Do you really need the added protein?
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
.8 is the minimum, that's why I recommended she go with 1.0. Please never use pounds, always use kg. Using pounds to determine protein needs give you way more protein than you need.
Not if you're lifting or attempting to maintain muscle during a deficit.
^This
when you are in a deficit you are at risk of your body using muscle as fuel, so when losing weight you need more than that. Also if you are working out you need more in order to repair muscles. If you are working out and in a deficit you will need much more. I usually suggest 0.8 grams per lb of goal weight as a minimum for someone trying to lose weight.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
.8 is the minimum, that's why I recommended she go with 1.0. Please never use pounds, always use kg. Using pounds to determine protein needs give you way more protein than you need.
Okay then 1.4-2.0 grams per KG of lean body mass is what should be aimed for (there used KGs instead of Lbs)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
.8 is the minimum, that's why I recommended she go with 1.0. Please never use pounds, always use kg. Using pounds to determine protein needs give you way more protein than you need.
Okay then 1.4-2.0 grams per KG of lean body mass is what should be aimed for (there used KGs instead of Lbs)
There is no reason to go that high. You can easily maintain (in deficit) or build (gain) muscle with 1.0g/kg.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
.8 is the minimum, that's why I recommended she go with 1.0. Please never use pounds, always use kg. Using pounds to determine protein needs give you way more protein than you need.
Okay then 1.4-2.0 grams per KG of lean body mass is what should be aimed for (there used KGs instead of Lbs)
There is no reason to go that high. You can easily maintain (in deficit) or build (gain) muscle with 1.0g/kg.
Maybe if you are obese, but not if you are just "overweight" or "normal" weight, unless you are also new to lifting, then you may gain/maintain for a while, but eventually if in a deficit and train more you will start losing muscle.
I weigh 150 lbs if I only got 1 gram per KG that would put me at 68 grams, in a deficit I would lose muscle while cutting on such a low intake. and if it were per kg of lean body mass It would be more like 60 grams, no where near enough0 -
All you need is enough protein in a 24 hour period and as a rolling daily average. Protien makes us feel best, but we need all the other things too. Carbs (insulin) is actually the vehicle that gets protien into the muscle. Let your body be the judge of what you need over time. Eat enough of all the things, then play with the timing. Your body will give you a better answer than all the gurus and theories out there.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
.8 is the minimum, that's why I recommended she go with 1.0. Please never use pounds, always use kg. Using pounds to determine protein needs give you way more protein than you need.
No, I am talking about the beneficial level, and lbs is correct for that.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
.8 is the minimum, that's why I recommended she go with 1.0. Please never use pounds, always use kg. Using pounds to determine protein needs give you way more protein than you need.
Okay then 1.4-2.0 grams per KG of lean body mass is what should be aimed for (there used KGs instead of Lbs)
Works for me!0 -
the 20 grams is probably per MEAL.
0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sndarling9 wrote: »Added protein is not necessary. Women only need about 50-60g of protein a day, and that can easily be attained. Veggies, like broccoli actually have more protein than meat so if you are worried about protein than pack in the veggies. Please stay away from dairy as it also comes with a lot of fat, so do most meats. I myself am a vegan and have already lost ten pounds in two months. So yeah, don't worry about protein.
Any evidence for broccoli having more protein for meat? Also, would be curious why there is any concern whatsoever regarding the fat content of dairy.
It's a classic false logic talking point I've seen thrown out there now by several vegans. One of them tried to defend it in one thread and the narrative was so twisted that it was comical. The reality is that 4 ounces (114g) of boneless, skinless chicken breast has 35g of protein. So does 43 ounces (1,225g) of steamed broccoli. 4 ounces of broccoli contains 3g of protein, so it's an extremely disingenuous comparison. Nobody in their right mind is going to eat nearly 4 pounds of broccoli for lunch to get 35g of protein. With my protein goal being 191g/day, I'd have to eat 236 ounces (14.75 pounds) of broccoli per day to hit that goal.
I got my information from a book called Eat to Live and it compared grams of protein with number of calories. Yes meat does have more protein but also more calories, if you compare it that way than broccoli has more protein.
0 -
-
sndarling9 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sndarling9 wrote: »Added protein is not necessary. Women only need about 50-60g of protein a day, and that can easily be attained. Veggies, like broccoli actually have more protein than meat so if you are worried about protein than pack in the veggies. Please stay away from dairy as it also comes with a lot of fat, so do most meats. I myself am a vegan and have already lost ten pounds in two months. So yeah, don't worry about protein.
Any evidence for broccoli having more protein for meat? Also, would be curious why there is any concern whatsoever regarding the fat content of dairy.
It's a classic false logic talking point I've seen thrown out there now by several vegans. One of them tried to defend it in one thread and the narrative was so twisted that it was comical. The reality is that 4 ounces (114g) of boneless, skinless chicken breast has 35g of protein. So does 43 ounces (1,225g) of steamed broccoli. 4 ounces of broccoli contains 3g of protein, so it's an extremely disingenuous comparison. Nobody in their right mind is going to eat nearly 4 pounds of broccoli for lunch to get 35g of protein. With my protein goal being 191g/day, I'd have to eat 236 ounces (14.75 pounds) of broccoli per day to hit that goal.
I got my information from a book called Eat to Live and it compared grams of protein with number of calories. Yes meat does have more protein but also more calories, if you compare it that way than broccoli has more protein.
I'm familiar with it. Fuhrman is a crackpot who preaches junk science to sell his books/products, so it's not at all surprising to find that's where it came from. Protein per calorie is a disingenuous way to compare food sources and I'd only expect to find it stated that way in vegan propaganda.
If you look at any reputable site for a list of the best protein sources, broccoli won't even be anywhere on the list because you have to consume such a huge amount of it (I did the math for you in my earlier post) to get an amount of protein equivalent to many, many other food sources. And while you're doing your research, check the BV/PDCAAS scores for broccoli - it's not a complete protein and the bioavailability is far inferior to many other protein sources. Not saying there's anything wrong with broccoli, per se - I actually like it - but it's not a good protein source.0 -
That's really such a disingenuous way of calculating percentage protein.
First of all, it's not comparing like for like. He is showing vegetables and pulses in their pure form, but he picked two meats that are not pure meats but rather meat dishes containing meat, sauces etc.
If you take something like grilled chicken breast, and divide the protein per 100g (about 25-35) with calories per 100g (120-170), chicken breast would easily top the table. I can't but think its absence from the table (or indeed that of any pure lean meat) is deliberate to make his point.
So you had a look at this table and made a conclusion that green veg have more protein than most meet. The only conclusion you can actually make from this table is "using a weird and non standard calculation method, some green vegetables have more protein per calorie than two forms of highly processed meat dishes". It's actually terrifying that you use this as a basis of dispelling advice to other people about amounts and types of protein they should eat.
Second, calorie density is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. I'd rather have a small plate of chicken than a bucket of broccoli for a 500 dinner. Sure, what I'll actually have is about 100g of chicken, some oil, and some green vegetables, and some bread for a balanced meal.0 -
The average protein shake only has 150 calories for 24-27g of protein. That's really nothing0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »The typical recommendation is to take your weight (in lbs) x 0.6-0.8 to get a range (in grams) of a good daily protein goal for those trying to lose weight and maintain muscle mass.
Does that really apply to everybody, regardless of gender, age etc?
When I calculated my daily caloric intake, it gave me 55g as a daily protein goal. I eat lots of high protein food (fish, dairy products like quark, yoghurt and milk, eggs...) and usually get a bit more than 60g of protein per day. I never thought that I should worry about my protein intake, but according to your calculation, I should consume at least 88g per day.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
.8 is the minimum, that's why I recommended she go with 1.0. Please never use pounds, always use kg. Using pounds to determine protein needs give you way more protein than you need.
Okay then 1.4-2.0 grams per KG of lean body mass is what should be aimed for (there used KGs instead of Lbs)
There is no reason to go that high. You can easily maintain (in deficit) or build (gain) muscle with 1.0g/kg.
No, actually there is.
0.8 to 1 g protein per kg are minimums for a healthy person not losing weight.
While being under calorie restriction and losing weight research shows that higher protein is recommended because it improves lean mass retention. Since we are generally trying to lose fat, those higher recommendations actually make sense.
If you are training - doubly so. The recommendations for weight training or endurance exercise also increase protein for repair and performance...
References:"Elevated protein consumption, as high as 1.8-2.0 g · kg(-1) · day(-1) depending on the caloric deficit, may be advantageous in preventing lean mass losses during periods of energy restriction to promote fat loss"
- here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425
*Protein needs for energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes are likely 2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.
A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: a case for higher intakes.
