How much protein can the body absorb in one sitting?

[BetterThanLife]

Ketosis is muscle-sparring. Best decision I've ever made.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=132598293

You can show me all the science you want bud but you can't argue with results and I'm getting them by having a high fat, medium protein, low carb diet.

Well, it is the Supplement Science section; not the share your personal, subjective anecdote section. Perhaps you should post research demonstrating the superiority of a high-fat, low-carb diet compared to a low-fat, high-carb diet with equal amounts of protein between groups. As always, getting some results by doing something most certainly does not mean you're getting the best results and that everyone else should follow your methods.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

Well, it is the Supplement Science section; not the share your personal, subjective anecdote section. Perhaps you should post research demonstrating the superiority of a high-fat, low-carb diet compared to a low-fat, high-carb diet with equal amounts of protein between groups. As always, getting some results by doing something most certainly does not mean you're getting the best results and that everyone else should follow your methods.

My methods?? Go to the keto section and read dude. I provided a link. There's a whole freaking section on keto with stickies. I linked you to the freaking krebs cycle.

Obviously, keto is medium protein. If you increase protein on a keto diet you won't be in ketosis and your body will store it as fat.

Keep eating your bro diet though and your 3 pounds of protein per pound. More power to you.

[BetterThanLife]

Ketosis is muscle-sparring. Best decision I've ever made.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=132598293

You can show me all the science you want bud but you can't argue with results and I'm getting them by having a high fat, medium protein, low carb diet.

My methods?? Go to the keto section and read dude. I provided a link. There's a whole freaking section on keto with stickies. I linked you to the freaking krebs cycle.

Obviously, keto is medium protein. If you increase protein on a keto diet you won't be in ketosis and your body will store it as fat.

Keep eating your bro diet though and your 3 pounds of protein per pound. More power to you.

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking or insulting you or your eating habits. I was just wondering why you were recommending a low-protein diet. It sounds like lack of carbs could be adversely affecting your mood and emotional state . After all, it has been reported that ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets are associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects, as well as lower energy levels, and there is no apparent metabolic advantage associated with ketosis during dieting [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046].

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking or insulting you or your eating habits. I was just wondering why you were recommending a low-protein diet. It sounds like lack of carbs could be adversely affecting your mood and emotional state . After all, it has been reported that ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets are associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects, as well as lower energy levels, and there is no apparent metabolic advantage associated with ketosis during dieting [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046].

If my internet wasn't going so slow and Ithe fact that you're 'not attacking me or insulting me or my eating habits' then continue to do the opposite, it isn't even worth my time. Good day.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

Just to be clear, I'm not attacking or insulting you or your eating habits. I was just wondering why you were recommending a low-protein diet. It sounds like lack of carbs could be adversely affecting your mood and emotional state . After all, it has been reported that ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets are associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects, as well as lower energy levels, and there is no apparent metabolic advantage associated with ketosis during dieting [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046].

If my internet wasn't going so slow and the fact that you're 'not attacking me or insulting me or my eating habits' then continue to do the opposite, it isn't even worth my time. Good day.

[droostead]

Wow this thread should have been smashed into the ground a long time ago.

BetterThanLife: If he's retaining muscle mass and not losing strength, even gaining muscle, then there is nothing wrong with protein being that low. The study you cited even says that 1.3-1.8 per kg will maximize muscle protein synthesis. 1.3 kg=.588 lb. Going up to 1.8 or even 2.0 is the beyond safe way to ensure optimal protein synthesis. So to say that's not optimal, when for some people .588 per lb is optimal, is misinformation.

He could probably go with less protein and not notice much of a change at all.

[BetterThanLife]

Wow this thread should have been smashed into the ground a long time ago.

BetterThanLife: If he's retaining muscle mass and not losing strength, even gaining muscle, then there is nothing wrong with protein being that low. The study you cited even says that 1.3-1.8 per kg will maximize muscle protein synthesis. 1.3 kg=.588 lb. Going up to 1.8 or even 2.0 is the beyond safe way to ensure optimal protein synthesis. So to say that's not optimal, when for some people .588 per lb is optimal, is misinformation.

He could probably go with less protein and not notice much of a change at all.

