4 ms·

Its per kilogram, not per pound, which would be a LOT of protein.

by mym1990 3y ago

sulam 3y ago
Hmm, 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 ago
  It's an error that has been continuously repeated in locker rooms after Americans misunderstood what a kg is.
  - sulam 3y ago
    Sorry, 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 ago
  Not 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 ago
In 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Hehe 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

Its per kilogram, not per pound, which would be a LOT of protein.

Hmm, 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 ago
It's an error that has been continuously repeated in locker rooms after Americans misunderstood what a kg is.
- sulam 3y ago
  Sorry, 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 ago
Not 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 ago

In 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 ago
I 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 ago
Hehe 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