Here is the article: How Much Protein Do You Need for Muscle Growth (http://www.exercisebiology.com/index.php/site/articles/how_much_protein_do_you_need_for_muscle_growth/)

This question is like a cockroach...it keeps coming back no matter what you do to kill it off...

The debate has raged on....through summers and winters,on through the seasons..

Decades have passed.....fads have come and gone,kings and queens have ruled and then expired...people have grown up, got married and had children...

But still the question comes back..."How much protein do you need?"

I'm sorry 'bra......it's a supreme act of will to type another line in this thread....I really really don't know...honest...

sorry...:whistle:

Lyle is his new proten book reccomend a high protein even more than what I reccommend. And I think Alan agrees too.

For people who are always trying to be lean and still put muscle need a bit more protein than usual. I think those people are the majority. So better be on the high protein side. And there is no side effect of high protein.

The researchers even admit that the minute increase in muscle can add up in long term and will be missed in studies.

And there is no side effect of high protein.

Apart from the impact on your bank balance. Protein is much more expensive than carbs or fat.

From the article:


My Protein recommendation for muscle growth & strength: 2.75 - 3.25 g/kg of body weight (1.25 - 1.50 gm/lb of bodyweight).


To gain serious muscle, hover around the lower end.
To maintain muscle or gain some muscle on a diet, stick to the higher end.


So this is basically saying the same thing that everyone says. And at the end; using the lower protein amount for building muscle would suggest that you need more carbs.


I learnt exactly nothing from that article.

So this is basically saying the same thing that everyone says

Who is everyone? If you look at books, they say 1.2 - 1.7 gm/kg based on RDA studies.

The whole article says "why" that amount may not be suffficient.

If you look bodybuilders on steroids, they say, 2 - 2.5 gm/lb.

Who is everyone? If you look at books, they say 1.2 - 1.7 gm/kg based on RDA studies.

The whole article says "why" that amount may not be suffficient.

If you look bodybuilders on steroids, they say, 2 - 2.5 gm/lb.

I could find a dozen articles that say protein intake should be 1-1.5g/lb.

Who goes by the RDA when looking to build muscle? If you did you'd been eating 2500cals a day and going nowhere fast.

I could find a dozen articles that say protein intake should be 1-1.5g/lb.


I could find 500 articles which says protein intake shuld be 1.2 - 1.7 gm/kg body weight.

Anybody can come up with a number in an article. The question is "how" did you come up with that number. Find an article which came to the conclusion with same points I made and then we will talk.

Or you only read the conclusion of the articles?


Who goes by the RDA when looking to build muscle? If you did you'd been eating 2500cals a day and going nowhere fast.


Ever heard of Cunnigham equation?

Who is everyone? If you look at books, they say 1.2 - 1.7 gm/kg based on RDA studies.

The whole article says "why" that amount may not be suffficient.

If you look bodybuilders on steroids, they say, 2 - 2.5 gm/lb.

I could find a dozen articles that say protein intake should be 1-1.5g/lb.

Who goes by the RDA when looking to build muscle? If you did you'd been eating 2500cals a day and going nowhere fast.Articles, yeah. Studies, I haven't seen them.

It could be that protein intakes higher than RDA lead to accelerated muscle mass gains, but so far, I have not seen these results in scientific experiments. Either they've failed to show this effect (http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9901/rbk.html), or they've not designed an effective study to assess it.

A considerable amount of research has evaluated dietary protein needs of athletes. Although there is some debate, most studies indicate that in order to maintain protein balance during intense resistance and/or endurance training, athletes should ingest approximately 1.3 to 1.8 g protein per kg body mass per day (Butterfield, 1991; Lemon, 1998; Kreider et al., 1993; Kreider, 1999). Athletes training at high-altitude may need as much as 2.2 g protein per kg per day in order to maintain protein balance (Butterfield, 1991). This protein intake is about 1.5 to 2 times the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for the normal adult. In most instances an iso-energetic diet can provide the required protein, but athletes who maintain hypo-energetic diets, do not ingest enough quality protein in their diet, and/or train at altitude may be susceptible to protein malnutrition (Kreider, 1999). In theory, this state could slow tissue growth and/or recovery from training. On the other hand, ingesting more protein than necessary to maintain protein balance during training (e.g., > 1.8 g/kg/d) does not promote greater gains in strength or fat-free mass (Lemon et al., 1992; Tarnopolsky et al., 1992). These findings indicate that athletes typically do not need to supplement their normal diets with protein, provided they ingest enough quality protein to maintain protein balance.
Dr. John Berardi recommends a minimum of 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight, but the studies he uses to "support" this recommendation use way less than this amount. Here's the disclaimer from the debate on protein intake (http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_diet_nutrition_bo dybuilding/the_protein_debate) that was published on T-nation: "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 then retracts "..with the current literature there's very little evidence as to what is the optimal intake."

I recommend 1-2g per lb of body weight. How much exactly is NEEDED has so much variance as to not even make it sensible to address it.

For those of you seeking studies, you should also consider the empirical evidence which is in abundance. The biggest and strongest men and women in the world literally all (99%+) feel that supplemental and or increased protein intake is beneficial to their training.

Studies have shown both improvements and no improvements. And thats why there is a debate! There is one:

As
an illustration Consolazio 36 had participants who
utilized a combination of resistance and endurance
training consume protein in 2.8 g·kg-1·day-1 or 1.4
g·kg-1·day-1 for 40 days. The experimenters found
significantly greater nitrogen balance and lean body
mass in the high protein group than the lower protein
group, even though 1.4 g·kg-1·day-1 was relatively
high compared to the RDA.


Goes back to the problem with the studies and other variables which they cannot control. Tipton and wolfe made a good comment in the review artcle about how theese small improvements add up over the years will not show in a 6-12 week study and how people who want to increasee should consume hogher protein.

Also what type of proteins and when you take these matters a lot too.

If you are one of these who really worry about your muscle gains, I would say eat higher protein. If you dont care about those liitle changes and wants just to be fit, you are fine eating moderate amount.

Like people have shown....studies point in a lot of different directions, hence no 'one' answer being out there right now.

So, do what works for you.

Thats all I do.

Studies have shown both improvements and no improvements. And thats why there is a debate! There is one:

As
an illustration Consolazio 36 had participants who
utilized a combination of resistance and endurance
training consume protein in 2.8 g·kg-1·day-1 or 1.4
g·kg-1·day-1 for 40 days. The experimenters found
significantly greater nitrogen balance and lean body
mass in the high protein group than the lower protein
group, even though 1.4 g·kg-1·day-1 was relatively
high compared to the RDA.


Goes back to the problem with the studies and other variables which they cannot control. Tipton and wolfe made a good comment in the review artcle about how theese small improvements add up over the years will not show in a 6-12 week study and how people who want to increasee should consume hogher protein.

Also what type of proteins and when you take these matters a lot too.

If you are one of these who really worry about your muscle gains, I would say eat higher protein. If you dont care about those liitle changes and wants just to be fit, you are fine eating moderate amount.

What does "greater nitrogen balance" mean? I thought it was either positive or negative nitrogen balance, just like in positive and negative energy balance. Without first reading the article I couldn't say may more about it.

I find it strange that the study looked at athletes participating in both resistance AND endurance exercise. It is fairly accepted that perhaps endurance athletes require more protein than other athletes that train for speed, power or strength. This is because prolonged exercise can lead to a depletion of blood glucose and liver glycogen stimulating a release of hormones ("counter-regulatory hormones") such as cotrisol that stimulate muscle proteolysis and amino acid oxidation. I think maintaining an adequate energy balance (eating enough carbs and fats to supply energy demands) is more important than eating vast quantities of protein. All the protein in the world can't maintain nirtogen balance if the diet is deficient in energy required for work. By all means, eat more (quality) protein, but don't skimp on carbs to do so.

It is fairly accepted that perhaps endurance athletes require more protein than other athletes that train for speed, power or strength.


Endurance athletes require less protein because they do not need to increase muscle mass and higher protein can minmize their carb or glycogen intake which is what they mainly depend on.

Nobody is arguing the energy and carb requirements. Thats why there is a cut off of 40% for protein.

My main point in the article to justify high protein was basd on Tipron's and Wolfe (two prominent protein researchers) recent comments about the small increases in muscle which adds up over the years. And these are usually missed in studies.

Endurance athletes require less protein because they do not need to increase muscle mass and higher protein can minmize their carb or glycogen intake which is what they mainly depend on.

A pound of Muscle contains only 23% protein and over 72% water. I would be more concerned with getting water then more protein then most nutritionists and Doctors recommend. I would think 170 gms or 680 calories of protein for a 200 lb male is more than enough. :confused:

Mr.Mason....that's funny..I usually read where the biggest and strongest people in the world are more concerned about their overall caloric intake than they are about how much protein they consume.

Doug Hepburn and Dave Tate being two I can think of, off the cuff.

Hepburn was 10,000 calories a day. Dave Tate was notorius for building a body on junkfood.

Ellington Darden, when he was training for packing on muscle cared more about the caloric intake than how much protein he was getting.


Problem with the protein recommendations from most gurus ,mags, and trainers is.....THEY ARE ALL GUESSING.

Certainly everyone has a certain requirement for their bodily needs. But it differs from person to person and several other ducks have to be in a row before your body will magically convert the protein into muscle.

It's like saying you have 12 painters painting your house...and you tell them "if I give you twice as much paint will the job go faster?"
and they say " no....we are all as busy as we can be and if you throw twice the amount of paint at us we'll just have to throw half of it away"


Yes you need a certain amount of protein to help build muscle.

But if you are thinking "well I take 100 grams a day now and I'm doing o.k.......but the guy online says I need 3 times that" you may be pissing your excess protein down the biffy.

Because the guy online has no way of knowing exactly what your requirements are.

It's all guesstimation.

A guy with really low Testosterone can eat, breathe and sleep protein and...he still won't get the results someone with a higher Testo count would get. Also if he has Thyroid troubles or Diabetes or a host of other things where the numbers aren't good or at least normal, the swill-300-grams-of-protein-a-day isn't going to do him much good.

There are many many factors that determine the assimilation of protein and amino acids, regardless of the excess volume ingested.

A recommended obligatory amount of protein to be taken daily ( in the analogous form of a percentile equation) is by no means a guarantee of success.

Many of the biggest strongest people in the world today owe their success to steroids before protein.

Mr.Mason....that's funny..I usually read where the biggest and strongest people in the world are more concerned about their overall caloric intake than they are about how much protein they consume.

Doug Hepburn and Dave Tate being two I can think of, off the cuff.

Hepburn was 10,000 calories a day. Dave Tate was notorius for building a body on junkfood.

Ellington Darden, when he was training for packing on muscle cared more about the caloric intake than how much protein he was getting.


Problem with the protein recommendations from most gurus ,mags, and trainers is.....THEY ARE ALL GUESSING.

Certainly everyone has a certain requirement for their bodily needs. But it differs from person to person and several other ducks have to be in a row before your body will magically convert the protein into muscle.

It's like saying you have 12 painters painting your house...and you tell them "if I give you twice as much paint will the job go faster?"
and they say " no....we are all as busy as we can be and if you throw twice the amount of paint at us we'll just have to throw half of it away"


Yes you need a certain amount of protein to help build muscle.

But if you are thinking "well I take 100 grams a day now and I'm doing o.k.......but the guy online says I need 3 times that" you may be pissing your excess protein down the biffy.

Because the guy online has no way of knowing exactly what your requirements are.

It's all guesstimation.

A guy with really low Testosterone can eat, breathe and sleep protein and...he still won't get the results someone with a higher Testo count would get. Also if he has Thyroid troubles or Diabetes or a host of other things where the numbers aren't good or at least normal, the swill-300-grams-of-protein-a-day isn't going to do him much good.

There are many many factors that determine the assimilation of protein and amino acids, regardless of the excess volume ingested.

A recommended obligatory amount of protein to be taken daily ( in the analogous form of a percentile equation) is by no means a guarantee of success.

Many of the biggest strongest people in the world today owe their success to steroids before protein.

Heavy, I am not sure what you are arguing here? I recommended a protein intake that was MORE than covered in the daily diets of the men you mentioned with the possible exception of Dr. Darden.

I have personally corresponded with two of those men. I know more about them than you (I am guessing).

In any event, I am not sure why you felt compelled to argue with my point as your statements only serve to reinforce it?

I dunno Chris......I was just in one of those moods where I felt like blowing off a lot of hot air and sounding important....yesterday I felt so insignificant in this world for some reason...:eek::)

Actually you basically said the same thing as me.

So I agree with you..:tucool: