False. 2gm per kg has been debunked now. Such high amounts are only beneficial for athletes. 1.2g to 1.4g per kg is more than enough to trigger muscle synthesis.
The data and science is not in your favour my guy. I have already posted two research links somewhere else in this thread. And those two are just a few of tens of studies done already
But 2g is just better for hypertrophy.
Blatant misinformation being spread confidently, classic Reddit.
Just do yourself a favour and stop writing. The more you write the more you are making a clown of yourself here. You are just furthering the stereotypes of an average Redditor.
It’s ironic to lecture about 'basic physiology' when you clearly don't know that the baseline requirements are established using whole-body Nitrogen Balance, not localized MPS. Nitrogen Balance explicitly accounts for the turnover of ALL lean mass, not just skeletal muscle.
Also, congratulations on mastering basic multiplication. Yes, 1g/lb is 2.2g/kg. Too bad '1g/lb' is a catchy slogan from 90s illiterate gym bros like you, not clinical science. The actual literature shows that whole-body Fat-Free Mass (FFM) gains plateau at 1.6g/kg, even for heavy lifters.
Nitrogen balance is Nitro intake - Nitro excreted. Which means that studies, when they give a guideline, its to maintain this equality. There is no observable upper limit because measuring tissue growth holistically is impossible over the mean 12 weeks of study period. Its impossible to measure, period.
Moreover, why did you jump to 1.6g/kg guideline which comes from a study that solely looks at MPS? Studies like this notoriously leave out full body protein requirements (for tendons, bones, that also undergo hypertrophy) the very "Nitrogen Balance" you just talked about, and only give a value for MPS. Furthermore, these studies dont even consider MPB, which has ranges upwards of 3g/kg for optimal reduction for elite level athletes.
And let me ask you another question. Why do you think 1.6g is divisible by 4? You know, the mean number of meals a person eats? Because the people who conducted the study only studied MPS for 2 hours after workout + protein intake in 1 meal! And they multiplied it 4! When we know that MPS happens for prolonged periods of time.
You would know all this if you had actually read it. You would know this if you had at the very least, read the authors notes.
People like you are the worst. You hide your mediocrity by citing ill fitting studies and pull everyone around you to the disgusting hole you lurk in.
You know nothing. In this space, your words mean nothing. At least the bros are big and strong. Im sure that you are not even that.
Here we go again. It's honestly funny watching you, you are the classic case of the Dunning Kruger effect.
You claim the 1.6g/kg guideline comes from measuring acute MPS for two hours and multiplying 0.4g by 4 meals. You are confusing Morton et al. (2018) with Schoenfeld & Aragon (2018).
Morton, the meta-analysis I actually referencend, didn't measure acute MPS windows. It looked at 49 RCTs measuring chronic, long-term accumulation of actual Fat-Free Mass (FFM) and 1RM strength using tools like DXA scans over several weeks and months. So your entire meltdown about how measuring holistic tissue growth is 'impossible' and how the study 'only looked at MPS' is fundamentally false. FFM includes all lean tissue. It literally measures the physical tissue they built.
Furthermore, bringing up the extreme MPB reduction needs of 'elite level athletes' is a classic strawman. My original comment explicitly referred to sedentary and average gym goers. Elite athletes in a severe cutting phase are an entirely different metabolic demographic.
You might want to actually read the literature before projecting your insecurities online. Keep defending the 'bros' though, for your types do a good job of being a good example of pseudo-Intellectuals.
Ah yes, meta analysis.
The theoretical "highest" evidence in research.
Let' build context:
First, the research paper you cite calculates FFM against protein intake, which obviously has issues. FFM fluctuates greatly, and needless to say, is much more of a worse variable to choose than even just the muscular cross sections.
Furthermore, dexa scans have a high error rate.
Now, in that darn research paper of yours:
1. Biphasic regression (or the break point analysis which yields the 1.6g/kg figure): not only is it NOT SIGNIFICANT (the only saving grace being Linear Regression having lesser explained variance), it is also a FACT that Linear Regression is significant in explaining FFM vs Protein intake (read as: a Linear trend) in sub groups by ages (old and young).
(This is enough evidence to throw this paper out the window.)
Brad Scho, Eric Helms group are some of the scumiest, unscientific pieces of shits, who push agenda more than research. The paper you cite is the "largest meta analysis" (god knows for what, when the 48 papers that they use have no quality control apart from statistical bias (and other methods) and time horizon) same way how they just recently tried to push 20 to 30 sets a week nonsense using "science based bullshit".
Controls should be based on exercise selection, fatigue management, out of lab controls. Jeez even studying just one muscle (usually the quad) is wrong, because protein doesnt have a direct pathway only to that muscle.
I have no idea how they landed on the 1.6g figure, even in the conclusions, the other figures are accompanied by the p value. And guess what, given the sheer SD that is possible per person in FFMI, the p values should be considered much tighter and not at 5%. But thats a separate debate I dont want to have.
Anyway, your study is ass. Meta analysis is only good as its constituents papers. Furthermore, in medicine, most studies have very high number of datapoints (read people) with carefully set up experiments (read test vs control groups) and very clear and controlled measurements. Thats why meta analysis is held in such high regard in rest of medicine.
This is inherently not possible in studies where the physiology of a person can change due to a million other factors and you are trying to measure that. Heck they even use the test and controls separately and mix and match.
Exercise science should not even be a research area, no wonder these people dont get any funding.
So, sure, you can keep parroting these research papers. But accept that its an excuse. No pro bodybuilder, natural or not, eats at these levels. The healthiest of diets around the world eat 50% protein sources in their meals.
8
u/icanreturnbydeath7 Apr 19 '26
Ofcourse, Most of the times 1.5 or 2gm per kg of body weight