PDA

View Full Version : protein - per lb or per kg bodyweight?



dissipate
06-07-2005, 08:07 AM
search function is not working so i have to post this question!!

i've read a lot of advice here about having a 1-1.5g per lb of bodyweight protein intake.

in Nutrition for Serious Athletes by Dan Benardot, he recommends 1-1.5g per kg of bodyweight.

that is a big difference............ if i was calculating based on pounds, i'd be taking in about 122-183g protein a day.

if it was based on kg, i'd be taking in about 54-81g protein a day.

so which is it??

drew
06-07-2005, 08:23 AM
1-1.5 per lb.

Drai's
06-07-2005, 08:28 AM
lb

SpecialK
06-07-2005, 08:37 AM
I just go by percentage. Protein makes up 40% of my daily calories, so I just calculate it from that.

Drai's
06-07-2005, 08:55 AM
I just go by percentage. Protein makes up 40% of my daily calories, so I just calculate it from that.

Not the best way of doing things. Protein should basically be a constant; it shouldn't fluctuate with your total calorie levels. %'s are a waste of time.

Posted this yesterday, and it's been on here a million times but apparently people still aren't getting it so:

1) Set total calorie level
2) Get at least 1g protein/lb bodyweight
3) Get at least 20% (30% according to Built ;) ) of your calories from fat
4) The balance is carbs

Built
06-07-2005, 10:36 AM
Not the best way of doing things. Protein should basically be a constant; it shouldn't fluctuate with your total calorie levels. %'s are a waste of time.

Posted this yesterday, and it's been on here a million times but apparently people still aren't getting it so:

1) Set total calorie level
2) Get at least 1g protein/lb bodyweight
3) Get at least 20% (30% according to Built ;) ) of your calories from fat
4) The balance is carbs

:kiss: ;)

SpecialK
06-07-2005, 02:42 PM
Not the best way of doing things. Protein should basically be a constant; it shouldn't fluctuate with your total calorie levels. %'s are a waste of time.

Posted this yesterday, and it's been on here a million times but apparently people still aren't getting it so:

1) Set total calorie level
2) Get at least 1g protein/lb bodyweight
3) Get at least 20% (30% according to Built ;) ) of your calories from fat
4) The balance is carbs

Really though you should say 1g protein/lb LBM, not total bodyweight. If someone adds more fat, I don't think they should be eating MORE protein.

Also I've had good results with a % method, so don't discount it for everyone.

Built
06-07-2005, 02:47 PM
If the percentage thing worked for you, it just happend to work out that way for you - just like 55% of cals from fat works out for me. There's no magic in the ratios - only in the calories, and to a lesser extent, the protein grams.

I do 1.5g - 1.7g protein per pound bodyweight most days. IMHO, 1g/lb bodyweight is a prudent starting point.

Drai's
06-07-2005, 02:59 PM
Really though you should say 1g protein/lb LBM, not total bodyweight.

LBM is more accurate, but total bodyweight gives more room for error.


If someone adds more fat, I don't think they should be eating MORE protein.

Why?

Built
06-07-2005, 03:37 PM
LBM is more accurate, but total bodyweight gives more room for error.


To be fair, when I'm suggesting a protocol for a very over-fat person, I tell them to go by their GOAL weight, not their bodyweight.

WBBIRL
06-07-2005, 03:40 PM
I go by my lean body mass, which was last estimated at around 245lbs. I try to get 245g of protein each day and when I can afford more whey and a better diet Ill shoot for the 1.5 instead of 1 per lbs of lean body mass. Right now about 100-120 g of my protein is coming from whey protein shakes and the other 100-120 or so is coming from my food.

SpecialK
06-07-2005, 06:52 PM
LBM is more accurate, but total bodyweight gives more room for error.



Why?

Fat doesn't require any calories for the body to maintain, so why increase cals if fat increases? It seems to me that if a person was gaining some fat and added more cals, they are just going to gain more fat.

YungLifter
06-07-2005, 06:59 PM
Is it bad if you get more then 1.5g of protein per lb of bw b/c I get like 250g of protein from just solid foods=\

Built
06-07-2005, 07:09 PM
Fat doesn't require any calories for the body to maintain, so why increase cals if fat increases? It seems to me that if a person was gaining some fat and added more cals, they are just going to gain more fat.


