Sport Protein
- Thread starter Dan_UK
- Start date
Sport Fitness
Charts and online calculators suck.
If you have no idea what it is, then I'd hit up the local gym and have it tested. It's very easy to measure for an experienced trainer. He/she will use calipers to measure your skinfolds.
If you aren't carry too much fat, you can make a pretty good estimate.
If you have no idea what it is, then I'd hit up the local gym and have it tested. It's very easy to measure for an experienced trainer. He/she will use calipers to measure your skinfolds.
If you aren't carry too much fat, you can make a pretty good estimate.
I don't recall seeing your personal stats ( i.e height, weight ) or workout regimen ( cardio, weight training ) or goals ( adding mass, losing fat ) detailed on the post - having that info would help in providing some basic suggestions.
But, in the absence of that, you can still approach a sensible nutrition plan with some basic building blocks. To figure out who much you need each day in carbs, fat and protien each day, you first have to figure out how many calories you need each day to keep you at your current weight. Determining how many calories you need each day can involve so many variables I could write a 5 thousand word essay on how to determine this.
But, in the interest of KISS, use this VERY GENERAL maxim ( and take it with a grain of salt as it is an estimate only for most gym rats ) - multiply your weight by 16. So a 200 lb. guy would need 3,200 calories to stay at his current weight.. Protein:
There is an endless debate on this, but you can be pretty sure that, for most gym rats at least, if you go with 1 gram of protien per pound of bodyweight, you've easily got all your bases covered- and then some. So, for a 200 lb guy, it's 200 grams - at 4 calories per gram - is 800 protein calories coming from 200 grams of protein.
Fat:
Again, some say fat should be as high as 33% of your total daily calories, some say it can be 20% ( or lower ) - everyone has an opinion. The AMA suggests putting the MAX fat intake at no more than 30%. So, to be safe, getting 25% of your calories from fat is in the ballpark of common sense IMO.
For this example, 3,200 X 25% = 800 calories - at 9 calories per gram - is 800 fat calories coming from 88 grams of fat a day.
Carbs:
Now you can ' plug ' for how many carbs grams you need. Total of 3,200 - 800 ( protein ) - 800 ( fat ) = 1,600 calories for carbs - at 4 calories per gram - is 1,600 carb calories coming from 400 grams of carbs.
There is an endless debate on this, but you can be pretty sure that, for most gym rats at least, if you go with 1 gram of protien per pound of bodyweight, you've easily got all your bases covered- and then some. So, for a 200 lb guy, it's 200 grams - at 4 calories per gram - is 800 protein calories coming from 200 grams of protein.
Fat:
Again, some say fat should be as high as 33% of your total daily calories, some say it can be 20% ( or lower ) - everyone has an opinion. The AMA suggests putting the MAX fat intake at no more than 30%. So, to be safe, getting 25% of your calories from fat is in the ballpark of common sense IMO.
For this example, 3,200 X 25% = 800 calories - at 9 calories per gram - is 800 fat calories coming from 88 grams of fat a day.
Carbs:
Now you can ' plug ' for how many carbs grams you need. Total of 3,200 - 800 ( protein ) - 800 ( fat ) = 1,600 calories for carbs - at 4 calories per gram - is 1,600 carb calories coming from 400 grams of carbs.
Again, depending on what ' expert ' you talk to, to lose some fat you can lower your 3,200 by 500+/- calories a day or lower it by 15%+/- of your 3,200 a day. Ditto for gaining weight ( if you exercise, mostly muscle - we hope
) , lots of opinions, but bumping your 3,200 by 500+/- calories a day or bumping it by 15%+/- of your 3,200 a day is a general rule you see thrown around a lot as well. In either case - whether you aim to cut or add calories - that is the point when you can ' fine tune ' the proportion of your carb, protien, and fat intake ( i.e by % / grams ) to help meet your goals.If you want to get a very rough ' ball park ' estimate of your Lean Body Mass and Fat %, try this calculator.....
.....let us know how it turns out.
btw - a ' normal healthy ' body fat % for men is 15%+/-
My personal stats are:
Height: 5' 11''ish
Weight: 188lbs (first thing in the AM)
Workout regimen is currently a boot camp class on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday so it's a combination of cardio and resistance and some light weights/high reps. On my off days, I also try to supplement with additional pushups/crunches. I know I should be trying to do more on the off days, but it's a balance between myself and my wife trading off gym days while the other stays with our two kids.
As for the personal goal...last New Years eve I came to the realization that I was turning 40 in 2007. After years of not really taking care of myself like I should, I quit smoking and kept a relatively close watch on my diet. I've put on 15 pounds, but I'm secure in my quit and have eliminated smoking for good. So my goal is to be in the best shape of my life by the time I have my 40th birthday in September. I'd love to see the abs (I know I've got them there somewhere) and bulk up my arms/shoulders.
That's it in a nutshell-- I'm going to post some before pictures later this weekend and rehash my story for the diary as well.
Thanks all!
Height: 5' 11''ish
Weight: 188lbs (first thing in the AM)
Workout regimen is currently a boot camp class on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday so it's a combination of cardio and resistance and some light weights/high reps. On my off days, I also try to supplement with additional pushups/crunches. I know I should be trying to do more on the off days, but it's a balance between myself and my wife trading off gym days while the other stays with our two kids.
As for the personal goal...last New Years eve I came to the realization that I was turning 40 in 2007. After years of not really taking care of myself like I should, I quit smoking and kept a relatively close watch on my diet. I've put on 15 pounds, but I'm secure in my quit and have eliminated smoking for good. So my goal is to be in the best shape of my life by the time I have my 40th birthday in September. I'd love to see the abs (I know I've got them there somewhere) and bulk up my arms/shoulders.
That's it in a nutshell-- I'm going to post some before pictures later this weekend and rehash my story for the diary as well.
Thanks all!
Ironically, this is the strategy a lot of the folks peddling supplements use....they make all these claims about what their product can do, and rely primarily on anecdotal evidence and personal testimonials to support their claims...and a whole bunch of placebo effect IMO.
You seldom see their claims supported by the FDA or studies of peer-reviewed journals...why ? Because they have no proof to back up their claims.So - and i say this with all due respect - just cause you THINK something you did, " x ", resulted in " y ", isn't PROOF of anything IMO.
So - and i say this with all due respect - just cause you THINK something you did, " x ", resulted in " y ", isn't PROOF of anything IMO.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, its PROOF it worked for me, BRO (LOL). Being online on a forum, persons can claim most anything, post pictures when its not them. I asure you and the persons on this forum, this is NOT the case with me. And, if you knew me instead of just words on this forum, this would even have a hinge of doubt. With that being said, I understand your point, but I am proof, and I can proove that the picture I post, is in fact me.
Those ads on the infomercials are ALL crap, most (lol) probably didnt even use the equipment to get into shape, AND most importantly, to get the abs to show (LOL), is nearly 100% diet, and complimented with cardio .
If you look close when watching, if one can stand it and quit laughing, there are small captions on the diet, LOL. I would take advice from someone that has been there done that, then (in general) from someoen who hasn't. This was my point, and this makes sense.
I disagree, its PROOF it worked for me, BRO (LOL). Being online on a forum, persons can claim most anything, post pictures when its not them. I asure you and the persons on this forum, this is NOT the case with me. And, if you knew me instead of just words on this forum, this would even have a hinge of doubt. With that being said, I understand your point, but I am proof, and I can proove that the picture I post, is in fact me.
Those ads on the infomercials are ALL crap, most (lol) probably didnt even use the equipment to get into shape, AND most importantly, to get the abs to show (LOL), is nearly 100% diet, and complimented with cardio .
