• Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

What do you think?

Darrell Olson

White Belt
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I know most people say 1 gram of protien per pound of body wieght per day or close to that.However I have read alot of statements lately most notably by Randy Couture saying that is alot more than you need.Im trying to figure this out.Is the aforementioned rule just for hypertrophy or maintenance or both?Not saying RC is a scientist or anything but hes doing something right....Does anyone know any better?
 
i believe 1g/lb. bw is excessive unless you're on teh roids. your body can only handle so much protein synthesis,and it's much better able to use carbohydrates for energy.

it's hard to give a meaningful estimate as to what's ideal, because everyone's different, but a pretty good rule of thumb is you're good to go if you eat a fist sized portion of protein with every meal. that's about what most peoples'body can break down per meal.
 
I know most people say 1 gram of protien per pound of body wieght per day or close to that.However I have read alot of statements lately most notably by Randy Couture saying that is alot more than you need.Im trying to figure this out.Is the aforementioned rule just for hypertrophy or maintenance or both?Not saying RC is a scientist or anything but hes doing something right....Does anyone know any better?

A high protein diet is suggested by pretty much every nutritionist or trainer that mean anything. There have been no adverse effects proven, while it has been tried and tested to have positive outcomes. So why not just be on the safe side, and go with it?
 
Couldn't agree with JSN more. While I do believe in high-protein eating, most guys who preach ultra high levels of protein consumptions are assuming you're using AAS.
 
i believe 1g/lb. bw is excessive unless you're on teh roids. your body can only handle so much protein synthesis,and it's much better able to use carbohydrates for energy.

it's hard to give a meaningful estimate as to what's ideal, because everyone's different, but a pretty good rule of thumb is you're good to go if you eat a fist sized portion of protein with every meal. that's about what most peoples'body can break down per meal.

I disagree entirely. 1g/lb BW shouldn't even be a goal, it should be automatic. Here's some food for thought:


1. Saying "your body can only handle so much protein synthesis" presumes that protein is only a useful nutrient so long as your body is using it to build muscle. I don't have time to go into this now but there's a whole lot more to eating protein than building muscle.
2. The fist thing is silly. My fist doesn't know how hard I have been training or my weight gain/loss goals, for example.
3. There's about 4 calories per gram of protein. So let's say I'm eating roughly 3,500 calories at 175lbs (That's probably pretty close to true). 175g of proteinx4 calories is only 20% of my total caloric intake. Even IF you're getting 20% of your calories from protein, you're still eating a load of (at best) starchy carbs (grains, potatoes, etc.) to make up the rest of the caloric needs. In other words, if AT LEAST 1g/lb BW isn't automatic, your whole diet is out of wack.

Out of time, I'll get back to this later.
 
imo opinion on would go with 1.5 depending on how much you are training. Hell, when i have really kicked my ass before for long training periods + stress of work and school i have gone up to 2 per lb. It has worked great for me as i have lossed bf and gained muscle over those periods of time. There is no way of telling how much you need but most people who have trained will tell you that the numbers you read are pretty low, and in fact every year they seem to go up. It used to be so low, like 1 g/kg for certain types of athletes and every year its climbing and now strength athletes i believe are all the way up to 2-2.2 g/kg. And thats just from the NSCA.
On top of that. Protein burns more kcals when it is ****bolized by the body. If i remember correctly i think its per every 100kcals of protein taken in your body will just burn 30 processing it. Will that automatically aid in fat loss...no...but it will def help kick start your ****bolism.
 
Thanks guys.I know it was vague.If it helps,I gain weight very easy muscle and fat.Lately I have ditched the weights and Im just doing cardio really.Im only 5'8'' and 210 lbs is just too much.Id just like to retain as much muscle as possible without too big a dent in the wallet thanks to the cost of protien animal or dairy while in this phase.
 
It depends on a lot of things: exercise duration, frequency, and intensity; protein quality; your gender, age, and training history.. lots of different factors.

But regular activity increases the daily requirements. If you only walk your dog twice a week, you might only need the recommended .8g/kg. If you're very active, lift heavy, etc, you need a lot more. 1.8g/kg seems to be the minimum recommended amount for athletes. The optimal amount might be even higher.
 
Thanks guys.I know it was vague.If it helps,I gain weight very easy muscle and fat.Lately I have ditched the weights and Im just doing cardio really.Im only 5'8'' and 210 lbs is just too much.Id just like to retain as much muscle as possible without too big a dent in the wallet thanks to the cost of protien animal or dairy while in this phase.

Dude, if you want to get healthy, you should NOT stop lifting. How the heck do you expect to retain muscle when you're not even lifting?
 
I disagree entirely. 1g/lb BW shouldn't even be a goal, it should be automatic. Here's some food for thought:


1. Saying "your body can only handle so much protein synthesis" presumes that protein is only a useful nutrient so long as your body is using it to build muscle. I don't have time to go into this now but there's a whole lot more to eating protein than building muscle.
2. The fist thing is silly. My fist doesn't know how hard I have been training or my weight gain/loss goals, for example.
3. There's about 4 calories per gram of protein. So let's say I'm eating roughly 3,500 calories at 175lbs (That's probably pretty close to true). 175g of proteinx4 calories is only 20% of my total caloric intake. Even IF you're getting 20% of your calories from protein, you're still eating a load of (at best) starchy carbs (grains, potatoes, etc.) to make up the rest of the caloric needs. In other words, if AT LEAST 1g/lb BW isn't automatic, your whole diet is out of wack.

Out of time, I'll get back to this later.
you sound like somewhat of a classic hardgainer, while i'm more of someone who very easily gains weight, so that is going to affect opinions.

suffice it to say, i have played around with my macro %'s during training cycles and found that contrary to what is preached in magazines, i actually gained muscle better when i lowered my % protein (ended up at around .5g./lb bw), an upper the carbs, and i felt better doing it.

in terms of the fist thing being silly, meh i guess maybe, but how is it any sillier than an arbitrary grams per pound bodywight number? you eat a fist's worth of beef, chicken, eggs, whatever every meal, and eat 3-4 meals a day, you're going to be getting somewhere around 100-150 grams of whole food protein a day without having to choke down some dry, nasty hunk of meat. after that the eating plans can be somewhat ridiculous. personally i'd rather just lose muscle mass than be choking down a pair of chicken breasts every meal- that's obviously where one's body wants to be. there's nothing wrong with trying to cheat your genetics with massive intake; it's just not something necessary to be generally healthy.
 
Protein uses 30% of its energy to ****bolize itself. Carbs and fats use 8%. Just by upping your protein to 1-1.5g per lb of body weight allows you to burn approximately 200-300 more calories per day by doing nothing.
 
Thats what i always try to hammer into people's heads...wanna kickstart your ****bolism? Get you protein in.
 
Yeah it's pretty insane. Just by adding more protein and fish oil into your diet you can burn more calories sitting on your ass replying to forums posts than someone who is jogging and
not taking in their protein/fish oil.

It's like the closer we get to how our ancient ancestors ate the better our body is at regulating its weight. It just sucks that we have to go through so much effort to eat how we should be naturally eating.
 
weight loss = around 1g protein/lb or 1g protein/kg (i prefer the lb, but kg is the absolute minimum), caloric deficit, weight lifting, interval training.

just to summarize.
 
I think interval training is overrated in terms of fat loss. Although I agree that it can help speed the process up significantly, it is not necessary as long as you are getting cardio in some form or another (such as muay thai, jui jitsu, or judo). Weight training will help a ton as well, but more importantly it will insure that you maintain your muscle mass through the cut (provided you are taking in enough protein).
 
you sound like somewhat of a classic hardgainer, while i'm more of someone who very easily gains weight, so that is going to affect opinions.

Couldn't be more wrong. I gain weight very easily. I was overweight for most of my life. The only difference is I train with such frequency and intensity now that I require a pretty substantial number of calories.

suffice it to say, i have played around with my macro %'s during training cycles and found that contrary to what is preached in magazines, i actually gained muscle better when i lowered my % protein (ended up at around .5g./lb bw), an upper the carbs, and i felt better doing it.
Duh, most magazines are crap. The general rule of 1g protein/lb BW isn't something taken from bodybuilding mags. Guys like Mark Rippetoe recommend it, and John Berardi says it is a good starting point (as a minimum)

in terms of the fist thing being silly, meh i guess maybe, but how is it any sillier than an arbitrary grams per pound bodywight number? (As I said above, it's not arbitrary, it the product of empirical research) you eat a fist's worth of beef, chicken, eggs, whatever every meal, and eat 3-4 meals a day, you're going to be getting somewhere around 100-150 grams of whole food protein a day without having to choke down some dry, nasty hunk of meat. after that the eating plans can be somewhat ridiculous. personally i'd rather just lose muscle mass than be choking down a pair of chicken breasts every meal- that's obviously where one's body wants to be. That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say on so many levels. there's nothing wrong with trying to cheat your genetics with massive intake; it's just not something necessary to be generally healthy. <---So is that.

(My replies in red)

I'm really don't want to sound like a jerk, but where exactly are you getting your ideas about nutrition?
 
I think interval training is overrated in terms of fat loss. Although I agree that it can help speed the process up significantly, it is not necessary as long as you are getting cardio in some form or another (such as muay thai, jui jitsu, or judo). Weight training will help a ton as well, but more importantly it will insure that you maintain your muscle mass through the cut (provided you are taking in enough protein).

I think this'll put a damper in the arguement that interval training is overrated.

alwyn cosgrove said:
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1526539]2[/url]. High Intensity Anaerobic Interval Training

The second key "ingredient" in fat loss programming is high intensity interval training (HIIT). I think readers of T-Nation will be well aware of the benefits of interval work. It burns more calories than steady state and elevates ****bolism significantly more than other forms of cardio. The downside is that it flat-out sucks to do it!

The landmark study in interval training was from Tremblay:

Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.

Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle ****bolism.
****bolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8

This study pitted 20 weeks of endurance training against 15 weeks of interval training:

Energy cost of endurance training = 28661 calories.
Energy cost of interval training = 13614 calories (less than half)

The interval training group showed a nine times greater loss in subcutaneous fat than the endurance group (when corrected for energy cost).

Read that again. Calorie for calorie, the interval training group lost nine times more fat overall. Why? Maybe it's EPOC, an upregulation of fat burning enzyme activity, or straight up G-Flux. I don't care. I'm a real world guy. If the interval training group had lost the same fat as the endurance group, we'd get the same results in less time. That means interval training is a better tool in your fat loss arsenal.
 
I think this'll put a damper in the arguement that interval training is overrated.

Also, he said weight training will help you burn fat too. Real weight training is basically the same as interval training, anyway. You work reasonably close to your peak performance for a short period of time, then you are still burning massive calories between sets, etc.
 
Real weight training is basically the same as interval training, anyway. You work reasonably close to your peak performance for a short period of time, then you are still burning massive calories between sets, etc.

good point josh.
 
Back
Top