# The "myth of 1g/lb" article.



## RFC52 (Jan 4, 2011)

Hey guys/girls,

Just thought I'd get everyone's opinion on this article. The basic point created (for those who can't be ****d to read it!) is that the terms of "1g/lb or 2.2g/kg Protein" that gets banded about is infact, a total myth. That this is in fact too much and that there is no scientific backing to show that the body requires any more than 0.84k/lb of Protein for growth or maintenance.

Similarly, it also says that as training age increases, the body uses the protein more optimally, and you therefore, require less grams per pound.

So guys, especially the big guys, and those who coach/compete, thoughts?!

http://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Personally i would rather err on the side of too much than too little - also protein has other benefits as well, you burn more calories eating 100g of protein than you do eating 100g of carbs.

Have a read of this ( source http://www.precisionnutrition.com/protein-limit )

Is Muscle The Only Reason We Eat Protein?

Now, while I can always appreciate a good muscle protein synthesis study, I sorta wonder if all the hoopla regarding these two studies is doing healthy eaters a service or not.

I mean, it's definitely a good thing to discover that 30g of protein provides the upper limit of amino acids necessary for maximal protein synthesis at a particular point in time. However, the important, big-picture question is this one&#8230;is building muscle the only reason we eat protein?

I think not.

Challenging the notion that eating more than 30g in a sitting is wasteful, here are a few thoughts I sent to a group of colleagues:

1) What Else Will You Eat?

Let's say you're on a high calorie diet. Maybe you're into bodybuilding or you're training for an athletic event. And now you limit your protein intake to 20-30g per meal. What else do you fill up with? Carbs or fats?

Let's take an example. Say you're eating 4000-4500kcal per day for competition, which many larger lifers and athletes will need to do. And let's say, because of these studies, you limit your protein intake to 5 meals of 20g each. In the end you'll be getting 100g and 400kcal from protein.

Well, that's 8% of your diet. What makes up the other 92%? If you're loading up with that many carbs or fats, body comp can suffer. Remember, the protein is being replaced by macronutrients with lower thermic effects (more on this below).

2) What About The Other Benefits?

Muscle protein synthesis isn't the only reason to eat more protein. There's satiety, the thermogenic effects, the impact on the immune system, and more (see below).

Plus, there are probably a few benefits science can't measure yet. I say the last part because there's so much experiential evidence suggesting that when you're training hard and you up your protein, you do better. So maybe we just haven't looked in the right places to notice the real benefits.

Other Protein Benefits

In an article I wrote a few years back, I listed some of the benefits of eating more protein. And although the article is a few years old, nothing's really changed since then. Here's the list:

Increased Thermic Effect of Feeding - While all macronutrients require metabolic processing for digestion, absorption, and storage or oxidation, the thermic effect of protein is roughly double that of carbohydrates and fat. Therefore, eating protein is actually thermogenic and can lead to a higher metabolic rate. This means greater fat loss when dieting and less fat gain during overfeeding/muscle building.

Increased Glucagon - Protein consumption increases plasma concentrations of the hormone glucagon. Glucagon is responsible for antagonizing the effects of insulin in adipose tissue, leading to greater fat mobilization. In addition, glucagon also decreases the amounts and activities of the enzymes responsible for making and storing fat in adipose and liver cells. Again, this leads to greater fat loss during dieting and less fat gain during overfeeding.

Metabolic Pathway Adjustment - When a higher protein (20-50% of intake) is followed, a host of metabolic adjustments occur. These include: a down regulation of glycolysis, a reduction in fatty acid synthesis enzymes, increase in gluconeogenesis, a carbohydrate "draining" effect where carbons necessary for ridding the body of amino nitrogen is drawn from glucose.

Increased IGF-1 - Protein and amino-acid supplementation has been shown to increase the IGF-1 response to both exercise and feeding. Since IGF-1 is an anabolic hormone that's related to muscle growth, another advantage associated with consuming more protein is more muscle growth when overfeeding and/or muscle sparing when dieting.

Reduction in Cardiovascular Risk - Several studies have shown that increasing the percentage of protein in the diet (from 11% to 23%) while decreasing the percentage of carbohydrate (from 63% to 48%) lowers LDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations with concomitant increases in HDL cholesterol concentrations.

Improved Weight-Loss Profile -Research by Layman and colleagues has demonstrated that reducing the carbohydrate ratio from 3.5 - 1 to 1.4 - 1 increases body fat loss, spares muscle mass, reduces triglyceride concentrations, improves satiety, and improves blood glucose management (Layman et al 2003 - If you're at all interested in protein intake, you've gotta go read the January and February issues of the Journal of Nutrition. Layman has three interesting articles in the two journals).

Increased Protein Turnover - All tissues of the body, including muscle, go through a regular program of turnover. Since the balance between protein breakdown and protein synthesis governs muscle protein turnover, you need to increase your protein turnover rates in order to best improve your muscle quality. A high protein diet does just this. By increasing both protein synthesis and protein breakdown, a high protein diet helps you get rid of the old muscle more quickly and build up new, more functional muscle to take its place.

Increased Nitrogen Status - Earlier I indicated that a positive nitrogen status means that more protein is entering the body than is leaving the body. High protein diets cause a strong positive protein status and when this increased protein availability is coupled with an exercise program that increases the body's anabolic efficiency, the growth process may be accelerated.

Increased Provision of Auxiliary Nutrients - Although the benefits mentioned above have related specifically to protein and amino acids, it's important to recognize that we don't just eat protein and amino acids - we eat food. Therefore, high protein diets often provide auxiliary nutrients that could enhance performance and/or muscle growth. These nutrients include creatine, branched chain amino acids, conjugated linoleic acids, and/or additional nutrients that are important but remain to be discovered. And don't forget the vitamins and minerals we get from protein rich foods. (And lest anyone think I'm a shill for the protein powder industry, this last point clearly illustrates the need to get most of your protein from food, rather than supplements.)

Looking over this list of benefits, it's hard to ignore the fact that we don't just eat protein for its muscle synthetic effect. We eat protein for a bunch of other reasons too. And since a higher protein diet can lead to a better health profile, an increased metabolism, improved body composition, and an improved training response, why would anyone ever try to limit their protein intake to the bare minimum?


----------



## Jay_1986 (Jan 20, 2011)

Great post Fatstuff, some really interesting points - IOU reppage!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

The first article is not bad, and it does appear to be the case that protein synthesis takes place at lower levels of protein intake than many assume.

However, the above article from John Berardi copy and pasted by @Fatstuff has very good rationale as to why exceeding the 'bare minimal amount' for protein synthesis can be healthy thing to do.

A third point is that if a bodybuilder is using pro-hormones, AAS or peptides, the maximum ceiling on protein synthesis becomes significantly elevated. The amount depends upon the compound, or combination of compounds, and due to legality/ethics you won't find enough study data to provide an accurate recommendation. With that being considered for bodybuilders who juice, what is shown to be the maximum effective protein intake in the studies that are conducted on naturals will certainly be lower than optimal for those individuals.

Finally, in the studies of Tarnopolsky, Lemon, Tipton, Rasmussen etc (all excellent studies) where the relatively low protein intake recommendation comes from, is important to note that the figures they come up with are averages for all study participants - in all of the relevant trials, some people respond to higher protein intake, and others to less. In some cases also, due to the method of analysis, there are some individuals who do not respond until an extremely high protein intake is given, and these results are often excluded from the average as anomalies... however, a very new piece of research has suggested two relatively new theories called "Protein Spread Theory" and "Protein Change Theory" which explain these differences as it being the relative change in previous protein intake that leads to greater effect, rather than the actual amount...in very simple terms when people are tested in these experiments, it's possible that for some of them because their body is used to a high protein intake from pre-experiment diets, the change might not be enough to have a positive result, whereas in those who pre experiment had a low protein intake the change would be - and it's the percentage change that is important, not the actual amount.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-9-81.pdf

The summary of these theories is that if anyone on any protein intake hikes their protein by about 30-60%, they would likely see a benefit to protein synthesis, at least in the short term, whatever their previous intake was.

However, should you go above an already high protein intake just to get a little bit more protein synthesis? Not if it makes diet unbalanced, absolutely no.

Whilst there are some beneficial effects of high protein diets, there are also some negative ones - osteoporosis risk, kidney stone risk, and for the bodybuilder in particular the likelyhood of reduced testosterone production - two important dietary factors for optimum testosterone production in males are 1) 20-30% of macros should be from dietary fat, and 2) That carbohydrate intake exceeds protein intake, ideally by 2 to 1. The more protein intake increases relative to carbohydrate intake, and the more fat intake drops below 30%, the more the risk of lowering anabolism through reduced testosterone synthesis and the extra protein will have no anabolic value.

Looking at all factors it's all about balance IMO - moderate high quality protein intake, healthy fats, and unprocessed carbs, all eaten in appropriate amounts. Add to that your training stimulus and you are good to go without doing anything to excess.


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

Top post det, i always look forward to what you have to write in a thread.


----------



## griffo13 (Dec 7, 2009)

didnt read threw the lot.. very interesting though. jay culter is know for using really low protein compared to all other top bodybuilders.. some where around 170g a day.. but with massive carb intake..... there is a canadian study that used 1.7g per kg of bw and found no wasted protein in people that trained.... so the reckoned the limit could be higher...


