How much protein really is necessary

[CheekyCuntt]

I see so much conflicting info online

[AlexSays]

I see so much conflicting info online

Necessary? No idea. However much it takes to remain alive

Optimal?: There are several studies that have indicated that ingesting more than 0.8g of protein per lb of lean body mass shows no further benefit in protein synthesis. In general people who claim they see huges benefits of increasing their protein to 2g/lb of bodyweight or whatever generally have nothing to back it up or prove that it is not coincidence, that they wouldn't do just as well from less or that they aren't merely benefiting from the excess in calories.


In my personal (and very anecdotal) experience I gain just as well on 120g of protein as I do on 180g (I weigh around 185lb at around 18% bodyfat). I also retain strength and mass just as well on the same.

Conclusion? There is no academically demonstrated point in aiming to get more than 0.8g/lb of lbm. If you are purposefully eating over that (rather than just a secondary result of what you choose to eat) then you are most likely wasting effort and money.

[SuffolkPunch]

This is a very FAQ. Full answer is in the macro calculation sticky thread.

[Tommy W.]

There is a lot of debate on the minimum however there are a lot of factors. Someone fairly lean will have a different requirement per lb of body weight than someone carrying a good amount of fat. When dieting down extra protein never hurts

Anecdotally I was at my best with well over 1g per lb

[Mrpb]

There are several studies that have indicated that ingesting more than 0.8g of protein per lb of lean body mass shows no further benefit in protein synthesis.

The actual number is 0.7 gram per lb of body weight, not LBM.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28698222/

[AlexSays]

The actual number is 0.7 gram per lb of body weight, not LBM.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28698222/

Apologies 0.7g, misquoted

Regarding g/kg of bodyweight vs LBM I think I may have been thrown by the fact that they plotted fat free mass against grams per kg of protein supplementation and the study revolves around changes in FFM.

Feels a little ambiguous as it isn't specifically stated that they are supplementing proportional to KG of BW as opposed to FFM. Likely it is stated in the full text somewhere

[desslok]

I see so much conflicting info online

All of it is necessary. Its an essential macro.

[Mrpb]

Apologies 0.7g, misquoted

Regarding g/kg of bodyweight vs LBM I think I may have been thrown by the fact that they plotted fat free mass against grams per kg of protein supplementation and the study revolves around changes in FFM.

Feels a little ambiguous as it isn't specifically stated that they are supplementing proportional to KG of BW as opposed to FFM. Likely it is stated in the full text somewhere

Most people don't have an accurate idea of their LBM which is why I don't recommend using it.

The studies recommend 0.7 per lb of body weight. The number would be higher for lb of LBM.

Full text is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5867436/

Obviously if people are really overweight/obese they're better off using their target weight, this is explained in the stickies.

[Tommy W.]

Most people don't have an accurate idea of their LBM which is why I don't recommend using it.

The studies recommend 0.7 per lb of body weight. The number would be higher for lb of LBM.

Full text is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5867436/

Obviously if people are really overweight/obese they're better off using their target weight, this is explained in the stickies.

Always better to err on the higher side. Many more bennies to a higher than minimum P intake. Why people try to get by with the min baffles me.

[Mrpb]

Always better to err on the higher side. Many more bennies to a higher than minimum P intake. Why people try to get by with the min baffles me.

Because the minimum recommended is already quite high and provides all the benefits that protein has.

The 0.7 gram per lb already contains an error margin. Most people would get the same results on 0.6.

From an anti aging perspective there may be downsides to higher protein intakes. So higher isn't necessarily better.

[Tommy W.]

Because the minimum recommended is already quite high and provides all the benefits that protein has.

The 0.7 gram per lb already contains an error margin. Most people would get the same results on 0.6.

From an anti aging perspective there may be downsides to higher protein intakes. So higher isn't always better.

To each his own. Do what you want....
After decades of training and dieting it works itself out as far as what works and what doesn't. Do what works for you.

[Mrpb]

This happens pretty often in protein threads. Some people are believing that 0.7 gram per lb is some kind of bare minimum that you should never go below. This is not the case. 0.7 is actually the highest point that science has found concrete benefits for and it's already a stretch. Even the idea that you need more during energy deficit hasn't been backed up by studies.

So 0.7 is just a good recommendation. The word "minimum" might be misleading people.

And whether decades of higher protein intake don't have any negative effects is something that scientists will disagree on. It's hard to say.

Anecdotally: I've dieted down to very low body fat (veins showing on my abs) twice in my life. Once on ~1 gram per lb, once on ~0.6 gram per lb. I ended up at exactly the same body composition in both instances.

[Tommy W.]

Higher during cutting generally is due to better satiation and better TEF a double win.

[Strawng]

Anecdotally: I've dieted down to very low body fat (veins showing on my abs) twice in my life. Once on ~1 gram per lb, once on ~0.6 gram per lb. I ended up at exactly the same body composition in both instances.

Out of curiosity, were you hungrier with 1 gram per lb? IME, when I've been that lean, I was starving basically regardless of what I ate so ig it might be hard to even subjectively tell lol

[Mrpb]

Out of curiosity, were you hungrier with 1 gram per lb?

Hunger levels were very similar. Probably because the lower protein intake was paired with even higher intake of vegetables, fruit and fiber.

[Strawng]

Hunger levels were very similar. Probably because the lower protein intake was paired with even higher intake of vegetables, fruit and fiber.

That makes a lot of sense. I personally find fiber far more satiating than protein.

[Mrpb]

That makes a lot of sense. I personally find fiber far more satiating than protein.

I think you could be right although it's hard to separate the effects. Different forms and sources of fiber and protein may have different effects.

One thing that seems to work well for me is loading up on high fiber salads with protein sources like chicken and fish.

[RapidFail]

That makes a lot of sense. I personally find fiber far more satiating than protein.

I'll agree with fibre being very satiating. For me, in order of satiation:

High fibre carbs/fruit/veg
Protein
Low fibre carbs/fruit/veg
Fats

The first time I bulked I did it on a relatively high fat diet - around 135g daily and I actually had to make sure not to go over my calories. This time around I've upped my carbs, reduced fats to 100g and I'm so much more full. I did enjoy the higher fat diet more, though.

[snailsrus]

I get blood work rather frequently and at .7 g per lb I’d go anemic even eating complete proteins. But I exercise a lot, which I do believe is a factor, I have a very low body fat according to a dexa scan and a monthly from hell that comes every ~ 2-3 weeks for a week. Yes I bleed like 1/3-1/4 of the year and my doctors aren’t concerned.

That said at a higher bf and exercising less I was able to be fine at .7 grams per lb which is ~70 grams (my weight fluctuates slightly with my monthly) my lbm is 86.4 lbs

Generally I eat more protein than needed but I eat a lot of dairy and eggs cause I like them and I have chickens and ducks

[Mrpb]

Higher during cutting generally is due to better satiation and better TEF a double win.

Looking at single macronutrients in isolation is probably missing important context. For example: 300 kcal of boiled potatoes will be far more satiating than 300 kcal of ribs, even though the latter has much higher protein content.

Given proper diet composition (enough volume, fiber, vegetables etc.) it's highly questionable whether higher protein intake (above 0.7) improves satiety.

There are plenty of studies that show protein isn't necessarily satiating:

Raben et al. (2003) found no difference in hunger suppression or subsequent energy intake after isocaloric meals of either 32% or 12% protein.

Bligh et al. (2015) found no effect on satiety of adding fish and almonds to a plant-based paleo meal, even though protein content from the meal rose from a paltry 16 grams to 41 grams.

Giezenaar et al. (2017) found that consuming a whey protein shake before a buffet didn’t reduce unrestricted (‘ad libitum’) energy intake at all.

Blatt et al. (2011) found that 5 different preload meals ranging from 10% to 30% protein, which were manipulated to look and taste the same, had the same effect on appetite and unrestricted energy intake.

