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

[Keith Burnett]

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).

Sorry, misquote....actually .37g per POUND. I would never confess to my SS coach that I ate .37g/lb.

Here is Longo v Phillips
You Asked: How Much Protein Should I Really Be Eating? | Time

I can provide links, if necessary to primary research docs and not TIME MAG. But this serves its purpose.

There are some interesting tidbits in Longo's book.....Longevity Diet

He is very food oriented and has a thing for low calorie plant dense diets. He has studies several of the most long lived communities in the world (ie Okinawans, Laron, Calabria etc). His animal experiments appear impeccable.

But when all is said and done.....certain things do stick out. One..the recommendation to increase protein intake in those 65+ and Two...many oblique references to high levels of "activity", although never actually saying what is "high activity"....contributing to longevity and decreased ACM.

IGF-1 is villified....along with just about everything promoting growth. If you implant cancer xenografts of cell in mice and reduce their caloric (protein) intake.....reduction in tumors at least 30%.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Yeah...mice need to be really careful.

The paper is interesting and obviously provocative. I'm not changing my practice yet, but I'm keeping an open mind. I'm sure as fuck not going vegan.

[Bryan Dobson]

I am watching this with intrest.
As age increases many people have a decrease in appetite. I can see how adequate protein as we in the lifting community see it for growth , could be a barrier to adequate caloric intake for maintaining or gaining adequate weight.
I am not sure my training at age 67(if I am so fortunate) is going to require the 220-240grrams of protein I eat at age 47.I would like to maintain strength and activity at that point. But I bet I revert to my natural state of eating less if I don’t stay focused.

[Amy-in-PHX]

[ATTACH=CONFIG][width=950]6194[/ATTACH]

[Keith Burnett]

Yeah...mice need to be really careful.

The paper is interesting and obviously provocative. I'm not changing my practice yet, but I'm keeping an open mind. I'm sure as fuck not going vegan.

Yes...mice are people too. Dr Longo, who's research I greatly admire, went open kimono in the Longevity Diet with some of his cherished beliefs. A few tears shed (and apologies) for the "inevitability" of having to go through the motions of animal research....yeast not exactly cutting the mustard (but also indispensable). He also has a large body of research with human beings, some of which has involved following closely several communities of long lived individuals for up to 20 years. His many years of studying the Laron...who have knockout mutated GH genes is fascinating. They are basically obese (when older) growth stunted human beings that almost never get anything . Yes...they die....but pretty darn old.

So, all of this is not just "noise". Our community has it's cherished and beloved beliefs and this is a challenge to them....possibly.

Sometimes so called paradoxes are not so at all.....

I am keeping an open mind..... So far I am committed to training SS, and for it to "work" the established inputs are necessary. The chasm between .37g/lb and greater than 1g/lb of protein is large and has substantial implications for obtaining appropriate sources.

We have reasonable research that activating and driving growth pathways (IGF 1, mTOR) under certain circumstances may be unhealthy...but that research largely ignores the possibility of the potential health benefits of doing this in the context of strength training..even in the elderly. i think this is the crux of the so called "paradox". There are also other issues, including the quality of life.....vs longevity.

No veganism or more estrogen (soy) for me.

[Masher]

I am keeping an open mind..... So far I am committed to training SS, and for it to "work" the established inputs are necessary. The chasm between .37g/lb and greater than 1g/lb of protein is large and has substantial implications for obtaining appropriate sources.

We have reasonable research that activating and driving growth pathways (IGF 1, mTOR) under certain circumstances may be unhealthy...but that research largely ignores the possibility of the potential health benefits of doing this in the context of strength training..even in the elderly. i think this is the crux of the so called "paradox". There are also other issues, including the quality of life.....vs longevity.

No veganism or more estrogen (soy) for me.

Wow this thread blew up . . . I have an open mind too, and I have experimented with Longo's fast-mimicking diet among other things. I've been following longevity research out of UCLA for lots of years, going back to Roy Walford's work on calorie restriction and his participation in the Biosphere II experiment.

I have some health issues that drive my food choices. At age 46 I've already outlived my paternal grandfather, and heart disease is everywhere in my family tree. I have stubbornly high LDL cholesterol all the time, coupled with stubbornly low HDL. Hooray for bad genes. If it weren't for being in shape and maintaining a low blood pressure, I would be in a much higher cardiac risk category, according to my doc. Through diet and exercise I have been able to keep the statin drugs away so far. That probably won't last forever though. I just got blood work done recently and my numbers are absolute shit, yet again.

