Thanks for the nice reply. For this specific point, I strongly recommend reading this article if you’re interested: Protein Science Updated: Why It's Time to Move Beyond the “1.6-2.2g/kg” Rule • Stronger by Science It mentions that seminal article, and many more.
2 Likes
Ah yes, sorry, I missed that citation in your previous post and I went quickly through the study on the Morton metanalysis until the end, I like the abundance of graphs and forest plots but it will take some time to examine the plentiful details.
In the meantime, if we want to stick to recent guidelines and revisions of the RDA, the recommendations are surely higher, but I saw no trace of the amounts suggested by Peter Attia, Gabrielle Lyon, and others(excluding elite athletes).
I’m attaching an answer from GROK, known to be up to date on the current opinions drawn from all the material on the web, besides the scientific articles. The extreme (crazy???) amounts advocated by Attia/Lyion/others are only cited in elite athletes.
Expert Opinions and Guidelines
Experts increasingly advocate intakes above RDA for optimal health:
| Group/Population | Recommended Intake (g/kg/d) | Key Experts/Organizations | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy Adults | 1.0-1.6 | Mayo Clinic, Harvard Health, PROT-AGE Group | Better muscle synthesis, even distribution (25-30g/meal, 2-3 meals/day). |
| Older Adults (50+) | 1.0-1.5 | Stanford Longevity, ACL, PROT-AGE | Counter sarcopenia, preserve strength; ≥0.4g/kg/meal. |
| Active/Athletes | 1.2-2.0 (up to 4.4 for elite) | ACSM, ISSN, Mass General Brigham | Muscle repair, endurance; 15-25g post-exercise. |
Experts like those from IFM note challenges in meeting 120g/day but stress its value for muscle beyond aesthetics. Guidelines from FAO and others integrate quality metrics, urging reevaluation for global needs.
3 Likes
Something tells me we will not have a consensus on this topic for a very long time.
The answer is extremely likely to have a lot of individual variations due to a wide number of factors (activity levels, genetics, age, health, etc)
4 Likes
And that’s confirmed by the wide scatter in the data illustrated by the plots, like those outlined in the Morton 2018 metanalysis
4 Likes
Yeah but again, RDA is for the “average person” not “person interested in longevity”. I would like to believe I’m closer to elite athlete than I am “average person”, hehe.
1 Like
Well, now, I apologize that I’m suggesting a substantial logical mistake in the above.
There are many people interested in longevity who are following the suggestions of eminent biogerontologists and nutritionists like Valter Longo, Luigi Fontana, Walter Willet and Christopher Gardner. All of these luminars advise a protein consumption close to the RDA, or slightly above.
I also appreciate that you feel closer to an elite athlete, since that may constitute a major psychological boost. I also hope that your feeling is enough to convince the ribosomes to launch proportional translational processes. And if so, please share your secret!
4 Likes
Ha, that’s a very snarky response.
I reckon if a person is actually hitting the gym and actually attempting to gain/maintain muscle, they are indeed closer to elite athlete than a sedentary person. Their body actually has a need for that protein that a sedentary person does not. So I think we should go for higher protein than the RDA, but definitely doesn’t need to be excessive. Every person should figure out what works for them, whether for training or for diet.
I also don’t personally believe that CR or low protein diets will always be beneficial in humans. We know that we get frail and experience sarcopenia with age and maintaining muscle mass is an absolutely critical part of having a good healthspan. IMO I’d rank the importance up alongside the basics like managing your LDL-C and blood pressure.
However, at the end of the day, we’re all taking guesses. I think people (including me and you, Attia or Longo) tend to believe the evidence they want to believe, and disregard the evidence that doesn’t suit their beliefs. We all have some sort of vested interest. I think Attia sells protein bars, and Longo sells the Prolon diet. For some reason, diet brings out some weird, kinda religious, reactions in people. Somehow it’s somehow tied to their identity or belief system, so if you tell a vegan that animal protein is ok, or tell a meat eater than vegans live longer, they’ll all lose their minds.
3 Likes
Now, I’m glad we are speaking the same language. Almost identical. All your observations are sensible.
Also, maybe being a little naive, I don’t think that Attia is driven by interest, selling protein bars and jerks. He genuinely believes that, according to his muscle-centric, anti-frailty model, it is advisable to maximize protein, in younger and elder people. He provides a rationale, which I think is inherently flawed, but he provides it.
So, we are left with the huge question: Who is right? Probably nobody. or everybody, for some part of the population. We are dealing with a realm where it is evident that individual variability governs. Also, I have the impression that the mechanisms of utilization of protein and more specifically mixtures of amminoacids are not very much understood, yet.
My personal strategy is: optimize protein intake, prioritizing a bioavailable and digestible mix, in such a way that muscle mass is not lost and that the (obstensible) hazards of too much protein are minimized.
1 Like
LOW FAT VS. HIGH FAT
LOW CARB VS. HIGH FAT
LOW PROTEIN VS. HIGH PROTEIN
All of these are misguided premises of a pointless discussion.
It is more nuanced than just simple macronutrient amounts, it’s the details that matter.
The science on fat is pretty clear at this point. Extreme examples include trans fatty acid vs. omega-3. I would assume that 100% of forum users would in agreement on which to avoid at all cost and which to increase in the diet. Not all saturated fats are “bad” - pentanoic acid may actually quite beneficial.
Carbohydrates present a similar scenario. There are clearly good carbs like fiber and then there is pure sugar or simple starches with their high glycemic loads.
When it comes to protein, I think we are only beginning to understand how the source and composition will affect our health in the long term. Are those more anabolic amino acids like leucine, isoleucine, valine and methionine are something that we need to keep in check ? They stimulate M-tor, something that this forum is all about. Conversely, many members of this forum are already supplementing with glycine and forms of cysteine.
When it comes to sheer amount of protein needed, it definitely depends on weight and activity levels. Using universal one size fits all recommendations is as stupid as the common 6 glasses of water a day recommendations.
First of all, none of us here are professional athletes. Professional athletes train for an average of 20 to 40 hours per week, though this can vary significantly by sport, time of year, and individual athlete. Their easy work outs are your intense work outs. I spend many years as high level amateur athlete training about 10-15 hours a week, and I still wouldn’t come close. These people are a different species, extracting any data from professional athletes and applying that to general population is a fool’s errand.
I tend to agree with latest Stanfield recommendations of 1.2-1.3 grams/kg, although they still may be on top side of the range. The observational data from blue zones is between 0.8 to 1.2 I believe, and these tend to be very active people in general. The studies presented by Stanfield are compelling too. Seems like plant based protein may naturally regulate the amino acid composition associated with longevity. Remember, we DO NOT HAVE longevity studies for protein intake. So until we do we can only extrapolate from limited studies and observational data.
9 Likes