I've been reading here as well as many body building/weight loss sites that having high protein in your diet when cutting is important, however I've also been reading endurance training books (cardio) and they seem to think the complete opposite:

"The problem is, science has shown that consuming above .9 grams of protein per pound per day has no additional benefits. You can convert some of teh excess to glycogen in the liver, and much of the rest is converted to fat for storage. Oversupplementation with protein is a waste of money." - Chris Carmichael in Food for Fitness

So the question is why are there different stories behind this and which is correct?

First of all, Chris Carmichael and Chris Bodybuilder have different goals and should eat and train differently. :)

Many people might overdo protein consumption, but .9 per pound is pretty low IMHO.

Enjoy your research, you will not find an answer to this question. The key here is to experiment for yourself or hire someone and trust what he/she tells you to do. I've seen great physiques built from all sorts of amounts of proteins/carbs/fats.

I agree with 1FastGTX. Everyone is different so you may have to do a little trial and error to see what is best for you. I've found that lower amounts of protein powder as a supplement works best for me along with whole food proteins. I felt and looked bloated when I was consuming high amounts of protein powder, plus I carried alot of extra weight, but that's just me. If I weighed a buck and a quarter and was 20 years younger, my requirements might be quite different.

So the question is why are there different stories behind this and which is correct?
Yes, there are different theories. None is correct.
http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=14740
http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=17001&
http://www.indoorclimbing.com/Protein_Requirement.html
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Protein.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ergo.html
http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/proprejudice.htm
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=615251

For me, anything more than 100 grams of protein per day is a waste of money. But it might not be for you. Hard to say.

The claims of the bodybuilding supplementation industry regarding protein have blown the needle off my bullshitometer since MetRx ran around screaming that Metamoysn compensated for protein loss in burn victims and could benefit you for that reason. :rolleyes:

Personal experience has convinced me that my body processes protein calories more slowly than carbohydrates. If I fuel up on protein I don't burn through the fuel as quickly and feel better/satiated for a longer duration. For that reason alone it's worth it to me to skyrocket my protein levels when cutting.

For supplementation I can't really think of anything that's going to give me the protein-per-dollar that whey provides...at least when you take into account the volume I'd need to consume.

It's also an excellent reason to convince yourself you need to eat steak and eggs. :D :tu:

I used to take a protein powder from Shaklee that made me not get DOMS. When I move back to a workout that gives me DOMS, you bet your butt I'll be using a supplement like that again. Right now I'm on a "Real food" kick, so I get all my protein from red meat and cottage cheese.

Yes, there are different theories. None is correct. It's not that none is correct, but rather the studies do not conclusively identify which is correct, accounting for differences in training and goals and genetics.

I aim for nearly a gram per lb of bodyweight a day, but that's kind of an arbitrary number I chose years ago.

Right now I'm on a "Real food" kick, so I get all my protein from red meat and cottage cheese.

Beware the ingredients of dog food! ;)

:gl:

"The problem is, science has shown that consuming above .9 grams of protein per pound per day has no additional benefits. You can convert some of teh excess to glycogen in the liver, and much of the rest is converted to fat for storage. Oversupplementation with protein is a waste of money." - Chris Carmichael in Food for Fitness

This is a very poor argument, because:

1. Excess calories (i.e. those not used for energy or other purposes) are eventually stored as fat, regardless of the mix of proteins, carbs and fats in the diet. This has nothing special to do with it being a high- or low-protein diet.

2. Some people on a high-protein diet have a large excess of unused calories, and some don't. The same is true of those on low-protein diets. A calorie surplus occurs not because of a high proportion of the calories coming from protein (or from carbs, or from fats), but rather because the total calories consumed exceeds those used. (It might be noted, in fact, that many studies show that people with high fat intakes are more likely to overeat. Many people, myself included, find that getting a lot of the daily calories from protein reduces the tendency to overeat, and hence makes an unintended calorie surplus less likely.)

BY the way, although the original quote didn't actually address the very question cited in the title - namely whether extra protein is a waste of money - I shall tackle that by saying that supplemental protein in the form of whey protein powder is very cheap, calorie for calorie. In my regular diet, for example, only canned tuna works out slightly cheaper per calorie of protein.

Protein supplements enable you to eat more cheaply and conveniently, while increasing the variety of protein sources - all things which lead me to consider it exceptional value for money.

I agree very much with Philph and 1Fast GTX.

It really all comes down to your body and also how you train. Lots of protien for a bodybuilder? Yes. Lots of protein for a powerlifter? Sure. Lots of protein for someone who just wants to get really skinny or be a marathon runner or whatever else? Not necessary.

Similarly, you'll find that the amount and type of carbohydrates that athletes consume varies greatly depending on their type of training. It's no different than with protein. Some approaches are better than others depending on your goals. What causes problems is when people make blanket statements that seem like they're intended to apply to everyone.

Guava seems to be one of those people that sticks close to the minimum amount of protein that one needs. This seems to work for her, most likely due to the fact that she doesn't seem to want to be as "swole" as many of us here.

Personally I get at least 150g a day, usually closer to 200g on training days.

Guava seems to be one of those people that sticks close to the minimum amount of protein that one needs. This seems to work for her, most likely due to the fact that she doesn't seem to want to be as "swole" as many of us here.
Actually, I eat more than twice recommended daily minimum amount of protein. From the links above:
Protein requirements (http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Protein.html)
40 grams/day for females
55-70 grams/day or 0.8 grams/kg body weight for males

0.8 x 53 kg =42 grams per day. I aim for 80 to 100.
The world health organization (http://www.indoorclimbing.com/Protein_Requirement.html)and many national health agencies have independently conducted studies, which (even though they differ slightly) all conclude our daily protein requirement should be between 10% to 15% of our daily caloric intake.

I aim for 20 to 25% of my calories from protein.

But I know what you mean. I'm not trying to look like a bodybuilder, so my guidelines wouldn't necessarily apply to everyone here. However, I've had no problem reaching an "athletic" style physique on this diet, which is similar to what many people here are aiming for.

I don't think under 160 gms of protein a day will have adverse effects in anyone without kidney disease. When you start exceeding that amount, it begins to be overkill. You should be putting those calories into carbs or fat. A scoop of whey contains a little over 20 gms of protein, mixed with water it provides about 110 calories. It is easy, can taste good and about anyone should be able to fit it into your diet.

BTW: A pound of fat contains 3500 calories, a pound of muscle contains 660 calories. Muscle is 72% water, fat is 14% water. Drink water.:tucool:

All i know is that i'm the leanest i've ever been and i eat a very high protein diet with veggies and fruit. I only eat starchy carbs after a training session.

t has been shown that the protein requirements for athletes may well exceed that suggested by the (USRDA) .80 g/kg/day. If an individuals protein requirement increases in response to exercise, then changes in protein metabolism will become apparent. When the body is in a homeostatic state, protein synthesis is equal to protein degradation and the protein requirement of the body for tissue maintenance is satisfied. The most common way to detect changes in protein metabolism is to assess nitrogen balance of the body.

Positive nitrogen balance occurs when the total nitrogen excreted in the urine, feces and sweat is less than the total nitrogen ingested. Positive nitrogen balance must exist for new tissue to be synthesized. When dietary protein intake or total energy intake is inadequate to maintain tissues total nitrogen balance, negative nitrogen balance occurs and new tissue is unable to be synthesized. When the body is in nitrogen balance, protein and energy intake is sufficient to maintain tissue protein needs and the amounts of nitrogen entering and exiting the body are equal.

The results of nitrogen balance studies on endurance athletes indicates that these athletes have protein requirements that exceed the USRDA of 0.8 g/kg/day. A study found that endurance athletes (defined as training for at least 12 hours per week for at least 5 years) require 1.37 g/kg/day of protein to maintain nitrogen balance compared to 0.73 g/kg/day for sedentary individuals.

It appears that weight training can also lead to a daily protein requirement that exceeds the current USRDA. It has been found that 2.0 to 2.2 g/kg/day of protein was barely sufficient to maintain nitrogen balance during moderate intensity weight training. Furthermore, weightlifter's protein requirements increased proportionally to training intensity. Research has shown that 2.0 to 2.6 g/kg/day of protein are required for periods of very intense weight training, whereas protein intakes of 2.0 g/kg/day maintained a positive nitrogen balance during periods of less intense weight training.

It is clear that athletes need to consume more protein than the current USRDA for 0.8 g/kg/day in order to maintain nitrogen balance. Conversely, since the requirements of carbohydrates, and overall calories also increase with physical activity, the recommended proportion of calories from protein does not change significantly. With a calorie sufficient diet, protein requirement values needed to maintain positive nitrogen balance of both weight trained and endurance trained athletes constitutes intakes of 12% to 20% of total daily calories.

Wow, this is from the same link that Guava posted suggesting that women just needed 40g of protein per day.

The numbers she quoted were for the minimums recommended for sedentary individuals, not athletes. The section above makes it very clear that athletes definitely need more protein, but then makes the somewhat ludicrous statement that the percentage of protein in their diet should be the same. If I ate as much protein as I do now but it was only 15% of my total calories I would balloon up like the Stay-Puft marshmallow man.

It goes on to explain how people that ate a higher percentage of protein in their diets lost more weight than those who did not, yet they never bothered to test anything beyond 25% of total calories. This is hardly a scientific basis for saying that that is all you need. They showed a consistent increase in weight loss in proportion to protein intake, so it would have made sense to study it further and see where the curve levelled off and diminishing returns set in.

Overall everything I read that was posted there was riddled with assumptions about people's physical or fitness goals, and then broad and sweeping conclusions get drawn from that inherently flawed premise.

The amount of protein needed for the average sedentary individual not to get sick and that needed to look your best or perform your best in athletic endeavors is not the same thing.

Intense training increases one's need for protein. You can certainly get this protein from food but you run the risk of consuming excess calories in doing so and therefore adding excess body fat.

The point of protein SUPPLEMENTATION is to SUPPLEMENT your diet with a quality protein source. If you are seeking a lean physique then that protein supplement should be a protein-only product. If you are seeking to gain weight or use a liquid meal to augment your daily diet then you can use a protein product with additional carbs and fats (an MRP).

The section above makes it very clear that athletes definitely need more protein, but then makes the somewhat ludicrous statement that the percentage of protein in their diet should be the same.
There's a lot of big words in there. I might be wrong, but here's how I understand it:

I think what they say is that athletes need more protein, and they ALSO need more carbohydrates and fats, simplly because they are burning more calories. Sounds like that might be what they are talking about with weight trainers too. The "very intense" weight trainers might be assumed to be on a caloric surplus, and the "less intense" weight trainers are at maintence calories.
If I ate as much protein as I do now but it was only 15% of my total calories I would balloon up like the Stay-Puft marshmallow man.
Are you eating the amount they recommend for less intense weight training (2.0 g/kg of body weight)?

It goes on to explain how people that ate a higher percentage of protein in their diets lost more weight than those who did not, yet they never bothered to test anything beyond 25% of total calories. This is hardly a scientific basis for saying that that is all you need. They showed a consistent increase in weight loss in proportion to protein intake, so it would have made sense to study it further and see where the curve levelled off and diminishing returns set in.
I completely agree.

Here's a link that shows that 30% of calories from protein is preferable in a fat loss diet to 15% of calories from protein (http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=61474-protein-weight-loss). They didn't test amounts beyond that or amounts between that. Each diet had the same 50% of calories from carbohydrates, but the higher protein diet restricted fat intake to 20%, and the lower protein diet kept fat intake at 35% of calories, so one could just as easily say based on these results that a lower fat diet results in more fat loss. :confused:

I'd like to see similar studies.

Each diet had the same 50% of calories from carbohydrates, but the higher protein diet restricted fat intake to 20%, and the lower protein diet kept fat intake at 35% of calories, so one could just as easily say based on these results that a lower fat diet results in more fat loss.

Fat has 9 calories to the gram, carbs and protein have 4. That is only thing I can easily say. Therefore you need to take those facts into account when planning a diet. On a calorie restrictive diet, the lower the fat quantities the higher the carb and protein values can be raised for satiety. I can get twice as much gram wise in the other two than I could in fat.

But I would never stretch it to say that fat causes more or less fat gain or loss when eating the same number of calories. Calories remain the king not macro levels or timing in terms of weight loss.

The highest safe level assigned to Protein was 35% so, someone eating 2000 calories could take in 700 protein calories or 175 gms. Or the 3000 calorie diet would take in 1050 calories of protein or 262.5gms. But what about the old piss test.

Ellington Darden did a study in graduate school in 1970 where he collected all of his urine for 2 months. He kept an accurate record of food intake, and at this time he was a competing bodybuilder. Anytime he exceeded the RDA for protein, the excess above the RDA left his body in his urine. Until that time, he did not believe his professors or the RDA. He was sold on HIGH protein supplements as most bodybuilders. From that point on he reduced his protein intake to the RDA. He later won the 1972 Collegiate Mr. America.

I've been reading here as well as many body building/weight loss sites that having high protein in your diet when cutting is important, .....
So the question is why are there different stories behind this and which is correct?

I think this is what causes confusion. Diet sites and mags have mislabeled this nutrition plan as 'high protein.' It's not really 'high protein' - it's 'whatever is leftover after you set your carbs to something that helps you burn fat.' If that happens to be 2g per pound of bodyweight, then so be it. The focus isn't to eat a shitload of protein. It's to set your macronutrients for your goal. For me, carbs are the pedal point (for fat loss) and protein and fats are set accordingly. So if I set carbs low for fat loss, logically one of the other two has to go up (fat or protein). Fat is usually fixed at 20 percent for me, so protein draws the short straw and goes up as high as it needs to for me to hit my caloric requirements. The reason I think this is relevent is because I always read of people buying and blindly consuming protein as if that in and of itself is a 'plan.' This is bullshit perpetuated by mags and supplement companies. 'High protein' is only 1/3 of the plan and more of a byproduct than anything else. By the way - I love protein powder. :D

I can't say it's completely the mag a supp companies at fault though. Some people read advertisements like they're text books. Makes me laugh and cry at the same time. :D

I don't think under 160 gms of protein a day will have adverse effects in anyone without kidney disease. When you start exceeding that amount, it begins to be overkill. You should be putting those calories into carbs or fat. A scoop of whey contains a little over 20 gms of protein, mixed with water it provides about 110 calories. It is easy, can taste good and about anyone should be able to fit it into your diet.

BTW: A pound of fat contains 3500 calories, a pound of muscle contains 660 calories. Muscle is 72% water, fat is 14% water. Drink water.:tucool:

I agree -- I generally aim for about 140-180 grams per day....I've tried higher, and it didn't make one bit of difference. I don't understand these guys that are consuming 300-400 grams per day ... I mean, if it works for them, then great....but my god, I just get sick to my stomach thinking about what I'd have to eat to reach that level.

Do you think eating 180-200 grams of protein a day during a bulk is overkill. I'm 5"9, 140 lbs.

I think this is what causes confusion. Diet sites and mags have mislabeled this nutrition plan as 'high protein.' It's not really 'high protein' - it's 'whatever is leftover after you set your carbs to something that helps you burn fat.' If that happens to be 2g per pound of bodyweight, then so be it. The focus isn't to eat a shitload of protein. It's to set your macronutrients for your goal. For me, carbs are the pedal point (for fat loss) and protein and fats are set accordingly. So if I set carbs low for fat loss, logically one of the other two has to go up (fat or protein). Fat is usually fixed at 20 percent for me, so protein draws the short straw and goes up as high as it needs to for me to hit my caloric requirements.

Couldn't agree more. Protein intake ends up being whatever I need to make it to a certain amount of daily calories after carbs are determined. And as far as diminishing returns go, the consequences of an excess intake of protein seem pretty mild compared to an excess of carbs or fat--I'll take "no verifiable benefit" over "getting really fat" or "heart-attack inducing clogged arteries" any day, but hey, that's just me. Consequently, I err on the side of protein. Just makes the most sense.

Do you think eating 180-200 grams of protein a day during a bulk is overkill. I'm 5"9, 140 lbs.

Well, the success of your bulk depends more on your total caloric intake, and to some extent carbs and not protein, but nope, offhand I'd say 180-200g is definitely not overkill.