How much protein is too much?
Replies
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »You only need 0.8g per lb. of. body mass. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald and others have posted articles as to why.
You only need more than 0.8g if you are on gear.
Let's say your protein daily goal is 60g, and you end up consuming 100. That's fine. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories should be your top priority, not macros.
But anyhow, it's all personal preference as to how you want your macros unless you're a bikini competitor.
No. Go back and read the articles you're referencing. That is the general rule of thumb and it's a good one, but what is actually suggested is a range, and in a cut the recommendations exceed that ratio.
The articles are all the same. I'm not sure which you're talking about, but this is the max. Sure, you can go beyond, but it's absolutely pointless, even in a cut.
I suggest you read Lou Schoullers articles because you seem to believe in some bro theories.
You may want to do a search on here under "protein" and read the articles before so self-assuredly pronouncing my loyalty to bro science. Read beyond the take-always and summaries. I'll post links later to help you out. I beleive the latest one was from Schoenfeld, but I'm operating from memory there.
Why would I need to do a search? There's nothing I need to see here at all. You're going to help me out? Lol. When you hit 670dl raw help me. I'm stuck at 6700 -
Not really such thing as too much. 1 g x 1 lb bodyweight is usually sufficient when working out.0
-
martyqueen52 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »You only need 0.8g per lb. of. body mass. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald and others have posted articles as to why.
You only need more than 0.8g if you are on gear.
Let's say your protein daily goal is 60g, and you end up consuming 100. That's fine. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories should be your top priority, not macros.
But anyhow, it's all personal preference as to how you want your macros unless you're a bikini competitor.
No. Go back and read the articles you're referencing. That is the general rule of thumb and it's a good one, but what is actually suggested is a range, and in a cut the recommendations exceed that ratio.
The articles are all the same. I'm not sure which you're talking about, but this is the max. Sure, you can go beyond, but it's absolutely pointless, even in a cut.
I suggest you read Lou Schoullers articles because you seem to believe in some bro theories.
Any good researcher such as the ones you mention base protein intake on LBM, not bodyweight, so not sure where you came up with that. Lyle says "it was eventually found that a protein intake of about 1.5 g/kg of lean body mass was necessary to spare LBM losses in a non-training obese individual consuming low calories."
and "we have an intake continuum ranging from about 1.5 g/kg (0.68 g/lb) as a minimum for the obese non-training individual up to a high of around 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of protein per pound of lean body mass for very lean heavily training athletes or bodybuilders with middle ground values being found in between those two extremes"
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html/
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/. From Alan and Lou combined, more than sufficient for me.
which is based on full bodyweight, not LBM, so the end result is the same. They agree. The reason this is dumb is that that page says a 500lb fat person should eat 365g of protein a day. This does not make sense.0 -
ShodanPrime wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »ShodanPrime wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »ShodanPrime wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »
Which would be shown with a blood panel. Unless bloods come back questionable, it's fine.
I know each has their own method, but my preference is to prevent kidney stress rather than react afterwards. I can still get plenty of protein without getting to the point of over-doing it.
Yes, many people prefer methods that reinforce beliefs and avoid quantifiable data. Quantifiable data is often hard to gather and work with for the average person, so that's natural. Also, it can destroy beliefs.
Are you suggesting that I intentionally eat so much protein that I experience kidney problems?!
I'm suggesting you're not looking at this logically.
I'd also suggest you find some goals and follow them in a coherent manner.
Finally, I'd suggest that you learn how to properly fuel yourself to achieve those goals, understand the basic research available regarding protein intake, and quit being concerned over remote silliness. Then I'd suggest that you learn to embrace quantifiable data, the concept of parameterized analytics wrt health, and the go about achieving those goals.
Arguing on a cell app is much easier though, than doing all that. So I understand. However, since my time I. The bathroom is near done... It's time for me to go about crushing those goals.
I have protein goals and have stated them. how is that not coherent? How is that not logical? My protein goals are safe, and blood/urine tests (including microalbumin) show I'm not over-doing protein. Why should I want to increase protein intake to an unsafe rate?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »ShodanPrime wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »ShodanPrime wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »ShodanPrime wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »
Which would be shown with a blood panel. Unless bloods come back questionable, it's fine.
