Protein: Grams or % of Calories?

adrianegenette582
adrianegenette582 Posts: 21 Member
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
I am extremely active, running 6-10 mile a day and lifting weights in the evenings. I am wondering if I should stick to the recommended grams per day of 60-100 or a certain % of my calories. The reason I ask is that if I set protein as 25%, sometimes I eat more than 200 grams of protein because I eat so many calories to fuel my activity. If I shift to grams, though, this means I would be eating a great deal more carbs and/or fat, and I try to stay balanced at 40% carb, 35% fat and 25% protein.

I am a 5' 4" 130 pound female.

Thanks!
«1

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    Grams > percentage. In general 1.5-2.2g/kg of weight but it probably is better to be at the 2.2 or higher for an active person
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Grams. What really got me thinking about was reducing my deficit as I neared goal. The % kept increasing my goal amounts. I didn't need more protein just because I was eating more. Same with fat and carbs. As long as I am getting reasonable amounts of each, I can use the extra calories however i want.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets/p1
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,106 Member
    Grams, but view your protein and fat needs in grams as a floor -- it's OK to get more than that. Once you've hit your requirements for protein and fat, you can allocate the remaining calories however it suits you. If I have a protein-heavy breakfast and lunch, it doesn't mean I have to avoid protein for the rest of the day.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    I more than meet my protein and fat requirements with my NEAT calories and can burn up 1000 calories a day walking (normally around the 500 mark). They are eaten within whichever macro group I feel like.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    Studies show that there is no benefit to over 0.82g / lb of body weight, that being said if you are recovering from an injury or just the older you get your body will naturally use more protein, so going over is definitely better than going under. However if you don't have any pre-existing kidney issues then you can eat as much protein as you like if it fits into your calories allotment.

    Personally I probably eat twice as much protein than I need, but most of my favorite food is protein based.

    Studies show a range, not a specific data point. I wouldn't say there is no benefit after .82g, especially if one is active and lean.

    They do a show a data range 0.5 - 0.82 with no improved benefit beyond 0.82g

    And that is taking into consideration activity!


    Id suggest that might be light.

    https://youtu.be/wC6aG4dlRZg
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    i do grams - set amount of 145g a day - i'm female, 5'3" and 163lbs...

    i will say that 200g a day for your height/weight seems a bit excessive - since you are in the 3.3-3.4g/kg range based on 200g and 130lbs
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Grams (as a minimum).
    My calorie needs vary from about 2000 to about 6500 thousand but my protein needs don't vary that much.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    I would say get the popcorn, but I am actually munching 45g of roasted edamame with 19.5g of protein while I read this back and forth....
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    edited July 2018
    psuLemon wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    Studies show that there is no benefit to over 0.82g / lb of body weight, that being said if you are recovering from an injury or just the older you get your body will naturally use more protein, so going over is definitely better than going under. However if you don't have any pre-existing kidney issues then you can eat as much protein as you like if it fits into your calories allotment.

    Personally I probably eat twice as much protein than I need, but most of my favorite food is protein based.

    Studies show a range, not a specific data point. I wouldn't say there is no benefit after .82g, especially if one is active and lean.

    They do a show a data range 0.5 - 0.82 with no improved benefit beyond 0.82g

    And that is taking into consideration activity!


    Id suggest that might be light.

    https://youtu.be/wC6aG4dlRZg

    This was a study done on athletes. I would suggest the average Joe would require slightly less.

    However, I think we all agree going over this amount isn't dissuaded and belt and braces on protein consumption is encouraged.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    I decided after contemplation that the following deserved it's own post


    Oh, and I cherry picked this sentence, but you should be able to find the context
    As with the previous report (2), the safe level of intake is defined on the basis of a probability of adequacy of 0.975 (i.e. adequate for all but 2.5% of individuals). On this basis, for individuals the term safe intake level can be defined as: level of intake that is sufficient for 97.5% of the population = exp(4.654 + 0.12*1.96) = 133 mg nitrogen/kg per day (0.83 g protein/kg per day). Supplying this level to an individual will ensure an acceptably low level of risk (2.5%) that their needs will not be met.

    That's right. The "safe level" isn't even an adequate minimum.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    tennisdude2004 wrote: »
    Studies show that there is no benefit to over 0.82g / lb of body weight, that being said if you are recovering from an injury or just the older you get your body will naturally use more protein, so going over is definitely better than going under. However if you don't have any pre-existing kidney issues then you can eat as much protein as you like if it fits into your calories allotment.

    Personally I probably eat twice as much protein than I need, but most of my favorite food is protein based.

    Studies show a range, not a specific data point. I wouldn't say there is no benefit after .82g, especially if one is active and lean.

    They do a show a data range 0.5 - 0.82 with no improved benefit beyond 0.82g

    And that is taking into consideration activity!


    Id suggest that might be light.

    https://youtu.be/wC6aG4dlRZg

    This was a study done on athletes. I would suggest the average Joe would require slightly less.

    However, I think we all agree going over this amount isn't dissuaded and belt and braces on protein consumption is encouraged.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425

    And I can raise your one study with a meta analysis - http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/apnm-2015-0549


    Like I stated, 1.5-2.2g/kg (which is a bit old). And the video I posted by Dr. Eric Helms should be highly considered, especially since he is one of the leading researchers in the field of nutrient and bodybuilding.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,106 Member
    kpsyche wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    kpsyche wrote: »
    Personally I think that without knowing the medical history, weight, age, gender, ethnicity, physical activity level and a whole other bunch of factors about a person, recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg).

    Based on 0.8g/kg if the OP's weight is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65kg (I have no idea if they are or not) then 50g of protein a day is probably adequate and consistent with the dietary guidelines of Europe, the USA, WHO and probably nearly every other country.

    From WHO Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition
    "The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day"
    "It is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk.
    However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of
    3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper
    limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free."

    0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption.

    WHO recommendations (typically) aren't for people physically active but rather minimum based on sedentary individuals

    Rubbish. They are for active, healthy people as are the dietary guidelines for the US, Europe, Oceania and every other guideline in the world that I've seen.

    I like how people attempting to justify numbers taken from studies done largely on ultra-fit male body-builders trying to achieve incremental gains in the far tail of lean-mass distribution attack recommendations for 95% of the population.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    kpsyche wrote: »
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    kpsyche wrote: »
    Personally I think that without knowing the medical history, weight, age, gender, ethnicity, physical activity level and a whole other bunch of factors about a person, recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg).

    Based on 0.8g/kg if the OP's weight is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65kg (I have no idea if they are or not) then 50g of protein a day is probably adequate and consistent with the dietary guidelines of Europe, the USA, WHO and probably nearly every other country.

    From WHO Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition
    "The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day"
    "It is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk.
    However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of
    3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper
    limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free."

    0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption.

    WHO recommendations (typically) aren't for people physically active but rather minimum based on sedentary individuals

    Rubbish. They are for active, healthy people as are the dietary guidelines for the US, Europe, Oceania and every other guideline in the world that I've seen.

    I like how people attempting to justify numbers taken from studies done largely on ultra-fit male body-builders trying to achieve incremental gains in the far tail of lean-mass distribution attack recommendations for 95% of the population.

    The OP runs 5 to 6 days a week, while weight lifting... She needs more protein than the average person who works out an hour a day.

    It's about perspective and goals. And the OP is not in the norm.
  • kpsyche
    kpsyche Posts: 345 Member
    edited July 2018
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    kpsyche wrote: »
    Personally I think that without knowing the medical history, weight, age, gender, ethnicity, physical activity level and a whole other bunch of factors about a person, recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg).

    Based on 0.8g/kg if the OP's weight is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65kg (I have no idea if they are or not) then 50g of protein a day is probably adequate and consistent with the dietary guidelines of Europe, the USA, WHO and probably nearly every other country.

    From WHO Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition
    "The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day"
    "It is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk.
    However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of
    3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper
    limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free."

    0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption.

    You edited that paragraph in an odd manner. WHY?!?!?

    Unedited as below
    The protein requirements of adult men and women of various body weights are shown in Table 46. For adults, the protein requirement per kg body weight is considered to be the same for both sexes, at all ages, and for all body weights within the acceptable range. The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day, for proteins with a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score value of 1.0. No safe upper limit has been identified, and it is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk. However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of 3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free.

    Although, more interesting is the section below.
    13.6 Is there a maximum limit of dietary protein intake? As indicated above, in developed countries most people consume substantially more protein than the safe level, especially through consumption of meat-based diets at energy intakes required to meet the demands of high levels of physical activity, or with supplementary protein intakes often consumed by young men attempting to increase their musculature. Typical intakes are
    up to 3.0 g/kg from food (72) with an extra 1 g/kg from supplements. This is equivalent to 320 g/day for an 80-kg male, and at energy intakes which match an expenditure of twice the basal metabolic rate (i.e. 3800 kcal/day). This implies an overall protein:energy ratio of the diet of 34% (see 72). Such intakes are similar to those involved in studies of the impact of dietary protein intake on nitrogen balance, where protein intakes were increased to
    200–300 g/day for 2 months (73). Such practices are almost certainly ineffective in terms of gain of muscle mass, even though substantial nitrogen retention is often reported (73, 74). Where measurements of muscle mass or
    protein concentration are made no changes are identified (75), suggesting the apparent gain in body nitrogen to be an artefact of the nitrogen balance method at these very high intakes, possibly with an unmeasured source of
    loss of nitrogen (71, 76).

