Aim to cram down around 1.5g of protein per lbs of bodyweight.

WhiteWalls

What would this be for somebody weighing 16 stone?

NoQuarter

336 grams of protein.

To get that I just googled stone to lbs. put in 16 stone and got 224 lbs and multiplied by 1.5.

WhiteWalls

Thanks a lot, thats a crazy amount

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

are you sure it isn't per kg of bodyweight?>

conzy

These guidelines usually assume you are reasonably lean.

You may only have 140lbs of Lean Body Mass which would mean ~210g of protein. Either way im guessing that is substantially more than your consumption at the minute.

generic2012

WhiteWalls wrote: »

What would this be for somebody weighing 16 stone?

Ridiculous.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

are you sure it isn't per kg of bodyweight?>

this

NoQuarter

you'll need to chase your chicken with a chicken smoothie!

Alf Veedersane

WhiteWalls wrote: »

What would this be for somebody weighing 16 stone?

An exercise in multiplication.

WhiteWalls

generic2012 wrote: »

Ridiculous.

Whats ridiculous?

runawaybishop

WhiteWalls wrote: »

Whats ridiculous?

Its far too much. Its ~.82 grams per pound, not 1.5.

NoQuarter

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its far too much. Its ~.82 grams per pound, not 1.5.

To be fair, there is a discrepancy out there in relation to this. Bodybuilding guidelines would say 1.5g per kg and sports nutritionists say ~.82 and there doesnt seem to be a definitive answer.

I personally prefer to eat at 1.5g because if I eat at .82 then the rest of the calories have to be filled with fats and carbs. .82 would have my protein at about 20% of my diet.

Edit: sorry the 15 is per kg Im sure

Egass13

NoQuarter wrote: »

To be fair, there is a discrepancy out there in relation to this. Bodybuilding guidelines would say 1.5g per kg and sports nutritionists say ~.82 and there doesnt seem to be a definitive answer.

I personally prefer to eat at 1.5g because if I eat at .82 then the rest of the calories have to be filled with fats and carbs. .82 would have my protein at about 20% of my diet.

Edit: sorry the 15 is per kg Im sure

Bodybuilding is 1.5/2 per lb , not kg , sure we couldn't grow on that !

runawaybishop

NoQuarter wrote: »

To be fair, there is a discrepancy out there in relation to this. Bodybuilding guidelines would say 1.5g per kg and sports nutritionists say ~.82 and there doesnt seem to be a definitive answer.

I personally prefer to eat at 1.5g because if I eat at .82 then the rest of the calories have to be filled with fats and carbs. .82 would have my protein at about 20% of my diet.

Edit: sorry the 15 is per kg Im sure

Its 1.5-2 grams per kg or ~.82 grams per lb.

Egass13 wrote: »

Bodybuilding is 1.5/2 per lb , not kg , sure we couldn't grow on that !

Other way around.

Egass13

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its 1.5-2 grams per kg or ~.82 grams per lb.



Other way around.

Which is ? Sorry my brain is on shutdown at the moment !

runawaybishop

Egass13 wrote: »

Which is ? Sorry my brain is on shutdown at the moment !

You have it the wrong way around, 1.5-2 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight would be a huge amount. 1.5-2 per kg is grand.

Egass13

runawaybishop wrote: »

You have it the wrong way around, 1.5-2 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight would be a huge amount. 1.5-2 per kg is grand.

I most certainly don't have it wrong my man . And it is a huge amount , hence why it is for body building . I would sometimes up it to 2g/lb during off season.

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

To be fair, there is a discrepancy out there in relation to this. Bodybuilding guidelines would say 1.5g per kg and sports nutritionists say ~.82 and there doesnt seem to be a definitive answer.

I personally prefer to eat at 1.5g because if I eat at .82 then the rest of the calories have to be filled with fats and carbs. .82 would have my protein at about 20% of my diet.
/QUOTE]

There is no discrepancy at all. Would you not rather make up the difference in 0.82 and 1.5 in carbs and/or fats? You're already well beyond the point at which added protein has a benefit, fatty foods are high in nutrients and are nice, carb heavy foods ill help performance and are nice and fatty high carb foods are the jackpot in terms of taste.

0.82g/lb is the upper limit of any benefit during a 'cut', which means that 0.82g/lb is very safe and likely quite a bit below that will be more than all right.

It is ill advised to follow a heavy steroid using bodybuilders recommendations on anything related to diet or exercise. People have a built in 'more is better heuristic' - if a certain amount of something is good then more must be better, it's not always true.

