This is a long one. Someone I'm coaching sent me this article after we discussed their dietary requirements.
The myth of 1 g/lb: Optimal protein intake for bodybuilders
I chop up the above article and quote it in bold. They asked if they should really eat 1g protein per lb of bodyweight. I'm wondering how I might have improved my response? Is any of what I said misleading, redundant, or just wrong? I sent them the following response:
"Protein. It's every bodybuilders favorite macronutrient and for good reason. Protein is extremely essential, super satiating and amazingly anabolic."
We are not bodybuilding, we are strength training. The main goal of programs centered around bodybuilding are to increase muscle hypertrophy. There are 2 types of hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and myofibrillar hypertrophy. They are interconnected and they occur simultaneously. They do not occur in equal volumes. The style of your training will dictate to what extent one happens compared to the other. The former results from an increase in organelles responsible for generating and utilizing ATP during more aerobic type exercises, water, and energy substrates in the cells. Basically, the muscle you have grows slightly larger to accommodate the production and removal of waste products. In the latter type of hypertrophy, the body increases the number of contractile units in each bundle of muscle. This kind of hypertrophy increases the cross sectional size of muscle less than it's counterpart. This is the main reason that bodybuilders aren't very strong when compared to STRENGTH athletes of a similar weight. Our mission is to increase the force that you can produce with your body, because strength is the most universal, important, and useful of the general fitness attributes. Your muscles will increase in size as a result of getting stronger, not because the goal of our training is to make your muscles bigger.
"Tarnopolsky et al. (1992) observed no differences in whole body protein synthesis or indexes of lean body mass in strength athletes consuming either 0.64g/lb or 1.10g/lb over a 2 week period. Protein oxidation did increase in the high protein group, indicating a nutrient overload."
A 2 week period is not sufficient to draw ANY conclusion about the efficacy or importance of a training variable.
"Walberg et al. (1988) found that 0.73g/lb was sufficient to maintain positive nitrogen balance in cutting weightlifters over a 7 day time period."
Again, too short of a period to draw a conclusion.
"Tarnopolsky et al. (1988) found that only 0.37g/lb was required to maintain positive nitrogen balance in elite bodybuilders (over 5 years of experience, possible previous use of androgens) over a 10 day period. 0.45g/lb was sufficient to maintain lean body mass in bodybuilders over a 2 week period. The authors suggested that 0.55g/lb was sufficient for bodybuilders."
Again. WAY too short a time span
" Lemon et al. (1992) found no differences in muscle mass or strength gains in novice bodybuilders consuming either 0.61g/lb or 1.19g/lb over a 4 week period. Based on nitrogen balance data, the authors recommended 0.75g/lb."
You guessed it, not enough time.
"Hoffman et al. (2006) found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period."
3 months is a considerably longer time frame than any of the other studies. This one falls short for a couple of different reasons.
1 - Exercise selection: Participants underwent a 12 week strength training program comprised of a 4 day split alternating between Workout A and B. Workout A is centered on the upper body, Workout B on the lower body. The only exercises used in this study that our program includes are the "Squat" and the bench press. I quote the squat because they do not specify what kind of squat they are doing. Not to mention the fact that they have not laid out parameters for what they consider a "Squat". How deep is it? Where does the bar go on the back. or is this a front squat? Does the femur need to stay in line with the feet? Should the feet be turned out or straight ahead? Most of the exercises used in the program are isolation style (Using 1-2 joints and very little muscle mass) and would fail to stress the body systemically, a primary driving force for strength development. They also fail to quantify the quality or style of coaching these athletes received, something that is basically impossible to do in the way that a study like this would require in order to be recorded, but is very much an important factor regardless.
2 - Use of the term Competitive "Recommendations of a greater protein requirement for resistance-trained athletes have been based on studies that have primarily examined recreationally-trained individuals and not competitive athletes."
"Competitive" is being used subjectively here. This study did not use competitive athletes, because competitive athletes are generally unwilling to alter the training so that the effects of their program can be studied. Their program is working, thats why they're competitive athletes. They do not care if the scientific method can validate their training or not, that's what the competition is for. If you are having success with your training, why would you alter it so that someone else can "prove" that it is working?
3 - Strength Measures: "During each testing session subjects performed a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength test on the squat and bench press exercises. Each subject performed a warm-up set using a resistance that was approximately 40-60% of his perceived maximum, and then performed three to four subsequent attempts to determine the 1-RM. A 3-5 minute rest period was provided between each lift."
They performed one warmup set. One. Then they attempted a "1 Rep Max". One warmup is insufficient to prepare the nervous system for a true maximum effort attempt. Not to mention the implications of the muscles, connective tissues, fascia, and joints not being warm enough to demonstrate maximum power. These are the problems I found before I got halfway through reading the study itself.
Effect of Protein Intake on Strength, Body Composition and Endocrine Changes in Strength/Power Athletes - PMC (The study that was quoted in the article)
I stopped reading here because I feel that those reasons are sufficient to disqualify this study from consideration, but I'm sure there are a few more below. The article ends with the following quote.
"There is normally no advantage to consuming more protein than 0.82g/lb (1.8g/kg) of total bodyweight per day to preserve or build muscle for natural trainees. This already includes a mark-up, since most research finds no more benefits after 0.64g/lb."
Part of the reason that I selected what should be the best, longest, and most comprehensive study to dissect was to reveal some of the inescapable flaws of "Exercise Science Literature". The method that we use is based upon the experience of hundreds of coachs who have spent many hundreds of thousands of hours helping thousands of people get stronger. Our goal is to make you strong and doing so is actually much simpler than it is made out to be. If something works every single time, is a study necessary for proving that it works?
So, the answer to your question is maybe. The reason that we select 1 gram per pound of body weight is that it is CERTAIN to be enough protein based not only on the literature but on the equally important experience of people that actually train athletes, not just the findings of "Exercise scientists" who have probably not gone through the process of becoming strong themselves. If you would like to experiment with different protein intakes, that is fine. We can absolutely see what impact different ranges have on your performance. However, I would say that in the first 90 days it would be particularly beneficial to eat both a surplus of calories and protein. You will find that body composition changes in spite of any weight you might gain. You will get heavier, but it will be the kind of weight you like, and it will be in the places it should.
