PDA

View Full Version : High Protein--A Myth?



Songsangnim
01-20-2006, 07:46 PM
Of all the diet related-advice in regards to protein over the years one has stood the test of time and is the most commonly heard. "Eat(at least) one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight (or one pound of LBM)" This has gained the status of a mantra or dogma within the bodybuilding world. In fact most serious lifters regard this ratio as an absolute MIMIMUM and some advocate 1.5, 2 or more grams of protein per pound of bodyweight.

Is this really necessary? Do we need to take in huge amounts of protein in order to keep growing? Let's look at some links here.

http://www.cptips.com/protein.htm

http://www.fitnessprat.no/showthread.php?t=17250

Dr. Peter Lemon (regarded by some as the foremost researcher in this particular field) has done a number of studies on how much protein atheletes really need. According to pretty much all the evidence there is no real evidence of any improvement beyond 2 grams of protein per KILOGRAM of bodymass. Elite atheletes who take steroids or dietary aids may benefit from more as this improves their protein synthesis. However this post deals with the genetically average natural and for him 2 grams per KG seems to be an optimal level.

Now 2 g/Kg is obviously slightly less than the 1g/lb recommendation above. That given, and also given that the 2g/KG is apparently backed by a number of studies, it would be worth considering that the 1g/lb is not an absolute MIMIMUM as thought of by many but rather an optimal level of protein intake for the average natural.

Of course this will be controversial, but then consider this. What studies have demonstrated a link between increased protein intake (above 1g/lb) and improved performance? We can not look at studies involving elite atheletes since Dr. Peter Lemon admits (and I agree) that such people usually ingest/inject steroids which improve protein synthesis and thus they can use a greater protein intake.

Thoughts, comments. questions? (also if anyone would like to copy and paste the link with the interview with Dr. Lemon from the thread "Please, Rate my workout" HERE it would be appreciated. My computer isn't letting me paste and copy that particular link, nor is it letting me type it in by hand).

tigo
01-20-2006, 10:11 PM
Now 2 g/Kg is obviously slightly less than the 1g/lb recommendation above

um am i wrong or is 2g/kg more than 1g/lb

Built
01-20-2006, 11:04 PM
A kg is roughly 2.2 lbs, so 2g/kg is 2g/2.2lbs, which is roughly 0.91g/lb.

However, Dr. Lemon recommends 2 grams of protein per KILOGRAM of bodymass, not per kilogram of LBM.

For someone like me, sitting somewhere in the high teens of bodyfat, .91g protein per pound bodymass (2g/kg bodymass) puts my quota at about 128g of protein - higher, in fact, than 1g/lb LBM, which would only give me 111g of protein.

In practice, I go higher, but it's out of comfort - protein is simply more satisfying than eating extra carbohydrate.

Shao-LiN
01-20-2006, 11:05 PM
1 kilogram is approximately 2.2 pounds if I'm not mistaken. So, if you convert it:

2 grams per 2.2 pounds vs. 2 grams per 2 pounds (scaling up to match).

So, yah, you're wrong.

ddegroff
01-21-2006, 01:08 AM
Yeah I have seen everywhere from 1g/lb up to 1.8g/lb. My nutrition teacher explained to that there is an amino acid pool that all of the broken down protein goes. Some of the amino acids go to everyday bodily functions. The rest goes to repairing muscle. Once the pool is full all the extra amino acids are broken down into nitrogen etc. Some of that goes to energy and the rest you piss out. My point here is that you can't store extra protein. With all this extra nitrogen kills your kidneys and can lead to kidney stones. The only true way to tell if your eating the right amount of protein is to test your urine for nitrogen. If the levels are too high then your eating to much protein. What I think is the best way to find out how much protein you need is trial and error. Nutrition is very individual so what works for me probably wont work for you.

Built
01-21-2006, 01:12 AM
There has never been a documented case of a high protein diet causing kidney damage.

ddegroff
01-21-2006, 01:19 AM
Ok got a little over zealous with the "killing your kidneys". My main point was you can only use so much after that you piss it out.

