5 ms·

Effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle

7 points by troydavis 6y ago

troydavis 6y ago
Up to about 1.6 grams per kg of bodyweight (or 0.73 per lb) is worthwhile. More is not: > Dietary protein supplementation significantly enhanced changes in muscle strength and size during prolonged RET [resistance exercise training] in healthy adults. Increasing age reduces and training experience increases the efficacy of protein supplementation during RET. > With protein supplementation, protein intakes at amounts greater than ~1.6 g/kg/day do not further contribute RET-induced gains in FFM [fat-free mass].
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  That's quite a bit, for a 75 kg person that's 450g of chicken breast per day, or 29 eggs, or 2.9 L of milk.
  - pentaphobe 6y ago
    yeah - if you're getting it strictly from food it's pretty ridiculous, that's why they're specifically talking about supplementation
- rarefied_tomato 6y ago
  If my reading is correct, this is specifically supplementing with soy or whey. People interested in supplementing at this level should remind themselves that many other protein sources are less bioavailable, and have differing amino acid profiles. So if you're young and muscle hungry, scale this limit based on your sources.
legerdemain 6y ago
Improvement in strength is a goal for many people who work out. The authors here compute kind of a confusing metric for examining changes in strength: they add up the changes across all "lifts" per participant, and arrive at an aggregate around 27kg. This is kind of meaningless as a summary metric, even if it is easier to compute. The overwhelming majority of readers, I assume, would prefer to know the relative improvement. An extra kilogram on a heavy lift, like a squat, is less meaningful than an extra kilogram on a lightweight lift, like a lateral raise. The authors then go on to divide the total improvement per participant by the number of exercises to arrive at an average gain of 2.5kg per test of strength. Again, it's hard to know how interesting those strength tests are without reading the underlying literature. All I think the authors mention in the section on data extraction is that 1RM was extracted from "any 1RM strength test," so I assume they could be absolutely anything from a weighted pullup to stretching a therapeutic resistance band. The authors conclude: > Though protein supplementation may slightly augment changes in 1RM (~9%), > which may be important for those competing in powerlifting or weightlifting, > it is pragmatic to advocate that if an increase in 1RM is the objective of > an RET programme, a sufficient amount of work and practice at or around the > 1RM is far more influential than protein supplementation. So basically, protein supplementation across a variety of different regimens and methodologies leads to detectable, but not very substantial differences.
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  I second the point that a sum over exercises of different types is likely not very meaningful. In this article [1], Greg Nuckols describes how, intuitively, the standard deviation increases with the average size of a measure of strength [2], which suggests that otherwise significant changes in small lifts could get overshadowed by statistical noise in the big lifts, so it would make more sense to analyze the effect sizes for individual exercises. The relevant part is under The whole article is also a fun read to get a sense for the statistical/experimental design considerations in exercise science, and looking at research results with a critical eye. [1]Improbable Data Patterns in the Work of Barbalho et al: An Explainer - https://www.strongerbyscience.com/barbalho/ https://www.strongerbyscience.com/barbalho/ [2] The relevant graph - https://www.strongerbyscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image18.png https://www.strongerbyscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07...

7 points by troydavis 6y ago

Up to about 1.6 grams per kg of bodyweight (or 0.73 per lb) is worthwhile. More is not: > Dietary protein supplementation significantly enhanced changes in muscle strength and size during prolonged RET [resistance exercise training] in healthy adults. Increasing age reduces and training experience increases the efficacy of protein supplementation during RET. > With protein supplementation, protein intakes at amounts greater than ~1.6 g/kg/day do not further contribute RET-induced gains in FFM [fat-free mass].

0-_-0 6y ago
That's quite a bit, for a 75 kg person that's 450g of chicken breast per day, or 29 eggs, or 2.9 L of milk.
- pentaphobe 6y ago
  yeah - if you're getting it strictly from food it's pretty ridiculous, that's why they're specifically talking about supplementation
rarefied_tomato 6y ago
If my reading is correct, this is specifically supplementing with soy or whey. People interested in supplementing at this level should remind themselves that many other protein sources are less bioavailable, and have differing amino acid profiles. So if you're young and muscle hungry, scale this limit based on your sources.

legerdemain 6y ago

Improvement in strength is a goal for many people who work out. The authors here compute kind of a confusing metric for examining changes in strength: they add up the changes across all "lifts" per participant, and arrive at an aggregate around 27kg. This is kind of meaningless as a summary metric, even if it is easier to compute. The overwhelming majority of readers, I assume, would prefer to know the relative improvement. An extra kilogram on a heavy lift, like a squat, is less meaningful than an extra kilogram on a lightweight lift, like a lateral raise. The authors then go on to divide the total improvement per participant by the number of exercises to arrive at an average gain of 2.5kg per test of strength. Again, it's hard to know how interesting those strength tests are without reading the underlying literature. All I think the authors mention in the section on data extraction is that 1RM was extracted from "any 1RM strength test," so I assume they could be absolutely anything from a weighted pullup to stretching a therapeutic resistance band. The authors conclude: > Though protein supplementation may slightly augment changes in 1RM (~9%), > which may be important for those competing in powerlifting or weightlifting, > it is pragmatic to advocate that if an increase in 1RM is the objective of > an RET programme, a sufficient amount of work and practice at or around the > 1RM is far more influential than protein supplementation. So basically, protein supplementation across a variety of different regimens and methodologies leads to detectable, but not very substantial differences.

vladTheInhaler 6y ago
I second the point that a sum over exercises of different types is likely not very meaningful. In this article [1], Greg Nuckols describes how, intuitively, the standard deviation increases with the average size of a measure of strength [2], which suggests that otherwise significant changes in small lifts could get overshadowed by statistical noise in the big lifts, so it would make more sense to analyze the effect sizes for individual exercises. The relevant part is under The whole article is also a fun read to get a sense for the statistical/experimental design considerations in exercise science, and looking at research results with a critical eye. [1]Improbable Data Patterns in the Work of Barbalho et al: An Explainer - https://www.strongerbyscience.com/barbalho/ https://www.strongerbyscience.com/barbalho/ [2] The relevant graph - https://www.strongerbyscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image18.png https://www.strongerbyscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07...