Wiessing et al. (2015) found that a whey protein shake was no more effective at suppressing energy intake in the next meal than sugar water, regardless of protein content (high vs. low).

A 2013 meta-analysis confirmed that there is no relation between the protein content and the appetite suppression of meals.

[SuffolkPunch]

The word "minimum" might be misleading people.

Yes, it's more like the maximum shown to improve results.

Of course if we call it a maximum, we'll get people saying "OH NOES, I went over my maximum by 5g, am I going to get kidney stones?"

[RapidFail]

Looking at single macronutrients in isolation is probably missing important context. For example: 300 kcal of boiled potatoes will be far more satiating than 300 kcal of ribs, even though the latter has much higher protein content.

Given proper diet composition (enough volume, fiber, vegetables etc.) it's highly questionable whether higher protein intake (above 0.7) improves satiety.

There are plenty of studies that show protein isn't necessarily satiating:

Raben et al. (2003) found no difference in hunger suppression or subsequent energy intake after isocaloric meals of either 32% or 12% protein.

Bligh et al. (2015) found no effect on satiety of adding fish and almonds to a plant-based paleo meal, even though protein content from the meal rose from a paltry 16 grams to 41 grams.

Giezenaar et al. (2017) found that consuming a whey protein shake before a buffet didn’t reduce unrestricted (‘ad libitum’) energy intake at all.

Blatt et al. (2011) found that 5 different preload meals ranging from 10% to 30% protein, which were manipulated to look and taste the same, had the same effect on appetite and unrestricted energy intake.

Wiessing et al. (2015) found that a whey protein shake was no more effective at suppressing energy intake in the next meal than sugar water, regardless of protein content (high vs. low).

A 2013 meta-analysis confirmed that there is no relation between the protein content and the appetite suppression of meals.

Personally I don't find whey protein shakes satiating, but lean meats like chicken breast are very satiating per calorie. Almonds aren't the best example - they are far higher in fat than protein.

[Tommy W.]

Looking at single macronutrients in isolation is probably missing important context. For example: 300 kcal of boiled potatoes will be far more satiating than 300 kcal of ribs, even though the latter has much higher protein content.

Given proper diet composition (enough volume, fiber, vegetables etc.) it's highly questionable whether higher protein intake (above 0.7) improves satiety.

There are plenty of studies that show protein isn't necessarily satiating:

Raben et al. (2003) found no difference in hunger suppression or subsequent energy intake after isocaloric meals of either 32% or 12% protein.

Bligh et al. (2015) found no effect on satiety of adding fish and almonds to a plant-based paleo meal, even though protein content from the meal rose from a paltry 16 grams to 41 grams.

Giezenaar et al. (2017) found that consuming a whey protein shake before a buffet didn’t reduce unrestricted (‘ad libitum’) energy intake at all.

Blatt et al. (2011) found that 5 different preload meals ranging from 10% to 30% protein, which were manipulated to look and taste the same, had the same effect on appetite and unrestricted energy intake.

Wiessing et al. (2015) found that a whey protein shake was no more effective at suppressing energy intake in the next meal than sugar water, regardless of protein content (high vs. low).

A 2013 meta-analysis confirmed that there is no relation between the protein content and the appetite suppression of meals.

I would disagree with some points. Mostly pertaining to satiation based on anecdotal experience and I'm definitely not alone. Studies are almost never a be all end all of many things diet wise.

[Strawng]

Here’s a great analysis of the literature on protein & satiety:

https://mennohenselmans.com/protein-...arbs-and-fats/

Cliffs: Protein is more satiating only until you hit somewhere around your body’s minimal requirement. After that, food volume & fiber>protein content.

This completely jibes with my experience as well. I can sense in my body a very specific type of hunger for protein after eating intuitively for years. Once I hit even 80-100 grams or so though, I no longer crave anymore protein necessarily & don’t feel particularly sated from it even compared to “simple” carbs or fats. This is despite the fact that I eat about 170 grams on a normal day. If I eat half that, I’m not necessarily hungrier. I find fiber, fruits, & vegetables far more satiating.

[snailsrus]

Here’s a great analysis of the literature on protein & satiety:

https://mennohenselmans.com/protein-...arbs-and-fats/

Cliffs: Protein is more satiating only until you hit somewhere around your body’s minimal requirement. After that, food volume & fiber>protein content.

This completely jibes with my experience as well. I can sense in my body a very specific type of hunger for protein after eating intuitively for years. Once I hit even 80-100 grams or so though, I no longer crave anymore protein necessarily & don’t feel particularly sated from it even compared to “simple” carbs or fats. This is despite the fact that I eat about 170 grams on a normal day. If I eat half that, I’m not necessarily hungrier. I find fiber, fruits, & vegetables far more satiating.

carbs/veggies/fruit does make me more “full” but fats never do unless it’s like greasy food which makes me kinda nauseous so not full but not hungry

[Mrpb]

Yes, it's more like the maximum shown to improve results.

Of course if we call it a maximum, we'll get people saying "OH NOES, I went over my maximum by 5g, am I going to get kidney stones?"

Maybe we should just call it "recommended protein intake"?

[Tommy W.]

Maybe we should just call it "recommended protein intake"?

This.

It just weird though when you have one guy 5-8 and 250 and another guy 5-8 and 160 and in shape. Going by bodyweight goes out the window. Or does it? More bodyfat and more protein causes less dependence on fat and processed carbs to fill in the calories which for people carrying high BF can be beneficial.

[AdamWW]

carbs/veggies/fruit does make me more “full” but fats never do unless it’s like greasy food which makes me kinda nauseous so not full but not hungry

I have a similar reaction to oily, fried foods.

When it comes to fat providing a more pure sense of satiety, it's mainly in the form of (what I THINK is) adequately stimulating that savory/'umami' flavor receptor. It doesn't take much, but I need SOME in order to feel like I hit all my natural cravings.

A spoon or two of nut butter, 1/2 an avocado, etc is usually all it takes. Once I have more it gradually gets less palatable because the foods just feel too heavy and substantial as I'm eating them. Totally different than when I eat rice, bananas, or white bread.... I'll kill a box of cereal no issue.

Oddly, for me, the most satiating foods are dry baked potato, broccoli, salmon, almonds, overnight/cold oats, and avocado... I don't actually get much satiety from low/fat free dairy, whey, or even higher protein items like shrimp, white fish, or chicken (when I still ate it) alone.

[Strawng]

I have a similar reaction to oily, fried foods.

When it comes to fat providing a more pure sense of satiety, it's mainly in the form of (what I THINK is) adequately stimulating that savory/'umami' flavor receptor. It doesn't take much, but I need SOME in order to feel like I hit all my natural cravings.

A spoon or two of nut butter, 1/2 an avocado, etc is usually all it takes. Once I have more it gradually gets less palatable because the foods just feel too heavy and substantial as I'm eating them. Totally different than when I eat rice, bananas, or white bread.... I'll kill a box of cereal no issue.

Oddly, for me, the most satiating foods are dry baked potato, broccoli, salmon, almonds, overnight/cold oats, and avocado... I don't actually get much satiety from low/fat free dairy, whey, or even higher protein items like shrimp, white fish, or chicken (when I still ate it) alone.

I'm exactly the same. Also, I could argue that oily foods could be the most satiating because nauseate me extremely bad to the point I no longer want to eat for the rest of the day if I eat them. I wonder if this is part of the reason keto is effective for appetite reduction.

[AdamWW]

I'm exactly the same. Also, I could argue that oily foods could be the most satiating because nauseate me extremely bad to the point I no longer want to eat for the rest of the day if I eat them. I wonder if this is part of the reason keto is effective for appetite reduction.

Haha, i guess so... but then we'd be equating nausea to satiety... in which case, I get pretty satiated when I'm deathly ill with the flu