0.8-1-0 g / kg bw healthy adult ADA (0.36 g/lb)
1.2-1.4 g / kg bw endurance (0.6 g/ lb)
1.6-1.7 g / kg bw strength (7.2 - 8 g /lb)
1.8-2.3 g/kg to prevent lean mass loss (0.8 -1 g /lb)
2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM (1.05 - 1.4 g / lb)*
1.8 g/kg (Menno Henselmans) in restriction
2.1 g/kg (Eric Helms) in restriction
Effect of protein intake on strength, body composition and endocrine changes in strength/power athletes. Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Kang J, Falvo MJ, Faigenbaum AD. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006 Dec 13;3:12-8.
Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet affects nitrogen retention and muscle function in weight lifters. Walberg JL, Leidy MK, Sturgill DJ, Hinkle DE, Ritchey SJ, Sebolt DR. Int J Sports Med. 1988 Aug;9(4):261-6.
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders. Lemon PW, Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. J Appl Physiol. 1992 Aug;73(2):767-75.
Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93.
Dietary protein for athletes: From requirements to optimum adaptation. Phillips SM, Van Loon LJ. J Sports Sci. 2011;29 Suppl 1:S29-38.
Protein and amino acid metabolism during and after exercise and the effects of nutrition. Rennie MJ, Tipton KD. Annu Rev Nutr. 2000;20:457-83.
Hartman, J. W., Moore, D. R., & Phillips, S. M. (2006). Resistance training reduces whole-body protein turnover and improves net protein retention in untrained young males. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 31, 557–564.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »The typical recommendation is to take your weight (in lbs) x 0.6-0.8 to get a range (in grams) of a good daily protein goal for those trying to lose weight and maintain muscle mass.
Does that really apply to everybody, regardless of gender, age etc?
When I calculated my daily caloric intake, it gave me 55g as a daily protein goal. I eat lots of high protein food (fish, dairy products like quark, yoghurt and milk, eggs...) and usually get a bit more than 60g of protein per day. I never thought that I should worry about my protein intake, but according to your calculation, I should consume at least 88g per day.
If you are losing weight, yes. We need higher protein during a deficit. Higher recommendation is you are active and practice a sport.
(I love quark.)0 -
5 cups of frozen spinach contains about as much protein as a chicken breast.
If I ate 5 cups of frozen spinach I'd probably be living on the toilet.
If it was my only source of protein - at about 25-30 cups a day, well, I'd be dead.
Someone is confusing protein per calorie, for protein per gram.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you are losing weight, yes. We need higher protein during a deficit. Higher recommendation is you are active and practice a sport.
(I love quark.)
Thanks for that answer and posting all those references in the previous post!
I eat about 1g/kg bw right now, but as I'm losing weight and started being more active, I should probably increase. Luckily I'm from a fish- and dairy products-loving country, so I might manage without protein shakes.
0 -
It's quite possible to hit objectives without supplements (even outside of FinlandEvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you are losing weight, yes. We need higher protein during a deficit. Higher recommendation is you are active and practice a sport.
(I love quark.)
Thanks for that answer and posting all those references in the previous post!
I eat about 1g/kg bw right now, but as I'm losing weight and started being more active, I should probably increase. Luckily I'm from a fish- and dairy products-loving country, so I might manage without protein shakes.
) but I find that I add powder about 2-3 times a week (usually in a serving of quark) for simplicity.
My "best" choices for protein are fish/shrimp, chicken/turkey and quark/fromage blanc.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's quite possible to hit objectives without supplements (even outside of Finland ) but I find that I add powder about 2-3 times a week (usually in a serving of quark) for simplicity.
My "best" choices for protein are fish/shrimp, chicken/turkey and quark/fromage blanc.
Haha, how did you come up with Finland?
Yes, I think it's quite possible, the only hard thing is staying within the calorie goal at the same time.
0 -
This is a really good article about protein. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-pre-post-workout-shakes.html0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It's quite possible to hit objectives without supplements (even outside of Finland ) but I find that I add powder about 2-3 times a week (usually in a serving of quark) for simplicity.
My "best" choices for protein are fish/shrimp, chicken/turkey and quark/fromage blanc.
Haha, how did you come up with Finland?
Yes, I think it's quite possible, the only hard thing is staying within the calorie goal at the same time.
Because your user name could be Sami - I spent a little time in the north of Finland and saw quite a few njaalla. I admit it could be Swedish or anything from the northern region.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Because it's probably Sami - I spent a little time in the north of Finland and saw quite a few njaalla. I admit it could be Swedish or anything from the northern region.
Oh, wow. Wouldn't have expected anybody here to guess what njaalla (or rather, njálla - not to be confused with njalla) stands for. But yes, the nick is Sami, but I'm not. And I do live in Finland right now (though that was not the country I was referring to), so your guess was quite accurate. 0 -
sndarling9 wrote: »
The only two meat products on that list are "meat loaf with gravy" and a Burger King Cheeseburger (which has more bread than meat).