First of all, his personal story of getting results with his current protein intake is irrelevant, because there is no way of knowing if he would be getting better results with a higher intake. Second, going with the lowest amount of protein that a person can possibly get away with consuming before losing muscle or hindering training adaptations is foolish. Keeping protein intake a little higher might confer an anabolic advantage, and at worst, you will simply oxidize the extra protein for energy. It is far wiser to err on the side of too much protein rather than too little.
"For athletes desiring muscle hypertrophy, there is little reason to limit protein intake and relatively high intakes might be the best recommendation... Even if 2.5–3.0 g protein/kg/BW/day is consumed and this amount of protein is more than the synthetic machinery can process, the excess will simply be oxidized. As long as the intake of other nutrients important to the success of an athlete is not compromised, there appears to be little harm in ingesting these high amounts." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434

[xavengedx23]

First of all, his personal story of getting results with his current protein intake is irrelevant, because there is no way of knowing if he would be getting better results with a higher intake. Second, going with the lowest amount of protein that a person can possibly get away with consuming before losing muscle or hindering training adaptations is foolish. Keeping protein intake a little higher might confer an anabolic advantage, and at worst, you will simply oxidize the extra protein for energy. It is far wiser to err on the side of too much protein rather than too little.
"For athletes desiring muscle hypertrophy, there is little reason to limit protein intake and relatively high intakes might be the best recommendation... Even if 2.5–3.0 g protein/kg/BW/day is consumed and this amount of protein is more than the synthetic machinery can process, the excess will simply be oxidized. As long as the intake of other nutrients important to the success of an athlete is not compromised, there appears to be little harm in ingesting these high amounts." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434

Holy chit you're that one guy

[droostead]

First of all, his personal story of getting results with his current protein intake is irrelevant, because there is no way of knowing if he would be getting better results with a higher intake. Second, going with the lowest amount of protein that a person can possibly get away with consuming before losing muscle or hindering training adaptations is foolish. Keeping protein intake a little higher might confer an anabolic advantage, and at worst, you will simply oxidize the extra protein for energy. It is far wiser to err on the side of too much protein rather than too little.
"For athletes desiring muscle hypertrophy, there is little reason to limit protein intake and relatively high intakes might be the best recommendation... Even if 2.5–3.0 g protein/kg/BW/day is consumed and this amount of protein is more than the synthetic machinery can process, the excess will simply be oxidized. As long as the intake of other nutrients important to the success of an athlete is not compromised, there appears to be little harm in ingesting these high amounts." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971434

I think you're completely missing the point...You questioned his "low protein diet", I told you that even with the study you quoted he is in a safe zone of protein intake. I think you misunderstand the word optimum as well, or at least in this reference. 1.3g/kg of bodyweight is not the lowest you can possibly get away with. It's considered the lowest amount that will give you the best results. If you're not hitting the OPTIMAL amount of protein that does NOT mean your muscles are catabolizing themselves at all. It means you could be doing better. In this study it suggests that 1.3g/kg of body weight COULD be the optimal amount, so when you tell him that is way too low, you are wrong. How do you know exactly what is optimal for him? Maybe instead of telling him he's wrong, suggest he try upping his protein intake as it MIGHT be slightly beneficial to his progress. What you told him was his "low protein" diet is foolish despite the fact that he is MAKING GAINS.

Sure, I'll concede that it is possible he could have better results by consuming more protein. Key word is possible. I'm all for testing the waters to find what works best for people on an individual basis. Show me a valid study that demonstrates that 1.3g/kg of bodyweight will cause catabolism and I'll change my mind, but I haven't seen it.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

I'm just going to throw in that before I did the .6 - .8 grams/lb of protein per day, I did the 1.5-2 grams per lb per day and I'm seeing better results now. I started body building in 2003 and this is what everyone told me to do, so I did it. Here in 2014, I've done my research and realized I don't need that much protein and it would be far better for me to consume calories consisting of fats.

The other thing I do is drink an amino drink about 2 times per day.

Like I said, I did that for 10 years and now I'm growing more with less protein. To each is there own. Find something that works and keep doing it, that's the whole idea of body building, correct?

[eatyourspinach]

I'm just going to throw in that before I did the .6 - .8 grams/lb of protein per day, I did the 1.5-2 grams per lb per day and I'm seeing better results now. I started body building in 2003 and this is what everyone told me to do, so I did it. Here in 2014, I've done my research and realized I don't need that much protein and it would be far better for me to consume calories consisting of fats.

The other thing I do is drink an amino drink about 2 times per day.

Like I said, I did that for 10 years and now I'm growing more with less protein. To each is there own. Find something that works and keep doing it, that's the whole idea of body building, correct?

Amino acids = protein?

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

Amino acids = protein?

amino acids = prevent my mental mind from thinking my muscles are going catabolic

[BetterThanLife]

I think you're completely missing the point...You questioned his "low protein diet", I told you that even with the study you quoted he is in a safe zone of protein intake. I think you misunderstand the word optimum as well, or at least in this reference. 1.3g/kg of bodyweight is not the lowest you can possibly get away with. It's considered the lowest amount that will give you the best results. If you're not hitting the OPTIMAL amount of protein that does NOT mean your muscles are catabolizing themselves at all. It means you could be doing better. In this study it suggests that 1.3g/kg of body weight COULD be the optimal amount, so when you tell him that is way too low, you are wrong. How do you know exactly what is optimal for him? Maybe instead of telling him he's wrong, suggest he try upping his protein intake as it MIGHT be slightly beneficial to his progress. What you told him was his "low protein" diet is foolish despite the fact that he is MAKING GAINS.

Sure, I'll concede that it is possible he could have better results by consuming more protein. Key word is possible. I'm all for testing the waters to find what works best for people on an individual basis. Show me a valid study that demonstrates that 1.3g/kg of bodyweight will cause catabolism and I'll change my mind, but I haven't seen it.

1.3 g/kg was the MINIMUM average for that population, and that was not even based on individuals in a caloric deficit. Additionally, more research has been revealed in the past few years since that publication showing that higher protein intakes are necessary for some athletes. For instance, the estimated mean requirement in endurance-trained women was 1.63 g per kg/day (.74 g/lb) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476478]. However, the 95% confidence interval shows that protein requirements in this population ranged from 1.1-3.8 g/kg or 0.5-1.72 g/lb (i.e. with 95% confidence, every endurance-trained athlete should theoretically fall within this range). You can see how much individual protein requirements can vary between individuals based on nitrogen balance, and even those with the LOWEST requirements still needed to consume 1.1 g/kg as the MINIMUM amount of protein to avoid losing nitrogen (body protein). However, the minimum protein requirements for some athletes will be around 3 g/kg. Given the high degree of variability between individuals, it is incredibly foolish to suggest that 1.3 g/kg is perfectly sufficient for everyone.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

1.3 g/kg was the MINIMUM average for that population, and that was not even based on individuals in a caloric deficit. Additionally, more research has been revealed in the past few years since that publication showing that higher protein intakes are necessary for some athletes. For instance, the estimated mean requirement in endurance-trained women was 1.63 g per kg/day (.74 g/lb) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476478]. However, the 95% confidence interval shows that protein requirements in this population ranged from 1.1-3.8 g/kg or 0.5-1.72 g/lb (i.e. with 95% confidence, every endurance-trained athlete should theoretically fall within this range). You can see how much individual protein requirements can vary between individuals based on nitrogen balance, and even those with the LOWEST requirements still needed to consume 1.1 g/kg as the MINIMUM amount of protein to avoid losing nitrogen (body protein). However, the minimum protein requirements for some athletes will be around 3 g/kg. Given the high degree of variability between individuals, it is incredibly foolish to suggest that 1.3 g/kg is perfectly sufficient for everyone.

If I say "you win", will you shut up?

[BetterThanLife]

If I say "you win", will you shut up?

Wasn't talking to you anymore since you've brought nothing to the table besides your personal anecdote. As I mentioned before, if you have any evidence in support of your recommendations, feel free to present it. I'm always open to learning about research that I'm unaware of, as I seek to hold as few false beliefs as possible. Otherwise, I would keep your subjective opinions to yourself if you're going to give advice in the Supplement Science section.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

Wasn't talking to you anymore since you've brought nothing to the table besides your personal anecdote. As I mentioned before, if you have any evidence in support of your recommendations, feel free to present it. I'm always open to learning about research that I'm unaware of, as I seek to hold as few false beliefs as possible. Otherwise, I would keep your subjective opinions to yourself if you're going to give advice in the Supplement Science section.

Every study you've brought to the table is subjective and provides little, if any conclusion.

Had the subjects been ingesting protein before? At what rate? Did they drastically increase their protein consumption to get said results? Did they even exercise before or were they new to the gym? How many years did they have of weight training under their belt? Did they have a low body fat % or a high body fat %?

I could go on and on the point is you can throw your "science" in the trash because it's not conclusive. My "personal anecdote" is just as good as the studies you're throwing out.

