SuperMike335!!
Sidekick
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,462
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
IMHO it is a waste of money. Protein IS important, but most of the recommendations are for very serious strength athletes, in which case they still only need at most 1.2 grams per pound of lean-body-mass. Anything beyond that is waste.
Now in this case we are talking serious strength athletes, for the normal person looking to shed 15 pounds of fat and look good naked, at the beach, or just to have some self confidence, I think rounding down to 1 gram per pound of lean bodyweight is safe, and you will not lose muscle on that.
This amount of protein one can EASILY get from normal food choices, without wasting one dime on a powdered supplement.
You are 100% correct that bodymass directly relates to calories consumed.
As far as supplmenents go, even on a 1500 to 1700 calorie a day diet, what I use when I am cutting, I still get more than enough protein from normal foods.
The whole protein craze in my mind comes from supplement companies.
Most of the time the sources that claim we need huge amounts of it are either:
A. Magazine or Internet source which either advertises Protein supps, OR sells advertising space to someone selling the supps.
B. Someone parroting A.
Your point makes no sense do to the fact that some can calorie count all their lives and still be obese due to bad genetics. But there have been many test that prove that a more protein rich diet can decrease (in general) a bodies weight. Why do you think Greek yogurt has exploded all of the sudden?
Wrong.
They simply did not count them correctly, OR did not calculate their BMR or TDEE correctly.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to even maintain body weight in a caloric deficit. The Human body CANNOT defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
The might have "counted" calories, but still did not limit them enough.
If I burn 2500 to 2700 calories a day, to maintain my weight, then to lose 2 pounds a week I need to eat 1500 to 1700 a day, to get me a rough 7,000 calorie deficit for the week.
Lets say I was gaining weight, and eating 4000 a day. Then I cut back to 3000.
Guess what? I'd STILL be gaining weight.
Even though I reduced the amount I had been eating, I would still not be in a deficit until I got the calories lower than 2500 a day.
"Deficit" means less than what you burn in a day, NOT just less than you had been eating.
One also needs the deficit to be significant enough to see results. 500 calorie a day deficit is needed to lose up to 1 pound per week.
If someone is losing fat slower than that it will be hard to mentally stick with it, as most people like to see results.
Most people also grossly over estimate how many calories they really need.
They over estimate how much muscle they have if they are male in many cases, and add a couple inches of height to the calculator, but in the end they are screwing themselves as the MATH does matter.
Some people do burn more or less calories than others, for genetic reasons sure, but NOBODY can defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
And then we walked the 2 miles back, but at least it was downhill!
Women don't build muscle as mass like guys do, and it's even more true if you don't have the frame for it. I can lift more than my body weight and my measurements have barely shifted from when I was a weakling. I just don't have the frame for it. My muscle fibers have merely gotten more dense and efficient, but they have not gotten bigger.