If you look close when watching, if one can stand it and quit laughing, there are small captions on the diet, LOL. I would take advice from someone that has been there done that, then (in general) from someoen who hasn't. This was my point, and this makes sense.
Last edited:
You only need about 150 grams in that case......1 g of the P's per body lb .
2 gs of the P's per body lb is just an old gym myth IMO.
For everyone who has not read all of the posts in this thread, this pretty much sums it up.
There is no way to know that based upon looking at someone's body-weight. People are different. You have to take into account training load, lean mass, ability to recover from hard workouts, as well as the basic potential to utilize protein.
When discussing protein intake as related to results it is better to err on the high side instead of the low side. Then learn more about how your body reacts to changes in protein intake. You will find where you get the most results, And you will use that amount of protein regardless of what science and other people say (since there is a huge variation in opinion)
I'm well aware of the factors you have to take into account.
But based on all the research to date, the high end for strength athletes is 0.8 grams per pound of bodyweight. However, most " rules of thumb " simply round it up to 1 gram per pound of bodyweight so most scenarios get covered off. So you CAN know what the upper limit of intake is ( based on research ) if you know nothing other bodyweight.
Well, that is why I suggested 1 gram per pound of bodyweight - that, 150 grams - is the " high side ".
No, it isn't " regardless of what science " says IMO. You rely more on science than anything else to find ways to optimize health & fitness IMO.
This is why people do scientific research - to establish what works best and what doesn't. That is how concepts like post-workout nutrition protocols, HIIT / EPOC protocols, Glycemic Indexes, muscle fibers analysis, set and reps protocols etc. etc. were validated - science.
agree to disagree
Read the literature.......there is no scientific basis to support 1.5 - to 2.0 grams as providing any additional benefit .......unless you're on steroids. Of course, my context is for most normal gym rats.
Funny thing.....most gym rats seem to think that if a moderate amount of protien is O.K. - then tons of protien must be better. This simplistic " if less is good, more is better " reasoning is flawed to say the least.
Yes it is, because science has no definitive answer. If you find something that works well, you are going to use it. It is common sense.
You can only know what the upper intake is for the average person, since that is who almost all studies are done on. Why? Because athletic people do their own research in the field and get real results. Sometimes it contradicts what science says, and that is fine.
The flaw with science is that there are no absolutes, there are always exceptions to the rule, anomalies in the research that can't be explained.
Take Lance Armstrong, He had a team of people doing research "on him" all the time to find out what would work specifically "for him." Many of the training methods that he used will not work for other people. Many of them will work for other people. There is no way to know without trying. The difference is the results of the testing were specific to one person.
Here is another example. Lets say YOU started getting 2g of protein per lb of body-weight. What if you got the best results you have ever had under those circumstances? The only way to find out is to try.
Science in the fitness field will always be guidelines. There are too many differences between individuals to know "for sure" that a certain protein intake is proper.
Even then, the sliding filament theory is a theory, Most people think that there are only Type I and Type II muscle fibers, this is only a theory. People think that you can't increase the number of muscle fibers, again, only a theory. Just like the .8 grams of protein suggestion is based upon theory.
Set and rep protocols can only be validated on an individual basis. Yes we know that heavier weight and less reps is more nervous system based and more reps and higher weight are more muscular system based. But, The application of that will be different on an individual basis, it will also be different at different times in an individuals exercise career.
We are not taking into account the speed of these lifts. Different people will have different results training at different speeds. There will never be and absolute answer.
That is my point. There is not an absolute answer. If taking in more protein the "the research says you should" gets better results than following the research, you will continue to take in higher amounts of protein.
(I am by no means telling anyone to ignore scientific research. It has been, and will continue to be a great thing that will help us get better. I just want to be clear that science is not currently producing absolute answers. My own training is based HEAVILY on science, which I use to test on myself and make changes based upon the results I get in my own training. Sometimes what I do is in line with science, other times it is not.)
