Optimal protein intake versus Calorie Restriction

[Amy-in-PHX]

Hi, Robert. A spirited discussion of nutrition has broken out on the Elderly thread, here:
https://startingstrength.com/resourc...ml#post1657541

I won't try to summarize what everyone posted, but basically, the OP contended that "research" has proved that 1g/pound of a person's body weight is an excessive protein intake, and that 1.67g per KG is the "maximum" amount of protein a person can use for muscle-building. People went back and forth on that for a while, and then someone introduced the idea of Calorie Restriction, and preventing cancer -- evidently some experiments have been going on that are directed at proving the optimal way to increase healthy lifespan is to live on the fewest calories possible. Since this all concerns nutrition, and specifically on the "Elderly" thread nutrition in people past midlife, I wanted to cross-reference the thread here, and ask whether you happen to know something about these issues:

1. Is 1g/pound of body weight an excessive protein intake in a weightlifting population over age 45?
2. Is calorie restriction, like that discussed in, e.g., Does eating less make you live longer and better? An update on calorie restriction an even better way to preserve health, in a weightlifting population over 45?

It's a complex topic, so I know it can't be "resolved" in a brief forum post, but I'd be glad to know your thoughts.

[Robert Santana]

Hi, Robert. A spirited discussion of nutrition has broken out on the Elderly thread, here:
https://startingstrength.com/resourc...ml#post1657541

I won't try to summarize what everyone posted, but basically, the OP contended that "research" has proved that 1g/pound of a person's body weight is an excessive protein intake, and that 1.67g per KG is the "maximum" amount of protein a person can use for muscle-building. People went back and forth on that for a while, and then someone introduced the idea of Calorie Restriction, and preventing cancer -- evidently some experiments have been going on that are directed at proving the optimal way to increase healthy lifespan is to live on the fewest calories possible. Since this all concerns nutrition, and specifically on the "Elderly" thread nutrition in people past midlife, I wanted to cross-reference the thread here, and ask whether you happen to know something about these issues:

1. Is 1g/pound of body weight an excessive protein intake in a weightlifting population over age 45?
2. Is calorie restriction, like that discussed in, e.g., Does eating less make you live longer and better? An update on calorie restriction an even better way to preserve health, in a weightlifting population over 45?

It's a complex topic, so I know it can't be "resolved" in a brief forum post, but I'd be glad to know your thoughts.

Great question and thanks for posting!

A simple explanation exists. The first question should really be addressed as "excessive for what?" In general, elderly individuals do need more preotein and the 1.67 g/kg recommendation is fine but going over this isn't going to cause any harm in the absence of renal disease. People tend to focus on muscle building when discussing protein intake. Higher protein diets also increase satiety and improve glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. Older adults and novice lifters need more than trained lifters but exceeding the minimum dose necessary won't cause harm so its rather silly to get into a dispute over eating extra protein.

I read this article and am pretty familiar with this topic. In general, the slower your metabolic rate, the longer you're going to live. Galapagos tortoises have one of the slowest metabolic rates and live to be 150 years old. Part of this, and it is explained in the article, is that you are running less electron transport chains, thus have less reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress. Now that being said, this does not mean that the quality of those extra years are going to be the great. Some of my colleagues have attended these conferences and have told me that a lot of these folks that buy into this are very gaunt/skinny/etc. I think ultimately you have to draw the line somewhere between which health behaviors you want to adopt to live a long and healthy life and this one is not worth it to me imo. So yes eating less may make you live longer but necessarily better depending on your life goals. Definitely nothing out there on a weightlifting population over 45 lol. You still need to get strong and eat your protein so you aren't "living long" bedbound ;-).

[Elephant]

How much protein do you recommend an older lifter (e.g., 45 or 65) consume?

[Robert Santana]

How much protein do you recommend an older lifter (e.g., 45 or 65) consume?

Anything over 2g/kg is likely sufficient. I don’t see a need to go higher than 3 g/kg. Although, again, going higher isn’t necessarily harmful for healthy individuals.

[Amy-in-PHX]

Great question and thanks for posting!

Some of my colleagues have attended these conferences and have told me that a lot of these folks that buy into this are very gaunt/skinny/etc. I think ultimately you have to draw the line somewhere between which health behaviors you want to adopt to live a long and healthy life and this one is not worth it to me imo. So yes eating less may make you live longer but necessarily better depending on your life goals. Definitely nothing out there on a weightlifting population over 45 lol. You still need to get strong and eat your protein so you aren't "living long" bedbound ;-).

Thank you for your response. Yeah, when I read that the study population had been living on about 1800 cal per day for 15 years, my first thought was, wow, if there are men in that group I feel bad for them! I did not realize/notice that the goal was to slow the metabolism. Ironic, since lots of the popular "fitness" literature is about how to increase your basal metabolic rate through exercise, so you can "burn off more calories all day long." Well, good luck to the calorie restriction folks. I think the ship sailed long ago, for me, on being a slim person -- not gonna happen. So I might as well be a STRONG, large person. Thanks again!

[Robert Santana]

Thank you for your response. Yeah, when I read that the study population had been living on about 1800 cal per day for 15 years, my first thought was, wow, if there are men in that group I feel bad for them! I did not realize/notice that the goal was to slow the metabolism. Ironic, since lots of the popular "fitness" literature is about how to increase your basal metabolic rate through exercise, so you can "burn off more calories all day long." Well, good luck to the calorie restriction folks. I think the ship sailed long ago, for me, on being a slim person -- not gonna happen. So I might as well be a STRONG, large person. Thanks again!

Yep, analogous to a motor vehicle. The harder you run the engine the more it gets wear and tear. Strong and large isn't the worst fate in the world!

[Keith Burnett]

Great question and thanks for posting!

A simple explanation exists. The first question should really be addressed as "excessive for what?" In general, elderly individuals do need more preotein and the 1.67 g/kg recommendation is fine but going over this isn't going to cause any harm in the absence of renal disease. People tend to focus on muscle building when discussing protein intake. Higher protein diets also increase satiety and improve glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. Older adults and novice lifters need more than trained lifters but exceeding the minimum dose necessary won't cause harm so its rather silly to get into a dispute over eating extra protein.

I read this article and am pretty familiar with this topic. In general, the slower your metabolic rate, the longer you're going to live. Galapagos tortoises have one of the slowest metabolic rates and live to be 150 years old. Part of this, and it is explained in the article, is that you are running less electron transport chains, thus have less reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress. Now that being said, this does not mean that the quality of those extra years are going to be the great. Some of my colleagues have attended these conferences and have told me that a lot of these folks that buy into this are very gaunt/skinny/etc. I think ultimately you have to draw the line somewhere between which health behaviors you want to adopt to live a long and healthy life and this one is not worth it to me imo. So yes eating less may make you live longer but necessarily better depending on your life goals. Definitely nothing out there on a weightlifting population over 45 lol. You still need to get strong and eat your protein so you aren't "living long" bedbound ;-).

For your file. so called "cell death " pathways are multiple and not solely dependent on mitochondrial dysfunction, although that is a factor.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41418-017-0012-4.pdf

I have followed for a long time the research and the mechanisms associated with preserving cell survival and it's evil twin sister, cell proliferation. A living organism requires a certain volatility in it's environment in order to exercise, so to speak those evolutionary conserved properties (from yeasts to mammals). You need to take out the trash and repopulate, to the extent you can , stem cells . You need to break down dysfunctional proteins and rebuild with the constituent amino acids (proteostasis)....along with other mechanisms including cell senescence, autophagy etc. This requires for the most part some time spent in nutrient deficit as the various survival pathways, FOXO and more are upregulated or turned on. The process of intermittent fasting, TRF, and even the FMD show beneficial changes in important biomarkers and activation of these process, which can persist.

The question we have been grappling with on the Geezer forum is that the SS program does not necessarily include cycling or alternating nutrient surplus and deficit, allowing for growth balanced by trash day. It is likely that both processes healthy.....to a point. This is why CR is such a dud. It's chronic hunger followed by weakness.