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

griffo13 said:


> didnt read threw the lot.. very interesting though.* jay culter is know for using really low protein compared to all other top bodybuilders.. some where around 170g a day.*. but with massive carb intake..... there is a canadian study that used 1.7g per kg of bw and found no wasted protein in people that trained.... so the reckoned the limit could be higher...


soryy but thats a lot of pish mate,he consumes closer to 500g a day,its well documented,like EVERYWHERE.

As for the thread.....here we go again........ :lol:


----------



## RFC52 (Jan 4, 2011)

weeman said:


> soryy but thats a lot of pish mate,he consumes closer to 500g a day,its well documented,like EVERYWHERE.
> 
> As for the thread.....here we go again........ :lol:


?? I was just wondering after I'd seen the article. It's provoked a decent intellectual debate involving Alan Aragon etc. just thought I'd see the opinion on this board.


----------



## mc187 (Dec 30, 2007)

if your on a cycle would you increase your protein intake - if so by how much?


----------



## griffo13 (Dec 7, 2009)

weeman said:


> soryy but thats a lot of pish mate,he consumes closer to 500g a day,its well documented,like EVERYWHERE.
> 
> As for the thread.....here we go again........ :lol:


just what i have read several times in few mags.. not sure what to beleive in them though


----------



## bigtommay (Jun 26, 2012)

dtlv said:


> The first article is not bad, and it does appear to be the case that protein synthesis takes place at lower levels of protein intake than many assume.
> 
> However, the above article from John Berardi copy and pasted by @Fatstuff has very good rationale as to why exceeding the 'bare minimal amount' for protein synthesis can be healthy thing to do.
> 
> ...


Great Post, i was wondering though how many people actually set their carbs/protein ratios at 2:1

This would have me at around 190g protein as opposed to the 300g that i currently use on a 3000cal diet along with around 300g carbs.

Should i be looking to switch this up?


----------



## mc187 (Dec 30, 2007)

bigtommay said:


> Great Post, i was wondering though how many people actually set their carbs/protein ratios at 2:1
> 
> This would have me at around 190g protein as opposed to the 300g that i currently use on a 3000cal diet along with around 300g carbs.
> 
> Should i be looking to switch this up?


surely it depends on what an individuals goals are and what condition they are in - for example someone above 15/20% bf would not follow the 2:1 carb/protein ratio. generally people lower in bf can consume more carbs as their body is more effective at channeling them


----------



## human twig (Jul 29, 2012)

I don't think it is a myth. These studies so that it isn't:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9841962

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6390614

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9901/rbk.html


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

bigtommay said:


> Great Post, i was wondering though how many people actually set their carbs/protein ratios at 2:1
> 
> This would have me at around 190g protein as opposed to the 300g that i currently use on a 3000cal diet along with around 300g carbs.
> 
> Should i be looking to switch this up?


Not many people do set that ratio, no. I think the simple take home message though is simply (for a natty) to not let protein intake exceed carb intake, unless you really do have a big issue with digesting carbs (fructose and lactose intolerant etc) and holding fat with them (very poor insulin sensitivity) - this should be enough to maintain decent testosterone levels, especially if you are getting in enough healthy fats, omega 3/6 ratio is decent, and zinc intake is ok.

I quite like a fairly balanced macro ratio for a natty personally, around 40% carbs, 30% fats, 30% protein... at maintenance kcals this gives around 2.5g protein per kg bodyweight and has a pretty good protein/carb ratio without being high carb... covers most bases pretty good.


----------



## bigtommay (Jun 26, 2012)

dtlv said:


> Not many people do set that ratio, no. I think the simple take home message though is simply (for a natty) to not let protein intake exceed carb intake, unless you really do have a big issue with digesting carbs (fructose and lactose intolerant etc) and holding fat with them (very poor insulin sensitivity) - this should be enough to maintain decent testosterone levels, especially if you are getting in enough healthy fats, omega 3/6 ratio is decent, and zinc intake is ok.
> 
> I quite like a fairly balanced macro ratio for a natty personally, around 40% carbs, 30% fats, 30% protein... at maintenance kcals this gives around 2.5g protein per kg bodyweight and has a pretty good protein/carb ratio without being high carb... covers most bases pretty good.


Thanks for that mate.

Reason i've kept carbs around the same as protein is that i feel i whaclkon fat far too easily. Even with these ratios and small surplus increments i get a fat gut. So im nervous about increasing carbs any further. Drives me nuts!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

bigtommay said:


> Thanks for that mate.
> 
> Reason i've kept carbs around the same as protein is that i feel i whaclkon fat far too easily. Even with these ratios and small surplus increments i get a fat gut. So im nervous about increasing carbs any further. Drives me nuts!


Well do trust your observations of your own body... you know how you respond better than anyone else. While there are well established genetic differences that do result in a non-uniform response to bodyfat gain/loss with carbs and fats, do be careful though, if apparently sensitive to carbs, to not see all carbs as the enemy... for carb sensitive folk (or insulin in-sensitive depending upon how you talk about it) you want to avoid sugar and fructose and replace with low GI carbs.

