Told Too Much Protein is Worthless

I took this from a recently published article.

Dietary protein needs are defined as the interaction between
the amount and quality of protein to meet metabolic
requirements. Current health guidelines for dietary protein use
the RDA which provides only the
minimum amount of protein to
maintain short-term nitrogen
balance (0.8g/kg) based largely
on data from young adults in ideal
health and energy balance (1).
There is some evidence that the
RDA for protein may not be
sufficient for certain populations (2). Many athletes consume
protein in excess of the RDA and in some anecdotal reports,
over 4g/kg (3). Interestingly, several reports have
demonstrated that protein needs are only moderately
increased by exercise (4). The current consensus is that
meeting the minimum requirements for the most limiting
amino acids in protein will lead to a plateau of nitrogen
retention and any further increase in plasma amino acids
would stimulate increased oxidation and elimination of the
â??excessâ?? amino acids, implying that protein intake above
requirements does not matter (5). This assumption fails to
account for the metabolic actions of â??excessâ?? amino acids
on stimulating mps. The mere fact that â??excessâ?? amino acids
are oxidized does not mean that these amino acids do not
initiate signalling in skeletal muscle prior to their oxidation.

Safe to say that there isn’t a clear answer to your question there are only opinions, I think most bber’s would tell you that there is a benifite to increased protein consumption.

Protein intake should always be balanced with fat and carb intake. However, I think people are forgetting that if not protein, then what? For every argument that excess protein is worthless/bad, there’s probably just as many negative arguments against excess carbs and fats (and technically alcohol).

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I actually only need 1g/lb instead of the 2g/lb I normally get. For me, that’s 200g of protein or 800 calories. What’s the argument that getting an extra 200g of carbs or 90g of fat is an IMPROVEMENT over getting it through protein?

well the lower TEF and higher satiety factor of protein make it a poor choice for bulking (after ones protein needs are met, of course)

add to that the fact that carbs and fat generally taste better and easier to eat, i think they are the better choice for a bulking bodybuilder.

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:

add to that the fact that carbs and fat generally taste better and easier to eat, i think they are the better choice for a bulking bodybuilder.[/quote]

That’s a matter of opinion. I generally enjoy eating protein more, but that’s just me. Cost has more to do with it than taste (for me).

[quote]Evilmage wrote:
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I actually only need 1g/lb instead of the 2g/lb I normally get. For me, that’s 200g of protein or 800 calories. What’s the argument that getting an extra 200g of carbs or 90g of fat is an IMPROVEMENT over getting it through protein?[/quote]

I still say Evilmage has a point if say he bumps the grams up to adjust for the TEF.

Also, I think JMo is right about most of the number’s and concepts he’s stated wrt people not trying to add mass. But most of the studies I’ve ever seen are target at either sedentary individuals who are exposed to exercise or athletes who are well trained who are not trying to add mass. I don’t want to bother finding the study, but there are a couple of them out there that show hypertrohy is slightly higher with something like 2 grams per pound of body weight, or .9 g per kg.

BT

[quote]Evilmage wrote:
Protein intake should always be balanced with fat and carb intake. However, I think people are forgetting that if not protein, then what? For every argument that excess protein is worthless/bad, there’s probably just as many negative arguments against excess carbs and fats (and technically alcohol).

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I actually only need 1g/lb instead of the 2g/lb I normally get. For me, that’s 200g of protein or 800 calories. What’s the argument that getting an extra 200g of carbs or 90g of fat is an IMPROVEMENT over getting it through protein?[/quote]

well for the carbs it would be for the insulin effects which are very anabolic, and you need around 50g of fat to produce healthy levels of hormones such as testosterone. the energy density of fats also makes it easier to consume more calories with a decreased volume of food, though I’m not much for that excuse.

I’m not sure on this one, but I’ve read that protein is not very energy efficient to metabolize, I think I read somewhere that about 30% of the energy in protein is burnt when your body digests it, while the % is significantly lower for carbs and fats. Don’t quote me on it though.

99% of personal trainers are fucking idiots.Dont listen to them, Nuff said

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
but there are a couple of them out there that show hypertrohy is slightly higher with something like 2 grams per pound of body weight, or .9 g per kg.

BT
[/quote]

umm…2g/lb isn’t .9g/kg

.9g/kg = ~.4g/lb

[quote]phatkins187 wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
what i mean is that untrained individuals who are beginning a new exercise program will see better results with higher protein intakes. over time, however, the body learns to use protein more efficiently for muscle growth, and thus higher protein intakes show no demonstrable benifit.

1-1.25g per lb is enough if you’re calories are sufficient. there’s really no need to go any higher.

Is there a maximum % protein should make up of your total caloric intake? My high PRO days I get 50% of my calories (~430g) from protein, which comes out to >2g/lb BW. Is balance really the key here? Lower protein but proportionally raise fats/cho? Especially if a trained individual really only needs between 1-1.5g/lb BW.[/quote]

This, like any answer to this question, isn’t necessarily based on sound research…but I would say 50% protein (or 2g/lb whichever comes first) is most likely the point beyond which further protein stops being beneficial for the average mass-building enthusiast. Even on a low-carb fatloss regimen you wouldn’t want to go much beyond 50% of calories maybe 60% tops. And if you are a professional athlete and eat 10,000 cals a day more than 2g/lb probably isn’t sensible either, you can fill the rest up with carbs and fat if you’re burning that much a day.

From what I have seen in studies on nitrogen retention it seems that caloric surplus has a huge impact on protein needs for positive nitrogen balance…a surplus of course being nitrogen sparing. This would suggest a lesser percentage of protein is needed for bulking, but this doesn’t take into consideration the ramifications of more carbs+fat on body composition as any studies I’ve read pertained purely to the subject of nitrogen retention as opposed to mass building.

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
but there are a couple of them out there that show hypertrohy is slightly higher with something like 2 grams per pound of body weight, or .9 g per kg.

BT

umm…2g/lb isn’t .9g/kg

.9g/kg = ~.4g/lb[/quote]

Yes he obviously mistyped and meant 0.9/lb and 2/kg :wink:

then yes, 2g/kg is a good place to start when bulking. 2.5-3g/kg is what i would consider “ideal” protein intake when bulking, which equates to roughly 1-1.5g/lb, which is what bodybuilders have been using as a rule of thumb for decades, who knew?

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Evilmage wrote:
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I actually only need 1g/lb instead of the 2g/lb I normally get. For me, that’s 200g of protein or 800 calories. What’s the argument that getting an extra 200g of carbs or 90g of fat is an IMPROVEMENT over getting it through protein?

I still say Evilmage has a point if say he bumps the grams up to adjust for the TEF.

Also, I think JMo is right about most of the number’s and concepts he’s stated wrt people not trying to add mass. But most of the studies I’ve ever seen are target at either sedentary individuals who are exposed to exercise or athletes who are well trained who are not trying to add mass. I don’t want to bother finding the study, but there are a couple of them out there that show hypertrohy is slightly higher with something like 2 grams per pound of body weight, or .9 g per kg.

BT

[/quote]

please don’t just make your own numbers, say they are backed up by studies, and then don’t produce. it doesn’t really help us establish anything here

[quote]JMAX wrote:
phatkins187 wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
what i mean is that untrained individuals who are beginning a new exercise program will see better results with higher protein intakes. over time, however, the body learns to use protein more efficiently for muscle growth, and thus higher protein intakes show no demonstrable benifit.

1-1.25g per lb is enough if you’re calories are sufficient. there’s really no need to go any higher.

Is there a maximum % protein should make up of your total caloric intake? My high PRO days I get 50% of my calories (~430g) from protein, which comes out to >2g/lb BW. Is balance really the key here? Lower protein but proportionally raise fats/cho? Especially if a trained individual really only needs between 1-1.5g/lb BW.

This, like any answer to this question, isn’t necessarily based on sound research…but I would say 50% protein (or 2g/lb whichever comes first) is most likely the point beyond which further protein stops being beneficial for the average mass-building enthusiast. Even on a low-carb fatloss regimen you wouldn’t want to go much beyond 50% of calories maybe 60% tops. And if you are a professional athlete and eat 10,000 cals a day more than 2g/lb probably isn’t sensible either, you can fill the rest up with carbs and fat if you’re burning that much a day.

From what I have seen in studies on nitrogen retention it seems that caloric surplus has a huge impact on protein needs for positive nitrogen balance…a surplus of course being nitrogen sparing. This would suggest a lesser percentage of protein is needed for bulking, but this doesn’t take into consideration the ramifications of more carbs+fat on body composition as any studies I’ve read pertained purely to the subject of nitrogen retention as opposed to mass building.[/quote]

Thanks for the reply. When you mentioned 10,000 kcal I thought of Michael Phelps’ training diet. He definitely is getting the bulk of his calories from CHO/FAT.

[quote]esk221 wrote:
Dark_Angel wrote:
But when I told him I am taking in around 250-300g a day throughout the day from my morning protein shake to my Metabolic Drive Complete that I take before I go to bed that all that protein I am taking is nothing more than a waste. If he had said something like taking that much in one sitting is a waste, yea I would have to agree with him there but how I do it with taking in equal amounts throughout the day there I think he is wrong.

Reading is fundamental.[/quote]

Not before punctuation.

Perhaps this long drawn out confusion about optimal daily protein intake is due to the confusion between what many of the studies address (optimal athletic performance and maintaining muscle mass) vs the goals of the physique athlete (increasing muscle mass or maintaining in a calorie restricted state). The reason you’re not going to see very many good studies of interest to the physique athlete are due to the complexity of the topic. Even in the microcosm of the athletic world that is bodybuilding, there are different goals that an athlete may have a different points in his training. Depending on that status the following factors would have to be considered and built into a study: lean body mass, energy intake (surplus, deficit, or maintenance), carbohydrate availability (normal, high, low carbohydrate, or very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet), exercise intensity, duration and type, dietary protein quality, training history, gender, age, timing of nutrient intake and the like make this topic extremely complex.

Perhaps all we have at this point in time is decent anecdotal evidence (at the bottom). What follows is a study that supports the recommendation of 1.5-2 grams of protein per pound.


Here is a study that shows a diet of 3.6 grams of protein per kg (1.64 grams per pound) results in the greatest nitrogen balance (versus a comparative Low Protein diet (0.8 g/kg) or a moderate-protein diet (1.8 g/kg).

“Level of dietary protein impacts whole body protein turnover in trained males at rest”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WN4-4JH1H8B-H&_user=10&_origUdi=B75HY-4MVVPR8-6&_fmt=high&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_orig=article&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8fc6e77c6962aaf1eccf9eba7e5d137d


In the thread “Question of Strength - June” Question of Strength 16 “For a 200-pound lean male, 300 grams of protein per day would be the minimum. In fact, I think the rule should be closer to 2 grams of protein per pound of body weight, assuming the person is lean.”

In the article, “High Performance Nutrition Made Easy,” http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article//high_performance_nutrition_made_easy;jsessionid=437226AD96059104BB636172F6F41F0F.hydra Dr Clay Hyght states, “Itâ??s pretty well accepted that a protein intake of about 1.5 grams per pound of bodyweight is sufficient to support muscle protein synthesis. (For the record, you could bump that up to 2 grams per pound if that makes you feel better.)”

And lo, another forum virgin dips his toe in the T-Nation waters…
Dark Angel, a point that has been made to me on many occasions is that the g/lb ratio
of protein applies to the LEAN body weight of the individual, not including the fat that
we carry round. Just skimming through this thread and it seems that Bulletproof Tiger is
the only one to mention lean weight. Could be wrong. Await hail of abuse for stating the
bleedin obvious on first post…

That was some very good information BulletproofTiger, along with other great information collected long the way.

[quote]hardgnr wrote:
There is a thing as too much protein. In short, if protein is too dominant your body will use it as its primary fuel sorce (opposed to carbs or fats), which can result in your body breaking down muscle for energy. I wouldn’t worry about this though unless your taking in a pretty large amount of protein and very little carbs/fats.

[/quote]

Can you explain this to me? Why would the body ignore its preferred energy sources in favor of breaking down muscle - which has a very low energy yield when compared to carbs and fat and even when compared to body fat?

[quote]Trunkmonkey wrote:
And lo, another forum virgin dips his toe in the T-Nation waters…
Dark Angel, a point that has been made to me on many occasions is that the g/lb ratio
of protein applies to the LEAN body weight of the individual, not including the fat that
we carry round. Just skimming through this thread and it seems that Bulletproof Tiger is
the only one to mention lean weight. Could be wrong. Await hail of abuse for stating the
bleedin obvious on first post…[/quote]

Interesting point. I haven’t read anything that considers LBM in terms of protein consumption, just total body weight. The latter makes more sense as proteins/AA are essential for most physiological function.

And more power to you fighting the pompous, elitest, know-it-alls here on the Nation!

[quote]PatMac wrote:
hardgnr wrote:
There is a thing as too much protein. In short, if protein is too dominant your body will use it as its primary fuel sorce (opposed to carbs or fats), which can result in your body breaking down muscle for energy. I wouldn’t worry about this though unless your taking in a pretty large amount of protein and very little carbs/fats.

Can you explain this to me? Why would the body ignore its preferred energy sources in favor of breaking down muscle - which has a very low energy yield when compared to carbs and fat and even when compared to body fat?

[/quote]

It doesn’t happen. The body’s preferred fuel source is glucose (duh) and still is even if muscle protein is broken down for gluconeogenesis (the creation of new glucose from a non glucose source). The idea that if you eat too much protein, the body will learn to prefer protein as a fuel source is dumb. Protein will be broken down into aminos, aminos into their carbon skeleton, then into pyruvate, which will be made into glucose. Glucose is still the fuel source the body is using. The body has no idea where it came from. So you see, the body never changed its preference. Its still using glucose. Besides, if you ate too much protein, dietary protein would be used for gluconeogenesis rather than muscle protein.

Overall, nothing to even worry about.