How much protein do I actually need?

>>38992404
Never gonna make it

>>38992404
http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/
>• There is normally no advantage to consuming more than 0.82g/lb (1.8g/kg) of protein per day to preserve or build muscle once you’re past the novice level as a natural trainee. This already includes a mark-up, since most research finds no more benefits after 0.64 g/lb.

>>38992404
all of it xD

>>38992404
/fit/ will tell you to eat a ridiculous amount like 1.2g/lb of bodyweight if you want to build muscle or maintain muscle while losing fat. This leads to completely ridiculous situations like fat fucks who want to "retain their muscle" while they are losing weight, thus eating like 300 g of protein per day.

If you look in depth and do some research, you will see that most sources recommend something like 0.8g/lb which is pretty much what Im doing and making all sorts of gains.

>>38992475
Indeed fat fuck here no way I can eat 1g per lb. That's crazy. I think 1h per lb of lean muscle mass would be more reasonable. Why does my lard need protein?

>>38992615
I think the idea is that you can still gain muscle mass while cutting if you have enough

>>38992659
Yeah I guess but my major concern is just losing fat as quickly and efficiently as possible, ideally not wasting away Auschwitz style while I'm at it but fuck eating 200 grams of protein.

>>38992431
So what happens if you are a novice?

>>38992475
the number is about 0.8-0.9g/lb

File: KS Chicken Thighs.jpg (959KB, 1840x3264px)

959KB, 1840x3264px

>>38992404
>How much protein do I actually need?

Listen to an expert on the subject, starting with "Nutrition Basics with Jordan Feigenbaum" - https://youtu.be/iWNsp5j4iuU

One confusion repeated here yet again is the 1 gramme per pound of bodyweight rule of thumb. It's one gramme per pound on *lean* bodyweight.

For the majority of fatties working on body recomposition, tracking your food and sticking to a high protein diet - i.e. just eating a lot of high protein food - is not only sufficient but preferable to wasting time trying to hit a precise nonsensical macro.

>>38992749
0.82, as previously mentioned.

5 thscoops

protein is a meme brah just eat an egg every week and you should be fine

>>38992790
Yeah, that's basically what I settled on.

>>38992706
The magic of noob gains happens and you gain muscle while on a cut with 0.5g/lb

>>38992938
Thanks

By "need" do you mean the minimal amount of protein needed not to die, or the optimal intake for muscular growth for a man? Because a lot of people use the word "need" to describe both of those things.

>>38993035
The minimum amount for optimal gains

>>38993035
>he doesn't NEED to make optimum gains
Not gonna make it

>>38993050
about 100g of protein or a little less is good for a novice, if you already have some muscle mass it goes up, most body builders get about 180~200g, so you'll need less

You guys ever notice that most of the people with a serious vendetta against 1g/lb are vegans?

>>38992431
I can't be arsed to find it, but there have been multiple studies showing that more protein yields more benefits, both when cutting and in a caloric surplus.

>>38993050
Minimum optimal intake is .82 g/lb, but up to 1.36 g/lb still shows increasing benefits. 1g/lb is a good ball park to shoot for to be above the minimum without killing yourself to try to get in protein.

>>38992431
this is a meme becauae theres more going on in the body than protein synthesis.

connective tissues, the immune system, etc are all very real things.

there is research showing benefit of up to 1.4g/lb.

protein is the most filling nutrient as well, so theres that.

when I first started lifting and posting on /fit/ 5 years ago I would say 1g per lb
now I would say it's 0.5g
but to make sure I eat 0.7g

File: Muscular Anatomy.jpg (229KB, 705x848px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 705x848px

>>38993251
>Minimum optimal

..which is of course far different from the maximum optimal, depending on how fat your zero got during the last bulk.

Remember that any subject which includes the word "science", isn't. This includes Bro Science.

>>38993287
Why do you say that?

>>38993286
>there is research showing benefit of up to 1.4g/lb.
Citation?

Also menno henselmans' article takes ALL protein anabolism into account, not just synthesis.. the fact you don't realize this leaves me questioning your literacy

File: IMG_4068.png (33KB, 420x301px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 420x301px

>>38993251
>I can't be arsed to find it, but there have been multiple studies showing that more protein yields more benefits, both when cutting and in a caloric surplus.
That article reviews all the studies on protein requirements in strength athletes

You "can't be arsed to find it" because it doesn't exist

File: frank_frazetta_thedisagreement.jpg (471KB, 878x1200px)

471KB, 878x1200px

>>38993319
>Why do you say that?

Because he has no sense of pride, self, reason, etc. but mostly because he has no sense. That's why he fits in so well here.

File: 1473582021746.png (123KB, 268x332px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 268x332px

>>38993363
>That article reviews all the studies on protein requirements in strength athletes

No, no it does not. But you think whatever you like, I'm not going to waste time digging up a pubmed article just bf or you to say "we'll I'm not changing my mind anyways!" just like in every other protein thread I've ever posted in. Arguing with people like you is like arguing with vegans. If you want suboptimal gains then knock yourself out, it's no skin off my teeth.

0.6 g / kg.

1.4g per Kg (0.63g per lb) is the optimal rate, it plateaus as you go beyond this.

File: advice.jpg (86KB, 807x561px)

86KB, 807x561px

>>38993398
>it's no skin off my teeth

What's the maximum minimal optimal protein intake for avoiding stretch marks on tooth skin?

>>38993398
>hurr i know more about protein requirements than dr. Menno henselmans or dr. Eric helms
>d-don't ask me to support my outrageous claims though
>n-not that i am wrong or anything
You are a lying unscientific faggot who makes up nonsense

And if you link dr.jose antonio's protein overfeeding study then just kys because that doesn't speak to protein requirements or anabolism

>>38993453
Nice me.me, let me give you a pleddit gold for that one.

So what do we actually mean by 1g per lb?

I eat 200g and I'm 200lb, but about 40g is from non complete proteins like oats or peanut butter.

>>38993398
[citation needed]

>>38993464
Kek, this is the exact reason I am not going to waste time digging up sources. All you fags are so stuck in your "you only need 30 grams of protein a day" mentality that literally nothing will convince you otherwise. It's just like arguing with vegans, and the near identical false OP every other day just reinforces that.

File: frank_frazetta_jaguargodII.jpg (101KB, 645x800px)

101KB, 645x800px

>>38993474
>I eat 200g and I'm 200lb

You do not have 200 lbs of lean muscle.

You protein did not sign a non-compete agreement.

>>38993363
>1998
>Still relevant

nah

>>38993398
>broscientist called out for being full of shit tries damage control
1/10

.5 per lb is fine, autists think eating that much more protein as a natural is going to give you double the muscle growth or something

eat big, lift big, and do cardio

is literally all you need to have a strong, functional, attractive physique. Everything else is just noise

>>38993517
post body

>>38993501
No, 1.4g per kg would be around 100-140g of protein for most people here.

>>38993474
Both of those foods are "complete proteins" you idiot.

Every food has a complete essential amino acid profile except gelatin.

>>38993505
>i can disregard any scientific fact as long as it isn't from this year
Round earth theory is pretty old.. you don't still believe it do you?

You still think the germ theory of disease is legit? That shit is old as fuuuck.

No but seriously post newer studies with conflicting data, or a case review that calls this data into question, or fuck off for being a pseudo intellectual faggot with no actual capacity for academic scrutiny or scientific literacy

>>38993501
>Kek, this is the exact reason I am not going to waste time digging up sources.
Because they don't exist.

Shoo shoo, gains goblin.

>>38993547
10 years ago the science was saying shit like 'dietary fats are bad, eat sugar'.

>>38992404
.82g/lb bodyweight evenly spread over 4-5 meals with 3-4g leucine at each bolus. No protein in between meals.

>>38992615
The best thing you can do is continue to eat excessive amounts of food. You can die quicker that way :)

>>38993464
>>38993485
>>38993513
So much samefag. Post body with timestamp.

>>38993547
You have no idea what you're talking about. The body of evidence for the earth being round is magnitudes greater than optimal protein intake for weightlifters. Your ignorance is fucking painful, yet you think you know what you're talking about because you copy pasted a blog post.

As much as possible. You don't need a specific amount.
Just have a high protein diet. People who count are either very low BF or autists.

>>38993501
>me being stupider than professional natty bodybuilders is exactly why I can't support my outrageous claims with actual information, or cite a source

>>38993557
>samefag calling me a gains goblin while he and his vegan bodies try to fool nooks into eating .6 g of protein per lb of LBM

Tell me, how does more protein hurt your gains in the slightest?

>>38993563
Yes, but we know more thanks to newer conflicting studies and lit reviews of old studies.

We didn't just throw away data because it is "too old"

You are committing several logical fallacies but suffice it to say that protein anabolism is not related to outdated studies regarding dietary fats or sugars

>>38993563
Was science saying that or was fitness culture saying that? If science, post citations.

>>38993547
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157406

CO2 excretion displayed a robust bi-phase linear relationship (R2 = 0.86) that resulted in an estimated average requirement and a recommended protein intake of 1.65 and 1.83 g protein·kg-1·d-1, respectively, which was similar to values based on phenylalanine oxidation (1.53 and 1.70 g·kg-1·d-1, respectively).

This is for endurance athletes, whose recommended per this source is 1.83 compared to your ~1.40.

>1998
>Still relevant

>>38993582
>you copy pasted a blog post.
Dr. menno henselmans wrote a detailed article covering all the scientific literature on protein requirements

But a rando 4chan shitposter is a better source than such "blog posts xD"

>>38993617
>You are committing several logical fallacies
Old == Good is a fallacy.

>>38993627
Thank you.
Literally all you had to do, fag

3 proteins.

>>38993645
I wasn't saying that these are good because they are old.

I said they are good despite being old
Nice straw man

>>38993645

are you fucking retarded?

>>38993667
you need to brush up on your fallacies. your argument is seriously lacking. and I didn't even use a strawman :(

>>38993627
You fucking retard that article agrees with the one you are arguing against

>>38993675
>Hey, this 10 year old study might be bad because nutrition science moves fucking quick

>GRAVITY IS OLD DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT, HUH? DID YA?

to >>38993667
the above is a strawman and appeal to age, two fallacies btw

>>38993638
Considering that he didn't have >>38993627 in it, I'm calling bullshit on him covering all studies.

>>38993667
Is that why you retardedly compared it to the earth being round?

Three protons

>>38993753
You dumb faggot you need 4 protons if you ever want to be Chad Thundercock.

File: 1475343498695.gif (407KB, 359x371px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 359x371px

>vegan protein hater gets BTFO by multiple anons and disappears

Fucking kek.

>>38992404
Read the sticky. Jesus christ, what is with these posts?

Three protons or alternately: between 1.2 and 1.5g of protein per kg of BW. I'd go for 1.5g if 10%BF and 1.2 if about 30% or so.

More is unnecessary unless you roid or if certain aminos are a bottleneck due to shitty diet - if you eat animal products you don't need to worry about this (ex: milk has enough extra lysine and co. to allow you to utilize all that otherwise incomplete protein from grains.)

>>38994068
They're vegan false flags. They make these threads so they can come in with BS about .5 g of protein per lb of LBM being more than enough. This way, when they shill low protein vegcuck diets in the future, people will be more receptive after already seeing "multiple" anons claim they eat low protein and make gains.

The funny part is it works poorly, because not one of these fags have ever posted a body with time stamp as is requested every time.

>>38992692
I eat 200 - 224 grams of protein a day within 2600 calories. It's still 500 below my TDEE. I'm 6'1", 350 lbs. I base my protein intake on lean body mass because as >>38992615 pointed out, my lard does not need protein.

File: 1475688932828.jpg (272KB, 719x719px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 719x719px

this thread reminds me of /pol/

>>38994197
You should go back.

>>38994162
It usually goes like this.
Tards who copy Ronnies diet say that you should eat about a pound of pure protein every day.
Folks point out that natties don't really need all that much - only about twice of what the FDA or whatever recommends.
Vegans try to butter up the slope by claiming much less and pretend that every veganfag has perfect nutrition skills and avoids any amino bottlenecks.

not much.

how much weight of muscle are you adding in a day?

a gram? not even close. maybe half a gram, if you include "muscular repair" which is a half-meme.

not a vegan fag. i kill animals for pure pleasure around the local farms every weekends. just saying. you don't need as much as they say. it's just ridiculous.

there are caveats but you don't need all that fucking much. 50 grams of protein will get your average fellow 97.5% of all he's going to get.

professionals need not listen. but for the average person, 50 grams is probably more than you'll actually use.

>>38994559
>50grams
Nah, man. You don't need as much as most bros eat, but that is definetly too little for any adult that lifts - it's too little for most guys who don't lift.

>http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders
At about 0.75g/lb you've maxed out your benefits, even if on a cut (this also includes a safety margin for malabsortion etc.) So you end up with about 1.8g/kg of lean mass for most people. Mind you, this is for pros on a cut.

>>38992848
Underrated

You want to have excess complete protein and fat for lean gains.

Don't listen to these other morons. There's no knowing how much protein you need, so the only correct answer is "an excess."

>>38994559
advanced memetics and shitposting

>>38992404
2g per kg of lean mass are more than enough

>>38993563
>pop science
>women's magazines
>science

Kys

protip: muscle protein synthesis is not regulated on a daily basis. it's more of an hourly basis. therefore it doesn't make much sense counting only your daily protein intake. it works ok, but it's not optimal.

you should instead count your protein intake per meal. studies show that the amino acid leucine is basically what drives muscle protein synthesis. you need about 3-4 grams of leucine per meal to maximize MPS, depending on your bodyweight and age and shit. this is usually achieved with 30-50 grams of complete protons depending on the source. dairy products and meat stuff usually are high in leucine while vegan sources are somewhat lacking. eating any more protein than what yields 3-4 grams of leucine won't be of any benefit except maybe satiety, and of course calories.

also, pretty much no matter how much protein you eat in a sitting, one meal only spikes your MPS for about 3-5 hours. to spike MPS as often as possible, you should thus eat every 3-4 hours or so, but you shouldn't eat with less than 3 hours between meals due to the refractory period in MPS. eating another meal within 3 hours of finishing your last meal won't yield another bout of MPS, but will just "continue" the previous meal. this is fine if you need to fill your daily macros, but it's not optimal. for most people, this means eating 3-5 times a day. depending on that and your bodyweight and protein sources, you can do very well with as little as 100 grams of protein (3 meals with 33 grams of protein yielding 3 grams of leucine each). or you might need 250 grams of protein (5 meals with 50 grams, each one yielding 4 grams of leucine). stop looking at bodyweight ratios.

>>38993540
define "complete amino acid profile". just because a food has the tiniest amount of each amino acid doesn't mean the amino acids are in an optimal ratio.

Three

>>38993540

LOL are you fucking retarded?

If you mean meat and eggs, yes, those are complete proteins. Nothing else except dairy, but most dairy I would bet loses some protein in the extraction process unless it's milk.

That's why vegetarians are so fucking weak and most on-shelf whey proteins are a scam. Just eat meat and eggs. Shit tons. Problem solved (And you won't be a fat fuck.)

about tree fiddy

>>38995027
whey is actually a better source of protein than meat or eggs.