I know each has their own method, but my preference is to prevent kidney stress rather than react afterwards. I can still get plenty of protein without getting to the point of over-doing it.
Yes, many people prefer methods that reinforce beliefs and avoid quantifiable data. Quantifiable data is often hard to gather and work with for the average person, so that's natural. Also, it can destroy beliefs.
Are you suggesting that I intentionally eat so much protein that I experience kidney problems?!
I'm suggesting you're not looking at this logically.
I'd also suggest you find some goals and follow them in a coherent manner.
Finally, I'd suggest that you learn how to properly fuel yourself to achieve those goals, understand the basic research available regarding protein intake, and quit being concerned over remote silliness. Then I'd suggest that you learn to embrace quantifiable data, the concept of parameterized analytics wrt health, and the go about achieving those goals.
Arguing on a cell app is much easier though, than doing all that. So I understand. However, since my time I. The bathroom is near done... It's time for me to go about crushing those goals.
I have protein goals and have stated them. how is that not coherent? How is that not logical? My protein goals are safe, and blood/urine tests (including microalbumin) show I'm not over-doing protein. Why should I want to increase protein intake to an unsafe rate?
See what I said about a preference for arguing over achieving? This is why people have a hard time hitting goals. But I can only lead you to the water.0 -
The program macros were off for me, needed to increase protein and lower carbs, also total calories needed reduction.0
-
martyqueen52 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »You only need 0.8g per lb. of. body mass. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald and others have posted articles as to why.
You only need more than 0.8g if you are on gear.
Let's say your protein daily goal is 60g, and you end up consuming 100. That's fine. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories should be your top priority, not macros.
But anyhow, it's all personal preference as to how you want your macros unless you're a bikini competitor.
No. Go back and read the articles you're referencing. That is the general rule of thumb and it's a good one, but what is actually suggested is a range, and in a cut the recommendations exceed that ratio.
The articles are all the same. I'm not sure which you're talking about, but this is the max. Sure, you can go beyond, but it's absolutely pointless, even in a cut.
I suggest you read Lou Schoullers articles because you seem to believe in some bro theories.
Any good researcher such as the ones you mention base protein intake on LBM, not bodyweight, so not sure where you came up with that. Lyle says "it was eventually found that a protein intake of about 1.5 g/kg of lean body mass was necessary to spare LBM losses in a non-training obese individual consuming low calories."
and "we have an intake continuum ranging from about 1.5 g/kg (0.68 g/lb) as a minimum for the obese non-training individual up to a high of around 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of protein per pound of lean body mass for very lean heavily training athletes or bodybuilders with middle ground values being found in between those two extremes"
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html/
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/. From Alan and Lou combined, more than sufficient for me.
which is based on full bodyweight, not LBM, so the end result is the same. They agree. The reason this is dumb is that that page says a 500lb fat person should eat 365g of protein a day. This does not make sense.
So why are you continuing to argue about it? No one needs more than 0.8g, even on a cut, unless their on Tren, DBol, EQ, etc.
I stuck with 0.8 since I started training and I can assure you it works. You're telling people to carb cycle too.... why?
You can continue to argue about it, but there's a reason these guys I follow are world class powerlifters, coaches, nutritionists... and you're just a random on MFP.0 -
martyqueen52 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »You only need 0.8g per lb. of. body mass. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald and others have posted articles as to why.
You only need more than 0.8g if you are on gear.
Let's say your protein daily goal is 60g, and you end up consuming 100. That's fine. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories should be your top priority, not macros.
But anyhow, it's all personal preference as to how you want your macros unless you're a bikini competitor.
No. Go back and read the articles you're referencing. That is the general rule of thumb and it's a good one, but what is actually suggested is a range, and in a cut the recommendations exceed that ratio.
The articles are all the same. I'm not sure which you're talking about, but this is the max. Sure, you can go beyond, but it's absolutely pointless, even in a cut.
I suggest you read Lou Schoullers articles because you seem to believe in some bro theories.
