Some swear by large amounts of protein.

Others say you don't need half that amount.

Some trainers are absolutely adamant that you need mega amounts to see results....

So..my question...

Have there actually been any controlled studies done using two groups of test subjects who did the same program but ingested a different amount of protein for each group?

e.g......Group A was taking 100 grams of protein. Group B was taking 200 grams of protein and all subjects of both groups were on the same program and nearly identical in size/weight/ bodytype etc..


:) ?

That IS a good question. Id volunteer for that study. I wonder where I would get those extra calories though if I eliminated half or more of my protein intake???

There have been studies but you won't find the definitive answer you are hoping for.

Track down Layne (Str8Flxd) over at his forum or at musclemayhem- he'll point you to several things.

Ity all boils down to bodybuilders do indeed need higher protein on average that the typical person. How much is relaly a matter for trial and error with an individual.

While we're on the topic, are there pitfalls to eating too much protein? I find myself often these days eating 55-60% of my calories in protein. At 2200cals it works out to about 45fat/133carbs/300prot. Any danger to eating that much?

My macro split used to be more even, then I cut out most sugary carbs (nonfat yogurt, fruit after noon) and started eating only fibrous carbs/fats for my last 3 meals of the day. By even I mean 20/40/40.

I shoot for a average of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. For my body that works. I go for more of a weekly average and think that sometimes we tend to over analyze this stuff. Eat a well balanced diet, use common sense and exercise your butt off (literally).

heres a study I found on pub med that tracked the dietary macros of some pros

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8167655?ordinalpos=30&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

and another study this time on novices. While they conclude that body builders do require more protein, they also found diminishing returns once past a certain point. Note though that this was only a 30 day study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1400008?ordinalpos=36&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

there is a lot of other good articles there for the taking. The search engine works pretty well.

I think the need for protein based on nitrogen balance has been pretty extensively studied. About 1.4 to 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight seems to covers the needs of greater than 97% of the population. Those who recommend more than this amount of .7 to 1 gram per pound typically do so with the understanding that more could be better than less, because of things like thermic effect of feeding, satiety, and hormonal issues. But I don't know if amounts greater than this have been studied from the viewpoint of lean body mass gains, rather than from the angle of nitrogen balance.

From another forum (http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=766F0CC86C20551F550B3D685F 9D9A28.hydra?id=436644):

Now, I have been concerned about the potential effects of consuming large amounts of protein, but I am still stuck on the idea that more protein = more muscle. I was hoping to gather some more thoughts on the subject, and possibly a physiological explaination as to how the human body utilizes proteins would help as well(other than the body uses proteins to repair/build up muscle). I'm also definately loving the idea of saving some cash on all that chicken and tuna I buy.

And some of the links:

A number of well-controlled studies are now published in which “higher” protein diets have been shown to be effective in promoting weight reduction, particularly fat loss. The term “higher” refers to a diet that has people consuming more than the general populations' average intake of ~15% of energy from protein, e.g., as much as 30%-35%, which is within an Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) as laid out in the DRIs. Of relevance to athletes and those in clinical practice is the fact that higher protein diets have quite consistently been shown to result in greater weight loss, greater fat loss, and preservation of lean mass as compared with “lower” protein diets.

This article is pretty thorough in outlining suggested protein intakes, including what amount might be too little, and what amount might be more than "required'. But, of course, it still can't determine what amount is "optimal". Dietary Protein for Athletes - Stuart Phillips Nov 2006 (http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?_handler_=HandleInitialGet&journal=apnm&volume=31&calyLang=eng&articleFile=h06-035.pdf)

There might be some articles you want to track down from the reference section there. :tu:

And another forum:
Do Athletes Need More Protein? (http://www.extremefitness.com/forum/bodybuilding-strength-training/691-protein-intake-finally-answer.html)
During intensive training, strength and endurance athletes may need somewhere between 1.4 - 2.0 g of protein per kg of body mass to maintain nitrogen balance.

Optimization of Protein Intake
In the above section, I've indicated that athletes may actually need fewer protein grams per day than the typical sedentary dose of 0.8g/kg. Actually, the Butterfield study suggests an exact number: 0.65g/kg.

So, for those of you who staunchly believe that you're only required to eat enough protein to meet your needs,go right ahead and reduce your protein intake from 2.0g/kg to 0.65g/kg. In the meantime, I'll be encouraging everyone else to actually increase his or her protein intake beyond the current 2.0g/kg recommendation. (Berardi)

If this recommendation seems excessive, it's because you have a narrow view of how protein fits into one's dietary strategy. You're looking at protein in the same narrow way that people used to look at vitamin C; essential at a specific dose but conferring no additional benefits with a higher intake. Like vitamin C, instead of thinking of protein as a macronutrient that provides no benefit beyond preventing protein deficiency, we need to recognize the benefits of eating protein (at any dose).

Then he lists them.

Most of the studies I've come across that have seen greater gains in lean body mass with "higher" protein intake have used amounts of about 1 gram per pound of body weight as the definition of "higher" protein, so you have to read them pretty carefully. In fact, all of the articles Berardi cites in support of his recommendation for an intake greater than 1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight were much, much lower than the amounts he recommends. :rolleyes:

While we're on the topic, are there pitfalls to eating too much protein? I find myself often these days eating 55-60% of my calories in protein. At 2200cals it works out to about 45fat/133carbs/300prot. Any danger to eating that much?Could be dangerous, but, no, no dangers have been determined in people with normally functioning kidneys.

One thing I keep hearing is that you need to be extra careful about your fluid intake with such a high protein intake, because your kidneys will be working so much harder. It may also be possible that you're putting yourself for risk for deficiencies from the nutrients in plants and grains.

Plus, it uses up a lot of resources to "grow" protein. Chicken, pork, and beef all require more fuel, water (about 200 times as much), and land than plant sources.

There have been studies but you won't find the definitive answer you are hoping for.

Track down Layne (Str8Flxd) over at his forum or at musclemayhem- he'll point you to several things.

Ity all boils down to bodybuilders do indeed need higher protein on average that the typical person. How much is relaly a matter for trial and error with an individual.

So what makes a bodybuilder? What about people who go to they gym to gain LBM, does that make them a bodybuilder? Or would these people take less protein than a BB but more than a person who doesn't workout?

Could be dangerous, but, no, no dangers have been determined in people with normally functioning kidneys.

One thing I keep hearing is that you need to be extra careful about your fluid intake with such a high protein intake, because your kidneys will be working so much harder. It may also be possible that you're putting yourself for risk for deficiencies from the nutrients in plants and grains.

Plus, it uses up a lot of resources to "grow" protein. Chicken, pork, and beef all require more fuel, water (about 200 times as much), and land than plant sources.

Another thing -- I believe Layne Norton suggested that excessive protein intake could actually desensitize your body to it. The rationale being that you don't use those huge quantities of protein, so your body becomes more efficient at oxidizing the protein you ingest....meaning that protein synthesis becomes less efficient. It is alluded to a little bit in the article below (which is pretty interesting BTW).

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/lyle/protein1.htm

BTW, good post Guava.....I think these recommendations of 2-3 grams per pound = massive overkill. One thing I've noticed on alot of fitness boards (for alot of different nutrients and supplements) is the attitude that "If a moderate amount is good, then a HUGE amount must be REALLY good!".

I don't think anybody exactly knows how much protein is required for growth and reccuperation. This is largely due to the measurement techniques involved. Nitrogen balance techniques are used to estimate protein requirements and they are often crticized for being limited and insenstive.

There are studies for and against high protein requirements for strength atheletes. It seems to be one of those never-ending debates. According the recent review on protein requirements for strength athletes, the reccommendation is around 1.5 gms per kg of body weight.

Most focus too much on protein and forget the energy intake part. Research has been pretty clear that energy intake is as important as protein intake to maintain a positive nitrogen balance. Even when no protein is consumed, increased energy intake improved nitrogen balance. On the contrary, even when taking in hgh protein intakes, postive nitrogen balance was not possible until energy balance was positive.

There is a possibilty that too much protein can affect calcium balance by inceasing calcium absortion from bones.But this hasn't been really shown in any study I am aware of. Safety issues become real when protein reach comes around 3.75-4.0 g/kg which is very rare.

I would never exceed 1.5g per pound ... ever. Layne Norton, as mentioned already, has a great deal of information on this. For one, and I appreciate this, his latest research suggests that eating too frequently during the day (5+ meals) will help de-sensitize the body to protein worse than sticking to a simple program.

This is an example of a routine he's now recommending:

6am Wake up
1 scoop [BCAAs] with breakfast

9am
1 scoop [BCAAs]

11:30am PreWorkout Meal
1 scoop [BCAAs]

1:30-2pm
2 scoops [BCAAs] with post workout meal

3:30pm
1 scoop [BCAAs]

5pm
Meal 4

8pm
1 scoop [BCAAs]

9-10pm
Meal 5

12am before bed
1 scoop [BCAAs]

3am
Meal 6 with 1 scoop [BCAAs]

6am repeat cycle

Of course, his BCAAs of choice is Xtend. His point is that rather than sipping on BCAAs, you spike them. This takes advantage of the Leucine and helps put you in a more "anabolic" environment.

I'm always fascinated by his research as he's getting his Ph.D. in protein synthesis, so he knows his stuff (and considering he's a natty, I'm more impressed). You can read his workout journal that he regularly updates (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=819314) as we've discussed things like this before.

There's also the fact that protein is more thermogenic than carbs or fat. That means that getting more protein burns more calories. That's one of the reasons Berardi recommends (http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/proprejudice.htm) eating more than 2 g/kg bodyweight. Just something I thought I'd throw out there.

I don't think a study like that is going to be possible.
Everyone has unique biochemistry. So the only way a study like that would work would be to have each individual follow a particular diet and exercise program. Then, have them switch to a different diet and exercise program. However, the study quickly becomes invalid because the indiviual would probably see certain kinds of "newbie" gains while on the first program while seeing diminishing returns on the second. (That's why we use periodization and change up our workouts and rep schemes in order to keep our bodies from adapting)

I think everyone needs to find what works for them....Personally, I had unreal bulking and cutting results on a 40/40/20 macro split. While bulking, that meant about 350g of protein per day or about 1.5-1.6g of protein per pound of bodyweight. While cutting I got around 250g per day or roughly 1.1-1.2g per pound of bodyweight.

I would need to do other experiments to provide a comparative basis though.

All that being said, a different person may get way better results from a 30/50/20 macro split...which would mean much less protein. I don't think there is a smoking gun along the lines of protein per pound of bodyweight. Men differ from women, a 50-year-old differs from an 18-year-old....just way too many variables at work...

This is a question that comes up every now and again. There is no answer. Just see what works for you as an individual.

Thank you all for all the information, I'm going to spend the next couple hours pouring over it.

Instead of the protein, what would you recommend for the later meals in the day? Amped up healthy fats? I've been holding to the macro sticky of fibrous carbs and protein/healthy fats for the later meals. It's just that fibrous carbs don't hardly give any calories at all unless I eat like a pound a meal. Time to start shooting olive oil.

Looking over the last weeks, 300 was a high day (not the highest) but above average. I've been doing anyhwere from 250-300g a day... and 1.5 my weight is 270.. hmm... now to read.

Edit: I average about 2gallons of water a day, sometimes more or less, so I'm not too worried about not drinking enough. RE Guava's post: I'm assuming deficiencies in plant/grain nutrients would be from a lack of consuming them. All of the carb intake is clean and green or whole-wheat, plus a standard multi is taken with the first meal of the day. Would that not be enough potentially?

Thank you all for all the information, I'm going to spend the next couple hours pouring over it.

Instead of the protein, what would you recommend for the later meals in the day? Amped up healthy fats? I've been holding to the macro sticky of fibrous carbs and protein/healthy fats for the later meals. It's just that fibrous carbs don't hardly give any calories at all unless I eat like a pound a meal. Time to start shooting olive oil.

Looking over the last weeks, 300 was a high day (not the highest) but above average. I've been doing anyhwere from 250-300g a day... and 1.5 my weight is 270.. hmm... now to read.
I would change that to as well as the protein... You want protein at every meal. Yes, fibrous carbs have very little value calorie-wise, but they slow down the absorption rate of the foods they are eaten with, due to their structure.

I would change that to as well as the protein... Y

Thank you, I meant that I would eat more fats and balance it against the total caloric intake for the day (not cutting protein out of the particular meal).

Thank you all for the incredible and informative response! :spaz: I'm sorry I kinda hijacked the thread :o. I am cutting right now, so I'm not going to sweat eating about or more than 1.5g/lb, but I'm also not going to go overboard and eat any more than I am right now. I'm enjoying the results of and the pace of a good amount of protein with every meal, and will make sure to drink enough water with good healthy carbs in every day.

Now to see if Turkey can upset Germany!

RE Guava's post: I'm assuming deficiencies in plant/grain nutrients would be from a lack of consuming them. All of the carb intake is clean and green or whole-wheat, plus a standard multi is taken with the first meal of the day. Would that not be enough potentially?Probably it would. A multi doesn't offer all of the same benefits as those from plants, so it's best to get them straight from them. If you're eating plenty of vegetables, you're not eating sugar, and if none of your breads and pastas and rices are white, then chances are that you're getting enough. Fitday has a tab that can tell you how close you are, if you're curious.

It is hard to know what the best sources are for energy, so I just pick the things that are most tasty. I eat lots of fruits and yogurts, which put the calories up there pretty quickly, but other people have reported not as good success on as high a sugar and starch intake as what I get. MannishBoy gets a lot of his calories from oils and nuts. :tu:

Steve Reeves is one of my all time favorite BB'ers. He had a great physique when liver pills were the state of the art supplements and steroids were still a thing of the future. Steve used a 60% carbohydrate, 20% fat and 20% protein macro. The very thought of this would send most modern day BB'ers into shock. However if I could push a button and either have the physique of Steve in his prime or Arnold in his prime I would choose the Reeves look any day. Not saying that anyone should try that macro, just that different people react different ways and you should find the correct ratio for you.