Brad Pilon - How Much Protein

Hello people.

Has anyone here read the book "How much protein" of Brad Pilon?

Analysing MANY studies, Brad suggests that most active people need no more than 70 to 120 grams of protein and that the maximum intake should be close to 150 grams if one is active everyday for several hours (for example, not only strength training 3-4 days a week).

I've always wondered if we really need all this protein that many "pros" suggest, which usually starts at 1 gr / lb and goes up to 2-4 gr / lb.

So I've been doing some studying on the subject (avoiding bro-science sites of course) and to my understanding of various reviews on studies and looking at studies myself, there has been no recorded advantage of taking more than 0.64 gr / lb (1.4 gr / kg)of protein and if one wants to be "extra-sure" of getting every benefit, no more than 0.82 gr / lb (1.8 gr / kg).

Various nutritionists and health-focused / non-mainstream bodybuilders often suggest the protein range of 1.2 gr / kg to 1.8 gr / kg, which agrees with most studies. Brad Pilon's suggestion is inside this range too.

What's your take on all this?

Have you ever followed a really high-protein diet, like 1.5-3 gr / lb and if yes, have you seen any improvement in strength, muscle mass etc?

On the other hand, have you ever followed a medium protein diet and what were your results?

Personally, I've been tracking my diet accurately for close to 2 months now and I'm eating 90-140 grams of protein everyday, without drinking any protein supplement or focusing a lot on my protein.

I've been seeing progress in strength and muscle mass continuously at this protein range, and this is the intake that I've been taking for some years now, as it comes from the usual food that I eat at my place.

Something else I'd like to point out, I'm reading and following a lot of fitness / bodybuilding / powerlifting blogs / sites etc, and I'm seeing a continuous trend on less protein these days, has anyone else seen this?

Of course, less protein still means high protein for a person with an average diet, that's worth noticing.

Anyway, to sum up, I'd just like your opinions on this whole thing, thanks in advance!

 

From everything I've looked at and been taught, the ranges of protein intake you mention are about as intense as you need to go for protein consumption.

One of the things people don't realize when they're reading about a body builder or elite athlete recommendations on diet is that these guys train for a living. They eat, sleep, eat, train, eat, nap, eat, train, train eat, sleep. The more extreme you get, the more you need for nutrition. Name an olympic athlete in a mainstream sport other than gymnastics that isn't eating at least 6,000 kcal per day.

Most people are never going to get anywhere near that level of training though, so normal protein intake is sufficient.

 

fwiw, the top limit on usable dietary protein is for protein synthesis on people without PEDs, but there are other uses for high protein intakes (effect on satiety, total calorie intake control, thermic effect)

 

Not to mention a good excuse to lather a protein bar up with Crisco.

 

Thanks for the input man!
The thing is that those recommendations usually are given to beginners or normal people who just lift.
Take any mainstream bodybuilding/fitness e-book/article/blog/site etc that "teaches" basic nutrition and I'm pretty sure than 1 gr / lb will be the minimum intake and for "skinny guys" who need to bulk most times reccomendations will be close to 2-3 gr / lb.
I'm not saying that I personally should have the same protein with Michael Phelps or Jim Wendler, anybody could understand that (still many people don't).

Thanks for the comment Fish!
Yeah, I'm talking about people who don't use AAS, but, still, there have been many studies which show that advanced lifters actually use the protein they consume better than beginners/people who don't train for strength, which means that smaller amounts of protein do more "work" for them.

Regarding satiety, thermic effect and calorie control, I agree that protein, with its really high thermic effect and the satiety it brings, is a really good choice, especially when one pursues fat loss.

I prefer eating a nice juicy steak than pasta anyway

 

On the contrary, what bugs me even more,is that there have been some respectable
"gurus", like Eric Helms or Layne Norton, who know their stuff about bodybuilding and nutrition and practice what they preach, which advocate higher protein intakes.

Eric Helms suggests that people should take 2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM (fat free mass) when "cutting", scaling upwards according to the severity of caloric restriction and leanness.
Here is his study - I don't know exactly the rules about links, remove it if it's forbidden or something-:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24092765/?i=2&from=sport,+training

So a person weighing 75 kg with 15% bodyfat, has 63.75 (let's say 64) kg of FFM.

The minimum protein intake for that person should be 64*2.3= 147.2 grams of protein per day, pretty high but still achievable if one focuses on protein intake, while the maximum intake should be 64*3.1=198.4 grams of protein, now we're getting a bit too high in my opinion.
Of course I understand that the maximum intake is suggested to people with a lot of leanness and / or a big caloric deficit.

Similarly, Layne Norton suggests 225 grams of protein for a 200 pounds person, not talking about LBM or FFM, divided into 5-6 meals so that leucine is always present.

Study / Article:

http://jerrybruton.files.wordpress....-intake-and-meal-frequency-to-support2003.pdf

That's 1.12 gr / lb ==> 2.46 gr / kg, so a person weighing 75 kg should take
75*2.46 = 184.5 grams of protein everyday.

According to the reccomendations of the starting post, this same person should take 1.2*75 = 90 to 1.8*75 = 135 grams of protein. The minimum protein intake of Eric Helms is close to the maximum intake of the previous reccomendations, but then the intakes get too high.

What's your opinion on this?
Do you believe that the ranges are too high, have you got anything to add?

Still, even after this research and studies no reccomendation reaches even 1.5 gr / lb that is often suggested from bodybuilding sites, let alone 2,3, or 4 gr / lb.

Edit: There is a difference between LBM and FFM that I've found right now, Fat Free Mass = (total weight - total weight*fat percentage), while Lean Body Mass takes into consideration the essential fat levels, Lean Body Mass = (total weight - total weight*(fat percentage - essential fat percentage (5-6% for men))).

 

theres a few reasons people suggest higher protein intakes:
- dependent on nitrogen/protein retention rate but anyone training enough will have a high level of retention (retention is higher post exercise than pre, even with no protein intake)
- having more protein "just in case" you have low retention or you need it that particular day
- higher protein intake like over 1g/lb (ERIC HOLMES 2g/lb) tend to push people into ketogenic diets without them realising. whether this is good or bad is up for debate but it may be a reason such high intake are recommended.


personally the most positive changes in body composition ive seen is from an increased overall clean (more meals a day) calorie intake with 4 or 5 hours of swimming and maximal effort lifting.

 

Could you elaborate a little more on nitrogen/protein retention -too bored and busy to search thoroughly for this right now-?

I agree with you there, I'm seeing the most positive changes in my body composition right now, following an Upper / Lower Split with strength rep ranges on the big lifts and hypertrophy rep ranges on other compounds and some isolations, while I track my calorie intake as accurately as I can.
I don't do any cardio at the moment but I'm gonna add some low-intensity because my fat loss starts to stall.

I've lost A LOT of time -in terms of body composition, not conditioning / strength gain, I might add-, just working out without tracking my calorie intake, even approximately, both when trying to add mass or when trying to lose fat (mostly when trying to lose fat of course ).

 

Good lord, if you read and get advice from FLEX magazine (or any other pro bodybuilder material) you are so No0b it would hurt to talk to you! It's always a huge problem with beginners, and I was in that category when I was young as well. People often want advice from the top guys, not realizing that the physical and mental capacities have such a gulf between normal people and them that it's the equivalent of saying "I want to get good at math" and trying to start out with particle physics instead of algebra.

On the flip side, I get a little annoyed with the quest some people get on to prove why the methods professionals propose are complete malarky. They often don't make the disclaimer of my first paragraph, "you're not on that level." I've had a few points in my life with training, both in the weight room and in endurance activities, where the normal diet and normal regimes for working out wouldn't have produced the best results for me. At those times I've usually found myself to be kind of in-between what a pro athlete would need and what a normal person would need nutrition and training wise. I might not have needed 2g protein per lb of body weight, but I definitely felt like I needed more than what is recommended for normal folk. Somebody who is training 5-6 days a week in a combat sport, going to the weight room 3-4 days, and working construction 40-60 hours a week is going to need a lot more nutrition and smart ways of training than the office guy who is only doing that stuff 2-4 times a week.

 

Nitrogen retention is looking at the net movement of protein in a system (muscle) by tracking nitrogen which occurs mainly in protein.
some people have genetically low retention rates meaning they don't build muscle as quickly as others under the same feeding and training protocol (breakdown is higher than synthesis most of the time)

basically there are two things going on in muscle"
protein breakdown and protein synthesis (building)

if the two are in balance then there is no change in net protein balance or loss going on
but if breakdown is not in balance with synthesis then this can affect net protein balance

feeding (of biologically available nitrogen like protein) and (resistance) exercise affects this also:

fed + exercise = low breakdown + high synthesis = high muscle building (net positive protein)
fed + no exercise = low breakdown + medium synthesis = low muscle building
fasted + exercise = high breakdown + medium synthesis = low muscle breakdown
fasted + no exercise = high breakdown + low synthesis = high muscle breakdown

but after resistance exercise muscle breakdown is only elevated for 24 hours while synthesis is elevated for 48 meaning exercise gives you a big opportunity to build muscle as long as you eat some protein.

ALL INFO: http://jap.physiology.org/content/106/6/2026#sec-9

 

Totally agree man.

Ah, I knew this as nitrogen balance mostly.
I'm aware of the long duration of muscle protein synthesis post-exercise, hence the reason that most post-workout tips/articles etc are stupid.

I'm not really sure about this, maybe it's valid for young people and their junevile growth, but for a mature person, I don't think so.

I mean, muscle protein synthesis occurs because of the anabolic response that comes from strength training, otherwise all of us would be huge

 

Well the anabolic window exists in the idea that theres a peak in muscle protein synthesis about an hour after training that decreases over the next 48 hours.
Meta-analysis (a collection of studies that a pooled and systematically reviewed) also agrees with the post exercise anabolic window.
http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-10-53.pdf
It also agrees with an intake of 1.6g/kg/day

surprisingly there is an anabolic response to protein intake, its just not as higher as exercise + protein and its also quite individual

theres lots of evidence showing an anabolic response to protein and increased sensitivity with exercise

theres some evidence saying that older people (60 and above) become more resistant to an anabolic response to protein intake when looking at lifestyle but it seems that this may be due to lower levels of physical activity in their lifestyle, previous meals (consisting of lower calories and protein than the young) and a physiological response to fasting (a possible mechanism creating observed resistance). theres even studies showing the same response as young people.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/2/451.full
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/807311_5

but outside of special populations like children, the elderly and elite athletes, nutrition science in its details and special considerations doesnt matter as much as we think.

 

I know, I've read Alan Aragon's study. I'm just saying that if you eat 2 or 3 or 5 hours after you train it's not the end of the world as many people tend to think and preach.

You got me there
That's what I intended to say but it seems I need more studying.

 

a lot of my projects were based on ageing and health so dont worry

 

Nice!
What are you studying man?

I'm doing all this searching for myself, I just don't like getting fed lies by all the "pros" and "bros".

 

I've just finished up a degree in health/sport and exercise science. I'm graduating this week

Google "meta-analysis" or "systematic review" before your searh terms on google or google scholar and it'll clear up the bro (anecdotal evidence) science from the actual science

 

Nice, really nice! Congratulations

I'm pretty sure I will try to get certified somehow in Nutrition / Exercise after I get my engineering degree, it's actually a more important goal than engineering is, I started there because of the economic crisis here in Greece, as an engineer you can find a job easier, generally.

Sorry for my mumbling actually.

Haha, true!

 

i would stay with engineering. PTing and especially strength coaching isnt worth the minimal money

 

Yeah, that's why I aimed at engineering.
Another reason being, I love training + "studying" about basic nutrition, physiology, anatomy right now, as a hobby, but I'm not sure if this would continue happening if I was actually working as a PT / coach etc.

 

it's been sort of universally accepted that 1 g per lb of bodyweight has been the case. I don't think that your muscles would be unable to grow if you were lower, but you are looking at less growth than might be the case if you are eating less obviously. As Ero pointed out, much of this is indeed based on the amount of training you are doing and not only if it is with weights, but even some other activities. I recall reading an article on rowing (keep in mind this was several years ago) in which the trainers recommended no less than 1.8 g's per lb of bodyweight. There is the theory as well that protein that is to high can be hard on the liver and kidneys. Most of the time the case with that happens to be that they are not drinking enough water to assist in the breakdown of the protein into amino acids. There isn't a single hard rule though. Some people can grow just fine with less protein, some people need more. It's your activity along with your genetic make-up. The problem is that most people just take 1 g for each lb as the only way to grow instead of starting off at a lower amount and working the amount up a little higher until they see gains. Something else to keep in mind is that most people do not have a clue how much fat they are actually carrying on their body. 10% bodyfat for instance is pretty low and you will look pretty cut at that amount... but keep in mind that for a say 190 lb person that's 19 lbs... which means that's 19 grams less protein that he needs for his daily amount. People often make that mistake of feeding their fat as I like to say in this case.