Any good researcher such as the ones you mention base protein intake on LBM, not bodyweight, so not sure where you came up with that. Lyle says "it was eventually found that a protein intake of about 1.5 g/kg of lean body mass was necessary to spare LBM losses in a non-training obese individual consuming low calories."
and "we have an intake continuum ranging from about 1.5 g/kg (0.68 g/lb) as a minimum for the obese non-training individual up to a high of around 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of protein per pound of lean body mass for very lean heavily training athletes or bodybuilders with middle ground values being found in between those two extremes"
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html/
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/. From Alan and Lou combined, more than sufficient for me.
which is based on full bodyweight, not LBM, so the end result is the same. They agree. The reason this is dumb is that that page says a 500lb fat person should eat 365g of protein a day. This does not make sense.
So why are you continuing to argue about it? No one needs more than 0.8g, even on a cut, unless their on Tren, DBol, EQ, etc.
I stuck with 0.8 since I started training and I can assure you it works. You're telling people to carb cycle too.... why?
You can continue to argue about it, but there's a reason these guys I follow are world class powerlifters, coaches, nutritionists... and you're just a random on MFP.
Dude first of all I was saying they agree with Lyle who happens to be pretty well respected as well. We follow the same people. Second of all I never argued anyone needs more than 0.8 or whatever number gets thrown around (I already quoted what I think is the correct, accurate number from Lyle since it is based on LBM - which is what is wrong with the specific article that was posted, they based it on total bodyweight, which is fine for a normal sized person, but not right for an obese person). I think people who say not to eat more than that are wrong. Eat whatever you want, you almost cannot eat too much protein. I eat 1g/lb of LBM while cutting, less when maintaining - per LBM is the important part here. As for carb cycling it is not necessary at all, but it makes more sense than protein cycling.0 -
I love protein.....
Very High Protein Diet For Fat Loss? Science Says Bodybuilders Were Right.
January 28, 2016
http://www.drmarcbubbs.com/articles/2016/1/very-high-protein-for-fat-loss-science-says-bodybuilders-were-right
"Dr. Stuart Phillips from McMaster University and world expert on protein metabolism has repeatedly stated that in healthy functioning kidneys, there are absolutely no adverse impacts on your kidney health. New research shows people consuming up to 3.0g/kg (well above the 2.4g/kg in the aforementioned study) of protein daily for an entire year show with no negative impacts on kidney function.(2) To summarize, a high protein intake is not bad for your kidneys, end of story."
The effects of a high protein diet on indices of health and body composition – a crossover trial in resistance-trained men
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-016-0114-2
Conclusion
In resistance-trained young men who do not significantly alter their training regimen, consuming a high protein diet (2.6 to 3.3 g/kg/day) over a 4-month period has no effect on blood lipids or markers of renal and hepatic function. Nor were there any changes in performance or body composition. This is the first crossover trial using resistance-trained subjects in which the elevation of protein intake to over four times the recommended dietary allowance has shown no harmful effects.
Improved Function With Enhanced Protein Intake per Meal: A Pilot Study of Weight Reduction in Frail, Obese Older Adult
http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/15/gerona.glv210.full
Conclusion: Obese, functionally limited older adults undergoing a 6-month weight loss intervention with a meal-based enhancement of protein quantity and quality lost similar amounts of weight but had greater functional improvements relative to the Control group. If confirmed, this dietary approach could have important implications for improving the functional status of this vulnerable population
Losing weight with a high-protein diet can help adults sleep better
Date: March 24, 2016
Source:
Purdue University
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160324133028.htm
Summary:
Overweight and obese adults who are losing weight with a high-protein diet are more likely to sleep better, according to new research. The study also has studied how dietary protein quantity, sources and patterns affect appetite, body weight and body composition.
0 -
OP are you still around?
I hope you've learned something other than peoples deep love affair with Lyle 
1 -
martyqueen52 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »You only need 0.8g per lb. of. body mass. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald and others have posted articles as to why.
You only need more than 0.8g if you are on gear.
Let's say your protein daily goal is 60g, and you end up consuming 100. That's fine. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories should be your top priority, not macros.
But anyhow, it's all personal preference as to how you want your macros unless you're a bikini competitor.
No. Go back and read the articles you're referencing. That is the general rule of thumb and it's a good one, but what is actually suggested is a range, and in a cut the recommendations exceed that ratio.
The articles are all the same. I'm not sure which you're talking about, but this is the max. Sure, you can go beyond, but it's absolutely pointless, even in a cut.
I suggest you read Lou Schoullers articles because you seem to believe in some bro theories.
You may want to do a search on here under "protein" and read the articles before so self-assuredly pronouncing my loyalty to bro science. Read beyond the take-always and summaries. I'll post links later to help you out. I beleive the latest one was from Schoenfeld, but I'm operating from memory there.
Why would I need to do a search? There's nothing I need to see here at all. You're going to help me out? Lol. When you hit 670dl raw help me. I'm stuck at 670
That is an interesting approach to a discussion regarding research. As eeejr mentioned above above, we are following the same people. The 0.8 grams per pound is a great rule of thumb and that's what is being put forward by many of the people we both follow. What was interesting to me are recent suggestions that even more protein may be warranted in certain situations. In any event, as I mentioned above, what most studies suggest is not a point on a line but a range. That seemed to set you off for some reason. Trading insults (rather than discussing) is not really my thing. I argue enough professionally so it's not something I care to fill my leisure time with, and I've been doing that all day (which is why the delay in coming back to you on this post).
I misspoke when I said Schoenfeld above. As I said, I was operating from memory. The study I was thinking about was from Helms, et al. Again, I'm not arguing against the 0.8 grams per pound, but it doesn't tell the whole story and there may be indications to go higher in some situations.
I quote, "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." "FFM" is defined as fat free mass in the article. So, this is suggesting anywhere from just a bit more to much more than the 0.8 grams per pound of bodyweight in a cut.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24092765/
Also, as we both know these things are often cross-referenced, and Alan Aragon brought this study up on his page. See #3 in this: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2015/01/06/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-lean-muscle-diet/
Edit: typos
0 -
I think most fitness and bodybuilding sites and "gurus" overestimate the amount of protein a person needs, and it does stress major organs to over do it. That said, it is the most satiating of the 3 macronutrients, and has the highest thermic effect (it takes the most energy to break it down and use it). All this said, I'm about 185#, 10% bodyfat, and I like to get anywhere from 120 to 160 grams per day. Regardless of whether I am "bulking" or "cutting". And I only eat that much because I hit the weights hard and heavy and this amount of protein allows me to keep my overall calories reasonably low. All this said, I can't say what constitutes 'too much." But why not just eat as much as you need? Whatever that is. At a certain point, we can only actually use so much. Anything more than that seems too much to me.0
-
OP - following up on my original post in this thread, you may want to read this as a general overview as to why earlier studies were likely flawed and why RDA is likely not enough.
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549
0 -
I think most fitness and bodybuilding sites and "gurus" overestimate the amount of protein a person needs, and it does stress major organs to over do it. That said, it is the most satiating of the 3 macronutrients, and has the highest thermic effect (it takes the most energy to break it down and use it). All this said, I'm about 185#, 10% bodyfat, and I like to get anywhere from 120 to 160 grams per day. Regardless of whether I am "bulking" or "cutting". And I only eat that much because I hit the weights hard and heavy and this amount of protein allows me to keep my overall calories reasonably low. All this said, I can't say what constitutes 'too much." But why not just eat as much as you need? Whatever that is. At a certain point, we can only actually use so much. Anything more than that seems too much to me.
Do you have any facts to back up that too much protein "stresses" organs? I would love to read the studies.
http://www.drmarcbubbs.com/articles/2016/1/very-high-protein-for-fat-loss-science-says-bodybuilders-were-right
"Dr. Stuart Phillips from McMaster University and world expert on protein metabolism has repeatedly stated that in healthy functioning kidneys, there are absolutely no adverse impacts on your kidney health. New research shows people consuming up to 3.0g/kg (well above the 2.4g/kg in the aforementioned study) of protein daily for an entire year show with no negative impacts on kidney function.(2) To summarize, a high protein intake is not bad for your kidneys, end of story."0 -
There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.0
-
There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
Mercola really is a quack. I don't think you will find many people who are successful in evidence-based fitness and nutrition who take him seriously.
As for WebMD, feel free to share the specific link but that website tends to be somewhat vague. I don't think a general reference to that website is helpful in moving the conversation along when studies are being presented.
As for only being able to synthesize so much protein what evidence do you have and how much? Again, the conversation has gotten pretty specific so dosage figures would be helpful. I'm on my phone now and won't have access to my laptop until tonight, but there is good evidence discrediting the commonly held notion that the body can only utilize 30 grams or so. I'll post when I can.
The same goes for harmful dosages of protein. I don't see anyone suggesting dosages of more than about 3 grams per kilo of lean mass anywhere and that's on the very high end (and I'm the one who posted that study). The general consensus for most training purposes is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight.
It's a great topic so let's hear it.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »
That's actually untrue.
High protein intake can be hard on kidneys if they are already damaged/diseased but it has never been shown to cause strain or damage to healthy kidneys.0 -
There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
If we're assuming the bold, your body is going to store fat. That goes for whether the surplus comes from protein, fat or carbs.
It has no bearing on whether or not "too much" protein is bad for you.
Also, showing that diseased/damaged kidneys have a hard time processing protein does NOT indicate that protein can damage otherwise healthy kidneys (the only thing those "several studies" have ever actually shown).
P.S. Mercola is a quack.0 -
There have been cases in the past in which someone has wondered if it's harmful to eat very high protein intakes (more than 3 g/kg of of bodyweight), and some suggested that there's no harm in that. That's where I question whether there's any truth to that. And I'm guessing it's becausesunnybeaches105 wrote: »There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
Mercola really is a quack. I don't think you will find many people who are successful in evidence-based fitness and nutrition who take him seriously.
As for WebMD, feel free to share the specific link but that website tends to be somewhat vague. I don't think a general reference to that website is helpful in moving the conversation along when studies are being presented.
As for only being able to synthesize so much protein what evidence do you have and how much? Again, the conversation has gotten pretty specific so dosage figures would be helpful. I'm on my phone now and won't have access to my laptop until tonight, but there is good evidence discrediting the commonly held notion that the body can only utilize 30 grams or so. I'll post when I can.
The same goes for harmful dosages of protein. I don't see anyone suggesting dosages of more than about 3 grams per kilo of lean mass anywhere and that's on the very high end (and I'm the one who posted that study). The general consensus for most training purposes is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight.
It's a great topic so let's hear it.Carlos_421 wrote: »High protein intake can be hard on kidneys if they are already damaged/diseased but it has never been shown to cause strain or damage to healthy kidneys.
But researchers have never really tested whether ridiculously high protein intakes are actually safe.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
There have been cases in the past in which someone has wondered if it's harmful to eat very high protein intakes (more than 3 g/kg of of bodyweight), and some suggested that there's no harm in that. That's where I question whether there's any truth to that. And I'm guessing it's becausesunnybeaches105 wrote: »There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
Mercola really is a quack. I don't think you will find many people who are successful in evidence-based fitness and nutrition who take him seriously.
As for WebMD, feel free to share the specific link but that website tends to be somewhat vague. I don't think a general reference to that website is helpful in moving the conversation along when studies are being presented.
As for only being able to synthesize so much protein what evidence do you have and how much? Again, the conversation has gotten pretty specific so dosage figures would be helpful. I'm on my phone now and won't have access to my laptop until tonight, but there is good evidence discrediting the commonly held notion that the body can only utilize 30 grams or so. I'll post when I can.
The same goes for harmful dosages of protein. I don't see anyone suggesting dosages of more than about 3 grams per kilo of lean mass anywhere and that's on the very high end (and I'm the one who posted that study). The general consensus for most training purposes is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight.
It's a great topic so let's hear it.Carlos_421 wrote: »High protein intake can be hard on kidneys if they are already damaged/diseased but it has never been shown to cause strain or damage to healthy kidneys.
But researchers have never really tested whether ridiculously high protein intakes are actually safe.
As for "ridiculously high," what do you mean? I ask because on a calorie controlled diet, one is forced to limit how much protein is consumed both by the calorie limitation and by the need for fat to maintain health and by the need for energy and micronutrients from carbs. I suppose one could argue that carbs aren't strictly necessary and that has happened on MFP, but I'm not doing so (and I don't see anyone here in this thread doing so). I like my pizza, salads and fruit. Fiber is a good thing . . . I also suppose one could literally eat nothing but very lean meat and never watch his/her calorie intake, but that's a ludicrous proposition and not something anyone here seems to be suggesting. That would also raise the issue of rabbit starvation, so it becomes a question of will the malnourished person live long enough to care about long-term kidney damage, if such damage is a real possibility? So it appears to be a case that isn't applicable to people concerned about optimizing their diets.
My point is that I'm not seeing evidence that anyone needs to be concerned about getting too much protein as part of an otherwise intelligently designed diet.
With those limitations there is this. And yes, no one was pumping people full of protein and nothing else here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262767/
0 -
0
-
eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
This is not functionally true. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excess-protein-and-fat-storage-qa.html/
0 -
There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
Mercola......seriously?
9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9-reasons-to-completely-ignore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/
Dr. Joseph Mercola Ordered
to Stop Illegal Claims
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html
Joe Mercola: 15 years of promoting quackery
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/03/15-years-of-promoting-quackery/0 -
One situation I'm thinking of is a small person (under 90 lbs) eating 1500 calories a day with 120g carbs, 24g fat, and 200g protein. So this translates to 5g/kg bodyweight. This person's fat intake was a little low, but still.sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There have been cases in the past in which someone has wondered if it's harmful to eat very high protein intakes (more than 3 g/kg of of bodyweight), and some suggested that there's no harm in that. That's where I question whether there's any truth to that. And I'm guessing it's becausesunnybeaches105 wrote: »There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
Mercola really is a quack. I don't think you will find many people who are successful in evidence-based fitness and nutrition who take him seriously.
As for WebMD, feel free to share the specific link but that website tends to be somewhat vague. I don't think a general reference to that website is helpful in moving the conversation along when studies are being presented.
As for only being able to synthesize so much protein what evidence do you have and how much? Again, the conversation has gotten pretty specific so dosage figures would be helpful. I'm on my phone now and won't have access to my laptop until tonight, but there is good evidence discrediting the commonly held notion that the body can only utilize 30 grams or so. I'll post when I can.
The same goes for harmful dosages of protein. I don't see anyone suggesting dosages of more than about 3 grams per kilo of lean mass anywhere and that's on the very high end (and I'm the one who posted that study). The general consensus for most training purposes is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight.
It's a great topic so let's hear it.Carlos_421 wrote: »High protein intake can be hard on kidneys if they are already damaged/diseased but it has never been shown to cause strain or damage to healthy kidneys.
But researchers have never really tested whether ridiculously high protein intakes are actually safe.
As for "ridiculously high," what do you mean? I ask because on a calorie controlled diet, one is forced to limit how much protein is consumed both by the calorie limitation and by the need for fat to maintain health and by the need for energy and micronutrients from carbs. I suppose one could argue that carbs aren't strictly necessary and that has happened on MFP, but I'm not doing so (and I don't see anyone here in this thread doing so). I like my pizza, salads and fruit. Fiber is a good thing . . . I also suppose one could literally eat nothing but very lean meat and never watch his/her calorie intake, but that's a ludicrous proposition and not something anyone here seems to be suggesting. That would also raise the issue of rabbit starvation, so it becomes a question of will the malnourished person live long enough to care about long-term kidney damage, if such damage is a real possibility? So it appears to be a case that isn't applicable to people concerned about optimizing their diets.
My point is that I'm not seeing evidence that anyone needs to be concerned about getting too much protein as part of an otherwise intelligently designed diet.
With those limitations there is this. And yes, no one was pumping people full of protein and nothing else here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262767/
0 -
So your whole argument is predicated on an edge case?0
-
martyqueen52 wrote: »You only need 0.8g per lb. of. body mass. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald and others have posted articles as to why.
You only need more than 0.8g if you are on gear.
Let's say your protein daily goal is 60g, and you end up consuming 100. That's fine. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories should be your top priority, not macros.
But anyhow, it's all personal preference as to how you want your macros unless you're a bikini competitor.
.8g/lb will likely be enough for a good percentage of the population but I don't think it's accurate to say that the names you've mentioned have all posted articles saying that .8g/lb is all anyone needs.
I know Layne has athletes on higher protein than that (at least, he did as of a couple years ago and I only say that because I am friends with one of his former athletes), I'm reasonably sure that Lyle recommends protein intakes higher than that for some people (over 1g/lb) and Alan Aragon just referenced Eric Helms paper on protein intakes for lean bodybuilders in a caloric deficit and the protein intake is often above .8g/lb.
Alan's general recommendations for setting protein are around 1 to 1.4g/lb FFM. In lean people this will exceed the .8 number and this is based on Eric Helm's research IIRC.
Only mentioning this as a matter of clarity.
The .82g/lb number originally comes from a blog post Menno Henselmans did where he compiled the available research.
Many overweight people and people with obesity can get closer to the .8g/lb bodyweight but for lean people getting leaner (eating in a deficit) I'd personally suggest higher and I think the names you mentioned would too.
0 -
The low carb/high protein plan I am on has me shooting for 80g of carbs per day and 160g protein. Typically keeping the carbs low is the hardest part. Overall I have a hard time hitting the 160 mark for protein. Typically I am in the 120-140 range unless I am eating a lot of seafood or poultry.0
-
martyqueen52 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »You only need 0.8g per lb. of. body mass. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald and others have posted articles as to why.
You only need more than 0.8g if you are on gear.
Let's say your protein daily goal is 60g, and you end up consuming 100. That's fine. If weight loss is your only goal, then calories should be your top priority, not macros.
But anyhow, it's all personal preference as to how you want your macros unless you're a bikini competitor.
No. Go back and read the articles you're referencing. That is the general rule of thumb and it's a good one, but what is actually suggested is a range, and in a cut the recommendations exceed that ratio.
The articles are all the same. I'm not sure which you're talking about, but this is the max. Sure, you can go beyond, but it's absolutely pointless, even in a cut.
I suggest you read Lou Schoullers articles because you seem to believe in some bro theories.
Any good researcher such as the ones you mention base protein intake on LBM, not bodyweight, so not sure where you came up with that. Lyle says "it was eventually found that a protein intake of about 1.5 g/kg of lean body mass was necessary to spare LBM losses in a non-training obese individual consuming low calories."
and "we have an intake continuum ranging from about 1.5 g/kg (0.68 g/lb) as a minimum for the obese non-training individual up to a high of around 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of protein per pound of lean body mass for very lean heavily training athletes or bodybuilders with middle ground values being found in between those two extremes"
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html/
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/. From Alan and Lou combined, more than sufficient for me.
That's from Menno Henselmans. That is not Alan or Lou Schuler's article.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
One situation I'm thinking of is a small person (under 90 lbs) eating 1500 calories a day with 120g carbs, 24g fat, and 200g protein. So this translates to 5g/kg bodyweight. This person's fat intake was a little low, but still.sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There have been cases in the past in which someone has wondered if it's harmful to eat very high protein intakes (more than 3 g/kg of of bodyweight), and some suggested that there's no harm in that. That's where I question whether there's any truth to that. And I'm guessing it's becausesunnybeaches105 wrote: »There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
Mercola really is a quack. I don't think you will find many people who are successful in evidence-based fitness and nutrition who take him seriously.
As for WebMD, feel free to share the specific link but that website tends to be somewhat vague. I don't think a general reference to that website is helpful in moving the conversation along when studies are being presented.
As for only being able to synthesize so much protein what evidence do you have and how much? Again, the conversation has gotten pretty specific so dosage figures would be helpful. I'm on my phone now and won't have access to my laptop until tonight, but there is good evidence discrediting the commonly held notion that the body can only utilize 30 grams or so. I'll post when I can.
The same goes for harmful dosages of protein. I don't see anyone suggesting dosages of more than about 3 grams per kilo of lean mass anywhere and that's on the very high end (and I'm the one who posted that study). The general consensus for most training purposes is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight.
It's a great topic so let's hear it.Carlos_421 wrote: »High protein intake can be hard on kidneys if they are already damaged/diseased but it has never been shown to cause strain or damage to healthy kidneys.
But researchers have never really tested whether ridiculously high protein intakes are actually safe.
As for "ridiculously high," what do you mean? I ask because on a calorie controlled diet, one is forced to limit how much protein is consumed both by the calorie limitation and by the need for fat to maintain health and by the need for energy and micronutrients from carbs. I suppose one could argue that carbs aren't strictly necessary and that has happened on MFP, but I'm not doing so (and I don't see anyone here in this thread doing so). I like my pizza, salads and fruit. Fiber is a good thing . . . I also suppose one could literally eat nothing but very lean meat and never watch his/her calorie intake, but that's a ludicrous proposition and not something anyone here seems to be suggesting. That would also raise the issue of rabbit starvation, so it becomes a question of will the malnourished person live long enough to care about long-term kidney damage, if such damage is a real possibility? So it appears to be a case that isn't applicable to people concerned about optimizing their diets.