    While there have been no systematic investigations of the safety of such high intakes (at least to the current available knowledge), it must be assumed, given that such dietary habits are widespread, that any untoward effects are subtle, long-term and unreported. The most widely quoted potential problems relate to renal function and damage, but as discussed above the evidence for such claims in otherwise healthy individuals does not stand up to scrutiny. Similarly, any adverse impact on bone mineral balance would appear to be more than adequately balanced by the positive influence of weight-bearing exercise in strength training, judging by most reports of high bone mineral content in power athletes.


    And Finally, in conclusion
    As for a safe upper limit for adults, we can be reasonably confident that an intake of twice the recommended intake, previously identified as a safe upper limit, is likely to be safe given that it equates to intakes of physically active individuals consuming average mixed diets who would otherwise be identified as having healthy lifestyles. It is also clear that there is an upper limit to the protein content of food, which is identifiable by the individual in terms of the nausea and diarrhoea of “rabbit starvation”, although exactly what that limit is has not been identified. Many individuals consume intakes of 3–4 times the recommended intake, possibly for relatively long periods of time, without (presumably) exhibiting such symptoms; while no specific evidence for harm, can be identified neither the fact nor such intakes are risk-free can be insured. Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes (90). Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, and protein supplements may lead to suboptimal intakes of those starchy foods essential for both performance and long-term health, and insufficient dietary alkali derived from fruit and vegetables to buffer the protein-derived acid load, with adverse effects on bone. High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced (91). Clearly, with minimum protein intakes to maintain appropriate body composition and function that are probably much lower than intakes of individuals with healthy lifestyles consuming usual mixed diets, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationship between protein intakes and overall health. This is a particularly important area for future research.

    Bolded for emphasis.

    I edited the passage for brevity (notice that I did not change any of the words or leave out the key points; I left sentences intact and left those that were pertinent). Perhaps I should have left the wall of text and made the important bits bold -- and in hindsight that would have been the better strategy -- but having the entire text there is not necessary and clouds the issue for those not wanting to put the effort into reading it and discriminating between what they are actually saying and what is there for context.

    ETA: you've bolded for emphasis one of the sentences I highlighted by summary instead. Why?
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,106 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    kpsyche wrote: »
    Personally I think that without knowing the medical history, weight, age, gender, ethnicity, physical activity level and a whole other bunch of factors about a person, recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg).

    Based on 0.8g/kg if the OP's weight is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 65kg (I have no idea if they are or not) then 50g of protein a day is probably adequate and consistent with the dietary guidelines of Europe, the USA, WHO and probably nearly every other country.

    From WHO Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition
    "The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day"
    "It is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk.
    However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of
    3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper
    limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free."

    0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption.

    You edited that paragraph in an odd manner. WHY?!?!?

    Unedited as below
    The protein requirements of adult men and women of various body weights are shown in Table 46. For adults, the protein requirement per kg body weight is considered to be the same for both sexes, at all ages, and for all body weights within the acceptable range. The value accepted for the safe level of intake is 0.83 g/kg per day, for proteins with a protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score value of 1.0. No safe upper limit has been identified, and it is unlikely that intakes of twice the safe level are associated with any risk. However, caution is advised to those contemplating the very high intakes of 3–4 times the safe intake, since such intakes approach the tolerable upper limit and cannot be assumed to be risk-free.

    Although, more interesting is the section below.
    13.6 Is there a maximum limit of dietary protein intake? As indicated above, in developed countries most people consume substantially more protein than the safe level, especially through consumption of meat-based diets at energy intakes required to meet the demands of high levels of physical activity, or with supplementary protein intakes often consumed by young men attempting to increase their musculature. Typical intakes are
    up to 3.0 g/kg from food (72) with an extra 1 g/kg from supplements. This is equivalent to 320 g/day for an 80-kg male, and at energy intakes which match an expenditure of twice the basal metabolic rate (i.e. 3800 kcal/day). This implies an overall protein:energy ratio of the diet of 34% (see 72). Such intakes are similar to those involved in studies of the impact of dietary protein intake on nitrogen balance, where protein intakes were increased to
    200–300 g/day for 2 months (73). Such practices are almost certainly ineffective in terms of gain of muscle mass, even though substantial nitrogen retention is often reported (73, 74). Where measurements of muscle mass or
    protein concentration are made no changes are identified (75), suggesting the apparent gain in body nitrogen to be an artefact of the nitrogen balance method at these very high intakes, possibly with an unmeasured source of
    loss of nitrogen (71, 76).

    While there have been no systematic investigations of the safety of such high intakes (at least to the current available knowledge), it must be assumed, given that such dietary habits are widespread, that any untoward effects are subtle, long-term and unreported. The most widely quoted potential problems relate to renal function and damage, but as discussed above the evidence for such claims in otherwise healthy individuals does not stand up to scrutiny. Similarly, any adverse impact on bone mineral balance would appear to be more than adequately balanced by the positive influence of weight-bearing exercise in strength training, judging by most reports of high bone mineral content in power athletes.


    And Finally, in conclusion
    As for a safe upper limit for adults, we can be reasonably confident that an intake of twice the recommended intake, previously identified as a safe upper limit, is likely to be safe given that it equates to intakes of physically active individuals consuming average mixed diets who would otherwise be identified as having healthy lifestyles. It is also clear that there is an upper limit to the protein content of food, which is identifiable by the individual in terms of the nausea and diarrhoea of “rabbit starvation”, although exactly what that limit is has not been identified. Many individuals consume intakes of 3–4 times the recommended intake, possibly for relatively long periods of time, without (presumably) exhibiting such symptoms; while no specific evidence for harm, can be identified neither the fact nor such intakes are risk-free can be insured. Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes (90). Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, and protein supplements may lead to suboptimal intakes of those starchy foods essential for both performance and long-term health, and insufficient dietary alkali derived from fruit and vegetables to buffer the protein-derived acid load, with adverse effects on bone. High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced (91). Clearly, with minimum protein intakes to maintain appropriate body composition and function that are probably much lower than intakes of individuals with healthy lifestyles consuming usual mixed diets, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationship between protein intakes and overall health. This is a particularly important area for future research.

    Bolded for emphasis.
    As for a safe upper limit for adults, we can be reasonably confident that an intake of twice the recommended intake, previously identified as a safe upper limit, is likely to be safe given that it equates to intakes of physically active individuals consuming average mixed diets who would otherwise be identified as having healthy lifestyles. It is also clear that there is an upper limit to the protein content of food, which is identifiable by the individual in terms of the nausea and diarrhoea of “rabbit starvation”, although exactly what that limit is has not been identified. Many individuals consume intakes of 3–4 times the recommended intake, possibly for relatively long periods of time, without (presumably) exhibiting such symptoms; while no specific evidence for harm, can be identified neither the fact nor such intakes are risk-free can be insured. Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes (90). Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, and [bpold]protein supplements may lead to suboptimal intakes of those starchy foods essential for both performance and long-term health, and insufficient dietary alkali derived from fruit and vegetables to buffer the protein-derived acid load, with adverse effects on bone.[/b] High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen balance and loss of lean body mass between training periods when high intakes are reduced (91). Clearly, with minimum protein intakes to maintain appropriate body composition and function that are probably much lower than intakes of individuals with healthy lifestyles consuming usual mixed diets, there is a need to improve our understanding of the relationship between protein intakes and overall health. This is a particularly important area for future research.

    Bolded for emphasis.

    If you think building muscle is hard, try building bone as a mature adult. Of course, getting them broken can help.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,106 Member
    sgt1372 wrote: »
    I tried to bite my tongue but I've failed.

    It just amazes me how many self-appointed "experts" on MFP are so quick to say that you can ONLY use "this" much protein or that you don't need to eat THAT much protein based on some study or mythic belief that TOO MUCH protein is somehow "bad" for you.

    Protein is just part of the food you eat. If your body can't make use of all of it, SO WHAT?

    Eating more protein than your body can "use" at any given moment will not kill you and what can't be used for muscle maintenance or growth will just be converted into sugar for energy if needed or fat if it's not. Nothing is wasted.

    So, those of you who say that you just "need" this or that much protein, just STOP it, because you really don't know what you're talking about.

    There are just too many variables involved in determining how much protein any individual "needs" to consume at any time to make optimal use of that protein and there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with eating more than you "need" because the excess will be used in other ways

    The general rule among atheletes and body builders is to eat 1g/protein per #/BW per day which is a long accepted standard that has NOT caused any reported problems among those who follow it.

    For me, this is a goal of about 155g or 720 cals of protein/day out of a gross intake of 2400 cals/day or 30% which is an entirely reasonable amount of protein to eat in a day.

    So, don't dare tell me or anyone else that this or that smount is TOO MUCH protein, unless you fully understand the needs of esch individual and circumstances involved.

    End of rant.

    I would respectfully suggest that a similar rant could be directed at those who essentially say "eat as much protein as you want, you can never have too much protein" unless you can point me to replicated research that establishes that there is, in fact, no upper limit within reasonably feasible intakes at which harm occurs (i.e., I wouldn't expect you to demonstrate above 2500 g of protein -- 10,000 kcal diet for heavily training athlete consisting entirely of protein).
This discussion has been closed.

Categories