Protein in veg. diet?

[my worst enemy]

Quick question: how much protein does the body need to gain muscle mass on top of recommended daily intake? I eat vegetarian food and train strength 2-3 times/week. What kind of protein and how much would you recommend in order to reach a healthy weight?

 

[addictivepersona]

For weight maintenance (or for weight gain in the severely underweight), according to the ADA, you need 0.8-1.0 grams of protein per kilograms body weight. To gain muscle mass, I wouldn't go much higher than 1.5g/kg so as to not stress the kidneys.

Legumes will most likely be your best plant-based source of protein. Or eggs if you eat eggs.

 

[Dave]

That's true, but even green leafy veg has protein, and there is such a thing as too much. Balance and variety are key.

 

[addictivepersona]

^ Everything has protein except oil (and other pure fats) and water. ;)

 

[RedLeader]

If you're aiming for overall fitness and a "better body," try for 1g per 1lb (2.2g per kg). For bodybuilding, try for 1.5g/lb (3.3g per kg).

If you are vegetarian and still consume dairy, then get some eggs, yogurt and milk. Nuts, grain bread, beans, cottage cheese, peanut butter. Soy protein shakes after training and before bed.

Remember to balance out your meals over the day, as the body can only process 30-40g of protein every 2 hours or so.

 

[modern buddha]

^ I need to do some quick math.

Let's say OP weighs 175 lbs. By your standard, he'd have to eat 175 grams of protein. 175 grams times four calories per gram = 700 calories of protein alone. That's almost half of his diet, which is unsustainable in the long run. In addition, he'd have to eat four meals a day where each meal contained at LEAST 40g of protein, which is the upper limit the body can even process in a two hour period. If you want to spend a crap ton of money on protein powder, by all means, go ahead. My point being is this goal is very, very high. I'd say 1 gram per pound of body weight if you're going for bodybuilder status.

I'd go more toward addip's goal, which is much more attainable and is attainable by a proper diet alone (no protein shakes): about a gram of protein per two pounds of body weight. This will still enable you to gain muscle and work out better and it's much easier.

 

[my worst enemy]

wow. You guys know your nutritions. This is great. Ive been looking at the whey shakes. These are vegetarian right? Im not trying to keep a vegan diet.

 

[Dave]

Whey is from dairy, but it's not a very healthy protein. Pound for pound it's very protein dense, and it's basically the cheapest protein that you can get-- hence why it is used so much. Personally, when I need extra protein I aim for pumpkin seed or hempseed protein.

 

[addictivepersona]

Whey shakes are most likely vegetarian. Read the ingredients. Depending upon how "strict" you are, you should be on the lookout for gelatin, rennet, and (I'll post back when I remember--There's three common ingredients that vegetarians should avoid) though I have no idea why any of those would be in a protein shake. Here's a helpful site for vegetarian and non-vegetarian ingredient listings.

I also echo what Dave said about whey protein not being the best source. If I were going to drink protein shakes, I would go towards hemp. I personally would stay far away from soy.

 

[RedLeader]

Let's say OP weighs 175 lbs. By your standard, he'd have to eat 175 grams of protein. 175 grams times four calories per gram = 700 calories of protein alone. That's almost half of his diet, which is unsustainable in the long run.

Of course it's (questionably) not sustainable in the long run, but the OP wants to "gain muscle mass," which I interpreted as a short/mid-term goal. One would want to take in more protein during such a phase than during a "sustaining" phase.

Unless I am missing something, 700calories of protein, with protein as 25% of the diet, would set him up for a 2800cal/day diet, which I don't think is unreasonable at all for our hypothetical 175lb man who wants to add muscle mass. If anything, a bit on the low-end for calories, assuming regular cadio activity.

6 meals including 30g protein every 2.5 hours would work*.

The tradeoff between physical results and financial ability is an entirely different matter. And within the allowed budget, you have to decide how much you want to dedicate toward "health" and "aesthetics." Eating an optimally-healthy diet may not be the best diet for muscle development, and the diet that allows muscles to build the best might not be the healthiest. Throwing vegetarianism into the equation, unfortunately it often means even more money. I would encourage the OP to look into growing as much of his own protein sources as possible, to keep the costs down, so that he can afford other good sources if he is to stay away from protein shakes.

*I know that some people are going to say that this is unrealistic/not-easy, and that's correct. It's not. But should that be a reason not to do it? The more work one puts into something, generally the more rewarding it will be.

 

[Fjones]

I have not been on this site in about 7 months but I wanted to chime in here.

Addictive person - Where are you getting your information from? I disagree with almost everything you said, especially this bizarre remark:

"^ Everything has protein except oil (and other pure fats) and water. "

Simply Live - You need to recheck your math. 700 calories of protein is not half of his calories, it should be closer to 20 or 25%. Also, he does not need to eat four meals of 40 grams protein; he could have 5 or 6 meals with 30 to 35. Even if he did need to eat four meals of 40 grams, so what? You make it sound like that is some sort of impossible goal.