"Available evidence suggests that protein requirements are not likely elevated, if they are elevated at all, by substantial amounts in persons completing exercise of either a dynamic or resistive nature. Ultimately, a debate on protein requirements appears to be moot for most athletes anyway, since their habitual intakes, particularly those of males, far exceed the RDA and even the most liberal estimates of requirement, which when estimated from existing nitrogen balance data in strength-trained athletes is ~1.3 g protein·kg–1·d–1 or ~1.1 g protein·kg–1·d–1 in endurance-trained athletes."
some other estimates:
ps. If Tipton and Wolfe dont know, noone does tbh
some other estimates:
ps. If Tipton and Wolfe dont know, noone does tbh
Is this thread ever going to die?
I said it 5 times already and it keeps being repeated. There are no conclusive studies that give us precise data. There is a lot of conflicting information out there.
If you want to stick with your .8 g/kg.... be my guest.
If you want to play it safe and go higher... be my guest.
Not only with myself, but with my clients as well, I've found a good range to be 1 - 1.5 grams.
This is per pound of TBW if you are relatively lean. This is per pound of LBM if you are a chubster.
Stick with the lower end of the range when bulking, the upper end of the range while dieting.
They are not hard set rules.... but they've worked for a wide array of populations for me. As well, I speak with a few well known strength coaches who would agree.... this range seems to cover much of the basis.
So again, we've cleared the case..... there is no set rules for this.
Do what the hell you want and let this thread die. It's been old.
I said it 5 times already and it keeps being repeated. There are no conclusive studies that give us precise data. There is a lot of conflicting information out there.
If you want to stick with your .8 g/kg.... be my guest.
If you want to play it safe and go higher... be my guest.
Not only with myself, but with my clients as well, I've found a good range to be 1 - 1.5 grams.
This is per pound of TBW if you are relatively lean. This is per pound of LBM if you are a chubster.
Stick with the lower end of the range when bulking, the upper end of the range while dieting.
They are not hard set rules.... but they've worked for a wide array of populations for me. As well, I speak with a few well known strength coaches who would agree.... this range seems to cover much of the basis.
So again, we've cleared the case..... there is no set rules for this.
Do what the hell you want and let this thread die. It's been old.
Evidence for claims can be based on controlled scientific studies subject to peer review or can be based on anecdotal evidence by users - i.e. users' subjective " opinions ". I put more faith on scientific studies and even more on the placebo effect.
Science takes subjective " opinions " out of the equation and looks at hard objective data upon which to draw conclusions and formulate theories. As for the notion of " find something that works ". Believe it or not, some gym rats out there still think " spot reducing " works. They actually think high reps leads to muscle defintion - i.e doing dozens and dozens and dozens of bicep curls will lead to defined biceps. Despite the fact science has proven this whole notion to be false, they still THINK high reps " works well ". They see ( or think they see ) their arms getting defined and will turn to their own subjective data ( their opinion ) upon which to draw conclusions .......simply confirming their pre-conceived notion that high reps leads to muscle defintion. This is the fallacy of confirmation bias IMO. In the same way as people who scarf down huge amounts of protein over the present .8 guideline simply because they THINK tons of protein means more muscle....i.e if .8 is good then 2 must be much better. It isn't based on the generally accepted protocols / guidelines supported by research....but, it is based on a pre-conceived unsubstantated notion...and number ( i.e 2 ) picked out of the air based on subjective judgements...not science.
No, the studies / recommendations are for endurance and strength athletes ( looking to add muscle ) as well as " the average person ". That is how the upper level - the 0.8 guideline - came about.
Bodybuilders are not the " average person ". Tell me, if I told you they studied the protien intake of hard-core bodybuilders and found that results from bodybuilders was part of the research that prompted them to still form the 0.8 guideline, would you have any more faith in the guideline's broad application ? Because, my recollection is, researchers Mark Tarnopolsky and Peter Lemon specifically looked at bodybuilders with respect to this protein issue and developing the guideline as to what is an " opitmal " intake amount.