Built
01-21-2006, 01:21 AM
You use it all - but beyond the point where you go into a positive nitrogen balance, you basically use it as expensive carbohydrate as I understand it.

ddegroff
01-21-2006, 01:35 AM
Yes, it is an expensive carb, but if we are eating the right amount of carbs then the body wouldn't need to use it as energy. Since we can't store it then we get rid of the extra.

Back to the point on killing your kidneys. I just read in a study where the athletes consumed 2.8g of protein per kg. These athletes experienced none unhealthy kidney changes.

Built
01-21-2006, 02:32 AM
We get rid of the extra by storing it as bodyfat.

Bravo
01-21-2006, 03:51 AM
I never understood how one just "gets rid", or "pisses out" calories. I wish I did , though, as it would make cutting pretty darn easy. lol.

HILL
01-21-2006, 04:43 AM
I think that you could proberly get away with less like some studies show however in the bodybuilding world people are always going to think/believe they should take more protein as its what helps the muscles repair. I also feel i even tho i could get away with less i would rather take more and just say i dnt agree with any studie per say so im coverd which i think will be most peoples response. You could say follow studie a that says take so 2g per kilo or studie b that says 1.5g per pound of lbm. I personally would go with the second as id rather have to much than to little

TheGimp
01-21-2006, 05:46 AM
I think you're being delusional if you think all of that 1g / lb of bodyweight is going to go towards muscle building. I see it is a value that ensures there will be adequate protein for the task. Could you get away with less? Almost certainly. Am I willing to "risk" it? What's the point?

Songsangnim
01-21-2006, 07:04 AM
I think you're being delusional if you think all of that 1g / lb of bodyweight is going to go towards muscle building. I see it is a value that ensures there will be adequate protein for the task. Could you get away with less? Almost certainly. Am I willing to "risk" it? What's the point?

No one has said it will all go towards muscle-building

Likewise no one has advocated eating less. I even said the 1g /lb is probably an optimal level NOT a recommended one. Most people can go above an optimal level without any harm.

My point was merely that this should be considered an optimal level (for most people) rather than the bare mimimum. That is all. All available evidence although not truly conclusive points in this direction.

Built
01-21-2006, 10:29 AM
Well, since there's no harm in eating more, and it's satiating, I would say it's worth risking overkill on this one, at least for physique athletes.

ddegroff
01-21-2006, 11:24 AM
We get rid of the extra by storing it as bodyfat.

That was my point we can't store extra protein. We store extra cals as bodyfat. But I still agree that there is no proof that we should limit our protein intake to save our kidneys.

Shao-LiN
01-21-2006, 12:53 PM
Either way, you don't piss it out.

Manveet
01-21-2006, 01:38 PM
I think most people understand that they dont need a TON of protein (at least I hope they do). However, when I'm bulking on 4500-5000 cals a day, I'd much rather eat a good chunk of my calories from protein, rather than gorging on 500-700g of carbs and feeling bloated as hell.

chris mason
01-21-2006, 01:51 PM
When we are speaking of the dietary protein requirements for athletes are we speaking of bodybuilders, powerlifters, and Olympic lifters or other athletes? There is a big difference.

Next, I would LOVE to read the exact studies referenced. A study is certainly not the be-all end-all of anything.

Last, I don't think massive amounts of protein are needed but I do think 1 - 1.5g per lb of body weight is a good amount.

thajeepster
01-21-2006, 06:59 PM
i dont think massive amounts of carbs or fats are needed either, but you gotta get cals from somewhere right? So what if I eat my extra 4-500 cals a day from protein instead of carbs? Excess carbs get stored as fat as well. Fats also. So if theres no harm in a high protein diet, why not?

Utopianhopes
01-21-2006, 07:29 PM
Either way, you don't piss it out.



Proteins and the amino acids derived from these can only be "burned" as glucose. Conversion to glucose is mandatory if the energy in these is to be utilized. Consumption of more protein than can be converted to glucose simply results in loss of these as amino acids in urine.



We have data about the total amount of oxygen supplied to the human liver. Calculations based on this (and assuming the all of this oxygen goes to support conversion of amino acids to glucose) suggest that the maximum capacity of hepatic glucose synthesis from amino acids lies around 400 grams/day. This is the equivalent of approximately 1600 kcal, close to the metabolic rate of a bed-ridden person and hardly enough to support an active life.



If the carbohydrate content of the diet is low, amino acids can and do supply the glucose necessary to hold a stable blood sugar level and brain activity. In starvation, the body uses its own proteins. With a high protein diet these come from food.

source 1 (http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time%201-2/liver%20glycogen%20exp.htm)
Source 2 (http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time%201-2/vilhjalmur_stefansson1.htm)

Songsangnim
01-21-2006, 08:53 PM
(1) When we are speaking of the dietary protein requirements for athletes are we speaking of bodybuilders, powerlifters, and Olympic lifters or other athletes? There is a big difference.

(2) Next, I would LOVE to read the exact studies referenced. A study is certainly not the be-all end-all of anything.

(3) Last, I don't think massive amounts of protein are needed but I do think 1 - 1.5g per lb of body weight is a good amount.


(numbers are mine)

(1) Well, as Mr Lemon pointed out elite athletes can and do benefit from more protein, as these people are more likely to use steroids which aid in protein synthesis. So professional athletes are likely to need more protein. But my point was for the genetically average natural (in other words the typical WWB member).

(2) These studies were done by Dr. Peter Lemon. A Google search (I'll see if I can find something) should yield some results. I agree that a study certainly is not the be-all and end all. Just that the available evidence seems to posit that around 1 gram/lb of bodyweight (or so) seems to be an optimal level as no discernable benefits were seen at higher levels.

(3) Agreed, though I would lean towards the lower end of that scale.

Songsangnim
01-21-2006, 09:02 PM
i dont think massive amounts of carbs or fats are needed either, but you gotta get cals from somewhere right? So what if I eat my extra 4-500 cals a day from protein instead of carbs? Excess carbs get stored as fat as well. Fats also. So if theres no harm in a high protein diet, why not?


No harm, just make sure you drink plenty of water.

Songsangnim
01-21-2006, 09:11 PM
It seems that more than a few people are misinterpreting my post. I am NOT saying don't eat protein or don't eat more than 1 gram per pound of bodymass.

What I AM saying is that you don't need huge amounts of protein (2-3 grams per pound of bodyweight) a day to achieve your goals (if you are natural that is). In the past (not so much recently) I've seen a few posts on here recommend 400+ grams for a sub 200lber beginner, and I think that's a tad excessive. Not necessary at all.

Once again I was merely stating that instead of being considered a bare mimimum the 1 gram per lb of bodyweight should be considered more of an optimal level, since it not only agrees with the available studies but provides a margin of safety as well.

Built
01-21-2006, 09:25 PM
How about "sufficient" rather than optimal? "Optimal" suggests less is worse, and more is also worse.

Utopianhopes
01-21-2006, 09:33 PM
How about "sufficient" rather than optimal? "Optimal" suggests less is worse, and more is also worse.

:withstupi

The way you word it can interpret differently.

Songsangnim
01-21-2006, 09:34 PM
How about "sufficient" rather than optimal? "Optimal" suggests less is worse, and more is also worse.


Sounds good. "Sufficient" it shall be.

Built
01-21-2006, 09:40 PM
That's why I generally suggest to people, when constructing a diet, to take in at least a gram of protein per pound LBM, and at least half a gram of fat per pound LBM. Anything higher is for comfort more than anything else.

ddegroff
01-21-2006, 09:50 PM
I did some more research on using amino acids for energy. Your right Built we do burn them for enrgy and the by product of this reaction is ammonia. Ammonia is toxic to the cells and our body prevents a toxic level of ammonia building up by the liver convertsing it to urea. Then we get rid of it.

Built
01-21-2006, 09:52 PM
Thanks dd.

ddegroff
01-21-2006, 09:56 PM
no problem, I will no longer qoute that nutrition teacher.

thajeepster
01-22-2006, 07:03 AM
It seems that more than a few people are misinterpreting my post. I am NOT saying don't eat protein or don't eat more than 1 gram per pound of bodymass.

