New Research on Ideal Protein Intake = 1.67 g/kg/day maximum

[Mark E. Hurling]

OK then. No offense taken.

[Amy-in-PHX]

This is an excellent summary of protein research, especially because there is a discussion added with the author of the arcticle and a disagreeing expert who battle it out in a hard intellectual fight, but in style. Read for yourself: The myth of 1 g/lb: Optimal protein intake for bodybuilders

I'm not so sure the state of the research allows such definite statements as "So you definitely wont experience any dramatic increase or drawback if you eat more/less than even around those 1.67g/kg . . . ." I did not have time to read the "hard intellectual fight" you mentioned, but I read the basic article you cited, and I noticed that it looks like all the studies cited were studying young men. A few specifically say that in their titles, and several others refer to the study subjects as experienced strength athletes, or words to that effect. Studies on young men don't necessarily apply, imo, since I've seen several that conclude that older people need more protein than younger ones, just to avoid losing muscle (let alone actually trying to add lean mass to the body). When I look for studies to guide my nutrition choices, I look for large study populations, followed for lengthy periods, with similar demographics to my own.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

I'm not so sure the state of the research allows such definite statements as "So you definitely wont experience any dramatic increase or drawback if you eat more/less than even around those 1.67g/kg . . . ." I did not have time to read the "hard intellectual fight" you mentioned, but I read the basic article you cited, and I noticed that it looks like all the studies cited were studying young men. A few specifically say that in their titles, and several others refer to the study subjects as experienced strength athletes, or words to that effect. Studies on young men don't necessarily apply, imo, since I've seen several that conclude that older people need more protein than younger ones, just to avoid losing muscle (let alone actually trying to add lean mass to the body). When I look for studies to guide my nutrition choices, I look for large study populations, followed for lengthy periods, with similar demographics to my own.

I like you, Amy.

[Marenghi]

I'm not so sure the state of the research allows such definite statements as "So you definitely wont experience any dramatic increase or drawback if you eat more/less than even around those 1.67g/kg . . . ." I did not have time to read the "hard intellectual fight" you mentioned, but I read the basic article you cited, and I noticed that it looks like all the studies cited were studying young men. A few specifically say that in their titles, and several others refer to the study subjects as experienced strength athletes, or words to that effect. Studies on young men don't necessarily apply, imo, since I've seen several that conclude that older people need more protein than younger ones, just to avoid losing muscle (let alone actually trying to add lean mass to the body). When I look for studies to guide my nutrition choices, I look for large study populations, followed for lengthy periods, with similar demographics to my own.

I like you too, Amy - but Im sure the state of research allows that statement because it explicitly is one of degree, not black-and-white: I wrote there is no "dramatic" increase or drawback of effect, and that certainly can be said. You remember the graph in the article; dose-effect is the same as with many other variables: There is a large effect at the beginning that tapers and finally reaches a plateau (same as with training volume and hypertrophy, for example - or in general training career time and strength/hypertrophy increases). That reflects in the literature: An effect has been demonstrated in studies for increases in daily protein from all kinds of low protein intake vs around 1.6 and higher - but no effect around 1.6 vs higher, in many studies even lower than 1.6 vs higher there was no effect. So with all safety valves added, make that 1.8 and youre already "super safe" - with no effect demonstrated until today, the expectation is that even if the true maximum effective intake is a little bit higher (or lower!), the effect of that is negligible in practice. Think of 0.8g vs 1.0g as large increase in effect, 1.0 to 1.2 as smaller, 1.2 to 1.4 even smaller and then, well, 1.4 to 1.67.

Your point about specific populations is justified. Unfortunately, in RCTs, we will never have largy study populations on the effect of protein intake with resistance training, we wont have them for lengthy periods, and we wont have them with these study characteristics for any specific population, including the elderly. There are hints that the elderly may have a somewhat blunted response to protein intake and MPS after training, what may very well require a higher single dose of protein after training. On the other hand, Henselmans also wrote about the explanation that someone who has a lower LBM to start with, lower total training volume AND also lower increase in muscle mass therefore has less breakdown and less synthesis of muscle protein. All three points are valid for the elderly, especially after the newbie gains of the first weeks.

So, in absence of the ideal studies we wish for (the famous "has to be my exact population in exact the same resistance training program I do for 8 months please"), we have to make do with what we have. In my opinion, that is a pretty clear picture of the literature not showing any effect above those 1.67 (just make it 1.8 to sleep calmly). And rather lower than higher expected higher total amount of protein for the elderly from all the characteristics they possess that were investigated in studies: low total body muscle mass ---> less muscle protein breakdown, less total training volume --> less protein breakdown, lower limit of hypertrophy increases --> less protein synthesis.

[ExpertOrBust]

I'll have to read it (you know, in all my spare time).

Doing so will only annoy you and waste your time. It's a good thing most things are not built based on meta-regressions including biphasic ones.

I'm going to stand by my current recommendation for the moment. It's safe, it's just not that difficult, and we've had excellent success with it.

As a member of the geezer club, I know that upping my protein intake to the Sully recommended levels has been a critical component to my ability to strength train even if I squat on my heels.

[Marenghi]

As a member of the geezer club, I know that upping my protein intake to the Sully recommended levels has been a critical component to my ability to strength train even if I squat on my heels.

It depends: If you were noticeably below 1.67, then yes, that makes a difference. It of course also makes a difference because pushing the protein to 2g/kg automatically means more calories. But is has no additional effect unique to the protein for training (results).

Thats what I meant above with "depending on goals and preferences": If you want to up your calories, and you already have covered your carb and fat needs and you prefer protein - by all means, indulge, sir! On the other hand, if you already have covered your protein with 1.67 and want to up your calories and happen to like carbs and fat, then more carbs will provide you with more power for your training session - and more fat is tasty (who wouldve known? ).

For geezers who have to gain weight, the high satiety and high thermogenetic effect of protein may make it difficult to eat enough: about a third of the 4kcal/g on the label actually is lost when metabolized and results in thermic energy - yes, you get warm - nice for winter! Likewise in the teenage underweight who thinks more of ...other things than eating enough.

On the other hand, in a diet, protein can be useful for exact the same high satieting effect. But with the calories being restricted, there is only so much room for more protein than necessary before it cuts into the carb and fat pool. Just as much protein as necessary and instead more carbs and fat gives you more options in your food choice (a greater variety of foods on average is healthy) and for many not unimportant: less protein and more carbs and fats means more money left at the end of the month.

So what you do after securing your macro needs is a matter of your personal goals and preferences. In one case, it may be wise to take the advantages of additional carbs and/or fats, in another one to increase your protein beyond the needs of roughly 1.7.

[Brodie Butland]

Sully--

Based on your reading of the research, would you say that greater protein consumption becomes more important the further one progresses on the novice-intermediate-advanced scale? Put another way...would someone in the early novice stages be able to recover with less protein consumption than that same person who gets to the intermediate stage? Intuitively, I think this makes sense...since a greater stress is being applied to drive adaptation, it would seem to reason that greater attention to recovery is necessary to create the adaptation, and this includes protein consumption along with other factors. It also seems to be true in my case...the higher my lifts, the more critical it is that I hit the 200g of daily protein intake. I just don't know if that's supported by research and/or general experience.

If the foregoing is correct, the upshot is that this meta-study may very well apply to novice trainees (which as we've seen from prior ex-fizz studies, is almost certainly the entire population of trainees...even the "advanced lifters" seem to have trouble with a 200 lbs max bench press in a lot of them), but it would not apply to those with training advancement beyond novices. Given that older populations are in some sense "situational intermediates," the other upshot is that the "max protein consumption" from these studies would be lower than necessary for older trainees.

[Bestafter60]

My 2 cents:

A lot of people want to publish articles. Nobody will read an article that states "the earth is still round". If they don't have an original thought, they can always challenge existing beliefs, with or without grounds or credentials. And there are hundreds of internet experts eager to republish.


This fictitious example for an an article occurs to me as I write this response (I don't have time to test its originality): "An apple a day keeps the doctor away - but what kind of apple? how large an apple? consumed at what time of day? by which gender? A new study shows...".

To me, the simplicity of 1g per pound simplifies compliance, and is close enough. Changing + or - a small inexpensive percentage would only slow me down.

[Marenghi]

Brodie, you may want to read this article I linked to above, in which your thought is addressed: The myth of 1 g/lb: Optimal protein intake for bodybuilders

[Keith Burnett]

I like you, Amy.

So....what do we who train do with the recommendations of Dr Valter Longo........0.37g/kg(mostly plant sources BTW)? I follow his research pretty carefully, which is legit stuff. He is looking at health outcomes and "longevity". Some day we are going to have to reconcile our growth pounding ways far into middle and old age. I mean is it, at least for senior citizens like me to "caveat mTor" (as has been said)?

Also , I do not hear a peep from anyone around here that low carbing is good, or that we should strive for "metabolic flexibility" (some new arbitrary sounding term) by adopting ketosis regimes. (also tending to be pretty moderate to low in protein).