I think the paper I'm about to discuss might broadly overturn much of what I've said, you've said, Mano's said. This is getting really embarrassing. Can we just bury this paper?
Yeah, let's just stop the video here. Stop, stop, stop recording. I want to grow muscle, but damn it, I don't know how much protein to eat.
And I am absolutely uninterested in anything but the latest research. Can you help me? I can help you. Oh my God.
I'm mine. Unbelievable. This is Japanese people got you as well.
I love it. World War II was just one giant misunderstanding. It's been all kawaii since then. What does that mean?
That means I believe cute in Japanese or whatever. I'm dipping into my anime in cell knowledge. Yes.
Yes. Do you think that when they were bombing various American facilities, the Japanese during World War II drew emojis and like Hello Kitty stickers were put on the bombs? Yes. It's crazy how emoji culture kind of almost came from Japan at one point.
I remember like back in the day, you remember when emojis weren't really a thing yet, like not the drawings. Right. People would make like the convoluted text-based emojis. Faces with the colon.
Yeah. Like the star emojis and like the, you know, crazy. Hey, nowadays, Japan, huge cultural exports, you know, they made it back.
Anyways, you might've heard, and I might've said, and you might've said, everyone might've said that To maximize muscle building, you only need to have around 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. Maybe even you're being cautious. I was being cautious.
One gram of protein per pound of body weight. That's like the highest people usually go. Outside of traditional gym bro lore, where 10 years ago, 20 years ago, companies were getting filthy rich by saying, three grams per pound, bro, trust me. That was the day to be selling protein. I have also cited some more speculative work.
by Helms and colleagues in their review paper back in the day, that in some conditions for natural body weight, it's close to a show, even as much as 1.3 grams per pound of lean body mass could be an effective strategy, but it was very unlikely to be true. And based on much of the review work done by Menno Henselman's, for most people, substantially lower than that seems to be good enough. But in Japan, they like to do Japanese things. They do Japanese things.
And so. I think the paper I'm about to discuss might broadly overturn much of what I've said, you've said, Menno's said. This is getting really embarrassing. Can we just bury this paper? Yeah, let's just stop the video.
Stop recording. See, people, for the most part, base their recommendations off of a review paper by Morton and colleagues from 2018, where that paper has now gotten 1,200 citations. So it's... big stuff. And it mostly has to do with one, it being a meta-analysis and at the time being the most comprehensive one yet.
Which is great. And also based on the sort of status of researchers involved, like I think Brad Schoenfeld was on it, a few big names were on it. And then people like myself, Jeff, whatever, everyone kind of got on it and because that was the best at the time, started citing it.
And that kind of turned into a bit of an echo chamber where people kept citing that same figure over and over again, over and over again. Yes. as we sometimes tend to do in the evidence-based fitness echo chamber. However, it turns out that four years later, so in 2022, there's been a more recent meta-analysis on the topic. Back in 2018, Morton and colleagues had looked at a total of around 50 studies, which is a big sample, and specifically lifters who reported their protein intakes in these studies, so who were lifting consistently, were consuming protein, and where they measured lean body mass or fat-free mass gains.
That was their measurement of choice. And they effectively ran a couple of analyses at the time. They looked at a linear regression where effectively you just look at the data points and using software, you try and draw a line that will most closely fit those data points.
So you minimize the residuals, the distance between that trend line and the individual data points. What best predicts how much lean body mass people gain based on their protein intake. Yes. Making the best line. And that was...
a reasonable fit for the data, but then the authors also went ahead and performed a biphasic line regression where effectively, instead of saying it's one straight line, it's two straight lines. And you think that might be a better fit. They did find that analysis was a better fit. So you didn't do a polynomial? No, just those two analyses.
So their first analysis, linear regression, as you expect, like more protein, more lean body mass gained to a certain slope. However, the biphasic regression, where you draw two lines instead to kind of represent, okay, maybe there's diminishing returns after a certain protein intake, that was a better fit of the data. The analysis was insignificant. technically, like they even say as much in the paper, but they present it nevertheless because it's a better fit and it's still better than just a simple line, right?
But because of how they analyzed it, it effectively implied that up until 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight, there is a benefit and afterwards it just flatlines. No more benefit. However, that was kind of the best piece of research we had for four years. But in 2022, Tagawa and colleagues performed another meta-analysis.
This time, one conducting a better sort of analysis in terms of adjusting for confounders, and two, including more research. So this time, they didn't just look at research in lifters, but also in research in non-lifters, and they also just included more studies overall. So specifically, studies in lifters who were lifting consistently over the study and reported their protein intake, they got a total of, I think, 72 studies.
So an extra couple dozen. Holy crap. That's nice.
So even more research. So that's enough research to be like, okay, the findings here are going to be pretty robust. Yeah.
Right. And they had a couple of different models where they adjusted for different confounders. In their first model, they adjusted for no confounders.
Second model, they adjusted for things like age, where the older you get, the less sensitive you tend to become to protein, sex, et cetera. And then the third model, they also then on top of that, adjusted for the amount of body weight gained, which is important, right? Because if one group consume more protein, but as a result also go into a surplus, that amount of body weight gained can quickly influence-Might not be a protein thing. You know, then you have to adjust for that. Anyways, so let me walk you through results.
One, when not adjusting for body weight gained, both lifters and non-lifters saw more hypertrophy as they consumed more protein, all the way to 1.3 grams per pound. However, in non-lifters, once you then controlled for body weight gained, that relationship kind of went away, like past like, I think, 0.7 grams per pound. per pound.
If then you know you're gaining weight, it doesn't really matter. However, in lifters, even when adjusting for body weight gained, higher protein intakes led to more growth, all the way to 1.3 grams per pound. There was still an element of diminishing returns, wherein the slope was greater up until around that previous figure of 1.6 grams per kilogram, or 0.8 roughly.
And then afterwards, the slope diminished, but it was still positive. And in running some rough numbers on that regression. I want to say going from like 0.5 grams per pound to around 0.4 to 0.8 grams per pound, that gave you around three times lean body mass gains.
So from I think 0.4 kilograms lean body mass gained on average over the course of the study to 1.2, so triple roughly. So that's like an appreciable difference, right? But then going from around 0.8 grams per pound, which is the current kind of like the fact of recommendation, all the way to 1.3, that still boosted growth by about 40%. So 40% more growth. by going from the current recommendation to a much higher one is a substantial difference.
Huge. And most people, even if you go from one gram per pound to 1.3, it's still an appreciable difference in growth. Now, that paper has only gotten 80 citations.
Why? Because lesser known researchers-We already know this kind of stuff. Yep. So people are like, oh, more than meta regression, more than meta regression.
Everyone's citing the same paper over and over again. It's self-perpetuating. But this paper came out two years ago, far fewer citations.
not that many people know about it. In fact, it was Greg Knuckles who put me onto it. I hadn't even heard of it.
That's why-Greg always knows a little fucking bullshit here and there. Greg knows things. Yeah.
That's one big thing to the protein research that people aren't aware of. I think, yes, there are diminishing returns, but people tend to think that it's a solved issue past that point, past one gram per pound, the more benefit. Sometimes even less than that. Oh, most people think even less than that. I get clowned for saying a gram per pound.
People tell me that's too much. And I used to say the same. I used to think that, but that is the strongest piece of research out there.
That's 70 studies. Now, this is per pound or per pound lean body mass? Per pound. Per pound. So it's more protein than people think.
Now, a couple of kind of caveats or limitations to that paper. Some of them are actually not limitations, even strengths, but whatever. One is oftentimes in these studies.
I spoke to Jorn Tromelin about this directly because I was curious about the opinion. A lot of these studies tend to use food diaries. Typically, people will under-report protein intake based on food diaries. If anything, we might have a bit more research on higher protein intakes than the meta regression would have you believe, just because people typically report it via food diaries and people typically under-report.
In reality, the numbers involved might be a bit higher still. Does that make sense? Wouldn't they be lower? So people will say they're having 100 grams, but then if you actually went and looked at what they were actually having day to day, it might be 120. So what I mean is in the study's reporting, it might say that one group was having one gram per pound, but in reality, they're having 1.2.
So we have a bit more data on higher protein intakes. And you're assuming that when people try to implement these, they won't under-report. Yes. They'll be precise.
So I guess, yeah, it depends on how you see it. Okay. I see.
I see. But if you're saying, okay, these are precise people we're talking about, very evidence-based people, they're going to say, look, these people ate 100 grams of protein. I don't need any more. And like, actually they ate 120. And you're like, oh shit, well, I've been accounting for all sources.
Right. Exactly. Got it.
So that's one thing. The second thing is I took a look at their... statistics to figure out how many of the studies included had sufficiently high protein intakes.
Because one case you could make is that very few studies actually look at like one gram to 1.3 grams per pound. And so maybe it's just like we don't have enough research data to really know, right? Yeah.
It's like saying if you climb a tree high enough, you'll eventually get to the moon, but the trees aren't tall enough to infer how shit works in space. Yes, how that works. Exactly.
So just to make sure that I wasn't just like looking at this graph and being like, well, this looks very conclusive to me. I actually wanted to see how much data is that tail end based on. I looked at the numbers, and it looks like around 20% of the studies had a protein intake 20, 25 in excess of one gram per pound.
Oh, that's solid. So if you do that times 70 studies, that's 14 studies or whatever it is. So yeah, there's obviously, ideally, we'd have even more research to for sure and for where is that upper end.
But it's sufficient, in my opinion, to shift the recommendation at this stage. I think there's two recommendations we can derive from this paper. One, just like before, there are diminishing returns past a certain point.
I think that point is somewhere-How could there not be? How much physiology do you have to not know to know there's diminishing returns on almost every measured variable ever? Can you imagine a line where it was like-That would be wild.
Where is that? Apparently with volume, according to some people, one set is all you need. That's it. So that's one thing is there is diminishing returns, which gives birth to a practical recommendation for the average lifter who doesn't really want to care too much.
And that's around 0.8 grams per pound. You will see solid growth. Not your best, but like solid.
And protein is expensive. It's a pain to eat. You know, like, oh, go on. Are you in your Lambo right now? Looking down on the peasants?
My Lambo is actually made of protein because it makes it more expensive. Very non-functional. I have time for that.
I think it's a wise thing to say, but I have to say that almost everyone I've ever spoken to in real life who complains about how protein is expensive is at the fucking club several times a week, buying drinks at the club. And fellas, the marginal, the relative cost of protein to other macronutrients at the store, high. the absolute cost of protein as far as food in your diet especially if you just buy basics and lots of protein powders is nominal don't let me see that iphone 16 in your handbag homie if you talk about protein is expensive you feel me you know what i'm saying milo like i get you like if you're living in a developing nation yeah hell yeah that's a thing but don't you come at me with austria germany finland sweden japan and be like oh it's a protein is quite expensive like shut up sure i get you if you're trying to be an analyst or if you're broke It's a decent recommendation.
Yes. You know, unlike Mr. Lambeau. Look, I get protein fed to me like people pour protein drinks into my mouth because using my own hands is such a poor people thing to do. It's offensive.
I feel that. That's recommendation number one. Now, if you're a wealthy Jeff Bezos entrepreneur, then you want to go for the recommendation that is likely to maximize hypertrophy.
And in my opinion, that's somewhere between one to 1.3 grams per pound. We don't currently have enough precision in our estimate, in my opinion, to say for sure 1.3 grams is going to be miles better than 1. But I think as long as you're somewhere in that ballpark of 1 to 1.3, maybe even 1.3 if you want to hedge your bets, I think you'll likely maximize your growth at that point. Until further research, where we look at an excess of 1.3, because that's kind of where the analysis was capped. Who knows, maybe it's 1.5. But for the time being, I think if you're somewhere in the ballpark of 1 to 1.3, that is a practical level.
But I would say you're approximately maximizing growth. Very curious. Every time I talk to you, Milo, I learn a ton of stuff. And it's so rare for me because I'm so fucking smart. I know almost everything.
Hey, Scott, why are you laughing, you son of a bitch? He doesn't understand a lot of what I say. He just giggles every now and again, trying to fit in. This has been incredibly insightful. And I suppose one question people might have is, is there any research?
Uh, that. Tells us what fraction should be complete protein, incomplete protein. Do you have any evidence-based opinions on that or just heuristics you can use?
Yeah. So from speaking to some of the experts on the topic and from looking through research myself, unless you're following a severely restricted diet, usually quality of protein sources is not overly worth worrying about. Like especially if you're consuming 1.3 grams per pound, usually the quality of individual protein sources doesn't matter too much. Unless you're that one widow who's only exclusively getting protein from one source, you'll be fine.
Or a shitty source. You can get it all from Wayne and be totally great. But if you get it all from breadcrumbs or something.
Yeah. Or like if you're a vegan and only ever getting one specific protein source, maybe not ideal. And that brings me to the final point. If you are an older lifter, say in excess of around 60 years old, or if you are plant-based, that is where adjusting your protein intake upwards even more probably makes sense by around 20% or so.
Damn, I was going to use the term plant-based, but I've told myself I'm never using that term. And here's why. Plant-based is a propaganda fiction.
When almost every bodybuilder eats food, their diet is plant-based. Surprisingly, yes. But also like many bodybuilders don't have sufficient vegetables in their diet.
Like it is shocking to me. But they do eat lots of white rice, which is a plant. And that's where most of their calories come from versus protein. I use the term vegan. Because that's the fucking term.
Vegans, stop trying to propagandize people into plant-based. Nobody believes you. But then how are you going to encapsulate vegetarians, fucking vegans and other similar populations with dietary restrictions that are on the plant-based spectrum of things?
Almost every diet is plant-based unless you're an Inuit and you eat blood and meat. More heavily plant-based. Do you just call them more heavily plant-based? I just call them vegans, bro, because that's who we're talking about.
How many ovo-lacto-vegetarians do you know? I know three. There it is.
He's one of the three. There you go. Maybe. We don't even know if he's that anymore. That's true.
No, I feel you. Okay, so if you're doing the vegan thing, vegetarian thing, a little bit more for insurance purposes, but keep most of your protein high quality. You don't need to worry about the fringes.
That makes total sense.