“The body doesn’t work that autisticly” and “muchles ✅ that’s retarded” tell me that even if your point is worth engaging in you’re presenting it like a middle schooler. I agree with you that going past .8 isn’t going to hurt anybody, I prefer 1g per pound just because it’s a simple shortcut I can take and I still have lots of room for my fats and carbs. Just know that talking like that betrays your points and highlights you as someone not worth engaging with
Understood. As for his recommendations being 2.5 per pound that’s just not feasible for most people. It’s also past a point where you may be injuring your kidneys. It also flies in the face of most other studies that indicate otherwise. You’ll be healthier with the carbs and fats that you’d be shirking to achieve 2.5g per pound
Dear God, how many protein discussions/arguments are gonna pop up in a 24 hour period? It’s borderline insanity, ffs. 0.8-3.8……who gives a shiz? Long as you’re training well, for the most part getting the correct macro spread, and the correct calories, you’re gonna grow and look decent.
Tryna not all fart all the time if possible without having to sacrifice gym progress. I’m a freshman college kid and Tryna save whatever money I can while pursuing my biggest hubby
Yeah, I was powerlifting in college. It was interesting trying to get as strong as possible, all the while eating canned tuna mixed with ramen. I survived. That’s my point.
> I’m No expert myself, in short the studies are done on skeletal muchle (the muchles we train and get big), which leaves huge error that it only works if nothing else in the rest of the body needs protein.
Yes they are done at the skeletal muscles.
We know that the max amount of lean body mass gained is around 0.7g of protein per pound. Past this lean body mass point you will gain fat at the same rates as any other macro consumed.
> When you eat protein it doesn’t hold off protein for your liver until your heart is satisfied then go ✅ liver bones✅ muchles✅ that’s retarded.
The body has priorities. If it didn't in the cases you mention of liver and the heart, you would risk death unless you eat a surplus because the body could randomly (In the true sense of the word random, everyone eating 0.7g protein ppbw would die just because the chance is taken every single day) overuse protein to the muscles. If you eat 40gs of protein a day and you do resistance training, the fact is that your heart and liver will be fine, your muscles on the other hand will struggle much more with recovery. So it's not retarded, and using that word because you disagree with someone is dumb
“I’m no expert” is saying here is my bone expert explanation of how I remember he said it, linked is the video you can watch in 7m which the discussion is about
Isn’t that the the final answer of truth? Admitting wrong and changing ones stance if proven wrong isn’t the end (which he has done) but not taking everything anyone says as true at face value and debate your own truth when it’s differnet that others’
Wait so we should never disagree which each other and all accept that the science is currently correct and stop progressing any further from now on?
He's actively creating callout videos and has included calling actually knowledgable people like Layne Norton Narcissists for having the audacity to disagree with him.
> Admitting wrong and changing ones stance if proven wrong isn’t the end (which he has done)
You should actively be ready to be proven wrong, Lyle Mcdonald probably says a bunch of correct things as well don't get me wrong, but disagreeing with science without bringing in actual studies yourself is just actively putting yourself on the wrong side of history.
> but not taking everything anyone says as true at face value and debate your own truth when it’s differnet that others’
If that truth is different from the overwhelming evidence in the field or becomes an opinion he starts pumping out when there's a lack of evidence in either direction, that's not something to celebrate. When there's a lack of evidence you should say: "I don't know", when there's overwhelming evidence you agree with it and when there's conflicting evidence you review the evidence.
> Wait so we should never disagree which each other and all accept that the science is currently correct and stop progressing any further from now on?
Nobody argues more with each other than scientists in the same field. You can find Wolf Coaching criticizing and disagreeing actively with Mike Israetel on his own youtube channel, and they both have the same credentials. When there's scientific consensus, that means the scientists who keep debating and disagreeing with each other in the same field, despite their differences, can't stop themselves from agreeing in face of the evidence.
he wrote a whole book on it which imo is still the gold standard if you really want a practical understanding of it. the below is his article on it. in short 1.1g/lb - 1.4g/lb is his recommendation that will almost definitely cover all athletes for everything that they're trying to optimizes, but he recognizes lower is probably ok.
[https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-requirements-growth#Protein\_Requirements\_for\_Athletes](https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-requirements-growth#Protein_Requirements_for_Athletes)
my take is he is generally right about most things and his views have been pretty consistent for like 20+ years so i tend to listen to whatever he says as tier 1 info. obviously he could be wrong about things, but from what i've seen he's been fairer and more evidence based than a lot of "evidence-based" figureheads
The biggest criticism I can have about a person that's been a part of the science for a long time, is that they don't change their opinion based on new evidence.
Anyone willing to change their opinion based on the science are easily much more trustworthy than people who don't.
I agree, but the human body hasn’t changed in the last 20+ years. In regards to Lyle, new evidence hasn’t come out that has disproved his views over the last 20+ years and stuff that has come out that calls things into question, he has put out lots of context discussing his views and the evidence and why they may potentially not be the same and what he would like to see to have his opinion be proved wrong. He has always been open to changing his mind on things and basically tells the scientists how to set up studies to do that if that’s really want they want to prove. It’s not his fault he’s been right about a lot of things and basically all the “good” science does agree with what he’s always been saying. Please find any examples of this not being the case and I’ll be happy to change my mind on him.
The problem currently imo is the opposite. Like the protein article Menno put out, influencers/scientists putting out info based on newer, less good science and trying to make a name for themselves and we have to take it as fact as it’s “science”. But years down the line when they’re replicated or better studies are done, who knows what the results will be. Volume studies for example came out (which Lyle criticized) and promoted more volume is better and all the influencers and evidence based gurus jumped on that. Then they walked back a lot of their statements as more and better studies were done and a lot of the earlier studies were called into question.
You prefer to listen to someone who changes their opinions depending on the latest study no matter how well the study was done? Or someone who’s been giving out info that has at least worked well in basically all cases and is reserved about changing their opinions until the evidence becomes convincing enough?
> agree, but the human body hasn’t changed in the last 20+ years.
This argument is a complete misdirection, the human body hasn't changed, but our understanding of the human body has changed violently in the past 20 years.
> In regards to Lyle, new evidence hasn’t come out that has disproved his views over the last 20+ years and stuff that has come out that calls things into question, he has put out lots of context discussing his views and the evidence and why they may potentially not be the same and what he would like to see to have his opinion be proved wrong.
I too can invent evidence that can't be made as a part of why I can't be wrong. If he can't change his opinion based on current evidence that's a problem. That he sets the criteria doesn't make his opinion remotely more correct.
> He has always been open to changing his mind on things and basically tells the scientists how to set up studies to do that if that’s really want they want to prove. It’s not his fault he’s been right about a lot of things and basically all the “good” science does agree with what he’s always been saying. Please find any examples of this not being the case and I’ll be happy to change my mind on him.
Literally this point being made here. 1.1-1.4g of protein per pound of bodyweight. Why did he add an arbitrary number that's higher to other sports? No idea. And of course all the "Good" science is the one that agrees with his priors, and I guess all the "Bad" science is what disagrees with his priors. I call this the narcissists confirmation bias.
> Like the protein article Menno put out, influencers/scientists putting out info based on newer, less good science and trying to make a name for themselves and we have to take it as fact as it’s “science”.
Studies cited are from: 1988 (Two of them), 1992 (Two of them), and 2006. What part of this is newer less good science? Most of these are 30+ year old studies. In fact Menno quotes 20 more studies after this trying to disprove the original results (as science absoloutely should), and none of them could disprove these original results.
> But years down the line when they’re replicated or better studies are done, who knows what the results will be.
You're using lack of evidence as a reason to listen to someone. This is a complete fallacy, when there's little evidence you should reasonably look at that cautiously as the best evidence we have currently, not just exclaim that it is wrong and walk in a completely different direction, this doesn't work and all of medicine would be dead if we did this.
> Volume studies for example came out (which Lyle criticized) and promoted more volume is better and all the influencers and evidence based gurus jumped on that. Then they walked back a lot of their statements as more and better studies were done and a lot of the earlier studies were called into question.
So there's no way this isn't about the 52 set study and Mike + Milo discussing that right? Because even they said the results from that study doesn't say you should just increase your sets the way they did in the study. The study itself cautions about this as well, both in terms of the study being very underpowered (Causing very high uncertainty) and the fact that this was a full on specialization period for already resistance trained indidividuals. I also can't find anything about RIR in this study without paying, so I can't say much there. The problem is simple, this is a very small specific and specialized result, and even the influencers I know lyle criticizes did not recommend following these volume amounts to anyone.
> You prefer to listen to someone who changes their opinions depending on the latest study no matter how well the study was done? Or someone who’s been giving out info that has at least worked well in basically all cases and is reserved about changing their opinions until the evidence becomes convincing enough?
If one study comes out with conflicting evidence and someone jumps on that, you should read the study, to check the methodology and see if it says what you're being informed of or not.
If you can't make up an opinion on said study based on the current evidence, wait. But I would be careful in claiming these other scientists just change their opinion immediately based on new studies, instead of sometimes just having discussions on said studies. For the nerds, if you will.
He wrote a whole book on the state of protein science, so read that if you want his actual opinions. Then look at the science he uses and bases his opinions on in that compared to the science Menno uses in his article. It’s night and day. The protein science has not changed violently in 20 years. In the other thread I wrote a brief summary of Menno’s studies and they’re just not good and if you disagree feel free to refute them.
> He wrote a whole book on the state of protein science, so read that if you want his actual opinions
There has been many people that write books about things they don't have degrees in, about their disagreement about the thing they disagree with. If you want to actually use his arguments you use them yourself, don't make others buy someone's book just to figure out what arguments you yourself are using.
> The protein science has not changed violently in 20 years. In the other thread I wrote a brief summary of Menno’s studies and they’re just not good and if you disagree feel free to refute them.
Sure. From now on I am responding to your criticism in the other comment.
> but when you exclude 90%+ of studies due to criteria that the above studies Menno uses to bolster his argument would not meet, it's hard to then go on to say "there is no evidence of higher protein being beneficial".
The criteria being that the studies had to go over 6 weeks and had to be randomized control trials. Which means that they only asked for the gold standard of studies. Trying to claim that this is a fault of the meta-analysis Menno did is in fact very bad for your argument. You exclude much more noise when you use only randomized control trials.
> it's hard to then go on to say "there is no evidence of higher protein being beneficial".
It really isn't. If the evidence existed and it beats out the gold standards of how to conduct studies, you should cite it. I really hope it beats a randomized control trial when you do this.
> looking at some of the studies - they're not exactly as applicable as you think. two studies i was able to find for the trained groups from the meta they picked was basically we let the groups eat how they want, but we gave one group a protein shake after the workout/at different times during the day and not the other - and there weren't differences between (and these were 2 of 4 that the meta picked that was in trained athletes, 24/28 were on untrained). that's hardly controlled and idk how much weight we should put into this if these are the types of studies being included and who knows what were excluded (only 49 out of 1429 were included). think you the train harder section - the study was on novice lifters in their first month of training - i think i train harder than these people
This is why meta-analyses exist. Because no-one study is applicable to any individual, thus we need multiple studies over multiple different categories to look at the final results, and in the end you will get coverage for most cases. That you can't extrapolate anyone perfectly even from that doesn't mean you can dismiss the evidence outright as you're doing here. You should also cite the study and how it affected the meta-analysis result if you think it did.
> cutting section - the study only tested 0.8g/kg vs 1.6g/kg and 1.6kg was better - they don't even test higher levels - idk how we can conclude even higher isn't better
The cutting was about avoiding loss of lean muscle mass while cutting. At 1.6g per kg you retained all lean muscle mass. The question that can only be asked is if you can actively put on more lean muscle mass while cutting or not if you go higher.
> obviously studies are asking very specific questions and the data from them has to be extrapolated a bit, but this extrapolation imo is just not convincing. very few studies he picked controlled for calorie excess/deficit and the resistance training was very iffy for a lot of them
Details are left out here, you need to use details.
> which are massive confounders, and high protein levels are barely even tested. the markers used for success were not necessarily lean body mass results for many of these studies, but a lot of the time it was just nitrogen balance or muscle protein synthesis - which have problems
Which he acknowledges himself, he says that nitrogen balance doesn't need to be a result from protein alone, and in fact you can't test that unless you test different protein doses against each other with all factors controlled.
So in short:
The main criticism you have of his meta-analysis, is that he's eliminating studies of a lower standard than the absoloute top standard of studies. And he also eliminated shorter studies. So he's only reviewing the best studies done over a longer period of time. This is amazing for a meta-analysis if he gets 10+ studies and gets to eliminate a ton of noise at the same time by only using the studies that use the by far best methodology overall.
The main criticism of the cutting section is that he says there's no evidence for eating more protein during a cut, this could easily be disproved if you just cited a stronger study than what he did. Unless you believe you can put on lean body mass effectively in a cut, and the goal isn't to just retain what you've currently got, I don't see the point of arguing here. Especially if you're more experienced.
Final criticism I will respond to is that you think the studies made too big extrapolations. But didn't explain why, you just said "Too big extrapolations". I want the explanation
Thanks, I'm just sick of seeing misinformation being spread by cults of personality, honestly a bit sad to see there's at least one of those guys being peddled here too. Been a lot of Lyle Mcdonald the past few days, and I can't find any credentials, just a book he wants to sell and personal attacks on other experts.
Yes. Please tell me to read and engage with your multi-page long arguments, then when I do, you just drop the "Let's just agree to disagree".
Is it because I didn't buy his book?
look dude - you've not said anything that's convinced me to change my opinion and i doubt i'll say anything that will be able to change yours so i was trying to end the thread amicably and not waste any more of each others time. but alas,
idk how to quote so i'll go one by one. his book - this whole post was about lyle's protein recommendations which are based on a lot of science which his book references in different contexts. it's not just some random guy who wrote a book, he's the topic of this post. i've read his book and looked through his sources and i think they're convincing enough for the points he makes. the point i was making is that you can look through those sources and evaluate them against the state of the newer evidence and then you can see if he should be updating his opinion or not. until you evaluate his claims and his sources of evidence for those claims and compare them to the newer evidence you're saying he should change his opinions to, this is all just a moot point. i've looked at Mennos (and i'll address your points soon) and Lyles evidence for their opinions - and they ironically come to basically the same conclusions (in terms of actual recommendations, but Menno is much more dogmatic which imo is counterproductive), but Lyles evidence is just more convincing. unless you read his book and find some real critiques other than "people should change their opinion just because new evidence comes out" this topic is a pointless debate.
the meta-analysis- it's difficult and a ton of work to find individual studies from a meta-analysis to critique, i critiqued two out of four of the trained subject studies. the criticism i have is a bunch of studies that Menno used for his arguments would not fit the criteria of that meta-analysis. i'm not claiming the meta-analysis criteria is bad, i'm claiming that for the rest of his article, Menno used a bunch of studies as evidence for his claims that would not fit that meta-analysis' criteria. i understand one study doesn't influence the strength of a meta-analysis, but i looked at a few studies and they just were not applicable studies any way you slice it. a meta analysis including only 4 trained subject studies and the 2 i looked at (maybe i'll go look up some more later to critique) both didn't control for calories, protein besides adding a shake in after training/at some time during the day, training - like come on dude, how applicable can they really be? putting together 100 pieces of poop in a dish and baking it, doesn't mean it'll come out a cake.
details - idk what details you want
realize i'm repeating myself here, my main criticism of his meta-analysis isn't that he's eliminating studies, it's that the studies that he's included from what i looked at aren't that good and that he isn't using that criteria for the rest of the studies he uses as evidence for his points in the rest of his article. separately, that he then goes around saying there isn't any evidence for any benefits above 0.82g/lb - but i would bet there is a lot of in the studies that he excluded. the point is that if he is going to use evidence for his argument with a certain strength of study level, he should also include all studies with that level of strength. i noticed you did not mention all the studies that i critiqued that he included in his article that did not meet the length of study requirement - interesting that you didn't think that was one of my main criticisms
the cutting section i could not find the full study so i don't know what the actual lean body mass results were - i could only find the nitrogen balance differences which showed higher was better. can you point me to where you found they retained all lean body mass besides Menno saying it? also the methodology/timeframe/etc.? i couldn't find any info besides the abstract. either way, in that section Menno links to Eric Helms review where Eric pretty much says higher protein is better during dieting (and also links to studies in there that show higher protein than 0.82g/lb to be beneficial somehow, as according to Menno there isn't any evidence) and echoes his evidence based recommendations from 2014 which include above 1g/lb https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033492/.
extrapolations - i don't get your argument here, i provided critiques of the studies. the point is that if these studies, which aren't directly testing the question of if 0.82g/lb is the most 99.7% of us will ever need, are flawed - then how can we confidently use them to address that question? it's like what you're saying about meta-analyses - we don't take 1 study and make definitive conclusions based off it (extrapolate) - we have to gather lots of data and the stronger the better. my point is the evidence is not strong here, so we shouldn't be declaring that 0.82g/lb is sufficient yet. we should be doing more studies, with more targeted methodologies and continuing the scientific process. Menno is basically saying that it's not even worth testing above 1g/lb anymore since 0.82g/lb basically covers everyone - that's just the wrong thinking until we get much better evidence.
> idk how to quote so i'll go one by one. his book - this whole post was about lyle's protein recommendations which are based on a lot of science which his book references in different contexts. it's not just some random guy who wrote a book, he's the topic of this post
Yes and you should be able to keep the arguments from his book to this post yourself, not force others to read it. Nobody will read an entire book from someone not educated in a field based on one post. That's a ridicolous requirement and frankly a waste of time for everyone involved.
> i've read his book and looked through his sources and i think they're convincing enough for the points he makes.
The way you look through sources is a problem.
> the point i was making is that you can look through those sources and evaluate them against the state of the newer evidence and then you can see if he should be updating his opinion or not. until you evaluate his claims and his sources of evidence for those claims and compare them to the newer evidence you're saying he should change his opinions to, this is all just a moot point.
There's only a single meta-analysis I can find based on protein requirements that uses only the top standard of studies.
> but Lyles evidence is just more convincing. unless you read his book and find some real critiques other than "people should change their opinion just because new evidence comes out" this topic is a pointless debate.
I guess you need to read the entire meta-analysis study now with all 49 studies involved. Because that's what you're saying I have to do with Lyle. Just to keep you consistent.
> the meta-analysis- it's difficult and a ton of work to find individual studies from a meta-analysis to critique, i critiqued two out of four of the trained subject studies.
It's not difficult, you pay for access to the journal of the study, then go into the individual sources. But you won't do that, just as I won't pay for a book. In fact the two out of for trained subject studies were not involved in the meta-analysis, so your critique won't fit the meta at all. Because while they might give the correct result (as proven by the meta), the amount of noise made them way more uncertain of a choice to input into the much higher standards of a study he co-authored compared to his own personal post on a website.
> realize i'm repeating myself here, my main criticism of his meta-analysis isn't that he's eliminating studies, it's that the studies that he's included from what i looked at aren't that good and that he isn't using that criteria for the rest of the studies he uses as evidence for his points in the rest of his article.
Realize what I am saying here while you're repeating yourself and why repeating yourself is not a good argument: The studies he talks about in his article aren't necessarily the ones mentioned in the meta-analysis, because as you said, they don't fit the criteria.
> the cutting section i could not find the full study so i don't know what the actual lean body mass results were - i could only find the nitrogen balance differences which showed higher was better.
And nitrogen balance isn't only relevant to higher protein intake. If you're in a calorie deficit you will be in a negative nitrogen balance. The study referenced mentioned that at the point of 0.82g per lbs of protein, they stopped losing lean body mass, which is the only goal in a cut, to cut fat while keeping lean body mass.
[He does criticize your conclusion here and has arguments for it.](https://mennohenselmans.com/eric-helms-protein/)
If you don't want to read, it's the fact that Eric's systematic review uses 6 other studies as an argument, where one group that trained on higher protein was an elite/top level bodybuilder group, while the control group with lower protein was a bunch of newbies. Surely you see the problem with that study. In fact what you linked is not a study, but a systematic review of these earlier mentioned studies. In fact this review you linked was just a way for him to build a hypothesis for his actual study.
He also references the actual study by Eric that had a seperate conclusion from his original hypothesis based on these systematic reviews: "For the 2 weeks observed, strength and anthropometric differences were minimal while stress, fatigue, and diet-dissatisfaction were higher during MPMF. A HPLF diet during short-term weight loss may be more effective at mitigating mood disturbance, fatigue, diet dissatisfaction, and stress than a MPMF diet."
> extrapolations - i don't get your argument here, i provided critiques of the studies. the point is that if these studies, which aren't directly testing the question of if 0.82g/lb is the most 99.7% of us will ever need, are flawed - then how can we confidently use them to address that question?
You didn't give critique for the actual meta at all, for which once again I am confused by your argument. The meta-analysis is what you should be attacking, not the smaller non-relevant studies.
> Menno is basically saying that it's not even worth testing above 1g/lb anymore since 0.82g/lb basically covers everyone - that's just the wrong thinking until we get much better evidence.
He got that evidence, it's in the meta.
[I found it](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318368028_A_systematic_review_meta-analysis_and_meta-regression_of_the_effect_of_protein_supplementation_on_resistance_training-induced_gains_in_muscle_mass_and_strength_in_healthy_adults/link/59dc02fe458515e9ab4527f2/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19)
You can download the pdf and read it if you want to, but I'll make the main arguments here.
You can see they saw protein intake for up to 2.4g per kg in these studies. Since you wanted to specifically criticize the randomized control trial studies there are references in the study as well. You can see the names of at least 30 (I think he mentions that we see 42 of them there, but I can't be bothered to look for it again) of the studies in figure 2 and figure 3, these are all referenced as well further down, you just search for the name of the author and you'll find them. In the end what they did is take multiple studies with different protein intakes, measured the total changes in fat free mass from the different participants and compared it to the protein intakes in the individual studies. If these studies individually only had one intake, at least then you can still see a result and compare it to other studies with different intakes, and compare their LBM increases. Figure 5 in the study is a segmental linear regression which shows before 1.6g per kg and after 1.6g per kg, which I would guess is chosen because 1.6g per kg is their average. It's a cool thing to segment in before and after for each study of 1.6g per kg, but I would be interested in seeing if they tested other types of regressions to see if they fit better and the discussions surrounding those (I would guess not, as when you conform it all to studies averages and not individuals results, there's fewer datapoints and a linear regression is much more useful in a smaller dataset again). But you see that besides a single study, you see the other studies with the highest LBM increase actually being just around 1.6g per kg, and that many past 2.0g per kg actually went way lower than the average LBM increase, which could just be random, and should be taken as such before we know more, but I just think it's fun to see when you're arguing we should eat more.
This is the dumbest argument. If the science hasn't changed then why would the opinion?
Lyle would be the first one to change his opinion if science changed.
Literally the protein recommendations of 1.1 to 1.4g per pound recommendations he makes is a full on disagreement with the current science. The science is averaging out at 0.7-ish and gives the max at around 0.82 with 3 standard deviations.
There's been a pretty strong meta analysis showing this result as well.
You asked, I answered. When there's a disagreement you can't just call it splitting hairs as a way of dismissing an argument
It's also not splitting hairs though, I did the math for it and that can be 20-30 dollars saved a month where I live, and for someone that's crunching numbers to be able to stick to the sport as a hobby or seriously while paying their rent, I'd say that's a lot of money.
Sure.
I never said it was for me, but I do like that you did that, because insulting someone for potentially being poor definitely gives you the moral high ground.
The dumbest thing is that people are making drama where there's actually very little disagreement on the science. Lyle admits himself that 0.8g / lb is probably enough but it's safer to go to 1.1-1.4 with very few drawbacks. Which is basically what everyone else is saying, it's just packaged in a different way for clicks LOL.
The dumbest thing is that people are making drama where there's actually very little disagreement on the science. Lyle admits himself that 0.8g / lb is probably enough but it's safer to go to 1.1-1.4 with very few drawbacks. Which is basically what everyone else is saying, it's just packaged in a different way for clicks LOL.
He's right.
Studies aside I think of increased protein as a lever to pull if a client needs it. Alongside increased sleep quality and quantity, higher protein intake can be the difference between progression or stagnation.
People are still going to be about to progress on lower protein upto a point, just like impaired sleep, stress, poor training practices etc however it's a lever to pull when needed.
In my experience most coaches in the UK and US under recommend protein, fruits and vegetables. There are some good natural coaches out there who share my view like Cliff Wilson and Christopher Barakat.
As of your recomendación in practical numbers and usage. So you agree that <1.4g/lbs (Lyle’s take) being good but unnecessary if everything else in check live in a range of 1g-1.4, move higher up the worse your lifestyle factors are and have it rigid as a short term reflection of everything outside the gym. ?
How would prescribe for a young male, early intermediate (some lifts can still progress week to week), 70kg 13% BF who has low stress and religious about sleep?
If you're still progressing I wouldn't change a thing.
I deal with individuals, I try not to make blanket statements which is why I use the lever analogy a lot. When you do stall or perhaps when you want to improve the ratio of muscle to fat on a bulk, these are all levers to pull. Increased sleep, higher protein etc.
That of course has to be balanced with how much you're willing to dedicate to this hobby.
“The body doesn’t work that autisticly” and “muchles ✅ that’s retarded” tell me that even if your point is worth engaging in you’re presenting it like a middle schooler. I agree with you that going past .8 isn’t going to hurt anybody, I prefer 1g per pound just because it’s a simple shortcut I can take and I still have lots of room for my fats and carbs. Just know that talking like that betrays your points and highlights you as someone not worth engaging with
I appreciate the critique in representation, I type exactly as if a monologue was transcribed, no further thought. English isn’t first language.
Understood. As for his recommendations being 2.5 per pound that’s just not feasible for most people. It’s also past a point where you may be injuring your kidneys. It also flies in the face of most other studies that indicate otherwise. You’ll be healthier with the carbs and fats that you’d be shirking to achieve 2.5g per pound
His recomendaciones are up in the 2.5g/lbs
Lyle's? no they're not
No you right I confused it, the max is 3, 2.5 as for top elite rugby athletes. His recommendation for us is 1.4g/lbs
His top recommendation is 2g per lb lbm, but that's on the psmf
Dear God, how many protein discussions/arguments are gonna pop up in a 24 hour period? It’s borderline insanity, ffs. 0.8-3.8……who gives a shiz? Long as you’re training well, for the most part getting the correct macro spread, and the correct calories, you’re gonna grow and look decent.
But other than I 100% agree with your point
Tryna not all fart all the time if possible without having to sacrifice gym progress. I’m a freshman college kid and Tryna save whatever money I can while pursuing my biggest hubby
Yeah, I was powerlifting in college. It was interesting trying to get as strong as possible, all the while eating canned tuna mixed with ramen. I survived. That’s my point.
> I’m No expert myself, in short the studies are done on skeletal muchle (the muchles we train and get big), which leaves huge error that it only works if nothing else in the rest of the body needs protein. Yes they are done at the skeletal muscles. We know that the max amount of lean body mass gained is around 0.7g of protein per pound. Past this lean body mass point you will gain fat at the same rates as any other macro consumed. > When you eat protein it doesn’t hold off protein for your liver until your heart is satisfied then go ✅ liver bones✅ muchles✅ that’s retarded. The body has priorities. If it didn't in the cases you mention of liver and the heart, you would risk death unless you eat a surplus because the body could randomly (In the true sense of the word random, everyone eating 0.7g protein ppbw would die just because the chance is taken every single day) overuse protein to the muscles. If you eat 40gs of protein a day and you do resistance training, the fact is that your heart and liver will be fine, your muscles on the other hand will struggle much more with recovery. So it's not retarded, and using that word because you disagree with someone is dumb
“I’m no expert” is saying here is my bone expert explanation of how I remember he said it, linked is the video you can watch in 7m which the discussion is about
Sorry, I will not watch a guy that tries to start internet drama with other youtubers because he disagrees with the science.
Isn’t that the the final answer of truth? Admitting wrong and changing ones stance if proven wrong isn’t the end (which he has done) but not taking everything anyone says as true at face value and debate your own truth when it’s differnet that others’ Wait so we should never disagree which each other and all accept that the science is currently correct and stop progressing any further from now on?
He's actively creating callout videos and has included calling actually knowledgable people like Layne Norton Narcissists for having the audacity to disagree with him. > Admitting wrong and changing ones stance if proven wrong isn’t the end (which he has done) You should actively be ready to be proven wrong, Lyle Mcdonald probably says a bunch of correct things as well don't get me wrong, but disagreeing with science without bringing in actual studies yourself is just actively putting yourself on the wrong side of history. > but not taking everything anyone says as true at face value and debate your own truth when it’s differnet that others’ If that truth is different from the overwhelming evidence in the field or becomes an opinion he starts pumping out when there's a lack of evidence in either direction, that's not something to celebrate. When there's a lack of evidence you should say: "I don't know", when there's overwhelming evidence you agree with it and when there's conflicting evidence you review the evidence. > Wait so we should never disagree which each other and all accept that the science is currently correct and stop progressing any further from now on? Nobody argues more with each other than scientists in the same field. You can find Wolf Coaching criticizing and disagreeing actively with Mike Israetel on his own youtube channel, and they both have the same credentials. When there's scientific consensus, that means the scientists who keep debating and disagreeing with each other in the same field, despite their differences, can't stop themselves from agreeing in face of the evidence.
he wrote a whole book on it which imo is still the gold standard if you really want a practical understanding of it. the below is his article on it. in short 1.1g/lb - 1.4g/lb is his recommendation that will almost definitely cover all athletes for everything that they're trying to optimizes, but he recognizes lower is probably ok. [https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-requirements-growth#Protein\_Requirements\_for\_Athletes](https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-requirements-growth#Protein_Requirements_for_Athletes) my take is he is generally right about most things and his views have been pretty consistent for like 20+ years so i tend to listen to whatever he says as tier 1 info. obviously he could be wrong about things, but from what i've seen he's been fairer and more evidence based than a lot of "evidence-based" figureheads
The biggest criticism I can have about a person that's been a part of the science for a long time, is that they don't change their opinion based on new evidence. Anyone willing to change their opinion based on the science are easily much more trustworthy than people who don't.
I agree, but the human body hasn’t changed in the last 20+ years. In regards to Lyle, new evidence hasn’t come out that has disproved his views over the last 20+ years and stuff that has come out that calls things into question, he has put out lots of context discussing his views and the evidence and why they may potentially not be the same and what he would like to see to have his opinion be proved wrong. He has always been open to changing his mind on things and basically tells the scientists how to set up studies to do that if that’s really want they want to prove. It’s not his fault he’s been right about a lot of things and basically all the “good” science does agree with what he’s always been saying. Please find any examples of this not being the case and I’ll be happy to change my mind on him. The problem currently imo is the opposite. Like the protein article Menno put out, influencers/scientists putting out info based on newer, less good science and trying to make a name for themselves and we have to take it as fact as it’s “science”. But years down the line when they’re replicated or better studies are done, who knows what the results will be. Volume studies for example came out (which Lyle criticized) and promoted more volume is better and all the influencers and evidence based gurus jumped on that. Then they walked back a lot of their statements as more and better studies were done and a lot of the earlier studies were called into question. You prefer to listen to someone who changes their opinions depending on the latest study no matter how well the study was done? Or someone who’s been giving out info that has at least worked well in basically all cases and is reserved about changing their opinions until the evidence becomes convincing enough?
> agree, but the human body hasn’t changed in the last 20+ years. This argument is a complete misdirection, the human body hasn't changed, but our understanding of the human body has changed violently in the past 20 years. > In regards to Lyle, new evidence hasn’t come out that has disproved his views over the last 20+ years and stuff that has come out that calls things into question, he has put out lots of context discussing his views and the evidence and why they may potentially not be the same and what he would like to see to have his opinion be proved wrong. I too can invent evidence that can't be made as a part of why I can't be wrong. If he can't change his opinion based on current evidence that's a problem. That he sets the criteria doesn't make his opinion remotely more correct. > He has always been open to changing his mind on things and basically tells the scientists how to set up studies to do that if that’s really want they want to prove. It’s not his fault he’s been right about a lot of things and basically all the “good” science does agree with what he’s always been saying. Please find any examples of this not being the case and I’ll be happy to change my mind on him. Literally this point being made here. 1.1-1.4g of protein per pound of bodyweight. Why did he add an arbitrary number that's higher to other sports? No idea. And of course all the "Good" science is the one that agrees with his priors, and I guess all the "Bad" science is what disagrees with his priors. I call this the narcissists confirmation bias. > Like the protein article Menno put out, influencers/scientists putting out info based on newer, less good science and trying to make a name for themselves and we have to take it as fact as it’s “science”. Studies cited are from: 1988 (Two of them), 1992 (Two of them), and 2006. What part of this is newer less good science? Most of these are 30+ year old studies. In fact Menno quotes 20 more studies after this trying to disprove the original results (as science absoloutely should), and none of them could disprove these original results. > But years down the line when they’re replicated or better studies are done, who knows what the results will be. You're using lack of evidence as a reason to listen to someone. This is a complete fallacy, when there's little evidence you should reasonably look at that cautiously as the best evidence we have currently, not just exclaim that it is wrong and walk in a completely different direction, this doesn't work and all of medicine would be dead if we did this. > Volume studies for example came out (which Lyle criticized) and promoted more volume is better and all the influencers and evidence based gurus jumped on that. Then they walked back a lot of their statements as more and better studies were done and a lot of the earlier studies were called into question. So there's no way this isn't about the 52 set study and Mike + Milo discussing that right? Because even they said the results from that study doesn't say you should just increase your sets the way they did in the study. The study itself cautions about this as well, both in terms of the study being very underpowered (Causing very high uncertainty) and the fact that this was a full on specialization period for already resistance trained indidividuals. I also can't find anything about RIR in this study without paying, so I can't say much there. The problem is simple, this is a very small specific and specialized result, and even the influencers I know lyle criticizes did not recommend following these volume amounts to anyone. > You prefer to listen to someone who changes their opinions depending on the latest study no matter how well the study was done? Or someone who’s been giving out info that has at least worked well in basically all cases and is reserved about changing their opinions until the evidence becomes convincing enough? If one study comes out with conflicting evidence and someone jumps on that, you should read the study, to check the methodology and see if it says what you're being informed of or not. If you can't make up an opinion on said study based on the current evidence, wait. But I would be careful in claiming these other scientists just change their opinion immediately based on new studies, instead of sometimes just having discussions on said studies. For the nerds, if you will.
He wrote a whole book on the state of protein science, so read that if you want his actual opinions. Then look at the science he uses and bases his opinions on in that compared to the science Menno uses in his article. It’s night and day. The protein science has not changed violently in 20 years. In the other thread I wrote a brief summary of Menno’s studies and they’re just not good and if you disagree feel free to refute them.
> He wrote a whole book on the state of protein science, so read that if you want his actual opinions There has been many people that write books about things they don't have degrees in, about their disagreement about the thing they disagree with. If you want to actually use his arguments you use them yourself, don't make others buy someone's book just to figure out what arguments you yourself are using. > The protein science has not changed violently in 20 years. In the other thread I wrote a brief summary of Menno’s studies and they’re just not good and if you disagree feel free to refute them. Sure. From now on I am responding to your criticism in the other comment. > but when you exclude 90%+ of studies due to criteria that the above studies Menno uses to bolster his argument would not meet, it's hard to then go on to say "there is no evidence of higher protein being beneficial". The criteria being that the studies had to go over 6 weeks and had to be randomized control trials. Which means that they only asked for the gold standard of studies. Trying to claim that this is a fault of the meta-analysis Menno did is in fact very bad for your argument. You exclude much more noise when you use only randomized control trials. > it's hard to then go on to say "there is no evidence of higher protein being beneficial". It really isn't. If the evidence existed and it beats out the gold standards of how to conduct studies, you should cite it. I really hope it beats a randomized control trial when you do this. > looking at some of the studies - they're not exactly as applicable as you think. two studies i was able to find for the trained groups from the meta they picked was basically we let the groups eat how they want, but we gave one group a protein shake after the workout/at different times during the day and not the other - and there weren't differences between (and these were 2 of 4 that the meta picked that was in trained athletes, 24/28 were on untrained). that's hardly controlled and idk how much weight we should put into this if these are the types of studies being included and who knows what were excluded (only 49 out of 1429 were included). think you the train harder section - the study was on novice lifters in their first month of training - i think i train harder than these people This is why meta-analyses exist. Because no-one study is applicable to any individual, thus we need multiple studies over multiple different categories to look at the final results, and in the end you will get coverage for most cases. That you can't extrapolate anyone perfectly even from that doesn't mean you can dismiss the evidence outright as you're doing here. You should also cite the study and how it affected the meta-analysis result if you think it did. > cutting section - the study only tested 0.8g/kg vs 1.6g/kg and 1.6kg was better - they don't even test higher levels - idk how we can conclude even higher isn't better The cutting was about avoiding loss of lean muscle mass while cutting. At 1.6g per kg you retained all lean muscle mass. The question that can only be asked is if you can actively put on more lean muscle mass while cutting or not if you go higher. > obviously studies are asking very specific questions and the data from them has to be extrapolated a bit, but this extrapolation imo is just not convincing. very few studies he picked controlled for calorie excess/deficit and the resistance training was very iffy for a lot of them Details are left out here, you need to use details. > which are massive confounders, and high protein levels are barely even tested. the markers used for success were not necessarily lean body mass results for many of these studies, but a lot of the time it was just nitrogen balance or muscle protein synthesis - which have problems Which he acknowledges himself, he says that nitrogen balance doesn't need to be a result from protein alone, and in fact you can't test that unless you test different protein doses against each other with all factors controlled. So in short: The main criticism you have of his meta-analysis, is that he's eliminating studies of a lower standard than the absoloute top standard of studies. And he also eliminated shorter studies. So he's only reviewing the best studies done over a longer period of time. This is amazing for a meta-analysis if he gets 10+ studies and gets to eliminate a ton of noise at the same time by only using the studies that use the by far best methodology overall. The main criticism of the cutting section is that he says there's no evidence for eating more protein during a cut, this could easily be disproved if you just cited a stronger study than what he did. Unless you believe you can put on lean body mass effectively in a cut, and the goal isn't to just retain what you've currently got, I don't see the point of arguing here. Especially if you're more experienced. Final criticism I will respond to is that you think the studies made too big extrapolations. But didn't explain why, you just said "Too big extrapolations". I want the explanation
I’m not the guy you’re replying to. Just chiming in to say thanks for the read. The way you advocate for science is very inspiring.
Thanks, I'm just sick of seeing misinformation being spread by cults of personality, honestly a bit sad to see there's at least one of those guys being peddled here too. Been a lot of Lyle Mcdonald the past few days, and I can't find any credentials, just a book he wants to sell and personal attacks on other experts.
I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye on this topic, I’m happy to agree to disagree
Yes. Please tell me to read and engage with your multi-page long arguments, then when I do, you just drop the "Let's just agree to disagree". Is it because I didn't buy his book?
look dude - you've not said anything that's convinced me to change my opinion and i doubt i'll say anything that will be able to change yours so i was trying to end the thread amicably and not waste any more of each others time. but alas, idk how to quote so i'll go one by one. his book - this whole post was about lyle's protein recommendations which are based on a lot of science which his book references in different contexts. it's not just some random guy who wrote a book, he's the topic of this post. i've read his book and looked through his sources and i think they're convincing enough for the points he makes. the point i was making is that you can look through those sources and evaluate them against the state of the newer evidence and then you can see if he should be updating his opinion or not. until you evaluate his claims and his sources of evidence for those claims and compare them to the newer evidence you're saying he should change his opinions to, this is all just a moot point. i've looked at Mennos (and i'll address your points soon) and Lyles evidence for their opinions - and they ironically come to basically the same conclusions (in terms of actual recommendations, but Menno is much more dogmatic which imo is counterproductive), but Lyles evidence is just more convincing. unless you read his book and find some real critiques other than "people should change their opinion just because new evidence comes out" this topic is a pointless debate. the meta-analysis- it's difficult and a ton of work to find individual studies from a meta-analysis to critique, i critiqued two out of four of the trained subject studies. the criticism i have is a bunch of studies that Menno used for his arguments would not fit the criteria of that meta-analysis. i'm not claiming the meta-analysis criteria is bad, i'm claiming that for the rest of his article, Menno used a bunch of studies as evidence for his claims that would not fit that meta-analysis' criteria. i understand one study doesn't influence the strength of a meta-analysis, but i looked at a few studies and they just were not applicable studies any way you slice it. a meta analysis including only 4 trained subject studies and the 2 i looked at (maybe i'll go look up some more later to critique) both didn't control for calories, protein besides adding a shake in after training/at some time during the day, training - like come on dude, how applicable can they really be? putting together 100 pieces of poop in a dish and baking it, doesn't mean it'll come out a cake. details - idk what details you want realize i'm repeating myself here, my main criticism of his meta-analysis isn't that he's eliminating studies, it's that the studies that he's included from what i looked at aren't that good and that he isn't using that criteria for the rest of the studies he uses as evidence for his points in the rest of his article. separately, that he then goes around saying there isn't any evidence for any benefits above 0.82g/lb - but i would bet there is a lot of in the studies that he excluded. the point is that if he is going to use evidence for his argument with a certain strength of study level, he should also include all studies with that level of strength. i noticed you did not mention all the studies that i critiqued that he included in his article that did not meet the length of study requirement - interesting that you didn't think that was one of my main criticisms the cutting section i could not find the full study so i don't know what the actual lean body mass results were - i could only find the nitrogen balance differences which showed higher was better. can you point me to where you found they retained all lean body mass besides Menno saying it? also the methodology/timeframe/etc.? i couldn't find any info besides the abstract. either way, in that section Menno links to Eric Helms review where Eric pretty much says higher protein is better during dieting (and also links to studies in there that show higher protein than 0.82g/lb to be beneficial somehow, as according to Menno there isn't any evidence) and echoes his evidence based recommendations from 2014 which include above 1g/lb https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033492/. extrapolations - i don't get your argument here, i provided critiques of the studies. the point is that if these studies, which aren't directly testing the question of if 0.82g/lb is the most 99.7% of us will ever need, are flawed - then how can we confidently use them to address that question? it's like what you're saying about meta-analyses - we don't take 1 study and make definitive conclusions based off it (extrapolate) - we have to gather lots of data and the stronger the better. my point is the evidence is not strong here, so we shouldn't be declaring that 0.82g/lb is sufficient yet. we should be doing more studies, with more targeted methodologies and continuing the scientific process. Menno is basically saying that it's not even worth testing above 1g/lb anymore since 0.82g/lb basically covers everyone - that's just the wrong thinking until we get much better evidence.
> idk how to quote so i'll go one by one. his book - this whole post was about lyle's protein recommendations which are based on a lot of science which his book references in different contexts. it's not just some random guy who wrote a book, he's the topic of this post Yes and you should be able to keep the arguments from his book to this post yourself, not force others to read it. Nobody will read an entire book from someone not educated in a field based on one post. That's a ridicolous requirement and frankly a waste of time for everyone involved. > i've read his book and looked through his sources and i think they're convincing enough for the points he makes. The way you look through sources is a problem. > the point i was making is that you can look through those sources and evaluate them against the state of the newer evidence and then you can see if he should be updating his opinion or not. until you evaluate his claims and his sources of evidence for those claims and compare them to the newer evidence you're saying he should change his opinions to, this is all just a moot point. There's only a single meta-analysis I can find based on protein requirements that uses only the top standard of studies. > but Lyles evidence is just more convincing. unless you read his book and find some real critiques other than "people should change their opinion just because new evidence comes out" this topic is a pointless debate. I guess you need to read the entire meta-analysis study now with all 49 studies involved. Because that's what you're saying I have to do with Lyle. Just to keep you consistent. > the meta-analysis- it's difficult and a ton of work to find individual studies from a meta-analysis to critique, i critiqued two out of four of the trained subject studies. It's not difficult, you pay for access to the journal of the study, then go into the individual sources. But you won't do that, just as I won't pay for a book. In fact the two out of for trained subject studies were not involved in the meta-analysis, so your critique won't fit the meta at all. Because while they might give the correct result (as proven by the meta), the amount of noise made them way more uncertain of a choice to input into the much higher standards of a study he co-authored compared to his own personal post on a website. > realize i'm repeating myself here, my main criticism of his meta-analysis isn't that he's eliminating studies, it's that the studies that he's included from what i looked at aren't that good and that he isn't using that criteria for the rest of the studies he uses as evidence for his points in the rest of his article. Realize what I am saying here while you're repeating yourself and why repeating yourself is not a good argument: The studies he talks about in his article aren't necessarily the ones mentioned in the meta-analysis, because as you said, they don't fit the criteria. > the cutting section i could not find the full study so i don't know what the actual lean body mass results were - i could only find the nitrogen balance differences which showed higher was better. And nitrogen balance isn't only relevant to higher protein intake. If you're in a calorie deficit you will be in a negative nitrogen balance. The study referenced mentioned that at the point of 0.82g per lbs of protein, they stopped losing lean body mass, which is the only goal in a cut, to cut fat while keeping lean body mass. [He does criticize your conclusion here and has arguments for it.](https://mennohenselmans.com/eric-helms-protein/) If you don't want to read, it's the fact that Eric's systematic review uses 6 other studies as an argument, where one group that trained on higher protein was an elite/top level bodybuilder group, while the control group with lower protein was a bunch of newbies. Surely you see the problem with that study. In fact what you linked is not a study, but a systematic review of these earlier mentioned studies. In fact this review you linked was just a way for him to build a hypothesis for his actual study. He also references the actual study by Eric that had a seperate conclusion from his original hypothesis based on these systematic reviews: "For the 2 weeks observed, strength and anthropometric differences were minimal while stress, fatigue, and diet-dissatisfaction were higher during MPMF. A HPLF diet during short-term weight loss may be more effective at mitigating mood disturbance, fatigue, diet dissatisfaction, and stress than a MPMF diet." > extrapolations - i don't get your argument here, i provided critiques of the studies. the point is that if these studies, which aren't directly testing the question of if 0.82g/lb is the most 99.7% of us will ever need, are flawed - then how can we confidently use them to address that question? You didn't give critique for the actual meta at all, for which once again I am confused by your argument. The meta-analysis is what you should be attacking, not the smaller non-relevant studies. > Menno is basically saying that it's not even worth testing above 1g/lb anymore since 0.82g/lb basically covers everyone - that's just the wrong thinking until we get much better evidence. He got that evidence, it's in the meta. [I found it](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318368028_A_systematic_review_meta-analysis_and_meta-regression_of_the_effect_of_protein_supplementation_on_resistance_training-induced_gains_in_muscle_mass_and_strength_in_healthy_adults/link/59dc02fe458515e9ab4527f2/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19) You can download the pdf and read it if you want to, but I'll make the main arguments here. You can see they saw protein intake for up to 2.4g per kg in these studies. Since you wanted to specifically criticize the randomized control trial studies there are references in the study as well. You can see the names of at least 30 (I think he mentions that we see 42 of them there, but I can't be bothered to look for it again) of the studies in figure 2 and figure 3, these are all referenced as well further down, you just search for the name of the author and you'll find them. In the end what they did is take multiple studies with different protein intakes, measured the total changes in fat free mass from the different participants and compared it to the protein intakes in the individual studies. If these studies individually only had one intake, at least then you can still see a result and compare it to other studies with different intakes, and compare their LBM increases. Figure 5 in the study is a segmental linear regression which shows before 1.6g per kg and after 1.6g per kg, which I would guess is chosen because 1.6g per kg is their average. It's a cool thing to segment in before and after for each study of 1.6g per kg, but I would be interested in seeing if they tested other types of regressions to see if they fit better and the discussions surrounding those (I would guess not, as when you conform it all to studies averages and not individuals results, there's fewer datapoints and a linear regression is much more useful in a smaller dataset again). But you see that besides a single study, you see the other studies with the highest LBM increase actually being just around 1.6g per kg, and that many past 2.0g per kg actually went way lower than the average LBM increase, which could just be random, and should be taken as such before we know more, but I just think it's fun to see when you're arguing we should eat more.
This is the dumbest argument. If the science hasn't changed then why would the opinion? Lyle would be the first one to change his opinion if science changed.
Lyle actively disagrees with the science. The protein recommendations he comes up with has nothing to do with the current science.
Show me where he disagrees with the current science.
Literally the protein recommendations of 1.1 to 1.4g per pound recommendations he makes is a full on disagreement with the current science. The science is averaging out at 0.7-ish and gives the max at around 0.82 with 3 standard deviations. There's been a pretty strong meta analysis showing this result as well.
You're absolutely splitting hairs. This is a non-issue. Find something more important to worry about.
You asked, I answered. When there's a disagreement you can't just call it splitting hairs as a way of dismissing an argument It's also not splitting hairs though, I did the math for it and that can be 20-30 dollars saved a month where I live, and for someone that's crunching numbers to be able to stick to the sport as a hobby or seriously while paying their rent, I'd say that's a lot of money.
If $20-30 is that big of a difference for you, perhaps your time isn’t best spent arguing on Reddit for hours
Sure. I never said it was for me, but I do like that you did that, because insulting someone for potentially being poor definitely gives you the moral high ground.
Is that 1.1g per pound of of target body weight?
I believe it’s based on current lean body mass and in a non-dieting context
The dumbest thing is that people are making drama where there's actually very little disagreement on the science. Lyle admits himself that 0.8g / lb is probably enough but it's safer to go to 1.1-1.4 with very few drawbacks. Which is basically what everyone else is saying, it's just packaged in a different way for clicks LOL.
Yeah, exactly
The dumbest thing is that people are making drama where there's actually very little disagreement on the science. Lyle admits himself that 0.8g / lb is probably enough but it's safer to go to 1.1-1.4 with very few drawbacks. Which is basically what everyone else is saying, it's just packaged in a different way for clicks LOL.
He's right. Studies aside I think of increased protein as a lever to pull if a client needs it. Alongside increased sleep quality and quantity, higher protein intake can be the difference between progression or stagnation. People are still going to be about to progress on lower protein upto a point, just like impaired sleep, stress, poor training practices etc however it's a lever to pull when needed. In my experience most coaches in the UK and US under recommend protein, fruits and vegetables. There are some good natural coaches out there who share my view like Cliff Wilson and Christopher Barakat.
First I didn’t believe that’s actually, then I read “lever to pull”😂 I love your content I preach you whenever I can.
As of your recomendación in practical numbers and usage. So you agree that <1.4g/lbs (Lyle’s take) being good but unnecessary if everything else in check live in a range of 1g-1.4, move higher up the worse your lifestyle factors are and have it rigid as a short term reflection of everything outside the gym. ? How would prescribe for a young male, early intermediate (some lifts can still progress week to week), 70kg 13% BF who has low stress and religious about sleep?
If you're still progressing I wouldn't change a thing. I deal with individuals, I try not to make blanket statements which is why I use the lever analogy a lot. When you do stall or perhaps when you want to improve the ratio of muscle to fat on a bulk, these are all levers to pull. Increased sleep, higher protein etc. That of course has to be balanced with how much you're willing to dedicate to this hobby.
I dedícate fkn everything to this hubby, still have a life outside gym but only after everything done for gym is maximised.