3 ms·
This is an interesting result, even though it seems to have arrived at the (edit: not!) same place sports nutritionists have been at for decades when it comes t
by sulam 3y ago
This is an interesting result, even though it seems to have arrived at the (edit: not!) same place sports nutritionists have been at for decades when it comes to the general population edit: 1g per kg. The things it says that I mostly hadn’t thought about or didn’t know:
1) older people are less efficient converting dietary protein into muscle, so they need 1.25g/kg
2) pregnant and lactating women obviously have higher needs, so they should eat up to 2g/kg!
3) children are doing a lot of growing, so they need 1.55g/kg
Americans get a lot of protein already in their diet (edit: for a sedentary lifestyle).
For the non-sedentary, I can say from experience (160lb, 5’10”, somewhat lean male) that eating 160g of protein spaced out in 4 meals (sports nutritionists also recommend spacing your protein intake out so that it’s consistently available) is actually pretty hard. You end up needing to eat a lot of chicken and eggs, unless you’re willing to go full-on body builder and start eating supplement shakes. Of course that’s while trying to keep a small calorie surplus — a lot of Americans are very overweight, and likely do eat more protein than they need because they eat more than they need of all the macronutrients.
- mym1990 3y agoIts per kilogram, not per pound, which would be a LOT of protein.
- sulam 3y agoHmm, you’re right! And yet, all the sports nutrition that I’ve been reading is 1g per pound, not per kilogram. Sedentary lifestyle vs not, I suppose.
- ancientworldnow 3y agoIt's an error that has been continuously repeated in locker rooms after Americans misunderstood what a kg is.
- sulam 3y agoSorry, but while the meathead stereotype is probably not entirely unfounded, I guarantee that 1) I don't get my information from locker rooms and 2) weightlifters are plenty familiar with what a kilogram is.
- mym1990 3y agoNot sure the sources, but I would not be surprised if it is 1g/lb for athletes, or 1g/lb of lean body mass, as someone mentioned. For the general population, 1g/lb is way too much.
- simonbarker87 3y agoIn the fitness world it it’s thought of as g/lb so if a 170lb person wants to gain muscle (or preserve it on a diet) they should aim for roughly 170g of protein a day minimum. There is more nuance to it than this (should be g/lb of lean muscle mass for example) but as a rule of thumb it’s pretty good and proven to be effective at building/maintaining muscle. It sounds a lot but it’s not too hard to hit even without whey supplementation. Anyone who has focussed on nutrition and build muscle/strength will have been at this level (or higher) for weeks and months on end.
- mym1990 3y agoI was just saying in the context of the article, it’s kg not lbs. For a regular person, 170-200g of protein is not trivial, and you will not hit this without either protein powder or having every meal containing a protein portion. You say “anyone who has focused on nutrition and building muscle” like these people are everywhere. In the general context, few have “building muscle” as a goal.
- bratwurst3000 3y agoHehe you are right. Wanted to point out how weird g per pound g/lb is . It’s half imperial half metric system … You Americans are moving in the right directions. Next ist g/kg. Have a good day
- boatsie 3y agoI have a pet theory that one reason people overeat is because they are unconsciously trying to get more protein. So eating tons of donuts or chips etc doesn’t satiate and they eat until they hit the requisite protein and end up consuming way more carbs and fat in the process.