New protein consumption article-- everyone is going to go nuts over this!
Options
Jthanmyfitnesspal
Posts: 3,521 Member
According to the NYTimes, it's settled. You need to eat lots more protein than the RDA. They are recommending 1.6 g protein per kg body weight. (The US RDA is 0.8g per kg of body weight, so the NYT is pretty much recommending doubling that amount.)
https://nyti.ms/2BJefoq
Here is the study that the article is based on:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/01/18/bjsports-2017-097608
They are doing a "meta-analysis" where they average prior studies to get a final result. The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat. Here's one of the figures, for example. They are measuring changes in muscle fiber cross section and looking for a correlation with increased protein consumption. "0" would mean there's no correlation. The results are all over the place and the ranges are very large!
My decision has been to eat somewhat more than the RDA, but I don't quite make it to 1.6 g/kg. I would think the most important part is lifting weights, not over-eating protein. I would go out on a limb to say that over-eating protein without lifting weights is pretty useless.
https://nyti.ms/2BJefoq
Here is the study that the article is based on:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/01/18/bjsports-2017-097608
They are doing a "meta-analysis" where they average prior studies to get a final result. The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat. Here's one of the figures, for example. They are measuring changes in muscle fiber cross section and looking for a correlation with increased protein consumption. "0" would mean there's no correlation. The results are all over the place and the ranges are very large!
My decision has been to eat somewhat more than the RDA, but I don't quite make it to 1.6 g/kg. I would think the most important part is lifting weights, not over-eating protein. I would go out on a limb to say that over-eating protein without lifting weights is pretty useless.
4
Replies
-
What exactly is so earthshattering about this? The RDA is a minimum and more is recomended in every protein study I've read. What am I missing?9
-
I'm not sure I'd take the NY Times as a source of great studies on nutrition- but anything that says more protein I'm all for. Because BROTEIN MAN BROTEIN9
-
NY times is getting to be as bad as the daily mail. I would take it all with a grain of salt and do your own research.7
-
That pretty much comes out to around .75 grams per Lb for me...very close to 1 gram per Lb of LBM...pretty much right in my wheel house.7
-
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »According to the NYTimes, it's settled. You need to eat lots more protein than the RDA. They are recommending 1.6 g protein per kg body weight. (The US RDA is 0.8g per kg of body weight, so the NYT is pretty much recommending doubling that amount.)
https://nyti.ms/2BJefoq
Here is the study that the article is based on:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/01/18/bjsports-2017-097608
They are doing a "meta-analysis" where they average prior studies to get a final result. The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat. Here's one of the figures, for example. They are measuring changes in muscle fiber cross section and looking for a correlation with increased protein consumption. "0" would mean there's no correlation. The results are all over the place and the ranges are very large!
My decision has been to eat somewhat more than the RDA, but I don't quite make it to 1.6 g/kg. I would think the most important part is lifting weights, not over-eating protein. I would go out on a limb to say that over-eating protein without lifting weights is pretty useless.
Meta-analyses are actually a lot more complicated than just averaging the results of a bunch of small studies, at least the way most laypeople think of "averaging" (apologies if that wasn't what you meant). A well-constructed meta-analysis can be much more statistically accurate than any individual study.7 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.5
-
I think this is in line with what is largely recommended round here? It would have me at 114g, I usually have more so yeah, on the money.2
-
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.2 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
This is actually less than what is normally recommended on MFP for resistance training, which is .8 g/lb current weight. Since I am 140, for me that is 112 g protein, while under the 1.6/kg rule it would be about 100 g for me.
Both seem very reasonable, and in fact I often hit a much higher number, but I've been incorporating protein for 2+ years now so it is basically autopilot for me now.0 -
-
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.1 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I'm 5'8 - and 165 pounds- my goal is 180. I rarely hit it- but that is indeed my goal. It's a lot- but it's only 40% of my diet (1800 for the day). So I guess perspective is everything- doesn't seem excessive to me.0 -
What exactly is so earthshattering about this? The RDA is a minimum and more is recomended in every protein study I've read. What am I missing?
minimum for a sedentary individual eating maintenance calories, at that. when working out and/or in a deficit your protein needs are higher.2 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
If you are 200+ lbs, 160 grams does not seem unreasonable, assuming you are at a healthy BF%. If you are over weight, then the amount could be lower, as in 1.6 grams per lb of goal weight. So if your goal was 150 lbs, that would be a protein intake of 109 grams1 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.4 -
I'm 5'5 and easily get 113g of protein a day on maintenance. When I was dieting and lifting I aimed for 150. On days when I don't workout I aim for 100 minimum. Their recommendation puts me at 93g, so I'm not too far off. And fyi, this number came from multiple websites not just here.0
-
I have been doing this for years and learned on my own that of course you need more protein intake specially if your workouts are very demanding.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions