Honestly feel like the protein numbers that are given regularly are complete bullshit

[davidandgoliath00]

@atlas2023 No ur misunderstanding it. 1.3 g is the inflection point. Muscle mass increases rapidly, but after the 1.3, it increases slower, but It still increases. Look at the chart. This study is widely misunderstood

 

[dawn16]

@davidandgoliath00 Studies don’t “prove” anything. This one merely provides some evidence that more than 0.6g/lb can be useful in building muscle.

“The effect of protein intake on LBM increase relative to weight change rapidly diminishes after the intake of 1.3 g/kg BW/d is exceeded, and resistance training markedly suppresses this decline.”

Moreover, the studies cited by Henselmens all involve strength athletes.

So, while this meta analysis you’re citing is certainly interesting and a part of the overall conversation, it doesn’t really prove anything, or provide significant guidance on protein intake beyond 0.6g/lb.

 

[davidandgoliath00]

@dawn16 No ur misunderstanding it. 1.3 g is the inflection point. Muscle mass increases rapidly, but after the 1.3, it increases slower, but It still increases. Look at the chart. This study is widely misunderstood.

And no way u said studies don't prove anything

 

[dawn16]

@davidandgoliath00 No I’m not. We’re understanding it the same. You’re just attributing more significance to it.

Yes I said that. Studies provide support and evidence for propositions. They rarely definitively prove anything.

 

[davidandgoliath00]

@dawn16 There is a significant to it if u look at the chart in the study

 

[royalhighness]

@davidandgoliath00 They looked at a bunch of other studies and found that eating a extra protein can help make your muscles grow. It's not trying to prove anything perse, but it's giving us evidence to support the idea that eating more protein can help your muscles grow.

Most studies try to add to what we already know about a certain topic. They test theories and hypotheses to see if they are true or not. The goal is to understand more about the subject and generate new knowledge.

That said, I'm not crapping on the study you linked, it's actually a good study, just responding to the point about it proving things as that's not the goal most of the time with research as that would indicate authors having bias beforehand or that they would lack objective thinking. Would actually hurt the quality/credibility of the study if they claimed what they did proved it rather than examined it.

 

[dawn16]

@davidandgoliath00 Which figure?

 

[davidandgoliath00]

@dawn16 Figure 2

 

[thepinkpreacher]

@bronsontaur I’ve never understood consuming protein for the fat that is on your body. So I’ve always aimed for protein intake closer to my lean muscle mass.

 

[weepingwillow422]

@thepinkpreacher But the fat is rolled into the protein g/kg into the studies

Granted, the figures we talk about from them are the upper limit of the upper limit for observed effects, so losses are pretty negligible.

 

[sinnersavedbyfaith]

@thepinkpreacher Jeff Nippard recommends that you do 1g/cm of height if you are obese as a different rough metric. So I'm about 5'9" (roughly 175 cm) and 285lbs. 175 grams is a lot more reasonable than 285 grams and 175 lbs would be a very reasonable weight for someone my size normally.

 

[thepinkpreacher]

@sinnersavedbyfaith I’m in your case is seem “more” reasonable. But I’m 5,8 (172cm) and I weigh 170lbs. Normally only consume around 120gs of protein, subtracting fat and skeletal weight.

 

[mybridges]

@thepinkpreacher It’s harder to get an estimate of LBM when you’re obese, that’s why the rule of thumb exists. If you’re 5’6, new to lifting, and over 200 lbs, it’s hard to know if you’re at 40% body fat or 25%.

If you’re only 5’8 170 lbs, it’s pretty easy to tell if you’re 10%, 15%, or 20% body fat.

 

[joieshdavid]

@bronsontaur The protein numbers given are usually for "maximal" growth not the requirement for. So lower protein is not an inhibitor of growth but it may result in 95% of the possible growth (random % I can't really be bothered reading through the actual research to find and interpret the confidence intervals). What that would amount to basically no noticeable difference after you are decently into your training it's maybe 400g/1lbs per year. There is a lower cut off from the data collected in I think it was Schoenfelds meta where less protein is detrimental, but for most casual trainees it's not an issue.

So lower protein isn't an issue, I'm currently going for 150g a day (~1.3 g/kg). And haven't seen much if any loss of performance. If I stray too much lower (sub 100g/0.8g/kg) Doms become an issue and rate of progress noticeably drops off. That being said everyone responds different (which is actually very noticeable in the meta itself)

 

[dawn16]

@bronsontaur I'm 36 and been eating like 250g all my life and watched a documentary with zak efron he goes to sicily where some of the oldest people live and they had a low protein high carbon diet and they were explaining how protein ages cells faster so I cut back to try it and I'm getting exact same results no different I hit maybe 100g now hit prs nearly every training session creatine is the only supplement I think is worth it.

 

[rainbowcookiemonster]

@dawn16 Eating protein causes MTOR (muscle building) signaling. But MTOR also grows cancer cells. So generally anything (like strength training) that causes MTOR signaling is theoretically detrimental to longevity. To me it seems like the positive of MTOR signaling outweighs the negatives. Being very frail is also not really great for longevity specially when you are older. I also don't think worrying about every detail and not doing things you enjoy (for me making gainzzz) is good for longevity.

I highly doubt that you making pr's has anything to do with eating less protein. What of course could be an issue is that before you were eating 250g of protein thus probably eating a lot less carbs and maybe fat. So either now you have sufficient glycogen stores or are preducing more testosterone since you are eating a sufficient amount of fat. It would be better if you just eat 0.7 - 0.8g per lbs bw (and get in enough fat and carbs). But as mentioned above some might prioritize / worry about MTOR.

 

[queenesther1038]

@bronsontaur Recommendations like these are based on the least responsive group of the study. So maybe most would be fine with ~.8g/lb of bodyweight but for some that wasn’t enough and they needed more so just to make sure you are getting enough the recommendation is higher than what you may personally need.

 

[bill1969]

@bronsontaur This is true, to a degree. Probability is most people eat way more protein than they need. Broscience is strong with the 1g/lbs of bodyweight bullshit, but reality is around .4-.6g/lbs. Some studies even suggest lower than that amount but ive personally tried .4 and found it wasnt enough for me, I sit around the 0.6 to 0.7g/lbs range meaning i have around 110g protein per day.

 

[aisa]

@bronsontaur A lot of what we “know” about nutrition is almost just made up. Nutrition is a very young science still, and yea you need protein but you don’t need a gram per pound. And you could be right about number inflation for companies to push their protein filled “health foods” because protein is typically only seen as good. People usually don’t avoid it if they go on a diet, not like they do for carbs (keto) or lowfat diets. Annyyway

Glad you’re making those gains though!

 

[lauren19m]

@bronsontaur I’m starting to agree. Protein shakes give me an upset stomach and after years of forcing them down I decided it wasn’t worth it. Now I just eat 3 good meals with protein.

And guess what - I’m the strongest I’ve ever been in my life. Linear progress continuing better than ever. And I’m not miserable.