Getting Lean

I am currently trying to get lean, ie ripped + cut. I want a six pack!

I think it is coming along nicely and in the near future, for the first time in my life, I will have one.

I was wondering if anybody had any general tips or secrets that works for them to get lean. How do YOU do it?

I guess what I'm wondering is how do you keep yourself in that fat loss stage? How do you tell if you are burning fat or if you are gaining? I know that eating is important for muscle - but I don't know how much not eating you need to do to burn the fat... I am doing regular cardio... I am thinking maybe the cardio itself is all you need and then just eating sensibly will do the trick. I've never had an intense regular cardio regime before and I am hoping that in itself will help me do all the burning I need.

Has anybody had good results with counting calories they couldn't get otherwise? I think sometime soon I may start doing that if I am not getting the results I want. It is hard to tell if the fat is coming off. I guess persistence is key.

I hope I am not babbling, or beating a dead horse> I know "cutting" is talked about a lot but it is an important part of fitness, I figure new light can be shed on understanding continually because, you really never stop learning or growing.

Also, how important is a carb cut-off for getting to a low body fat?

What is your starting point?

What is your strategy?

Did you read the sticky?

Also, how important is a carb cut-off for getting to a low body fat?

I think it's the best way to save some calories. Not the only one, and not crucial, but the best.

I've read the sticky and other threads, some bodybuilding.com stuff too and just random articles. I was hoping someone would present some magic secret to leanness.

The past couple weeks I've been doing cardio like 3-4 times a week, sometimes more, generally first thing in the morning.

As far as my diet is concerned, I had been eating mostly fruitarian but recently I've recently been eating some cooked food like tofu and bean burgers, and builders bars.. cereal w/ soy milk + hemp protein, etc. I did get a little leaner on the fruitarian diet (I bet I have like 11% or thereabouts body fat), but I am still not cut like I want to be. I am liking the extra protein.

Still, the thing is that I can never tell if I am in a fat loss state.. Generally I can assume I am first thing in the morning, especially after the cardio. Sometimes even after I eat fruit or something after that, I still feel like I am burning fat after that.

Do you burn fat all the time or only like 3 hours after youve eaten? Does eating automatically cancel out your fat loss? Should I eat less often (still in small meals) or more often. Is snacking every 2 hours OK to still lose fat? At around 135 lbs (guestimate), I think somewhere between 1400 and 1800 calories would be good for losing fat. Or is that too much a deficit?

Here is about what I ate yesterday:

1 cup oatmeal w/ soy milk - 250

Apple- 80

Banana – 100

Banana/date/chocolate balls~ 300 calories

Small avocado – 100

Tofu + Soybean + Spinach (+a couple other veggies) Salad – 250

Halva – 300

Builder bar – 270

Total: 1650 calories

A little low on protein, but I am still working on getting protein sources in my diet while maintaining a balance of raw fruits + veggies. Also, more fat than I would like. Overall, I think it was an OK day. I doubt I lost much fat, but i don't think I really gained any either..

Hmm... sorry that this became a journal entry. I guess I will have to keep a log. Lemme know if you have any input to anything, though.

The past couple weeks I've been doing cardio like 3-4 times a week, sometimes more, generally first thing in the morning.

That's good, keep it.

Do you burn fat all the time or only like 3 hours after youve eaten? Does eating automatically cancel out your fat loss?

It depends on what you eat. Eating a meal/snack high in carbs stops the fat burning. Also, your rate of fat burning is higher in the hours after an intense workout.

So, i'd suggest for fat loss, eat complex carbs only twice per day (breakfast and lunch), snack with little carbs (raw food, esp. salads and veggies or nuts, sprouts) and in the evening eat high protein. Add healthy fats to that.

Should I eat less often (still in small meals) or more often.

More often, but not carbs (see above).

Is snacking every 2 hours OK to still lose fat?

Yes, as long as you don't snack carbs

At around 135 lbs (guestimate), I think somewhere between 1400 and 1800 calories would be good for losing fat. Or is that too much a deficit?

One key is to vary the calories per day. Determine the number of calories you need to maintain your weight, and then subtract 15%. Eat this amount on average per day for a week, but not every day the same number. Vary your calories by +/- 10% at least.

Also, more fat than I would like.

Fat is no problem, unless you eat high carbs also and exceed your calory total.

Overall, I think it was an OK day. I doubt I lost much fat, but i don't think I really gained any either..

I also think your attitude is detrimental to your goal

Peace,

Daywalker

I realized I never replied, so I just wanted to say thanks! I've learned a lot from this... both reinforing what I had already been hearing and how to apply it to my personal habits.

Daywalker wrote:

Fat is no problem, unless you eat high carbs also and exceed your calory total.

What would you say is high carb? Or for better word, how many grams is too much carbs?

Cristian, I think it comes down to basically sugar. THe more simple the carb -- potatoes; bread/s (especially white); cookies; cakes, energy/sports/health bars; cereals; pastas; noodles; etc. -- the quicker it turns to sugar and the more concentrated the sugars contained within them because they have been refined (except for potatoes, which are okay once in awhile -- eat the skin).

Complex carbs are better. Beans, which are complex carbs and a good protein source, are really good. Whole grains are also complex; quinoa, millet, amaranth, etc., unprocessed are best. "Whole grain" breads are not really that much better; but okay once in a while.

Fruit is also great, even if a simple "sugar" because its fiber slows the sugar absorption, plus the inumerable micro/phyto nutrients they contain make them a good choice.

Read about Carb Fats HERE; it's a short, 2-page article.

Dr. McDougall (promoets a high starch vegan diet) actually centers his diet around starches (potatoes, rice etc.) and recommends against any added fat and keeping fat intake below 20% of your total calories (studies showing fat is easily stored as fat, whereas the body does not store carbohydrates as well and normally raise metabolism and burns them instead.) His program has a very effective and stable weight loss record.

Again there are many studies showing starches lead to increased metabolisms (body does not store carbohydrates as it digest them as well as it does fat, so instead it just burns them - i.e. increased metabolism.) His newsletter has highlighted many of those studies.

http://www.drmcdougall.com/

Here is a link to message board about his diet: http://www.vegsource.com/mcdougall/

Newsletter archive: http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/articleindex.htm

Here is one article on this subject:

High Carbohydrate* Diet Causes Effortless Weight Loss

Effects of an Ad Libitum (without restriction on amount) Low-Fat, High-Carbohydrate Diet on Body Weight, Body Composition, and Fat Distribution in Older Men and Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial by Nicholas P. Hays in the January 26, 2004 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine found when older men and women consumed as much as they wanted of high-carbohydrate, low-fat foods they lost weight without “dieting.” Over 12-weeks, participants on the recommended diet lost about 7 pounds without cutting calories and without exercising – and almost 11 pounds with 45 minutes of stationary bike-riding, four times weekly. The control group lost no weight. The experimental diet was 63% carbohydrate and 18% fat – the McDougall diet is even more effective because it is 80% carbohydrate and 7% fat.

This article is an excellent review of the principles discussed in my book, the McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss, first published in 1994 (just to point out, not much has happened in 10 years for better nutrition). The authors provide many recent scientific references establishing why a high carbohydrate diet effortlessly and effectively results in weight loss without hunger in overweight people, and provides a lifetime of trim body weight maintenance.

The scientific explanations for why a diet of starches, vegetables and fruits is the real solution for obesity in the Western world are found in this article. These are the three main principles:

1) High carbohydrate foods are very low in calorie density – very bulky, so they fill the stomach with fewer calories than the Western (American) diet.

2) The fat you eat is the fat you wear – fat is effortlessly stored – excess carbohydrates are not turned into fat under normal living conditions – excess carbohydrate is simply burned off.

3) Carbohydrates satisfy your hunger drive – fats leave you unsatisfied and looking for food (carbohydrate). You act like an “Obsessive Compulsive Overeater” – like you have some kind of emotional-mental disorder, and all you really are is hungry for carbohydrates.

This article would be well worth a trip to your local library (hospital, university, or community) for a copy to help you explain to family and friends why they are on the wrong track. This article may also be purchased for $12 (US) over the Internet at: http://archinte.ama-assn.org.

Nicholas P. Hays; Raymond D. Starling; Xiaolan Liu; Dennis H. Sullivan; Todd A. Trappe; James D. Fluckey; William J. Evans. Effects of an Ad Libitum Low-Fat, High-Carbohydrate Diet on Body Weight, Body Composition, and Fat Distribution in Older Men and Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:210-217.

* Please understand that when I write about carbohydrates I mean starches, vegetables, and fruits – not donuts, cookies, cake, potato chips, and French fries.

Dr. Atkins's diet works too; doesn't make it optimal for health.

For optimal health a balanced diet is best:

Getting Carbs, protein, and whole fats.

If there is any program which is best, it's Dr. Fuhrman's "Eat to Live."

I've done McDougall. It's not optimal for health. Some will lose weight, I did too; but it is a diet most people struggle with. It is more of a "diet" than a program for life. Fuhrman's is a lifestyle program to eat for life.

I had *major* problems being on McDougall long term. I do notice now (incidentally, since Fuhrman's diet came out) that he advocates more vegetables and more raw (like Fuhrman) when he never did before. I have his first books and know his plan well.

If one is sick, of course they will be better on his plan: anytime you cut out junk you get "better."

I hope my post doesn't sound hostile, hehe; McDougalling is a peeve of mine from years of experience with it and from dealing with the zealotry of "McDougallers." The successful ones don't even follow his plan; they make exceptions in order to make it work. Interestingly, they end up doing a Fuhrmanesque plan, but refuse to call it so out of some weird Dr. McDougall worship.

Btw, I don't hate the good Doc. I get his newsletters and agree with 90% of what he advocates.

Here is about what I ate yesterday:

 

1 cup oatmeal w/ soy milk - 250

Apple- 80

Banana – 100

Banana/date/chocolate balls~ 300 calories

Small avocado – 100

Tofu + Soybean + Spinach (+a couple other veggies) Salad – 250

Halva – 300

Builder bar – 270

 

Total: 1650 calories

 

A little low on protein, but I am still working on getting protein sources in my diet

Actually it is not low in protein.

Protein estimate:

The oatmeal would have had about 8 grams.

SoyMilk " 5 grams

Banana " 2 grams

Banana/date/chocolate balls " 5

Avocado " 5

Tofu+soybean+spinach salad " 15

Halva "4

Builder Bar " 20

(The above are low estimates.) That would be 64 grams of protein. 4 calories per gram. So 256 calories were protein. That is 256/1650, or 15.5% of your diet is protein. Again, I made low estimates; it is probably closer to 20%. That is not a low protein diet. A no actvie person only needs about 7%. Active body builder 15 to 20%. If you need more protein (not higher percentage of your diet being protein) then you need more food. Just eat the same but more.

.

Ideally, if you want to gain muscle mass while minimizing body fat, you should stick to about a 55/30/15 (C/P/F) to a 55/25/20 (C/P/F) ratio. The amount of fat in your diet should depend on what kind of training you do. Since weight lifters use only ATP and glycogen stores, they don't use much fat.. so if you eat too much, it will get stored.

Your calories should always come from the best sources possible: whole grains, proteins, fruits, and veggies. You NEED protein to gain muscle.

~ Adrienne

Dr. Atkins's diet works too; doesn't make it optimal for health.

 

Sorry to make a rebuttal and I do not want to debate it here (and you sounded the same) but I responded because you imply his diet as on par with Dr. Atkins, which it is not. Atkins causes starvation symptoms (ketosis) in the body and water loss and increases diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, etc. while Dr. McDougall's diet has helped many people cure those diseases to conditions where they no longer had to take drugs to treat them. Again, Atkins has the opposite track record when it comes to those diseases.

Note: I do not follow his diet because I eat more fat and fruit than he would recommend but I never had a weight problem (in fact many days, I have to hunt more calories to eat -and those extra choices are usually dense calorie food -peanut butter etc.) is the main reason I do not follow it.

Ideally, if you want to gain muscle mass while minimizing body fat, you should stick to about a 55/30/15 (C/P/F) to a 55/25/20 (C/P/F) ratio. The amount of fat in your diet should depend on what kind of training you do. Since weight lifters use only ATP and glycogen stores, they don't use much fat.. so if you eat too much, it will get stored.

 

Your calories should always come from the best sources possible: whole grains, proteins, fruits, and veggies. You NEED protein to gain muscle.

 

~ Adrienne

I posted a study here a months or so ago. It showed based on nitrogen measurement that even competitive body builders do not need the protein amounts you are advocating. It should be here somewhere. I have to go. I will check for it tomorrow.

Dr. Atkins's diet works too; doesn't make it optimal for health.

 

Sorry to make a rebuttal and I do not want to debate it here (and you sounded the same) but I responded because you imply his diet as on par with Dr. Atkins, which it is not.

I did not imply it was on par with Atkins; it was simply analogous to "what works."

Note: I do not follow his diet because I eat more fat and fruit than he would recommend but I never had a weight problem (in fact many days, I have to hunt more calories to eat -and those extra choices are usually dense calorie food -peanut butter etc.) is the main reason I do not follow it.

Yes, that was just my point .

Cutting good fat is not health promoting. For one, and probably the most important, fat is needed for proper brain function. McDougall and his "the fat you eat is the fat you wear" is NOT true. Fat-free is one of the worst scams perpetrated on the public; and even if McDougall style is better, cutting fat is not good. You don't get enough naturally from eating a no-added fat diet. Most McDougallers complain of compulsions to overeat; bingeing; mood swings; always feeling hungry; bloating; never a feeling of satiety; dry hair, skin, nails; on and on and on...

Dr. Fuhrman recommends 1 TB flax seeds, ground every day, as well as Dr. Greger. As well, 1-ounce of nuts or seeds per day. The diet is based on vegetables first, with an emphasis on the concentrated nutrients contained in leafy greens, then beans, fruit, fat; if you are still hungry, then eat starches.

I'm glad you don't follow it But, yes, McDougall is a good doctor and I've learned a lot from him. His is the second veg diet I followed. Dr. Shintani is actually the first -- actually, he's the original -- McDougall learned from him, and basically copied his plan. Shintani's was actually better.

ETA: Of course I don't advocate fat eating with abandon! Reading the China study will clear it up for most folks.

A small amount of *whole-food, healthy* fat, like Drs. Greger, Harris and Fuhrman recommend is optimal.

I posted a study here a months or so ago. It showed based on nitrogen measurement that even competitive body builders do not need the protein amounts you are advocating. It should be here somewhere. I have to go. I will check for it tomorrow.

The nitrogen measurements are definitely not taking something into account because if you go from 50 to 100 grams of protein a day to 200, 300 or more you do very suddenly gain strength. But this slight boost in muscle mass/strength (up to 10% strength gains) is something that occurs pretty quickly. (A month at most.) And diligently keeping protein levels so high does not result in any additional gains over the long term.

So people who say you have to protein stuff to make optimum long term gains are wrong. And people who say there is absolutely no reason to protein stuff are also wrong.

The nitrogen measurements are definitely not taking something into account because if you go from 50 to 100 grams of protein a day to 200, 300 or more you do very suddenly gain strength. But this slight boost in muscle mass/strength (up to 10% strength gains) is something that occurs pretty quickly. (A month at most.) And diligently keeping protein levels so high does not result in any additional gains over the long term.

 

So people who say you have to protein stuff to make optimum long term gains are wrong. And people who say there is absolutely no reason to protein stuff are also wrong.

Actually, my memory failed me, in my earlier post. I re-read the study yesterday and it states in the preface that it is not based on nitrogen measurements, as that is an indirect measurement. The study is simply based on whether weightlifters gained muscle mass or not and it showed they do gain muscle mass with much less protein requirement than is proverbially opined.

Added note: The study hits on what you wrote. More protein is needed for initial body builders because they are gaining more rapid mass than a long-time weight lifter who experiences less gain as his muscle are already well developed.

Back on the protein requirements: from the studies, for advanced body builders the protein needs where found at 1.05grams per kilogram of body weight. That is about .48 grams per pound of body weight. That would put an advanced body builder weighing 180 pounds at an around 90 grams of daily protein requirement. A concluding study put the range at .8 to 1.5 grams per kilogram of body weigh (.36 grams to .68 grams per pound of body weight.) Even the upper end is far less than the 20 to 30% of calories from protein that is so prevalent, in the body building community.

Here is the paper (collection of studies): http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2003issue4/vj2003issue4weight.htm

Now this is important for two main reasons:

First health:

Of the three macronutrients, protein is used least and less efficiently by the body for energy (carbohydrates first, fats second and protein last) so you will have less overall energy from a high protein diet as your body utilizes more energy (than it would for carbohydrate and fat conversion) to convert the protein to energy. Also, the acid level of protein causes our bodies to work hard to bring the acid level down, if protein is digested in high amounts. Also, the kidneys get a large work-out from filtering the high protein. One of the first things a doctor will do if you have kidney problems or lose a kidney is advice restricting your protein intake.

Second: Representing vegans

Statistically (less than 1%), you and I do not exist. Even diary and egg vegetarians (2 to 3%) are so rare that many people will never know one. For most people that know you, you are probably the only vegan they know; so by lack of number, you represent vegans. You are either going to reinforce or help break the vegan stereotypes (pale, sickly, weak - all because of low protein.) Having an athletic and muscular body, it will be easy to help break the stereotype but I think that if you then tell the person, "I have to eat all kinds of protein supplements to get enough protein", you will still likely reinforce the vegan myths. People will likely take from that situation: vegans can get enough protein but they have to eat all kinds of cumbersome supplements and pay close attention to their diets - no thanks I won't go to that trouble.

Instead explore protein requirements. That way you can sincerely say, "I get enough protein from my diet - no special care or analyzing is needed." That situation is more likely going to help break the vegan myth.

And it would be easy for each of you to prove it to yourself - just try it and see. I am sure to get over the 10% protein intake, many here take supplements (protein shakes, bars etc.) so cutting back your protein intake would be easy. For example, instead of a protein bar with 40%+ of its 300 calories from protein, eat two bananas (about 8% protein) for the same calories. Se how easy it would be to try. So, try it for a few weeks and see if anything in the muscle mass and exercise area changes.

From my own experiences (I analyze my diet and my protein intake ranges from 8 to 12% daily and I have no problem developing muscle mass), I know you will not have trouble. Bigwii is another example here. He has many pictures posted here and one can see he has no trouble developing muscle mass and based on his diet posts, his protein intake ranges from 8 (if only fruit) to 12% (if more nuts.) So why not try and see what happens too? I know it is hard to break proverbial wisdom. I catch myself thinking about protein(do I need more?) too. The protein-is-king idea is engrained into our society but truth is truth and is not democratic (just because a lot of people think something does not make it so.)

I posted a study here a months or so ago. It showed based on nitrogen measurement that even competitive body builders do not need the protein amounts you are advocating. It should be here somewhere. I have to go. I will check for it tomorrow.

Maybe not, but I know what works for me. These are the *general* guidelines of performance nutrition. 20 - 30% protein isn't THAT high. You're grouping anything over 10% as excessive.

Some amino acids, like L-leucine and L-valine, are used for energy in exercise. Without ONE essential amino acid, a complete protein can't be built and the "protein" can't be used for repair. The body cannot make essential amino acids, so you MUST get them through diet.

Protein is used for cell building and repair (but you have to have ALL essentials); amino acids are also required for the production of enzymes, hormones and DNA. Your body needs amino acids for many important processes in the body and if it doesn't have enough, it will start breaking down your muscles to get them. You prefer to find out what that point is. I don't. A moderate amount of protein is used as a buffer for athletes.

Athletes are a special case because they are constantly stressing their bodies, which lead to the need for constant repair and an increased demand on ALL systems.

~ Adrienne

 

Athletes are a special case because they are constantly stressing their bodies, which lead to the need for constant repair and an increased demand on ALL systems.

 

~ Adrienne

Those are good points; cell repair and growth are important. In that regard, let's look at a case that I think would be more special than the athlete one: the human infant.

A normal human infant doubles its mass in six months.

Now look at an infant's prescribed food, human milk. Human milk has less than 7% of its calories as protein. http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c201X.html 1 cup has 172 calories and 3 grams of protein (3X4)/172 < 7%.

How do infants double their mass, which includes much cell growth and repair (the bones, organs, skin - everything is doubling in six months) on 7% of its calories being protein, while an adult athlete needs 20 to 30%?

Maybe my view is wrong, but I just do not see how the physical stress of weight lifting is going to make a an adult body builder's body have more cell repair than an infant, doubling all its mass, has.

These are the *general* guidelines of performance nutrition.

By your asterisks on general, I assume you mean it is not to be questioned. This is what I meant by my earlier comment that truth is truth - it is not democratic ( a lot of people believing something does not mean it is true - it is either is or is not on its own facts - I desire to know those facts.)

Many times conventional wisdom is correct. Maybe this is one of them and you are completely right and I am wrong. If that is the case, I would like to know. So, please share any studies that show that athlete needs 20 to 30% protein intake. Again, I would be very interested in study them because I want to gain the knowledge.

Note: Do not take my arguments personally. You are confident in your position, so I am questioning you because I want to learn.

Now look at an infant's prescribed food, human milk. Human milk has less than 7% of its calories as protein. http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-B00001-01c201X.html 1 cup has 172 calories and 3 grams of protein (3X4)/172 < 7%.

 

How do infants double their mass, which includes much cell growth and repair (the bones, organs, skin - everything is doubling in six months) on 7% of its calories being protein, while an adult athlete needs 20 to 30%? Could an athlete adding maybe 5% to 10% mass, in 12 months really have a higher protein requirement (4 times higher) than an infant doubling its mass in six months? Maybe my analogy is flawed (how?) Please share any studies indicating how much protein athletes need. I would sincerely like to study them.

So.. how many cups of milk would you say an infant consumes in one day? About 5 cups? That's 15g of protein (which is also the RDA). A 6-mo old infant weighs about that, so although the baby is getting only 7% of its calories from protein, it is STILL getting around 1g per pound of bodyweight.

(On a side note about the RDA - RDAs are only put in place so that nutritional deficiencies can be avoided, like scurvy and rickets. They are only BARE MINIMUMS. Most individuals need more than what the RDA suggests.)

Also, infants are not all that active, so most of the nutrients they consume can go straight to growth. Most of the protein they consume can be utilized as a repair/growth mechanism.

By your asterisks on general, I assume you mean it is not to be questioned. This is what I meant by my earlier comment that truth is truth - it is not democratic. Just because a lot of people say something does not make it true. Altough, many times conventional wisdom (what other people say) is correct. Maybe this is one of them and you are completely right and I am wrong. If that is the case, I would like to know. So, please share any studies that show the athlete needs 20 to 30% protein intake. Again, I would be very interested in study them because I want to gain the knowledge.

The asterisks are there because *general* means that the guidelines don't take special situations and individuals into account.

Let me go dig some up. I'LL BE BACH (says in my best Arnold voice.)

~ Adrienne

Here's the RDA chart:

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/430/20031010153031/www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/tables/t1_3a.gif

Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy of Sciences--National Research Council

~ Adrienne

(On a side note about the RDA - RDAs are only put in place so that nutritional deficiencies can be avoided, like scurvy and rickets. They are only BARE MINIMUMS. Most individuals need more than what the RDA suggests.)

Actually by the admission of the setting organization that is wrong. The chief reason for setting RDAs is to guard against those diseases, in the majority of people. They are requirements for average (not chronically sick people) people to avoid malnutrition diseases. Also, most RDA are almost doubled for safety; they are not bare minimums.

I can not find a link now but the RDA setting organizations even states that the methodology I described above is what they do.

I goggled it quick and found this dietician site to state:

http://www.dietitian.com/rda.html

Summary:

The Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) were established to cover the nutritional needs of all normal, healthy persons living in the United States. Canada and some foreign countries each have their own RDAs. Canada has a Recommended Nutrient Intake (RNI).

The Food and Nutrition Board of National Academy of Sciences set the values for the RDA's based on human and animal research. They usually meet every five years to review current research on nutrients.

A Recommended Dietary Allowance is established for protein, vitamin A, D, E, K and B6, B12, C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folacin, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, iodine and selenium. The recommended amount is set to cover 98% of all normal healthy persons in the United States. It does not cover the nutritional needs of people with illness or chronic disease. There is a margin of safety built into the RDAs. The average, healthy person can consume at least 67% of their RDA and still be adequately nourished.

Based on your table, my protein requirement [(155 pounds/176 pounds) * 63 ] would be 55 grams. Take the RDA safety buffer out so 67% of that would give me a 37 grams requirement.

I would never eat under that. I eat 2700 to 3000 calories a day. My diet is about 10% protein. So my range is naturally going to be 67 to 75 grams, on average. About three days a week, I eat soy yogurt, peanut butter, fruit and hemp protein shakes (again I admit the dogma is hard to break - I also love the taste of those shakes and they are a convenient way to get calories - I load with simple carbohydrates before weight lifting and end recovery with the shake and I like the quick dense calories it provides.) for another 25 to 30 grams, so my range is bumped on average another 12 grams a day but I would not considered that the same level of supplements I see advocated. It does help my peace of mind, in case I am wrong (I am opened minded and I want to know - so again please share athlete studies - were cause and affect are shown such as in the one I posted)) but it does not present the dangers that I feel are present in the high protein range (the 20 to 30% range.) In other words, some days of a 50% (10% increased to 15% total calories as protein) to me are prudent, as safety in case I am wrong but a 100% to 300% (10 to 20 or 30) would scare me (cancer, kidney problems, calcium etching due to the high acid)) and as I wrote before, hurt the vegan stereotype by implying the vegan diet can not supply enough protein on its own (no protein supplementing.)

 

So.. how many cups of milk would you say an infant consumes in one day? About 5 cups? That's 15g of protein (which is also the RDA). A 6-mo old infant weighs about that, so although the baby is getting only 7% of its calories from protein, it is STILL getting around 1g per pound of bodyweight.

I would imagine the infant, growing at its rate, would need more protein per body mass than an adult body building. So I agree with your assessment but you miss my point about percentage.

From your post, you agree the baby is getting by with 7% protein, yet you advocated 20% to 30%, in cases where I would imagine the protein need would be less - body building where the adult is growing but no where near the rate of the infant. My main point was the percentage of calories as protein not the isolated amount of protein. If you need more protein, you probably need more fuel (protein is the third used macronutrient for fuel - the body will first use carbohydrates, then fat then protein, as its fuel - Diets like Atkins reverse this by causing ketosis - which also leads to the body eating own muscle more efficiently than it does in a normal state - just a guess but some body builders may be doing this to themselves from their high protein intakes), so just eat more and increase your grams of protein, as you increase calories, versus increasing the percentage of calories as protein, is my point. For example, if I usually get 10% of my diet as protein and get around 75 grams on a 3000 calorie diet, I can increase my protein intake by 50% by eating 50% more. On my heavy workout days, I probably do that (eat 4500 calories), as I eat about 50% more food. My protein intake then automatically jumps to around 110 grams. Again, my arguement was against the percentage (% of total calories as protein) not the isolated measurement of protein (intake of grams of protein.) Sorry, if I was not clear on that, earlier.