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

0.82g/lb is the upper limit of any benefit during a 'cut', which means that 0.82g/lb is very safe and likely quite a bit below that will be more than all right.
.

I'm sceptical for the following reason. 0.82 grams of protein per pound is a remarkably accurate measurement. to be able to measure that so precisely and then still be guestimating on the rest, to me, means something doesn't add up.

Now, I'm not saying 1.5 is more effective. I'm saying I don't know and anyone who claims to have it down to that exact a science I will be taking what they say with a pinch of salt. I think eating more carb/fat heavy foods leads to a mentality that eating anything is ok. "ah sure I can eat some of that chocolate cake, its only carbs and fat". Fair enough, the body might only be able to process a certain ceiling of protein, that doesn't mean you shouldn't eat more. It's still calories after all and calories are name of the game here (in a bulk).

Egass13

It is ill advised to follow a heavy steroid using bodybuilders recommendations on anything related to diet or exercise. People have a built in 'more is better heuristic' - if a certain amount of something is good then more must be better, it's not always true.[/quote]

It is also Ill advised to assume every body builder is a heavy steroid user.
Please educate yourself on the subject before coming out with such an idiotic comment.

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'm sceptical for the following reason. 0.82 grams of protein per pound is a remarkably accurate measurement. to be able to measure that so precisely and then still be guestimating on the rest, to me, means something doesn't add up.

Now, I'm not saying 1.5 is more effective. I'm saying I don't know and anyone who claims to have it down to that exact a science I will be taking what they say with a pinch of salt. I think eating more carb/fat heavy foods leads to a mentality that eating anything is ok. "ah sure I can eat some of that chocolate cake, its only carbs and fat". Fair enough, the body might only be able to process a certain ceiling of protein, that doesn't mean you shouldn't eat more. It's still calories after all and calories are name of the game here (in a bulk).

Being sceptical of something because it's accurate is a new one for me! (Just to let you know, 1.5 is no less accurate a number than 0.82) 0.82g was the upper limit of where benefit was found, which means that 0.82g was the highest point where increased protein benefited anyone in the studies. It's not that accurate at all, it just means anything over that is of no benefit, you could probably take less and be fine.

generic2012

Egass13 wrote: »

It is ill advised to follow a heavy steroid using bodybuilders recommendations on anything related to diet or exercise. People have a built in 'more is better heuristic' - if a certain amount of something is good then more must be better, it's not always true.

It is also Ill advised to assume every body builder is a heavy steroid user.
Please educate yourself on the subject before coming out with such an idiotic comment.[/QUOTE]

I specifically said a heavy steroid using bodybuilder, that is a type of bodybuilder. I didn't say all bodybuilders use steroids. Maybe you should learn to read before you make an idiot out of yourself. again.

Egass13

generic2012 wrote: »

It is also Ill advised to assume every body builder is a heavy steroid user.
Please educate yourself on the subject before coming out with such an idiotic comment.

I specifically said a heavy steroid using bodybuilder, that is a type of bodybuilder. I didn't say all bodybuilders use steroids. Maybe you should learn to read before you make an idiot out of yourself. again.[/quote]

Sorry , I've never been in a competition that had a category called 'heavy steroid user body builder category' . Didn't realise that was a "type" of bodybuilder . My bad . Continue.

generic2012

You obviously didn't read my whole post.

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

(Just to let you know, 1.5 is no less accurate a number than 0.82) .

It is actually

So my question is this then; what is the difference between clean bulking and dirty bulking in the context of the above? Where does one cross over into the other?

Obviously, with bulking, there is the potential to do it with minimal fat gain or do it with a lot of fat gain. The difference must be macro breakdown (as well as a ridiculous surplus of calories). But there must be a point where carbs and fats reach their threshold too.

I accept I may eat too much protein than I can benefit from. But eating more protein may allow me to benefit from not having the downside of as many carbs. It's a balancing act im sure.

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

It is actually

It isn't.

There is no consistent definition of 'clean' or 'dirty' bulk so you can't compare. In my opinion it's bull****. Protein has a different function in the body than carbohydrates so more protein it won't negate the negatives of reduced carb intake. Eat more protein if you want, just know it's of no benefit and if the extra protein is at the expense of fats and carbs, it's a negative.

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

It isn't.

Back to math class for you!

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

Back to math class for you!

How is it more accurate?

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

How is it more accurate?

Well, because there's an extra number behind the decimal place of course. Who knows what lurks behind those final numbers. Basic math.

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

There is no consistent definition of 'clean' or 'dirty' bulk so you can't compare. In my opinion it's bull****. Protein has a different function in the body than carbohydrates so more protein it won't negate the negatives of reduced carb intake. Eat more protein if you want, just know it's of no benefit and if the extra protein is at the expense of fats and carbs, it's a negative.

Are you saying then that people cant bulk with minimal fat gain or with maximum fat gain?

If there is a difference, what is it? How do you do one or the other?

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

Well, because there's an extra number behind the decimal place of course. Who knows what lurks behind those final numbers. Basic math.

If it's a final number nothing lurks behind it.
1.5 is the same as 1.50, is the same as 1.500 is the same as 1.5000 ad infinitum
0.82 is the same as 0.820 is the same as 0.8200 ad infinitum
They're just as accurate as each other.

NoQuarter wrote: »

Are you saying then that people cant bulk with minimal fat gain or with maximum fat gain?

If there is a difference, what is it? How do you do one or the other?

What's your definition of bulk?
If it means building muscle, then you can do it in a slight deficit which would mean no fat gain.

I don't know what you mean by 'people cant bulk wit....maximum fat gain'?

If you want to gain the least amount of fat but increase muscle, eat just enough to progress through your weights week by week. DONT cut carbs too much because they are the key to performance in a deficit. Muscle loss during a 'cut' is caused by a drop in performance in the gym from a lack of calories, if you can cut calories and still improve performance you're golden. By the sounds of it on boards most people can't/won't progress on a deficit but if I lower the volume a touch I can still progress so try it yourself.

I don't know if that's what you want but I can't really understand your post...

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

If it's a final number nothing lurks behind it.
1.5 is the same as 1.50, is the same as 1.500 is the same as 1.5000 ad infinitum
0.82 is the same as 0.820 is the same as 0.8200 ad infinitum
They're just as accurate as each other.




What's your definition of bulk?
If it means building muscle, then you can do it in a slight deficit which would mean no fat gain.

I don't know what you mean by 'people cant bulk wit....maximum fat gain'?

If you want to gain the least amount of fat but increase muscle, eat just enough to progress through your weights week by week. DONT cut carbs too much because they are the key to performance in a deficit. Muscle loss during a 'cut' is caused by a drop in performance in the gym from a lack of calories, if you can cut calories and still improve performance you're golden. By the sounds of it on boards most people can't/won't progress on a deficit but if I lower the volume a touch I can still progress so try it yourself.

I don't know if that's what you want but I can't really understand your post...

Well 0.82 could easily be 0.8222222 or 0.824443232 rounded to two decimal places. In fact in a scientific study like the one you mention, its probably more likely. In fact, there's a 9/10 chance its more likely. 1.5 could be 1.51 rounded down. No matter what way you look at it, adding an extra number after a decimal place is more accurate. But lets leave the maths aside.


My point is this;

If I am bulking at a 500 calorie surplus exactly, are you saying that no matter what those 500 calories are made up of, the muscle/fat increase will be identical? So if the 500 surplus was all fats or all carbs or all protein, the body gains are identical?

I'm not saying it's not, I'm simply asking as I don't know the answer but a "yes" doesn't sit right with my instinct.

runawaybishop

Egass13 wrote: »

I most certainly don't have it wrong my man . And it is a huge amount , hence why it is for body building . I would sometimes up it to 2g/lb during off season.

There have been a good few studies that show no gains eating over .82 and the requirements for trained individuals can be a lot less.

Here's an article with a bunch of references - http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

runawaybishop

NoQuarter wrote: »

Well 0.82 could easily be 0.8222222 or 0.824443232 rounded to two decimal places. In fact in a scientific study like the one you mention, its probably more likely. In fact, there's a 9/10 chance its more likely. 1.5 could be 1.51 rounded down. No matter what way you look at it, adding an extra number after a decimal place is more accurate. But lets leave the maths aside.

Stop murdering maths, you are incorrect.

NoQuarter

runawaybishop wrote: »

Stop murdering maths, you are incorrect.

Get your calculator, your boxing gloves, and meet me in the maths forum.

Heres some light reading for you: http://www.mathsisfun.com/rounding-numbers.html

Let me know if it's too much...

generic2012

Well 0.82 could easily be 0.8222222 or 0.824443232 rounded to two decimal places. In fact in a scientific study like the one you mention, its probably more likely. In fact, there's a 9/10 chance its more likely. 1.5 could be 1.51 rounded down. .[/QUOTE]

It could, but it's not. It's 0.8222222, it's 0.82, the same for 1.5. More likely to be rounded in a scientific study than what?

NoQuarter wrote: »

My point is this;

If I am bulking at a 500 calorie surplus exactly, are you saying that no matter what those 500 calories are made up of, the muscle/fat increase will be identical? So if the 500 surplus was all fats or all carbs or all protein, the body gains are identical?

I'm not saying it's not, I'm simply asking as I don't know the answer but a "yes" doesn't sit right with my instinct.

If you are in a surplus, pretty much identical. If you're in a surplus you need less protein than a cut so carbs to help performance would be best.

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

Get your calculator, your boxing gloves, and meet me in the maths forum.

Heres some light reading for you: http://www.mathsisfun.com/rounding-numbers.html

Let me know if it's too much...

Your assuming the numbers are rounded which was never said. I would never trust a website called maths is fun anyway!! That's worse than the lad who was referencing Taubes, Sisson and Wolfe as reliable sources of information on 'high carb' (normal) diets!

generic2012

runawaybishop wrote: »

There have been a good few studies that show no gains eating over .82 and the requirements for trained individuals can be a lot less.

Here's an article with a bunch of references - http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

I've read that article, it's good. I think it goes as far to say there has never been any benefit over 0.64g/lb! I just aim for 1g/kg, usually get more but that's my minimum, anything over is a bonus.

runawaybishop

NoQuarter wrote: »

Get your calculator, your boxing gloves, and meet me in the maths forum.

Heres some light reading for you: http://www.mathsisfun.com/rounding-numbers.html

Let me know if it's too much...

Rounding is irrelevant, your statement was that 1.5 is less accurate than 0.82. This is wrong and now you are dragging the thread off topic.

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

If you are in a surplus, pretty much identical. If you're in a surplus you need less protein than a cut so carbs to help performance would be best.

It's the "pretty much" part im interested in. It's either identical or it isn't. If it isn't, I'd like to know what effects it and how.

As I said, I understand why more protein is needed in a cut and I understand and accept that 0.82 may well be a max protein intake. I'm just interested in knowing if the macro breakdown of the surplus has any effect if its different. If the answer is yes, then there may be another different benefit to increasing protein intake.

But if youre saying the answer is no, well that's the answer then.

generic2012 wrote: »

Your assuming the numbers are rounded which was never said. I would never trust a website called maths is fun anyway!! That's worse than the lad who was referencing Taubes, Sisson and Wolfe as reliable sources of information on 'high carb' (normal) diets!

Im not assuming anything in relation to those particular numbers. I'm talking about math in general. The more numbers after a decimal place the more accurate the figure is.

Obviously the website was intended to be a joke! Perhaps more protein increases the sense of humour?

NoQuarter

runawaybishop wrote: »

Rounding is irrelevant, your statement was that 1.5 is less accurate than 0.82. This is wrong and now you are dragging the thread off topic.

Hypocritical from someone who came into the thread and picked up on an off-topic point solely!

runawaybishop

NoQuarter wrote: »

Hypocritical from someone who came into the thread and picked up on an off-topic point solely!

I made the point you are debating. You are also using the term "hypocritical" incorrectly.

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

It's the "pretty much" part im interested in. It's either identical or it isn't. If it isn't, I'd like to know what effects it and how.

OK, th 'pretty much' part is that replacing any excess protein with carbohydrates of the same caloric value will lead to better results due to performance increase.

NoQuarter wrote: »

Im not assuming anything in relation to those particular numbers. I'm talking about math in general. The more numbers after a decimal place the more accurate the figure is.

So 1.5000 is more accurate than 1.500? which is more accurate than 1.50? Which would mean 1.50 is a different number to 1.500 and also 1.5000.

NoQuarter wrote: »

Obviously the website was intended to be a joke! Perhaps more protein increases the sense of humour?

Protein obviously doesn't increase sense of humour because you eat more protein than me......

generic2012

runawaybishop wrote: »

I made the point you are debating. You are also using the term "hypocritical" incorrectly.

Insulting his Maths and now his English!!?? For shame!

NoQuarter

runawaybishop wrote: »

I made the point you are debating. You are also using the term "hypocritical" incorrectly.

You only made a point in relation to the off-topic part of the posts. No added value to the on-topic part. I haven't used "hypocritical" incorrectly. You are hypocritical in that you give out that I am doing something wrong yet you are doing it too. You probably think "ironic" is the right word. Good for you.

generic2012 wrote: »

OK, th 'pretty much' part is that replacing any excess protein with carbohydrates of the same caloric value will lead to better results due to performance increase.

Ok that's interesting. I can see the logic there. It still doesn't sit well with me that if I ate 500 calories of chicken as my surplus (accepting that there will be no more protein absorption) or drank 500 calories of milk as my surplus every day for a year, there wouldn't be any difference to my lean muscle/fat gain.

Ill ignore the maths part.

generic2012

NoQuarter wrote: »

Ok that's interesting. I can see the logic there. It still doesn't sit well with me that if I ate 500 calories of chicken as my surplus (accepting that there will be no more protein absorption) or drank 500 calories of milk as my surplus every day for a year, there wouldn't be any difference to my lean muscle/fat gain.

Everyone else on this forum thought that at some stage too, I imagine a lot of them still do. If you're eating a 500 calorie surplus your body doesn't know you want the chicken/milk to be the surplus a surplus is a surplus.

If your looking up stuff on the internet make sure and search for both sides of the argument. eg. gluten is bad and gluten isn't bad or whatever fad you wanna look up. Don't let your biases affect your search. If what you think yourself is right, then you should be looking up arguments against it and see how they shape up.

Egass13

runawaybishop wrote: »

There have been a good few studies that show no gains eating over .82 and the requirements for trained individuals can be a lot less.

Here's an article with a bunch of references - http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

Ok , myself and every bodybuilder I know , trainer and conditioning coach (which is one who is very sought after within the sport) are wrong . As are all bodybuilding dieticians and nutrition advisors . Maybe your right in the general sense , from a average person point of view . But from a body building point , it's wrong . The most basic requirement to gain mass is to consume 1-2 grams /lb of body weight.

Edit: having read that , I see your points , but I've never been known to be into science behind the sport, I pay people for that! It's a system that has worked for me for years and never had a problem or reason to question it. I also take note from the article that it is different for "assisted" bodybuilders shall we say. But without getting into that , I'll bow out and come back when I can issue a better arguement on the subject ! Best of luck lads .

NoQuarter

generic2012 wrote: »

Everyone else on this forum thought that at some stage too, I imagine a lot of them still do. If you're eating a 500 calorie surplus your body doesn't know you want the chicken/milk to be the surplus a surplus is a surplus.

If your looking up stuff on the internet make sure and search for both sides of the argument. eg. gluten is bad and gluten isn't bad or whatever fad you wanna look up. Don't let your biases affect your search. If what you think yourself is right, then you should be looking up arguments against it and see how they shape up.

The difficulty with that as I'm sure you know, especially in bodybuilding/nutrition circles, is that there is invariably a whole load of people saying both things. It's one of the things that frustrates me about this area and trying to research it.

Either way, when you are down to the level of considering the macro content of your surplus, you know you must be doing ok in general with the goals.

runawaybishop

NoQuarter wrote: »

You only made a point in relation to the off-topic part of the posts. No added value to the on-topic part. I haven't used "hypocritical" incorrectly. You are hypocritical in that you give out that I am doing something wrong yet you are doing it too. You probably think "ironic" is the right word. Good for you.

No, i brought up .82 initially because that is the recommended maximal amount. Responding directly to the purpose of a tread is not off topic.

For me to be hypocritical I'd have to be wrong, but I am not :pac:

runawaybishop

Egass13 wrote: »

Ok , myself and every bodybuilder I know , trainer and conditioning coach (which is one who is very sought after within the sport) are wrong . As are all bodybuilding dieticians and nutrition advisors . Maybe your right in the general sense , from a average person point of view . But from a body building point , it's wrong . The most basic requirement to gain mass is to consume 1-2 grams /lb of body weight.

Edit: having read that , I see your points , but I've never been known to be into science behind the sport, I pay people for that! It's a system that has worked for me for years and never had a problem or reason to question it. I also take note from the article that it is different for "assisted" bodybuilders shall we say. But without getting into that , I'll bow out and come back when I can issue a better arguement on the subject ! Best of luck lads .

If you are eating over what you need its not like you'll see a drop in progress. You'd have to eat under (say .5 grams per lb) for a while and record progress, then increase a bit, say to .75, and record, then go to .9, 1.2, 1.5, 1.75, 2 etc etc.

Most people will err on the side of caution when suggesting protein amounts but if you check the studies mentioned the .82 figure is actually doubly acting on the side of caution already.

Blacktie.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Most people will err on the side of caution when suggesting protein amounts but if you check the studies mentioned the .82 figure is actually doubly acting on the side of caution already.

How is it doubly acting on the side of caution?