Regarding this study, I was glad to hear there might be some scientific basis for me to target 175 grams of protein vs. 205-ish. That extra 50 grams amounts to an entire extra meal or extra protein shake in a day, and I just have real trouble eating that much -- or rather comfortably digesting that much. I have an allergy to whey as well as an allergy to either milk solids or milk protein (not sure which, I didn't get the test yet), and we all know what every protein powder/bar/product in the world contains. Lately I have been using a blend of pea/legume stuff by NOW brands, which I like a lot to make protein shakes. It is really easy for people to just say "go eat a steak" but that stuff will literally push me into insane cholesterol levels. I get protein from beans, legumes, and fish for the omegas. Shakes are the easiest.

Longevity science seems to trend toward the notion that the more you eat, the faster you'll age and die. This makes sense in that the more work your mitochondria do, the more trash they generate. I'm optimistic that science will soon bring us some ways to clear out that kind of cellular junk. This seems to indicate thin and light people will last longer.

The flipside to that is a few years ago I was in a car accident. At the time I weighed about 185 lbs. I walked away from the accident fine, but my 110 lb. passenger (my wife) was not so fine. Later the nurse told me that in many crashes, the husband lives and the wife dies, simply due to body mass. Being bigger and stronger means, as said here often, that you are harder to kill. I also have memories of my OTHER grandfather (maternal side) who underwent a quadruple bypass heart operation and survived. He came out the other side of it an emaciated shell of his former self, but if he had gone into that surgery without a strong body to begin with, he would've died. I feel much better being stronger, so I intend to balance that with the other risks I have. I don't think any "number" is more than a fuzzy target anyway.

[Keith Burnett]

Wow this thread blew up . . . I have an open mind too, and I have experimented with Longo's fast-mimicking diet among other things. I've been following longevity research out of UCLA for lots of years, going back to Roy Walford's work on calorie restriction and his participation in the Biosphere II experiment.

I have some health issues that drive my food choices. At age 46 I've already outlived my paternal grandfather, and heart disease is everywhere in my family tree. I have stubbornly high LDL cholesterol all the time, coupled with stubbornly low HDL. Hooray for bad genes. If it weren't for being in shape and maintaining a low blood pressure, I would be in a much higher cardiac risk category, according to my doc. Through diet and exercise I have been able to keep the statin drugs away so far. That probably won't last forever though. I just got blood work done recently and my numbers are absolute shit, yet again.

Regarding this study, I was glad to hear there might be some scientific basis for me to target 175 grams of protein vs. 205-ish. That extra 50 grams amounts to an entire extra meal or extra protein shake in a day, and I just have real trouble eating that much -- or rather comfortably digesting that much. I have an allergy to whey as well as an allergy to either milk solids or milk protein (not sure which, I didn't get the test yet), and we all know what every protein powder/bar/product in the world contains. Lately I have been using a blend of pea/legume stuff by NOW brands, which I like a lot to make protein shakes. It is really easy for people to just say "go eat a steak" but that stuff will literally push me into insane cholesterol levels. I get protein from beans, legumes, and fish for the omegas. Shakes are the easiest.

Longevity science seems to trend toward the notion that the more you eat, the faster you'll age and die. This makes sense in that the more work your mitochondria do, the more trash they generate. I'm optimistic that science will soon bring us some ways to clear out that kind of cellular junk. This seems to indicate thin and light people will last longer.

The flipside to that is a few years ago I was in a car accident. At the time I weighed about 185 lbs. I walked away from the accident fine, but my 110 lb. passenger (my wife) was not so fine. Later the nurse told me that in many crashes, the husband lives and the wife dies, simply due to body mass. Being bigger and stronger means, as said here often, that you are harder to kill. I also have memories of my OTHER grandfather (maternal side) who underwent a quadruple bypass heart operation and survived. He came out the other side of it an emaciated shell of his former self, but if he had gone into that surgery without a strong body to begin with, he would've died. I feel much better being stronger, so I intend to balance that with the other risks I have. I don't think any "number" is more than a fuzzy target anyway.

I just wanted the quote about thin and light living longer.

