Protein Requirements for Different Strength Qualities

Well it's true.

Growth hormone and IGF-1 enhance muscle and cognitive performance
IGF-1 plays a very important role in both promoting and maintaining muscle mass and neuronal function. Things to know about IGF-1 and growth hormone:
•IGF-1 released in response to growth hormone is anabolic: it promotes growth and repair of skeletal muscle. 4,5
•Exercise can induce growth hormone release and thus IGF-1.
•This process of growth hormone release in response to exercise is largely proportional to the strenuousness of the activity.6
•A person can become acclimated to the strenuousness of the activity, and not release as much growth hormone over time.6
•A 30-60 minute sauna session increases growth hormone by 140%.7
•IGF-1 acts as a neurotrophic factor in the brain, contributing to neurogenesis (growth of new brain cells) and survival of existing neurons (neuroprotective).8
•Exercised-induced neurogenesis is mediated through IGF-1 induced during exercise.8

http://blog.wellnessfx.com/2013/09/04/igf-1-trade-performance-vs-longevity/

Studies have shown that, depending on intensity, endurance exercise increases neurotrophins and thereby induces neuroplasticity. However, data on the effect of acute resistance exercise at different intensities on neurotrophins is not yet available. Thus, we conducted 2 trials to determine the serum concentrations of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) before and after a low or high intensity resistance exercise in 11 healthy humans. Exercise load was related to 3 repetitions of maximal effort isokinetic work involving knee extension under alternating concentric and eccentric conditions for muscle work at a velocity of 60°s-1 registered during a familiarization session. The torque angle diagrams from these 3 repetitions were averaged and displayed as target curves in the test sessions, the intensity of resistance exercise was set at 40% (trial: R1) or 110% (trial: R2) of the averaged individual maximal effort curve, respectively. After resistance exercise, serum IGF-1 was increased significantly (p<0.01) by 28% in R1 and 16% in R2 compared to pre-exercise levels. Resistance exercise did not increase serum VEGF at any time point. Serum BDNF increased during exercise compared to post-exercise, but did not achieve significant difference from pre-exercise values. The present study shows that either low or high resistance exercise increases levels of IGF-1, but not of BDNF or VEGF. This finding is of importance for health promotion by means of resistance exercise because circulating serum IGF-1 has been demonstrated to mediate positive effects of exercise on brain functions.

https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0030-1267950

http://breakingmuscle.com/womens-fi...exercise-increases-igf-1-decreases-sclerostin

 

One of the common problems is that people assume that because the typical protein intake for maintaining or gaining muscle is 1 g per lb of bodyweight means that a fat man who weighs 250 lbs should have 250 grams... this is not true.

The best thing to do is to actually go to a specialist and get your bf% and then figure out your approximate muscular weight and eat that amount. I weigh 175 lbs currently, but I am likely around a solid 155-160 if I cut down... so I eat about 150 g's a day or so.

Don't feed your fat is the moral of the story.

 

OP, read this http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-6-12.pdf

A lot of good info on protein intake there.

 

high protein intake at regular intervals = increased mTor signalling = increased cancer risk

but the definitions of "high" can be very varied

 

This is true... what many guys who have managed to add muscle their frame are worried about of course is losing it. Eventually without the nutrients, anyone will wind up their natural size or smaller. Adding muscle to ones frame however has many benefits over just being bigger though... it really depends on the reason. I, personally see nothing wrong with as I said above about finding your approximate solid weight and going off of that. The meals need to be broken up and not drinking enough water is something that a lot of people don't manage to do. That is a HUGE part of kidney and liver health... or whole body for that matter.

 

@righty: my mistake, then (haven't looked at the actual calorie content in milk for a long time, i usually just go for the protein-carbs ratio). interestingly, skim milk is used to fatten pigs instead of full fat milk, BUT i just found a study that goes to show a slightly higher bodyweight increase with whole milk (a slight skim [lol] of google results indicates a claim that higher fat leads to more satiety in pigs, possibly indicating why skim is used as it faciilitates greater calorie intake. no idea as to whether that's legit or if it is, if it's applicable to humans too).

@SiB: if it has less fat, it has more of most everything else, including carbs (and milk generally has no fiber that i'm aware of, therefore those are all net carbs, ie sugars). if the milk you buy doesn't show any difference on the label, whoever labels it might just lying through their teeth. i'll try to remember to write down the nutritional info of the local milk brands later.

@pseudo: cheers, but i'm perfectly lactose-tolerant, luckily (i drink at least a liter a day, usually full-fat ). just buying the lactose free because it has (or the label claims it has, in any case) 3.1g of carbs per 100g (with 3.5g protein and 1.2g fats), whereas the others all have 3-ish protein and around 4.5g carbs (although i generally just buy the cheapest one while i'm here, because this city is pretty expensive compared to buenos aires).

 

also this is getting a bit way out of hand re: the OP's actual question. he just wants to know if he needs a good amount of protein even fi he's not going for hypertrophy. the answer doesn't require scientific papers: you need the protein because it's a fundamental building block of the human body, and amino-acids are used for the replacement of cells as well as the construction of new ones, plus other stuff like being intermediaries in other metabolic pathways, etc, therefore you always need a certain amount of protein (the essential amino-acids say hi ). being vegetarian, he has difficulty getting in high amounts of protein with le veggies, but being ovolacto he can compensate by drinking milk/eating eggs. even half a liter of milk of any kind, per day, packs a fair amount of protein (around 15g give or take 1-5g depending on brand and type of milk), and iirc i think both eggs and milk are complete protein sources with all essential AA, so something like a breakfast of milk and eggs and then plenty of protein and fiber heavy veggies (soy, spinach, chard, broccoli, etc) should keep him covered. the rest, methinks, might merit its own thread, no?

 

Great thing you are a vegetarian.
Anyway, skimmed milk is good. But I like soymilk :whistle:

 

That was interesting, thanks.

Did you see the footnote about where the author's funding comes from? Not that I am questioning the research but it always makes me suspicious when there is potential conflict of interest

 

a point of interest: from what little i've seen, dietary studies tend to do at least one of four things: ignore the physical activity element completely, study dedicated athletes, but not hobbyists, study extremely specific things and/or use completely inane elements that make the results useless (arthur drexler's 'weightlifting encyclopedia: a guide to world class performance' mentions one of the early culprits of the hate on squatting being an experiment which took elite weightlifters, who routinely squat, clean and snatch absurd amounts of weight ass-to-grass without issue, and made them seem weak-kneed by by using a contraption that, if memory serves, forcibly applied lateral force to their knees in a way that never occurs in squatting barring the most catastrophic failure of technique. the book is back in buenos aires so i can't double check, though ). so basically what we're doing is taking bits and pieces of what random studies say, in different contexts, and trying to frankenstein together assumptions of how they apply to the context of someone who dabbles in physical activity for a given goal. not the most productive of endeavours, i'd say (particularly given how many contradicting studies there tend to be for a lot of these things. there's a reason why the people who get really big and really strong tend to poo-poo studies more often than not, unfortunate as that might be for science).

 

Good trainers and athletes who understand the research don't poo poo it but instead understand the limitations of the research amongst other information available.

Doing scientific experiments on humans is really hard.

There are simply so many variables that cannot be controlled no matter how hard you try. And of course there is the difficulty in getting funding to get a study done with a decent amount of participants. And don't get me started on getting ethics approval.

It's so much easier to study rodents but that has its known set of issues.

 

@righty: true, but what i mean is that we shouldn't get super hung up on what the studies say, if we're just going to speculate and hold a conclusion battle royale anyway. what would really be useful (although, as you say, it would be really bloody hard to do) would be a well-conducted observational study regarding a combination of diet and exercise, that could then be used as a base for more specific studies, rather than having random super specific studies the contexts of which clash horribly when applied in real world contexts. as it stands, as far as combined health and fitness is concerned, in some cases unless you really know how to read the research (and have access to it in the first place), i would say that anecdotal evidence combined with a critical mind applied with extreme prejudice is almost as useful, if not in many cases more useful, than scientific papers, and bear in mind this isn't a situation that i'm okay with, but really, people have been getting healthy and fit for ages without science, and even with science letting people get even fitter and healthier (particularly with the whole 'curing and preventing diseases via modern medicine ' stuff ), half-assed, negligent and/or malicious transmission of what science has observed regarding the factors involved has thoroughly screwed things up in a lot of cases (saturated fat, trans fat, soy, carbs in general, red meat, lean meat, coffee, tea, wheat/gluten, dairy, alcohol, and plenty of other cases where no one who hasn't put in some time to learn the science involved has any idea of what's up, and hearsay and myths regarding said science run rampant).

 

The calories are not the same in whole milk as skim. It has 8 grams of fat and sugars are 13 grams which is the same as skim. Whole milk per serving is about 145 calories vs. 90 for skim which also has 13 grams of sugar (actually 12 with the brand I drink). Whole milk is ok, but it's a bit high in saturated fat, but if you don't eat much saturated fat through the rest of your day, then it's really not a big deal.

 

The truth is that NO ONE knows and no amount of scientific data is going to change that because everyone is different. The idea of it all simply states that 56 g's of protein per day for an adult male is based on pure ignorance and no real findings.

 

seems really easy to find lots of scholarly articles that say actually humans athletes really only need a bit more than the recommended daily amount of protein, more like 0.5 g/lb per day with max of 0.8. and that it can be easily met by just eating more and not taking supplements. so for me at 190 and i'm just estimating a high body fat of 20%, at .5 g/lb i'm estimating that i need about 75 grams of protein per day. which is about half what a previous poster had mentioned. even at 0.8, we're talking about 120.

oh yeah, i also found an interesting study that looks at what people perceive their protein needs were, and that athletes generally perceived that they needed 2 to 3 times the protein they actually needed.

i have found a lot of confirmation for the 0.5-0.8 g/lb range, excluding body fat. so that's good.

again, i'm just sharing my thoughts on scholarly articles i found myself. i'm not a doctor.

 

yeah, unless you're incurring an absurdly high rate of cell turnover and/or construction (say, what a bodybuilder would get during a week of full-on training, or maybe some high-intensity, high-duration athlete, like, say, a rugby player), there's really no reason why you'd need absurdly high amounts of protein, and even if you do, there's a limit to how much your body is going to use at once. from the studies mentioned in menno henselmans' article, the 0.82-3g figure is mentioned for elite bodybuilders, who are the ones who are going to need the most protein, in general, because they're always looking to increase their body mass unless they're cutting, and then they need to spare as much lean mass as possible. given that the level of muscle repair AND hypertrophy that those blokes need/seek, that upper figure is definitely more than a non-bodybuilder would need, per se (how much more, though, i dunno). on the other hand, within reason, getting a good amount of your calories from protein could be beneficial as regarding things like total calorie intake (fill up with protein-rich food first and you have less space for energy-heavy carbs and fats), lean body mass sparing during a weight cut, and gloating over the superiority of man over his fellow animals whose flesh he consumes (i kid, i kid). there's also keto dieting as well, where most of the energy comes from fats, but you need to fill the rest with protein since your carb allowance is extremely small

 

care to share how you came to that conclusion?

 

did anyone read my post on athlete protein intake and protein uptake.

 

yep. and if my calculations are correct, then 2 g/kg is roughly less than 1 g per pound.

 

I did. And looked up that olly witard feller and am now following him on twitter - thanks for the tip off!