS.0 -
Strong 20,000th post. Well done!
0 -
Thanks Sara! Great post.0
-
Yay! Great read
0 -
Excellent!
Tagging so that it appears on my wall and all my friendses read it and heed it (though they pretty much do already
). 0 -
In. OP I have a lot of skills let me know if you would like me to put them to use.0
-
Thank You!!! :flowerforyou: :drinker: 0
-
Nice 20k post!!!
I'm surprised that the recommendation went above the usual 1g/lb-LBM. Would you consider this only important for individuals with lower amounts of body fat, or could someone >25% bf benefit from this as well?0 -
Quality post.0
-
Interesting ty0
-
Tagging for my feed and adding yet another ETP post to my bookmarks :grumble: :laugh:
:flowerforyou:
0 -
0
-
Nice 20k post!!!
I'm surprised that the recommendation went above the usual 1g/lb-LBM. Would you consider this only important for individuals with lower amounts of body fat, or could someone >25% bf benefit from this as well?
There was no definitive findings, however, based on what came out of the review, any possible benefits would be individual and not necessarily related to body composition - i.e. performance/adherence. Note also the caveat that too high of a protein intake could be detrimental to body composition if it displaces too much of the other macros. Carbs re energy and fats re hormones can impact performance (and testosterone) and therefore the intake for these also needs to be considered when looking at the diet as a whole. Nothing indicates that a higher amount of protein would benefit men who have a BF% over 25% from a muscle protein synthesis perspective, but more more studies with a larger sample and fewer limitations would be needed for a more definitive answer.0 -
In. OP I have a lot of skills let me know if you would like me to put them to use.
I can think of a few skills I would be interested in ....just make sure you wear THE SHIRT.
However....DYEL?0 -
In. OP I have a lot of skills let me know if you would like me to put them to use.
I can think of a few skills I would be interested in ....just make sure you wear THE SHIRT.
However....DYEL?
0 -
:drinker:
^^^^^^ those are protein shakes. just so there's no confusion.
You sure they aren't these kinds of shakes?
0 -
Thanks Sara, that was great
One question. You saidAt least 1g/lb/lbm for people with ‘average’ body fat, more when leaner, less when overweight/obese
Would average/overweight/obese be per BMI recommendations? Or are there BodyFat cutoffs for estimating when one is overweight versus obese?0 -
Thanks Sara, that was great
One question. You saidAt least 1g/lb/lbm for people with ‘average’ body fat, more when leaner, less when overweight/obese
Would average/overweight/obese be per BMI recommendations? Or are there BodyFat cutoffs for estimating when one is overweight versus obese?
BMI is not relevant. You will find a few definitions of what is overweight (or overfat) from a BF%, but generally, and for the purposes of looking to whether less than 1g/lb/lbm of protein is sufficient, about 35% for females and about 25% for men.0 -
Thanks Sara. So if I'm a woman at 35%BF then it's okay to have a little less than 1g per LBM as protein, yes?
At what BF is a woman not overfat, when it would become important to ensure the 1gm/lb LBM then? Around 30% or even less?0 -
Thanks Sara. So if I'm a woman at 35%BF then it's okay to have a little less than 1g per LBM as protein, yes?
At what BF is a woman not overfat, when it would become important to ensure the 1gm/lb LBM then? Around 30% or even less?
If you are over 35%, I would think it ok (remember, there were no absolutes or conclusions). At less than 35% I would recommend the 1g/lb/lbm.0 -
Thanks, Sara, that is so useful to know0
