When I worked out more regularly I looked into the extra protein stuff. This is a little off the dome, so excuse my numbers and any inaccuracies. Anyway Theres a lot of broscience out there, but I remember being able to find some scientific evidence that showed some benefit of a higher protein diet. It was more like 0.7-.8g of protein per lb vs the body builder stuff which would want you to essentially get a 1 or more ratio which is insane and absolutely unnecessary.
Even the lesser ratio can be a pain to maintain. Thats like 150g if you’re 180lbs vs the recommended 50g of protein. It doesnt sound like a lot, and yeah if you like boneless skinless chicken breast you can get there pretty quick, but if you’re maintaining or cutting weight it can be a hassle to it’s hard unless you have a protein shake. Some days you can easily pass it depending on what you eat, while other days you have to try. Me? I like my bread, my sides, my potatoes, my noodles, my rice, and etc. These are all things with protein. Just not enough to get to 100+ figure.
I imagine for actual athletes who are able to do more than go to the gym a few days a week and walk a lot they burn enough calories to be able to make up the difference so theyre already eating a lot making the protein easier to achieve. If we’re talking about the broscience ratio where you’re essentially anywhere from matching your body weight or more in grams of protein then I cant picture an average person sustaining that without putting on a lot of weight or heavily supplementing(and even then whey isnt exactly light in calories for an average sized person who isnt an athlete)
I can believe that the 50g may not be the ideal number and more could be better especially if you are a little active, but there’s no way in hell the answer is eating a full on professional body builder ratio of protein.
Did you mean 0.7-0.8g of protein per kg instead of lb? That’s what the article states is the standard guideline. Per pound would require more than twice as much protein as per kg.
I believe you are correct, the most recent study I am aware of is this which points to an upper limit of 1.6g per kg. So even with the upper limit as target, its less than 150g (~129g) for a person of 180lbs. Again, this is the upper limit. As far as I am aware the lower limit is close to 0.8g per kg. Anywhere between these limits seems to be okay for me (an athlete).
I like my bread, my sides, my potatoes, my noodles, my rice, and etc. These are all things with protein. Just not enough to get to 100+ figure.
These are all great carb sources, most meals contain them for that reason, not for their protein. Their protein is really negligible. Let’s take a look,
Bread, I assume common bread based on wheat flour, so roughly 12g of protein per 100g. (12%) This one is not exactly negligible, but it has almost as high carb content (~75g) as rice (~80g).
Noodles, depends on what they are made of. Wheat flour or rice, you can see the previous bullets.
So what you say makes sense. If you try to get all your protein mostly from such sources, you will load a great deal of carbohydrates, almost certainly more than you need, even as a very active athlete. Regardless of what path you choose though, even without chicken breasts, there are foods with great concentrations of protein.
And I think you are overestimating the amount of protein you need. 100+ figure is fine, but really not necessary, anything close to 80 for the weight you mentioned, especially in a fairly inactive person, should be pretty much fine. Especially if you have days every once in a while that you go well above 100g.
Carbs tho, regardless of size or calories, once you load all your glycogen (which is what carbs are converted to if you are not already full) stores in the muscle tissue and liver, if you are inactive, will become triglycerides (fat). And an average person doesn’t store too much glycogen either, you can estimate it around 500g to get a sense of how excessive carbs can make us both fat and, eventually, sick. One important reason why complete inactivity (especially in the big muscles groups, take a walk, run, lift, jump, dance -use your legs!), makes us fat fast.
.75-.8g/lb is likely the upper limit for humans in terms of necessity and lower values are likely fine for most individuals. 50g/day is perhaps on the low side, but not unreasonable for a 2000kcal/day person who’s not trying to gain muscle. With that being said, having more protein in the diet is almost never a bad thing (it’s pretty much impossible to hit a problematic level without seriously supplementing) whereas excessive fat or carbs are much more likely to cause problems.
This was a very nice article, both an enjoyable read and informative. Kept the study about endurance athletes on a deficit for later, since I recently went about losing a few kg in exactly the manner they tested.
50g/day is perhaps on the low side, but not unreasonable for a 2000kcal/day person who’s not trying to gain muscle.
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I don’t think its unreasonable either, but haven’t even actually tested it on myself.
When I worked out more regularly I looked into the extra protein stuff. This is a little off the dome, so excuse my numbers and any inaccuracies. Anyway Theres a lot of broscience out there, but I remember being able to find some scientific evidence that showed some benefit of a higher protein diet. It was more like 0.7-.8g of protein per lb vs the body builder stuff which would want you to essentially get a 1 or more ratio which is insane and absolutely unnecessary.
Even the lesser ratio can be a pain to maintain. Thats like 150g if you’re 180lbs vs the recommended 50g of protein. It doesnt sound like a lot, and yeah if you like boneless skinless chicken breast you can get there pretty quick, but if you’re maintaining or cutting weight it can be a hassle to it’s hard unless you have a protein shake. Some days you can easily pass it depending on what you eat, while other days you have to try. Me? I like my bread, my sides, my potatoes, my noodles, my rice, and etc. These are all things with protein. Just not enough to get to 100+ figure.
I imagine for actual athletes who are able to do more than go to the gym a few days a week and walk a lot they burn enough calories to be able to make up the difference so theyre already eating a lot making the protein easier to achieve. If we’re talking about the broscience ratio where you’re essentially anywhere from matching your body weight or more in grams of protein then I cant picture an average person sustaining that without putting on a lot of weight or heavily supplementing(and even then whey isnt exactly light in calories for an average sized person who isnt an athlete)
I can believe that the 50g may not be the ideal number and more could be better especially if you are a little active, but there’s no way in hell the answer is eating a full on professional body builder ratio of protein.
Did you mean 0.7-0.8g of protein per kg instead of lb? That’s what the article states is the standard guideline. Per pound would require more than twice as much protein as per kg.
I believe you are correct, the most recent study I am aware of is this which points to an upper limit of 1.6g per kg. So even with the upper limit as target, its less than 150g (~129g) for a person of 180lbs. Again, this is the upper limit. As far as I am aware the lower limit is close to 0.8g per kg. Anywhere between these limits seems to be okay for me (an athlete).
edit: “0.8g per kg, not 0.8g total”
These are all great carb sources, most meals contain them for that reason, not for their protein. Their protein is really negligible. Let’s take a look,
So what you say makes sense. If you try to get all your protein mostly from such sources, you will load a great deal of carbohydrates, almost certainly more than you need, even as a very active athlete. Regardless of what path you choose though, even without chicken breasts, there are foods with great concentrations of protein.
And I think you are overestimating the amount of protein you need. 100+ figure is fine, but really not necessary, anything close to 80 for the weight you mentioned, especially in a fairly inactive person, should be pretty much fine. Especially if you have days every once in a while that you go well above 100g.
Carbs tho, regardless of size or calories, once you load all your glycogen (which is what carbs are converted to if you are not already full) stores in the muscle tissue and liver, if you are inactive, will become triglycerides (fat). And an average person doesn’t store too much glycogen either, you can estimate it around 500g to get a sense of how excessive carbs can make us both fat and, eventually, sick. One important reason why complete inactivity (especially in the big muscles groups, take a walk, run, lift, jump, dance -use your legs!), makes us fat fast.
.75-.8g/lb is likely the upper limit for humans in terms of necessity and lower values are likely fine for most individuals. 50g/day is perhaps on the low side, but not unreasonable for a 2000kcal/day person who’s not trying to gain muscle. With that being said, having more protein in the diet is almost never a bad thing (it’s pretty much impossible to hit a problematic level without seriously supplementing) whereas excessive fat or carbs are much more likely to cause problems.
This was a very nice article, both an enjoyable read and informative. Kept the study about endurance athletes on a deficit for later, since I recently went about losing a few kg in exactly the manner they tested.
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I don’t think its unreasonable either, but haven’t even actually tested it on myself.