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

[Masher]

Hi fellow geezers,

Did any of you see the article in the NYT today about a British Journal of Sports Medicine "meta study" revisiting the age-old "how much protein should I eat to increase strength and muscle?" question: Over 40, Eat More Protein

The study concluded that protein supplementation DOES increase strength and mass gains, but only up to 1.67g /kg/day. Beyond that, there were no additional improvements. No harm, just no additional gains. They took data on muscle size and 1 rep max lifts.

I was curious how this result differed from what I had read in Barbell Rx. I recalled (Ch. 16-160) which reads "A good estimate is about 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight from high-quality animal sources."

-----
I weigh 205 lbs (92.8 kg). Sullivan's guideline puts me at 205 grams of protein/day, straightforward enough.

However following the 1.67 grams/kg recommendation, I would need no more than 155 grams of protein to increase muscle strength and mass.

Sully's method adds 50 extra grams that, according to this research, does nothing. It wouldn't be unsafe, just excess.

In contrast, a quick check of many other online exercise sources gives the more commonplace 1 gram/kg formula, which for me is only 93 grams, or about 60 grams short of optimal according to the British study. I have to say that this is far closer to my actual daily intake lately.

Other interesting tidbits from the study include:

• Protein type made no difference, animal, vegetable, powder.
• Timing of meals or supplement intake did not matter.
• The studies spanned all age groups including those over 40.

I have to say that these conclusions pretty much jive with my personal experience. Trying to consume 200g of protein a day gives me a sensation of overkill. I naturally gravitated toward consuming a little less even when I was going hard on linear progression and trying to add strength quickly.

Honestly I haven't been counting my protein grams very closely for quite some time, I just have a vague goal of getting 30 or 40 grams in a meal if I can, which probably puts me anywhere between 90g and 120g on any given day. That hasn't stopped me from making strength gains or gaining 20 lbs since last year.


I'm going to make 155g my new target and track my progress for awhile to see how my strength benefits.

----- Links ----

British Journal of Sports Medicine link:
A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass... - PubMed - NCBI


Studies referenced in Barbell RX about protein are these two:
Protein for exercise and recovery. - PubMed - NCBI
A review of issues of dietary protein intake in humans. - PubMed - NCBI

[Cheesepuff]

Finally the studies are wandering into "reasonable" territory. Nice!

Sully still owns all the tie breakers. IMO. =)

[Jonathon Sullivan]

I'll have to read it (you know, in all my spare time). But it was a meta-analysis, not a single study. So that's good and bad. It's good because it can capture a lot of data. It's bad because the data came from a bunch of different studies. And so the first question we should ask is: what was the homogeneity of the studies incorporated for review? That is, how similar were their dietary regimens, training protocols, and outcome measures? Training duration? Given what we know about the ex-fizz lit, I wouldn't bet on it. What KIND of protein? They say it made no difference, but unless the individual studies were properly designed and powered to detect a difference, they can't say that. Were all the studies of similar rigor and quality? I'll bet not. What were the compliance rates? How was intake monitored (if at all) in the individual studies? Was it the same in all the studies? And what was the spread of the data among all these studies? They say that beyond 1.62 there were no gains in FFM...okay. But what about strength? What about fat mass? What about MMI? And again, what was the spread of the data on these points?

Finally: It's one study. I'm never eager to change my training, nutritional, medical, or coaching approach on the basis of one study (anybody remember steroids for spinal trauma by Bracken et al?), unless and until I've digested the data and it's really, really convinced me.

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.

[Amy-in-PHX]

Thanks for posting this, Masher. I'm very interested in the question of "how much protein," so it's great to have additional info to add to the mix. BTW, Jordan Feigenbaum on his Barbell Medicine site also recommends 1 to 1.2 grams per pound bodyweight, like Sully -- and that's for lifters of all ages, so I suppose he might say geezers should be toward the top end of that range. I find I can't eat that much protein within my calorie limit for the day. (Working on slow weight loss while also doing SS-LP as a rank novice.) So I'm eating 110g protein per day and hoping to see strength gains continue, and better body composition, after a few more weeks. If it looks like I need more I guess whey supplements would be the way to go.

[Fulcrum]

In the studies, how many of them were actually strength training, for reals, along side with eating the various differing amounts of protein?

It might be that eating either 100g/day and 200g/day doesn't make a difference if you are doing the Silly Bullshit, etc.

[OZ-USF-UFGator]

Credibility for me was lost on the claim that protein type doesn't matter. Soy = egg and whey?

[Mark E. Hurling]

Unless the soy protein of today is better than that of the late 60's and early 70's, the constipation you'll get from it will matter plenty.

Shitting a brick is only a slight overstatement with that stuff.

[Marenghi]

Unless the soy protein of today is better than that of the late 60's and early 70's, the constipation you'll get from it will matter plenty.

Shitting a brick is only a slight overstatement with that stuff.

The meta-analysis confirms all the research done on every level: There is no MPS benefit (there may be others, like increased thermogenesis of food/satiety) of more than 1.8g/kg.

As you might notice, the usual rounded 1g/lbs is just that - conveniently rounded. Dont mistake it with 1g/kg, for thats much less than 1.8 or the 1.67 in the recent meta.

So there is no health harm of more, but depending on your situation and goals, more protein than the maximally needed 1.67 might be useful - or more carbs and fats.

Also, take into consideration that the relation of protein and outcome is not linear, that is you wont build double the muscle with 2g/kg vs 1g/kg. Its more of a logarithmic growth curve. So you definitely wont experience any dramatic increase or drawback if you eat more/less than even around those 1.67g/kg (see the graph in the linked article).

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

[Mark E. Hurling]

I don't understand why you would quote my post and totally ignore the gist of it.

Back when, soy protein powder could give you a bowel blockage it could take C4 to shake loose. That may no longer be the case.

As to the rest of your assertions, I could care less.

[Marenghi]

Sorry Mark, I accidentally hit "reply with quote" instead of just reply. Have a nice day.