Hello i'm just wondering what is the correct amount of Protein that a person should consume? Some people say 1g per pound of body weight, others say 1.25g, others say 2g... and i want to know the recomended amount that i need, i just want to have a transformation this summer, big one so when i go to school next year everyone would fall of their chairs ;) :lol:

I'll tell you what my routine, diet and everything is going to be this monday, so you guys can critique and give some advices.

Regards,
Julian Gallardo ;)

It varies for everybody. I've had good results from as little as 1g per lb up to 2g per lb. Burn more calories than you take in,eat clean and the rest will take care of itself.

Jason

Based on a 2,000 or even 2,500 kcal diet, most nutritionist would advice up to 60 grams of protein daily. Yup, just 60 grams! But then the all mighty bodybuilders would criticize, "Yeah, that's all of the amount of the protein you'll need to live, not to build muscle! So, it seems that most bodybuilder's and magazines are referring to the community that protein is the one responsible for building muscles. Well the truth is, it's just part of the muscle building process. But one thing is for sure though, protein calories are calories that are very difficult to be converted into bodyfat, and the metabolism process takes 30-40% of the calories.

Bottomline, protein intake can range from 60 grams, up to 2 grams per lbs bodyweight. But IMO, 1 gram per lbs of bodyweight works best on cutting and 1 gram per kg of bodyweight while maintaining. But hey, that's just me!

For me, I've found that just over 1g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight is optimal for sticking to a balanced healthy diet and for meeting my daily nutrient requirements (which are mostly from carbs like fruits and vegetables). In my opinion, that amount is sufficient for cutting OR bulking, though I can't say if it's OPTIMAL or not.

I think that you should look at your protein intake as a percentage of total calories rather than grams per pound/kg of bodyweight. I think the number of grams should have to do with how much food you're eating, so a percentage is a better measure. I'm not really sure what "ideal" intake is though. I do know that 60g is far too low for anyone (10% of calories on 2400 cal a day) with any kind of fitness goals.

I think that you should look at your protein intake as a percentage of total calories rather than grams per pound/kg of bodyweight. I think the number of grams should have to do with how much food you're eating, so a percentage is a better measure. I'm not really sure what "ideal" intake is though. I do know that 60g is far too low for anyone (10% of calories on 2400 cal a day) with any kind of fitness goals.

Yes, that's true. It makes more sense to look at protein intake as a proportion of calories. From the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter3.htm)

When it comes to body weight control, it is calories that count—not the proportions of fat, carbohydrates, and protein in the diet. However, when individuals are losing weight, they should follow a diet that is within the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) for fat, carbohydrates, and protein, which are 20 to 35 percent of total calories, 45 to 65 percent of total calories, and 10 to 35 percent of total calories, respectively.

10% of protein IS sufficient, in my opinion and theirs. :tu:

Yes, but we want our bodies to run optimally. Do we want our bodies to run like the federal government? I don't think so.

Here's a great article on the debate:

The Protein Prejudice (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/proprejudice.htm)

I think he makes some pretty convincing, documented arguments for a higher protein diet.


By the way, that same article that you link to uses BMI as a determining factor for obesity. I think we all know that that system is bunk. I think there are some big boys even on this forum who would be considered obese on that chart at 10%bf. You can't trust what the gov't has to say about nutrition. They are FAR from the leading sports nutrition research. They are trying to keep Aunt Suzie from stuffing one more big mac in her mouth and get her to go for a walk, not explain dietary needs to an athlete.


Yes, that's true. It makes more sense to look at protein intake as a proportion of calories. From the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter3.htm)

When it comes to body weight control, it is calories that count—not the proportions of fat, carbohydrates, and protein in the diet. However, when individuals are losing weight, they should follow a diet that is within the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) for fat, carbohydrates, and protein, which are 20 to 35 percent of total calories, 45 to 65 percent of total calories, and 10 to 35 percent of total calories, respectively.

10% of protein IS sufficient, in my opinion and theirs. :tu:

Yes, that's true. It makes more sense to look at protein intake as a proportion of calories. From the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/chapter3.htm)

When it comes to body weight control, it is calories that count—not the proportions of fat, carbohydrates, and protein in the diet. However, when individuals are losing weight, they should follow a diet that is within the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) for fat, carbohydrates, and protein, which are 20 to 35 percent of total calories, 45 to 65 percent of total calories, and 10 to 35 percent of total calories, respectively.

10% of protein IS sufficient, in my opinion and theirs. :tu:

You can keep eating 10% of your calories from protein, but I know that's too little for me. I don't know exactly how much is optimal, but I know that for me to keep getting stronger and gaining muscle I need a lot for than 10%. Remember if the range is 10%, they say that is the MINIMUM that you should be consuming, so the optimal amount is probably higher. And these are standards for a sedentary person, whose muscles don't go under as much stress as someone under a serious training program. I don't know if you read that article, but I just did, and it definitely made some good points. Like I said, I'm no expert, but I know I wouldn't be accomplishing anything from a training perspective if only 10% of my calories were coming from protein.
Do we want our bodies to run like the federal government?
Haha, that made me laugh. :lol:

I think that you should look at your protein intake as a percentage of total calories rather than grams per pound/kg of bodyweight. I think the number of grams should have to do with how much food you're eating, so a percentage is a better measure. I'm not really sure what "ideal" intake is though. I do know that 60g is far too low for anyone (10% of calories on 2400 cal a day) with any kind of fitness goals.


I couldn't disagree more. Your body needs grams of protein not percentages. Once you have enough then if you need more calories because you are active, it would be better to get them from carbs. On a super low calorie diet you will need a higher percentage of calories from protein than a super high calorie diet.

This is why bulking diets are often only 25-30% protein; where as cutting diets are 40-50% protein. Even though the person may be eating more protein on the bulking diet, the percentage might be lower.

Same goes for fats – you need a certain amount in grams for your weight, independent of your calorie intake.

That’s why I dislike it when people say they are on 40/40/20 or whatever without giving the total calories it is meaningless. What’s important are the g/lb bodyweight.


60g is not far too low for anyone. 0.5g-0.8g/lb is enough to build muscle, although it may not result in optimum body composition for everyone because it makes it more difficult to keep calories under control. For a 110 lb person eating 1200-1400kcal/day it would be plenty although many (including myself) would recommend more.

But one thing is for sure though, protein calories are calories that are very difficult to be converted into bodyfat, and the metabolism process takes 30-40% of the calories

and thats why 10 is way to low...with just 10% that means your carbs are gonna b somewhere around 60-70%
i think 40/40/20 is a much better way go about it
and if anything keep protein higher than carbs specifically on days in which your not weight training

Here's a great article on the debate:

The Protein Prejudice (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/proprejudice.htm)

I think he makes some pretty convincing, documented arguments for a higher protein diet.

His arguments are not convincing. The articles he references have completely different amounts of protein than what he personally recommends.

He has supporting information about why 0.65 g of protein per kilogram of body weight may not be optimal, but no supporting information as to why you should bump it up past say, 1g per kilogram of body weight.

Reduction in Cardiovascular Risk — Several studies have shown that increasing the percentage of protein in the diet (from 11% to 23%) while decreasing the percentage of carbohydrate (from 63% to 48%) lowers LDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations with concomitant increases in HDL cholesterol concentrations.
No studies were quoted on the effects of increasing protein up to 40% of calories, or to 2.0 g per kg of bodyweight. That means either he couldn't find any, or they showed a negative impact on cardiovascular health. If you google "reduce cardiovascular disease diet" the major recommendations are to reduce fat intake and to increase fruit, vegetable, and whole grain consumption (ie. carbs)

"Improved Weight-Loss Profile — Brand spankin' new research by Layman and colleagues has demonstrated that reducing the carbohydrate ratio from 3.5 - 1 to 1.4 - 1 increases body fat loss, spares muscle mass, reduces triglyceride concentrations, improves satiety, and improves blood glucose management."
Why doesn't he recommend the amount from the study, if he's so impressed with the results? I have difficulty imagining how a person can cut while eating 2.0 g of protein per kg of body weight, plus 2.8 g of carbohydrates per kilogram of bodyweight.

Since a high protein diet can lead to a better health profile, an increased metabolism, improved body composition, and an improved training response, why would anyone ever try to limit their protein intake to the bare minimum necessary to stave off malnutrition?

For me, it's because a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is healthier for my body than a high protein diet. It's also the one I find most satisfying taste-wise and fullness-wise.

I still trust the government's protein recommendations, over those ofsomeone who makes a living formulating and marketing supplements. (http://www.johnberardi.com/about/jb.htm) His nutrition background is really not all that strong.

UK and Australia Ultra Fit Magazine run a story on Protein intake, and particularly timing. It is a university driven article whereby they made a radioactive cow, so the Whey and Casein they made afterwards could be seen in the body.

Anyway, the max a human body could ever consume is 4g every 20mins, 12g per hour, or 240g per day - that's for a normal human being.

Apparently at any one time in your blood stream you only have 5g of protein floating around. It makes a mockery of all these protein shakes, since they were able to show most of it goes straight to the liver (if whey) and put into glucose. Casein is better from a protein shake perspective, but whey wins if you drip feed.

So coming back to your how many grams per day, the reality is about 1.5g per Kg of LBM per day is good enough, unless wanting to really bulk, then drip feed it in as above.

Good Luck

Correct for what? Correct for health? Correct to lose fat? Correct to gain muscle? Correct to recover from endurance training?

There's a lot of factors that play in. The research supports anywhere from 0.8 - 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight if your goal is to gain or retain muscle mass (that's 0.36 - 0.73 per pound, so if you weigh 200, that's 72 to 146 grams per day).

Why the big range? At the upper end are elite soccer athletes who train intensely for hours per day, and at the lower end are sedentary individuals.

Jeremy

Hello i'm just wondering what is the correct amount of Protein that a person should consume? Some people say 1g per pound of body weight, others say 1.25g, others say 2g... and i want to know the recomended amount that i need, i just want to have a transformation this summer, big one so when i go to school next year everyone would fall of their chairs ;) :lol:

I'll tell you what my routine, diet and everything is going to be this monday, so you guys can critique and give some advices.

Regards,
Julian Gallardo ;)

I couldn't disagree more. Your body needs grams of protein not percentages. Once you have enough then if you need more calories because you are active, it would be better to get them from carbs. On a super low calorie diet you will need a higher percentage of calories from protein than a super high calorie diet.

This is why bulking diets are often only 25-30% protein; where as cutting diets are 40-50% protein. Even though the person may be eating more protein on the bulking diet, the percentage might be lower.

Same goes for fats – you need a certain amount in grams for your weight, independent of your calorie intake.

That’s why I dislike it when people say they are on 40/40/20 or whatever without giving the total calories it is meaningless. What’s important are the g/lb bodyweight.


60g is not far too low for anyone. 0.5g-0.8g/lb is enough to build muscle, although it may not result in optimum body composition for everyone because it makes it more difficult to keep calories under control. For a 110 lb person eating 1200-1400kcal/day it would be plenty although many (including myself) would recommend more.

Okay, I guess what you're saying makes sense. Let me try to explain myself. When I say I'd rather look at the macro ratios (i.e. the percentage of protein), I mean I'd rather look at them in conjunction with total calories consumed. So, saying 50% on a 1500 calorie cutting diet or 35% on a 2500 calorie bulking diet does look at the grams you are consuming, although indirectly. Obviously, 50% of 1500 is 750, which translates to 187.5g of protein, and the same can be done for any diet. The reason I'm saying I'd rather look at percentages is because once you know how much food you are consuming, it's easier to see how much of it is coming from protein than just counting the grams. I agree that you SHOULD take into account total calories, because without that, the ratios are meaningless. I guess I just feel like the ratios make more sense when looking at your diet, as long as (of course) total calories come into play.

Also, when I said 60g is too low for anyone, yes, I was overgeneralizing. In some cases, like in the case of a very small person who is not trying to gain muscle, it would be fine. However, even in the 110 lb. person, if they wanted to build muscle and increased intake to 1700-1900 calories a day, 60g would not be enough, even for the same person. Although this is well within the range of .5-.8 g/lb. of their bodyweight, this is only around 13% of their calories from protein. I disagree with the statement that it would be sufficient to build muscle. You stated that you WOULD recommend more than 60g for this person, however you also that that .5-.8g/lb. of bodyweight would be sufficient for muscle gain.

I have difficulty imagining how a person can cut while eating 2.0 g of protein per kg of body weight, plus 2.8 g of carbohydrates per kilogram of bodyweight.

Why? Did you even consider those numbers? Look at this please. (I converted kg to lbs. so I could think about this better.)

2kg / 2.2 = .9 g/lb protein
2.8kg / 2.2 = 1 g/lb carbs

150 * .9 = 135 * 4 = 540 calories
150 * 1 = 150 * 4 = 600 calories
540 + 600 = 1140 calories

It's definitely possible for a 150 lb. person to cut with 1140 calories coming from carbs and protein combined. Even with many more calories included for fat consumption, it is still easily possible for this person to lose weight. Also, you need to remember that the g/lb. of bodyweight numbers are as meaningless as the percentages without total calories. These numbers do not take into consideration the lifestyle and level of activity of this person, which could easily push the need for calories, and therefore g/lb. of protein and carbs much higher than .9 and 1, even on a cutting diet.

For me, it's because a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is healthier for my body than a high protein diet. It's also the one I find most satisfying taste-wise and fullness-wise.

I still trust the government's protein recommendations, over those ofsomeone who makes a living formulating and marketing supplements. (http://www.johnberardi.com/about/jb.htm) His nutrition background is really not all that strong.


Keep reading his site. He makes clear that he has some bias due to his career, but he advocates eating plenty of fruits, vegetables, and good, whole grains. He is far from being influenced by the politics that run like wildfire in gov't agencies. This is the same government whose FDA botched the vioxx scandal, the same usda who released a terrible new version of the food pyramid, and the same one who continues to subsidize (aka pay for huge marketting campaigns by the lobbyists) the soy, dairy, and cattle industry.

Like I said before, the USDA is not interested in serving the elite , nor amateur athlete, with their recommendations.

Read more about the protein debate here, this time giving both sides, including lots of footnotes:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=C5E91F30EF5425C2FF9267D5FB 7FDC38.hydra?id=615251

Keep reading his site. He makes clear that he has some bias due to his career, but he advocates eating plenty of fruits, vegetables, and good, whole grains.


Yeah, getting enough/optimal protein doesn't mean you can't eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It's definitely possible, and better, to do both.

Here's the thing. Protein in this day and age need not come with a lot of fat. Fat free cottage cheese, low fat cottage cheese, lean meats, some protein powder blend, preferably with micellar casein and much more are low-fat protein sources. There are plenty of studies to show that replacing saturated and trans fat with carbohydrates lowers LDL and HDL (decent) BUT replacing it with UNsaturated fat lowers LDL and RAISES HDL. Much better. (I'll try to find the studies-I have seen them. In my evolutinoary anthro class among other places. Incidentally, the diet recommended there was 50% carbs, 25-30% fat focusing on unsaturated fat and 20-25% protein). So a diet moderate in protein, healthy fats, and carbohydrates is optimal in my opinion. There's no reason why higher protein diets need crowd out carbs either. There's still plenty of room to eat an adequate amount of fruits and vegetables to get all the micronutrients and benefits. As far as grains go, I haven't seen many studies showing them to be beneficial to the extent fruit and veggies are. Fruits and vegetables are MUCH more important to promoting good health. Grains are good because they provide energy and can help keep you satiated, but there's misconceptions as to how much are actually necessary. This even applies to the running community. At one point, it was thought that elite runners would do best on up to a whopping 70-75% carbs diet. In fact, the tide is turning, and a much more balanced diet with more protein and more healthy fats are is being adopted and recommend by nutritionist who work with top endurance athletes. As far as difficulty believing cutting possible with higher protein amounts, why?

His arguments are not convincing. The articles he references have completely different amounts of protein than what he personally recommends.

He has supporting information about why 0.65 g of protein per kilogram of body weight may not be optimal, but no supporting information as to why you should bump it up past say, 1g per kilogram of body weight.

Reduction in Cardiovascular Risk — Several studies have shown that increasing the percentage of protein in the diet (from 11% to 23%) while decreasing the percentage of carbohydrate (from 63% to 48%) lowers LDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations with concomitant increases in HDL cholesterol concentrations.
No studies were quoted on the effects of increasing protein up to 40% of calories, or to 2.0 g per kg of bodyweight. That means either he couldn't find any, or they showed a negative impact on cardiovascular health. If you google "reduce cardiovascular disease diet" the major recommendations are to reduce fat intake and to increase fruit, vegetable, and whole grain consumption (ie. carbs)

"Improved Weight-Loss Profile — Brand spankin' new research by Layman and colleagues has demonstrated that reducing the carbohydrate ratio from 3.5 - 1 to 1.4 - 1 increases body fat loss, spares muscle mass, reduces triglyceride concentrations, improves satiety, and improves blood glucose management."
Why doesn't he recommend the amount from the study, if he's so impressed with the results? I have difficulty imagining how a person can cut while eating 2.0 g of protein per kg of body weight, plus 2.8 g of carbohydrates per kilogram of bodyweight.

Since a high protein diet can lead to a better health profile, an increased metabolism, improved body composition, and an improved training response, why would anyone ever try to limit their protein intake to the bare minimum necessary to stave off malnutrition?

For me, it's because a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is healthier for my body than a high protein diet. It's also the one I find most satisfying taste-wise and fullness-wise.

I still trust the government's protein recommendations, over those ofsomeone who makes a living formulating and marketing supplements. (http://www.johnberardi.com/about/jb.htm) His nutrition background is really not all that strong.

Yeah, getting enough/optimal protein doesn't mean you can't eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It's definitely possible, and better, to do both.

This is what I think. For weight maintenance and good health, a good amount of fruits, vegatable, and whole grains should be consumed. When cutting, I cut calories of course and a proportionally higher amount comes from 'fluff' whole grains (not eliminating them). When bulking, I add both protein and carbs, usually a proportionally higher amount of carbs because my maintenance level of lean protein is fairly high. It's also important to get enough fat at all times.

Why? Did you even consider those numbers? Look at this please. (I converted kg to lbs. so I could think about this better.)

2kg / 2.2 = .9 g/lb protein
2.8kg / 2.2 = 1 g/lb carbs

150 * .9 = 135 * 4 = 540 calories
150 * 1 = 150 * 4 = 600 calories
540 + 600 = 1140 calories

It's definitely possible for a 150 lb. person to cut with 1140 calories coming from carbs and protein combined. Even with many more calories included for fat consumption, it is still easily possible for this person to lose weight. Also, you need to remember that the g/lb. of bodyweight numbers are as meaningless as the percentages without total calories. These numbers do not take into consideration the lifestyle and level of activity of this person, which could easily push the need for calories, and therefore g/lb. of protein and carbs much higher than .9 and 1, even on a cutting diet.

Okay, I'll consider the numbers. I couldn't follow your math. I got different answers for a 150 pound person.

545.4 calories from protein
763.6 calories from carbohydrates
for a combined total of
1309 calories

If we assume a standard 10x body weight formula for cutting, that leaves 191 calories or 21 g of fat. You're right, it's possible, especially if the person is cutting at a higher caloric level than that.

Okay, I'll consider the numbers. I couldn't follow your math. I got different answers for a 150 pound person.

545.4 calories from protein
763.6 calories from carbohydrates
for a combined total of
1309 calories

If we assume a standard 10x body weight formula for cutting, that leaves 191 calories or 21 g of fat. You're right, it's possible, especially if the person is cutting at a higher caloric level than that.

Oh, now that I look at it 2.8/2.2 is definitely not 1. So, yeah it's actually 762 cals from carbs, you were closer. We are off by a few calories, but close enough. I guess you could cut at 10x bodyweight, I don't know if that's what most people do, but for me, that would probably be a little low. I weigh 165, and if I went on a cut, I think I'd take in a little more than 1650 calories (Not a ton more, a few hundred). But I'm not sure, as I haven't done this yet, and I'd have to see what works best.

Either way, the point is, those numbers really weren't that far away from being realistic values for somebody's cutting plan.

Read more about the protein debate here, this time giving both sides, including lots of footnotes:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=C5E91F30EF5425C2FF9267D5FB 7FDC38.hydra?id=615251
:D I much enjoyed this. Thank-you.

Dr. Berardi admits that he intended that article "The Protein Prejudice" to be read by simple uneducated bodybuilders, and therefore, he felt he had license to make stuff up. :lol:

"This was published on a site targeted to lay readers without the scientific training we have and are more interested in, if you will, applied nutrition. As a result, the article wasn't intended to be an exhaustive review of the literature. I feel that I do have free rein to take the literature that's available and make a few speculative leaps at some things beyond what the literature tells us explicitly. In this sense, without the ability of science to demonstrate verisimilitude, my speculations are just that — my best guesses."

He sounds pretty defensive, and quite embarrassed to have been "busted". I'll stick with his ultimate admission about half way down the page "..with the current literature there's very little evidence as to what is the optimal intake."

I do admire his ongoing experiments with athletes, but I think it's sad that he fails to establish a lower-protein control group so that he can measure whether results are in fact due to manipulation in protein amount, or to some other factor. Infield studies are not without merit, but lab studies are still much more reliable.

I got a chuckle from Dr. Phillips observation near the end
Hence, once you've started eating "high" protein you'd better continue doing it, because suddenly downshifting to lower protein would result in degradation of that protein — higher peaks of protein synthesis maybe, but lower valleys when not eating or when consuming lower than your body is set up to process (this is theoretical but does have some experimental support). Berardi's loving this. $$$supplements$$$ :cool: