Protein: Grams or % of Calories?
Options
Replies
-
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 contextAs 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.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 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.4 -
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.
5 -
deannalfisher 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.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »deannalfisher 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.4 -
stanmann571 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 belowThe 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 conclusionAs 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?4 -
stanmann571 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 belowThe 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 conclusionAs 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.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »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 contextAs 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.
Of course it's for adequacy for 97.5% of the population because they (and dietary guidelines) need to address the majority of the population because these are population-based guidelines. The average requirements of any nutrient, where sufficient data are available, in general form a classic bell curve with the average intake requirement of half the population clustered in the middle (as you'd expect). If they recommended the average intake requirement then half the population would, by definition, not get enough. By setting the RDI to the far right hand side of the bell curve 97.5% of the population will have at least adequate intake and most likely more than adequate. They could of course set the RDI beyond the end of the bell curve and address 100% of the population, however if they took that approach then things are approaching the upper limit where toxicity may occur (although I concede that in the case of protein the data are unclear and setting an UL is difficult) and potentially half the population would be getting too much of the nutrient and risking toxicity or other side effects. This is clearly not a good strategy and why I said in my original post that the responsible thing to do without knowing someones medical history, current conditions, etc, that the prudent thing to do is recommend what national or international guidelines recommend (for the same reasoning as the experts compiling the guidelines); saying to someone who you know nothing about, know nothing about their medical history or current situation, but are consuming exactly what the guidelines recommend, is eating too much protein and that they should eat twice as much is, in my opinion, probably not a good idea. Recommending that they eat 3-4 times the amount recommended is reckless. And that's what my first post was saying.5 -
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).3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »deannalfisher 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.
Runs while weight lifting? That's impressive and probably requires lots of protein...
Sorry; I tried to stop myself, I really did. But I was too weak from lack of...5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 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.
I’ve seen that one, I’m sure it wouldn’t stand up to meta analysis.
Anyway we seem to be going off topic from the OP’s Question.
Maybe you should start this as a thread in the debate forum ?2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »stanmann571 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 belowThe 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 conclusionAs 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.
Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes
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
So tell me again, I must have missed some nuance, why people on MFP regularly recommend people consume twice the amount recommended by these reports (0.8g/lb/day is just over twice the recommendation)? Why is it a good idea to recommend up to 4 times the recommended amount like that youtube video that someone else posted?7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »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 contextAs 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.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It's adequate for 97.5% of individuals (that's you). What more could you ask for without putting a huge chunk of the population at risk?2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »stanmann571 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 belowThe 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 conclusionAs 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.
Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes
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
So tell me again, I must have missed some nuance, why people on MFP regularly recommend people consume twice the amount recommended by these reports (0.8g/lb/day is just over twice the recommendation)? Why is it a good idea to recommend up to 4 times the recommended amount like that youtube video that someone else posted?
Becauae there is sufficient evidence that the RDI is inadquate for those who exercises. There are multiple meta analyses to back that up.8 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »stanmann571 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 belowThe 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 conclusionAs 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.
Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes
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
So tell me again, I must have missed some nuance, why people on MFP regularly recommend people consume twice the amount recommended by these reports (0.8g/lb/day is just over twice the recommendation)? Why is it a good idea to recommend up to 4 times the recommended amount like that youtube video that someone else posted?
Becauae there is sufficient evidence that the RDI is inadquate for those who exercises. There are multiple meta analyses to back that up.
And that makes it ok to suggest to random people that they consume 2 to 4 (or more) times the RDI? I don't think so, but it's obvious that safety is not a priority when you're on the internet and if someone gets sick because of poor advice then who's going to do anything anyway. The scientific community and these large health organisations have to be a bit more cautious and reasonable. Just on a side note though, there is sufficient evidence for setting an RDI that is adequate for 97.5% of the population; there is not sufficient evidence to set a recommended upper limit (UL) though. RDI and UL are different.
It's obvious that a majority of people on MFP would prefer to take the advice of coaches and random youtube people and stick with lots more than the RDI set my thousands of scientists worldwide so *shrug* it's not worth me contributing any more.
ETA: I guess it's possible that every MFP user belongs to the 2.5% of the population where 0.8g/kg/day is not adequate so maybe that's the explanation.8 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »stanmann571 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 belowThe 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 conclusionAs 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.
Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes
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
So tell me again, I must have missed some nuance, why people on MFP regularly recommend people consume twice the amount recommended by these reports (0.8g/lb/day is just over twice the recommendation)? Why is it a good idea to recommend up to 4 times the recommended amount like that youtube video that someone else posted?
Becauae there is sufficient evidence that the RDI is inadquate for those who exercises. There are multiple meta analyses to back that up.
And that makes it ok to suggest to random people that they consume 2 to 4 (or more) times the RDI? I don't think so, but it's obvious that safety is not a priority when you're on the internet and if someone gets sick because of poor advice then who's going to do anything anyway. The scientific community and these large health organisations have to be a bit more cautious and reasonable. Just on a side note though, there is sufficient evidence for setting an RDI that is adequate for 97.5% of the population; there is not sufficient evidence to set a recommended upper limit (UL) though. RDI and UL are different.
It's obvious that a majority of people on MFP would prefer to take the advice of coaches and random youtube people and stick with lots more than the RDI set my thousands of scientists worldwide so *shrug* it's not worth me contributing any more.
ETA: I guess it's possible that every MFP user belongs to the 2.5% of the population where 0.8g/kg/day is not adequate so maybe that's the explanation.
You are simply ignoring the activity level of the OP. There is no evidence that eating 2 or even 3x the RDI is harmful. Do you think a person will get sufficient protein at 40g who lifts 3x a week and runs 6-10 miles daily? Does that align to the general population?3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »stanmann571 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 belowThe 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 conclusionAs 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.
Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes
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
So tell me again, I must have missed some nuance, why people on MFP regularly recommend people consume twice the amount recommended by these reports (0.8g/lb/day is just over twice the recommendation)? Why is it a good idea to recommend up to 4 times the recommended amount like that youtube video that someone else posted?
Becauae there is sufficient evidence that the RDI is inadquate for those who exercises. There are multiple meta analyses to back that up.
And that makes it ok to suggest to random people that they consume 2 to 4 (or more) times the RDI? I don't think so, but it's obvious that safety is not a priority when you're on the internet and if someone gets sick because of poor advice then who's going to do anything anyway. The scientific community and these large health organisations have to be a bit more cautious and reasonable. Just on a side note though, there is sufficient evidence for setting an RDI that is adequate for 97.5% of the population; there is not sufficient evidence to set a recommended upper limit (UL) though. RDI and UL are different.
It's obvious that a majority of people on MFP would prefer to take the advice of coaches and random youtube people and stick with lots more than the RDI set my thousands of scientists worldwide so *shrug* it's not worth me contributing any more.
ETA: I guess it's possible that every MFP user belongs to the 2.5% of the population where 0.8g/kg/day is not adequate so maybe that's the explanation.
You are simply ignoring the activity level of the OP. There is no evidence that eating 2 or even 3x the RDI is harmful. Do you think a person will get sufficient protein at 40g who lifts 3x a week and runs 6-10 miles daily? Does that align to the general population?
Yes, it does assuming that 40g/day equates to 0.8g/kg/day. And the reason is because the development of guidelines includes athletes in the general population. Only an estimated 2.5% of people -- some who may be athletes, others who aren't -- will not be getting enough protein at 0.8g/kg/day (given the OP's weight that's about what they're eating with their 40g)6 -
@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
4 -
@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
3 -
@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe.
Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion. It seems that people reading scientific literature like research papers ignore these words and interpret things like "unlikely to be harmful" as "not harmful".
Anyway, it's apparent that everyone has strong views and this discussion is going nowhere. I prefer to believe the panels of scientists, others (the majority it seems) seem to prefer to believe the fitness coaches. Each to their own I guess.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions