The 1-gram per body weight rule. Broscience or truth?

[Mai72]

Growing up I'd read those body building magazines and the one constant theme was that a weight lifter should always strive for 1 gram of protein per your weight. So, a 150lb person should aim for 150 grams of protein, a 200lb person should aim for 200 gams of protein and so on. The article would always have these huge muscular guys drinking their protein shakes. I was really young so I thought that this was truth.

Years later and I'm not so sure. Those muscualr guys were mostly on steroids. That's why they were so huge. It wasn't the protein. IMO, it's all BS marketing, but when you're 19 you tend to be very gullible. There is also current research that shows that consuming too much protein can trigger M-tor. M-tor has been shown to trigger cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4741600/

I'm just curious to see what you guys think? How much protein is really adequate to build muscle? I weigh about 200, I like to aim for about 130-grams of protein via mostly meat. Plus, protein powder, nuts, and plants.

 

[PeterScott]

I think the 1gram/pound thing just became a handy Gym Bros guideline.

IIRC, Studies usually show a peak around .7g/lb for clean people. The RDA is .8g/KG, which is only .36g/lb.

Protein is being implicated more and more as a driver of disease, so it is definitely not a time to develop the "more is better" attitude.

https://www.livescience.com/62687-high-protein-diet-heart-failure.html

 

[mike8675309]

The number is per lean pound of body weight as well. So you need to take your body weight and estimate your lean body weight. Then do the math. Nearly all the general information and publications on protein recommendations are incorrect. The .7g/lb should allow you to build muscle. Ideally you should play with your macros through your muscle building program and dial in the protein to maximize your gains. I.e. start a program and track your strength gains and your macros. Adjust your protein and carbs , generally leave fat at your starting point.

Why are the bros wrong? Bad science
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-great-protein-fiasco/

 

[whm1974]

I'm just curious to see what you guys think? How much protein is really adequate to build muscle? I weigh about 200, I like to aim for about 130-grams of protein via mostly meat. Plus, protein powder, nuts, and plants.

I would skip the protein powder and just eat meat, nuts, and plants. Not only will you save money, you will also avoid protein poisoning as well.

 

[Kaido]

I'm just curious to see what you guys think? How much protein is really adequate to build muscle? I weigh about 200, I like to aim for about 130-grams of protein via mostly meat. Plus, protein powder, nuts, and plants.

There's a few parts to this equation. First, let's talk about protein. Here's a good article on it:

https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

TL;DR: "There is normally no advantage to consuming more than 0.82g/lb (1.8g/kg) of protein per day to preserve or build muscle for natural trainees. This already includes a mark-up, since most research finds no more benefits after 0.64g/lb."

Second, you have to calibrate your expectations of what it means to actually build muscle. For starters, there is natural muscle & then there is muscle-elixir muscle (i.e. steroids). Instagram & Youtube & Hollywood are full of lies, lol. A really fun website to pend a few hours on is Natty or Not, which has some great articles, as well as reviews of public bodybuilders to see if their claim to be natural (no roids) is true or not (spoiler alert: most are not!). There's a lot more to this discussion, but this is a good starting point:

http://nattyornot.com

Some random articles to read through:

http://nattyornot.com/top-9-natural...me-frank-zane-look-like-a-malnourished-cadet/

http://nattyornot.com/david-laid-natty-or-not/

http://aretheyonsteroids.com/helmut-strebl/

http://nattyornot.com/alpha-destiny-is-he-natural-or-on-steroids/

Third, building muscle isn't rocket science, but you do need a good foundation setup to do it long-term. I can dive deeper into that in another post if you want, but here's the basic approach: The first thing you need to do is select what type of body you want to achieve, because you need a goal to work towards. Part of that question involves asking yourself if you want to do exercise as part of your daily routine, or if you want to do exercise as a hobby, because different goals require different levels of commitment. Next, create a plan for exercising & eating to attain that specific goal. Then do it!

Scattered workouts that don't follow a plan typically don't give you great results. Drinking protein shakes doesn't give you magical results. "Trying really hard" here & there doesn't give you results that improve over time. What works is having a goal and following a realistic & proven plan to achieve that goal. That may not sound particularly cool or appealing, but that's the way results are made...following a realistic plan day after day. It's work, but there are way to make it fun. Again, fodder for another post, if you want to learn more.

Arnold was famous because back in the day, nobody looked like him. He had great genetics & was smart enough to execute regular workouts that maximized his body. These days, the code has been cracked...just hop on Instragram and search for #bodybuilding and a million people with great 6-packs pop up. We know a lot about lifting, we know a lot about bodyweight exercises, we know a lot about dieting with approaches like IIFYM, we know a lot about how proper sleep hygiene creates motivation & energy. It's not really much of a mystery anymore...you can basically pick the body you want, find a plan to achieve that, and, given time & effort, achieve it by just sticking with things.

And it's important to understand that everyone is different, and that's okay. For example, I don't like going to the gym & I don't like weights too much. I prefer doing bodyweight exercises & cardio at home. I like to wake up, do my exercise routine, and then go about my day, and not follow a weights-based bodybuilding plan as a hobby. I like IIFYM because I'm kind of forgetful & appreciate the structure of following a meal plan to ensure that I'm eating regularly & also feeding myself well, because it's very easy for me to mindlessly eat half a pizza & a pint of ice cream every day, day after day. But I've also found ways to make things fun, like putting my treadmill in front of the TV & learning how to cook so that I actually look forward to eating my food. And this makes it easy to stay healthy & feel good & look good & feel confident.

Anyway, there's a lot of misinformation out there, partly because a lot of people lack knowledge & partly because a lot of people want to sell you stuff. I am more than guilty of falling into the bro-science trap myself. I lived off plain chicken, broccoli, and brown rice for far too long! I had no idea what I was doing when I got started (go back & read my H&F threads circa 2008 and get a laugh out of them, lol), but getting started is half the battle. But, as you stick with it & keep poking around & keep trying new things, then you'll discover how things actually work, in terms of getting results, and that will get clearer to you over time, as well as figuring out what you want to achieve & maintain for your personal goals.

So if you want to dive into it a little deeper, first question is, what are your goals? What do you want to achieve?

 

[PeterScott]

Arnold was famous because back in the day, nobody looked like him. He had great genetics & was smart enough to execute regular workouts that maximized his body. These days, the code has been cracked...just hop on Instragram and search for #bodybuilding and a million people with great 6-packs pop up. We know a lot about lifting, we know a lot about bodyweight exercises, we know a lot about dieting with approaches like IIFYM, we know a lot about how proper sleep hygiene creates motivation & energy. It's not really much of a mystery anymore...you can basically pick the body you want, find a plan to achieve that, and, given time & effort, achieve it by just sticking with things.

Arnold also happened to be on the forefront of the steroid explosion that persists until today. Arnold did everything in full measure. He ate like a monster, trained like a monster, and no doubt juiced like a monster.

Arnold was most likely stacking Primabolan, Dianabol, and Deca Durabolin.

So sure, the "code" has been cracked all right.

 

[Kaido]

Arnold also happened to be on the forefront of the steroid explosion that persists until today. Arnold did everything in full measure. He ate like a monster, trained like a monster, and no doubt juiced like a monster.

Arnold was most likely stacking Primabolan, Dianabol, and Deca Durabolin.

So sure, the "code" has been cracked all right.

Oh absolutely, he doesn't even deny it:

http://nattyornot.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-steroids-lots/ & http://nattyornot.com/things-we-can-learn-from-arnold-about-building-muscle/

And by cracking the code, yeah, there are really two approaches from a high-level view:

1. Natural bodybuilding (with food, workouts, protein shakes, legal supplements, etc.)

2. Juiced bodybuilding (through a variety of methods)

Both are pretty well figured out these days to the point where you can follow a diet & exercise plan & achieve your goals. The "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" documentary is pretty eye-opening on how widely-used (and supposedly safe) modern steroids are. And there are plenty of online resources (forums etc.) for getting educated about them & all of the various subset stuff like HGH, if that's the route you want to go. So yeah, it's not so much a mystery anymore: we understand macros pretty well, we understand a zillion different exercises, we know how far you can get with natural conditioning as far as the limits of a non-enhanced human performance & growth, and we know quite a bit about steroid enhancement (and particularly with sites like Natty or Not, what that actually looks like in the real world).

And that all loops back to the question: what are your personal goals? Bodybuilding is a fun hobby. Staying fit is also a good thing to do. Eating better is a good cause. Taking better care of your body will always have great benefits for your life, from enhanced energy to more confidence to better sleep & so on. We have an awful lot of good data these days that can help you make a decision on how best to grow & achieve & maintain your body to the point where you have the results that you want...you can work out & eat with a solid plan & know exactly where you're going, which is pretty cool & is a lot better than just randomly pumping iron at the gym & chugging protein shakes with no sense of what you're really doing.

 

[PeterScott]

Both are pretty well figured out these days to the point where you can follow a diet & exercise plan & achieve your goals. The "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" documentary is pretty eye-opening on how widely-used (and supposedly safe) modern steroids are. And there are plenty of online resources (forums etc.) for getting educated about them & all of the various subset stuff like HGH, if that's the route you want to go. So yeah, it's not so much a mystery anymore: we understand macros pretty well, we understand a zillion different exercises, we know how far you can get with natural conditioning as far as the limits of a non-enhanced human performance & growth, and we know quite a bit about steroid enhancement (and particularly with sites like Natty or Not, what that actually looks like in the real world).

Actually it is very hard to understand what can be naturally achieved given the prevalence of steroids. Just because someone doesn't have exceptional, or unnatural development, doesn't mean they are clean.

I was disillusioned very early finding out guys I knew in high school and college having fairly normal development were on the juice, and this was decades ago, and I can't see it being reduced today. So for every super jacked inhuman looking juicer, there are probably ten times as many guys with below average development juicing just to get to average or slightly above.

If you read the guys who were brutally honest about juicing they talk about gaining 20lbs on their best cycle ever, today movie stars routinely do that for a role.

It's a mess.

 

[Kaido]

Actually it is very hard to understand what can be naturally achieved given the prevalence of steroids. Just because someone doesn't have exceptional, or unnatural development, doesn't mean they are clean.

I was disillusioned very early finding out guys I knew in high school and college having fairly normal development were on the juice, and this was decades ago, and I can't see it being reduced today. So for every super jacked inhuman looking juicer, there are probably ten times as many guys with below average development juicing just to get to average or slightly above.

If you read the guys who were brutally honest about juicing they talk about gaining 20lbs on their best cycle ever, today movie stars routinely do that for a role.

It's a mess.

Yeah, definitely. In addition to having a plethora of good information available, there's also a ridiculous amount of misinformation out there. And on top of that, a lot of what you see out there is being pushed by people with money to market products to you. I mean, even to figure out my own current routine, which works pretty dang well (IIFYM + bodyweight workout), it took many years of tinkering with things to figure out what worked, what didn't work, and learn how to cut through all of the BS that exists in the fitness world.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

Social Media/Television varieties give a lot of people a lot of false ideas about how you should look, could look, and how easy it all is. In the social media scene, a large part of that is a sort of popularity contest of sorts, where you've really got minimal idea about some of their "magic" behind the scenes to bring to you what you see. And as above said by Kaido, a lot of people just want to sell you stuff.

That said, building muscle is more complex than a simple x grams of protein, and some work out routine, anyway. There's other nutrients that help metabolize that protein and put it to use.

I would say .5g per lean body weight isn't a bad place to be for most active normal folks. More serious or more intensity I'd say move up to .6 or .7. I don't think most people can really accomplish a whole lot more with more protein than what .7g per pound will do for you already. This is just based on my own curious mind and research. This largely agrees with Kaido's source above, anyway.

Something more than .7g per pound, for most people, is just extra stresses on your kidneys, and while healthy kidneys can handle more (1.5g per pound or more for like a 200 lbs person) with no real issues, anyone with other kidney issues should really take a step back and evaluate. And why stress organs beyond what you really need to?

Maybe people doing some kind of steroids can benefit from the higher protein, I don't know.

 

[PeterScott]

Social Media/Television varieties give a lot of people a lot of false ideas about how you should look, could look, and how easy it all is.

Definitely, in a huge way, also don't forget that even if we eliminate the juicers, you are mainly likely seeing the people with good genetics online. It's funny, but people give more weight to advice to people on juice or those with superior genetics, when really what they say, is probably even less applicable to the average person.

If you look at almost every training study, where they boost protein, try supplement X or whatever, and then actually coach the lifters, the results vary wildly in the group ranging from people who make great gains, to average gains, to none at all, with everyone doing the same coached workouts and have their nutrition monitored, etc... It's like that in almost every study that doesn't involve steroids. Some people really do have fantastic genetics, while some others were shafted.

You can really only compare yourself to yourself, and follow real scientific studies to build your guidelines.

 

[Kaido]

You can really only compare yourself to yourself, and follow real scientific studies to build your guidelines.

When I got into road cycling, I had a hard time with the idea of NOT racing to win and to instead race for something like a PR, because there are simply genetically-gifted people who will always be better than me no matter how hard I try.

 

[Kaido]

Definitely, in a huge way, also don't forget that even if we eliminate the juicers, you are mainly likely seeing the people with good genetics online. It's funny, but people give more weight to advice to people on juice or those with superior genetics, when really what they say, is probably even less applicable to the average person.

One of my favorite bits on that:

 

[PeterScott]

Exactly. It's called survivorship bias. Interesting to see a successful young guy notice this effect and acknowledge it. It is something most people don't understand, even get when it is pointed out to them. XKCD in the same area:

I think this is especially true when taking strength training advice from the Buff. Most of which are genetically gifted and/or juicing. We would probably learn a lot more studying the non-responders in the training studies, and figuring out why they don't respond, and if they can find protocols that work for them.

BTW the first person I knew personally, that was on Steroids was an amateur cyclist, who convinced his doctor to give him Steroid injections for his "bad back". After which he would head to the Gym and do high rep heavy squats.

 

[Ventanni]

Growing up I'd read those body building magazines and the one constant theme was that a weight lifter should always strive for 1 gram of protein per your weight. So, a 150lb person should aim for 150 grams of protein, a 200lb person should aim for 200 gams of protein and so on. The article would always have these huge muscular guys drinking their protein shakes. I was really young so I thought that this was truth.

Years later and I'm not so sure. Those muscualr guys were mostly on steroids. That's why they were so huge. It wasn't the protein. IMO, it's all BS marketing, but when you're 19 you tend to be very gullible. There is also current research that shows that consuming too much protein can trigger M-tor. M-tor has been shown to trigger cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4741600/

I'm just curious to see what you guys think? How much protein is really adequate to build muscle? I weigh about 200, I like to aim for about 130-grams of protein via mostly meat. Plus, protein powder, nuts, and plants.

It's bro science. Obviously you need a higher protein intake to build muscle, but if there is one thing I have learned over the years, it's a consistent diet high in nutrients, fiber, vitamins, minerals, and some protein gives the best results. One thing people don't realize is that the human body will always prefer its primary energy source. Meaning, the human body will want to first use carbs for energy, fat for storage, and protein for rebuilding and maintaining. In fact, studies have shown that most (>95%) of the fat you wear was originally the fat you ate, and the body won't spend any extra time converting energy sources if it doesn't have to. This can obviously be manipulated through diets that create an energy deficit, forcing the body to use up its stored energy, or in more extreme cases like the ketogenic diet, change the primary energy source altogether. Unfortunately, what the bro science diet typically does is load the body up with vastly more protein than is necessary. Suddenly, a body needing 100-120g of protein a day is getting 150-300g of protein a day. This places extra strain on the kidneys and makes it so people aren't getting the other nutrients they need. You may look decent on the outside, but that doesn't mean what's going on inside of you is okay.

At the end of the day, looking good is all about consistency. Consistent exercise, consistent eating, consistent rest, etc. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were your Spartan shoulders. And at any opportunity you can, trade out meat protein for plant protein, which despite what bro science tells you, is just as good at building muscle, and typically comes with the benefit of being attached to fiber and other nutrients.

 

[SNC]

Exactly. It's called survivorship bias. Interesting to see a successful young guy notice this effect and acknowledge it. It is something most people don't understand, even get when it is pointed out to them. XKCD in the same area:

I think this is especially true when taking strength training advice from the Buff. Most of which are genetically gifted and/or juicing. We would probably learn a lot more studying the non-responders in the training studies, and figuring out why they don't respond, and if they can find protocols that work for them.

BTW the first person I knew personally, that was on Steroids was an amateur cyclist, who convinced his doctor to give him Steroid injections for his "bad back". After which he would head to the Gym and do high rep heavy squats.

Not this again! There is NOTHING about that relates to strength or bodybuilding. It is only those that have given up and who are looking for a reason for their failure and ways to discredit those who would advice them. Even you agree that there is a benefit in figuring out what would work for that that are hard gainers, sort of countering the survivorship pile. You, like a lot of people use the tried and true method of discounting everyone who is "buff" as gifted or juicing. Perhaps if you actually put the work in you'll see gains. I have helped folks who claim to be unable to get stronger or bigger, what almost always happens is that after a while just when gains are being realized they find some excuse to stop or slow down. Its to hard, takes too much time, I can't eat as much as I need to, I can't afford to buy good food, this isnt really working I'm just gonna stop now, and on and on. Is it easy, nope. Can every single person gain something if they put the time into it, yep. (barring any serious medical issues) You do not need to juice, you just need to put the work in. This is not like buying a lottery ticket that may or may not win, you WILL gain something if you work at it. It is really sad to see people giving more fuel or something to point to for those that are just lazy and say see its OK that you gave up, its all those survivors who are the bad guys, you can just go back to your bag of chips and double chocolate chip cake. I will admit that a beginning lifter taking advice from Arnold and Ronnie is a really bad idea, unless they take the advice from when they first started out. No beginner can or should train as much or with the same form as those that have been doing it their entire lives and or juicing, but that really should go without saying should it not? You would not take a 30 year old desk jockey and stick him in a F1 car at Spa and expect anything but a total failure, neither should people at the gym. All you need is a willingness to be a better person then you were yesterday, without that you should just stay at home. I work with teens of all shapes and sizes from different home situations across the entire income scale from folks who can't afford the class to those who own private jets. Everyone of them when they start are either embarrassed at their strength and or weight or are on the other side of the spectrum. After a few weeks in the group dynamic levels out and the strongest among them are helping and supporting the weakest. Those who came into the class worried about embarrassing themselves start to encourage the strong because they know what that encouragement is worth. Everyone learns and grows when supported. You can keep shoveling negative shit and hope for the best or you can put in the work. Or will you just point at me and say see, he just doesn't get it?

 

[SNC]

When I got into road cycling, I had a hard time with the idea of NOT racing to win and to instead race for something like a PR, because there are simply genetically-gifted people who will always be better than me no matter how hard I try.

This is a major hurdle most people can not get over, and it's the one that limits people the most. When we go to meets it is not to outlift anyone except you and your last lift. Going into a meet worried that you will lose is a really shitty way to start your day. I'm not saying it's an easy thing to do, and it gets harder the longer you are involved in the sport. There is always someone stronger, better, faster then you, you just have to strive to be stronger, better, faster than you were the day before.

 

[PeterScott]

Not this again! There is NOTHING about that relates to strength or bodybuilding.

Aside: Did you ever hear about paragraphs? Try using them.

Of course this applies to strength and bodybuilding.

Look at every lifting study ever done.

They will list the average response. But if you look at the details within that group there will be big responders, average responders, and non-responders.

This is the case when they study authors are controlling the diet and coaching the exercise. When the other factors are controlled, what is left: Genetics.

There is absolutely no doubt that some people have average genetics for gaining muscle, and some have gifted genetics, and some have terrible genetics.

After a few years everyone still in the muscle game will have at least average genetics or above, because almost everyone with shit genetics will logically stop, because wasting huge time for negligible return, for years on end doesn't make sense.

Lifting is very self selecting, in that people with at least good genetics are the ones that will stick with it, and the guys who made careers of it, and write the books, generally have both great genetics and chemical assistance and their advice is meaningless to anyone with a shit deal on genetics, who isn't chemically assisted.

 

[HutchinsonJC]

All you need is a willingness to be a better person then you were yesterday

I don't think anyone has a contention with being able to make yourself better than yesterday.

 

[SNC]

Aside: Did you ever hear about paragraphs? Try using them.

Of course this applies to strength and bodybuilding.

Look at every lifting study ever done.

They will list the average response. But if you look at the details within that group there will be big responders, average responders, and non-responders.

This is the case when they study authors are controlling the diet and coaching the exercise. When the other factors are controlled, what is left: Genetics.

There is absolutely no doubt that some people have average genetics for gaining muscle, and some have gifted genetics, and some have terrible genetics.

After a few years everyone still in the muscle game will have at least average genetics or above, because almost everyone with shit genetics will logically stop, because wasting huge time for negligible return, for years on end doesn't make sense.

Lifting is very self selecting, in that people with at least good genetics are the ones that will stick with it, and the guys who made careers of it, and write the books, generally have both great genetics and chemical assistance and their advice is meaningless to anyone with a shit deal on genetics, who isn't chemically assisted.

Ahh the old insult someone before responding to their post so as to put them in their place. I kind of stop reading after that, if your intent is to insult then I have no doubt you will fill the rest of your post with information that is negative and tries to prove that people are incapable of making any gains at all, so they shouldn't try. Amiright?

 

[PeterScott]

Ahh the old insult someone before responding to their post so as to put them in their place. I kind of stop reading after that, if your intent is to insult then I have no doubt you will fill the rest of your post with information that is negative and tries to prove that people are incapable of making any gains at all, so they shouldn't try. Amiright?

No insult. Constructive criticism. A contiguous wall of text is annoying to read. Paragraphs were invented to help with that.

 

[SNC]

No insult. Constructive criticism. A contiguous wall of text is annoying to read. Paragraphs were invented to help with that.

If you say so. Perhaps you'd be better off giving advice in a grammar or spelling forum then. Cause encouragement of people trying against very hard odds to better themselves, and those trying to help really dont give a fuck about a misplaced line break, misspelled word or the improper use of your. The ONLY people bothered by it are those that would rather cut someone down than build them up.

 

[PeterScott]

If you say so. Perhaps you'd be better off giving advice in a grammar or spelling forum then. Cause encouragement of people trying against very hard odds to better themselves, and those trying to help really dont give a fuck about a misplaced line break, misspelled word or the improper use of your. The ONLY people bothered by it are those that would rather cut someone down than build them up.

Who am I cutting down? I was pointing out facts about studies, and the differences that genetics make. Instead you are the one who chose to rant exclusively about 1 sentence aside in my post.

 

[SNC]

Who am I cutting down? I was pointing out facts about studies, and the differences that genetics make. Instead you are the one who chose to rant exclusively about 1 sentence aside in my post.

No your were parroting back something that someone else wrote, there were no studies referenced, you mentioned some but you never linked them. I like that you're not afraid to double down though.

 

[PeterScott]

No your were parroting back something that someone else wrote, there were no studies referenced, you mentioned some but you never linked them. I like that you're not afraid to double down though.

Here is an article that talks about non-responders. They usually show up in every study but get ignored, there are multiple references at the bottom:
https://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/non-responders

The key takeaway is that non-responders get more inflammation, and less growth signalling in response to exercise.

An NYtimes piece on Finish study (The study references is linked within).
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/phys-ed-the-workout-enigma/?_r=0
"Hidden away in the results of almost any study of exercise programs is the fact that some people do not respond at all, while others respond at an unusually high rate."

Bottom line of the Finish study was some people actually got worse in both the Resistance training, and Aerobic training parts of the study. Some people are actually negative responders.

From other reading about the Aerobic side they have actually identified a lot of the genes involved in the non responders.

A good, long article on Responders, super responders and non responders and genetics (many study reference links included):
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/genetics-and-strength-training-just-different/

Here is a graph of muscle fiber cross section in a 24 week resistance training study, it follows a somewhat bell like curve, from total non responders (even negative response) to the wide normal type response, to super responders.

Bottom line. I really don't know how anyone can downplay the impact of genetics today. Non-responders are a real fact of life. It would be insulting for the genetically average (let alone gifted, or chemically assisted) to insult anyone in this group by telling them they just aren't working hard enough.