Shit. I just realized Redleader said all this already.

Well, I second everything he said. I am not sure where some of the other people's facts come from.

 

[addictivepersona]

Addictive person - Where are you getting your information from? I disagree with almost everything you said, especially this bizarre remark:

"^ Everything has protein except oil (and other pure fats) and water. ;) "

I'm currently studying to become a DTR, so the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as the American Dietetics Association [ADA]) and a couple RDs (registered dietitians) who teach the courses is where I get my information. Oh, and my textbooks.

If you disagree, then prove me wrong. What does not have protein? Because as far as I am aware, everything has protein except water and oil (and other pure fats). It may not be in large amounts, but it has protein.

(Oh, and when I say "everything", I mean real foods--Not shit like soda. Of course soda doesn't have protein.)

 

[modern buddha]

Simply Live - You need to recheck your math. 700 calories of protein is not half of his calories, it should be closer to 20 or 25%. Also, he does not need to eat four meals of 40 grams protein; he could have 5 or 6 meals with 30 to 35. Even if he did need to eat four meals of 40 grams, so what? You make it sound like that is some sort of impossible goal.

From what Red Leader said, the body can only digest a maximum of 40 grams of protein over a two hour span. For OP's health's sake, I'd stay away from that. Why test your body's limit and think that you're actually digesting all of this protein? It's a waste of time and money (and patience!)

Moreover, I said "almost half". It's an exaggerated statement to help support my point. When I think of eating for muscle mass, I think of eating slightly above what your body needs so it is a very controlled way to gain lean body mass. OP still has not stated whether he wants to be lean or Jay Cutler. So I assumed he'd probably need, for his body to SURVIVE ONLY, 1750 calories (source: addip's professors). So I gave it the benefit of the doubt in my mind and thought 2100 calories to start, which would make 700 calories in protein over 30% of his diet, still unattainable and annoying of a goal in the long run. This kind of a goal is one you crash and burn from, especially when you have no idea what you're doing.

I am not speaking from fact. I speak from reason. There are no such things as "facts" in science. Sorry. "Facts" don't even exist in mathematics. (source: my mathematics professors, physics professor and biology professor)

Edit: Always remember that before we became industrialized, strong people supported their body mass on REAL food.

 

[Fjones]

Oh, so when you meant "everything" you meant "not everything." Well done sir. Good luck in your studies. I am sure your professors will be satisfied with your awesome level of precision in your statements on exams and papers. I should not bother proving someone wrong who is making nonsensical statements. I could just as easily ask YOU to prove ME wrong. From where I stand, you are making statements that are contrary to generally accepted knowledge and information. The onus is on you to support your statements.

For starters, the various sources you listed are NOT generally concerned with gaining significant muscle mass. Serious muscle building requires more than 1 g protein per kg of weight. Anyone who knows anything about weightlifting knows this. I do not need to prove this. If you ask Dieticians and diabetes doctors, of course they are going to give a lower number than what you will get if you ask serious weightlifters and bodybuilders. Do you really think people gain significant muscle mass eating 1 g protein per kg of body weight?

 

[Fjones]

What the hell???

How far along in your studies are you? Day one?

Who said that 40 grams of protein in a 2 hour period is "TESTING THE BODY'S LIMITS?" You make it sound like the LD-50 of protein is 50 grams in two hours. Seriously, are you crazy? Oh, you said "ALMOST HALF" even though it is actually more like 20 to 25%. I sure hope you are never the dietician for anyone I know or care about, because you are terrible at math and you make nonsensical statements that you later justify with absurd backpedaling and qualifications. I honestly cannot even tell for sure if you are being serious or just trolling.

You then write,

"So I assumed he'd probably need, for his body to SURVIVE ONLY, 1750 calories (source: addip's professors). So I gave it the benefit of the doubt in my mind and thought 2100 calories to start, which would make 700 calories in protein over 30% of his diet, still unattainable and annoying of a goal in the long run. This kind of a goal is one you crash and burn from, especially when you have no idea what you're doing. "

Wow. this is utter nonsense. You are recommending a healthy male eat 2100 calories a day while doing strength training 2 to 3 times a week??????? Maybe you are studying to be a dietician, but you clearly know absolutely nothing about weightlifting, so perhaps you should excuse yourself from this thread. You have no idea what his base metabolic rate is. I weigh 155 pounds and yet I need to eat close to 3600 calories just to avoid LOSING weight. When I eat 4000 calories, I barely gain weight. If I ate 2100 calories a day I would almost certainly be hospitalized before long. When you become a dietician, do you plan to rely on absurd generalizations such as telling a healthy active male to eat 2100 calories a day while strength training? I am just astounded. Purely astounded.

 

[Fjones]

Furthermore,

I love ad hominems!

 

[RedLeader]

From what Red Leader said, the body can only digest a maximum of 40 grams of protein over a two hour span. For OP's health's sake, I'd stay away from that. Why test your body's limit and think that you're actually digesting all of this protein? It's a waste of time and money (and patience!)

