Protein and weightloss

db56 wrote: »

I have a really hard time getting protein each day. I am not a high meat eater other than chicken. If you stay within your cal. limit but your getting more carbs than protein does your weight loss slow down?

Weeeellllll . . . I kinda but don't totally agree with what most people have said so far.

You need a certain minimum amount of protein, for best nutrition and health, and there's some evidence that that minimum is a little bit higher during weight loss.

Getting more carb grams (or calories) than protein grams/calories can be fine: The carb to protein ratio isn't an important metric. It's like assessing your car's performance by the ratio of miles driven to how many times your brakes are engaged. Both things (carb intake and protein intake) are potentially important, but their ratio isn't really meaningful to progress. If you're not hitting a sensible protein minimum (like that 0.8-1g per pound of lean body mass or 0.6-0.8g per pound of goal weight kind of region), then that might be more of a problem.

Strictly speaking, you might lose weight a tiny bit faster eating more protein, because protein takes more energy to digest/metabolize (has a higher TEF, thermic efficiency of food) than some other nutrients. But in the big picture, that effect is pretty tiny, not worth much attention. The bigger deal is that getting too little protein - particularly if also exercising and in a calorie deficit - makes it more likely that you'll lose unnecessarily large amounts of lean mass alongside fat loss, which would be a Bad Plan for multiple reasons.

So, hit a reasonable protein minimum. Yes, excessive protein can be damaging, but you're not anywhere near that, so I don't know why that's even something to bring up.

You can get enough protein. Or, at least I can, and I haven't eaten chicken (or any other meat/fish) since 1974 (yes, 1974, really ) . . . so I'm pretty sure it's possible for someone who eats chicken. Lots of foods have protein, even some unexpected foods. Learn about them here:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10247171/carbs-and-fats-are-cheap-heres-a-guide-to-getting-your-proteins-worth-fiber-also

If you're not getting enough protein now, eat more of foods in the spreadsheet linked to that thread - ones you enjoy eating - and less of something else that isn't helping you meet your goals, that you can mostly painlessly reduce.

As background, this link has evidence-based references for protein needs, links to a protein "calculator": https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

RockingWithLJ wrote: »

Welllll, kinda, once again. That's a really bad foundation, on that pyramid, IMO.

If I ate 10x (evne 12x) my goal weight in calories, I'd lose weight waaaay too fast. Those kinds of arbitrary multipliers pretend that a bricklayer's apprentice who spends 8 hours a day carrying hods of bricks, then trains for triathlons at night, is the same as a reference librarian who sits at a desk all day and knits while watching TV in the evening. Further, the protein layer of the pyramid fails to recognize that protein is used to maintain our *lean* mass.

The numbers given "per bodyweight" are fine for someone at a healthy bodyweight. But an obese weight loss beginner with 100 pounds of lean mass doesn't need materially more protein than a thin supermodel with 100 pounds of lean mass (maybe just a small bit more, because losing weight). That's why some folks in this thread have written in terms of grams per pound of *goal* weight. A significantly overweight woman on low calories (say 1300) is likely to struggle trying to get protein at 1g per pound of obese bodyweight . . . and it's not necessary. (She needs room for other nutrients, too.)

That's a very body-builder looking kind of pyramid. Nothing wrong with a body-building approach, but it can have some . . . biases.

RockingWithLJ wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

db56 wrote: »

I have a really hard time getting protein each day. I am not a high meat eater other than chicken. If you stay within your cal. limit but your getting more carbs than protein does your weight loss slow down?

Weeeellllll . . . I kinda but don't totally agree with what most people have said so far.

You need a certain minimum amount of protein, for best nutrition and health, and there's some evidence that that minimum is a little bit higher during weight loss.

Getting more carb grams (or calories) than protein grams/calories can be fine: The carb to protein ratio isn't an important metric. It's like assessing your car's performance by the ratio of miles driven to how many times your brakes are engaged. Both things (carb intake and protein intake) are potentially important, but their ratio isn't really meaningful to progress. If you're not hitting a sensible protein minimum (like that 0.8-1g per pound of lean body mass or 0.6-0.8g per pound of goal weight kind of region), then that might be more of a problem.

Strictly speaking, you might lose weight a tiny bit faster eating more protein, because protein takes more energy to digest/metabolize (has a higher TEF, thermic efficiency of food) than some other nutrients. But in the big picture, that effect is pretty tiny, not worth much attention. The bigger deal is that getting too little protein - particularly if also exercising and in a calorie deficit - makes it more likely that you'll lose unnecessarily large amounts of lean mass alongside fat loss, which would be a Bad Plan for multiple reasons.