I think I've lost the thread of this conversation.

What are you talking about? Who was suggesting increasing calories if fat increases? Do you mean dietary fat, or body fat?

(and it's not true that fat cells don't require any calories to maintain. They do. Just not as much as the more metabolically active muscle tissue).

ryuage
06-07-2005, 07:25 PM
Fat doesn't require any calories for the body to maintain, so why increase cals if fat increases? It seems to me that if a person was gaining some fat and added more cals, they are just going to gain more fat.

actually fat is metabolically active and does require calories to sustain some energy.

Drai's
06-07-2005, 08:08 PM
Fat doesn't require any calories for the body to maintain, so why increase cals if fat increases? It seems to me that if a person was gaining some fat and added more cals, they are just going to gain more fat.

Cals don't increase. If you're increasing fats you have to decrease something else, namely carbs.

dissipate
06-08-2005, 07:45 AM
actually, is there any reading i can do out there about 1-1.5g per lb vs kg?

this is dan benardot's biography http://my.webmd.com/content/Biography/8/101633.htm and i don't have much reason to doubt him at the moment.......

there was another nutrition book i was browsing through at the bookstore, it was Nancy Clark's Sports Nutrition Guidebook, Third Edition if i remember right, and she too recommends 1-1.5g per kg bodyweight.

Drai's
06-08-2005, 08:33 AM
Are either Benardot or Clark providing recommendations for bodybuilders?

My guess is no, so those recommendations don't apply.

Can you get by on getting enough protein per kg instead of lbs? I'm sure you can, but why bother? Unless you weigh 300+ lbs I can't see how it's difficult to comfortably hit 1g/lb bodyweight every day...and that's without supplements.

WBBIRL
06-08-2005, 10:50 AM
Yea, unless you do

Just hit under 300 lbs last night... weighed out of the gym at 299lbs wOOt!!!

smalls
06-08-2005, 10:57 AM
Are either Benardot or Clark providing recommendations for bodybuilders?

My guess is no, so those recommendations don't apply.

Can you get by on getting enough protein per kg instead of lbs? I'm sure you can, but why bother? Unless you weigh 300+ lbs I can't see how it's difficult to comfortably hit 1g/lb bodyweight every day...and that's without supplements.


Exactly. Pretty much EVERY "accredited" nutritional book is going to be around 1-1.5g per kg. But most of them would also recomend to never go over the RDA in any vitamin and then give a list of all the diseases caused by doing so. Most bodybuilders go by per lb and most seem to have the best gains at higher levels.

Drai's
06-08-2005, 11:09 AM
Exactly. Pretty much EVERY "accredited" nutritional book is going to be around 1-1.5g per kg.

And that's only sport nutrition books. The food guides for the various countries usually tell you something ridiculous like 30g of protein for every 1000 calories or something along those lines.

geeman
06-08-2005, 12:40 PM
Is it okay to calculate protein based on protein shakes or does it have to be actual food? I weigh 255 lbs and I have around 200 grams directly from powder mixtures and around 50 from actual food, is this ok?

Drai's
06-08-2005, 12:43 PM
count both and add them for your daily total

WBBIRL
06-08-2005, 01:39 PM
Is it okay to calculate protein based on protein shakes or does it have to be actual food? I weigh 255 lbs and I have around 200 grams directly from powder mixtures and around 50 from actual food, is this ok?


They both count but if you could get them from real food it would be better nutrion wize.

Holto
06-08-2005, 03:46 PM
actually fat is metabolically active and does require calories to sustain some energy.

not to mention that walking, standing, maintaing posure requires cals and this requirement goes up when you get heavier regardless if it's muscle, fat, bone

Maki Riddington
06-08-2005, 03:50 PM
Not the best way of doing things.

There is no such thing as the "best" way of doing something. The words, "tunnel vision" come to mind when I read statements like this one.


Protein should basically be a constant; it shouldn't fluctuate with your total calorie levels. %'s are a waste of time.

Why shouldn't protein intake change in relation to total caloric intake and why are %'s a waste of time?

Drai's
06-08-2005, 04:03 PM
There is no such thing as the "best" way of doing something.

Yes, but there are better ways than others, and when you can name even one way that is better than the aforementioned way, it can no longer be "best". Thanks for coming out though.


