Protein Shakes & Supplements

MysticMonk

Liquid egg whites

https://www.bulkpowders.ie/liquid-egg-whites.html

Mellor

Robinio wrote: »

My lean body mass was 118lb, not total weight. Total weight was 158lb. Should have probably made that clearer

Again, genetic potential of lean body mass. At 10% body fat, I would weigh 178lb

Will PM you the links to check out

Ok that makes a bit more sense.
FFIW, that equates to a fat free mass index on 24.8, 179lbs would be 24.99
Max natural potential is usually considered to be 25 - so the above numbers look about right.



Robino PM'd me the links mentioned above. I said I'd repost for him.

Protein Calculator
https://www.fitness-savvy.co.uk/protein-calculator-including-complete-and-incomplete-protein-advice/


DEXA scan, body recomp
https://www.fitness-savvy.co.uk/build-muscle-and-burn-fat-body-recomposition-facts/


I've only skimmed the body comp. It's not dissimilar form my own approach, with added caesin.


The the calculator. I put in my stats and was told to eat 216. I'm 74kg, so that sounds excessive to me. I think the reason is the habitual protein element. I eat about 100-150 per day currently.
I've checked out the reference study, and I think you are drawing a bad conclusion. The page states:

The same investigation found greater benefits when the level of protein consumed was much higher (+40-80%) than habitual intake of protein. Due to this, we have incorporated a field within the protein calculator for you to enter your habitual protein intake.

While that's true. I think jumping to the conclusion that you need to keep increasing protein is wrong. The wasn't a study to find the best diet approach, this was a review of 17 different studies.

The logic is that in the studies there the higher protein group was successful, they were consuming protein that was much higher than baseline.
In the failed to gain more studies, it was only 10% higher.
(Many studies didn't record the baseline, which makes them a bit useless for this part).
The control groups are going to still eating more or less at their baseline. If the high group isn't significantly higher, then it's not surprising that there's not a significantly different result. All that proves is that the "failed to gain more studies" were poorly set up, and that higher intakes do help with lean mass growth.

None of the studies reviewed had any evidence that protein consumption becomes habitual and has to be increased a third (or forth) time.

Robinio

My primary point is that when starting out, you will likely need far less protein. However, if I was eating 50 grams, upped it to 70 grams when I start, at some point, that 70 grams will not be enough to continue to encourage protein synthesis.

When I was training a couple of years ago, I seemed to plateau. This was before checking out these studies. I had been training for about a year. I increased my protein from about 140 grams per day to around 190, and noticed huge improvements. My routine did not change, only my protein consumption. I assumed I was eating less protein than I needed. This ties in with what I found from the studies, so has led me to test the whole thing out.

My theory, is that at some stage, protein consumption must become your "habitual" level. I kept my intake around 140 grams per day while I recently bulked, after my recomp. Only put on 3.5lb muscle - and that was in a caloric surplus. I have now gone back to recomp, and upped my protein intake by 40%. It will be interesting to see if I put on more muscle with the extra intake. I firmly believe I will put on around twice what I did while bulking on the lower protein. In fact, after just 4 weeks, I have already lost nearly an inch from my waist, and only 1-2lb in total weight.

I looked at how long it would take to build around 75%+ of your total potential, which should be achievable within 2 years if everything is done correctly. If I were starting out at around 60 grams of protein per day (given that it is likely not necessary to even increase habitual protein at the very beginning), and increased by 40% every 6 months (rather than gradually increasing it every week by a little), I would end up at the upper limit of around 1.5g per lb by 24 months. 

I started this new recomp at the start of September. Will have a scan at the start of December and write up the results.

At the end of 24 months, I will keep protein the same and see what happens over the next 3 months. I will, as a test, increase my protein intake yet again by 40% - to above what is recommended in current studies - to see if I manage to put on more muscle by doing this. If I put on more muscle, that would challenge much of what is currently understood about optimum protein levels. Now that's something worth being part of!

Mellor

Robinio wrote: »

My primary point is that when starting out, you will likely need far less protein.

Nothing in the links posted suggests you need less protein starting out.
In fact, some of them where probably untrained groups who did better on higher intakes.

However, if I was eating 50 grams, upped it to 70 grams when I start, at some point, that 70 grams will not be enough to continue to encourage protein synthesis.

Nothing in the studies suggest that 70g will be enough, but after a while it won't.
Literally, all that review is claiming and proving is that a higher intake is better.

When I was training a couple of years ago, I seemed to plateau. This was before checking out these studies. I had been training for about a year. I increased my protein from about 140 grams per day to around 190, and noticed huge improvements. My routine did not change, only my protein consumption. I assumed I was eating less protein than I needed. This ties in with what I found from the studies, so has led me to test the whole thing out.

If you increase protein, but didn't change anything else, you were consuming more calories. So its not surprising that you increased goals.

My theory, is that at some stage, protein consumption must become your "habitual" level.

I understand that's your theory, but you haven't back it up with a study yet.

I looked at how long it would take to build around 75%+ of your total potential, which should be achievable within 2 years if everything is done correctly. If I were starting out at around 60 grams of protein per day (given that it is likely not necessary to even increase habitual protein at the very beginning), and increased by 40% every 6 months (rather than gradually increasing it every week by a little), I would end up at the upper limit of around 1.5g per lb by 24 months. 

The studies prove that a higher intake is better. So what would you waste the first 12 m0nths my consuming less <100g. Makes more sense to start off at a moderate level and increase as LBM increases.

At the end of 24 months, I will keep protein the same and see what happens over the next 3 months. I will, as a test, increase my protein intake yet again by 40% - to above what is recommended in current studies - to see if I manage to put on more muscle by doing this. If I put on more muscle, that would challenge much of what is currently understood about optimum protein levels. Now that's something worth being part of!

If you go above the recommended max and still put on muscle, that won't challenge anything tbh. The point is that at a certain limit, there is no more additional benefit. Not that you can't put on muscle oer the limit.

In real terms, thats means eating at 3g/kg or 4g/kg makes no difference.
You'll put on the same muscle with both. If you manage to put muscle on at 4g, it proves nothing tbh. Sample sizes of 1 are useless

Robinio

If you look at a calculator like Bodybuilding.com, it tells me I need 220 grams of protein per day - regardless of whether I have just started out. I added 8.4lb of muscle while losing 6.2lb of fat in just 3 months on nearly half that amount.
 
This was in line with the studies I researched. Anyone who believes I would have added even more muscle than that in such a short space of time by eating 220 grams without taking steroids is crazy!
 
But I can tell you now, I cannot continue eating just 130-140 grams of protein per day. As I get leaner, and I put on more muscle mass, my requirements will increase. It makes more sense to me to "step" the increase every few months, rather than gradually increase by 1 gram every couple of days - which would be, not least, a nightmare to track.
 
If my habitual protein intake was only 50 grams before I set foot in a gym for the first time, an increase to 220 grams is not only not beneficial, but completely unnecessary.
 
Having checked my calculator the logic does take the “higher” of habitual and the calculator’s number to use. So if I enter 50 grams habitual intake, and my other stats it will still tell me to consumer 137 grams, not the lower figure of 70.
 
The studies state, currently, that there is no additional benefit above 3g per kg. But here is my point:
 
Let’s say I put on 3lb of muscle over 3 months on 220 grams per day (3g per kg of bodyweight). I am near my muscular potential, have been training for a couple of years, and at the top of the range. If, as an experiment, I increase to 300 grams per day (4g per kg, and an increase on habitual intake of 40%) and I were to put on 7lb of muscle - having not changed anything other than increasing my protein intake, surely this starts to question the upper limit? If the increase is negligible, i.e., 3.2lb v.s 3lb, then there is not much in it.
 
This has not been investigated, and that is what I am setting out to test. The problem with getting a study with more than 1 sample, is that there are not many people who would keep up with this for several years, from start to finish, in a strict fashion.

Mellor

Robinio wrote: »

If you look at a calculator like Bodybuilding.com, it tells me I need 220 grams of protein per day - regardless of whether I have just started out. I added 8.4lb of muscle while losing 6.2lb of fat in just 3 months on nearly half that amount.

220 is excessive. I agree. It's actually terrible advice.
You're 40% every 6 months will see you around there on the 4th increase.

What do you propose happens when are training into their 3rd and 4th years.
Anyone who believes I would have added even more muscle than that in such a short space of time by eating 220 grams without taking steroids is crazy!

What sort space of time are you talkng about?
You were training years to get to that point. You're starting bodyfat was also very high.

 
But I can tell you now, I cannot continue eating just 130-140 grams of protein per day. As I get leaner, and I put on more muscle mass, my requirements will increase. It makes more sense to me to "step" the increase every few months, rather than gradually increase by 1 gram every couple of days - which would be, not least, a nightmare to track.

As you get bigger all you requirements increae

 
If my habitual protein intake was only 50 grams before I set foot in a gym for the first time, an increase to 220 grams is not only not beneficial, but completely unnecessary.

Again, where are you pulling 220 nonsense out from. Increasing to 150g or so would be fine.

 
Having checked my calculator the logic does take the “higher” of habitual and the calculator’s number to use. So if I enter 50 grams habitual intake, and my other stats it will still tell me to consumer 137 grams, not the lower figure of 70.

I have similar stats to you. Similar amount of time training.
It suggested I eat 216g. That's a ridiculous figure (as you said yourself above).

 
The studies state, currently, that there is no additional benefit above 3g per kg. But here is my point:
 
Let’s say I put on 3lb of muscle over 3 months on 220 grams per day (3g per kg of bodyweight). I am near my muscular potential, have been training for a couple of years, and at the top of the range. If, as an experiment, I increase to 300 grams per day (4g per kg, and an increase on habitual intake of 40%) and I were to put on 7lb of muscle - having not changed anything other than increasing my protein intake, surely this starts to question the upper limit? If the increase is negligible, i.e., 3.2lb v.s 3lb, then there is not much in it.

If your rate of gaining muscle mass (not weight) suddenly doubles. That's significant. But I doubt it will.

 
This has not been investigated, and that is what I am setting out to test.