Add a boneless, skinless chicken breast or a lean cut of sirloin or pork loin to that list.
Also, there is more to protein that just the amount. There's the quality and availability of the protein, as well.
There are nine essential amino acids that your body has to have. Meat based proteins have all nine. With the exception of a very short list (quinoa, soy and a few others), plant based proteins do not contain all nine essential amino acids. In order to get all the essential amino acids your body needs on a plant based diet you have to eat a mix of plants with complimentary amino acid profiles.0 -
sndarling9 wrote: »
So meat for you is a cheeseburger or meatloaf? Ok then...0 -
http://eathropology.com/2013/04/08/broccoli-has-more-protein-than-steak-and-other-crap/
"Let’s see how similar caloric intakes of steak and broccoli stack up when comparing how these two foods provide for essential amino acid requirements. A 275-calorie portion of steak (4 ounces) has 30.5 grams of protein and comes very close to meeting all the daily essential amino acid requirements for a 70 kg adult. A 277-calorie portion of broccoli is not only way more food—you’ll be chewing for a long time as you try to make it through 9 ¼ cups of broccoli—exactly NONE of the daily essential amino acid requirements for an adult are met:
In reality, it takes twice that much broccoli, or over 18 cups, containing nearly twice as many calories, in order to get anywhere near meeting all essential amino acid requirements. While I’m willing to concede that individual amino acid requirements may vary considerably, I am not willing to concede that similar caloric amounts of steak and broccoli provide a similar supply of those requirements. I’m no broccoli basher (it’s sooo yummy baked with cheese & a little bacon on top), but as a protein source, even a lot leaves a lot to be desired."0 -
sndarling9 wrote: »
Using those same columns, let's add chicken breast to the list.
Protein (g): 31
Calories: 165
Protein per calorie: .19
Percent protein: 75%
Looks like none of those green veggies even come close to the protein per calorie that you'll find in chicken breast. Add to that the fact that the chicken breast has a complete amino acid profile and it would appear that plants are a far inferior source of protein.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Using those same columns, let's add chicken breast to the list.
Protein (g): 31
Calories: 165
Protein per calorie: .19
Percent protein: 75%
Looks like none of those green veggies even come close to the protein per calorie that you'll find in chicken breast. Add to that the fact that the chicken breast has a complete amino acid profile and it would appear that plants are a far inferior source of protein.
It's absolutely laughable how obvious Furhman's cherry-picking is in that chart. Shows exactly what a fraud he is. He wouldn't include something as simple as a chicken breast because that clearly disproves his vegan propaganda. And of course he doesn't discuss essential amino acids, because that would nullify his agenda even further.
See, it's okay to trot out garbage like that when you're amongst a bunch of people who know nothing about the subject. They'll gasp wide-eyed and say "Really?!? I didn't know that!!! Why, I'm going to start eating my broccoli right away because it's num num proteinz!". The problem arises when you trot this fiction out in front of people who've expended the time and effort to learn a thing or two about nutrition. That's when it all goes downhill and people like Fuhrman are exposed for the frauds they are.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Using those same columns, let's add chicken breast to the list.
Protein (g): 31
Calories: 165
Protein per calorie: .19
Percent protein: 75%
Looks like none of those green veggies even come close to the protein per calorie that you'll find in chicken breast. Add to that the fact that the chicken breast has a complete amino acid profile and it would appear that plants are a far inferior source of protein.
It's absolutely laughable how obvious Furhman's cherry-picking is in that chart. Shows exactly what a fraud he is. He wouldn't include something as simple as a chicken breast because that clearly disproves his vegan propaganda. And of course he doesn't discuss essential amino acids, because that would nullify his agenda even further.
See, it's okay to trot out garbage like that when you're amongst a bunch of people who know nothing about the subject. They'll gasp wide-eyed and say "Really?!? I didn't know that!!! Why, I'm going to start eating my broccoli right away because it's num num proteinz!". The problem arises when you trot this fiction out in front of people who've expended the time and effort to learn a thing or two about nutrition. That's when it all goes downhill and people like Fuhrman are exposed for the frauds they are.
Yup. And it's fine if someone wants to live a vegan lifestyle. I couldn't care less (so long as they don't try to force it on me).
What's not ok is misleading people, spreading false information and making bogus claims about nutrition to make veganism seem easier than it is or somehow superior for health compared to an omnivorous diet.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions