@@CobGobblin a large number of lifters have hit near their natural limits of muscle growth eating far lower than 1g/lb so you will be fine. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies it references. Low quality study + low quality study = low quality meta analysis. So until all 105 studies referenced in the Japanese meta-analysis have been properly analysed, it's really not something that should be stressed about too much for now. If top tier strength athletes have been making do with 1.6g/kg, as many of them have been for decades now, then most gym rats are probably going to be fine until we have sufficient peer reviewed evidence to show otherwise.
Don't forget to superset your lengthened-biased partials on bosu ball squats with jacking off and also multitask by doing your meal prep (to get in your extra 0.3g/lb protein) with your free hand all while listening to the stronger by science podcast to learn while saving time. This way you will be hyperoptimised and your entire day's workload/workout/errands will be done in 30 minutes. Leaving you free to spend the rest of the day watching kyriakos grizzly videos.
It's kind of annoying how the question "how much protein should you eat per day" is done so often by hoping from imperial to metric to imperial to metric. Is it really so hard to stick to one or show both?
@@Ивасик-р3п Yeah it's not rocket science, that is one reason I find it "kind of annoying", when people who make these videos can't be bothered to do it, so everybody watching (and who cares enough to want to know) doesn't have to do it. Also thanks for that suggestion, but I'll probably never remember that, I don't convert often enough, and I just whip out a converter, which is pretty much as fast me whipping out the calculator.
Probably because you’re eating more total calories and I have to ask how many carbohydrates from whole foods (beans, rice, bananas, oatmeal, etc) are you consuming that’s the key distinction with this whole thing. Alex Leonidas went vegan (the so called inferior source mind you) and went the exact opposite route for his last cut instead of consuming 1.4+ his bodyweight he consumed only 120 grams and said he felt better ending up 2 pounds up when the cut was finished which is great for a guy who has been at for around 15 years. Similar story from Natural Hypertrophy watch his last diet video 220 only consuming a little over 100 grams
@KurokamiNajimi my calories remain the same as the low protein times. I have around 250g of carbs a day, a good mix of 80% whole foods, whole grain and occasional processed carbs.
@@jayallum2423 Forgot to get back to this but yeah that’s not quite what I’d consider high carb for a physically active 180 pound male especially if 20% of it is processed but truthfully I don’t think that’s the issue from looking at your other comment If you’re 100% sure you were eating enough as in you look at the scale to see your weight maintaining or increasing then I’d say it’s a food quality issue I have a similar problem where I live. In a perfect world you buy food it says you’re getting around 30 grams from eating x amount but in reality maybe you’re digesting half that One could argue individual variation and yeah to an extent maybe one person with the same stats would do fine with 100 while the other needs 130 but 250 is insane for a 180 pound person is an insane difference. I’m lighter but even 150 grams from a quality source is overkill for me
There isn't any evidence in the study to back this up - I posted more in another comment. Meta analyses (esp regression lines) can be deceiving - none of the individual studies show what Dr. Wolf is claiming.
I've tried 1.3 and upwards of 2.7g per kg and found NO difference. If anything, 1.3 allows me to have more carbs and fats. I've also tested this during a cut btw. What keeps muscle is intensity in the gym
@@christophegroulx7816Only a small portion of the population gets benefits over 1.6 BTW, look at the studies, some people don't even respond to anything over 1.2-3. So unless you think you got elite protein synthesis you will likely be wasting money and digestion.
@@Frodoswaggns That’s not what the meta analysis showed at all. If few individuals benefited from very high amounts of protein the trend line would have became flat
so, if you increase your protein intake 2.67 times (from 0.6 to 1.6 g/kg), you'll gain 3 times more muscle (an increase from 0.4kg to 1.2kg). but if you increase your protein intake 5.17 times (from 0.6 to 3.1g/kg), you'll gain 4.75 times more muscle (an increase from 0.4kg to 1.9kg). i guess if you don't care about diminishing returns, want all the gains, and have cash for all the protons, then intake past 1.8g/kg makes sense. edit 8 days later: henselmans wrote a post about the study today. tl;dr - the study has "major limitations", and "you most likely don't need to consume 3.1g/kg protein".
Same, I'm more interested in the minimum effective dose. Not in a hurry to gain muscle as fast as possible, not a body builder, just want to be able to eat a reasonable diet that isn't miserable and expensive to maintain while consistently progressing at the gym. 1.7 is more than enough for me
Been saying this for years, 1-1.3 lbs ! My metabolism is very fast, and 1 wasn’t cutting it. Gained 15 lbs in 6-8months at 1.2-1.3 gr of protein per lbs, vs 5 lbs in almost 1 year at 0.8-1 gr of protein per lbs!!! I have lean bulked successfully ✌🏾
It’s pretty pricier but worth it tbh. Just eat a whole food based diet and it’s easier than it may seem. Chicken breast, tuna, beans, eggs, milk. All relatively cheaper sources. I’m dieting on 230g a day right now and spend less on groceries than when I was bulking lol
The study was linked by whey protein producers. How do you explain other studies looking at protein powder supplementation not finding any further results past 1.6g/kg/day (perfectly alligning with the gold standard study)
.7g/lb at 3 meals/day works well for me, but I'm also not too focused on gaining mass. This works well for my lifestyle, my wallet, my health and my goal of just being fit for life.
Same, I'm more interested in the minimum effective dose. Not in a hurry to gain muscle as fast as possible, not a body builder, just want to be able to eat a reasonable diet that isn't miserable and expensive to maintain while consistently progressing at the gym. ~0.7-0.8 is more than enough for me. Still seeing long term consistent gains.
Not always. There's plenty of asinine stuff they do. I know bros that are taking 4 or 5 gm per KG! That's certainly not validated. Besides, the bro suggestion of 1 gm per lb certainly isn't optimal, so it's not like what the bro suggestion was on point anyway. But what do they care? They're on roids, which optimizes their utilization, anyway.
Bros were right is always so funny to me. You can find a bro recommending literally any approach, so of course one of them is gonna be right about each thing.
the most relevant number in this studies is the GAIN of lean body tissue with 0.6 grams per kg of body weight, sub optimal for sure, but still nowhere near the myth that you'll lose muscle if you go that low, for someone like me that care about keeping my muscle but not in a hurry to grow, those numbers are far more important, specially when going on a diet.
I would love to see what you are eating. I don't see how I could get to these numbers. I drink multiple protein shakes per day and I struggle to even get to 1.6/kg.
If you drink multiple protein shakes per day and struggle to get 1,6, that means you loose some core concepts of "high-protein bodybuilding diet". Your diet by itself without even protein should be able to give you a good amount of protein (like 1,6 g/kg), and if you add multiple shakes per day, it should bump it even more. Can i know, what you typically eating? Generally speaking: eating a bunch of lean meats, lean milk products (like low-fat cheese, cottage cheese/ milk curd/ quark/ greek yougurt), eggs as mentioned above. Not using much of added oil and shugar, because it costs calories you otherwise could've spent on protein. Using relatively high protein garnishes, like beans, lentils, peas. Eat some vegetables and fruits. All those principles applied could leverage your diet into higher protein. For example, i make sometimes some sort of potato casserole with meat and cheese for myself. It uses 2 kg of pork, 4 kg of potato, 600g of greek yougurt, 600g of 20% cheese, 1 kg of onion, 100g of mayo. That dish gives me like 40g of protein per 550 kcal, and you can push it into even leaner territory by using chicked instead of pork.
What about calorie intake? How can you be sure that the increase in lean body mass is solely due to the increase in protein intake and not due to the increase in total calorie intake? A more reasonable experimental design would be to keep total calories constant while increasing the proportion of calories contributed by protein, then observe the differences in lean body mass gains across groups.
Except this meta analysis has major limitations, as explains Henselmans on a post on Facebook. For example the researchers didn’t control for energy intake and most studies were weight loss trials.
No science study can tell you if your individual case would be on the very bottom of a graph or at the very top. While studies can give you information about what you should try first because of how likely it it to work, if you want maximal effects, you should explore the space of parameters where you see more extreme results if it's not too detrimental otherwise. Maybe you're one of those extreme points.
This guy gets it. None of these studies take into individual differences. We're all different and what works for one person may not be optimal for another.
@@Lolwutdesu9000 the RDA does it, 0'8 g per kg of body weight takes that into account. It is calculated to cover the individual requirements of 97.5% of the population, and it also works for bodybuilders
While no study outcome can take into account individual variation, I would also say that most people don't have the measurement tools, time, and patience to assess the interaction of a single variable. For an individual to test this on themselves, they would have to commit to two blocks of training where the only variable they change is protein intake, and then they would need a way to assess muscle thickness at various sites of interest using something like ultrasound. That's simply not accessible for most people. What most people end up doing is change multiple variables at once, with extremely poor instrumentation for assessing their progress. If suddenly they start getting good results, the vast majority of people can't determine what the causative factor was for those results - and so going off of the results of meta analysis is probably one of our best bets for assessing what we should do personally, since our ability to use ourselves as a test subject is extremely limited
@@peterfarr9591 I agree, and that's why I said "if you want to maximize". Most people are mediocre or not interested in maximizing. I think we can agree that this channel does not address "most people" anyway?
It always seemed like that whole 0.8-1 g/lb range had limited evidence of being "optimal", and was more just the range where you hit enough diminishing returns that you wouldn't notice a huge difference eating a little more. I don't think there's great reason to really expect benefits of protein would really "cap out" and especially not so low. That range is more like "at least you're trying" and you're not super holding yourself back.
At the 8 minute mark, Milo discusses approx how much more lean muscle mass you'd gain at given daily protein targets. Over what time period is he talking about?
He doesn’t say but why would that matter? Because those gains are a comparison rate, not a specific amount of growth. Does that make sense to you? Or am I missing something else here?
@@drv3973 It matters to me just to contextualize how significant of a difference the extra protein would make and if it's worth me making adjustments to my diet.
Yeah dude now i’m going with 3.1g per kg of protein a day. I like eating high protein and low everything else, it makes me feel more full. PLUS I’LL GET MORE GAINS TRAINING HARD
1 g per lbs is easy at 200 lbs for me. Greek yogurt with a scoop of protein is 50g. A shake with fairlife milk and protein is 50 g. You're halfway there and you have hardly eaten a thing.
Here are a few tips for anyone who is wondering how to get more protein 💪🏻 And for anyone looking for cheaper sources of protein 🫰🏻: All proteins count. Not just chicken, dairy products and eggs. Even those with lower PDCAAS or DIAAS! The amino acid profiles complement each other. And as a side effect, it is also healthier if you also consume plant-based products. - Cereal products 🌾 🥖🍞🍝 and potatoes 🥔 - Legumes (lentils, beans🫘 , chickpeas, tofu, tempeh,...) - Nuts and seeds Can together contribute a significant amount of protein! And to all meat eaters: Try "Nose to tail" ! Offal/giblets, ...
Someone with a brain. It's not cheap but recently I found a reliable brand for hemp protein called Catein best protein powder you could use overall nutrition and health wise
How am I supposed to eat 200-250g of protein daily? This is not sustainable at all. OK, it may be worth noting for a professional, but for 95% of people who exercise, this is not a realistic metric.
@@DzaMiQ pick any food. for example beans have 20% protein. if you need 250 g of protein just divide 250 g by 0.2 and you get 1250 grams of beans. low fat cheese can have over 30 grams of protein. 250 g / 0.3 and you get 800 g of cheese. divide by 5 for your 5 meals per day to get per meal. 250 g beans per meal or 160 grams cheese per meal.
How does this equate to over/underweight individuals? Is the g/lb the same compared to healthy weight? Should g/lb of Lean Mass be used instead of body weight for reliability?
I dont know if anyone reads comments here. And I don’t know if there is anyone who could actually answer these questions, because watching this video just raise even more questions. First of all you know how people accuse science of complicating things? Correct me if I am wrong. X grams per pound of body weight is oversimplification. Your fat mass doesn’t need protein, so your protein requirement is actually based more on your fat free mass. Someone with same weight but different body composition should have different protein recommendations. But measuring ones weight is easy and measuring ones fat free mass is not, so everyone just simplify things. What puzzles me most is where does the protein go for advanced lifters? For new lifters who can grow ton of muscles fast, proteins goes into building their new muscle tissue. But advanced lifters doesnt build muscle fast. Way less new muscle tissue is created. So where does all that protein go? So one person need X amount of protein per day to build 10 pound of extra muscle and another person need same amount of protein to build 1 pound of new muscle? Is it the more advanced you are the more inefficient your protein synthesis are and you need more and more protein to build same amount of muscle tissue?
I read yesterday some guy’s comment about how the studies were looking at protein synthesis rates instead of muscle growth snd he made an interesting argument. Today I tried to find that comment and looked through literally all comments and can’t find it. Milo, I hope you didn’t delete his comment, it would be a terrible fucking thing to do.
It’s not even that he used pounds, it’s that he jumped back and forth between using pounds and kilos throughout the video. Please pick either lbs or kg for all examples in the video, or ideally, display both on screen at the same time. But don’t jump back and forth between them!
Would love to see a series of muscle, ligament and joint anatomy videos for lifters. Jeff Nippard is always talking about the number of "heads" on a muscle, but never actually shows what that means (visually) or which exercises target those specific structures. Dr Mike never touches this either. I think this is where you could properly differentiate your channel.
I always hear “Eat whole foods for protein, use Whey/powder only as-needed”, with very little scientific justification. Does this have implications on muscle growth? Or is it simply a micronutrient/balanced diet thing?
For me the only reason to take protein powder is the convenience and ease of intake. It takes no more than a couple of minutes to scoop, shake and gulp it down. I take it only as-needed which is 1 scoop immediately after a workout session. Rest days are whole foods only.
There is obvious scientific justification. Just eating macros will make you sick, you need micronutrients, metals, vitamins etc. Meats have a lot of high quality micronutrients, it's why people *can* do carnivore diets, they get necessary macros and micros from it when done right. Whey protein by itself lacks micronutrients. NOW, 400g of minced meat or chicken etc. is more than enough for micronutrients, you can *supplement* the protein macro need with whey, not entirely replace good protein sources.
All proteins count. Even those with a lower PDCAAS. The amino acid profiles complement each other. It's much healthier if you don't just consume shakes (micronutrients). And it is significantly healthier if you consume not only animal-based products but also plant-based products. Cereal products, legumes (lentils, beans, chickpeas, tofu...), nuts
See this is where the experts have conflicting recommendations. Most sleep experts tell us to not eat before bed since it'll decrease sleep quality. Sleep quality has been shown as one of the largest predictors for performance. So what do we do here?
As someone who has had multiple sleep studies and insomnia, sleep quality goes up with protein before bed, because you wont be hungry during the night, ensuring you sleep uninterrupted. Free amino acids float around to help with recovery of the whole body, not just muscle. That recovery provides better sleep quality as well. It's BIG meals you want to avoid before bed. 150cals isn't going to hurt. 800cals? Oh yeah. Sucks! A shake a night, an hour or two before bed is a wise decision. Why an hour or two? Remember that uninterrupted line? Urge to pee will rocket you out of the bed. This helps avoid that.
Dr. Milo Wolf seems not to understand the results of the study (and the flaws of most protein intervention studies). The intervention groups had a mean increase of protein intake of 31 +/- 27 g/d. Of course, if you increase protein, you are going to get a anabolic response. Our bodies adapt to the level of protein we are consuming and we more efficiently use protein when we are getting lower amounts. This tells me that we do not want to maintain high protein intakes over long periods of time, but we want to cycle our protein. Let our body efficient adapt to lower levels (
Note: See the research of Nicholas Burd (U. of Illinos) using isotopic tracers showing how the body more efficiently uses protein as we decrease our protein. Less gets oxidized and converted to glucose. It's unfortunate that so many researchers believe that an increase in mass comes from maintaining high levels of protein consumption rather than an increase of protein which happens in their short-term studies (< 6 mos). Extrapolate out these protein studies for a decade or more and people would have gained a 1,000 lbs of muscle. Hmmm, wonder why that doesn't happen.
@@Turksarama See the research of Nicholas Burd (U. of Illinos) using isotopic tracers showing how the body more efficiently uses protein as we decrease our protein. Less gets oxidized and converted to glucose. It's unfortunate that so many researchers (and bros) believe that an increase in lean muscle mass comes from maintaining high levels of protein consumption rather than an increase of protein which happens in their short-term studies (< 6 mos). Extrapolate out these protein studies for a decade or more and people would have gained a 1,000 lbs of muscle. I wonder why that doesn't happen.
Or just casually think about protein in your diet and put most of your mental energy into training hard. Training matters so much more, I'm growing tired of the back and forth over protein intake. Get strong on compound movements for reps within a reasonable hypertrophy range (5-30 reps, give or take) and train close to failure. It takes a while to get used to this kind of training, which is why most people don't actually train hard consistently and miss out on gains. You don't have to always be "optimal", you gotta keep it interesting so you'll stick to it long term, but there's no substitute for hard training. Plenty of people get jacked by accident by just getting strong and going hard without the granular obsessiveness we're seeing in the fitness realm right now.
this should be much higher up. The Tagawa group did a followup meta-analysis in 2022 focusing on the dose-response relationship between total protein intake and muscle strength increase and concluded the following; "A total of 82 articles were obtained for meta-analyses, and data from 69 articles were used to create spline curves. Muscle strength increase was significantly augmented only with resistance training (MD 2.01%, 95% CI 1.09-2.93) and was not augmented if resistance training was absent (MD 0.13%, 95% CI - 1.53 to 1.79). In the dose-response analysis using a spline model, muscle strength increase with resistance training showed a dose-dependent positive association with total protein intake, which is 0.72% (95% CI 0.40-1.04%) increase in muscle strength per 0.1 g/kg body weight [BW]/d increase in total protein intake up to 1.5 g/kg BW/d, but no further gains were observed thereafter." If they found no evidence of additional strength gains beyond 1.5g/kg then it seems unlikely the participants in these studies (referenced in the 2022 report) were seeing superior muscle growth at the higher intake numbers either. That's why the studies referenced in both of these meta-analyses need to be examined in more depth before jumping to definite conclusions.
Fazlifts explained this in a recent video with Alex Leonidas, that your body uses protein for lots of things other than muscle and that a gram per pound probably isn't enough.
Absolutely. All proteins count. Even those with a lower PDCAAS. The amino acid profiles complement each other. Cereal products, pulses (lentils, beans, chickpeas, tofu...), nuts ...
How many studies in the metaanalysis used more than 1.6g/kg/day? I checked - its just 5 studies. They use 1.7, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.8. Only 3 of those have participants training, and they are all in calorie deficits(40%) deficits. Great data to base a recommendation for higher intakes on. /s
I love this study. Lately I've been trying to eat at least 40 grams of protein per meal. And I eat like five or six times a day 😂. I weighed around 175 and I finally started to gain lean mass again and I'm at around 179.8 baseline. I'm clocking upwards of 200+ grams of protein per day lately and it's actually helping me grow a lot faster and recover faster
Yes when it comes to body fat composition. The body absorption rate of protein is 10 grams per hr for fast acting protein such as whey. So roughly 240 grams per day. As per Shane Bilsborugh .Out of that, the body only takes 5-10 grams of protein towards muscle building or repair.
@@snakeace0 you are correct but A few things to consider. That is 8 lbs of muscle per year just from amino acids. What is muscle made out of ? 70% water. So add 70% water to that equation as well. You can't just add 10 lbs of muscles every year. Steroids will help you but everybody has a limit
It’s obvious but general health should be considered. Despite studies showing over 3g/kg bw protein intake considered safe, if you look at the details, some subjects dropped out due to discomfort or insufficiently meeting the needs. And we don’t know the long term damage it can do to kidneys and livers. Also, as lifting age is widening, I also want to mention pre puberty population should stay away from super high protein intake. With all that said, 1.6-2.2g/kg bw is still the golden general standard but athletes and bodybuilders may consider increasing the intake.
People always drop out of nutrition studies because they find them difficult to follow or the change in diet causes digestion issues. Happens with every study.
@ the rate of dropout is what I’m talking about. That is why most super high protein intake(over 3-4g/kg bw) studies sign more subjects to high protein group on purpose due to expected high dropout rate. My point is that 1.6-2.2g/kg bw protein intake is still a good standard and most people don’t need exceeding amount.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention Jose Antonio's studies showing no benefit to LBM with higher protein intakes but massive improvements in fat accumulation with higher protein intakes, even when this protein is added on top of a control diet (thus creating a larger surplus).
@Ebi-LiftersLounge What flaws did you find with it? The main issue that I see is that food wasn't provided to the participants and relied on their self reporting. However, in practice, even if this caused errors in the data collected, the outcome still supported the recommendation of getting more protein. For instance, if they were told to eat extra protein on top of their regular diet and ended up eating less of their regular diet than they reported (or cheated less) then this may skew the literal findings but still may be applicable to someone who intends on implementing the protocol themselves because they'd be subject to the same biasing of habits that led to those outcomes. It hasn't been replicated in a more controlled environment, but Antonio has performed three very similar overfeeding studies with the same outcomes.
@@archmaesterofpullups i do agree to your conclusion. If you want to avoid getting fat in a bulk, a high protein approach does have benefits. There is TEF, so about 25% of the calories of protein are burned just by digesting it. And also protein is very saturating (is this the right Word? I'm not a native english speaker) so it makes it way harder to reach a significant calorie surplus at all. On the other hand that could make it harder for some to reach ANY surplus at all. I also think this is the main critisism of Antonios study, with these amounts of protein it's just hard to eat the necessary amounts. But yes, for staying lean high protein is definetly benefitial. But i don't agree with Antonio's conclusion or the claimed results. If that would be true, it would literally mean that the last of thermodynamics have no meaning and it would not only be the biggest scientific sensation in the last 50 years but also, that there would be a huge hype around this form of diet. But there are several studys and even metaanalyses that clearly Show, that it doesn't matter what you're macros are in a bulk and that you absolutely can get fat by eating protein. If i have the time i'll have a look for an english article that gives you the links to the studys i've mentioned.
@@Ebi-LiftersLounge RE: "saturating" -- I think you mean "satiating" The TEF from protein usually isn't concerning for most people since it's already baked into the calorie content of food. Protein has about 5.25 kcal/g but, after the TEF, it nets about 4kcal/g, which is how people track it anyway. However, the superiority of protein to other macros isn't the big takeaway from Antonio's studies for me. The protein added in the high protein groups is on top of their base diet meaning that the high protein group is consuming way more calories above maintenance than the normal protein control group. Even so, the high protein group accumulates less fat mass than the lower protein group, almost as if the protein is, in practice, net negative calories. In the discussion section, Antonio's team speculates why this is. The main theory that they proposed was that, in a caloric surplus (which both groups were), glucagon signaling becomes bottomed out. Glucagon is necessary for protein to undergo gluconeogenesis. Because of this, they are burning calories from the TEF while not being able to efficiently convert the protein into energy in an efficient manner. You can see how this scales in extreme situations, like the opposite end of the spectrum. When someone is in an energy depleted state and eats exclusively protein, the body's glucagon signaling is high, which leads to more gluconeogenesis from protein. This is why people can experience rabbit starvation when consuming protein but no fats/carbs, since the urea from all that gluconeogenesis will cause kidney failure. However, if that same person added fats or carbs to the rabbit diet then less protein would undergo gluconeogenesis and they wouldn't experience renal toxicity from consuming all that protein. Under this model, the calories that someone can assimilate from protein is not static and depends on relative energy balance. The marginal net caloric gain from a gram of protein is around 4kcal/g because it offsets energy needed for amino acid synthesis. Once this need is fullfilled (probably around .8g/lb/day) and once energy needs are met by the body, the amount of energy which can be assimilated by protein can approach zero or potentially become negative.
I love this. A lot of influencers nowadays would have you believe that you don't need more than 0.7g/lb of protein just because they don't, often forgetting that they are advanced and that they built their physique on a way higher protein intake than that. Great video!
There's elite naturals who are making gains to this day consuming only 0.8 grams per pound of fat free mass or even less. The 2 distinctions are 1 if your actually digesting the protein usually this isn't an issue most places have decent food quality and 2 how many carbs from whole foods you're eating. There's a minimal optimal amount of protein once you hit that stuff like legumes (which are also decently high in protein), oatmeal, bananas, pasta (legume pasta exists too), etc can do the rest. Minimal amount of fat needed for general health. Other variable I just thought of is people assuming they're eating enough when they aren't and maybe their protein choices helps them eat more
I used to be at 0.7-1 gr per lbs of body weight. I was recovering poorly, and I wasn’t able to manage inflammation on certain tendons. Yes training was also a variable. But, once I started doing 1.2-1.3 gr of protein per lbs, I gained about 15 lbs in 6 months, and all inflammation is pretty much gone. I have reduced my training volume as well, and I couldn’t feel better. My question would be, since I have a much faster metabolism, would it influence the amount of protein I have to ingest ? I don’t see a study comparing metabolism and protein consumption. I know for a fact, that certain people’s metabolism would put on lean muscle mass with half of what I know consume.
I cut down on protein and stopped drinking a casein shake before bed because it wasn’t supposed to make a difference so long as you get enough in a day, but in my anecdotal experience I was getting better gains with the shakes before bed so I went back to
@@s98715 no not really. If anything it makes my sleep slightly worse, I’m more likely to have weird dreams. And I wake up hungry in the morning which makes it a but more of a pain to manage my calorie intake
4:40 I don’t believe this is true. A biphasic line assumes nothing and can be optimized just like a regular linear regression by perform separate regressions on the sub lines with the constraint the two regressions must share a common point. It just so happened to be the optimal weights showed no gain past the point they split on.
Man, I actually lost some respect for you for this. At 8:18 you say going from 0.6kg to 1.6g/kg increases muscle growth by 3x, which (you don't clarify) is equal to 200%. You then say going from 1.6g/kg to 3.1g/kg is 55% more. You purposefully didn't use equivalent expressions of the measures because 55% for a 1.5kg difference seems way less significant when compared to 200% for a 1.0kg difference. It's good that you acknowledge the diminishing returns, but you're using misleading expressions of measures to argue for a provocative clickbait thesis, and couching it in scientific terminology for credibility (i.e., blinding with science). Your point isn't wrong, but your argument is presented to be persuasive, not balanced. Not cool.
Yep. We've always known it's a heavy diminishing return. Even beyond 100g it's diminishing returns. The workouts themselves are going to make a much bigger impact than doubling your protein intake if already on the high end. Prisoners get jacked with barely any protein, but all the time in the world to work out.
I think it's quite clear that 3x means 200% more, and 55% more is equivalent to roughly 1.5x, or roughly half of 3x. To me as a viewer this didn't come across as misleading
What is an "older" lifter? I'm 45 so middle aged, but in the gym influencer world this is sometimes considered old. Also, your math was slightly off on the recommendation for lifters. 3.5g/kg breaks down to 1.6g/lb not 1.4g/lb. A kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
Why the hell are you supporting a graph that even kids in high school wouldn't even consider to be good science? Zero data points, just a line? No error bars? 😂 Wtf please, spare us the amateurish discussion
Eating too much protein leads to oxidation and ammonia formation, which is toxic. It then needs to be detoxified in the liver. If you don't provide your liver with a lot of energy or put it under constant ammonia stress, cells will die and you'll end up with a fatty liver. That is how I have learned it and in monogastric and ruminant animals you'll see that feeding them with a lot of protein and little carbohydrates will turn their liver into a piece of fat and collagen over the years. Do any of the these studies look at long term liver damage or do we only care about muscle growth?
The echo chamber effect. I would say it's a legitimate overlook, the study must have seriously flown under the radar of everyone given how few references it had. I'm looking forward to their input on this meta-analysis, as well as the remaining evidence-based fitness minds
@@user-ii7xc1ry3x There are definitely echo chambers among the science community! In this case, however, the data in the meta analysis doesn't justify Milo's conclusions. I posted a longer comment about this you can search for. None of the 105 studies in the meta analysis actually had conditions that Milo mentions.
@@diggidyd2009 Could you copy-paste it here? I ran through every comment on this video and couldn't find your username anywhere, other than in this one reply
@@user-ii7xc1ry3x Weird! Looks like it doesn't appear in the normal sort order but if you sort by "Newest First" then it does. That's weird. In any case, here it is: There is NO evidence from this study to support Dr. Wolf's interpretation. I spent over an hour digging into the study to see if I could verify. There were 105 studies used in the meta analysis - only 4 provided participants with greater than 2.2 g/kg (1 g/lb) of protein. Of these 1 didn't have the participants exercise at all, and in the other three all participants were in a 40% (!!) calorie deficit diet. I love Milo, but this analysis and interpretation didn't really dig into the data, yet made a big claim (1.3 g/lb would likely lead to more muscle growth than 1.0 g/lb). Using mean regression or a spline model as the study did can obscure the actual conditions of the studies. In this case, there were no studies at all in the meta analysis of 105 studies where people were resistance training, at least at maintenance calories, and consuming more than 1 g/lb of protein.
To prove higher protein intakes are better, there needs to be a study that tracks protein intake at two different levels on the same person on different sides of the body. So get a subject that trains his right bicep or right leg or just right side of body at 1.6g per kg of body weight for say 16 weeks and measure their growth. Then get them to train their left side at 3g per kg of body weight for 16 weeks and measure that side then compare the difference. Here no genetic differences will play a part. But obviously get a large sample size in case of any other factors et.
They have the recent study showing that there's no established upper threshold for per meal protein absorption & utilisation for protein synthesis. That is, 100g of protein stimulates more protein synthesis than 50g. Essentially aligns with the conclusion from this video.
thank you for all this valuable and up to date information!! do you have revommendation on protein intake for 40+ years old, doing strength and hypotrophy workouts at the gym but on a cut phase?
Without specifying the body weight or, even better, X g / kg body weight, the statement is completely useless for everyone else except you. And even then, the significance of your personal experience, in contrast to the significance of the meta-analysis, still tends towards zero.
The thing that has ways puzzled me about how much protein per lb/kg of body weight is that it seems to be of total body weight - so that includes body fat, bones, water etc - so with that in mind I’m left confused as to how that total amount correlates to the amount of muscle…. Thoughts?
The proper way to do all this is knowing your LBM only. Once you know that number, multiply it by 1.2-2 and there's your protein goal. Ex, I'm 200lbs, 150lbm, so that's a range of 150-225g/day I can consume. I actually stay on the lower end compared to the past. My tummy and wallet don't want 5k cals/day anymore lol.
Hello, I am always wondering the protein intake recommendation is for only high quality protein or sum of high + side dishes (mixed high quality protein diet)? RP Mike said before that 1g/lb is enough even if the high quality protein is more than 50% of total. Others said only quality protein and protein from plants do not even count. According to this video for plant based diet it is recommended more - I assume for mixed diet everything counts. What do you think?
Every protein counts, even from plant sources. And there are many good and cheap sources of protein that many people don't have on their radar. I wrote a long commentary on this here. Maybe you'll find it.
@@JohnRambo-t6i Thank you for the reply. I eat around 1,25g / lb (I am 136 lb now with small surplus after diet to 11% body fat) because I try to hit the leucine trashold as well with high quality protein but my weight is too low so even splitting to 3 meals needs lot of protein. :) So I probably overkill it but according to that video it is not completely waste. :) Later on more weight I can eat more calories with the same amount of protein at least. ;)
Been lifting since '99... personally, I experienced better gains by going closer to 2g per pound of bodyweight, but I would never stick with it for long because of cost and because the science didn't seem to support what I was experiencing. We need more data broken down by sex, age, lifting experience, and perimenopausal/postmenopausal status
I remember those days. I'm right there with you, now. Wallet says no, tummy says "ugh". I find I am still progressing, very quickly with 150-175g/day. This is also post-op two OCAs this year (recovering from #2 atm). I feel like 1g/lb to 1.5g/lb max is enough for anyone, except the genetically freaky.
One thing ive heard before is that if youre overweight, these estimates may be too high for you. And instead you should use your estimated lean body mass as a starting point for your calculation. Do you still think this is accurate?
Confusion. You start by reciting 1.6g to 2.2g protein to 1kg body weight, but then in making your recommendation, you convert to 1.3g protein to 1lb of body weight. Since 1kg is equal to 2.2 lbs it would appear you have more than doubled the protein recommendation, i.e. 1.3kg per kg weight for a 200 lb person (~91kg) would mean 118g protein per day, not 260g. So which is it, 1.3g protein for each pound of weight or kilogram of weight?
I will be happy for Milo if he's really the first one in the fitness bubble to bring this to attention and everyone ends up starting recommending way more of a protein intake. Great catch 👌 I vaguely remember a study that pointed out health issues for high protein diets (which the researchers classified as 2.7g+ per lb of BW, I believe). I'll have to look for it since I can't quite recall what the issues were with that study (but I think it was related to testosterone or fertility levels)
I wonder how much this can impact the upper limit of training volume. There is that new meta coming out where additional volume keeps having additional benefits just increasingly marginal.
Atlantians… and yeah, Americans. Why wouldn’t we? I know people say we don’t use metric, but (similar to the UK, Canada, etc) we do, just not for everything. Our nutrition facts are in grams, our weight is in pounds, and the fact that the classic advice worked out to about 1g/lb makes it a nice, round number
Americans. Their system truly strange. Dont understand why their government dont just commit to metric system, which is relatively recent invention meant to simplify communication and understanding.
@@JohnRambo-t6i I prefer metric, but as an American, it's not intuitive to me. We tend not to have good points of reference for metric. Takes a tad bit extra effort whenever I have to think about metric beyond just numbers on a paper, such as whether a temperature figure means it's comfortable or not. That said, I purposefully use metric plates, both to fit the international standard and to use the lower numbers to help with managing my ego and morale.
what percentage of protein should be high quality protein (like chicken eggs whey), if i eat 150g of chicken breast and 150g of rice do i count the protein from da chicken equally as the protein from the rice?
Every protein counts, even from plant sources. And there are many good and cheap sources of protein that many people don't have on their radar. I wrote a long commentary on this here. Maybe you'll find it.
@@WassimZeir No, that is not correct. All proteins count. Even those with lower PDCAAS! The amino acid profiles complement each other. Cereals + legumes / seeds / nuts. And then you have a complete amino acid profile.
You said that lengthened partials were superior for growth but the recent study you did with Jeff Nippard didn't prove that to be true, how can you know this is true? What if you use more experienced lifters?
So a 55% increase going from 1.6 g/kg to 3.1 g/kg. How much of that increase is realized if you go from 1.6 to 2.2 (1 g/lb)? This seems like an important data point, given that a lot of us (for ease of mathing) are probably eating around 1 g/kg already.
Did I miss the part about whether the additional protein is on top of your daily cals, or if carbs/fats are sacrificed to compensate the extra protein cals?
Oh, come on, how many kilos of chicken do i need to eat now? First problem: as someone who lives in an eastern european country it would be very expensive. Now, there is a particular supermarket here that have a 75% discount on chicken breast that are close to the expiratory date. The catch is, they dont have them every day, sometimes only biweekly sometimes everyday. And i live with my family too, so cant hoard the "optimal" amount only to myself either
As a European iron brother, here are a few tips: All proteins count. Even those with a lower PDCAAS. The amino acid profiles complement each other. And as a side effect, it is also healthier if you consume not only animal products but also plant-based products. Cereal products, legumes (lentils, beans, chickpeas, tofu...), nuts Can contribute a significant amount of protein! And I only see you talking about chicken breast... Why don't you eat pork too? And above all: nose to tail! Offal/giblets! dairy products, eggs, ...
Quark/cottage cheese should be widely avaliable if you live in eastern Europe. Quark (0.5% fat) with skyr half and half is my to go protein meal, around a dollars for 300g of food and 43.5 grams of high quality protein
@jarredpickle4916 yep, anything over basic needs (~38g) will gain muscle if you exercise, and 3x that will give you at least double or triple the result if you work out optimally, but from the 1.6 to 3.2 only gives 355% instead of 300%. Massive diminishing returns, even possibly study error noise.
Guys, you don’t need “that” much protein. If you are 200LBS or less, then you would be fine with 120-150grams. Yes, some people are different, but that would be fine for most.
What about protein and longevity? In longevity circles protein, especially methionine and leucine, restriction is seen as beneficial for health and lifespan.
That is the trade off which needs to be considered against the health benefits of having muscle. My take on this is is that high protein combined with resistance training will give you a better chance of delaying sarcopenia and retaining mobility into old age, but this will not lead to life extension because high protein triggers mTOR, too much of which is linked to shortened lifespans.
@@asprinklingofclouds Not a bad theory at all. Seems that more calories and protein = faster metabolism and cell turnover = more things can go wrong/faster wear on body. Muscle can offset some negatives, but is it enough to withstand problems from constant mTOR activation and high IGF-1 levels? I would really like to know, but guess we're long way from that.
Good video. It always weird when influences recommend 1.6g while there is no negative effect if you intake more, and as we see, there might be some positive effect. It's a positive freeroll.
There is a negative effect though. If you are controlling calories, you'll miss out on carbs which are themselves anabolic and boost recovery and energy as well. If you're not controlling calories you could gain excess body fat.
Babe, new study dropped. Time to switch up my entire life again
😂 So accurate
lol
I can’t believe how many pieces of fitness advice are based on just one study.
Bro T^T
@@CobGobblin a large number of lifters have hit near their natural limits of muscle growth eating far lower than 1g/lb so you will be fine. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies it references. Low quality study + low quality study = low quality meta analysis. So until all 105 studies referenced in the Japanese meta-analysis have been properly analysed, it's really not something that should be stressed about too much for now. If top tier strength athletes have been making do with 1.6g/kg, as many of them have been for decades now, then most gym rats are probably going to be fine until we have sufficient peer reviewed evidence to show otherwise.
Bad day to be a protein source.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
LMAO😂😂😂
When you think about it, aren't we all protein source?
@@srleplay so you’re saying we should become cannibals to gain more muscle?
Mooooooo
10:20 ideal recommendation for lifters. You’re welcome.
Thanks amigo
thanks
Why is this not the top comment? 😂
its 0,5g/kg?
We are here on a science based channel run by a PhD in Sports scienece.
Milo, use the SI units for God's sake!
Or at least provide both, if you want to get the Imperial crowd on board. This barleycorns per barrel bs hurts my brain. 😅
don’t provide only one unit. provide both. I don’t feel like converting shit in my head
@@cleanname4439 light weights 😂 can’t yet do both in your own head
Don't forget to superset your lengthened-biased partials on bosu ball squats with jacking off and also multitask by doing your meal prep (to get in your extra 0.3g/lb protein) with your free hand all while listening to the stronger by science podcast to learn while saving time.
This way you will be hyperoptimised and your entire day's workload/workout/errands will be done in 30 minutes.
Leaving you free to spend the rest of the day watching kyriakos grizzly videos.
Perfect comment
It's kind of annoying how the question "how much protein should you eat per day" is done so often by hoping from imperial to metric to imperial to metric. Is it really so hard to stick to one or show both?
just multiply per pound by 2.25 to get per kg and vice versa. It's not rocket science
@@Ивасик-р3п Yeah it's not rocket science, that is one reason I find it "kind of annoying", when people who make these videos can't be bothered to do it, so everybody watching (and who cares enough to want to know) doesn't have to do it.
Also thanks for that suggestion, but I'll probably never remember that, I don't convert often enough, and I just whip out a converter, which is pretty much as fast me whipping out the calculator.
@@Ивасик-р3п2.205* not 2.25
@@Indriyal useful
I noticed bigger increases in muscle mass when I went higher protein, also faster recovery from workout and injury.
can you say about how much more you consumend when you went higher proteine? from 120 to 180? to 240? ty
@MemesForACause I was on 150 to start with, bumped this up to 180, didn't see much difference, went up to 250 and then noticed it. , I weight 180lbs.
Probably because you’re eating more total calories and I have to ask how many carbohydrates from whole foods (beans, rice, bananas, oatmeal, etc) are you consuming that’s the key distinction with this whole thing. Alex Leonidas went vegan (the so called inferior source mind you) and went the exact opposite route for his last cut instead of consuming 1.4+ his bodyweight he consumed only 120 grams and said he felt better ending up 2 pounds up when the cut was finished which is great for a guy who has been at for around 15 years. Similar story from Natural Hypertrophy watch his last diet video 220 only consuming a little over 100 grams
@KurokamiNajimi my calories remain the same as the low protein times. I have around 250g of carbs a day, a good mix of 80% whole foods, whole grain and occasional processed carbs.
@@jayallum2423 Forgot to get back to this but yeah that’s not quite what I’d consider high carb for a physically active 180 pound male especially if 20% of it is processed but truthfully I don’t think that’s the issue from looking at your other comment
If you’re 100% sure you were eating enough as in you look at the scale to see your weight maintaining or increasing then I’d say it’s a food quality issue I have a similar problem where I live. In a perfect world you buy food it says you’re getting around 30 grams from eating x amount but in reality maybe you’re digesting half that
One could argue individual variation and yeah to an extent maybe one person with the same stats would do fine with 100 while the other needs 130 but 250 is insane for a 180 pound person is an insane difference. I’m lighter but even 150 grams from a quality source is overkill for me
55% difference is HUGE. I get that there are diminishing returns but I'm honestly shocked it would have that large of an impact
Possibly upto 55% difference. You can increase your protein intake and see if your one of those hyper responders to it or not.
There isn't any evidence in the study to back this up - I posted more in another comment. Meta analyses (esp regression lines) can be deceiving - none of the individual studies show what Dr. Wolf is claiming.
dont worry, you wont get big following this guy so nothing to worry about
I've tried 1.3 and upwards of 2.7g per kg and found NO difference. If anything, 1.3 allows me to have more carbs and fats. I've also tested this during a cut btw. What keeps muscle is intensity in the gym
هاد اليوتيوبر بيشحر من باب طيزو و بيحكي😂😂❤
I bulk on 4300 calories (and that's extremely lean bulking), I have plenty to spare and still get lots of carbs and fats
I would trust studies over an anecdote with tons of variables.
