How Much Protein Do We Really Need for Muscle Growth?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Ellington Darden HIT Coaching
41

flappinit - Eating for health? You’re absolutely correct. Processed foods, fast foods, junk foods – they all contribute to health issues as do too many calories, etc. Eating for muscle? Muscle’s created and stimulated by weight training. And very few individuals, even eating too many bad calories, are going to suffer a shortage of “protein”. Burgers? Tacos? Plenty of protein.

And protein is actually the wrong term: our bodies use amino acids, not “protein”. Oatmeal, legumes, fish, eggs, etc., all contain amino acids and our bodies use them for repair, the creation of enzymes, growth, etc., etc., in a pre-programmed priority. Just because we lift weights it doesn’t mean our bodies will prioritize muscle growth.

Best results, IMHO, include showing a lean muscles and a lean waistline. That is where a good diet becomes critical. Our genetics are going to allow only so much muscle despite the bro science claims.

Fast food and getting lean? You’ve also got individuals like Chazz Weaver who got ripped on a fast food diet – leaned out and documented the results in his film Downsize Me. (So, the calories in/calories out argument comes up again.)

42

Can I suggest Brad Pilon’s ebook on protein – science has shown your body only requires a certain amount of protein (men, easily under 100g/day) even for weight lifters and after that, it turns to fat or is excreted.

Also, bodybuilders through decades of being lied to via the bro science believe they have the greatest need for protein. They don’t…science shows active athletes like triathletes, for example, have higher protein requirements vs. weight lifters. When the weight lifter is going home after their gym session, the triathlete is going from the pool to the bike or for a run or their turn in the gym.

1 Like
43

Muscle is stimulated by weight training. Muscle is not created by weight training. Weight training is catabolic.

2 Likes
44

That was on top of regular good high protein healthy meals.
Scott

45

So… with all this discussion what is common ground?
I have summarised what I’ve read above as follows:

  1. Stimulation comes before anything
  2. Stimulation must be followed by sufficient recovery and water
  3. Protein needs / requirements are overstated by the bodybuilding world
  4. Carbohydrates are understated by that same group

Agree? Disagree?

5 Likes
46

Agree

1 Like
47

I don’t think that’s what the takeaway is. Coach Darden said the relatively low protein (13% of calories) is for optimal athletic performance, and needs change if, say, bodybuilding is your goal. Same goes for carbs. Bodybuilders aren’t eating for performance, just for aesthetics.

48

Low is relative to the total volume, not relative to the body’s total requirements.

49

Technically speaking, yes, muscle is created by all of mechanical and biomechanical actions stimulated by the actions that take place during weight training. However, weight training is not catabolic.

Anabolic and catabolic refer to metabolic states of the body. eg Insulin is one of if not the body’s most anabolic hormones. Being in the metabolic state of catabolism means your body is breaking down molecules. eg When you’re fasting, autophagy is taking place because you’re in a metabolically catabolic state.

catabolism

[kah-tab´o-lizm]

any destructive process by which complex substances are converted by living cells into simpler compounds, with release of energy; the opposite of anabolism. See also metabolism. adj., adj catabol´ic. Catabolism | definition of catabolism by Medical dictionary

50

You guys are too smart for me. I thought I had a decent level of knowledge till now Lol

51

I wouldn’t worry. At some point all these fancy words and studies have got to be put into action and manifest into results, that’s the part most people will fail at, so what’s it matter if its 13%, 15%, 33%, 105%.

Pick a number, put it into action for a good chunk of time then assess. Make changes if need be and then re assess.

I’ve been medium protein for majority of my training. I’ve recently tried a higher intake and its had mixed results, some positives but some negatives, im now gradually lowering my intake, may or may not be as low as 13% but that decision will be made off results.

2 Likes
52

Hi castidavid222, That’s why I tried to collate the main points. It’s way less complicated that it reads here.

1 Like
53

And here is a lost of studies cited by T Nation that say different.

So pick which one you want to believe?

Notice during fat loss (topic 3) the group that ate 2.3g/kg preformed better than the 1.6g / kg group.

I add in my experience (n=1). Eating 6 eggs and 500g of meat a day changed my body.

Also success leaves clues - a quote from a very successful bodybuilder (from this site).
I’m not sure of his protein intake but I will cite the advice of the successful guys I train around. Guys that deadlift and squat 400kg. Bench 220kg for reps.
None of those are eating less protein than 2g/kg.

Until someone that can pull off those sorts of lifts tell me they are on under 100g/day and have been consistently over a good period of time - I’ll stick with the bro science that’s guilded multiple titles holders.

3 Likes
54

True and good points.

In the end, we should actually be eating for health as was pointed out previously. Vince Gironda, for example, had an incredible 8-pack going into his late 60s when I saw him at his gym but the poor guy ended up dying of heart disease after spending his 70s suffering from minor strokes and angina…assuming the years of steaks, eggs, heavy cream caught up with him like Rheo Blair.

And thinking about eating amounts of protein by volume (vs %): you can consume 40%, 50% protein, be lean and at the same time have high IGF-1 levels. (I’ll stay away from the kidney issues – think that varies by the individual.)
But, with IGF-1 long term, what are the possible negative repercussions?

Protein increases glycation, oxidation damage, and we know that protein increases growth hormone and IGF-1. In the last talk, I constantly hammered that high IGF-1, and insulin promotes aging, through a separate pathway. We know that protein increases IGF 1 and AGES, the short term for Advanced glycated end products. There are two major causes of aging. One is oxidative damage and the other is advanced glycated end products, that’s when glucose combines with proteins and DNA. Basically glucose is a sticky molecule that changes the shape and function of whatever it sticks to. It forms what are called advanced glycated end products, the acronym being AGES and that was intentional because it plays such a major role in the chemistry of aging. Ron Rosedale – Protein: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly | Me and My Diabetes

Science has shown pretty definitively the longest lived societies, globally, are in a grouping we’ve probably heard about called the Blue Zones. Books, papers on these societies. A nice summary film on Prime called The Longevity Movie (?) visits several of these groups and diet wise, a common factor is lower protein, higher amounts of complex carbs (not just vegetables) and moderate amounts of activity throughout the day.

(You also won’t see individuals from these societies pushing themselves through an Ironman event or grinding through a strength training session.)

1 Like
55

+15 years ago, I pushed 410lbs x 3 reps on the bench, did pulldowns for reps with 280 on the machine, deadlifts in the low 500s for a couple of reps. (Never did singles…didn’t feel they were safe.) Didn’t squat – multiple knee operations but used a pretty healthy weight on leg presses.

I can confirm I did this working out once every four or five days, I did not consume the protein recommended (or claimed) by the article – maybe hit 100 - 120g/protein a couple of times. Definitely did not juice and my genetics are definitely nothing to brag about.

400kg deadlift = +880lbs. 220kg bench = +485lbs…for reps?

Okay, reality check. Steroids. You’re not doing an 880lb deadlift or 485lbs x 3, 4 or 5 reps without juicing – drugs, GH, etc., of some kind. Watch Bigger Faster Stronger or any of the Gen Iron films…they’ll show all of these BS claims about lots of protein = big lifts, big muscles are simply that. John Little’s first book on isometric training, Max Contraction, does a nice job of discussing the lies in the supplement industry. Bottom line? The numbers are juiced. So yes, it is bro science. Designed to sell another cannister of whey protein powder, more amino acids, etc., etc.

Ronnie Ray, the first man to break 500lbs in the bench lives around an hour away. Met him. He shared he was taking steroids in the 1960s when he broke 500lbs in the bench…and this guy has the genetics to bench monster weights. (I’m sure Dr. Darden has talked to him/met him as well – he and Ken Hutchins mention Ronnie in their books – he can confirm Ray’s genetics were optimal for a solid bench.) Ronnie’s kids are built like him, powerlifters as well.

1 Like
56

I’m not sure about that.

The issue with these type of debates is when you think you have the answer to the question:

  • “How much protein do I need?” (the answer, in this case, 13% of total energy intake), it them becomes:

  • “What else do I eat to fill the calorie chasm?”

This tends to polarise views. For example, your 2,000 calorie TDEE man is going to eat around 65g protein (260 kcals). That leaves a whopping 1,740 calories. Now, I know Dr D espouses high carb diets, so the majority of that is going to be carbs. Would you want an 18-year-old physically active athlete on such a regimen? Possibly. What about an overweight, prediabetic 30-year-old? Possibly not.

The seems odd to be even stating this but the role of protein is huge - due to its influence on health as well as body composition goals. However, it is, for some, still demonised, or at least underrated, which I find most odd, even when studies show no deleterious effects from overeating it! Similar sentiments apply to fat. Yet only protein and fat are essential macronutrients. As mentioned, odd.

1 Like
57

Gironda’s health problems were documented including his heart disease, heart attack. And his consumption of large amounts of heavy whipping cream + Blair’s high fat ‘protein’ powder was also well known. And again, Blair also had CVD (Irwin Johnson). Vince’s Gym had pictures of cannisters of Blair’s stuff in the bb’ing rags.

What about an overweight, prediabetic 30-year-old? Possibly not.

Actually, yes. Pre-diabetes is not an issue related to carbohydrates, otherwise, most of the world would be diabetic. I’ve been lucky enough to travel outside of the US…parts of Asia, South America and Europe. Lots of carbs – rice, taro, etc., in Japan, Taiwan, Korea. Pasta in Milan, Rome as the main courses during business dinners. Had a flat off of Mozart Avenue in Paris for a month…baguettes daily and I lost weight during my stay. Didn’t see pre-diabetic people in those countries like the US, Canada, for example.

Metabolic syndrome/insulin resistance/pre-diabetes is caused by fat being stored in the wrong place: inside healthy cells which disrupts the cell’s normal processes. It is worsened by certain saturated fats which further inhibit normal insulin activities on the outside of the cell. (Mentioned earlier by someone else in another post.)

Insulin resistance results from the accumulation of excess dietary fat in cells that are not meant to store large quantities of fat, which inhibits the action of insulin.

When cells become insulin resistant, glucose builds up in your bloodstream, because cells are trying to burn the excess fat. As a result, beta cells in your pancreas secrete more insulin to force cells to uptake glucose in your blood. https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/reverse-insulin-resistance-presentation/#:~:text=%20The%20Insulin%20Resistance%20Diet%20Definitive%20Guide%20–,Your%20Adipose%20Tissue.%20Fatty%20acids%20in...%20More%20#:~:text=%20The%20Insulin%20Resistance%20Diet%20Definitive%20Guide%20–,Your%20Adipose%20Tissue.%20Fatty%20acids%20in...%20More%20

In addition, the ancestral human diet never evolved on the ridiculous amount of protein being advocated by bro science. Let me suggest this: 3rd world civilizations and pre-agricultural societies that rely on hunting don’t have access to eggs, dairy, large quantities of meats or canned protein powders. (In fact, dairy wasn’t a part of our diet until cattle was domesticated and they became part of our agricultural diets.)

If you’re relying on “the land” for your food, protein comes via bugs. Small rodents. You’re looking for edible vegetation, which is your main source of energy, while looking for a larger source of food to sustain you for a few days. All of these protein claims coming out of ‘research’ – not the real world.

Fat? I won’t disagree with the need, but, again you’re not going to find animals in the wild with meats loaded with saturated fats. Those animals have a much higher % of Omega 3s vs. domesticated animals.

1 Like
58

I don’t think the “bodybuilding world” speaks with a single voice on this issue. I expect that most high-level pros, who are also using a ton of drugs, are consuming massive amounts of protein. As for natural body builders or fitness fanatics, intake levels likely vary according to whose advice they follow.

59

As I read the back and forth on protein, just a couple of observations:

Protein intake is being expressed as either grams/unit of lean mass or a % of calorie intake. The former is the way the minimum daily requirements were formulate by various health agencies. The latter is impacted by activity level. If you were burning a ton of calories, you could get a decent absolute amount of protein, even if the percentage in the diet was toward the low end. I’m not sure if either measure is inherently superior. Maybe both numbers should be taken into consideration?

The minimum RDA for protein for a male is 0.8 gm/kg or 0.36 gm/lb. You do find some health gurus advising to stay at his level for longevity (mTor pathway and IGF concerns). However, even Dr. Darden’s recommendations exceed the RDA. So I’d guess there is at least a consensus that for body building/fitness/sports performance you should be somewhat above the RDA minimum. How much would be the question.

The research in animal species suggests there is an optimal level of protein intake for some species. Drop below that level, and longevity is extended, but at the expense of reproductive fitness (perhaps a proxy for robustness). Above the optimal level, reproductive fitness further improves, but life span tends to be shorter. Interesting implications if the same thing happens with humans. Perhaps there is some similarity here to the findings on calorie restriction and longevity. Semi starvation seems to extend life, but at what cost in terms of how you feel, and what you can do with the extra life span that you might acquire?

60

Are we talking longevity or quality of years, tho? People are living longer in the US, but, are those years “quality”? Using statins, diuretics, beta blockers, etc., to live longer – at least to me – aren’t quality years. And I really don’t want to be spending $$$$ on pharma, draining my bank accounts.

OTOH, if eating a little less allows one to be more active physically, be more cognitive through reduced risks of dementia/Alzheimer’s, and avoid pharma in your latter years – isn’t that the goal?

And lets think about caloric reduction for a second: as you increase the quality of your food, your caloric intake actually goes down. Americans consume more calories because of the quality of our food – boxed, packaged, etc. Try and over eat on a whole foods diet…eg a meal of vegetables, legumes, 3 - 4oz lean protein and maybe a slice of avocado with a piece of fruit for dessert. Your calories will be under 500, easily, insulin spike low (so you won’t be hungry later), but, you’ll be full from the fiber including the resistant starch in the beans. Compare that with a normal American meal where people are counting calories, struggling to keeping the numbers in line with their breakfast, lunch or dinner allotment.

So, I’d suggest two things: first, whole/natural foods will naturally lead to lower calories once you’ve removed processed products whether it is protein powder, crackers or sodas. Second, it is the quality of the longer life. Dr. Mark Mattson, PhD/Johns Hopkins suggests you can practice natural caloric restriction (via whole foods) along with IF to live a more optimal life as you age. eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UkZAwKoCP8

1 Like