What I AM saying is that you don't need huge amounts of protein (2-3 grams per pound of bodyweight) a day to achieve your goals (if you are natural that is). In the past (not so much recently) I've seen a few posts on here recommend 400+ grams for a sub 200lber beginner, and I think that's a tad excessive. Not necessary at all.

Once again I was merely stating that instead of being considered a bare mimimum the 1 gram per lb of bodyweight should be considered more of an optimal level, since it not only agrees with the available studies but provides a margin of safety as well.


yeah, im 170 and get in anywhere from 250-275g per day, never gone above 300... although i may increase a tad because im getting tired of eating all this damn rice. Fats will go up too.

Holto
01-22-2006, 02:13 PM
no problem, I will no longer qoute that nutrition teacher.

Ironically it's a good rule of thumb not to quote anybody that is actually a teacher or certified.

The most rediculous BS we hear ussually comes from PT's & Dieticians.

ddegroff
01-22-2006, 08:15 PM
just to let you know I'm a certified, I'm also working on my bachelors degree as we speak. Most of my teachers are very knowledgeable, this one was not.

Songsangnim
01-23-2006, 02:04 AM
Ironically it's a good rule of thumb not to quote anybody that is actually a teacher or certified....



Hey now, I'm a teacher! tuttut

LoneJeeper
01-24-2006, 07:48 PM
I hate to clutter up a thread this technical with my ramblings, but I'm confused.

points of confusion:

1. there's not much difference between .91g/lb and 1g/lb, but it is 18g/200lbs which turns out to be about 3 large eggs. Is that really a make-or-break amount, especially when you consider all the variables (genetics, types and quality of proteins)?

2. It was said that we both urinate excess protein (one source said that), and store excess as fat(in this thread). is there something i'm missing? or do we do both?

3. what types of protein (supplements?) were used in this study (it seems both sources referred to the same study)?

kd

thajeepster
01-24-2006, 08:12 PM
I hate to clutter up a thread this technical with my ramblings, but I'm confused.

points of confusion:

1. there's not much difference between .91g/lb and 1g/lb, but it is 18g/200lbs which turns out to be about 3 large eggs. Is that really a make-or-break amount, especially when you consider all the variables (genetics, types and quality of proteins)?

2. It was said that we both urinate excess protein (one source said that), and store excess as fat(in this thread). is there something i'm missing? or do we do both?

3. what types of protein (supplements?) were used in this study (it seems both sources referred to the same study)?

kd

uh, .91 of 200lbs is 182g not 18...

LoneJeeper
01-25-2006, 05:36 AM
the difference between the two protein loads is .09 at 200 pounds it's an 18g difference. perhaps i worded that a little oddly.

thajeepster
01-25-2006, 06:19 AM
the difference between the two protein loads is .09 at 200 pounds it's an 18g difference. perhaps i worded that a little oddly.


oh. sorry bout that.

Songsangnim
01-26-2006, 04:04 AM
I hate to clutter up a thread this technical with my ramblings, but I'm confused.

points of confusion:

1. there's not much difference between .91g/lb and 1g/lb, but it is 18g/200lbs which turns out to be about 3 large eggs. Is that really a make-or-break amount, especially when you consider all the variables (genetics, types and quality of proteins)?

2. It was said that we both urinate excess protein (one source said that), and store excess as fat(in this thread). is there something i'm missing? or do we do both?

3. what types of protein (supplements?) were used in this study (it seems both sources referred to the same study)?

kd

1. The .91g/lb was estimated to be (based on studies) sufficient for most natural athletes. So 1 g/lb would provide sufficient protein for most people plus a safety margin to cover their bases. And a person with healthy kidneys could go higher if s/he so wished although there is really no need (again according to the studies.)

2. We don't urinate excess protein. That's just a byproduct. Excess protein is stored as fat which is another reason not to eat huge amounts.

3. There's been more than one study, which one are you talking about?

LoneJeeper
01-26-2006, 06:20 AM
3. There's been more than one study, which one are you talking about?

in the two links the OP Posted, they both referred to the study by Dr Lemon, but i didn't see what protein was used. not that it really makes much of a difference I guess.

kd

Vapour Trails
01-26-2006, 03:49 PM
I've often though that some people on the board go crazy when it comes to protein intake. I recall a post by a 130 pounder eating 300 grams of protein a day, asking if it was ok, and everyone thought that was fine.

I think it all goes back to the basic prinicple of bodybuilding nutrition: If X is good, X+1 is better. However, it rarely is.

Fiverz
01-26-2006, 05:17 PM
I agree with Vapour. That principle, along with the fact that many are bulking when consuming that much protein (and not worrying about it being converted to fat - they are going to cut anyways) might contribute to large numbers. That and I have yet to see a long-term study done on people that consistently ingest 250+ g/protein a day over any extended length of time that would suggest it is unhealthy.

Songsangnim
01-26-2006, 06:55 PM
I agree with Vapour. That principle, along with the fact that many are bulking when consuming that much protein (and not worrying about it being converted to fat - they are going to cut anyways) might contribute to large numbers. That and I have yet to see a long-term study done on people that consistently ingest 250+ g/protein a day over any extended length of time that would suggest it is unhealthy.

You agree with Mr. Vapour that some people go crazy over protein intake yet you suggest that 250+ g/protein a day is fine? Mr Vapour was saying that such high intakes of protien are not necessary and you agree and disagree in the same breath?

ddegroff
01-26-2006, 09:39 PM
I agree with Vapour. That principle, along with the fact that many are bulking when consuming that much protein (and not worrying about it being converted to fat - they are going to cut anyways) might contribute to large numbers. .

Our body doesn't store protein. If you read earlier Built and I discussed what happens to excess protein. We use it for energy... So it would be the extra cals from carbs that your storeing as fat.

Alex.V
01-26-2006, 11:27 PM
Incorrect, in a way.


When protein enters the body, it can be used for a LOT of things.

The amino acids can be used to build proteins for muscle repair and building, true, but also for synthesis of too many compounds to even begin to list. However, it's safe to say that an active individual has a vastly higher nitrogen requirement, simply because of the amount of damage going on in the body. Every system is working harder, which means every system is breaking down faster, which means every system needs to synthesize more nucleic acids for division, proteins for all enzymatic activity, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on.

However, as for the fate of all the protein NOT used, it's simple. The amino group is removed, and is converted to an alpha-ketoacid, which is then eventually converted to pyruvate. It's a direct conversion, take a look at the chemistry.

If you're not familiar with pyruvate, it's also the end product of glycolysis, and can, among other things, be converted to Acetyl-CoA. From there it can enter the Kreb's cycle, and produce ATP and therefore be used as energy, or it can be used as a building block for fatty acids.

Yes, that means protein can be converted to fat.

And as far as excess nitrogen goes, excess protein will NOT increase circulating ammonia levels. The nitrogen (i.e. ammonia) is never floating free, and is instead usually carried on other molecules, like glutamate. Your system would essentially have to be severely crippled to cause these pathways to break down. In the case of kidney/liver disease, it's a good idea to avoid excess protein intake, the poor organs are already dying.

But for a healthy individual... if you gorge on protein all you're doing is creating more concentrated piss... the net metabolic effect and impact on fat storage is, at a purely biochemical level, no different from taking in sugar. Pyruvate is pyruvate, regardless of where it comes from.

Alex.V
01-26-2006, 11:29 PM
Oh, right, glycolysis.... the splitting (processing) of glucose. i.e. carbs.

Stackattack
01-27-2006, 12:00 AM
Belial is God.

Built
01-27-2006, 12:37 AM
Our body doesn't store protein. If you read earlier Built and I discussed what happens to excess protein. We use it for energy... So it would be the extra cals from carbs that your storeing as fat.



...that means protein can be converted to fat.

Which was a MUCH better explanation of what I said earlier.


We get rid of the extra by storing it as bodyfat.

Thanks Belial - you da' BOMB!

;)

greathuskie
01-27-2006, 01:05 AM
hah. i feel smarter