Correct, and within this context, science is trying to determine the " optimal " protein intake level with respect to adding muscle - not the absolute level.
There is no anomoly in the research IMO. In fact, I suspect one of the the reason much of the research was done, in part, was due to the fact so many people believed tons of protein is needed to build bigger muscles. So, they have studied whether tons of protien has any significant impact on building muscle ( i.e well beyond 1 gram per pound of bodyweight ) - and - in doing so, have found no evidence that it does. That is my point - this whole issue of protien intake levels ( from very low to very high ) has been studied to death.
So, for example, even though science has theorized that EPOC may be the reason for enhanced fat loss from a training method like HIIT - HIIT may not work at all for Lance for fat loss ? The fundamental assumptions of science supporting EPOC or HIIT may not apply to him ? And, they may also not apply to 50% , 75% of the target population ? You're saying we can't ever make generalizations about any conclusions derived from studies because everyone is different ? If that is the case, what is the point of research if we can't make inferences about findings ?
Its anecdotal evidence only - it proves nothing - that is my point. It is the same evidence that companies who hawk scam muscle-building supplements use....these companies claim their stuff works.......not because of FDA validation or evidence found in peer reviewed journals........but rather, based on questionable " in house " studies or anecdotal evidence.
If the theory is that ( generally speaking ) 2 grams of protein per body weight results in more muscle than 1 gram of protein per body - that specific level likely has already been examined by a study to attempt to validate the claim. I would have to go back and re-visit the exact studies, but I suspect doses close to 2 grams per pound were among those levels evaluated. We know that excess protein simply gets stored as fat or discarded by the body and we know that mucle gains are easy to measure. And so far, given we know these things can be tested for, (for non-steroid trainees at least ) ...there is no evidence to suggest 2 grams of protein per body weight results in more significant muscle than 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight.
Correct. The " guideline " is that there is no need to consume more than 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. There is no evidence to suggest any significant added benefit. As for " differences between individuals " , anytime recommendations are made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The American College of Sports Medicine, The American Council on Exercise, The American Heart Association, The American Dietetic Association etc. etc. they are still made with full acknowledgement that differences exist among the population or they specify populations.
Correct. A theory supported by rigorous study and supported by objective evidence.
Correct. We know that guideline because SCIENCE has established it as a valid one - you just made my point . Thanks.
Also, suggesting the " application of that will be different on an individual basis " isn't a sufficient basis by which to invalidate a guideline.
Correct..the guidelines only suggest what is " optimal " protien intakes for added muscle mass - it isn't about absolute intake levels.
As for " higher amounts " - you don't know if the protien is the reason for the results you think you're getting - that is my point. Claiming something is " so " without being able to explain " why " it is so is simply leaning more towards correlation than direct causation. So, if a trainer's clients say ( or so they claim ) they take 2 grams of protien and they put on muscle...perhaps they would have put on about the same muscle with only 1.0 grams or .8 grams.
True, science can determine what is " optimal " - not absolute.
So, in terms of " opitmal " can I assume you also question HIIT, rep speed, insulin response, pre, during & post-workout nutrition etc. etc. theories, various American Council on Exercise positions etc. etc. to the same extent you have reservations - which it is clear you do - about max protien intake guidelines ? Because the same stringent generic scientific protocols are used to study and develop theories in these areas as they are for research into protein consumption.
And on the issue of " absolutes " .....do you think science has the ability to delclare a claim a " myth " or not - can science make absolute claims something is a " myth " ?
But, when all is said and done, you THINK that more than 1 gram of protien may be valid in terms of being " optimum" - and that, in the end ( whether it is supported by science or not ) is all that counts. You simply THINK it may be valid. So, stroutman81 is right ...some of us seem to disagree as to whether the jury is still out on this ' max protein needed ' issue or not....you do, I don't happen to think it is.
Let's just agree to disagree on this topic, leave it at that, and move on .
Last edited: