Recent protein scuffles involving a recurrent quote of mine

[alan aragon]

"Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, even Stuart Phillips, known for being super-conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit."

^There's my quote, which I recently modified to include the mentioning of benefit from consuming 3.0 g/kg in this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645387

Wonderpug is correct that this large amount was compared with suboptimal intake. However, I don't see the strong argument against going as high as 3.0 g/kg. If anyone wants to present one, then great; I just don't think it poses any safety risks (or other detriments) that warrant any particular caution. Additionally, 3.0 is close enough to 2.7 g/kg, which has been demonstrated to be effective (I'll get to that).

Now, Let's take a look at where I got the 2.3-2.7 kg figures.

Mettler et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027) compared 1.0 g/kg with 2.3 g/kg in lean athletic subjects in an energy deficit, and the latter outperformed the former for guarding against LBM loss. However - and this is the big point - 2.3 g/kg was still insufficient for completely preserving LBM. Notably, the subjects trained an average of 334 minutes per week (resistance training + cardio). They lost less LBM consuming 2.3 g/kg than the group consuming 1.0g/kg. Keep in mind that it's not like the subjects were starving; they consumed slightly more than 2000 kcal throughout the trial.

Along these lines, Maestu et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017) saw better LBM preservation than Mettler et al did, and intakes ranged 2.3-2.6 g/kg.

Next up, we have Hoffman et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23035701), who sought to examine the effect of phosphatidic acid (PA) supplementation, but also ended up comparing different protein intakes, 2.1 g/kg in the control & 2.6 g/kg in the treatment group. The latter outperformed the former, and my hunch is that it could have been due to the higher protein intake rather than the PA specifically. It's notable that these results were seen in caloric maintenance conditions.

Willoughby et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988909) examined the effect of a protein & amino acid supplement & ended up observing the treatment group with an intake of ~2.7 g/kg outperform the control group, whose intake was ~2.2 g/kg. Notably, this occurred under caloric surplus conditions.

All research has its limitations, and the aforementioned can be criticized for having the typical shortcomings of a small subject number &/or short duration.

A paper by Phillips & Van Loon (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425) mentions the following: "To optimize the ratio of fat-to-lean tissue mass loss during hypoenergetic periods, athletes are advised to [...] increase their protein intake to ~20–30% of their energy intake or ~1.8–2.7 g/kg/day." I'm not saying that the recommendations of some of the top protein researchers should be taken as gospel, but it's worth noting that their recommendations indeed exceed ~0.8 g/lb for certain scenarios. It's not just something I personally made up because I'm a bro who likes BBing.

***EDIT: after some discussion & clarification of the issues being argued, here's what I've concluded:

1) No controlled comparisons of protein intake have shown significant ergogenic benefit in regards to either muscle gain or retention at intakes greater than 1.8 g/kg.

2) There are studies that have dosed protein above 1.8 g/kg, but have (with debatable/scant exception) used insufficient protein for comparison.

3) Being vehement about an upper limit of 1.8 g/kg is hasty since this dose has not been compared with a higher dose (i.e., in the 2.2-2.7 ballpark) in lean/athletic subjects undergoing resistance training in a deficit.

4) There are inherent limitations with the current literature's expression of protein per unit of gross weight vs per unit of lean mass.

5) Not all training populations or sport situations have received sufficient investigation to warrant vehemence towards 1.8 g/kg as an upper limit of effectiveness.

6) Figures that get spit up in study outcomes are expressed as means (averages). This means that a mixed bag of responses occurred, some substantially higher or lower than the reported mean value. If you really want to rigidly latch on to some mean value and believe that it unquestionably applies to you, then you're making quite the leap of faith.


I thus stand by the points I made in "The Quote" - the latest version of which I'll simply reiterate here:
_________________________________________

Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless. And the kicker is, these amounts (ranging from 2.3-2.7 g/kg depending on the study) were seen in both deficit & surplus conditions. Heck, one of the most prolific protein researchers Stuart Phillips, known for being conservative, acknowledged the ultility of 1.8-2.7 g/kg for athletes in a deficit in a recent review paper. In a more recent paper, Phillips even pushes the upper end to 3.0 g/kg. Note that the latter figure refers to overfeeding.

As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit. You also have to consider the limitations of the research. Just because a certain amount of protein can prevent negative nitrogen balance does not mean this is an accurate reflection of muscle preservation (let alone an indicator of optimal intake for gain). N-bal is notorious for overestimating muscle protein status. There's even research showing positive N-balance concurrent with LBM loss. Lol, there's research showing a prevention of negative N-balance during endstage starvation as a survival defense response.

Another confounder is that protein needs in the literature are expressed in terms of total body mass. This is sort of a necessary evil when discussing the literature, which does not express protein needs as g/kg LBM. So, when mentioning that protein needs are lower for eucaloric & hypercalorc conditions as opposed to hypocaloric conditions in lean/athletic subjects, this is in reference to *proportional* differences. ABSOLUTE needs can be quite similar among those with the same LBM. Also keep in mind that the optimal protein requirements of folks on ergogenic supplements like creatine (or AAS) have simply not been investigated, much less systematically investigated for the purpose of establishing dose-response relationships. There in all likelihood is a higher ceiling of protein dosing effectiveness in these individuals, as well as a lower threshold of protein dosing for muscle retention. Assuming that the effective protein dosage ceiling is the same in natties & enhanced athletes is foolish. Protein requirements for off-season & pre-contest bodybuilders (& other athletes) under varying degrees of deficit & surplus is still open to investigation, particularly in the context of rigorous, periodized training programs.

You also have to realize that the figures that get spit up in study outcomes are expressed as means (averages). This means that a mixed bag of responses occurred, some substantially higher or lower than the reported mean value. If you really want to rigidly latch on to some mean value and believe that it unquestionably applies to you, then you're making quite the leap of faith.

[cumminslifter]

first, this should be stickied

[KayPS]

Excellent info, as always.

[Domicron]

this doesn't really apply to me as an over fat/under muscled not well trained person does it?

[WonderPug]

Wonderpug is correct that this large amount was compared with suboptimal intake. However, I don't see the strong argument against going as high as 3.0 g/kg. If anyone wants to present one, then great;

I think the biggest argument against such a recommendation is that while it might benefit a (very) small percentage of the population, for the vast (perhaps extreme) percentage of this target audience, there's likely no unique meaningful benefit in terms of direct impact on body composition compared to consuming much less protein, such as 0.8 grams.

However, there are potential negatives. Specifically, the higher recommendation would compel many folks to struggle to consume large amounts of protein when they could get the same results while consuming a diet they would find more palatable and more economically if they were presented with the lower, more generally applicable guidelines.

In other words, the general recommendations, in my opinion, should be broadly applicable and designed such as to provide flexibility to optimize intake within the parameters likely to benefit the vast majority.

[alan aragon]

this doesn't really apply to me as an over fat/under muscled not well trained person does it?

Re-read the full quote at the bottom of the original post.

[alan aragon]

I think the biggest argument against such a recommendation is that while it might benefit a (very) small percentage of the population, for the vast (perhaps extreme) percentage of this target audience, there's no unique benefit in terms of direct impact on body composition compared to consuming much less protein, 0.8 grams for example.

However, there are potential negatives. Specifically, the higher recommendation would compel many folks to struggle to consume large amounts of protein when they could get the same results while consuming a diet they would find more palatable and more economically if they were presented with the lower, more generally applicable guidelines.

In other words, the general recommendations, in my opinion, should be broadly applicable and designed such as to provide flexibility to optimize intake within the parameters likely to benefit the vast majority.

This is why it's important to provide a range of intakes (i.e., 1.2-2.7 g/kg), and also an explanation of which populations benefit from the higher versus the lower end, which is what my lengthy TLDR post attempts to do. I agree that the tendency with the BBing audience is a more-is-better approach, and I too would rather folks see things more objectively, and know how to better choose a protein intake target based on the appropriate individual circumstances.

[Maxx26]

What would these numbers be in lbs?

[Domicron]

Re-read the full quote at the bottom of the original post.

"As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit"

got it, thanks

[WonderPug]

What would these numbers be in lbs?

