# 130g of protein a day??



## Scoe141 (Jun 18, 2010)

Yea, thats what I figured I need to eat every single day.

My question is, I thought your body can only process like 30g at a time over "x" hours?

130 grams over the course of 18 hours, within 4 meals, every 4 hours, is about 32g of protein.

Do any of you do this? If so, is there any "easy" way so your body can easily digest it in a timely fashion? 

I don't come close to eating that every day... and I know I should. Just looking for advice to help make this easier... (I'm versed with the amount if protein in eggs, turkey, meat, tuna, protein shakes, milk, yogurt etc...) 

Maybe its just a matter of "doing it".


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

Scoe141 said:


> Yea, thats what I figured I need to eat every single day.
> 
> My question is, I thought your body can only process like 30g at a time over "x" hours?
> 
> ...


If you have a healthy digestive system, your body will digest and absorb most of the nutrients (aka protein in this case) that you eat in a single serving and over the whole day (within reason).

I believe that the thought that you 'cannot digest more than 30 g at one sitting' comes from the role of protein in turning on muscle protein synthesis. A dose of 8 -15 grams of essential amino acids which translates to a dose of 18 - 32 grams of complete protein (depending on the source) will maximally turn on protein systhesis. This is largely due to the leucine content of the meal.

Additional amino acids/protein are 'wasted' in the sense that they are more favorable metabolized for energy than to maintain LBM. This is the black and white stick man version and the true occurrence at the cellular level is way more complex.

Basically, the general line of thinking is to spread out your protein intake to 4 - 5 meals of 25 - 35 grams per meal. However, I am not aware of long term clinical studies which have studied this directly. This is based largely on the work of Laymen, Phillips, and Wolffe.

Does that make sense? Two large meals of protein is still very effective, but may not be as good. It also depends on how old you are. Older adults (50 - 55+) have a blunted MPS response to a meal containing AA, so they are encourage to use the 'spread approach' with 25 g / meal of high quality animal protein (if maintenance of LBM is a goal)


----------



## Scoe141 (Jun 18, 2010)

Sdeeer-

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond with such a thorough answer. It certainly helped a lot. I'm a 31yo male, weighing 153lbs and need to eat more protein then I do now! 

Hopefully you're great response will "fuel" my drive to eat better. With my schedule I could eat the required protein servings at about 11am, (as I work out in the morning) then all day after that. 

Thanks again and any other advice would be welcomed greatly appreciated!


----------



## ChuckDiesel (Apr 16, 2011)

Good post Sdeeer. I've never seen any studies or even heard why but have heard from people who know what they are doing that it is better to take in protein through grazing every 3 hours. I just take their word for it. I weigh 151lbs, 27 years old. I eat anywhere from 150 to 200 grams of protein a day, usually no more than 40 grams at a time though I don't think there is a negative affect to going higher per dose, you just don't benefit from the protein as much if at all. As far as spacing it out, I try to go at least 3 hours before taking in another heavy dose. That's on 5 meals a day, 1 always being a postworkout/ride protein shake. There are tons of snack foods that are high in protein you can snack on in between meals. A few low calorie options that are packed with protein are beef jerky, low fat cottage cheese, and protein shakes. It's easy to take in enough protein in the appropriate amounts per serving when you snack smart in between meals.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

I'm sorry to say I don't follow nutrition trends like I used to. Why so much protein?


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

JohnStonebarger said:


> I'm sorry to say I don't follow nutrition trends like I used to. Why so much protein?


According to Layman DK and others, protein needs are inversely related to energy needs. So if you are eating adequate or excess calories, protein may not be _as important_ but you may still be missing some of the benefit.

Additionally: Effect of Increased Dietary Protein on Tolerance to Intensif... : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

'additional protein intake reduced symptoms of psychological stress and may result in a worthwhile amelioration of the performance decline experienced during a block of high-intensity training'

And as I stated above, taking advantage of 'turning on' muscle protein synthesis multiple times per day has been shown to increase recovery and LBM (acutely).

But it is important to remember that protein is just one macronutrient. Carbohydrate, fat, and micronutrients, as well as overall diet quality to match your lifestyle and goals are also important.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

If you're on a calorie restricted diet to lose weight while training, it's good to keep an eye on protein intake to ensure enough for muscle recovery and building. In "Racing Weight" Matt Fitzgerald recommends 30% of calories be gotten from protein. Older riders may also need higher protein intakes. In "Cycling Past 50" Friel recommends 0.5-0.7 gm/lb for young athletes and 0.1-0.2 more /lb for those over 50. The high number works out to 150gm for a 50+ 165 lb rider.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*High number*



JohnStonebarger said:


> I'm sorry to say I don't follow nutrition trends like I used to. Why so much protein?