Why shouldn't protein intake change in relation to total caloric intake and why are %'s a waste of time?

I'll use myself as an example. When I cut, sometimes during the "low calorie" phase of a diet like UD2 or PSMF I eat about 1000 calories/day; let's also say I bulk on 4000 calories/day. In either situation, I'm aiming for the minimum of 1g/lb of bodyweight. I weigh about 225 so that's 225g of protein. %'s are a waste of time because in the case of the cut that 225g is 90% of my caloric intake and for the bulk it's only ~23%. Is either of them more "right" than the other? No. They're completely different, but I'm still meeting what is required...and what is required is NOT to maintain certain ratios that someone pulled out of their ass.

In addition, ratios are generic, and fail to capture a large portion of the population.

When one increases calories on a bulk, protein intake may or may not increase; it doesn't have to.

Built
06-08-2005, 04:13 PM
:withstupi
Ratios are meaningless. The magic is in the calories and the protein. The rest of the mix is a matter of personal preference, and will vary from person to person, or even for the same person depending on their training type and level, bodyfat and LBM, and even age.

YOUR OWN ratios are meaningful TO YOU. But there's nothing magical about 40-40-20 or 30-30-40 or 65-30-5 or any other set of numbers as a generic, cookie-cutter approach, and my personal opinion of them is that they are misleading at best.

My .02

Drai's
06-08-2005, 04:16 PM
Nice post Built. Completely agree.

Maki Riddington
06-08-2005, 04:57 PM
Yes, but there are better ways than others, and when you can name even one way that is better than the aforementioned way, it can no longer be "best". Thanks for coming out though.

If something is the best then it will always be the most effective method to use no matter the situation. When it comes to science a law is a fact and that means it can not be broken. What you are saying is not a law, it is an opinion based upon a theory. And theories can be broken. If something can be broken, how can it be the "best way?"

Bear in mind that I am saying this in regards to the statement you made to the person who said they use 40% of their calories as protein.

This is not about who is right and who is wrong, I was simply pointing out that to use the word "best way" is cutting into the territory of absolutes which a lot of people in the fitness industry believe in. I think this leads to a close minded view point which can stunt the education of an individual.

As for your last comment, there's no reason for you to make a snide remark. I have done nothing to insult or offend you. I would appreciate it if you would keep things mature and civil.



In addition, ratios are generic, and fail to capture a large portion of the population.

Neither is the one gram per pound rule. It is a simple guideline. Percentages can be used the same way.

Btw, what do you mean by "capture a large portion of the population?"

Drai's
06-08-2005, 05:13 PM
If something can be broken, how can it be the "best way?"

I didn't say anything about something being the "best way". I said it "WASN'T the best way". There's a subtle difference. You don't have to know what the best way is to know that something isn't the best based on the qualifier that even one thing is better.


Neither is the one gram per pound rule. It is a simple guideline. Percentages can be used the same way.

Who DOESN'T the one gram rule apply to? (keep the discussion on bodybuilders)

It basically applies to everyone, so it's a good guideline. A ratio like 30/40/30 doesn't apply to everyone (or even close), so it's not a good guideline. I think it's pretty simple.


Btw, what do you mean by "capture a large portion of the population?"

I mean it does not apply to a large portion of the population. A simple guideline will never please everyone, but it should be sufficient for as many people as possible.

Maki Riddington
06-08-2005, 05:35 PM
I didn't say anything about something being the "best way". I said it "WASN'T the best way".

Does this not imply that what you mentioned was the best way? You followed your statement up with another one saying that protein should stay constant. So it would seem that this is what you were getting at.


Who DOESN'T the one gram rule apply to? (keep the discussion on bodybuilders)

It's not that it doesn't apply to anyone. I was referring to your comment on macronutrient ratios being generic and the application many people put into these %'s.

The same could be said of the 1 gram per pound rule. What is it based upon?


A ratio like 30/40/30 doesn't apply to everyone (or even close), so it's not a good guideline. I think it's pretty simple.

I'm not arguing that %'s are a good guideline. You made a broad statment that %'s are a waste of time. I disagree. Why?

Because, it all depends on how you structure your caloric intake in a week (strength training and non strength training days). For example, on my off days, my protein intake goes up while my carb intake is lowered, fat stays at a moderate level. On my workout days, carb intake increases, protein intake is lowered, fat stays the same.


I mean it does not apply to a large portion of the population. A simple guideline will never please everyone, but it should be sufficient for as many people as possible.

Understood.

dissipate
06-08-2005, 09:19 PM
Are either Benardot or Clark providing recommendations for bodybuilders? My guess is no, so those recommendations don't apply.

benardot has a chapter on bodybuilding and here's the whole para on protein intake:

--- snip ---
Bodybuilders strive for a high level of muscle mass. A higher level of muscle mass nutritionally translates into a higher need for energy. While the total amount of protein needed to maintain this larger mass is higher, the proportion of protein provided by foods actually remains the same. Ideally, bodybuilders should consume approximately 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, but this should be consumed in the context of an adequate total energy consumption where most of the energy is derived from carbohydrates. Most of the studies of bodybuilders strongly suggest that protein consumption is significantly higher than the body's ability to use it anabolically (i.e., to use it to build tissue). Therefore, the excess protein is simply burned as a fuel or, in the case of excess total energy consumption, stored as fat. This has been confirmed by the finding in one study, which found that bodybuilders had significantly higher protein intakes than lean control subjects, and that they also relied more heavily on protein as a fuel to meet the energy requirements of the muscles. It is very likely that bodybuilders believe excess protein assists in building body mass because they consume foods that do not, by themselves, provide sufficient energy to enlarge the lean mass. The extra protein consumed, therefore, serves to fill the energy gap, and meeting energy needs can clearly be done more effectively with carbohydrate than with protein. The nutritional key to building muscle mass is to consume enough energy to support the larger mass. For instance, if you now weigh 180 pounds and you wish to weight 190 pounds, you should eat as if you already weigh 190 pounds.
--- snip ---


Exactly. Pretty much EVERY "accredited" nutritional book is going to be around 1-1.5g per kg. But most of them would also recomend to never go over the RDA in any vitamin and then give a list of all the diseases caused by doing so. Most bodybuilders go by per lb and most seem to have the best gains at higher levels.

benardot discusses the vitamins in-depth and talks about deficiency more than consequences of excess intake actually.

well here's his bit on vitamins and RDA:

--- snip ---
Another common mind-set that athletes have is that you can't get enough of a nutrient (or related substance) that is good for performance. So, if a little is good for me then give me a lot. This also breaches a key rule of nutrition that "more than enough is not better than enough." There is an ancient Latin saying that is true and relevant here: Sola docis facit venenum (the dose makes the poison). Just as having too little is bad, so is having too much. The way athletes think about the RDA is a prime example of how easy it is to get too much. It is (wrongly) believed that the RDA is a minimum requirement, even though it represents more than most healthy people need. Therefore, athletes are drawn to products that provide multiples of the RDA. This is even true for the way they feel about some breakfast cereals, which advertise that they provide 100 percent of the RDA for most nutrients in a single serving. Athletes jump at the chance of eating 200, 300 or 400 percent of the RDA by eating bowl after bowl. Unless this is some form of new math (which I don't understand), 100 percent usually means you've met the requirement. Supplement intake behavior is also often consistent with this (wrong) philosophy that "more than enough is better than enough." The level of nutrient intake is often excessive, and even more often mistargeted, when taking high doses of substances that are not the most needed.

The best way to think about nutrients and energy is to remember these simple rules:
- Eat a wide variety of foods.
- More than enough is not better than enough.
- Eat foods that provide a lot of complex carbohydrates, some proteins, and a little fat. A good way to reduce fat intake is to avoid fried foods, prepared meats (bologna, salami, sausage, etc.), and visible fats, and to consume low-fat dairy products.
- Eat enough to meet energy needs.
--- snip ---


on the other hand, i find this interesting
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=579

Built
06-08-2005, 09:34 PM
That ironmagazine link was awesome!

ryuage
06-08-2005, 09:36 PM
well if you have any other questions about protein here is a good site

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e00.htm#Contents

smalls
06-08-2005, 10:56 PM
benardot has a chapter on bodybuilding and here's the whole para on protein intake:

--- snip ---
Bodybuilders strive for a high level of muscle mass. A higher level of muscle mass nutritionally translates into a higher need for energy. While the total amount of protein needed to maintain this larger mass is higher, the proportion of protein provided by foods actually remains the same. Ideally, bodybuilders should consume approximately 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, but this should be consumed in the context of an adequate total energy consumption where most of the energy is derived from carbohydrates. Most of the studies of bodybuilders strongly suggest that protein consumption is significantly higher than the body's ability to use it anabolically (i.e., to use it to build tissue). Therefore, the excess protein is simply burned as a fuel or, in the case of excess total energy consumption, stored as fat. This has been confirmed by the finding in one study, which found that bodybuilders had significantly higher protein intakes than lean control subjects, and that they also relied more heavily on protein as a fuel to meet the energy requirements of the muscles. It is very likely that bodybuilders believe excess protein assists in building body mass because they consume foods that do not, by themselves, provide sufficient energy to enlarge the lean mass. The extra protein consumed, therefore, serves to fill the energy gap, and meeting energy needs can clearly be done more effectively with carbohydrate than with protein. The nutritional key to building muscle mass is to consume enough energy to support the larger mass. For instance, if you now weigh 180 pounds and you wish to weight 190 pounds, you should eat as if you already weigh 190 pounds.
--- snip ---



benardot discusses the vitamins in-depth and talks about deficiency more than consequences of excess intake actually.

well here's his bit on vitamins and RDA:

--- snip ---
Another common mind-set that athletes have is that you can't get enough of a nutrient (or related substance) that is good for performance. So, if a little is good for me then give me a lot. This also breaches a key rule of nutrition that "more than enough is not better than enough." There is an ancient Latin saying that is true and relevant here: Sola docis facit venenum (the dose makes the poison). Just as having too little is bad, so is having too much. The way athletes think about the RDA is a prime example of how easy it is to get too much. It is (wrongly) believed that the RDA is a minimum requirement, even though it represents more than most healthy people need. Therefore, athletes are drawn to products that provide multiples of the RDA. This is even true for the way they feel about some breakfast cereals, which advertise that they provide 100 percent of the RDA for most nutrients in a single serving. Athletes jump at the chance of eating 200, 300 or 400 percent of the RDA by eating bowl after bowl. Unless this is some form of new math (which I don't understand), 100 percent usually means you've met the requirement. Supplement intake behavior is also often consistent with this (wrong) philosophy that "more than enough is better than enough." The level of nutrient intake is often excessive, and even more often mistargeted, when taking high doses of substances that are not the most needed.

The best way to think about nutrients and energy is to remember these simple rules:
- Eat a wide variety of foods.
- More than enough is not better than enough.
- Eat foods that provide a lot of complex carbohydrates, some proteins, and a little fat. A good way to reduce fat intake is to avoid fried foods, prepared meats (bologna, salami, sausage, etc.), and visible fats, and to consume low-fat dairy products.
- Eat enough to meet energy needs.
--- snip ---


on the other hand, i find this interesting
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=579

"More than enough is NOT better than enough.
Eat enough to MEET energy needs"
Lofl, I thought this article was regarding bodybuilders. I'm not aware of any bodybuilders who want to never ever put on any amount of muscle.

I understand (as most people here do) that all the protein I intake will not be used for anabolism. That's the whole ****ing point. Are we supposed to be taking in some magic "perfect" number. Or perhaps we should aim to excced the need and ensure we are getting enough.

The site is called wannabebig. You eat enough, I'll eat more than enough. Lets see who gets there faster. This article is written by an individual who does not understand what it takes to put on ungodly amounts of muscle. But it is scientifically sound, so I guess I should heed his advice.

dissipate
06-09-2005, 07:26 AM
"More than enough is NOT better than enough.
Eat enough to MEET energy needs"
Lofl, I thought this article was regarding bodybuilders. I'm not aware of any bodybuilders who want to never ever put on any amount of muscle.

if i'm understanding what you're implying - that we need more calories than maintenance to put muscle on, note that benardot said to eat like you weigh 190 pounds if you currently weigh 180 and want to be 190. that's at the end of the para.

Drai's
06-09-2005, 09:55 AM
Does this not imply that what you mentioned was the best way? You followed your statement up with another one saying that protein should stay constant. So it would seem that this is what you were getting at.

You know what they say about assumptions.


It's not that it doesn't apply to anyone. I was referring to your comment on macronutrient ratios being generic and the application many people put into these %'s.

The same could be said of the 1 gram per pound rule. What is it based upon?

I think it's actually based on many studies that have been done (like the ones Dissipate has posted) + a fudge factor to be on the safe side (make sure you're getting more than enough, which is what smalls is saying).


I'm not arguing that %'s are a good guideline. You made a broad statment that %'s are a waste of time. I disagree. Why?

Because, it all depends on how you structure your caloric intake in a week (strength training and non strength training days). For example, on my off days, my protein intake goes up while my carb intake is lowered, fat stays at a moderate level. On my workout days, carb intake increases, protein intake is lowered, fat stays the same.

Well, keeping calories constant, our two sets of "rules" are equivalent. It's when you start changing caloric intake that %'s no longer make sense. I posted an example above.


I understand (as most people here do) that all the protein I intake will not be used for anabolism. That's the whole ****ing point. Are we supposed to be taking in some magic "perfect" number. Or perhaps we should aim to excced the need and ensure we are getting enough.

The site is called wannabebig. You eat enough, I'll eat more than enough. Lets see who gets there faster. This article is written by an individual who does not understand what it takes to put on ungodly amounts of muscle. But it is scientifically sound, so I guess I should heed his advice.

I couldn't agree more.

Dissipate, it seems that you're trying to cut corners. That's not what bodybuilding is about.


if i'm understanding what you're implying - that we need more calories than maintenance to put muscle on, note that benardot said to eat like you weigh 190 pounds if you currently weigh 180 and want to be 190. that's at the end of the para.

That really wasn't what small was saying; he was talking specifically about protein intake.

When we put 100g of protein into our bodies, we don't know what it's going to be used for. Some will be used for anabolism, some for our nails to grow, some may be excreted, etc. The point is that you want as much anabolism as possible, and without knowing for sure, it's more likely that happens when consuming 300g protein vs. 200g.

So why don't we eat 1000+g protein/day? Well, only so much anabolism can appear in a given period. At some point or another, you really are eating "too much" protein, but we can be fairly certain that level is higher than 1g/kg bodyweight. There's also the issue of caloric limits and cost.

dissipate
06-09-2005, 08:01 PM
ryu: thanks for the link! it's scary scientific - yikes! i read the protein requirements format statement bit and haven't got much of a clue lol. is there any part which says how much protein is necessary?


Or perhaps we should aim to excced the need and ensure we are getting enough.

how much is enough?


You eat enough, I'll eat more than enough. Lets see who gets there faster.

conversely, have you ever tried eating enough protein or a little more than enough and seeing whether your results are the same as eating a whole lot of protein?


Dissipate, it seems that you're trying to cut corners. That's not what bodybuilding is about.

what is bodybuilding about then? should people on a tight budget just forget about it then?


When we put 100g of protein into our bodies, we don't know what it's going to be used for. Some will be used for anabolism, some for our nails to grow, some may be excreted, etc. The point is that you want as much anabolism as possible, and without knowing for sure, it's more likely that happens when consuming 300g protein vs. 200g.

So why don't we eat 1000+g protein/day? Well, only so much anabolism can appear in a given period. At some point or another, you really are eating "too much" protein, but we can be fairly certain that level is higher than 1g/kg bodyweight. There's also the issue of caloric limits and cost.

who can be fairly certain the level is higher than 1g/kg bodyweight? are there any studies out there you know of that i can read?


the reasons i brought this issue up are:

1) benardot has the academic training and practical experience, as can be seen in his biography.

2) in the book is a short story about one of benardot's students, a competitive bodybuilder, who shared that "his successes were not what they should have been". his diet, which initially comprised of tons of protein and fat from steak, roasts and chicken became a class project. he switched to a diet heavy on carbs (~60%), moderate in protein (~15%) and moderately low in fat (~25%), consumed 6x a day with lots of fluids. 1 year later he visited benardot with a huge trophy. "He said his change of food intake gave him so much more "energy" that he was able to train harder and longer, and felt better all the time."

3) protein is expensive, carbohydrates are cheap. you call it cutting corners, i call it budgeting. if i can get the same results on less protein, why not? not everyone can afford to buy huge amounts of protein.

Maki Riddington
06-09-2005, 10:15 PM
You know what they say about assumptions.

What does that have to do with my question? Why not answer the question with a straight answer instead of beating around the bush. If my assumption was incorrect please let me know what you meant.


Does this not imply that what you mentioned was the best way? You followed your statement up with another one saying that protein should stay constant. So it would seem that this is what you were getting at.






I think it's actually based on many studies that have been done (like the ones Dissipate has posted) + a fudge factor to be on the safe side (make sure you're getting more than enough, which is what smalls is saying).

What studies are those? I did not see any studies posted by Dissipate in regards to the 1 gram per pound guideline.

Drai's
06-09-2005, 10:42 PM
how much is enough?

No one knows, so we err on the high side.


conversely, have you ever tried eating enough protein or a little more than enough and seeing whether your results are the same as eating a whole lot of protein?

No, and I don't plan to. Call it anecdotal, but anyone I know or whose diet I've read on a board who is what I consider a respectable size eats a lot of protein. Maybe you "could" get away with eating less; I personally don't have a reason to do so.


what is bodybuilding about then? should people on a tight budget just forget about it then?

I kind of want to say "yes" here actually, but that's just mean. I don't think bodybuilding is a cheap lifestyle if you do it properly, but one can get by on a budget if they must.


who can be fairly certain the level is higher than 1g/kg bodyweight? are there any studies out there you know of that i can read?

I don't think I've ever read a study regarding bodybuilding in my life. I'm going to keep my mouth shut, but I'd REALLY like to say something offensive here.


the reasons i brought this issue up are:

1) benardot has the academic training and practical experience, as can be seen in his biography.

2) in the book is a short story about one of benardot's students, a competitive bodybuilder, who shared that "his successes were not what they should have been". his diet, which initially comprised of tons of protein and fat from steak, roasts and chicken became a class project. he switched to a diet heavy on carbs (~60%), moderate in protein (~15%) and moderately low in fat (~25%), consumed 6x a day with lots of fluids. 1 year later he visited benardot with a huge trophy. "He said his change of food intake gave him so much more "energy" that he was able to train harder and longer, and felt better all the time."

3) protein is expensive, carbohydrates are cheap. you call it cutting corners, i call it budgeting. if i can get the same results on less protein, why not? not everyone can afford to buy huge amounts of protein.

1) I'll trust my own experience over anyone else's. That's not convincing to you, nor should it be...but you can't argue with the fact that no one knows YOUR body better than you.

2) I'm glad you supplied some anecdotal evidence here. That makes my argument more on par. All I will say regarding this is everyone is different. If my diet was 60% carbs I would be a fat ass.

3) Fair enough.


What does that have to do with my question? Why not answer the question with a straight answer instead of beating around the bush. If my assumption was incorrect please let me know what you meant.

Beating around the bush is so much more fun though :D.

You can take the comment as implying that my way is best. Nowhere did I specifically say it, but if I didn't think it I wouldn't have posted it in the first place.


What studies are those? I did not see any studies posted by Dissipate in regards to the 1 gram per pound guideline.

Evidently my reading skills need some improvement (either that or I didn't read much of Dissipate's post, you be the judge). Like I said above, I don't go by studies anyway, but for those of you who do I'd be surprised if none have ever been done.

smalls
06-09-2005, 10:43 PM
how much is enough?

****see that's the problem, we dont really know for each person, if all the scientific evidence says 1g/lb is enough, then getting well above 1g/lb should ensure your getting more than enough regardless of who you are. That's why i would always suggest exceeding the current recomendations. ****

conversely, have you ever tried eating enough protein or a little more than enough and seeing whether your results are the same as eating a whole lot of protein?

****The first year I was lifting I did the normal 6 meals a day, a serving of protein (around 20g) in every meal, lots of healthy carbs and fat yadda yadda. I didnt gain one lb of muscle. But the problem was obviously calories, not just protein. That's what its so hard to accurately view something like this, I have never JUST increased protein intake while keeping everything about my diet, routine the same. But I have continued to gain muscle and strength as my protein intake has gone up (but my cals have too).


what is bodybuilding about then? should people on a tight budget just forget about it then?

****this is one thing I really have to disagree with. There are probably very few people on here poorer than me. Protein is not expensive (whey protein especially), calories are not expensive. You could easily get 6000 cals+ a day on a very tight budget. I do it all the time.****

who can be fairly certain the level is higher than 1g/kg bodyweight? are there any studies out there you know of that i can read?


the reasons i brought this issue up are:

1) benardot has the academic training and practical experience, as can be seen in his biography.