Also, don't tweak a diet that is already working just because I and some studies suggest it might help your test levels - if you are doing well on your current approach and don' suspect any negative issues with test levels or body composition then stick with it.

I like the 40/30/30 split, but really its the place I like to recommend as a start point for people to tweak for their individual needs/responses.


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

100% myth created by supplement companies to make you buy more. i grow just the same off 1g per kg of bw. works fine imo with standard training, if your some top level guy with intense workouts that would take a normal guy weeks to recover freom then oviously more is better. but for mr normal then you can grow fine on alot less.

if i can offord more i use more tho.


----------



## mc187 (Dec 30, 2007)

stone14 said:


> 100% myth created by supplement companies to make you buy more. i grow just the same off 1g per kg of bw. works fine imo with standard training, if your some top level guy with intense workouts that would take a normal guy weeks to recover freom then oviously more is better. but for mr normal then you can grow fine on alot less.
> 
> if i can offord more i use more tho.


1g per kg? or 1g per lb of bw?


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

Fatstuff said:


> Personally i would rather err on the side of too much than too little - also protein has other benefits as well, you burn more calories eating 100g of protein than you do eating 100g of carbs.
> 
> Have a read of this ( source http://www.precisionnutrition.com/protein-limit )
> 
> ...


i prefer to go slightly under then over..

making the body more efficient at utilising protein, the body adapts well


----------



## mc187 (Dec 30, 2007)

dtlv said:


> Well do trust your observations of your own body... you know how you respond better than anyone else. While there are well established genetic differences that do result in a non-uniform response to bodyfat gain/loss with carbs and fats, do be careful though, if apparently sensitive to carbs, to not see all carbs as the enemy... for carb sensitive folk (or insulin in-sensitive depending upon how you talk about it) you want to avoid sugar and fructose and replace with low GI carbs.
> 
> Also, don't tweak a diet that is already working just because I and some studies suggest it might help your test levels - if you are doing well on your current approach and don' suspect any negative issues with test levels or body composition then stick with it.
> 
> I like the 40/30/30 split, but really its the place I like to recommend as a start point for people to tweak for their individual needs/responses.


you could play around with carb timing - so that you consume bulk amount of carbs at times when your body will channel them into muscles rather than store as bf. so best times for high carb meals would be meal 1 and post workout shake/meal/meal that follows post workout shake.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

JF156 said:


> Hey guys/girls,
> 
> Just thought I'd get everyone's opinion on this article. The basic point created (for those who can't be ****d to read it!) is that the terms of "1g/lb or 2.2g/kg Protein" that gets banded about is infact, a total myth. That this is in fact too much and that there is no scientific backing to show that the body requires any more than 0.84k/lb of Protein for growth or maintenance.
> 
> ...


I have said this loads of times mate...there is no point telling anyone, it will fall on deaf ears...


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

mc187 said:


> you could play around with carb timing - so that you consume bulk amount of carbs at times when your body will channel them into muscles rather than store as bf. so best times for high carb meals would be meal 1 and post workout shake/meal/meal that follows post workout shake.


Yep, is good advice generally I think to go with calorie dense foods around times of training/activity, and low calorie density/high nutrient density in the times between activity, especially if lean bulking.


----------



## HJL (Apr 26, 2009)

dtlv said:


> Yep, is good advice generally I think to go with calorie dense foods around times of training/activity, and low calorie density/high nutrient density in the times between activity, especially if lean bulking.


generaly i dont feel hungry for carbs that often in the day,

M1 100g oats, whey, banana, pb. fish oils and vits.

M2 chicken salad with EVOO

M3 pasta and eggs and veg

M4 chicken and fats from nuts (fruit?)

M5 potato and tuna fruit

M6 slow release protien & EVOO

il always chuck in another whey shake too in the day somewhere. 200g protien from solid sources. but only carbs in my M1,3 and 5. my 'inbetween' meals i just don think i need to pile them in. not sure if this hinders my cals and stops me from gaining, nor do i know how many cals come from fats.


----------



## bigtommay (Jun 26, 2012)

mc187 said:


> you could play around with carb timing - so that you consume bulk amount of carbs at times when your body will channel them into muscles rather than store as bf. so best times for high carb meals would be meal 1 and post workout shake/meal/meal that follows post workout shake.





dtlv said:


> Yep, is good advice generally I think to go with calorie dense foods around times of training/activity, and low calorie density/high nutrient density in the times between activity, especially if lean bulking.


I don't know much about this. Is there definitely some great benefits to be had from this approach or is it simply optimising for a very slight benefit?

I have read briefly about this but i have also read that at the end of the day it will all come down to cals in v out all the same?

I may well give this a try because right now i distribute evenly across meals 1-4 and meal 5 is low carb. I guess it does no harm to try it and see.

Thanks guys. Sorry if i'm sidetracking the thread slightly :thumbup1:


----------



## mc187 (Dec 30, 2007)

bigtommay said:


> I don't know much about this. Is there definitely some great benefits to be had from this approach or is it simply optimising for a very slight benefit?
> 
> I have read briefly about this but i have also read that at the end of the day it will all come down to cals in v out all the same?
> 
> ...


glycogen needs replenishing after workout because gyclogen stores are empty..makes sense as you have just workout. therefore the carbs you consume after workout will be channeled to restoring gyclogen in the muscles where it's needed most!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

bigtommay said:


> I don't know much about this. Is there definitely some great benefits to be had from this approach or is it simply optimising for a very slight benefit?
> 
> I have read briefly about this but i have also read that at the end of the day it will all come down to cals in v out all the same?
> 
> ...


Optimising for slight benefit. kcals in vs kcals out always governs things but it's slightly misunderstood - an excess of say 100kcals for example in a day doesn't necessarily mean 100kcals of fat added, it will be a combined 100kcals of fat, protein and carbs (stored as glycogen) added to your body... how your genetic profile interacts with your chosen diet, and the tweaking in relation to meal timings will both have some degree of effect as to precisely how that kcal excess is divided - but yes, the ultimate governing principal of fat gain or loss is always tightly and very closely linked to energy balance.


----------



## Vasea (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't know u guys but for me 2g works best.If i eat proprely I see how my body grow the traning in the gym its much eazier and enjoy it.I am that kinda guy without fat, I am not big but what I have on me its almost muscle all.


----------



## bigtommay (Jun 26, 2012)

mc187 said:


> glycogen needs replenishing after workout because gyclogen stores are empty..makes sense as you have just workout. therefore the carbs you consume after workout will be channeled to restoring gyclogen in the muscles where it's needed most!





dtlv said:


> Optimising for slight benefit. kcals in vs kcals out always governs things but it's slightly misunderstood - an excess of say 100kcals for example in a day doesn't necessarily mean 100kcals of fat added, it will be a combined 100kcals of fat, protein and carbs (stored as glycogen) added to your body... how your genetic profile interacts with your chosen diet, and the tweaking in relation to meal timings will both have some degree of effect as to precisely how that kcal excess is divided - but yes, the ultimate governing principal of fat gain or loss is always tightly and very closely linked to energy balance.


Thanks guys. Very helpful explanations. Something to think about!


----------



## exvigourbeast (Dec 4, 2009)

I decided to up my protein as an experiment from approx Oct 1 by around 150g a day in the form of Whey protein and around 500ml of milk . Prior to this I had always been a protein sceptic and probably consumed a gram a kilo at best and didn't really count.

Whilst its not exactly rigidly controlled and the finest scientific protocol I can report that thus far it has done me f**k all good. Strength is exactly the same, Im just fatter


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

I was aiming for the 3.3 g/kg of protein that Lyle McDonald recommends in The Protein Book (if I remember correctly) when I was on cycle.

Has the kidney problems associated with high protein diets actually been proven? I was under the impression that the data wasn't very strong on this topic.


----------



## exvigourbeast (Dec 4, 2009)

Rebel^Lion said:


> well obviously if you add an extra 600 calories to your diet and dont change anything up you are going to get fatter......


Fair point. What is the required change or action for the protein magic to occur ? My ibasic idea was that if I was deficient in protein then addressing the deficiency would result in a strength increase.


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

dtlv said:


> Not many people do set that ratio, no. I think the simple take home message though is simply (for a natty) to not let protein intake exceed carb intake,


I never knew that test levels are effected by carbs. I know fats effects your test levels. Reading through keto information, keto says carbs are basically not needed by the body

What do you think on ckd for nattys @dtlv?


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2012)

My protein consumption is a lot higher than carbs. Around 290g with 150g carbs and the rest of the 3k from fats. I don't respond well to high carbs hence the high protein instead


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

musio said:


> I never knew that test levels are effected by carbs. I know fats effects your test levels. Reading through keto information, keto says carbs are basically not needed by the body
> 
> What do you think on ckd for nattys @dtlv?


ckd is fine for cutting, but is a poor lean bulking or gaining diet IMO.

The essentiality argument for carbs is often misrepresented by low carb advocates I often feel... the only reason the body can cope with low carb intakes is because it can and will synthesize it's minimal requirement of blood glucose from glucogenic amino acids... even in very low carb intakes (=<50g daily) and states of full ketone adaptation an average bodyweight adult has a blood glucose turnover of around 80-120g daily (dependent upon activity levels) with the difference being deaminated from dietary protein.

Anyway, I dont want to get too off topic, so here is a bit on protein carb ratios and testosterone -



> *Diet-hormone interactions: Protein/carbohydrate ratio alters reciprocally the plasma levels of testosterone and cortisol and their respective binding globulins in man*
> 
> *
> *
> ...


I used to have a link for the full study for this which talks more about the ratio and effects on binding globulins, but i think its now subscription only.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024320587900865

And a good study worth reading for the discussion - http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.full


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

i would love to see debates like this where the people decrying the need for a high protein intake post full body pics of themselves when entering the debate,it would put paid to a lot of the arguements.

not intending to be nasty here just stating the obvious that you will see common trend in who has the superior muscle mass,the vast majority of the people with the higher protein intake,bottom line.


----------



## RFC52 (Jan 4, 2011)

weeman said:


> i would love to see debates like this where the people decrying the need for a high protein intake post full body pics of themselves when entering the debate,it would put paid to a lot of the arguements.
> 
> not intending to be nasty here just stating the obvious that you will see common trend in who has the superior muscle mass,the vast majority of the people with the higher protein intake,bottom line.


I understand where you're coming from, but on that basis...should we then discredit ALL work because those people don't fit into a certain criteria? Ie...Screw HIV medicine/any attempted Cancer meds....because the bloke who's made them doesn't have the disease?

I know that's a very simple and childish way for me to look at your post, but I still feel that point qualifies.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

JF156 said:


> I understand where you're coming from, but on that basis...should we then discredit ALL work because those people don't fit into a certain criteria? Ie...Screw HIV medicine/any attempted Cancer meds....because the bloke who's made them doesn't have the disease?
> 
> I know that's a very simple and childish way for me to look at your post, but I still feel that point qualifies.


no but thats like comparing quantum physics to simple maths.

what i am saying is that in general,its been proven over and over again that the VAST majority need a high protein content in order to make the muscular gains they are looking for,you will not find a single person at the top of their game in this sport who doesnt have a high prot intake,and no not because they are doing it due to it being 'the done thing',no one likes to eat tonnes of protien,if they could get away with less they would,and anyone worth their salt will have tried,but you cant escape the basic fact of the matter that large muscle gains require large protein intakes.


----------



## RFC52 (Jan 4, 2011)

weeman said:


> no but thats like comparing quantum physics to simple maths.
> 
> what i am saying is that in general,its been proven over and over again that the VAST majority need a high protein content in order to make the muscular gains they are looking for,you will not find a single person at the top of their game in this sport who doesnt have a high prot intake,and no not because they are doing it due to it being 'the done thing',no one likes to eat tonnes of protien,if they could get away with less they would,and anyone worth their salt will have tried,but you cant escape the basic fact of the matter that large muscle gains require large protein intakes.


Yeah, I get what you mean mate, really wasn't intending to sound like a nuisance. Again though, that higher intake would be necessitated by their relative BW and LBW, and therefore higher than when they were smaller. I am fearful that there's a lot of "bro-science" and anecdotal "knowledge" past down in this game.

Regardless, I started this thread to get some opinion, in particular opinions from people who are you size. Maybe this article will make me consider dropping or altering my macros, but I don't think I'd ever drop below 1.4/1.5 at an absolute minimum.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

JF156 said:


> Yeah, I get what you mean mate, really wasn't intending to sound like a nuisance. Again though, that higher intake would be necessitated by their relative BW and LBW, and therefore higher than when they were smaller. I am fearful that there's a lot of "bro-science" and anecdotal "knowledge" past down in this game.
> 
> Regardless, I started this thread to get some opinion, in particular opinions from people who are you size. Maybe this article will make me consider dropping or altering my macros, but I don't think I'd ever drop below 1.4/1.5 at an absolute minimum.


not being a nuisance at all buddy! good thread,its just these things tend to rage on into wars pmsl

as far as the guys having higher intake due to having more tissue,they didnt wake up like that,like the rest of us they would have increased numbers needed for intake as they grew,pointless taking in 500g a day if you only weigh 12st,you can only gain tissue so fast assisted or not,i have been generally (when competing) 1.8g per lb of LEAN tissue,which gradually increased more over the 4 years i competed.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

bigtommay said:


> Great Post, i was wondering though how many people actually set their carbs/protein ratios at 2:1
> 
> This would have me at around 190g protein as opposed to the 300g that i currently use on a 3000cal diet along with around 300g carbs.
> 
> Should i be looking to switch this up?


I do this (as an approximation) having around 1kg of carbs a day and 500g of protein - not for any real reason it just works out that way when I eat.

Excellent post by DTLV, covered everything I could really add here so ill just add a nod of respect his way.


----------



## RFC52 (Jan 4, 2011)

weeman said:


> not being a nuisance at all buddy! good thread,its just these things tend to rage on into wars pmsl
> 
> as far as the guys having higher intake due to having more tissue,they didnt wake up like that,like the rest of us they would have increased numbers needed for intake as they grew,pointless taking in 500g a day if you only weigh 12st,you can only gain tissue so fast assisted or not,i have been generally (when competing) 1.8g per lb of LEAN tissue,which gradually increased more over the 4 years i competed.


Somehow this has remained Civil, which I'm very happy about!

What I meant was, their protein levels quite possibly haven't ever increased above say, the base 1.5per/lb LBM, but as they train and gradually add LBM the grammage of protein has increased, but the % hasn't.

However, It's late for me..I'm very tired and it wouldn't surprise me...If i'm not going in circles! haha


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

JF156 said:


> Somehow this has remained Civil, which I'm very happy about!
> 
> *What I meant was, their protein levels quite possibly haven't ever increased above say, the base 1.5per/lb LBM, but as they train and gradually add LBM the grammage of protein has increased, but the % hasn't. *
> 
> However, It's late for me..I'm very tired and it wouldn't surprise me...If i'm not going in circles! haha


yes but thats what i was getting at,you dont just it for the sake of it etc,for me certainly its only upped when reached a sticking point and would assume most others would logically have done it that way also.

actually scratch that there are many sheep who dont look on it logically lol but i mean in general lol

the most common denominator when anyone,more so newbies come to me for help is their protein intake,they think they are taking in enough but 9/10 times they arent,when i change that one simple factor the gains usually steamtrain thru.

i myself took more or less a three month break,not intentional,from training just recently,food dramatically dropped and at best maybe train a cpl of very half assed sessions a week but most commonly one to none sessions a week,now obviously i have lost tissue in this period and gotten fatter,this week now however is my third consistent week in a row back training but the last thing i am doing is ramping my protein away up to almost 400g where i would have it in a normal offseason because there is no need at this point,i know i will continue to grow,regain muscle memory,for several weeks at around the 300g mark,i also know for certain that i will hit a wall,prob round about the 230-235lb mark where i will need to start ramping protein back up in order to make any headway


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

I've said it before and, no doubt, I'll say it again, but my gains are way, way increased on 500g of protein compared to 300g. It's just the way it is.


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

mc187 said:


> 1g per kg? or 1g per lb of bw?


1g per kg, well i was 90kg on 100g protein ew and gained and recovered just the same. i was on a tight budget, but if i can afford more i take more just i dont belive you need 2-3g per lb bw like muscletech etc say.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

stone14 said:


> 1g per kg, well i was 90kg on 100g protein ew and gained and recovered just the same. i was on a tight budget, but if i can afford more i take more just i dont belive you need 2-3g per lb bw like muscletech etc say.


if you really believe that you recovered and gained the same regardless then why on earth would you increase it.

what sort of period of time did you stay on 100g a week,can you quantify your gains during thi period,likewise any periods you had spent on higher amount,what gains and period of time?

If you really do believe that you could keep on gaining on simply 1g per kg at a steady rate then you truelly have upper tear pro bb genetics going on my friend,which i mean in the best possible way,you dont appear to look to have.


----------



## mc187 (Dec 30, 2007)

@weeman - your logic makes the most sense to me.

how much protein would you recommend for an individual lets say 200lb bw @ 15% bf (170 lbs lean)?


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

weeman said:


> if you really believe that you recovered and gained the same regardless then why on earth would you increase it.
> 
> what sort of period of time did you stay on 100g a week,can you quantify your gains during thi period,likewise any periods you had spent on higher amount,what gains and period of time?
> 
> If you really do believe that you could keep on gaining on simply 1g per kg at a steady rate then you truelly have upper tear pro bb genetics going on my friend,which i mean in the best possible way,you dont appear to look to have.


i was on aas also the strength and weight gained was the same with that lower level of protein as with the higher end iv used, but i still feel better in my mind by using more, plus more protein balances my diet out better instead of 100g protein 600g carbs.

it wasnt a long period, 2month...

no i agree amte, i have poor bbing genetics tbh lol


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

mc187 said:


> @weeman - your logic makes the most sense to me.
> 
> how much protein would you recommend for an individual lets say 200lb bw @ 15% bf (170 lbs lean)?


310g prot mate (306 if you wanna be anal) if you were looking to gain dont see the need to up it by more than 20-30g tops for a period as that would generally be enough to sustain more than 14lbs more of lean tissue.



stone14 said:


> i was on aas also the strength and weight gained was the same with that lower level of protein as with the higher end iv used, but i still feel better in my mind by using more, plus more protein balances my diet out better instead of 100g protein 600g carbs.
> 
> it wasnt a long period, 2month...
> 
> no i agree amte, i have poor bbing genetics tbh lol


ah now theres a thing,were ou on aas when you consumed the higher amount of prot?if no tthen you will certainly get better return on meds and lower amount of prot than you would natty and on double the amount of prot,generally.

you dont have sh1t genetics bud,from what i can see of your avy you dont look too bad,dont downplay yourself,your clearly doing ok so far


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

weeman said:


> If you really do believe that you could keep on gaining on simply 1g per kg at a steady rate then you truelly have upper tear pro bb genetics going on my friend,which i mean in the best possible way,you dont appear to look to have.


i guess its not the best, and gains were mainly down to the aas aswell, more will be better, i was on testp 100mg eod, inj winstrol 50mg eod, still gained around 14lb and strenght increased every workout, kept most of it at the end aswell. but i still prefer more protein in my diet regardless


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

weeman said:


> you dont have sh1t genetics bud,from what i can see of your avy you dont look too bad,dont downplay yourself,your clearly doing ok so far


cheers mate, when i 1st read that i thought you sed "you *do* have sh1t genetics mate", i was thinking yeh i know  ...... till i re-read it lol.

but yeh im trying my best lol. never going to be a bber, but im happy with improving on my avi and staying 14.5-15.5st, hoping to get to 6%bf this summer if it all works out as planned lol.


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

its going to be hard work to guess and work out how much protein is best for you, so the more is better approach with be the best so you not cutting yourself short. a VO2 test every 6month or so will be your best bet if you want exact figures, i think. but for me id rather just spend that cash on protein lol, eat what you can afford wether its 100g or 500g


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

stone14 said:


> cheers mate, when i 1st read that i thought you sed "you *do* have sh1t genetics mate", i was thinking yeh i know  ...... till i re-read it lol.
> 
> but yeh im trying my best lol. never going to be a bber, but im happy with improving on my avi and staying 14.5-15.5st, hoping to get to 6%bf this summer if it all works out as planned lol.


what height are you mate? if you reach a true 6% at that weight thats basically contest nik and will blow peoples minds!you'll be making fat people spew and call you names,and you'll need a wallpaper scraper to peel all the flange off you that will stick to you on hot summer days if you cut about topless :lol:


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

weeman said:


> what height are you mate? if you reach a true 6% at that weight thats basically contest nik and will blow peoples minds!you'll be making fat people spew and call you names,and you'll need a wallpaper scraper to peel all the flange off you that will stick to you on hot summer days if you cut about topless :lol:


lmao, im 6ft2" 14.5st, most people say i look alot bigger than that visually but the scales say no lol, guys on here guestimated i got to around 9% this summer gone, was just short of a solid 8pack, i only stopped the dnp since it was my 1st run of it and i was getting very depleted and lookd flat as **** and was worried i was loosing muscle, but after 2days carb loading i lookd a good stone bigger the diffrence was that much, and i defo lost no muscle. so this year i want to go further and drop the bf lower. do you thing 6% is abit low? its just a guesstamte realy iv not been that low before.

at 9% or my guestimate 9% i have veins across my upper+lower abs, legs, chest neck shoulders.... everywere basicly, my fattest area was to the rear of my obliques my lower back is my fatest patch lol


----------



## empzb (Jan 8, 2006)

Nothing scientific behind this, but I have found since upping my protien to around 250/300g I grow far better and feel far better than I did on 180/200. (currently @ 85kg 16% BF)


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

stone14 said:


> lmao, im 6ft2" 14.5st, most people say i look alot bigger than that visually but the scales say no lol, guys on here guestimated i got to around 9% this summer gone, was just short of a solid 8pack, i only stopped the dnp since it was my 1st run of it and i was getting very depleted and lookd flat as **** and was worried i was loosing muscle, but after 2days carb loading i lookd a good stone bigger the diffrence was that much, and i defo lost no muscle. so this year i want to go further and drop the bf lower. do you thing 6% is abit low? its just a guesstamte realy iv not been that low before.
> 
> at 9% or my guestimate 9% i have veins across my upper+lower abs, legs, chest neck shoulders.... everywere basicly, my fattest area was to the rear of my obliques my lower back is my fatest patch lol


would really need to see proper pics of you mate to be able to comment,but i will say trying to maintain 6% and function day to day wont be the most comfortable thing in the world,defo doable but its hard to stay there


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

weeman said:


> would really need to see proper pics of you mate to be able to comment,but i will say trying to maintain 6% and function day to day wont be the most comfortable thing in the world,defo doable but its hard to stay there


Slick way of getting nude shots 










*trots over to the ladies forum*


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

http://ifitandhealthy.com/how-to-increase-testosterone-levels/

Do not eat too much protein. Consuming more protein than carbs can increase the loss of testosterone through urination. While protein is necessary for higher testosterone levels, too much can have a negative effect. Stick to about 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight.

Eat plenty of carbs. A higher ratio of carbs-to-protein - somewhere around 2:1 is best - results in higher testosterone levels. Shoot for at least 2 grams of carbs per pound of bodyweight.


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

Mat Lalonde talks low testosterone on low carb, weight lifting Alcohol consumption & dysbiosis IBS 000


----------