This person is shooting for 0.85 gm/lb which is very definitely on the high side of recommended. I would be interested as to where Friel got the higher recommended numbers. Even 0.7 is probably higher than most people need.

I'm sorry but anyone who recommends a percentage of the diet is giving very weak advice. 30% might make sense for someone who is not very active and is on a calorie restricted diet (maybe 1700 calories a day for a 180 lb rider) but gives outrageously high protein intake for someone who is exercising an hour a day.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> This person is shooting for 0.85 gm/lb which is very definitely on the high side of recommended. I would be interested as to where Friel got the higher recommended numbers. Even 0.7 is probably higher than most people need.
> 
> I'm sorry but anyone who recommends a percentage of the diet is giving very weak advice. 30% might make sense for someone who is not very active and is on a calorie restricted diet (maybe 1700 calories a day for a 180 lb rider) but gives outrageously high protein intake for someone who is exercising an hour a day.


Perhaps beyond what's needed, but is there harm in consuming a greater portion of a daily caloric allotment in the form of protein, within reason?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Kerry Irons said:


> This person is shooting for 0.85 gm/lb which is very definitely on the high side of recommended. I would be interested as to where Friel got the higher recommended numbers. Even 0.7 is probably higher than most people need.
> 
> I'm sorry but anyone who recommends a percentage of the diet is giving very weak advice. 30% might make sense for someone who is not very active and is on a calorie restricted diet (maybe 1700 calories a day for a 180 lb rider) but gives outrageously high protein intake for someone who is exercising an hour a day.


Fitzgerald doesn't recommend 30% - he suggests this as a number if someone is trying to lose weight since protein is satiating, but indicates that with endurance training a % recommendation doesn't make sense because the % recommendation doesn't scale with the increase in total calorie intake (so suggests a figure based on body weight). He also notes that elite Kenyan runners consume at most 10% so there's a large range anyways.

As for Friel, sorry but he seems to be mostly wrong about stuff, particularly diet-related and is still pushing a paleo diet...


----------



## frank spigner (Feb 14, 2006)

*try the thrive diet*

Brandon Brazier rides , swims and runs . Maybe he could give us his .02 worth on the subject. You out there brandon??


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> As for Friel, sorry but he seems to be mostly wrong about stuff, particularly diet-related and is still pushing a paleo diet...


I wouldn't quite discount the paleo template as a possible method to still achieve good if not optimal performance. 

The body is very adaptable. The primary concern regarding the train low compete high and paleo studies of athletic performance has been the duration.

We know that metabolic adaptation to a dietary change may take time to fully occur as the enzymes needed to optimize this new plan take time to up-regulate. 

I am not yet for paleo, nor train low, compete high, but even Jeukendrup has suggested that there is some value in occasionally training with less than optimal glucose/glycogen loads.

And then there are individuals who 'think' they are athletes who would greatly benefit from eating less carbohydrates, better quality carbohydrate containing foods, and (gasp) more good for them fats!


----------



## stumiller (Nov 25, 2009)

To the OP I just began taking in ~120g/day about a month ago with 40-60 being in the form of lean protein mix. I'm 135lbs. Coming off a long cross season with about 10hr/week of base I was frequently sore and more tired it seemed before I started consuming the increased protein. Since I have begun adding protein and ramping up my training to 13-15hr/week I seem to be less sore and need less recovery time. Plus I have been making big strides in my climbing ability and overall power so far. Just started speed work last week so don't know how it will affect my overall sprinting ability but with the little I've done I feel strong on the bike. But I am new to the nutritional side of this sport so this is just my experience with it so far.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

sdeeer said:


> I wouldn't quite discount the paleo template as a possible method to still achieve good if not optimal performance.
> 
> The body is very adaptable. The primary concern regarding the train low compete high and paleo studies of athletic performance has been the duration.
> 
> ...


except it's based on a flawed assumption - that we are genetically most close to our paleo ancestors and that there hasn't been significant genetic change since the emergence of anatomically modern humans. This has been refuted by a decade or so of work in evolutionary genetics that has revealed major and rapid genetic changes since the advent of agriculture. We are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals. Much of this genetic change has been dietary adaptations, which make the whole premise of the paleo diet flawed. As you say, what typically emerges is also a diet that is far from the original paleo ones. Train low compete high can be untethered from the paleo framework, so 'paleo' becomes really just a marketing hook.


----------



## sdeeer (Aug 12, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> except it's based on a flawed assumption - that we are genetically most close to our paleo ancestors and that there hasn't been significant genetic change since the emergence of anatomically modern humans. This has been refuted by a decade or so of work in evolutionary genetics that has revealed major and rapid genetic changes since the advent of agriculture. We are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals. Much of this genetic change has been dietary adaptations, which make the whole premise of the paleo diet flawed. As you say, what typically emerges is also a diet that is far from the original paleo ones. Train low compete high can be untethered from the paleo framework, so 'paleo' becomes really just a marketing hook.


I agree that 'paleo' for the sake of doing as our ancestors did is a false premise. And that many who practice paleo diets are doing so based upon false logic.

But there is real peer reviewed clinical data based upon the 'paleo template' that is gaining support as a healthful potential plan for many individuals. 

Train low, compete high is currently under investigation, and, while it has not yet shown to be better than the conventional diet (AKA load up carbs all the time), there is some evidence that the enzymes that are changed are still on the 'up swing' such that the potential true effect of the diet is not realized in the clinical trial.

Thus more data and longer trials are needed. The most recent reviews on the topic suggest that we already do some low training bouts which may benefit us as athletes.

The bottom line is the science is still progressing. It should not just be recommended as an optimal diet to follow yet, but there is still _hope_. And it has not done worse than the traditional diet in the studies I have seen.

In fact, the paleo template is often 'healthier' than many choices 'atheltes' make. Especially those 'athletes' who do not carry large training loads but eat like they do. They may still be candidates for late T2D and CVD even though they are not aware of the risk that they are putting themselves at by following a 'traditional diet'.

I used to think that all things paleo were Whack. but I have been paying attention to the peer reviewed literature, and there are actually many valid points. I say peer reviewed, because many of the bloggers take it too far in their claims (ancestral health, cave man, etc, no wheat for anyone at any time, etc.)

But the inclusion of a higher fat diet primarily from 'good fats', noninflammatory foods, and 'healthy' vegetables and fruits is something that no one can disagree with.

The damning of grains is something that they take too far. I am in the process of trying to get real numbers for individuals who should not consume grains (leaky gut, zonulin, Glaidin in the blood, etc.) I have seen estimates from 10 - 40%. Not sure where the true data stands on that.

All I am saying (in a lot of words) is that the train low, compete high thought process might be 'healthier' for athletes who don't carry high training loads and is yet to be shown optimal for all/most athletes due to study design. 

If we get studies of 6+ months that are well designed that show no benefit of this strategy, then their cause is lost. But until then, the jury is still out. 

I wish I had the means to do a 6 month training study.

Edit....one last thing. I don't know Friel's motives. But Manny Noakes (the lore of running and ex phys guy) recently took up paleo eating. There are many athletes who are moving to that way of eating. We need the data to see if it truly works.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

IMO, paleo is wack, not whack. 

Wack - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

I'm reminded here of why I quit following nutrition. Certainly the various marketing hooks are misleading at best, but reductionist nutrition science has also failed miserably at guiding our eating habits. 
It makes me think Pollan is right ("Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."), that processed foods and the nutritionism that validate them have done nothing but hurt us. Maybe part of the grain of truth in marketing hooks like Paleo are that they encourage or motivate us to go back to eating real foods?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

sdeeer said:


> I agree that 'paleo' for the sake of doing as our ancestors did is a false premise. And that many who practice paleo diets are doing so based upon false logic.
> 
> ...
> 
> Edit....one last thing. I don't know Friel's motives. But Manny Noakes (the lore of running and ex phys guy) recently took up paleo eating. There are many athletes who are moving to that way of eating. We need the data to see if it truly works.


thanks for that - interesting comments. I agree re the value of exploring these. My own research concerns neural plasticity and particularly latent plasticity (requiring novel forms of stimulation), an area with limited exploration so far, so there's no doubt much room for exploring similar notions with diet.

As for Friel, here's at least some of his motivation: "Joe’s fee is US$10,000 for six months paid in advance." I don't know him personally, but put him in the same camp as Carmichael - someone who has done extremely well recycling other people's ideas....


----------