My point is that I'm not seeing evidence that anyone needs to be concerned about getting too much protein as part of an otherwise intelligently designed diet.
With those limitations there is this. And yes, no one was pumping people full of protein and nothing else here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262767/
On the one hand, I don't know of a legitimate study that demonstrates it's dangerous. If anyone does have a legit study (not Mercola and friends) I'd be interested in seeing it. On the other hand, I don't see why someone would need 5g/kg of protein. In other words, per my comment above, this is not a case that I would consider part of an intelligently designed diet. Where are you going with this example?1 -
It concerns me when some say that it's not possible to overdo protein. Just because a study hasn't been done to test a protein intake at a certain level doesn't mean that it's safe.sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
One situation I'm thinking of is a small person (under 90 lbs) eating 1500 calories a day with 120g carbs, 24g fat, and 200g protein. So this translates to 5g/kg bodyweight. This person's fat intake was a little low, but still.sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
There have been cases in the past in which someone has wondered if it's harmful to eat very high protein intakes (more than 3 g/kg of of bodyweight), and some suggested that there's no harm in that. That's where I question whether there's any truth to that. And I'm guessing it's becausesunnybeaches105 wrote: »There are several studies linking excessive protein consumption with kidney and prostate issues. WebMD and Mercola's sites link to some of them. There were studies done in Germany too a while back but I forgot which university that was. And the the amount of protein (192g) listed in the study you cite is not really that much protein. That aside, you can only synthesize so much protein. And assuming you are both in a surplus and also eating more protein than you need, the excess gets converted to sugar, which gets converted to fat.
Mercola really is a quack. I don't think you will find many people who are successful in evidence-based fitness and nutrition who take him seriously.
As for WebMD, feel free to share the specific link but that website tends to be somewhat vague. I don't think a general reference to that website is helpful in moving the conversation along when studies are being presented.
As for only being able to synthesize so much protein what evidence do you have and how much? Again, the conversation has gotten pretty specific so dosage figures would be helpful. I'm on my phone now and won't have access to my laptop until tonight, but there is good evidence discrediting the commonly held notion that the body can only utilize 30 grams or so. I'll post when I can.
The same goes for harmful dosages of protein. I don't see anyone suggesting dosages of more than about 3 grams per kilo of lean mass anywhere and that's on the very high end (and I'm the one who posted that study). The general consensus for most training purposes is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight.
It's a great topic so let's hear it.Carlos_421 wrote: »High protein intake can be hard on kidneys if they are already damaged/diseased but it has never been shown to cause strain or damage to healthy kidneys.
But researchers have never really tested whether ridiculously high protein intakes are actually safe.
As for "ridiculously high," what do you mean? I ask because on a calorie controlled diet, one is forced to limit how much protein is consumed both by the calorie limitation and by the need for fat to maintain health and by the need for energy and micronutrients from carbs. I suppose one could argue that carbs aren't strictly necessary and that has happened on MFP, but I'm not doing so (and I don't see anyone here in this thread doing so). I like my pizza, salads and fruit. Fiber is a good thing . . . I also suppose one could literally eat nothing but very lean meat and never watch his/her calorie intake, but that's a ludicrous proposition and not something anyone here seems to be suggesting. That would also raise the issue of rabbit starvation, so it becomes a question of will the malnourished person live long enough to care about long-term kidney damage, if such damage is a real possibility? So it appears to be a case that isn't applicable to people concerned about optimizing their diets.
My point is that I'm not seeing evidence that anyone needs to be concerned about getting too much protein as part of an otherwise intelligently designed diet.
With those limitations there is this. And yes, no one was pumping people full of protein and nothing else here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262767/
On the one hand, I don't know of a legitimate study that demonstrates it's dangerous. If anyone does have a legit study (not Mercola and friends) I'd be interested in seeing it. On the other hand, I don't see why someone would need 5g/kg of protein. In other words, per my comment above, this is not a case that I would consider part of an intelligently designed diet. Where are you going with this example?
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjmV8BlsJTQ
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions