Arnold used to say that if you were trying to build muscle and didn't want diet to be limiting your growth, you needed 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight per day. That was a long time ago. Does this still hold true?
- Thread starter Odysseus1911
- Start date
I am no expert, But I have been interested in this topic lately for my own personal growth. From my understanding, it is not just protein, but macros in general. If you want to bulk you have to eat a surplus of calories with protein being 1-1.5 grams/ pound of body weight (not sure if this is lean body weight, ideal body weight, or actual). (Then do a cut if you want to be "shredded")
To make it even more complicated it also depends on your body type. Personally my body will retain carbs as fat very quickly. So I have found that I have to eat A LOT of fibrous vegetables and lean protein with low carbs (only on lift days, but my goal is to lean up). There is a great book called "Burn the fat, Feed the muscle" that I can try to find a PDF link too.
To make it even more complicated it also depends on your body type. Personally my body will retain carbs as fat very quickly. So I have found that I have to eat A LOT of fibrous vegetables and lean protein with low carbs (only on lift days, but my goal is to lean up). There is a great book called "Burn the fat, Feed the muscle" that I can try to find a PDF link too.
It tends to be very somewhat from one individual to another, but everything I've read suggests that 1.5 g per lb of body weight is sufficient.
Scientific studies have shown that .8g per lb of body weight is sufficient but the generally accepted rule of thumb is 1g per lb of body weight.
Keep in mind your water consumption needs to go up when eating a lot of protein to help your kidneys cycle through it.
Also, not all protein is created equal and you need a variety of sources in your diet. And it’s true that it’s really about all your macros, not just protein.
In order of importance:
- total calories in/out
- macro ratios
- micro nutrients
Keep in mind your water consumption needs to go up when eating a lot of protein to help your kidneys cycle through it.
Also, not all protein is created equal and you need a variety of sources in your diet. And it’s true that it’s really about all your macros, not just protein.
In order of importance:
- total calories in/out
- macro ratios
- micro nutrients
And also keep in mind that you don’t need a 1,000 cal surplus to grow muscle. 200-300 extra calories a day is plenty. That will keep you being able to bulk longer before needing to cut.
This is key. A friend and I did a bulk together before my daughter was born. I was pretty strict with chicken, fish, veggies and complex carbs. He ate whatever cause "its bulking". I QUICKLY surpassed him and my PR's happened almost weekly. But now I cant lift as regular and he has surpassed me again.
Not all calories are equal. Important to remember alcohol has 7 cal/ gram which is more than carbs and protein (4). Fat is 9 cal/ gram.
WOW, I'm WAY TOO LOW on my protein intake. I've got to step it up big time. I'm only doing about 140-160 per day. I'm over 200 lbs, so I guess it's more chicken for me....
I weigh 155, but I've not been very good about getting enough protein for breakfast. Usually just 3 pieces of bacon and a cup of coffee. Gonna have to cook some eggs or something.
Wonderful topic I have been studying. Question where all of those "Bench Mark" numbers are coming from. Big Pharmaceutical floods the market with propaganda. Every human body is different and as we age, again, the differences come into play. Over my life time the majority of food is now "processed"... Nutrients are removed and replaced by some not so healthy fillers.
Hobo
Photo: This morning, Elevation 4,000 +/-, Ruck weight 55#, 30 degrees, wind gust to 30 mph.... All the proper nutrition in the world is worthless without some exercise.
Hobo
Photo: This morning, Elevation 4,000 +/-, Ruck weight 55#, 30 degrees, wind gust to 30 mph.... All the proper nutrition in the world is worthless without some exercise.
Attachments
Last edited:
Do you mean the studies on protein intake? There have been several but I’d have to find the links.
True that there is a LOT of info out there. Not all of it good so pay attention to the source and see if it syncs up with other studies/peer reviews.
I thought it was 1gr per pound of LEAN body weight... as in take out your body fat in that number.... as in if you are 200LB and 15% body fat the number you need to hit is 170
I may not understand it right my self lol
I may not understand it right my self lol
Last edited:
I don't know what is 'right', but can tell you what works for me and I am not in the muscle building biz as far as trying to gain weight. I swim 5 days a week and swim about 15k yards total, lift higher reps 10-12/lower weight 3x a week. I eat right at 1gram per pound of body weight and I've found it gives me a nice balance of energy, recovery and pool performance. Carbs are low on the ROI for me I eat just enough. I don't gain weight, but I am functionally strong for daily activities and my cardiovascular engine is better now than it was during my heavy racing days of 5/10k's. I eat more food than anyone I know, but I'm a grazer and my metabolism is a furnace. If you find it difficult to eat that volume of protein/calories a good quality protein mix is a great way to get them in quickly. I love to eat and wish I could eat all those calories with a personal chef following me around, but the drinks have to be a big part of my daily diet.
It really depends on age and intensity of your work out. 1gr per lb of body weight is a starting point for when lifting heavy weights, but age will determine if you need more or less (more as you age, since protein synthesis degrades as we age).
Also, it's generally considered better to spread protein intake across several meals. 4-5 meals with 25g/each of protein is going to be better than a single 100g gut bomb.
Also note that excess protein is generally converted to glycogen. That's not a huge problem for those following diets with normal macro splits, but for those that are trying to go low-carb, it may be an important consideration.
Generally speaking, most who are consuming a balanced omnivore diet at a caloric level sufficient to support an active lifestyle will get enough protein (a 40/30/30 macro split at 2500 kcal/day means you're getting nearly 190 g/day of protein). Adjust as necessary to meet individual needs and goals.
Also note that excess protein is generally converted to glycogen. That's not a huge problem for those following diets with normal macro splits, but for those that are trying to go low-carb, it may be an important consideration.
Generally speaking, most who are consuming a balanced omnivore diet at a caloric level sufficient to support an active lifestyle will get enough protein (a 40/30/30 macro split at 2500 kcal/day means you're getting nearly 190 g/day of protein). Adjust as necessary to meet individual needs and goals.
Want the advice I wish I had gotten years ago?
Don’t over-think the details but pay attention to the big picture.
Watch your total calories, start with protein, get moderate healthy fats (.4gr per lb) and fill the rest of your calorie intake with complex carbs.
There is a LOT that we could go into but those are the main things at a 30k ft level.
What are your goals anyway? You wanting to just lose weight or be me universe or crush your next run n gun comp?
That’s really going to determine what approach you take.
Don’t over-think the details but pay attention to the big picture.
Watch your total calories, start with protein, get moderate healthy fats (.4gr per lb) and fill the rest of your calorie intake with complex carbs.
There is a LOT that we could go into but those are the main things at a 30k ft level.
What are your goals anyway? You wanting to just lose weight or be me universe or crush your next run n gun comp?
That’s really going to determine what approach you take.
I'd like to put on 10-15 lbs. muscle and lose 10 lbs. fat.
Current weight/height/waist line measurements?
Current lift numbers?
That'll help determine if a "recomp" (what you mean by losing fat and gaining muscle simultaneously) is possible.
Current lift numbers?
That'll help determine if a "recomp" (what you mean by losing fat and gaining muscle simultaneously) is possible.
5'6"
150 lbs.
33" waist
Approximately 20% body fat
Bench 160
Squat 220
I know, I know. Don't spill your coffee laughing.
At 20% BF, and those numbers, just keep driving your strength numbers up. At some point, the numbers will plateau as the fat comes off, due to gradually entering a caloric deficit. Focus on building muscle for now, worrying about the moderate BF later. Ideally, 15% is about what's normal in a human Male in good physical shape.
First thing you need to do is get your blood pathology done. Pay close attention to your uric acid level. If you start taking in 160 grams of protein, and it is already high you are setting yourself up for a uric acid kidney stone or gout. A gallon of water per day or more depending on your results. Cherry juice is what I drink twice a day to control mine.
Why. In the fuck. Would his first step be a blood pathology report? With no symptoms of any problem?
I think you're projecting dude.
In a normal, healthy, adult male, 160 grams of protein is nothing. FFS, a 12 oz steak is 100 grams of protein by itself! And you're telling me, that 60 grams more will make someone get gout? Smgdh...
Methinks you have very little idea what you're talking about, and people should steer clear of any health advice you might want to offer.
I think you're projecting dude.
In a normal, healthy, adult male, 160 grams of protein is nothing. FFS, a 12 oz steak is 100 grams of protein by itself! And you're telling me, that 60 grams more will make someone get gout? Smgdh...
Methinks you have very little idea what you're talking about, and people should steer clear of any health advice you might want to offer.
Have you ever done a structured lifting plan and if so, how long have you been lifting?
It makes a difference in the plan. Recomping is much easier for a new lifter.
When I started getting serious a few years ago I was pretty close to your stats.
I was approx:
5’8”
170lbs
34” waist
25% BF
Bench - 185
Squat - 230
DL - 200
In less than a year I moved to:
145lbs
30” waist
10% BF
Bench - 235
Squat - 315
DL - 405
I was also doing regular bodpod analysis to track my composition. I ended up gaining ~10lbs of muscle while losing 25lbs of fat. My before and after pics look like one of those get fit quick programs, haha.
I started with a recomp but my BF was high enough that I had to move to a cut. My issue on bulking was always my fat gain out paces my muscle gain even at a mild caloric surplus. I continue to get stronger but hypertrophy is slow at about 1lb of muscle gained per month.
The only place I would disagree with the above is that if you can’t recomp then you should cut down to below 15% BF before trying to gain muscle (that’s different than strength although they are connected). The recommendations I’ve always seen is cut to 10% then bulk to 15%, rinse and repeat.
That just takes serious discipline. In the end I decided it wasn’t worth that for my goals so I put on some additional weight and focused more on performance. I’m ok not having a 6 pack anymore because I really like pizza ?
Rerun7 hits on a salient point that many miss; the goal of lifting. If it is for aesthetics, than what Rerun7 is recommending is dead on (10% BF is where the abs really begin to pop), and is more of a "body building" mindset. If it is just for strength however (strength or power lifting), a little extra fluff around the waist is required to support proper recovery. What, and how much fluff is really dependent on age and conformation type (ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph).
Unless you are genetically gifted, most end up where Rerun7 and myself are; a little bit around the stomach, but carrying a more significant amount of lean muscle mass. <shrug> It really depends on your goals, lifestyle limitations (kids, diet etc.) and personality (discipline and commitment).
Unless you are genetically gifted, most end up where Rerun7 and myself are; a little bit around the stomach, but carrying a more significant amount of lean muscle mass. <shrug> It really depends on your goals, lifestyle limitations (kids, diet etc.) and personality (discipline and commitment).
One final comment. My last reply reminded me that one other thing needed to be pointed out. Commitment.
Whether body building, or building strength, lifting weights takes time to be effective in how you see yourself in the mirror. Of no doubt, you should start to see results in about 6 weeks, but realistically? Most find it takes about 3 years before they are somewhere where they are reasonably happy with what they see in the mirror. It also is an up and down thing at times, as life throws things in the way (like my own health issues and surgeries this past year). Still, I am convinced it help me recover quicker than expected (Dr.'s are still amazed at where I am, 5 months after brain surgery), and my weight is almost back to where it was before surgery in August.
Getting, and staying strong is a metabolic sink of sorts. It provides that "bank account" of physical reserves to fall back on, when things go side ways in life. I have found this mental attitude is what has been most successful for motivating me to stick with it. Sweat in peace, so you don't bleed in war, so-to-speak.
Good luck on your journey!
Whether body building, or building strength, lifting weights takes time to be effective in how you see yourself in the mirror. Of no doubt, you should start to see results in about 6 weeks, but realistically? Most find it takes about 3 years before they are somewhere where they are reasonably happy with what they see in the mirror. It also is an up and down thing at times, as life throws things in the way (like my own health issues and surgeries this past year). Still, I am convinced it help me recover quicker than expected (Dr.'s are still amazed at where I am, 5 months after brain surgery), and my weight is almost back to where it was before surgery in August.
Getting, and staying strong is a metabolic sink of sorts. It provides that "bank account" of physical reserves to fall back on, when things go side ways in life. I have found this mental attitude is what has been most successful for motivating me to stick with it. Sweat in peace, so you don't bleed in war, so-to-speak.
Good luck on your journey!
Yes, off and on for the last 20 years.
I always had an insanely high metabolism. Never had any fat and couldn't build any muscle. 20 years ago, in college, I tried to build muscle lifting every other day with friends who were athletes and eating a ton. My stats before college were:
130 lbs.
10% BF
30" waist
After college:
135 lbs.
10% BF
30" waist
Five years later, I got back into lifting for about 3 years. At the end of that I was:
140 lbs.
15% BF
30" waist
A couple years later, I moved in with a buddy who was a body builder. He had me eating WAY more than I wanted to eat and had me doing muscle confusion instead of the same weights every workout. After one year of that:
145 lbs.
12% BF
31" waist
I've pretty much just gained fat since then but I don't think I've lost too much muscle. Point is, I used to be a toothpick, and several years of cumulative work has brought me to an "average" muscle level. My metabolism has slowed way down, so now I want to cash in and build some real muscle.
Last edited:
I was similar to you (6'2" @ 160 lbs on average), and battled meeting my minimum while on active duty (the Marine Corps likes to run...a lot, so occasionally I'd get down to 150'ish if I wasn't careful).
All that being said, just work out wit a good structured plan, geared for what you can recover from at your age (30's? 40's?). You'll do better with a heavy lift, 3x5 (3 sets of 5 reps) program IME. Guys with high metabolisms (even older ones) will need to do the minimal amount of stress, and eat the rest of the way to recovery.
At near 50 years old, I may not be able to lift as much, but I can sure pack on more lean muscle mass than I could when I was younger (not to mention I can afford to eat better now as well).
Use that ectomorphism to your advantage....
All that being said, just work out wit a good structured plan, geared for what you can recover from at your age (30's? 40's?). You'll do better with a heavy lift, 3x5 (3 sets of 5 reps) program IME. Guys with high metabolisms (even older ones) will need to do the minimal amount of stress, and eat the rest of the way to recovery.
At near 50 years old, I may not be able to lift as much, but I can sure pack on more lean muscle mass than I could when I was younger (not to mention I can afford to eat better now as well).
Use that ectomorphism to your advantage....
I'm early 40s
I (always) highly recommend reading "The Barbell Prescription" if you're over 40 and want to lift weights. Lots of good info for addressing your programming, diet and sleep regimen. Order it, or check to see if your local library has it. It's well worth the cost if you're so inclined....
aasgaardco.com
Books – The Aasgaard Company
aasgaardco.com 
I typically shoot for 1.5 to 1.7g per pound of body weight as I’m trying to gain. I follow the 5th set powerlifting program and have had great results. My buddy works with Swede himself and the results are impressive. I use my fitness pal to track all my food and water intakes. It’s free and works great. Gives you a breakdown of everything you eat each day. Then you can input your exercise or lifting routine.
There are some interesting things about protein. It is hard to over-consume it because it is extremely satiating. Second, protein is really the only macronutrient when we look at as it relates to body composition. Third, not all proteins are created equal - you want to consume the most nutrient dense forms of protein - red meat being the most nutrient dense. Most of your guys should shoot for at LEAST 1 gram of PRO per pound of body weight. Here is a simple way to think about it - if you eat in caloric restriction while consuming high levels of protein you will never lose any muscle in the weight loss. I walk around 12-14% body fat and the only way I have gotten to 6-7% body fat is high protein & caloric deficit. All of this is assuming you are lifting heavy weights and not going to the gym and fucking around like this dudes I see who make no changes in their appearance year after year.
It really depends on what you’re trying to do and how you know you’re body. If you are trying to gain bulk mass then sure 1 gram per lb is about right. If you are concerned about fat and don’t want to have to cut, I would probably go with less. If you know you’re going to cut, but still want to keep a clean nutrition cycle, then you can go with more protein. However to much protein to quickly just gets shit out. You’re better off in most cases whole food protein, and supplementing with protein to make you’re weight goal as god intended.
I ran a calculator and did research earlier this week. My 160 lb frame came out to 100 grams a day and up to 160 grams a day was considered safe. Protein isolates is a whole nuther conversation and their absorption rate as well as what happens with the excess you don't absorb. I'm trying to get 100% of my protein from food not isolates.
There are MANY studies out there that refute this. Akin to the theory that frequent smaller meals speed up metabolism.
Can you explain your 2nd point? Im not following - everyone I know who takes the time to track protein also tracks carbs and fats.
Can you also expand on your 3rd point? Which nutrients are you referring to? Per calorie, poultry is the most dense in regards to protein
His point is, of the three main macro nutrients, protein is what builds muscle, therefore body composition (the other two don't build muscle mass, they merely provide energy and/or add to (hypertrophic or hyperplastic) adipose tissue). It's an arguable statement, but from his context, I get what he's saying, and agree.
As to his third point, it is that protein is not generic, and that protein (and the associated BCAA's in that protein, or not, as the case may be) varies based on the type (why plant based protein is not as efficient as protein from things with eyeballs). And no, chicken is not the densest form of protein (hint: go look at elk or venison).
Thaks for the clarification. I would still contend any/all 3 can alter body composition drastically, and it could be argued protein is least impactful since protein w/o work wont build muscle, but carbs & fat w/o work can absolutely contribute to excess fat (not saying an excess of cals from protein couldnt do the same, but as already brought up, protein is much more satiating than carbs, so much harder to overdo it.)
And my bad, I was assuming by "red meat" beef was being referred to. I would imagine most on here arent hunters. To address protein density, for all intents & purposes, lean chicken, turkey, wild turkey, elk, deer, moose, etc are essentially the same (42-47 cals/ounce and 8.5-8.8gm protein/ounce)
Yeah, from the context of his statement, I think he was only thinking in regards to positive conformation, not negative (hence my comment about adipose tissue, which obviously can have a negative effect on conformation; or at least the appearance).
As to protein density...like everything else, there's a large variability in density (protein, calories and fat). Even in the same type of meat.
Please post some links to said studies - I'd like to investigate further.
Does Nutrient Timing Matter? A Critical Look
Nutrient timing involves eating foods at strategic times in order to achieve certain outcomes. This article reviews the research behind nutrient timing.
www.healthline.com The human body is an amazing thing....
To which - the amount of protein digestible or the frequent meal/metabolism?
Specifically, I'm interested in the amount of protein digestible in one serving. Already feel that I am well-informed on the effect - or lack thereof - in playing around with the timing of meals in general.
As I understand it, there is no "digestability factor" since the human gut actually slows down when protein is ingested. It's an evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to extract as much as possible from protein sources, since they were historically more rare than vegetables, tubers and legumes in the diet.
Hence why meal timing is kind of a dispelled "broscience" myth sort of thing...
Hence why meal timing is kind of a dispelled "broscience" myth sort of thing...
Does Nutrient Timing Matter? A Critical Look
Nutrient timing involves eating foods at strategic times in order to achieve certain outcomes. This article reviews the research behind nutrient timing.
The human body is an amazing thing....
Yes it is, and it helps to understand the context in which we evolved - eating infrequent meals as hunter-gatherers. For general purposes, there would seem to be an advantage to longer periods without food (such as intermittent fasting).
And I can certainly accept that explanation without scientific citations - based upon my personal experiences with large pieces of animal protein, digestion certainly slows to a crawl!
125g of protein is about 1.25-1.5lbs of meat (depends upon the species and cut, obviously). That is a big lump to eat all at once, and assuming that one is consuming some veggies to get other nutrients, makes for the sort of meal that doesn't really make me want to do anything but digest for a few hours.
On the other hand, doing a daily 16-hour fast and consuming roughly 4-5 meals during the 8-hour window means eating a reasonable portion about every two hours, and nicely supports the nutritional needs of a morning weight session and afternoon/evening endurance workout.
Lets back up then - it sounds like you acknowledge 100gr of protein in a single meal will all be digested (while you may not feel fantastic after consuming). I took your original point as the bro-science myth that you can only utilize 40-60gr every few hours. Can you clarify your position?
The studies im referring to refute the myth - not that eating a bunch in a single sitting may or may not be optimal for performance (or generally feeling good)
Correlation is not causation. And you are overthinking this stuff. I have yet to see anyone carry a high amount of muscle eating a low protein diet. And I have seen athletes of all shapes and sizes eat different macros and be both fat and shredded. I have seen people eat a Paleo diet with massive amounts of inflammation and get fat. The moral of the story is - calories matter. The law of thermodynamics tells us that if you use more calories than you consume you will decrease your mass. Consume more than you burn and you will add mass. And if you eat enough protein in a caloric deficit you wont lose muscle - just fat. Since you like to google this stuff check out - protein sparing modified fast. This is how body builders have been getting shredded for years. Not all proteins are the same - red meat will always be more nutrient dense than chicken.
Remember fasting is a just a fancy way to caloric restrict. The research has been out for years, they compared people who ate the same volume of food over 16 hours vs 8 hours and the results were the same. Fasting isnt romantic and it isnt magic - just cool way to caloric restrict.
95% of that wall of text is irrelevant to what I'm saying. One of us is really misunderstanding the other (and/or making huge assumptions)
what nutrients are you referring to? I'm speaking directly to protein/oz
First, why the trepidation? You seem upset.
The OP asked, "Arnold used to say that if you were trying to build muscle and didn't want diet to be limiting your growth, you needed 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight per day. That was a long time ago. Does this still hold true?"
That is what I thought we were discussing. Is that not the case? Was there an imaginary pivot? If there, was lay it out and I can debate both sides.
And when I say nutrients I refer to "a substance that provides nourishment essential for growth and the maintenance of life."
Ideally, you want to eat the most nutrient dense diet if the goal is to carry the highest amount of muscle. Which should be the goal as it pertains to the greatest metabolic flexibility.
This stuff is not complicated in application. Only complex when you start to analyze the mechanism. Those who consume more protein carry more muscle than those that don't. Those who eat the most nutrient dense proteins tend to carry more muscle than those that don't. For example - 300 grams of plant based vs 300 grams from red meat. Those that can maintain muscle mass and strength the longest tend to survive the longest. I was looking at actuarial charts for a talk I did recently on Metabolic Flexibility and a clear point of death is plotted with a loss of strength and muscle.
Old people die because they fall (loss of strength/balance/coordination), break a hip (osteoporosis) then become bed ridden and pass away.
So what do you got?
Similar threads
