More Is Not More The study, led by Douglas Paddon-Jones, PhD, and reported in the September 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, compared muscle synthesis (formation) and anabolic efficiency in response to meals with moderate and high amounts protein in 17 young (average age 34) and 17 old (average 68 years) volunteers. The subjects were healthy and physically active. Both meals were made up of gently warmed precooked ground beef. One meal contained 30 grams of protein (the rough equivalent of 4 ounces of chicken, fish, dairy, soy, or, in this case, lean beef). The other meal contained three times as much protein, 12 ounces of lean beef and 90 grams of protein. “We recently demonstrated that a single moderate-size serving of a protein rich food (4 oz. lean beef) acutely increased muscle protein synthesis above fasting values by 50% in both young and elderly individuals,” the researchers wrote in introducing the study. “A 4 oz. serving of 90% lean beef (220 calories) contains approximately 30 g of protein, 10 g of essential amino acids (EAA) and represents 50% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for a 75-kg [165 lbs] individual.” The question they set out to answer was whether more protein would stimulate additional muscle building. “[We] sought to determine whether a three-fold larger protein and energy-rich meal (12 oz. lean beef, 90 g protein, 30 g EAA, 660 calories), representative of the exaggerated portion size available in many restaurants, can be justified by an increased ability to acutely increase muscle protein synthesis in healthy young and elderly individuals.” The answer is “No.” Here’s how they measured protein use and what they found. Using blood samples and thigh muscle biopsies, they found no added muscle gain in the subjects eating the larger meal. Young and old volunteers responded the same. “Despite a three-fold increase in protein and energy content, there was no further increase in protein synthesis after ingestion of 340 g lean beef in either age group,” they reported. “Ingestion of more than 30 g protein in a single meal does not further enhance the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis.” (The analytical method used monitored the blood samples and muscle biopsies, before and after ingestion of the meal, for changes in an amino acid necessary for growth and protein metabolism; details are in the study.) As indicated earlier, the researchers say it is agreed that “the ingestion of high quality protein [egg, milk, chicken, fish, and beef are examples] is of paramount importance in the maintenance of muscle mass and function.” Moreover, recent research "suggests that moderately increasing dietary protein intake above the recommended dietary allowance of 0.8 g protein/kg/day may enhance muscle protein anabolism." (Emphasis mine) The key finding is that nothing is to be gained by piling on protein in a single meal. (The researchers acknowledge that some additional protein may be useful in the hour or so after strenuous exercise.) Paddon-Jones and his colleagues suggest that moderate amounts of protein from various sources be consumed over the course of the day. Unfortunately, few Americans follow this advice. http://www.cbass.com/Protein_Muscle.htm
I agree completely. The body can only process so much at one sitting. The rest goes to waste, literally. That goes for vitamin and minerals too
A little bit misleading. The more protein you have in a meal, the more muscle protein synthesis you have but it has diminishing returns (muscle full effect). So at some point, there will be no more muscle protein synthesis and the above study suggests this happens at some point below 90g but above 30g. To say that MPS stops at exactly 30g is pretty ridiculous if you think about it. What is also not discussed is how protein intake offsets muscle protein breakdown. Here's a 2015 study which compare 40g v 70g of protein in a meal and shows that net balance of (body) protein increases with the 70g protein meal but this is mostly due to less protein breakdown rather than muscle protein synthesis. http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/310/1/E73 Distribution of the amount of daily protein intake is very important...research suggest no less than 0.3g per kg bodyweight per meal with much more in the meal after working out to take advantage of the anabolic window that exists. Too many meals a day infers a refractory response per meal due to low average amount of protein per meal, too few meals (say 1 or 2) means too much protein per meal which infers diminishing returns on mps as already mentioned.
The study didn't suggest it stops at exactly 30 grams. It found that there was no added muscle gain from the larger meal. So, arguably, it is even possible that the limit is below 30 grams. Your comment about "some point below 90g but above 30g" is not supported by the evidence in the study. Read it again:
Fine, but the study i quoted shows increased protein in the body (either by mps or a decrease in breakdown) from 40g to 70g. So the point is that higher protein meals (certainly above 30g) do confer additional protein benefits to the body, but at a diminishing rate.
I had a quick look at the study you posted, and it evidently draws a different conclusion than does the study I posted. Since I don't have training in this area I cannot comment on which study is the more valid of the two. But I am inclined to go with the results of the study I posted for practical reasons. I eat a number of smaller meals each day both because I read it's good for me and because I prefer it. I try to get at least a bit of protein in each meal, and I try not to consume too much protein over the course of the day, both because I don't want to unduly stress my liver and kidneys, especially as I get older, and because of the upper limit of the daily recommended allowance even for active adults engaged in strength training. So in what universe would consuming anything approaching 70 grams of protein in a single meal make any sense for me?
Different strokes for different folks. http://www.lgmacros.com/martin-berkhan-birth-of-leangains-leaked/#.WO5DkU0zWt8 PWO I always had the same meal: one box of cereal (500g of either Special K, cornflakes or something else with a low fat content) and 1.5 litres of skim milk. Easy to eat and packs about 2300-2350 kcal, 400g carbs and 100-120g protein.
After a workout, a high protein meal is advisable to take advantage of the anabolic window, which may last for a couple of hours to days depending on training status. I personally have a meal about an hour after i finished training containing at least 50g of protein.
I know. And I adhere to the concept, although I'm not quite as gung-ho as you are. (At least 50 grams?!) In any event, the researchers in the study I referred to recognized this issue:
Nothing like 16 teaspoons of added sugar (the amount in 500 grams of Special K) to start the day. Oh, and he got the protein content wrong. It totals about 190 grams, because the 500 gram box of Special K has about 112 grams of protein, excluding the skim milk which clocks in at about 78 grams or so for 1.5 liters. So because some guy on the Internet does it, it's okay? He also eats a kilogram of potatoes and a whole grilled chicken later in the day. Or, hey, how about a kilogram of cottage cheese? Not exactly the footsteps in which I care to follow.