This certainly does not apply to the Laron.....who are obese, but "healthy" and long lived given they GH gene mutation.

However, and I don't know if any of the Medical science staff of SS has thought about this in depth.....we are still left with this "paradox" that animal models of longevity are pretty convincing that targeting mTOR and IGF signalling (and Sirtuins) increases life span..AND....somehow hypertrophy and increase in skeletal muscle mass (which requires activation of these pathways and increased protein intake) also increases life span somewhat but radically improves healthspan.

This paradox gnaws at me, and would seem to have practical implications for behavior (I would guess)

I recently ran across an article where this issue was directly confronted , in fact the only article I have seen among hundreds and hundres which raises it's eyebrows. Yes, it's full of jargon and geeky....but it's relevant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...l0014-0511.pdf
Longevity and skeletal muscle mass: the role of IGF signalling,
the sirtuins, dietary restriction and protein intake

There is something "funky" about how these pathways work ......tissue dependent, age dependent, crosstalk dependent (growth and repair) that we just do not know very much about.

I see in this article a seed from which to grasp victory for the notion of increasing protein and mechanical loading, conserving and maintaining growth pathways (especially in skeletal muscle), even and especially in later life ......

[Amy-in-PHX]

Jordan's nuanced answer re "how much protein" is at about 33:27 - 40:00 in this podcast: YouTube
(Note that he's talking to Alan Thrall's audience in the podcast, and not tailoring his remarks to old folks.) He is very careful to distinguish between how much protein is necessary to maintain life versus how much protein is optimal for muscle protein synthesis. The table he refers to in the podcast is found in the 2012 article, "To Be a Beast," on his Barbell Medicine website: To Be A Beast | Barbell Medicine
Personally, I think he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and it's clear he's been working on nutrition issues for a long time, since before he got his MD.

I've also seen research papers that back him up, to some extent -- I haven't seen the research that says 1g per pound, but they definitely say that the current RDA for "adults" of 0.8g per KG is too little, by a long shot, for old folks. E.g.:
"Role of Dietary Protein and Muscular Fitness on Longevity and Aging," published online February 1, 2018 Role of Dietary Protein and Muscular Fitness on Longevity and Aging

"Growing Older with Health and Vitality: A Nexus of Physical Activity, Exercise and Nutrition," published online February 15, 2016 Growing older with health and vitality: a nexus of physical activity, exercise and nutrition
The Growing Older paper says this in the abstract: "Indeed, guidelines that endorse a daily protein intake of 1.2–1.5 g/kg BM/day, which are levels 50–90 % greater than the current protein Recommendation Dietary Allowance (0.8 g/kg BM/day), are likely to help preserve muscle mass and strength and are safe for healthy older adults." (Yes, I see that it says g/KG and not g/pound. They are talking about protein intake without regard to the people's physical activity level, I think.)

"Protein Intake and Muscle Health in Old Age: From Biological Plausibility to Clinical Evidence," published online May 14, 2016
This last one says "Elderly people with severe illness or malnutrition may need as much as 2.0 g/kg/day of protein [footnote omitted]." -- So that one approaches 1g/pound, for people with severe illness, etc -- nobody has yet studied old people engaged in a vigorous resistance training program, as far as I've found to date.

@Marenghi -- From what I've seen just doing amateur Internet "research," it sure looks like there are a LOT of researchers currently studying the effects of protein intake in old folks, looking for the "optimal" level of intake to preserve muscle and health. I still think these are, if not perfect for purposes of a person doing vigorous barbell training, at least more closely applicable to people on this "elderly" thread than studies where the study population is "young men" or "elite/professional strength athletes." And I don't think there's enough evidence yet, to say that precisely 1.67g/kg is the "maximum" intake that will be of benefit to muscle strength/function in old folks.

I do notice the frequency with which research paper writers use the verbs "may" and "can" -- as in, "people may need as much as 2g/kg/day." I think it's important to be aware of the popular press's tendency to present hypotheses as if they were laws. (Popular press including TIME and the NY Times.)

All that being said, I am unable to consume 1g/pound of bodyweight, or even 1g/pound of what I estimate to be my "ideal" bodyweight (which is less than my current BW by about 40lbs). Allocating that many calories to meat and dairy just does not leave enough room for grains, fiber, fruit, etc. So I'm taking to heart Jordan's suggestion about "seeing how you do for two weeks" and then tweaking things from there. I recently added 20g whey protein to my morning oats, to see what impact that will have. Protein intake 110-115g/day, within an 1800cal/day total. We'll see.

BTW, Rip has a recipe for protein shakes: YouTube
I'm not a diet soda consumer, but I might be tempted to mess around with the blender and try to come up with something that tastes decent, if I find I'm not getting an increase in Lean Mass with current diet and NoviceLP, after a few more weeks. I can only consume so much meat.

[Keith Burnett]

Jordan's nuanced answer re "how much protein" is at about 33:27 - 40:00 in this podcast: YouTube
(Note that he's talking to Alan Thrall's audience in the podcast, and not tailoring his remarks to old folks.) He is very careful to distinguish between how much protein is necessary to maintain life versus how much protein is optimal for muscle protein synthesis. The table he refers to in the podcast is found in the 2012 article, "To Be a Beast," on his Barbell Medicine website: To Be A Beast | Barbell Medicine
Personally, I think he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and it's clear he's been working on nutrition issues for a long time, since before he got his MD.

I've also seen research papers that back him up, to some extent -- I haven't seen the research that says 1g per pound, but they definitely say that the current RDA for "adults" of 0.8g per KG is too little, by a long shot, for old folks. E.g.:
"Role of Dietary Protein and Muscular Fitness on Longevity and Aging," published online February 1, 2018 Role of Dietary Protein and Muscular Fitness on Longevity and Aging

"Growing Older with Health and Vitality: A Nexus of Physical Activity, Exercise and Nutrition," published online February 15, 2016 Growing older with health and vitality: a nexus of physical activity, exercise and nutrition
The Growing Older paper says this in the abstract: "Indeed, guidelines that endorse a daily protein intake of 1.2–1.5 g/kg BM/day, which are levels 50–90 % greater than the current protein Recommendation Dietary Allowance (0.8 g/kg BM/day), are likely to help preserve muscle mass and strength and are safe for healthy older adults." (Yes, I see that it says g/KG and not g/pound. They are talking about protein intake without regard to the people's physical activity level, I think.)

"Protein Intake and Muscle Health in Old Age: From Biological Plausibility to Clinical Evidence," published online May 14, 2016
This last one says "Elderly people with severe illness or malnutrition may need as much as 2.0 g/kg/day of protein [footnote omitted]." -- So that one approaches 1g/pound, for people with severe illness, etc -- nobody has yet studied old people engaged in a vigorous resistance training program, as far as I've found to date.

@Marenghi -- From what I've seen just doing amateur Internet "research," it sure looks like there are a LOT of researchers currently studying the effects of protein intake in old folks, looking for the "optimal" level of intake to preserve muscle and health. I still think these are, if not perfect for purposes of a person doing vigorous barbell training, at least more closely applicable to people on this "elderly" thread than studies where the study population is "young men" or "elite/professional strength athletes." And I don't think there's enough evidence yet, to say that precisely 1.67g/kg is the "maximum" intake that will be of benefit to muscle strength/function in old folks.

I do notice the frequency with which research paper writers use the verbs "may" and "can" -- as in, "people may need as much as 2g/kg/day." I think it's important to be aware of the popular press's tendency to present hypotheses as if they were laws. (Popular press including TIME and the NY Times.)

All that being said, I am unable to consume 1g/pound of bodyweight, or even 1g/pound of what I estimate to be my "ideal" bodyweight (which is less than my current BW by about 40lbs). Allocating that many calories to meat and dairy just does not leave enough room for grains, fiber, fruit, etc. So I'm taking to heart Jordan's suggestion about "seeing how you do for two weeks" and then tweaking things from there. I recently added 20g whey protein to my morning oats, to see what impact that will have. Protein intake 110-115g/day, within an 1800cal/day total. We'll see.

BTW, Rip has a recipe for protein shakes: YouTube
I'm not a diet soda consumer, but I might be tempted to mess around with the blender and try to come up with something that tastes decent, if I find I'm not getting an increase in Lean Mass with current diet and NoviceLP, after a few more weeks. I can only consume so much meat.

Hi Amy

You have a number of good articles linked here and they deserve more of my attention before a clear response.

I need to restate my issue, ie the Paradox....which is somewhat unrelated to the specifics of protein supplementation or intake in the elderly. If you read the article I iposted, which gets very much into the weeds of the known universe of molecular pathways of catabolism and anabolism, there ultimately is some sneaky commentary thrown in , especially at the end. Basicallly a bunch of headscratching regarding the well documented benefits of dietary restriction on longevity and healthspan pointing to inhibition of anabolic pathways and activation of cell protective pathways like FOXO as opposed to the anabolic pathoways of growth and cell proliferation, known to aggravate and accelerate cancer. SS rather treats the young and the old somewhat the same.......flog anabolism. However, intuitively that is possibly counterproductive as growth appears to be a process of the young and that same process potentially deleterious, at least in theory. Hence our paradox....data supports support of anabolic processes in the elderly but also can whip cancer into a frenzy.

Getting stronger is a good idea...it is an antidote to frailty...and hence to morbidity and mortality. But it seems to require a significant mechanical load stress followed by the presence of substrate for building muscle....which can also be precarious , especially in the presence of cancer.

Perhaps in people of my age group, the strategy needs to be somewhat altered to allow for the nuance here. Is there room for cycling ketosis or catabolism and waking up antiinflammatory and cell protective process (regeneration and repair) activated in intermittent fasting, fast mimicking diets, or exogenous intervention....in conjunction with strategies to access the benefits of anabolism? yes, we need more protein, but all the time?

[Marenghi]

I've also seen research papers that back him up, to some extent -- I haven't seen the research that says 1g per pound, but they definitely say that the current RDA for "adults" of 0.8g per KG is too little, by a long shot, for old folks.

There is no debate about that.

@Marenghi -- From what I've seen just doing amateur Internet "research," it sure looks like there are a LOT of researchers currently studying the effects of protein intake in old folks, looking for the "optimal" level of intake to preserve muscle and health. I still think these are, if not perfect for purposes of a person doing vigorous barbell training, at least more closely applicable to people on this "elderly" thread than studies where the study population is "young men" or "elite/professional strength athletes." And I don't think there's enough evidence yet, to say that precisely 1.67g/kg is the "maximum" intake that will be of benefit to muscle strength/function in old folks.

Oh sure there is. I merely stated that there wont ever be any "large specific populations studies with long duration with the desired resistance training program" you - or any other - has on his wishlist. I also agree that were always talking about probabilities. If you read the article I linked, Henselmans explicitly remarked the role of confidence intervals in the research - which he himself used in his meta-analysis you posted for the 1.67 number.

Just generelly speaking: A tactic that you certainly have observed in someone who wants to discredit research because he doesnt like the results is "milking the ecological validity": Dismissing all the research and constantly moving the goalpost to eventually unattainable levels, demanding an exact replica of his very personal circumstances for results to be valid. (If that doesnt work, just claim the researchers to be weaker than some popular lifter who disagrees with the results as well - "lab rats" comes in handy.) Its important to be honest to oneself to finally change one´s opinion in the face of evidence - not the existing evidence (and hope for future contradicting one) in the face of your opinion.

The ironic thing is that while there certainly almost never is perfect ecological validity - the naysayers almost *never* bring up *any* research that provides their claim of differences (which thats how science works, is their duty). And if they do, it usually is still a game of dozens of studies vs the lone renegade... That is one of the reason we have meta-analyses in a well researched field. And protein intake is just that, sufficiently researched in the most applicable population.

As for young vs old: Youre right about much less evidence there - see my arguments above why it is very likely that elderly have a *lower* max effect intake in g/kg/day than those studied in most research. Note that there is a difference between the needs of the sedentary young vs old - and the training young vs old. Sedentary elderly might have a higher *baseline* need than the young - but all we know from training studies leads to the conclusion *exercising* elderly have a lower *max effect* intake than the young.

Add to that the finding that differences in effect get smaller the higher the intake is (with 1.5 vs 1.7 and higher we´re already finding almost no differences of effect) the practical consequence is: If there is any (much more substantial) reason for you to eat more carbs or fat once youve covered those 1.67 in protein - dont worry about there being any speculated (well, actually the thinking is it should be lower, as noted above), not yet investigated .32% effect of anything higher than 1.7 in special circumstances in few people. You will then profit more from that than from an additional protein effect that is already expected to be miniscule. If you dont have any reason to do so and enjoy more protein and hope you will get an unproven additional effect - as I said, shove the steaks on the pan.