So, hit a reasonable protein minimum. Yes, excessive protein can be damaging, but you're not anywhere near that, so I don't know why that's even something to bring up.

You can get enough protein. Or, at least I can, and I haven't eaten chicken (or any other meat/fish) since 1974 (yes, 1974, really ) . . . so I'm pretty sure it's possible for someone who eats chicken. Lots of foods have protein, even some unexpected foods. Learn about them here:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10247171/carbs-and-fats-are-cheap-heres-a-guide-to-getting-your-proteins-worth-fiber-also

If you're not getting enough protein now, eat more of foods in the spreadsheet linked to that thread - ones you enjoy eating - and less of something else that isn't helping you meet your goals, that you can mostly painlessly reduce.

As background, this link has evidence-based references for protein needs, links to a protein "calculator": https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

RockingWithLJ wrote: »

Welllll, kinda, once again. That's a really bad foundation, on that pyramid, IMO.

If I ate 10x (evne 12x) my goal weight in calories, I'd lose weight waaaay too fast. Those kinds of arbitrary multipliers pretend that a bricklayer's apprentice who spends 8 hours a day carrying hods of bricks, then trains for triathlons at night, is the same as a reference librarian who sits at a desk all day and knits while watching TV in the evening. Further, the protein layer of the pyramid fails to recognize that protein is used to maintain our *lean* mass.

The numbers given "per bodyweight" are fine for someone at a healthy bodyweight. But an obese weight loss beginner with 100 pounds of lean mass doesn't need materially more protein than a thin supermodel with 100 pounds of lean mass (maybe just a small bit more, because losing weight). That's why some folks in this thread have written in terms of grams per pound of *goal* weight. A significantly overweight woman on low calories (say 1300) is likely to struggle trying to get protein at 1g per pound of obese bodyweight . . . and it's not necessary. (She needs room for other nutrients, too.)

That's a very body-builder looking kind of pyramid. Nothing wrong with a body-building approach, but it can have some . . . biases.

This came from a ton of coaches who prep people for shows and are in the medical field so im wondering where your knowledge is really coming from

Show prep caters to a select clientele - one that is 1) not overweight 2) more likely to engage in extreme methods over the short term ahead of a competition.

RockingWithLJ wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

db56 wrote: »

I have a really hard time getting protein each day. I am not a high meat eater other than chicken. If you stay within your cal. limit but your getting more carbs than protein does your weight loss slow down?

Weeeellllll . . . I kinda but don't totally agree with what most people have said so far.

You need a certain minimum amount of protein, for best nutrition and health, and there's some evidence that that minimum is a little bit higher during weight loss.

Getting more carb grams (or calories) than protein grams/calories can be fine: The carb to protein ratio isn't an important metric. It's like assessing your car's performance by the ratio of miles driven to how many times your brakes are engaged. Both things (carb intake and protein intake) are potentially important, but their ratio isn't really meaningful to progress. If you're not hitting a sensible protein minimum (like that 0.8-1g per pound of lean body mass or 0.6-0.8g per pound of goal weight kind of region), then that might be more of a problem.

Strictly speaking, you might lose weight a tiny bit faster eating more protein, because protein takes more energy to digest/metabolize (has a higher TEF, thermic efficiency of food) than some other nutrients. But in the big picture, that effect is pretty tiny, not worth much attention. The bigger deal is that getting too little protein - particularly if also exercising and in a calorie deficit - makes it more likely that you'll lose unnecessarily large amounts of lean mass alongside fat loss, which would be a Bad Plan for multiple reasons.

So, hit a reasonable protein minimum. Yes, excessive protein can be damaging, but you're not anywhere near that, so I don't know why that's even something to bring up.

You can get enough protein. Or, at least I can, and I haven't eaten chicken (or any other meat/fish) since 1974 (yes, 1974, really ) . . . so I'm pretty sure it's possible for someone who eats chicken. Lots of foods have protein, even some unexpected foods. Learn about them here:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10247171/carbs-and-fats-are-cheap-heres-a-guide-to-getting-your-proteins-worth-fiber-also

If you're not getting enough protein now, eat more of foods in the spreadsheet linked to that thread - ones you enjoy eating - and less of something else that isn't helping you meet your goals, that you can mostly painlessly reduce.

As background, this link has evidence-based references for protein needs, links to a protein "calculator": https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

RockingWithLJ wrote: »

Welllll, kinda, once again. That's a really bad foundation, on that pyramid, IMO.

If I ate 10x (evne 12x) my goal weight in calories, I'd lose weight waaaay too fast. Those kinds of arbitrary multipliers pretend that a bricklayer's apprentice who spends 8 hours a day carrying hods of bricks, then trains for triathlons at night, is the same as a reference librarian who sits at a desk all day and knits while watching TV in the evening. Further, the protein layer of the pyramid fails to recognize that protein is used to maintain our *lean* mass.

The numbers given "per bodyweight" are fine for someone at a healthy bodyweight. But an obese weight loss beginner with 100 pounds of lean mass doesn't need materially more protein than a thin supermodel with 100 pounds of lean mass (maybe just a small bit more, because losing weight). That's why some folks in this thread have written in terms of grams per pound of *goal* weight. A significantly overweight woman on low calories (say 1300) is likely to struggle trying to get protein at 1g per pound of obese bodyweight . . . and it's not necessary. (She needs room for other nutrients, too.)

That's a very body-builder looking kind of pyramid. Nothing wrong with a body-building approach, but it can have some . . . biases.

This came from a ton of coaches who prep people for shows and are in the medical field so im wondering where your knowledge is really coming from

I've gotten nutritional/fitness info from various sources, including some related to my coaching education (rowing coaching, not strength training coaching, as truth in advertising).

The critique of the calories multiplier is pretty obvious on its surface: There are a bunch of calculators based on sound scientific research available on the web. They still just provide imperfect estimates that need to be tested (since they just spit out a statistical average of a similar population, based on limited data input). But rather than 'X times your weight", they take into account factors like age and activity level, perhaps body fat percent for people who know theirs, to produce an estimate. It's still an estimate, but a more personalized one. Why not use a more personalized calculator, rather than a "one size fits all" rule of thumb? The "bricklayer/triathlete vs. librarian/knitter" comment put it pretty clearly, as a practical matter, I think.

(FWIW, 10 x my bodyweight - let alone goal weight - would have me losing around 2 pounds a week at 130 pounds, which would be a *really dumb* thing for me to do IMO. Even 12 x bodyweight would be 1.5 pounds a week, still a pretty bad idea. A TDEE calculator that knows my body fat percent comes much closer to sanity.)

As far as protein goes, there's a lot of research-based info out there in the world (as in primary research studies by scientists, not just posts by bloggers or IG fitness celebs or trainers or whatever). Just to keep things simple, this is one source that is regarded as evidence-based and neutral, with a summary of recent protein-related scientific research and a calculator based on their assessment of that research:

https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

I linked that reference in my PP, so I'm a little puzzled that you ask where my knowledge is really coming from.

For healthy weight people in certain situations, it'll recommend optimal protein as being in the range you suggest, and may even say a higher level in some scenarios "may provide additional benefit, based on limited evidence".

Having been hanging around MFP for a few years, I'd say it's common to see people - usually women, often still fairly much over goal weight - say that they're struggling with protein intake. (That is, things similar to OP's initial query.) When further questions are asked, they're sometimes using guidance that's generic, from sites focused more on fitness/bodybuilding than large-scale weight loss, sources that give them super-aggressive protein targets.

People need adequate protein . . . but they also need adequate fats, and plenty of veggies/fruits, for overall well-rounded nutrition. Telling them to spend a huge chunk of their limited calories on protein overkill isn't helping their weight loss, their nutrition, or their fitness.

My recommendation about protein is essentially the same as your pyramid, just with the observation that the pyramid appears to implicitly assume a person is not obese, which is a common assumption in generalized recommendations on bodybuilding sites.

The site I linked doesn't handle the protein recommendation for obese people in the same explicit "use lean body mass or goal weight" way, but its "calculator" does adjust intake recommendations based on obesity so that protein recommendations don't just grow linearly with body weight to levels that would be crazy-hard to get on limited calories.

And I didn't even touch that bit at the top of the pyramid. Is cardio necessary for weight loss? No. Does essentially every mainstream health-promotion organization in the world (WHO, USDA, NHS . . . ) recommend that people regularly include cardio in their schedule? Yes. Just as they recommend the strength training the pyramid puts at a level of greater importance (even though the mainstream health-promotion organizations normally recommend more time spent on cardio than strength).

It's a strength/bodybuilding focused pyramid. That's a fine thing. But being that, it's also a little different from what might be suggested by a weight loss focused, general health focused or other specific sport focused site. To point that out, or to point out its limitations in the context of general weight loss, is not dissing it. I'm commenting about context. If OP is contest-prepping, the pyramid is probably really excellent advice.

I don't claim to be an expert or in the medical field. (But someone needn't be a meteorologist to say it's raining. ) You have an opinion, you offered it. That's great, sincerely. I have an opinon that disagrees with yours . . . in quite small ways, actually. I offered it.

TL;DR My previous post linked a research-based source, and gave practical examples of why I said what I did in context of OP's post. Since I offered sources, "im wondering where your knowledge is really coming from" seems puzzling to me.

RockingWithLJ wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

db56 wrote: »

I have a really hard time getting protein each day. I am not a high meat eater other than chicken. If you stay within your cal. limit but your getting more carbs than protein does your weight loss slow down?

Weeeellllll . . . I kinda but don't totally agree with what most people have said so far.

You need a certain minimum amount of protein, for best nutrition and health, and there's some evidence that that minimum is a little bit higher during weight loss.

Getting more carb grams (or calories) than protein grams/calories can be fine: The carb to protein ratio isn't an important metric. It's like assessing your car's performance by the ratio of miles driven to how many times your brakes are engaged. Both things (carb intake and protein intake) are potentially important, but their ratio isn't really meaningful to progress. If you're not hitting a sensible protein minimum (like that 0.8-1g per pound of lean body mass or 0.6-0.8g per pound of goal weight kind of region), then that might be more of a problem.

Strictly speaking, you might lose weight a tiny bit faster eating more protein, because protein takes more energy to digest/metabolize (has a higher TEF, thermic efficiency of food) than some other nutrients. But in the big picture, that effect is pretty tiny, not worth much attention. The bigger deal is that getting too little protein - particularly if also exercising and in a calorie deficit - makes it more likely that you'll lose unnecessarily large amounts of lean mass alongside fat loss, which would be a Bad Plan for multiple reasons.

So, hit a reasonable protein minimum. Yes, excessive protein can be damaging, but you're not anywhere near that, so I don't know why that's even something to bring up.

You can get enough protein. Or, at least I can, and I haven't eaten chicken (or any other meat/fish) since 1974 (yes, 1974, really ) . . . so I'm pretty sure it's possible for someone who eats chicken. Lots of foods have protein, even some unexpected foods. Learn about them here:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10247171/carbs-and-fats-are-cheap-heres-a-guide-to-getting-your-proteins-worth-fiber-also

If you're not getting enough protein now, eat more of foods in the spreadsheet linked to that thread - ones you enjoy eating - and less of something else that isn't helping you meet your goals, that you can mostly painlessly reduce.

As background, this link has evidence-based references for protein needs, links to a protein "calculator": https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/

RockingWithLJ wrote: »

Welllll, kinda, once again. That's a really bad foundation, on that pyramid, IMO.

If I ate 10x (evne 12x) my goal weight in calories, I'd lose weight waaaay too fast. Those kinds of arbitrary multipliers pretend that a bricklayer's apprentice who spends 8 hours a day carrying hods of bricks, then trains for triathlons at night, is the same as a reference librarian who sits at a desk all day and knits while watching TV in the evening. Further, the protein layer of the pyramid fails to recognize that protein is used to maintain our *lean* mass.

The numbers given "per bodyweight" are fine for someone at a healthy bodyweight. But an obese weight loss beginner with 100 pounds of lean mass doesn't need materially more protein than a thin supermodel with 100 pounds of lean mass (maybe just a small bit more, because losing weight). That's why some folks in this thread have written in terms of grams per pound of *goal* weight. A significantly overweight woman on low calories (say 1300) is likely to struggle trying to get protein at 1g per pound of obese bodyweight . . . and it's not necessary. (She needs room for other nutrients, too.)

That's a very body-builder looking kind of pyramid. Nothing wrong with a body-building approach, but it can have some . . . biases.

This came from a ton of coaches who prep people for shows and are in the medical field so im wondering where your knowledge is really coming from

Prepping for shows isn't really the best model for how the vast majority of people need to live and eat.

It's a specific talent and skill and I respect it, but most of us don't need to do those things to look great, feel great, and meet our fitness goals.