@@christophegroulx7816Only a small portion of the population gets benefits over 1.6 BTW, look at the studies, some people don't even respond to anything over 1.2-3. So unless you think you got elite protein synthesis you will likely be wasting money and digestion.
@@Frodoswaggns That’s not what the meta analysis showed at all. If few individuals benefited from very high amounts of protein the trend line would have became flat
so, if you increase your protein intake 2.67 times (from 0.6 to 1.6 g/kg), you'll gain 3 times more muscle (an increase from 0.4kg to 1.2kg). but if you increase your protein intake 5.17 times (from 0.6 to 3.1g/kg), you'll gain 4.75 times more muscle (an increase from 0.4kg to 1.9kg). i guess if you don't care about diminishing returns, want all the gains, and have cash for all the protons, then intake past 1.8g/kg makes sense.
edit 8 days later: henselmans wrote a post about the study today. tl;dr - the study has "major limitations", and "you most likely don't need to consume 3.1g/kg protein".
Cash is for the nitrogen. Not the protons idiot
That's not a lot of diminishing returns to be brutally honest.
my man is eating protons for dinner
@@IntelR we all are eating protons for dinner
@@BlaBla-pf8mf yeah technically
3 grams of protein per KG is a ridiculous amount of protein to eat in a day. I'm good at 1.7
Same, I'm more interested in the minimum effective dose. Not in a hurry to gain muscle as fast as possible, not a body builder, just want to be able to eat a reasonable diet that isn't miserable and expensive to maintain while consistently progressing at the gym. 1.7 is more than enough for me
This guy is straight ass, he just wants to sound different than every other guy
i can't even get in 1.6g/kg consistently
I have a hard time hitting that. I don't know if I could do more and still eat carbs...
@@johnrocksvold9105so don’t eat carbs??
Been saying this for years, 1-1.3 lbs ! My metabolism is very fast, and 1 wasn’t cutting it. Gained 15 lbs in 6-8months at 1.2-1.3 gr of protein per lbs, vs 5 lbs in almost 1 year at 0.8-1 gr of protein per lbs!!! I have lean bulked successfully ✌🏾
Chickens left the chat...
They're too busy performing a Chicken Run.
LMFAO
I guess to gain the most muscle you need to be rich, 234g of protein a day would be insanely expensive for me
I could easily afford it but I would have to eat so much less carbs that my food would be boring af.
It’s pretty pricier but worth it tbh. Just eat a whole food based diet and it’s easier than it may seem. Chicken breast, tuna, beans, eggs, milk. All relatively cheaper sources.
I’m dieting on 230g a day right now and spend less on groceries than when I was bulking lol
Chickpeas and whey proteins. I get a 8lb bag of chickpeas for like 10$
@@DenzLaRocQue My dude I live in Africa, what's pricy for you is exorbitant for me
@@FerintoshFarmsPhotography Not a bad idea actually, they're not badly priced, thanks
The study was linked by whey protein producers.
How do you explain other studies looking at protein powder supplementation not finding any further results past 1.6g/kg/day (perfectly alligning with the gold standard study)
.7g/lb at 3 meals/day works well for me, but I'm also not too focused on gaining mass. This works well for my lifestyle, my wallet, my health and my goal of just being fit for life.
That's what its all about mate, finding what works best for you. Cheers
Same, I'm more interested in the minimum effective dose. Not in a hurry to gain muscle as fast as possible, not a body builder, just want to be able to eat a reasonable diet that isn't miserable and expensive to maintain while consistently progressing at the gym. ~0.7-0.8 is more than enough for me. Still seeing long term consistent gains.
Requisite "Bros were right" comment
Lol they were! The science is validating the bros
The Mario Bros were right all along
Not always. There's plenty of asinine stuff they do. I know bros that are taking 4 or 5 gm per KG! That's certainly not validated.
Besides, the bro suggestion of 1 gm per lb certainly isn't optimal, so it's not like what the bro suggestion was on point anyway. But what do they care? They're on roids, which optimizes their utilization, anyway.
Bros were right is always so funny to me. You can find a bro recommending literally any approach, so of course one of them is gonna be right about each thing.
@Blake-ux6gm precisely!!!
bottom line eat 1g/lb, you can also eat more
The bottom line is eat as much protein as possible
so as 166 lbs i eat 166grams?
@@doml7750 yup
@@doml7750 You could eat 300 grams and still get gains, it just would have diminishing returns
@@doml7750 You would still see benefits at 300 grams, it would just be diminishing results
the most relevant number in this studies is the GAIN of lean body tissue with 0.6 grams per kg of body weight, sub optimal for sure, but still nowhere near the myth that you'll lose muscle if you go that low, for someone like me that care about keeping my muscle but not in a hurry to grow, those numbers are far more important, specially when going on a diet.
I would love to see what you are eating. I don't see how I could get to these numbers. I drink multiple protein shakes per day and I struggle to even get to 1.6/kg.
Add one cup of egg whites, 2 scoop protein shakes, and 1 cup of Greek yogurt. = Roughly 100 grams of protein. Very easy to add to the diet
@@helios4425that’s a lil expensive
Eggs meat milk
If you drink multiple protein shakes per day and struggle to get 1,6, that means you loose some core concepts of "high-protein bodybuilding diet". Your diet by itself without even protein should be able to give you a good amount of protein (like 1,6 g/kg), and if you add multiple shakes per day, it should bump it even more. Can i know, what you typically eating?
Generally speaking: eating a bunch of lean meats, lean milk products (like low-fat cheese, cottage cheese/ milk curd/ quark/ greek yougurt), eggs as mentioned above. Not using much of added oil and shugar, because it costs calories you otherwise could've spent on protein. Using relatively high protein garnishes, like beans, lentils, peas. Eat some vegetables and fruits.
All those principles applied could leverage your diet into higher protein. For example, i make sometimes some sort of potato casserole with meat and cheese for myself. It uses 2 kg of pork, 4 kg of potato, 600g of greek yougurt, 600g of 20% cheese, 1 kg of onion, 100g of mayo. That dish gives me like 40g of protein per 550 kcal, and you can push it into even leaner territory by using chicked instead of pork.
@@Highwayman589 Could it be that you are forgetting to include all proteins? Especially the proteins from cereal products and legumes?
What about calorie intake? How can you be sure that the increase in lean body mass is solely due to the increase in protein intake and not due to the increase in total calorie intake? A more reasonable experimental design would be to keep total calories constant while increasing the proportion of calories contributed by protein, then observe the differences in lean body mass gains across groups.
6:27
They adjusted for weight gain
@@JohnRambo-t6i Thanks
Except this meta analysis has major limitations, as explains Henselmans on a post on Facebook. For example the researchers didn’t control for energy intake and most studies were weight loss trials.
No science study can tell you if your individual case would be on the very bottom of a graph or at the very top. While studies can give you information about what you should try first because of how likely it it to work, if you want maximal effects, you should explore the space of parameters where you see more extreme results if it's not too detrimental otherwise. Maybe you're one of those extreme points.
This guy gets it. None of these studies take into individual differences. We're all different and what works for one person may not be optimal for another.
@@Lolwutdesu9000 the RDA does it, 0'8 g per kg of body weight takes that into account. It is calculated to cover the individual requirements of 97.5% of the population, and it also works for bodybuilders
While no study outcome can take into account individual variation, I would also say that most people don't have the measurement tools, time, and patience to assess the interaction of a single variable.
For an individual to test this on themselves, they would have to commit to two blocks of training where the only variable they change is protein intake, and then they would need a way to assess muscle thickness at various sites of interest using something like ultrasound.
That's simply not accessible for most people. What most people end up doing is change multiple variables at once, with extremely poor instrumentation for assessing their progress.
If suddenly they start getting good results, the vast majority of people can't determine what the causative factor was for those results - and so going off of the results of meta analysis is probably one of our best bets for assessing what we should do personally, since our ability to use ourselves as a test subject is extremely limited
@@peterfarr9591 I agree, and that's why I said "if you want to maximize". Most people are mediocre or not interested in maximizing.
I think we can agree that this channel does not address "most people" anyway?
It always seemed like that whole 0.8-1 g/lb range had limited evidence of being "optimal", and was more just the range where you hit enough diminishing returns that you wouldn't notice a huge difference eating a little more. I don't think there's great reason to really expect benefits of protein would really "cap out" and especially not so low. That range is more like "at least you're trying" and you're not super holding yourself back.
At the 8 minute mark, Milo discusses approx how much more lean muscle mass you'd gain at given daily protein targets. Over what time period is he talking about?
He doesn’t say but why would that matter? Because those gains are a comparison rate, not a specific amount of growth. Does that make sense to you? Or am I missing something else here?
@@drv3973 It matters to me just to contextualize how significant of a difference the extra protein would make and if it's worth me making adjustments to my diet.
Yeah dude now i’m going with 3.1g per kg of protein a day. I like eating high protein and low everything else, it makes me feel more full. PLUS I’LL GET MORE GAINS TRAINING HARD
hows the constipation? wanna get big, dont follow pencilnecks
Do you have coach in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Myoerect
@@mattheweley LMAO😂😂😂
I struggle to take 0.8g/lb, I feel full all the time and have to force my self to eat to get to 1g/lb. Not sure how people can manage to double that.
1 g per lbs is easy at 200 lbs for me.
Greek yogurt with a scoop of protein is 50g. A shake with fairlife milk and protein is 50 g.
You're halfway there and you have hardly eaten a thing.
Protein powder
People have different appetites. Some of us wonder how people manage to cut without starving all the time.
@@cjanowsk okay yea if you add protein powder to every meal it's a bit easier
@@cjanowsk supplement industry has to love you
Here are a few tips for anyone who is wondering how to get more protein 💪🏻 And for anyone looking for cheaper sources of protein 🫰🏻:
All proteins count.
Not just chicken, dairy products and eggs.
Even those with lower PDCAAS or DIAAS!
The amino acid profiles complement each other.
And as a side effect, it is also healthier if you also consume plant-based products.
- Cereal products 🌾 🥖🍞🍝 and potatoes 🥔
- Legumes (lentils, beans🫘 , chickpeas, tofu, tempeh,...)
- Nuts and seeds
Can together contribute a significant amount of protein!
And to all meat eaters:
Try "Nose to tail" ! Offal/giblets, ...
Someone with a brain. It's not cheap but recently I found a reliable brand for hemp protein called Catein best protein powder you could use overall nutrition and health wise
How am I supposed to eat 200-250g of protein daily? This is not sustainable at all.
OK, it may be worth noting for a professional, but for 95% of people who exercise, this is not a realistic metric.
eat? you can't eat?
@difflocktwo sure. Do me an example of a day with no more than 1 protein shake a day.
@@DzaMiQ pick any food. for example beans have 20% protein. if you need 250 g of protein just divide 250 g by 0.2 and you get 1250 grams of beans.
low fat cheese can have over 30 grams of protein. 250 g / 0.3 and you get 800 g of cheese.
divide by 5 for your 5 meals per day to get per meal. 250 g beans per meal or 160 grams cheese per meal.
@@difflocktwodry beans have 20% protein
Canned chickpeas has like 6.5% of protein. 1250 grams of dry beans is like 3.5 kilo of cooked edible beans
@@vaevictis2789 Correct.
How does this equate to over/underweight individuals? Is the g/lb the same compared to healthy weight? Should g/lb of Lean Mass be used instead of body weight for reliability?
I dont know if anyone reads comments here. And I don’t know if there is anyone who could actually answer these questions, because watching this video just raise even more questions.
First of all you know how people accuse science of complicating things? Correct me if I am wrong. X grams per pound of body weight is oversimplification. Your fat mass doesn’t need protein, so your protein requirement is actually based more on your fat free mass. Someone with same weight but different body composition should have different protein recommendations. But measuring ones weight is easy and measuring ones fat free mass is not, so everyone just simplify things.
What puzzles me most is where does the protein go for advanced lifters? For new lifters who can grow ton of muscles fast, proteins goes into building their new muscle tissue. But advanced lifters doesnt build muscle fast. Way less new muscle tissue is created. So where does all that protein go? So one person need X amount of protein per day to build 10 pound of extra muscle and another person need same amount of protein to build 1 pound of new muscle? Is it the more advanced you are the more inefficient your protein synthesis are and you need more and more protein to build same amount of muscle tissue?
Up to 1.3 gm per pound of bodyweight? That's 2.866 grams per kilogram.
I read yesterday some guy’s comment about how the studies were looking at protein synthesis rates instead of muscle growth snd he made an interesting argument. Today I tried to find that comment and looked through literally all comments and can’t find it. Milo, I hope you didn’t delete his comment, it would be a terrible fucking thing to do.
Please use metric units as well
@@franciscoribeiro9103 Up to 1.3 gm per pound of bodyweight? That's up to 2.866 grams per kilogram.
Yeah! It's sad when people who not from USA to begin with start to use pound for some strange reason.
It's the only country that matters loser
It’s not even that he used pounds, it’s that he jumped back and forth between using pounds and kilos throughout the video.
Please pick either lbs or kg for all examples in the video, or ideally, display both on screen at the same time. But don’t jump back and forth between them!
Ok now show who financed the study
Would love to see a series of muscle, ligament and joint anatomy videos for lifters. Jeff Nippard is always talking about the number of "heads" on a muscle, but never actually shows what that means (visually) or which exercises target those specific structures. Dr Mike never touches this either. I think this is where you could properly differentiate your channel.
I always hear “Eat whole foods for protein, use Whey/powder only as-needed”, with very little scientific justification.
Does this have implications on muscle growth? Or is it simply a micronutrient/balanced diet thing?
Micronutrients. Whey is the highest quality protein along with milk (whey is essentially milk). For pure muscle building whey is the whey.
For me the only reason to take protein powder is the convenience and ease of intake. It takes no more than a couple of minutes to scoop, shake and gulp it down. I take it only as-needed which is 1 scoop immediately after a workout session. Rest days are whole foods only.
There is obvious scientific justification. Just eating macros will make you sick, you need micronutrients, metals, vitamins etc. Meats have a lot of high quality micronutrients, it's why people *can* do carnivore diets, they get necessary macros and micros from it when done right. Whey protein by itself lacks micronutrients. NOW, 400g of minced meat or chicken etc. is more than enough for micronutrients, you can *supplement* the protein macro need with whey, not entirely replace good protein sources.
All proteins count.
Even those with a lower PDCAAS.
The amino acid profiles complement each other.
It's much healthier if you don't just consume shakes (micronutrients). And it is significantly healthier if you consume not only animal-based products but also plant-based products. Cereal products, legumes (lentils, beans, chickpeas, tofu...), nuts
From a muscle building perspective whey is superior
That’s Insanity, y’all just say that because y’all want us to buy more protein powder from your sponsors😂
See this is where the experts have conflicting recommendations. Most sleep experts tell us to not eat before bed since it'll decrease sleep quality. Sleep quality has been shown as one of the largest predictors for performance. So what do we do here?
As someone who has had multiple sleep studies and insomnia, sleep quality goes up with protein before bed, because you wont be hungry during the night, ensuring you sleep uninterrupted.
Free amino acids float around to help with recovery of the whole body, not just muscle. That recovery provides better sleep quality as well. It's BIG meals you want to avoid before bed. 150cals isn't going to hurt. 800cals? Oh yeah. Sucks!
A shake a night, an hour or two before bed is a wise decision. Why an hour or two? Remember that uninterrupted line? Urge to pee will rocket you out of the bed. This helps avoid that.
@@josho.9530 Some people dont get distured by hunger when sleeping
Diminishing returns are not no returns. Sadly, abstracts are often not good summaries of results.
Dr. Milo Wolf seems not to understand the results of the study (and the flaws of most protein intervention studies). The intervention groups had a mean increase of protein intake of 31 +/- 27 g/d. Of course, if you increase protein, you are going to get a anabolic response. Our bodies adapt to the level of protein we are consuming and we more efficiently use protein when we are getting lower amounts. This tells me that we do not want to maintain high protein intakes over long periods of time, but we want to cycle our protein. Let our body efficient adapt to lower levels (
New study idea just dropped.
Note: See the research of Nicholas Burd (U. of Illinos) using isotopic tracers showing how the body more efficiently uses protein as we decrease our protein. Less gets oxidized and converted to glucose. It's unfortunate that so many researchers believe that an increase in mass comes from maintaining high levels of protein consumption rather than an increase of protein which happens in their short-term studies (< 6 mos). Extrapolate out these protein studies for a decade or more and people would have gained a 1,000 lbs of muscle. Hmmm, wonder why that doesn't happen.
@@Turksarama See the research of Nicholas Burd (U. of Illinos) using isotopic tracers showing how the body more efficiently uses protein as we decrease our protein. Less gets oxidized and converted to glucose. It's unfortunate that so many researchers (and bros) believe that an increase in lean muscle mass comes from maintaining high levels of protein consumption rather than an increase of protein which happens in their short-term studies (< 6 mos). Extrapolate out these protein studies for a decade or more and people would have gained a 1,000 lbs of muscle. I wonder why that doesn't happen.
Or just casually think about protein in your diet and put most of your mental energy into training hard. Training matters so much more, I'm growing tired of the back and forth over protein intake.
Get strong on compound movements for reps within a reasonable hypertrophy range (5-30 reps, give or take) and train close to failure. It takes a while to get used to this kind of training, which is why most people don't actually train hard consistently and miss out on gains. You don't have to always be "optimal", you gotta keep it interesting so you'll stick to it long term, but there's no substitute for hard training. Plenty of people get jacked by accident by just getting strong and going hard without the granular obsessiveness we're seeing in the fitness realm right now.
this should be much higher up. The Tagawa group did a followup meta-analysis in 2022 focusing on the dose-response relationship between total protein intake and muscle strength increase and concluded the following;
"A total of 82 articles were obtained for meta-analyses, and data from 69 articles were used to create spline curves. Muscle strength increase was significantly augmented only with resistance training (MD 2.01%, 95% CI 1.09-2.93) and was not augmented if resistance training was absent (MD 0.13%, 95% CI - 1.53 to 1.79). In the dose-response analysis using a spline model, muscle strength increase with resistance training showed a dose-dependent positive association with total protein intake, which is 0.72% (95% CI 0.40-1.04%) increase in muscle strength per 0.1 g/kg body weight [BW]/d increase in total protein intake up to 1.5 g/kg BW/d, but no further gains were observed thereafter."
If they found no evidence of additional strength gains beyond 1.5g/kg then it seems unlikely the participants in these studies (referenced in the 2022 report) were seeing superior muscle growth at the higher intake numbers either. That's why the studies referenced in both of these meta-analyses need to be examined in more depth before jumping to definite conclusions.
Fazlifts explained this in a recent video with Alex Leonidas, that your body uses protein for lots of things other than muscle and that a gram per pound probably isn't enough.
Would you count protein from indirect sources with your new recommendation? I.e rice, oats, bread etc
yes. the number is total protein.
Absolutely. All proteins count.
Even those with a lower PDCAAS.
The amino acid profiles complement each other. Cereal products, pulses (lentils, beans, chickpeas, tofu...), nuts ...
All of it is irrelevant since that animation at 1:20 made me not want to eat again ever anyways lol.
How many studies in the metaanalysis used more than 1.6g/kg/day? I checked - its just 5 studies. They use 1.7, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.8. Only 3 of those have participants training, and they are all in calorie deficits(40%) deficits. Great data to base a recommendation for higher intakes on. /s
I love this study. Lately I've been trying to eat at least 40 grams of protein per meal. And I eat like five or six times a day 😂. I weighed around 175 and I finally started to gain lean mass again and I'm at around 179.8 baseline. I'm clocking upwards of 200+ grams of protein per day lately and it's actually helping me grow a lot faster and recover faster
Wonder how carbs and fats fit into the mix being "protein sparing." Id imagine that would alter things quite substantially as well.
Yes when it comes to body fat composition. The body absorption rate of protein is 10 grams per hr for fast acting protein such as whey. So roughly 240 grams per day. As per Shane Bilsborugh .Out of that, the body only takes 5-10 grams of protein towards muscle building or repair.
@@helios4425 Well, that cant be right. That would mean you could maximally only build up to 300g of lean muscle tissue per month.
@@snakeace0 you are correct but A few things to consider. That is 8 lbs of muscle per year just from amino acids. What is muscle made out of ? 70% water.
So add 70% water to that equation as well.
You can't just add 10 lbs of muscles every year. Steroids will help you but everybody has a limit
It’s obvious but general health should be considered. Despite studies showing over 3g/kg bw protein intake considered safe, if you look at the details, some subjects dropped out due to discomfort or insufficiently meeting the needs. And we don’t know the long term damage it can do to kidneys and livers. Also, as lifting age is widening, I also want to mention pre puberty population should stay away from super high protein intake. With all that said, 1.6-2.2g/kg bw is still the golden general standard but athletes and bodybuilders may consider increasing the intake.
People always drop out of nutrition studies because they find them difficult to follow or the change in diet causes digestion issues. Happens with every study.
@ the rate of dropout is what I’m talking about. That is why most super high protein intake(over 3-4g/kg bw) studies sign more subjects to high protein group on purpose due to expected high dropout rate. My point is that 1.6-2.2g/kg bw protein intake is still a good standard and most people don’t need exceeding amount.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention Jose Antonio's studies showing no benefit to LBM with higher protein intakes but massive improvements in fat accumulation with higher protein intakes, even when this protein is added on top of a control diet (thus creating a larger surplus).
Because that study is deeply flawed and could not be replicated in an controlled environment
@Ebi-LiftersLounge What flaws did you find with it?
The main issue that I see is that food wasn't provided to the participants and relied on their self reporting. However, in practice, even if this caused errors in the data collected, the outcome still supported the recommendation of getting more protein. For instance, if they were told to eat extra protein on top of their regular diet and ended up eating less of their regular diet than they reported (or cheated less) then this may skew the literal findings but still may be applicable to someone who intends on implementing the protocol themselves because they'd be subject to the same biasing of habits that led to those outcomes.
It hasn't been replicated in a more controlled environment, but Antonio has performed three very similar overfeeding studies with the same outcomes.
@@archmaesterofpullups i do agree to your conclusion. If you want to avoid getting fat in a bulk, a high protein approach does have benefits. There is TEF, so about 25% of the calories of protein are burned just by digesting it. And also protein is very saturating (is this the right Word? I'm not a native english speaker) so it makes it way harder to reach a significant calorie surplus at all. On the other hand that could make it harder for some to reach ANY surplus at all. I also think this is the main critisism of Antonios study, with these amounts of protein it's just hard to eat the necessary amounts. But yes, for staying lean high protein is definetly benefitial.
But i don't agree with Antonio's conclusion or the claimed results. If that would be true, it would literally mean that the last of thermodynamics have no meaning and it would not only be the biggest scientific sensation in the last 50 years but also, that there would be a huge hype around this form of diet. But there are several studys and even metaanalyses that clearly Show, that it doesn't matter what you're macros are in a bulk and that you absolutely can get fat by eating protein. If i have the time i'll have a look for an english article that gives you the links to the studys i've mentioned.
@@Ebi-LiftersLounge
RE: "saturating" -- I think you mean "satiating"
The TEF from protein usually isn't concerning for most people since it's already baked into the calorie content of food. Protein has about 5.25 kcal/g but, after the TEF, it nets about 4kcal/g, which is how people track it anyway.
However, the superiority of protein to other macros isn't the big takeaway from Antonio's studies for me. The protein added in the high protein groups is on top of their base diet meaning that the high protein group is consuming way more calories above maintenance than the normal protein control group. Even so, the high protein group accumulates less fat mass than the lower protein group, almost as if the protein is, in practice, net negative calories.
In the discussion section, Antonio's team speculates why this is. The main theory that they proposed was that, in a caloric surplus (which both groups were), glucagon signaling becomes bottomed out. Glucagon is necessary for protein to undergo gluconeogenesis. Because of this, they are burning calories from the TEF while not being able to efficiently convert the protein into energy in an efficient manner.
You can see how this scales in extreme situations, like the opposite end of the spectrum. When someone is in an energy depleted state and eats exclusively protein, the body's glucagon signaling is high, which leads to more gluconeogenesis from protein. This is why people can experience rabbit starvation when consuming protein but no fats/carbs, since the urea from all that gluconeogenesis will cause kidney failure. However, if that same person added fats or carbs to the rabbit diet then less protein would undergo gluconeogenesis and they wouldn't experience renal toxicity from consuming all that protein.
Under this model, the calories that someone can assimilate from protein is not static and depends on relative energy balance. The marginal net caloric gain from a gram of protein is around 4kcal/g because it offsets energy needed for amino acid synthesis. Once this need is fullfilled (probably around .8g/lb/day) and once energy needs are met by the body, the amount of energy which can be assimilated by protein can approach zero or potentially become negative.
Science bro keeps delivering the best advice in the whole platform. 👏👏
I love this. A lot of influencers nowadays would have you believe that you don't need more than 0.7g/lb of protein just because they don't, often forgetting that they are advanced and that they built their physique on a way higher protein intake than that. Great video!
no... they base it on meta analysis that are outdated, not their own opinion. Did you watch the video?
@@nile7999 I'm talking about influencers who have specifically used anecdotal evidence to support lower protein. Did you even read my comment?
There's elite naturals who are making gains to this day consuming only 0.8 grams per pound of fat free mass or even less. The 2 distinctions are 1 if your actually digesting the protein usually this isn't an issue most places have decent food quality and 2 how many carbs from whole foods you're eating. There's a minimal optimal amount of protein once you hit that stuff like legumes (which are also decently high in protein), oatmeal, bananas, pasta (legume pasta exists too), etc can do the rest. Minimal amount of fat needed for general health. Other variable I just thought of is people assuming they're eating enough when they aren't and maybe their protein choices helps them eat more
Its literally the opposite lol. Beginners dont even need to eat as much protein when they start because of noobie gains
I used to be at 0.7-1 gr per lbs of body weight. I was recovering poorly, and I wasn’t able to manage inflammation on certain tendons. Yes training was also a variable. But, once I started doing 1.2-1.3 gr of protein per lbs, I gained about 15 lbs in 6 months, and all inflammation is pretty much gone. I have reduced my training volume as well, and I couldn’t feel better. My question would be, since I have a much faster metabolism, would it influence the amount of protein I have to ingest ? I don’t see a study comparing metabolism and protein consumption. I know for a fact, that certain people’s metabolism would put on lean muscle mass with half of what I know consume.
I cut down on protein and stopped drinking a casein shake before bed because it wasn’t supposed to make a difference so long as you get enough in a day, but in my anecdotal experience I was getting better gains with the shakes before bed so I went back to
maybe the shake before bed made you sleep better?
@@s98715 no not really. If anything it makes my sleep slightly worse, I’m more likely to have weird dreams. And I wake up hungry in the morning which makes it a but more of a pain to manage my calorie intake
you said you lowered the total protein intake, so it's almost definitely that and not the timing of when you get it in.
Very important study and video updating the conventional science based fitness wisdom!
4:40 I don’t believe this is true. A biphasic line assumes nothing and can be optimized just like a regular linear regression by perform separate regressions on the sub lines with the constraint the two regressions must share a common point. It just so happened to be the optimal weights showed no gain past the point they split on.
Man, I actually lost some respect for you for this. At 8:18 you say going from 0.6kg to 1.6g/kg increases muscle growth by 3x, which (you don't clarify) is equal to 200%. You then say going from 1.6g/kg to 3.1g/kg is 55% more. You purposefully didn't use equivalent expressions of the measures because 55% for a 1.5kg difference seems way less significant when compared to 200% for a 1.0kg difference. It's good that you acknowledge the diminishing returns, but you're using misleading expressions of measures to argue for a provocative clickbait thesis, and couching it in scientific terminology for credibility (i.e., blinding with science). Your point isn't wrong, but your argument is presented to be persuasive, not balanced. Not cool.
Yep. We've always known it's a heavy diminishing return. Even beyond 100g it's diminishing returns. The workouts themselves are going to make a much bigger impact than doubling your protein intake if already on the high end.
Prisoners get jacked with barely any protein, but all the time in the world to work out.
I think it's quite clear that 3x means 200% more, and 55% more is equivalent to roughly 1.5x, or roughly half of 3x. To me as a viewer this didn't come across as misleading
Actually comparing 3x to 55% seems like a bigger disparity to me than 200% to 55%. So idk if you can argue that it was purposefully misleading.
What is an "older" lifter? I'm 45 so middle aged, but in the gym influencer world this is sometimes considered old. Also, your math was slightly off on the recommendation for lifters. 3.5g/kg breaks down to 1.6g/lb not 1.4g/lb. A kilogram is 2.2 pounds.
Why the hell are you supporting a graph that even kids in high school wouldn't even consider to be good science? Zero data points, just a line? No error bars? 😂 Wtf please, spare us the amateurish discussion
Eating too much protein leads to oxidation and ammonia formation, which is toxic. It then needs to be detoxified in the liver. If you don't provide your liver with a lot of energy or put it under constant ammonia stress, cells will die and you'll end up with a fatty liver. That is how I have learned it and in monogastric and ruminant animals you'll see that feeding them with a lot of protein and little carbohydrates will turn their liver into a piece of fat and collagen over the years. Do any of the these studies look at long term liver damage or do we only care about muscle growth?
Dr. Milo Wolf, could you cover the other macronutrients as well?
This is pretty huge 😯. Wonder how researchers like Menno Henselmans and Layne Norton have missed this
The echo chamber effect. I would say it's a legitimate overlook, the study must have seriously flown under the radar of everyone given how few references it had. I'm looking forward to their input on this meta-analysis, as well as the remaining evidence-based fitness minds
There will be another study saying it caps out at .3g/lbs in a few years
@@user-ii7xc1ry3x There are definitely echo chambers among the science community! In this case, however, the data in the meta analysis doesn't justify Milo's conclusions. I posted a longer comment about this you can search for. None of the 105 studies in the meta analysis actually had conditions that Milo mentions.
@@diggidyd2009 Could you copy-paste it here? I ran through every comment on this video and couldn't find your username anywhere, other than in this one reply
@@user-ii7xc1ry3x Weird! Looks like it doesn't appear in the normal sort order but if you sort by "Newest First" then it does. That's weird. In any case, here it is: There is NO evidence from this study to support Dr. Wolf's interpretation. I spent over an hour digging into the study to see if I could verify. There were 105 studies used in the meta analysis - only 4 provided participants with greater than 2.2 g/kg (1 g/lb) of protein. Of these 1 didn't have the participants exercise at all, and in the other three all participants were in a 40% (!!) calorie deficit diet. I love Milo, but this analysis and interpretation didn't really dig into the data, yet made a big claim (1.3 g/lb would likely lead to more muscle growth than 1.0 g/lb). Using mean regression or a spline model as the study did can obscure the actual conditions of the studies. In this case, there were no studies at all in the meta analysis of 105 studies where people were resistance training, at least at maintenance calories, and consuming more than 1 g/lb of protein.
To prove higher protein intakes are better, there needs to be a study that tracks protein intake at two different levels on the same person on different sides of the body.
So get a subject that trains his right bicep or right leg or just right side of body at 1.6g per kg of body weight for say 16 weeks and measure their growth.
Then get them to train their left side at 3g per kg of body weight for 16 weeks and measure that side then compare the difference.
Here no genetic differences will play a part. But obviously get a large sample size in case of any other factors et.
There's a study that showed training one side of body showed gains in other side of body as well so this won't really work imo
They have the recent study showing that there's no established upper threshold for per meal protein absorption & utilisation for protein synthesis.
That is, 100g of protein stimulates more protein synthesis than 50g.
Essentially aligns with the conclusion from this video.
Is there a benefit in eating more protein (more than 1g/lbs) during a cut or weight loss for maintaining muscle or boost the recomping process?
Did you even watch the video? Lol
@Antonio_Serdar I did.
Thanks for the valuable info first time I hear about this study. Will try the 1.3 gr/ lb and see
thank you for all this valuable and up to date information!!
do you have revommendation on protein intake for 40+ years old, doing strength and hypotrophy workouts at the gym but on a cut phase?
I noticed my recovery time is just better if I eat around 200 grams of proteins a day.
Weight?
@@RyanMcDonnough 43 kg.
No offence brother just kidding
Without specifying the body weight or, even better, X g / kg body weight, the statement is completely useless for everyone else except you.
And even then, the significance of your personal experience, in contrast to the significance of the meta-analysis, still tends towards zero.
How much do you weigh and how generally lean are you?
Would 1.3g/lb be beneficial for a cut as well? Or would the catabolic state outweigh any benefits from thenincreased protein intake?
The thing that has ways puzzled me about how much protein per lb/kg of body weight is that it seems to be of total body weight - so that includes body fat, bones, water etc - so with that in mind I’m left confused as to how that total amount correlates to the amount of muscle…. Thoughts?
The proper way to do all this is knowing your LBM only. Once you know that number, multiply it by 1.2-2 and there's your protein goal. Ex, I'm 200lbs, 150lbm, so that's a range of 150-225g/day I can consume. I actually stay on the lower end compared to the past. My tummy and wallet don't want 5k cals/day anymore lol.
Would be useful if they did these studies on lean body mass.
Hello, I am always wondering the protein intake recommendation is for only high quality protein or sum of high + side dishes (mixed high quality protein diet)?
RP Mike said before that 1g/lb is enough even if the high quality protein is more than 50% of total. Others said only quality protein and protein from plants do not even count.
According to this video for plant based diet it is recommended more - I assume for mixed diet everything counts.
What do you think?
Every protein counts, even from plant sources.
And there are many good and cheap sources of protein that many people don't have on their radar. I wrote a long commentary on this here. Maybe you'll find it.
@@JohnRambo-t6i Thank you for the reply. I eat around 1,25g / lb (I am 136 lb now with small surplus after diet to 11% body fat) because I try to hit the leucine trashold as well with high quality protein but my weight is too low so even splitting to 3 meals needs lot of protein. :)
So I probably overkill it but according to that video it is not completely waste. :)
Later on more weight I can eat more calories with the same amount of protein at least. ;)
Been lifting since '99... personally, I experienced better gains by going closer to 2g per pound of bodyweight, but I would never stick with it for long because of cost and because the science didn't seem to support what I was experiencing. We need more data broken down by sex, age, lifting experience, and perimenopausal/postmenopausal status
I remember those days. I'm right there with you, now. Wallet says no, tummy says "ugh". I find I am still progressing, very quickly with 150-175g/day. This is also post-op two OCAs this year (recovering from #2 atm). I feel like 1g/lb to 1.5g/lb max is enough for anyone, except the genetically freaky.
Hey Milo, is it possible to just train three full body days back to back?
no
@@jesustorres4725 you can’t
@@WassimZeir thank you
@@jesustorres4725 you need at least 3 to 4 days of rest
It's possible, don't know why commenters above says no. Definitely possible. Most optimal - not. Realizable - yes.
One thing ive heard before is that if youre overweight, these estimates may be too high for you. And instead you should use your estimated lean body mass as a starting point for your calculation. Do you still think this is accurate?
Is this recommendation strictly on lean animal sources or just calculating every bit of protein ie in bread and other stuff??
Let's stop listening to ppl whose bodies don't represent the results we want. It's really common sense . We are in control of what we want to do
Confusion. You start by reciting 1.6g to 2.2g protein to 1kg body weight, but then in making your recommendation, you convert to 1.3g protein to 1lb of body weight. Since 1kg is equal to 2.2 lbs it would appear you have more than doubled the protein recommendation, i.e. 1.3kg per kg weight for a 200 lb person (~91kg) would mean 118g protein per day, not 260g. So which is it, 1.3g protein for each pound of weight or kilogram of weight?
I will be happy for Milo if he's really the first one in the fitness bubble to bring this to attention and everyone ends up starting recommending way more of a protein intake. Great catch 👌
I vaguely remember a study that pointed out health issues for high protein diets (which the researchers classified as 2.7g+ per lb of BW, I believe). I'll have to look for it since I can't quite recall what the issues were with that study (but I think it was related to testosterone or fertility levels)
I wonder how much this can impact the upper limit of training volume. There is that new meta coming out where additional volume keeps having additional benefits just increasingly marginal.
who even uses gram per pound? americans? europeans? something in between?
Atlantians… and yeah, Americans. Why wouldn’t we? I know people say we don’t use metric, but (similar to the UK, Canada, etc) we do, just not for everything. Our nutrition facts are in grams, our weight is in pounds, and the fact that the classic advice worked out to about 1g/lb makes it a nice, round number
Americans. Their system truly strange. Dont understand why their government dont just commit to metric system, which is relatively recent invention meant to simplify communication and understanding.
This is about science. Use the SI units for God's sake!
@@JohnRambo-t6i I prefer metric, but as an American, it's not intuitive to me. We tend not to have good points of reference for metric. Takes a tad bit extra effort whenever I have to think about metric beyond just numbers on a paper, such as whether a temperature figure means it's comfortable or not.
That said, I purposefully use metric plates, both to fit the international standard and to use the lower numbers to help with managing my ego and morale.
I've lived in Canada most of my life and no one here uses metric for anything other then the speed limits
what percentage of protein should be high quality protein (like chicken eggs whey), if i eat 150g of chicken breast and 150g of rice do i count the protein from da chicken equally as the protein from the rice?
No
Every protein counts, even from plant sources.
And there are many good and cheap sources of protein that many people don't have on their radar. I wrote a long commentary on this here. Maybe you'll find it.
@ plant protein is lower in leucin so no they are not the same
@@WassimZeir No, that is not correct.
All proteins count. Even those with lower PDCAAS!
The amino acid profiles complement each other.
Cereals + legumes / seeds / nuts.
And then you have a complete amino acid profile.
@ 👍
I put .8 grams per pound in the trash bin a long time ago. That was killing my progress.
Why is it based on body weight instead of Lean body weight?
You said that lengthened partials were superior for growth but the recent study you did with Jeff Nippard didn't prove that to be true, how can you know this is true? What if you use more experienced lifters?
What about over men aged 40-50?
Whats the coefficient to adjust the recommendation up.
Thx for the update Doc!
Before uploading „science-based“ videos maybe start using SI units for the whole video
So a 55% increase going from 1.6 g/kg to 3.1 g/kg. How much of that increase is realized if you go from 1.6 to 2.2 (1 g/lb)? This seems like an important data point, given that a lot of us (for ease of mathing) are probably eating around 1 g/kg already.
Correction: a lot of us are eating 1 g/lb already.
Did I miss the part about whether the additional protein is on top of your daily cals, or if carbs/fats are sacrificed to compensate the extra protein cals?
Oh, come on, how many kilos of chicken do i need to eat now?
First problem: as someone who lives in an eastern european country it would be very expensive. Now, there is a particular supermarket here that have a 75% discount on chicken breast that are close to the expiratory date. The catch is, they dont have them every day, sometimes only biweekly sometimes everyday. And i live with my family too, so cant hoard the "optimal" amount only to myself either
As a European iron brother, here are a few tips:
All proteins count.
Even those with a lower PDCAAS.
The amino acid profiles complement each other.
And as a side effect, it is also healthier if you consume not only animal products but also plant-based products.
Cereal products, legumes (lentils, beans, chickpeas, tofu...), nuts
Can contribute a significant amount of protein!
And I only see you talking about chicken breast... Why don't you eat pork too? And above all: nose to tail! Offal/giblets!
dairy products, eggs, ...
Quark/cottage cheese should be widely avaliable if you live in eastern Europe. Quark (0.5% fat) with skyr half and half is my to go protein meal, around a dollars for 300g of food and 43.5 grams of high quality protein
Another pro tip is that you dont actually need to eat this much protein to gain muscle
@jarredpickle4916 yep, anything over basic needs (~38g) will gain muscle if you exercise, and 3x that will give you at least double or triple the result if you work out optimally, but from the 1.6 to 3.2 only gives 355% instead of 300%. Massive diminishing returns, even possibly study error noise.
Whats your new suggestion between bulk and cut with your new data Mister Wolf?
Guys, you don’t need “that” much protein. If you are 200LBS or less, then you would be fine with 120-150grams. Yes, some people are different, but that would be fine for most.
Why include kg the whole video but not at the protein intake calculation at the end?
What about protein and longevity? In longevity circles protein, especially methionine and leucine, restriction is seen as beneficial for health and lifespan.
That is the trade off which needs to be considered against the health benefits of having muscle. My take on this is is that high protein combined with resistance training will give you a better chance of delaying sarcopenia and retaining mobility into old age, but this will not lead to life extension because high protein triggers mTOR, too much of which is linked to shortened lifespans.
@@asprinklingofclouds Not a bad theory at all. Seems that more calories and protein = faster metabolism and cell turnover = more things can go wrong/faster wear on body. Muscle can offset some negatives, but is it enough to withstand problems from constant mTOR activation and high IGF-1 levels? I would really like to know, but guess we're long way from that.
It obviously depends on how many carbs your eating along side it.
87 kg 192cm here. eating 180-200g a day. is a good spot i think.
What about the protein sources? Does the kind of protein changes anything? Do this "studies" take that into consideration?
Are these recommendations for lean body mass or total body mass?
Good video. It always weird when influences recommend 1.6g while there is no negative effect if you intake more, and as we see, there might be some positive effect. It's a positive freeroll.
There is a negative effect though. If you are controlling calories, you'll miss out on carbs which are themselves anabolic and boost recovery and energy as well. If you're not controlling calories you could gain excess body fat.
Why did they not just fit a polynomial??? It doesn't seem very obvious to just fit a constant function, seemingly quite randomly?