How much protein do you really need?

[Defining]

Super interesting article on the topic: https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-i-need/

 

Now, I'll readily admit that this feeds into my bias: that for most people in most situations, 1g protein/lb bodyweight is a good guideline. Obviously for some people this may be a bit too much, while for others it's still insufficient. 

 

But what do you think of the cumulative recommendations they've shown? Always interested to hear what conclusions folks have for this kind of stuff! 

[Elastigirl]

This was interesting. Thanks. I thought I consumed enough protein, but according to those tables I need even more.  I do about 80%- 110 % of my bodyweight on average. That hits their minimum, but they say if I'm trying to lose weight  or gain muscle it should be even more. ANd even more because I'm old. It would be interesting to try and hit those numbers and see what happens. Really hard to get that much protein though 

[Defining]

20 hours ago, Elastigirl said:

Really hard to get that much protein though 

 Yup. Pretty much the only way I can stomach/afford to eat 'enough' protein is to supplement with whey/casein. It's an interesting conundrum, and begs the question: are we just too heavy to begin with, increasing the required amount? And/or how on earth did our predecessors get 'enough'?! Or are these just optimum levels that most never reach? Because we all know that surviving on less than optimal is absolutely possible.

[Elastigirl]

9 minutes ago, Defining said:

 Yup. Pretty much the only way I can stomach/afford to eat 'enough' protein is to supplement with whey/casein. It's an interesting conundrum, and begs the question: are we just too heavy to begin with, increasing the required amount? And/or how on earth did our predecessors get 'enough'?! Or are these just optimum levels that most never reach? Because we all know that surviving on less than optimal is absolutely possible.

I decided to give it a go for a few weeks. I'm in the last final surge of weight loss, so I thought I could do it for a few weeks.

I think our ancestors did it bursts. There were probably times when all they had was meat, and then times when it was mainly grains or veggies. When it is based on availability, it varied more. Plus they ate the whole animal, and I think that helped

[RisenPhoenix]

Wow.  Er.  According to this I'm regularly off by 50-150 grams of protein a day.  Like, I can usually make 150g pretty easily (lower end of what I 'should' have, as a 6 foot, 210 pound male), but aiming for 200 requires concerted effort, let alone the 300 they recommend.

 

But it would be interesting to try, since I'm trying to lose a couple pounds and an additional edge wouldn't hurt...?

[Defining]

2 hours ago, RisenPhoenix said:

But it would be interesting to try, since I'm trying to lose a couple pounds and an additional edge wouldn't hurt...?

Worst case scenario: you try it for 2-4 weeks and decide the additional protein isn't necessary for you!

[RisenPhoenix]

4 minutes ago, Defining said:

Worst case scenario: you try it for 2-4 weeks and decide the additional protein isn't necessary for you!

 

Definitely.  I need to rein in a bit of my caloric intake, see where my levels have had me for a couple of weeks, THEN do that, though.

 

Ahhh, the downside of not collecting data as regularly as I used to.  Less stressful until these moments.  Ha.

[elmerh]

Thanks for sharing!

[Defining]

Reviving an old topic, @Harriet brought up a super interesting subject of protein timing/amount for maximal protein synthesis vs total protein intake:

3 hours ago, Harriet said:

I read one article on Stronger by Science (but it's not by Nuckols, rather by a Jorn Trommelen) that proposes that we need a fixed amount of protein rather than an amount based on bodyweight. The idea is that consuming 20g of protein in one go "near maximally" increases muscle synthesis, while 40g adds only a little benefit beyond that. So he suggests eating evenly spaced meals of at least 20g throughout the day to spend more time in muscle synthesis mode or whatever. He thinks larger men might not need more protein, but smaller men and women might need more than the grams per kg estimates suggest. I don't know enough about protein synthesis to know if this is plausible, and I didn't find anyone else discussing it. Do you have any thoughts?

 

To get a few things out of the way first, there are some fundamental flaws with any nutritional study:

- they are often small sample sizes for short periods of time

- they are often for a specific population, and may/may not apply to everyone else

- if intake is self-reported, there is a lot of potential for poor measurement standards, self-editing, and/or forgetting stuff

- nutritional and exercise interventions are notoriously individualistic in their results, and just because you can force the data into a pretty graph doesn't mean that it's actually a clean & clear result

- measurement tools are often inconsistent, and affected by multiple different factors

- without controlling for total protein intake, any 'effect' of different diets/ratios may be affected by too many other factors

 

Also, there are LOTS of different 'outcomes' that you could focus on when looking at protein intake:

- bone density

- health outcomes

- bodyfat changes

- short-term anabolic response

- total protein synthesis (ie. building muscle)

- energy levels & sleep/recovery quality

- athletic performance

- etc.

 

So, obviously, the 'how much/when' protein questions can be determined by several different types of goals.

 

You can look at a good discussion showing that 1.6g/kg/d of protein should be sufficient for most people to optimise body composition changes - which falls right in the middle of the recommended range for an active adult in the first link I posted above. But does that still apply for someone who is in a caloric deficit? An older athlete who's trying to preserve bone density? What if you want to feel more full and protein has a higher satiation index than carbs/fat? What if you're eating in a surplus and you end up eating more protein just because that's how your macros break down? What if you're a high-level athlete training for 4+ hrs/day and therefore may have a higher protein breakdown as a result of the amount of activity?

 

Personally, I use the 1g/lb of bodyweight as a basic guideline for several reasons - not least of which is because folks often fall a bit short of it anyway, so it provides a 'buffer zone'. It's also easy to calculate, and a bit of extra protein isn't going to hurt you even if it IS marginally more than what you 'actually' need. That being said, it can also be too difficult (or expensive) for some people to eat that much, at which point they can experiment with how their individual body responds to different amounts of protein

 

 

To address the article that Harriet asked about - well, it depends on how you feel about extrapolating conclusions. The pertinent part of the article where they go from talking about bodyweight correlated intake to using whole numbers is roughly here:

Spoiler

 

Protein recommendations are often expressed in g/kg/d. This seems quite logical, as a heavier person has more muscle mass, and thus might need more protein. However, only one study has directly compared the effect of protein ingestion on MPS in a group of subjects with a high lean body mass versus a group with low lean body mass. The MPS response to protein ingestion was not impacted by the amount of lean body mass of the subjects (Macnaughton, 2016).

This suggests that bigger guys may not need more protein than smaller guys. Therefore, expressing protein recommendations as an absolute amount (e.g. 120g/d) might be more accurate than recommendations expressed per kilogram of bodyweight. For example, a protein intake of 1.5g/kg/d represents 75g protein in a day for a 50kg person which is likely a suboptimal amount despite them being smaller. This might sound counterintuitive, but remember the two functions of protein for muscle: protein provides the building blocks for muscle growth, and it triggers muscle protein synthesis. It appears that even a relatively small amount of protein provides more than enough building blocks for muscle growth, whether you’re big or small. However, you need more protein to maximize the MPS trigger function (so you actually make use of the building blocks), which does not seem to depend much on your size.

….

Protein needs do not appear to depend on body weight or amount of lean body mass. Therefore, protein recommendations expressed as g/kg/d may underestimate protein needs for smaller athletes.

 

But my issue with this statement is that it appears that the author is correlating myofibrillar protein synthesis with an increase in lean body mass - but they are not the same thing. There's even some stuff out there to suggest that they're not at all correlated. It's already generally accepted that there is an upper limit to the 'anabolic response' when consuming protein, which historically was considered to be somewhere between 20-40g in one dose; and no, it doesn't generally change much between different LBM. BUT, that's different from your body's ability to 'use' the protein, and it gets even more complicated when we start talking about the 'anabolic potential' of different proteins in consideration with EAA content (this is where BCAA supplementation started to be popular, and why some people say plant protein 'doesn't count'). There are also pretty interesting explorations on the pros/cons of eating protein in pulses (eg. multiple meals throughout the day) or a larger bolus (eg. IF). 

 

The author still recommended at least 120g of protein a day - for an 'average' adult weight around 67-75kg, that gives you ~1.6-1.8g/kg/d....so that would probably work just fine for most people anyway. Therefore, to a certain extent, the entire conversation really does become a matter of semantics. One of the reasons that it's being suggested that smaller men/women may need to eat more protein is actually kind of the same reason as any other recommendation - because they are eating fewer calories they could end up eating less protein than they 'need'. So it's often easier to figure out your TOTAL protein needs (either as a lump-sum number or as a function of your bodyweight), as opposed to calculating it as a percentage of your total daily intake.

 

I have more thoughts, but I'll just leave it at this: I think that how we as individuals respond to different macro ratios/intake will vary quite a bit. Making gross generalisations about large populations will always have a pretty high error margin, so the BEST way to figure out what works for YOU is to start with the guidelines and tweak until you settle into the sweet spot for yourself.

[Harriet]

34 minutes ago, Defining said:

 

But my issue with this statement is that it appears that the author is correlating myofibrillar protein synthesis with an increase in lean body mass - but they are not the same thing. There's even some stuff out there to suggest that they're not at all correlated. It's already generally accepted that there is an upper limit to the 'anabolic response' when consuming protein, which historically was considered to be somewhere between 20-40g in one dose; and no, it doesn't generally change much between different LBM. BUT, that's different from your body's ability to 'use' the protein, and it gets even more complicated when we start talking about the 'anabolic potential' of different proteins in consideration with EAA content (this is where BCAA supplementation started to be popular, and why some people say plant protein 'doesn't count'). There are also pretty interesting explorations on the pros/cons of eating protein in pulses (eg. multiple meals throughout the day) or a larger bolus (eg. IF). 

 

Thanks for reviving!

So, this is too specialised for me to really understand, but it sounds like you're saying the fixed amount hypothesis comes from measuring the wrong thing, and the gram/kg approach is still the right one. Good to know about the optimal dose, though it sounds like more than 40g is not bad or wasted.

 

38 minutes ago, Defining said:

I think that how we as individuals respond to different macro ratios/intake will vary quite a bit. Making gross generalisations about large populations will always have a pretty high error margin, so the BEST way to figure out what works for YOU is to start with the guidelines and tweak until you settle into the sweet spot for yourself.

Soooo... how do you know where the sweet spot is? Building muscle is such a long term endeavour, and it's not like I can feel or sense if I'm gaining it. Maybe a super basic question but how you do even know what's right or wrong for you? Am I making MAXIMAL GAINZZ??? Ahem, sorry. 

[Defining]

20 hours ago, Harriet said:

So, this is too specialised for me to really understand, but it sounds like you're saying the fixed amount hypothesis comes from measuring the wrong thing, and the gram/kg approach is still the right one. Good to know about the optimal dose, though it sounds like more than 40g is not bad or wasted.

It's not wrong, so much as it's... a few steps short of connecting the dots. Bear in mind that I'm 100% not an expert, I just read too much stuff on the internet - but yeah, I'd say that g/kg is a more reliable approach IMO. And no, over 40g it's not like your body stops absorbing the nutrition or anything; there is definitely an argument to be made for breaking things up into 4-5 'doses' a day though, if only to make it easier to eat it all!

 

There is a pretty good discussion of MPF vs whole body anabolism in this article, but I think the easiest way to think of it (as far as I understand it) is that myofibrillar protein synthesis is more like replenishing the stores after a workout, but gaining muscle is more about what's built on top over time. Kinda sorta.

 

20 hours ago, Harriet said:

Soooo... how do you know where the sweet spot is? Building muscle is such a long term endeavour, and it's not like I can feel or sense if I'm gaining it. Maybe a super basic question but how you do even know what's right or wrong for you? Am I making MAXIMAL GAINZZ??? Ahem, sorry. 

Again, I'm not an expert, but I think that if you really wanted to dial in what works best for you, you'd need to start tracking intake, gym progress, and body comp changes pretty closely. I know that you've had some big wins using IE and being less focused on body image and food though, so in that context a 'sweet spot' is relative. I'd probably just aim for at least 1.6-2.2g/kg/d (or 0.7-1g/lb/d if you use imperial) and don't stress too much if you're a bit over/under - the sweet spot also has to do with what you ENJOY eating, what fits with your lifestyle, and what makes sense for your budget and daily schedule. Consistency & sustainability are just as important as 'optimal'.  

[KB Girl]

On 12/31/2019 at 9:08 PM, Defining said:

Making gross generalisations about large populations will always have a pretty high error margin, so the BEST way to figure out what works for YOU is to start with the guidelines and tweak until you settle into the sweet spot for yourself.

Too true! 

 

In this whole discussion protein quality should really be taken into account.. I usually recommend that people only count protein from animal food sources and then stick to 1g/kg/d if they're serious lifters. More casual lifters can really get away with a bit less, like 0,8grams - (my interpretation of the data/research and my experience). 

If you're vegan.. well.. 1g/kg is not going to be enough.

[Defining]

8 minutes ago, KB Girl said:

In this whole discussion protein quality should really be taken into account.. I usually recommend that people only count protein from animal food sources and then stick to 1g/kg/d if they're serious lifters. More casual lifters can really get away with a bit less, like 0,8grams - (my interpretation of the data/research and my experience). 

If you're vegan.. well.. 1g/kg is not going to be enough.

 

I have to disagree with this. Yes: plant protein tends to stimulate less of an anabolic response (due to the lower EAA & specifically leucine content), plant protein can be more difficult for some people to digest, and it's important to eat a good variety if following a vegan diet. But realistically, 1g/lb/g (assuming you meant g/lb, not g/kg? the minimum RDA that's out of date is 0.8g/kg) with exclusively plant-based intake will necessitate a fair bit of variety and meal planning just to get it all in! Plus, with that amount of protein you are very likely to have sufficient essential amino acid intake - admittedly, a lower protein intake on a vegan diet does bring up some concerns about EAAs.

 

In terms of protein synthesis stimulus, the data is clear that higher EAA content (and therefore most animal proteins) is better; but we also have to keep in mind that we're not JUST eating protein to build muscles - we also use it for energy, and general maintenance in the body. So at least for myself, maximum anabolic stimulus isn't necessary my #1 priority, even if I do keep it in mind. I quite like this article about the animal vs plant protein debate.

 

With the caveat that plant based protein also tends to come with a lot of 'extra calories' in comparison to meat for kcal per g of protein; which means that if you're cutting, it's significantly more challenging to hit those numbers. This is actually exactly why I phased animal protein back into my diet after being vegetarian/vegan for 12yrs - because I wanted to eat more protein but fewer kcal. Another consideration must be cost: legumes are by far and away less expensive protein sources than most animal proteins. Nuts & whole grains are useful in smaller amounts, but not when they represent a high percentage of total intake.

 

Here is an interesting discussion on swapping out animal protein for meat based, and protein inadequacies were unlikely with plant protein consumption representing up to 80% of the total intake, so in a omnivore diet, plant protein definitely 'counts'. Beyond that, there are other potential health concerns that come from high animal protein consumption, depending on other risk factors - so for lots of people, a mix of both plant & animal proteins is the best option to both optimise body composition AND health.

 

TL;DR - While I completely agree that vegans need to take extra steps to ensure that they are consuming sufficient protein & variety, as well as balanced EAA intake (not to mention a B12 supplement), I have to disagree that 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight would be insufficient. And, from my perspective, there is no reason not to 'count' plant protein as part of the daily total, especially in a mixed diet.

[KB Girl]

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why would you assume I meant lb? I meant kg. 

 

The reason for not counting plant based protein is simply convenience- it's much much easier to simply count animal protein and be done with it. After a little practice almost anyone can do this off the top of their heads in 2-5 minutes for their entire day. 

 

I really liked the French study you linked- figuring out ideal protein intakes is very interesting, but translating that into advice that actually works for most people is an entirely different and equally interesting problem

 

[Harriet]

5 hours ago, Defining said:

It's not wrong, so much as it's... a few steps short of connecting the dots. Bear in mind that I'm 100% not an expert, I just read too much stuff on the internet - but yeah, I'd say that g/kg is a more reliable approach IMO. And no, over 40g it's not like your body stops absorbing the nutrition or anything; there is definitely an argument to be made for breaking things up into 4-5 'doses' a day though, if only to make it easier to eat it all!

 

There is a pretty good discussion of MPF vs whole body anabolism in this article, but I think the easiest way to think of it (as far as I understand it) is that myofibrillar protein synthesis is more like replenishing the stores after a workout, but gaining muscle is more about what's built on top over time. Kinda sorta.

 

 

Cool. I've got some more reading to do  

 

5 hours ago, Defining said:

Again, I'm not an expert, but I think that if you really wanted to dial in what works best for you, you'd need to start tracking intake, gym progress, and body comp changes pretty closely. I know that you've had some big wins using IE and being less focused on body image and food though, so in that context a 'sweet spot' is relative. I'd probably just aim for at least 1.6-2.2g/kg/d (or 0.7-1g/lb/d if you use imperial) and don't stress too much if you're a bit over/under - the sweet spot also has to do with what you ENJOY eating, what fits with your lifestyle, and what makes sense for your budget and daily schedule. Consistency & sustainability are just as important as 'optimal'.  

 

You remembered that I'm doing IE  Yeah, I can track occasionally on MFP to see what my averages are, but not every day. I should probably keep better records, actually. I don't have a reliable measure for my body comp, and my lifts are increasing so slowly compared to other women who write about their powerlifting experiences on the internet. But maybe I can go with the maximum protein that's enjoyable and practical for me, and see what happens.

[Defining]

24 minutes ago, KB Girl said:

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why would you assume I meant lb? I meant kg. 

Sorry, I made the assumption because the first article in the thread that I posted recommended something between 1.6-2.2g/kg, which translates to around 0.7-1g/lb/d; my bad!

 

At 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight though, that's barely above the RDA of 0.8g/kg - and there's enough literature and modern studies out there showing that it's probably too low. Recommendations for the general population are closer to 1.2-1.4g/kg as a minimum target, with even higher numbers for older people and anyone working out on a regular basis.

[KB Girl]

That makes sense! 

 

9 minutes ago, Defining said:

At 1g of protein per kg of bodyweight though, that's barely above the TDA of 0.8g/kg - and there's enough literature and modern studies out there showing that it's probably too low. Recommendations for the general population are closer to 1.2-1.4g/kg as a minimum target, with even higher numbers for older people and anyone working out on a regular basis.

Those numbers are assuming you count all protein, when you count only animal protein then in a non-vegetarian/vegan diet it adds up to around 1.4-1.8 grams. That's why I stated 1g/kg wouldn't work for a vegan diet, but reading back it was a bit random and not very clear, sorry. 

[Defining]

45 minutes ago, KB Girl said:

Those numbers are assuming you count all protein, when you count only animal protein then in a non-vegetarian/vegan diet it adds up to around 1.4-1.8 grams. That's why I stated 1g/kg wouldn't work for a vegan diet, but reading back it was a bit random and not very clear, sorry. 

 

Well that makes SO MUCH more sense! 😆Sorry for confusing everything by making assumptions, that was entirely my fault. I totally understand the approach you're talking about; 'plant based' stuff as 'incidental' protein so if you aim for 0.8-1g/kg of animal protein a day it should all sort itself out. You're totally right, that would be an easy way to ballpark sufficient protein; though I'd still be concerned that it might end up on the lower side depending on their incidental plant protein intake.

 

For someone like myself, who only eats meat & fish each maybe once a week, I always assume that people are talking about total proteins, otherwise even if I counted dairy/eggs I'd still be too low. Or, maybe not, considering the amount of whey/casein that I use...

As it is, I'm also totally biased on the subject of 'how much protein' - I notice a pretty significant difference in my own energy levels between moderate and 'high' intake, so even then I'd want to take a look at total protein for the sake of tracking that sort of thing. But that's just me!

[KB Girl]

23 hours ago, Defining said:

But that's just me!

Sounds like you've nailed the hardest part of this, figuring out what works for you  

It's why I like recommending things that make the whole process of data collection a bit easier- so it doesn't get in the way of things like IE, for @Harriet for example it'd work really well to just count animal protein occasionally, staying far away from MFP. (I hate those counting apps) 

[Chesire]

You are all amazing resources!  I so appreciate having knowledgable people to draw insight from.  

 

Ok, question time. 

 

Did I process this awesome amount of info properly?  I was rather leaning toward, for myself- fairly active middle-age woman, getting the minimum daily suggested amount 0.8-1g/kg in animal sources and then beyond that is primarily mixed veg sources with an ultimate total of around 1.6g/kg daily, since I am actively working on lean strengthening.    I recognize and take to heart that all of this is generalization and each person has to find their own way.  

 

 If those are the numbers I'm aiming for, I've got some work to do!  Which is crazy because I've already worked so hard to increase to where I'm at now.  

 

One more thing?  Previously I'd heard these estimates were based on lean weight.  Is that no longer part of the equation with the updated considerations on protein requirements for muscle building, fat loss, and general thriving?

[Defining]

On 2/11/2020 at 9:33 AM, Chesire said:

 I was rather leaning toward, for myself- fairly active middle-age woman, getting the minimum daily suggested amount 0.8-1g/kg in animal sources and then beyond that is primarily mixed veg sources with an ultimate total of around 1.6g/kg daily, since I am actively working on lean strengthening.

That looks about right, based on the info! Yeah, it can seem like A LOT at first, no question; especially if previously you only had maybe 40-60g of intentional protein intake a day (assuming 15-20g/meal).

 

On 2/11/2020 at 9:33 AM, Chesire said:

One more thing?  Previously I'd heard these estimates were based on lean weight.  Is that no longer part of the equation with the updated considerations on protein requirements for muscle building, fat loss, and general thriving?

The estimates based on lean body mass are potentially more accurate, but since the vast majority of methods available to measure bf % are potentially quite inaccurate (with as much as a 5-15% error margin sometimes!), it ends up being less useful than just using total bodyweight. The final calculated numbers are often quite close to one another anyway, so may as well keep with the easier measurement option. 😜 

[Chesire]

21 hours ago, Defining said:

based on the info

Thanks for the answer.  Yeah, I figured a) you aren't a professional and I in no way expect anything more than helpful suggestions from an awesome person, and b) generalities were really the best given you don't know me or my life-style, and I'm a general sort of person, ie no marathons or body building here.  😝  I suspect a detailed answer would require a lot of detail about all things.   If I really want tailored answers, I can be respectful and pay someone who is trained.

 

 

 

21 hours ago, Defining said:

The estimates based on lean body mass are potentially more accurate, but since the vast majority of methods available to measure bf % are potentially quite inaccurate (with as much as a 5-15% error margin sometimes!), it ends up being less useful than just using total bodyweight. The final calculated numbers are often quite close to one another anyway, so may as well keep with the easier measurement option. 😜 

That makes so much sense.  Easy is better sometimes.  

[Aquarii]

I have always found this topic so interesting, especially now that I pay a little more attention to protein sources. When I actually bother to track, my protein typically ranges between 0.5-0.8g/lb of bodyweight. I have never found that amount problematic for weight loss, weight maintenance, or body recomp. I have never spent more than maybe 3 months at a time in a gym, so I don't know about long term muscle/strength gain (don't seem to have issues in the short term). 

 

I do want to get into a lot more weight training this year and work on some muscle gain, so I guess I do echo Harriet's question a bit: how do you know how much is right for you? If you are a person coming from very little background in training, how is one supposed to determine if they are "making gainz" as fast as they should? How does a person distinguish that from all the other factors like using correct form, eating enough food at the right times for workouts in general, getting enough rest, finding the right time of day, etc? Is it even necessary to think about zeroing the exact optimal amount of protein until you have reached a certain level? I mean, obviously a person should at least be getting enough to maintain their muscle mass and build some muscle, but beyond that, at what point does it really become necessary to really get into the weeds?

[Defining]

4 hours ago, Aquarii said:

how do you know how much is right for you? If you are a person coming from very little background in training, how is one supposed to determine if they are "making gainz" as fast as they should? How does a person distinguish that from all the other factors like using correct form, eating enough food at the right times for workouts in general, getting enough rest, finding the right time of day, etc? Is it even necessary to think about zeroing the exact optimal amount of protein until you have reached a certain level? I mean, obviously a person should at least be getting enough to maintain their muscle mass and build some muscle, but beyond that, at what point does it really become necessary to really get into the weeds?

Individual dietary needs & responses to both resistance training, caloric variation, and protein intake are highly variable. Which is to say: there is no good way to predict need for an individual. That's partly why for beginners the best choice is often: tl:dr whatever you can manage within reason, aiming for the recommended amounts that have been shown to benefit the majority, if possilbe.

 

So for muscle gain and/or fat loss, my own bias is towards at least 0.7-1g protein/lb bodyweight; some may benefit from more, others may have a lower 'highest effective dose'. But without personal data previously recorded, we kinda need to work with averages. Now, if once you start to plateau and you're curious, you could keep your training & kcal consistent (still programming progressive overload, not just lifting the same stuff though) and then toggle your protein up or down to see if you notice any differences in energy, workouts, weight, girth measurements, or visual changes.

 

The reason why I also believe that slightly higher is better (for most of us, anyway) than slightly lower is thanks to studies like this, where it compares 2.4g/kg (1g/lb) to 3.4g/kg (1.5g/lb) and showed that those with the stupidly high intake (yes, even I think that 3+/kg is getting kind of ridiculous) still saw TRAINED participants (thereby avoiding the 'newbie gains' factor) losing more fat and gaining some lean mass even while eating MORE kcal than the 2.4g/kg group. That being said, you can take a look at the results to see just how varied responses really are! This study included heavy lifting periodised resistance training.

 

 

 

[Aquarii]

9 hours ago, Defining said:

The reason why I also believe that slightly higher is better (for most of us, anyway) than slightly lower is thanks to studies like this, where it compares 2.4g/kg (1g/lb) to 3.4g/kg (1.5g/lb) and showed that those with the stupidly high intake (yes, even I think that 3+/kg is getting kind of ridiculous) still saw TRAINED participants (thereby avoiding the 'newbie gains' factor) losing more fat and gaining some lean mass even while eating MORE kcal than the 2.4g/kg group. That being said, you can take a look at the results to see just how varied responses really are! This study included heavy lifting periodised resistance training.

 

 

 

 

Huh, that is interesting. I do question just how accurate that study's results are based on the some of the methods. It only studied 17 people in the NP group, and 31 in the HP group. The NP group also had trained for an average of 2.4 yr and the HP group had trained for an average of 4.9 prior to the study. The study also indicates that the NP consumed more protein than their baseline before the study, but the HP group consumed more total protein AND energy than their baseline (aka more calories). And the HP group consumed significantly more calories compared than the NP group, so it really isn't evenly measuring the effects of high protein when everything else remains the same. Considering some people were also losing lean body mass during the study, despite adequate amounts of protein and continued training, makes me suspect that at least some of the samples were in a cut. It does not seem that they controlled the number of calories the people were consuming, and that could have a huge impact on these numbers. I don't know, I feel like there are a lot of factors that were not accounted for in this already tiny sample size.