2) in the book is a short story about one of benardot's students, a competitive bodybuilder, who shared that "his successes were not what they should have been". his diet, which initially comprised of tons of protein and fat from steak, roasts and chicken became a class project. he switched to a diet heavy on carbs (~60%), moderate in protein (~15%) and moderately low in fat (~25%), consumed 6x a day with lots of fluids. 1 year later he visited benardot with a huge trophy. "He said his change of food intake gave him so much more "energy" that he was able to train harder and longer, and felt better all the time."

3) protein is expensive, carbohydrates are cheap. you call it cutting corners, i call it budgeting. if i can get the same results on less protein, why not? not everyone can afford to buy huge amounts of protein.

****Since you want to back the things you do up with science you have to throw that example out. It is a case study and his gains mean nothing in reference to you or I. Also the energy thing is hillarious, I dont know of anyone who has energy problems when bulking.

AKA was a member here who made amazing gains on a lower protein and higher carb intake. Of course it can be done, and everyones needs are different. But there really is no reason to minimize your protein intake simply because science doesnt back it up. Most of us are trying to put on muscle and should be eating ungodly amounts of all the macro's.****

Responses are encased in **** stars cuz i'm lazy.

dissipate
06-10-2005, 05:03 AM
why does disagreement in discussions always seem to turn hostile? :P it makes this place not such a nice environment to discuss issues....


All I will say regarding this is everyone is different.
true that. i guess the best thing for me to do would probably to test it myself.


see that's the problem, we dont really know for each person, if all the scientific evidence says 1g/lb is enough, then getting well above 1g/lb should ensure your getting more than enough regardless of who you are. That's why i would always suggest exceeding the current recomendations.
point taken.


Protein is not expensive (whey protein especially), calories are not expensive. You could easily get 6000 cals+ a day on a very tight budget.
calories are not expensive - agreed. protein is not expensive - disagree. i'm _not_ from the U.S. and protein powder has to be imported thus the skyhigh costs. we're from different countries and living expenses are different so we can't say since you can get by on $x i can too.


Since you want to back the things you do up with science you have to throw that example out. It is a case study and his gains mean nothing in reference to you or I. Also the energy thing is hillarious, I dont know of anyone who has energy problems when bulking.
why wouldn't his gains mean nothing in reference to me? what would benardot be including it in the book for then? i find his suggestions interesting. and it just came to me that we don't know whether he was bulking or cutting or on maintenance or which combination during that period of time.


AKA was a member here who made amazing gains on a lower protein and higher carb intake.
i should go browse through his journal again.


But there really is no reason to minimize your protein intake simply because science doesnt back it up. Most of us are trying to put on muscle and should be eating ungodly amounts of all the macro's.
there must be someone we can find who's willing to test this protein intake thing out!!

Drai's
06-10-2005, 10:16 AM
calories are not expensive - agreed. protein is not expensive - disagree. i'm _not_ from the U.S. and protein powder has to be imported thus the skyhigh costs. we're from different countries and living expenses are different so we can't say since you can get by on $x i can too.

I could be wrong, but I would think you'd have at least some cheaper protein sources. No one said anything about protein POWDER. I haven't used that in months.


why wouldn't his gains mean nothing in reference to me? what would benardot be including it in the book for then? i find his suggestions interesting. and it just came to me that we don't know whether he was bulking or cutting or on maintenance or which combination during that period of time.

Benardot citing an example of someone he knows is no more credible than me saying my buddy eats McDonald's 3 times/day and is ripped. Both may be true, but it doesn't prove anything, or provide us with any sort of recommendation ability.


there must be someone we can find who's willing to test this protein intake thing out!!

You can and tell us how it works for you ;).

People are creatures of habit, that's life. If I've been eating 300+g of protein for years and been seeing good gains, it's very unlikely you could convince me to eat less.

Quite frankly, in my case anyway, I eat high amounts of protein without even thinking about it. Each of my meals is protein-based, and I'm always amazed at how small the appropriate "serving size" is supposed to be. Thus, I end up eating 6+ protein-based meals/day with multiple "servings" in each.