Ask
128
@yield_on_cost ·

Three calculators gave me three different protein targets for the same numbers — which one do I use?

78kg, lifting three times a week for about a year, not trying to lose weight quickly. One calculator said 95g, one said 125g, one said 160g, all from the same height, weight and activity level. I currently eat around 100g and I am not going to hit 160 without either shakes or reorganising every meal. Which of these numbers is actually load bearing, and did going higher change anything you could measure?

9 answers Share
Report

Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

  • @couchto5kagain · 2mo ago

    I ran roughly 1.2g per kilo for twelve weeks and then roughly 1.6 for twelve weeks with the same programme and the same calories, and logged everything. Strength went up in both blocks and the difference in the rate was not large enough for me to be confident it was real. What did change measurably was hunger: at the higher protein I was noticeably less hungry in the evenings and my calories were easier to hold steady without trying. So my honest conclusion is that the higher number helped, but through appetite rather than through anything dramatic.

    84
    Share
    Reply

    Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

    Report
  • @negativesplitz · last mo. · 3 replies

    Mild heresy: protein target is the least important number in your post. You have been lifting a year, you are not in a rush, and the things that will determine your next twelve months are showing up three times a week, adding weight to the bar, and sleeping. I have watched people optimise from 100 to 140g of protein while running a programme they change every six weeks, and get nothing. Hit something reasonable, stop calculating, go and train.

    76
    Share
    Reply

    Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

    Report
    • @interval_ida · 2mo ago

      Broadly agree, with the caveat that reasonable is doing a lot of work in that sentence and 95g is genuinely on the low side for someone lifting three times a week. Pick the middle number once so you never have to think about it again.

      42
      Share
      Reply

      Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

      Report
    • @yield_on_cost · 2mo ago

      Fair hit. I have changed programme twice this year, so the criticism lands whether or not the protein number does.

      25
      Share
      Reply

      Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

      Report
  • @circadian_cass · 2mo ago

    I chased 200g for a while on the more is better logic and what actually happened is that the rest of my diet collapsed around it. I was eating chicken, powder and egg whites, my fibre was somewhere terrible, and I felt worse in a way that took me a month to connect to my food. Higher protein has to displace something, and I would rather it displaced snacks than vegetables.

    68
    Share
    Reply

    Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

    Report
  • @interval_ida · 2mo ago · 3 replies

    The spread makes sense once you know what each number is for. The lowest one is close to the general population recommendation of around 0.8g per kilo, which is set to prevent deficiency, not to support training, and it is a floor rather than a target. The highest is someone applying a bodybuilding rule of thumb per pound of bodyweight, which is why it looks so aggressive. The number that keeps turning up in the meta analyses of resistance training is a point of diminishing returns somewhere near 1.6g per kilo, which for you is about 125g, and that is the middle answer. If you have kidney problems or are pregnant, that is a conversation with a dietitian rather than a calculator.

    112
    Share
    Reply

    Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

    Report
    • @couchto5kagain · last mo.

      Worth adding that most of those calculators are using your total bodyweight, and the research is often expressed per kilo of lean mass, which is part of why the high end estimates drift upward.

      37
      Share
      Reply

      Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

      Report
    • @yield_on_cost · 2mo ago

      Knowing the 95 is a deficiency floor rather than a target explains why it always felt low, and 125 is achievable without shakes.

      31
      Share
      Reply

      Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

      Report
  • @egress_egon · 2mo ago

    Take 1.6 per kilo, round it to 125, spread it across three meals, and close the calculator tabs. The precision you are chasing is smaller than your daily logging error.

    52
    Share
    Reply

    Answering anonymously — a moderator will review it first.

    Report