>>38994852
>There's no knowing how much protein you need.
What is science.

>>38994959
>eating any more protein than what yields 3-4 grams of leucine won't be of any benefit except maybe satiety, and of course calories.
>one meal only spikes your MPS for about 3-5 hours. to spike MPS as often as possible, you should thus eat every 3-4 hours or so

You are aware that your small intestine can store a shit ton of amino acids for up to 24 hours?

Also if you eat meat products, leucine and other aminos should not represent a bottleneck - and even if they were, they are stored and released from the small intestine like any other amino. That whole "eating every 3 hours" thing is pure bro-science. If our bodies were this retarded at utilizing resources we would have died out eons ago.

>>38995091

That's not science dumbass. There is literally no disadvantage to an excess of protein, so eat as much of it as you can handle. Your protein requirements will change as you build muscle so that you can build more muscle. If you're eating a lot of meat, eggs and dairy you have an excess. That's what bodybuilders did before "science" and they were as big as most people who roid up today are.

>>38995091
>You are aware that your small intestine can store a shit ton of amino acids for up to 24 hours?
that does not mean protein synthesis is as elevated
>Also if you eat meat products, leucine and other aminos should not represent a bottleneck
it's not a bottleneck, it's just what signals your body to start protein synthesis.
>If our bodies were this retarded at utilizing resources we would have died out eons ago.
this is about optimizing protein synthesis. even if you eat like intermittent fasting or some shit, you still get like two thirds of what would be optimal MPS. you wont die because of that.

>>38995086
Artificial brotein better than actual brotein?

I take 1g/lb as a fail-safe, if it is excess im still not eating above my calories and i meet all my macros. And personally it makes me feel like I'm gaining muscle.

>>38994559
Damn, you went full retard my vegan friend.

>>38994648
You keep linking to that cherry picking blog.

>>38995148
Kek, are you mrpb from bb.com? He loves that bullshit, half understood broscience about protein intake. Let me guess, you think you can only digest 30 grams of protein at a time as well?

>>38995164
yes. its not like animals evolved to be optimal food for humans, you know?
the difference is marginal though
>>38995179
no, im not from bb.com
> you think you can only digest 30 grams of protein at a time as well
no

you can eat as much as you want if you cut on carbs to get your daily kcal
protein is even better for your bodys procedures

>>38992404
1 gram per pound of bodyweight to maintain on a cut

1.2 gam per pound of bodyweight to gain muscle on a bulk

0.8 gram per pound of bodyweight when strictly maintaining

>>38995135
>There is literally no disadvantage to an excess of protein.
Cost.
Calories if you don't eat very clean.
Excess urea fucking up your kidneys.
Nasty smelling BO and excretions.
>Your protein requirements will change as you build muscle so that you can build more muscle.
Yes, protein requirements go down slightly as you put on more muscle: Your body becomes much more efficient at protein synthesis as you get bigger.

>>38995148
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595342/
>They literally gave people all their daily protein in one meal and it had more of an anabolic effect and yielded more muscle gains than spreading it out throughout the day.
That whole idea you're advocating is based on a methodological error (they extrapolated instead of actually testing and only looked at protein synthesis and not breakdown ie. net balance) in a previous study and has since been thoroughly debunked.

>>38995268
Those numbers are purely based on what "sounds about right."

end of the day my nhigga this is eomntghing you gotta find ouyrt for yourself my dudes

Everybody got theiy own answers bout it and so shud you just use what works

File: 1475332113378.jpg (42KB, 807x659px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 807x659px

>>38995405
This must be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on 4chan in my life. Vegan fags are second only to /pol/fags in the rapidly declining quality of /fit/.

>Cost.

Unless you're impoverished or eating swordfish daily, protein isn't expensive.

>Calories if you don't eat very clean.

Protein has the same calories per gram as carbs. Just reduce carbs slightly if you're that worried about 200 extra kcal making you fat.

>Excess urea fucking up your kidneys.

Literally only a problem if you intentionally dehydrate yourself daily for months, if not years. High protein doesn't affect your kidneys unless they're already failing, and you have bigger problems if they are.

>Nasty smelling BO and excretions.

Never had an issue with that at all, nor do most people.

>>38995405
"I do not think that paper supports eating higher and higher protein intake per meal = more and more muscle protein accrual. Muscle protein breakdown, while it can change, does not change nearly as robustly as muscle protein synthesis. Furthermore, much of the literature to date suggests an asymptotic response to BCAA content within a meal and thus total protein dose, as higher doses did not generate a significant difference (though it did trend upwards non significantly) than the dose which surpassed the critical threshold to turn mTOR on (~1.75g of leucine, for instance).

Then again, the problems we have comparing data between multiple researchers are many including the populations used (young vs. old, lots of muscle vs untrained, male vs female, etc.), protein dosing parameters (calories, carbohydrate content, protein source, etc.), and a myriad of other factors.

I do think that, in general, there is an upper "useful" limit to dietary protein intake when we can correct for total calories, and that anything above this does not further enhance the net anabolic response, but rather increase the efficiency in which protein is used as a substrate for both anabolic and catabolic reactions. It is plausible, then, for someone to see "hey dudes, look it's more protein and we're getting more gainzzz" in the short term- but if you radiolabeled an EAA and measured skeletal muscle protein mass only over the course of a year, I don't think you'd see a difference in someone eating 250g of protein vs 400g of protein per day given similar calorie loads and protein sources."
>That whole idea you're advocating is based on a methodological error
if youre referring to the review you linked, "my" idea is not based on the articles they reviewed.
>has since been thoroughly debunked.
..so you have some other studies/reviews? cause i dont see anything close to "thoroughly debunked" here.

>>38992404
Two or three should do it.

>>38995766
Meals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24834017

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26500462

>>38996491
tl;dr

>>38995749
>stupidest things I've ever seen on 4chan...
Pointless hyperbole is so funny.
>Vegan fags are second only to...
Where did you get I'm a vegan?
>protein isn't expensive.
It's about 5 times as expensive as carbs, and in most of the world food costs are the major dent in peoples budget.
>Protein has the same calories per gram as carbs.
Not what I was getting at, people are likely to only eat so much cottage cheese and lean chicken, but let's pretend compliance and motivation are not major factors in nutrition.
>Literally only a problem if you intentionally dehydrate yourself...
It's not the concentration of it but also the sheer volume, eating more than about 300g of protein a day WILL cause low level kidney damage, no matter how much you drink.
>Never had an issue with that at all.
Congratulations the people you meet are too polite to say anything.

>I do not think that paper supports eating...
Not my point.
>if youre referring to the review you linked, "my" idea is not based on the articles they reviewed.
I was referring to the idea that constant but low concentrations of dietary protein intake translates to constant aminos whereas sporadic but more substantial protein intake supposedly results in massive spikes and crashes - when their absorption and release take place at a limited rate anyways (for example: PEPT-1) and there are decently sized buffers in the system (small intestine, kidney- to a degree, serum levels, muscle itself.)

My point was that at the end of the day, the average noob lifter probably needs less protein than he thinks (but not as little as the FDA or some other camps suggest) and meal portioning is less critical than he thinks: Eating after working-out, maintaining a tolerable load on the GI tract, and not crashing too hard - all of this can be achieved with 3 meals and maybe a snack or two. No need to break out the small tupperware and prep twice as many meals than that if it will mess with compliance and motivation.

>>38992404

3

>>38996491
>>38996941
>Eating way more protein than needed has no effect on muscle gain with all else being the same.
>Eating on a large surplus (which also includes lots of protein) and training harder will elicit more muscle and fat gains.