1.8 = ~0.8 when using pounds and 2.7 = ~1.22

This is why it's important to provide a range of intakes (i.e., 1.2-2.7 g/kg), and also an explanation of which populations benefit from the higher versus the lower end, which is what my lengthy TLDR post attempts to do.

But in all fairness, there's ample research implying lower intakes are more than sufficient.

That's why I think recommending a baseline intake of 0.8 grams per pound is a good starting point, with lower recomendations, for example, for the severely obese and those on ketogenic diets. And higher recomendations, for example, when an individual is using "special" supplements.

[BULLandTERRIER]

LOL ... Thank you Alan.

There you go unbelievers ... The "mythological" studies presented by the man himself.

[alan aragon]

1.8 = ~0.8 when using pounds and 2.7 = ~1.22




But in all fairness, there's ample research implies lower intakes are more than sufficient.

That's why I think recommending a baseline intake of 0.8 grams per pound is a good starting point, with lower recomendations, for example, for the severely obese and those on ketogenic diets.

The research supporting lower intakes is limited by its focus on whole-body nitrogen flux, rather than what's going on at the skeletal muscle level, not to mention that subjects in the vast majority of studies have not been lean or athletically trained. This is all touched upon in my quote above. Further, I have acknowledged in the quote that, "Research indeed exists showing beneficial effects of protein intakes beyond 1 g/lb. It's not a vast body of literature, but it exists nonetheless."

[Andrew_S]

This post is like snorting extenze off a hookers ass.

[WonderPug]

The research supporting lower intakes is limited by its focus on whole-body nitrogen flux, rather than what's going on at the skeletal muscle level, not to mention that subjects in the vast majority of studies have not been lean or athletically trained.

But there are studies such as Hoffman et al. (2006), which found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.

[alan aragon]

One more thing - let it be clear that I'm a proponent of finding the lowest protein intake to achieve the given goal. This makes sense from both an economical perspective, as well as a metabolic stress perspective in sensitive individuals. However, due to the inevitably varied nature of individual response, I'm also a proponent of consuming a "cushion" above what theoretically suffices as a mean intake in studies. Especially for individuals whose main goals are either muscle anabolism, or the prevention of muscle loss.

[HealingHands8]

I think it would benefit many here if a general, non-specific recommendation was given for different body types e.g. obese, very lean etc during different phases - cutting & bulking.

[alan aragon]

But there are studies such as Hoffman et al. (2006), which found no differences in body composition, strength or resting hormonal concentrations in strength athletes consuming either 0.77g/lb or >0.91g/lb over a 3 month period.

Sure, but the groups' total energy intake exceeded 3000 kcal. Flip the scenario into a sustained hypocaloric one, then you'll create whole new set of physiological circumstances that influence protein demands differently from surplus or maintenance conditions. I've addressed this in my post.

[alan aragon]

This post is like snorting extenze off a hookers ass.

Strong post of 2013 (3rd quarter) award

[KayPS]

One more thing - let it be clear that I'm a proponent of finding the lowest protein intake to achieve the given goal. This makes sense from both an economical perspective, as well as a metabolic stress perspective in sensitive individuals. However, due to the inevitably varied nature of individual response, I'm also a proponent of consuming a "cushion" above what theoretically suffices as a mean intake in studies. Especially for individuals whose main goals are either muscle anabolism, or the prevention of muscle loss.

Isn't this where recommending these values as a minimum would be important? Giving the individual the ability to determine if more protein is necessary for his/her individual needs/goals.

[WonderPug]

I think it would benefit many here if a general, non-specific recommendation was given for different body types e.g. obese, very lean etc during different phases - cutting & bulking.

I think most quality posters do this as they take into consideration the individual's situation.

Isn't this where recommending these values as a minimum would be important? Giving the individual the ability to determine if more protein is necessary for his/her individual needs/goals.

Equally important, I believe, is to tell someone struggling to consume 0.8 grams/lbs per day that consuming a bit less is not a problem.

[KayPS]

I think most quality posters do this as they take into consideration the individual's situation.

Equally important, I believe, is to tell someone struggling to consume 0.8 grams/lbs per day that consuming a bit less is not a problem.

How much less would "a bit less" be? For the average bb.com member? 0.6? 0.7? I think I remember reading that 0.3 was fine for the average person who doesn't work out, so I'm curious what the low end of the scale would be for someone who works out regularly (3-4 days, lifting heavy weights).

[alan aragon]

I think it would benefit many here if a general, non-specific recommendation was given for different body types e.g. obese, very lean etc during different phases - cutting & bulking.

I always hesitate to boil recommendations down to soundbites. But based on the current evidence, 1.2-1.8 g/kg (divide by 2.2 for pounds) is likely to be appropriate for those in maintenance or surplus conditions. Hypocaloric conditions - especially in lean/trained subjects - is likely to warrant approximately 1.8-2.7 g/kg. Keep in mind that the higher range won't hurt either goal, and in a limited set of studies has been shown to potentially help. Take into consideration your individual status, goals, & circumstances, and estimate needs from there. Good enough?

[HealingHands8]

I think most quality posters do this as they take into consideration the individual's situation.

Maybe quality posters, but most just parrot 0.82g without even thinking

[HealingHands8]

I always hesitate to boil recommendations down to soundbites. But based on the current evidence, 1.2-1.8 g/kg (divide by 2.2 for pounds) is likely to be appropriate for those in maintenance or surplus conditions. Hypocaloric conditions - especially in lean/trained subjects - is likely to warrant approximately 1.8-2.7 g/kg. Keep in mind that the higher range won't hurt either goal, and in a limited set of studies has been shown to potentially help. Take into consideration your individual status, goals, & circumstances, and estimate needs from there. Good enough?

That will come in most useful. Thank you

[WonderPug]

How much less would "a bit less" be? For the average bb.com member? 0.6? 0.7? I think I remember reading that 0.3 was fine for the average person who doesn't work out, so I'm curious what the low end of the scale would be for someone who works out regularly (3-4 days, lifting heavy weights).

I think 0.8 is safe and 0.6 is reasonable for someone struggling to meet the higher intake.

Is the lower intake optimal? Perhaps and perhaps not. But in terms of end points, setting up the diet so that compliance is more likely and recidivism is reduced likely far outweighs any potential benefits of a slightly higher protein intake.

Keep in mind for those trying to lose weight, the target audience asking for advice often has north of 15% to even north of 20% BF (for males) and thus the recommendations are actually rather generous if adjusted for lean body mass.

[alan aragon]

I think 0.8 is safe and 0.6 is reasonable for someone struggling to meet the higher intake.

Is the lower intake optimal? Perhaps and perhaps not. But in terms of end points, setting up the diet so that compliance is more likely and recidivism is reduced likely far outweighs any potential benefits of a slightly higher protein intake.

Keep in mind for those trying to lose weight, the target audience asking for advice often has north of 15% to even north of 20% BF (for males) and thus the recommendations are actually rather generous if adjusted for lean body mass.

I think that snorting Extenze off of a hooker's ass is bound to produce far more dramatic results than increasing protein intake

Adjustment for LBM can definitely alter these numbers. This is something I plan to dig into in future research projects.

[WonderPug]

I think that snorting Extenze off of a hooker's ass is bound to produce far more dramatic results than increasing protein intake

I'm sure if an IFBB pro recommended doing so, lots of posters on this forum would be contributing to the college fund of escorts on a daily basis.

Adjustment for LBM can definitely alter these numbers. This is something I plan to dig into in future research projects.

In regard to (pending) research, what are your thoughts on NuSI?

[KayPS]

I think that snorting Extenze off of a hooker's ass is bound to produce far more dramatic results than increasing protein intake

Adjustment for LBM can definitely alter these numbers. This is something I plan to dig into in future research projects.

What about us female lifters?

[ironwill2008]

As a general rule, protein demands are higher for lean, trained athletes in an energy deficit.

^^^^ This is what I took from the original post; I'm thinking the last part of the quote sometimes gets missed, and that's where the confusion begins.

[Andrew_S]

What about us female lifters?

Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder, but nobody wanna snort this penis enhancement. I do it tho.