[BetterThanLife]

Every study you've brought to the table is subjective and provides little, if any conclusion.

Had the subjects been ingesting protein before? At what rate? Did they drastically increase their protein consumption to get said results? Did they even exercise before or were they new to the gym? How many years did they have of weight training under their belt? Did they have a low body fat % or a high body fat %?

I could go on and on the point is you can throw your "science" in the trash because it's not conclusive. My "personal anecdote" is just as good as the studies you're throwing out.

Objective data is subjective . All of your questions are answered in the papers. Don't be afraid of a little reading from time to time.

[droostead]

it is incredibly foolish to suggest that 1.3 g/kg is perfectly sufficient for everyone.

Again, I feel guilty keeping this thread alive but I thought I'd tie this together. I never meant to suggest that it is the golden standard for everyone because that's far too broad of a statement, and I know it's not true. I even respond better to higher than 1.3g/kg and I never doubted that some people would benefit from much higher intakes. What I meant to point out is that there shouldn't be blanket statements such as calling his diet a "low protein diet"when it may very well be perfectly sufficient for him in particular. The fact that he claims to be making gains with his current intake would suggest he is, at the very least, close to his optimal protein intake. I didn't mean questioning his protein intake isn't wrong because like I said, he may very well benefit from a higher intake.

I think we're on the same page here as far as protein intake goes, but I don't think you can accurately tell him his protein intake is certainly too low because you don't know that. Like I said in a previous post, it would have come across better and been much more accurate to suggest he test the waters with higher protein intake because he might benefit from it, as opposed to telling him it is certainly too low. Maybe I'm just too nitpicky or I misunderstood your post somehow, cheers to actually posting science either way.

[BetterThanLife]

Again, I feel guilty keeping this thread alive but I thought I'd tie this together. I never meant to suggest that it is the golden standard for everyone because that's far too broad of a statement, and I know it's not true. I even respond better to higher than 1.3g/kg and I never doubted that some people would benefit from much higher intakes. What I meant to point out is that there shouldn't be blanket statements such as calling his diet a "low protein diet"when it may very well be perfectly sufficient for him in particular. The fact that he claims to be making gains with his current intake would suggest he is, at the very least, close to his optimal protein intake. I didn't mean questioning his protein intake isn't wrong because like I said, he may very well benefit from a higher intake.

I think we're on the same page here as far as protein intake goes, but I don't think you can accurately tell him his protein intake is certainly too low because you don't know that. Like I said in a previous post, it would have come across better and been much more accurate to suggest he test the waters with higher protein intake because he might benefit from it, as opposed to telling him it is certainly too low. Maybe I'm just too nitpicky or I misunderstood your post somehow, cheers to actually posting science either way.

Touché. I have no issue with the amount of protein he personally chooses to consume. What I take issue with is the blanket recommendation that others who choose to consume more are going "way overboard", based on nothing besides the fact that he consumes .6 per lb and is "growing like never before." There's no shame in keeping the debate over protein requirements or partitioning of daily protein intake alive, because far more useless conversations carry on endlessly every day in this forum haha.

[ShanynEngwicht]

read all your first hand inputs and they are all helpful. thanks guys!

[BFFS]

i would limit the size of whey shakes more so than anything else. There is nothing wrong with eating a meal containing 60-90 grams of whole food protein, your body will break it down slowly enough that it shouldn't cause any problems. When you start talking about blended proteins it has been my experience that you can take in a larger amount of protein at one time. I normally shoot for 50-60 grams per shake, when i am using a relatively slow digesting protein with a lot of casein in it, like optimum complete protein diet or beverly ultra size.

When more than 30-35 grams of whey is used at one time, it is absorbed too quickly, and what the body cannot assimilate for tissue repair is oxidized for energy. If you don't work it off, it ends up around the old waistline. The latest research has found that more whey protein is oxidized for energy than was first thought. Most people should limit their intake of whey at a single sitting to approx 30 grams. Again these numbers are quite arbitrary, and everyone will respond differently. Mixing whey with milk, adding peanut butter or flax will probably help some, though it won't help as much as some people might think.

The best bet is to invest in a blended protein, or at least some casein protein to add in with the whey, as this will provide a slower digestion rate and will increase the npu (net protein utilization) of the protein. Just as a side note recent studies have found that the npu of whey is actually lower than that of casein and egg white protein.

Last, but not least, barring post-workout, all protein powders are inferior to whole food proteins and are simply a matter of convenience. The key to continuous muscle growth is to keep the body anabolic throughout the day by maintaining a constant positive nitrogen balance. Too much emphasis is placed on post-workout nutrition, and not enough on keeping the body anabolic all day long.

The most important thing to remember is to drink enough water to aid the kidneys in the processing of this much protein. A person doing steroids will see a difference in gains when upping the protein intake to 2 gms per lb. 1 to 1 1/2 gms is plenty for a guy just starting out and taking nothing but protein powder and creatine.

excellent advice it made a lot of sense to me

[roymun60]

Yep, BIG CAT you're absolutely right!!!

What, man has only been around for 8,000 to 10,000 years!!! Are you kidding ?

[xLostxAngelx]

There are a number of factors that contribute to the absorption of protein from our diet. The first is the source—whole food or stand-alone supplement. The difference between these two factors is that whole food genuinely provides natural enzymes that help in the digestion of protein. Most stand-alone protein supplements do not. These enzymes are very important to the digestion of protein. Why? Because protein is simply so complex, and for that reason naturally puts a lot of strain on our digestive system. Akin to that fact, the type of protein you're taking in is the second factor in the absorption of protein. Not all proteins are created equally, some are more complex than others. And this itself means two major things, that it can naturally take longer for the body to break it down, and that if offers a greater nutritional benefit overall.

By the most general standards, protein is so complex, that the average person isn't likely to be absorbing more than 30 grams per serving. This volume is measured in the complexity of Whey, and is generally going to take the body about 3 to 5 hours to complete this process. Casein protein is slightly more complex than Whey, clocking in at about 1.5 the protein value of Whey. This means that less is more, yet is accompanied by the same nutritional window of about 3 to 5 hours. Egg Albumin is the most complex form of protein. It is insanely complex, clocking in at about 2.5 the protein value of Whey. Meaning, that when you're adding up your protein intake, you're going to need to adjust the measure for each type of protein respectively—totaling somewhere in the ballpark of 30 grams.

If you add Hydrolyzed protein into the equation, you can increase that amount by anywhere from 20 to 30 grams. Why? Because Hydrolyzed protein is a form of protein that has already been broken down into its amino acid counterparts. This means that it's available for direct absorption and prioritization, without the latency of the digestive process, or the poor absorption rate that our digestive system might be suffering from. Why do you need to add more protein? Well, it depends on your dietary goals and the type of exercise you're doing. Some people want to dramatically cut carbs, and this naturally done through and uptake of protein—but whole protein is simply too complex to stack on top of what's already a full measure—and that's genuinely where Hydrolyzed protein would come into play.

That about sums it up in whole, I hope this helps to solves your curiosity.

[Khristmas]

I heard it was about 350?

[Budjola]

70-100g of proteins per meal crew

[Suraknar]

Just because you drink it, this does not mean that your body will absorb it. You can drink 200g in one sitting, but you will not absorb it all, you body will take what it needs and either store or evacuate the rest.

Based on this knowledge of how the body works, common sense dictates to spread it out and also take protein when it is believed that the body needs if most.

The 1g or whatever per body weight unit is a general guidance to give an idea of how much to ingest but there is no one mould that fits all, some people will need 1.5 some others only .5 without doing extensive tests one cannot know hence the general guide.

[fortitude101]

I'm sure at times the body is perfectly capable of absorbing 100 grams an hour. However I don't see that being the case for most of the day. Also, saying it could absorb 100 grams an hour is in no way suggesting you should eat 100 grams EVERY hour ...

What we do know is that based on a 2000 calorie diet, our ancestors consumed 200 to 250 grams of protein a day, mostly from meat. That's 40-50% of their diet. Man has only been around 8 to 10.000 years, evolution has not changed our metabolism significantly in that time-frame, which suggests that consuming at least 250 grams per day, and depending on caloric intake, more protein per day (40-50%) is not life-threatening, but instead considerably healthier than the current western diet. On top of that we ate more unsaturated fats (which suggests part of that protein came from fish or plants instead of from potatoe chips and anything deep fried ) and took in roughly more than 10 times the amount of Vitamin C (so supplementing 400 mg on the day is not a bad thing). So far our sedentary lifestyle and adapted diet has given us little more than increase cardiovascular problems and obesity. So I think in retrospect these myths about kidney problems seem rather mild.

awesome post!