I think we beat the concept to death without answer because context matters and that is different for everyone to an extent. I believe we did agree that the benefits of increased muscle mass and getting stronger is probably a very good idea. We buy into it. I wish I could do it without increasing my body fat, but so far that is not the case. Last night in the gym one of our (unnamed) coaches tried to persuade us that having a belly is a good thing. Then I looked at a picture of Jordan Feigenbaum frolicking in Australia for a month without his shirt on. I saw absolutely no belly.

[carson]

I'm 71. I weigh a few pounds more than I would like. I'm 5'10" and weighed 218. I consulted with a nutritionist and told her that I intend to eat 200 g of protein a day but wish to lose weight. She recommended a 3000 cal. a day diet. I'm now eating 2000 cal. a day and find that is plenty. If I ate much more I would be bloated all of the time. In one week I've lost 3 pounds. My goal is 210-215. I deadlift 340 x 1 and top 5 RM is 300; Squat 267.5 x 1 and 215 x 5; Bench 168 x 1 and 145 x 5; Press 117.5 x 1 and 100 x 5. I hope to increase that to Dead 380; Squat 290; Bench 200; and Press 130 by years end while maintaining a 210-215 body weight. We will see.

[Robert Santana]

I'm 71. I weigh a few pounds more than I would like. I'm 5'10" and weighed 218. I consulted with a nutritionist and told her that I intend to eat 200 g of protein a day but wish to lose weight. She recommended a 3000 cal. a day diet. I'm now eating 2000 cal. a day and find that is plenty. If I ate much more I would be bloated all of the time. In one week I've lost 3 pounds. My goal is 210-215. I deadlift 340 x 1 and top 5 RM is 300; Squat 267.5 x 1 and 215 x 5; Bench 168 x 1 and 145 x 5; Press 117.5 x 1 and 100 x 5. I hope to increase that to Dead 380; Squat 290; Bench 200; and Press 130 by years end while maintaining a 210-215 body weight. We will see.

Awesome progress man! Thanks for sharing dude!

[Robert Santana]

For your file. so called "cell death " pathways are multiple and not solely dependent on mitochondrial dysfunction, although that is a factor.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41418-017-0012-4.pdf

I have followed for a long time the research and the mechanisms associated with preserving cell survival and it's evil twin sister, cell proliferation. A living organism requires a certain volatility in it's environment in order to exercise, so to speak those evolutionary conserved properties (from yeasts to mammals). You need to take out the trash and repopulate, to the extent you can , stem cells . You need to break down dysfunctional proteins and rebuild with the constituent amino acids (proteostasis)....along with other mechanisms including cell senescence, autophagy etc. This requires for the most part some time spent in nutrient deficit as the various survival pathways, FOXO and more are upregulated or turned on. The process of intermittent fasting, TRF, and even the FMD show beneficial changes in important biomarkers and activation of these process, which can persist.

The question we have been grappling with on the Geezer forum is that the SS program does not necessarily include cycling or alternating nutrient surplus and deficit, allowing for growth balanced by trash day. It is likely that both processes healthy.....to a point. This is why CR is such a dud. It's chronic hunger followed by weakness.

I think we beat the concept to death without answer because context matters and that is different for everyone to an extent. I believe we did agree that the benefits of increased muscle mass and getting stronger is probably a very good idea. We buy into it. I wish I could do it without increasing my body fat, but so far that is not the case. Last night in the gym one of our (unnamed) coaches tried to persuade us that having a belly is a good thing. Then I looked at a picture of Jordan Feigenbaum frolicking in Australia for a month without his shirt on. I saw absolutely no belly.

Have you seen what 95 looks like? Let’s put all of this into practical context. If eating less Increases lifespan but decreases physical function is it worth it? It is unlikely that eating less is going to lead to a 95 year old human having the body and physical function of a 25 year old human. I think it’s important to remember this. Bodies get old just like cars. No matter how well you preserve them eventually if you continue using them they will wear down. In the end we are all going to die so pick your health behaviors carefully.