I wouldn't take my 40g/2hr ratio as gospel. It's one of those "your mileage may vary" things, first because people are different sizes, second because they have different internal variables (nitrogen balance, catabolic rates, etc) at different times, third because different types of proteins will be handled differently so "40 of one is not necessarily 40 of another." I should have made a note of this in my first post, that it was just a crude average. Sorry for any confusion.

Too much protein is only questionably dangerous if a person's remaining in sufficient enough of a catabolic state so as to overload the kidneys with nitrogen. Proper exercise, proper rest, proper water intake, proper amino acid supplementation, proper digestive enzimes, and so on to push the body as close to a positive nitrogen balance as possible while at the same time minimizing any risk to the internal organs.

Moreover, I said "almost half". It's an exaggerated statement to help support my point.

I really hope that you don't do this in your college papers.

When I think of eating for muscle mass, I think of eating slightly above what your body needs so it is a very controlled way to gain lean body mass. OP still has not stated whether he wants to be lean or Jay Cutler. So I assumed he'd probably need, for his body to SURVIVE ONLY, 1750 calories (source: addip's professors). So I gave it the benefit of the doubt in my mind and thought 2100 calories to start, which would make 700 calories in protein over 30% of his diet, still unattainable and annoying of a goal in the long run. This kind of a goal is one you crash and burn from, especially when you have no idea what you're doing.

The OP needs to provide us with his stats become we could realistically give him a survival caloric intake. Height, weigh, age, amount of cardio, any medical tests he has had done, etc.

I agree with what you've said about slightly more calories (including from protein) than survival in order to build muscle. However, what I don't get is your last line. Isn't he coming online, here and likely other places to, to figure out what he's doing? As well, shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt in that he might have the patience and drive to not burn out on a diet that may not be all that much fun? I'll accept that I might be different, and I find exercise and nutrition to be fascinating enough to not burn out when things get tougher, though.

I am not speaking from fact. I speak from reason. There are no such things as "facts" in science. Sorry. "Facts" don't even exist in mathematics. (source: my mathematics professors, physics professor and biology professor)

There are no observed facts in theoretical sciences, no. But what you're talking about in this thread is applied science. Valid arguments hold together theoretical science, and sound arguments hold together applied science. To show that an argument is sound, all of its premises must be shown to be true facts. Anything a professor says about how the building blocks of the universe must behave under given conditions would be like a valid argument, but any sound conclusions about human beings and their particular nutrition necessarily must first have (true) facts established as premises.

 

[modern buddha]

Oh, so when you meant "everything" you meant "not everything." Well done sir. Good luck in your studies. I am sure your professors will be satisfied with your awesome level of precision in your statements on exams and papers. I should not bother proving someone wrong who is making nonsensical statements. I could just as easily ask YOU to prove ME wrong. From where I stand, you are making statements that are contrary to generally accepted knowledge and information. The onus is on you to support your statements.

For starters, the various sources you listed are NOT generally concerned with gaining significant muscle mass. Serious muscle building requires more than 1 g protein per kg of weight. Anyone who knows anything about weightlifting knows this. I do not need to prove this. If you ask Dieticians and diabetes doctors, of course they are going to give a lower number than what you will get if you ask serious weightlifters and bodybuilders. Do you really think people gain significant muscle mass eating 1 g protein per kg of body weight?

I have said this once and I will say it again: OP has not stated whether he's trying to be lean or Jay Cutler. Also, I can ask diabetes doctors and dietitians and you're right, they will probably tell me what I've already said. The point being is why does everyone assume that guys always want to be bodybuilders when they want to gain muscle mass?

I've supported my statements with what I know. That is all I can do.

Who said that 40 grams of protein in a 2 hour period is "TESTING THE BODY'S LIMITS?"

Redleader did. And he has since corrected himself, noting that it's not specific to everyone.

Seriously, are you crazy?

Yes, I am. Thank you for noticing.

Oh, you said "ALMOST HALF" even though it is actually more like 20 to 25%. I sure hope you are never the dietician for anyone I know or care about, because you are terrible at math and you make nonsensical statements that you later justify with absurd backpedaling and qualifications. I honestly cannot even tell for sure if you are being serious or just trolling.

Hey, welcome to life, where you never know who's a troll. I have a bachelor's of arts degree in mathematics. I do not have a degree in dietetics. Moreover, I am not terrible at math. The mistakes that I've made in previous posts are not mathematical, they are written errors.

Wow. this is utter nonsense. You are recommending a healthy male eat 2100 calories a day while doing strength training 2 to 3 times a week???????

Yes, based on the assumptions I've given. We have no stats on OP yet.

When I eat 4000 calories, I barely gain weight. If I ate 2100 calories a day I would almost certainly be hospitalized before long. When you become a dietician, do you plan to rely on absurd generalizations such as telling a healthy active male to eat 2100 calories a day while strength training? I am just astounded. Purely astounded.

Congratulations. You know how to listen to your body and have found what your point of stability is. I tip my hat to you.

 

[Fjones]

You have a bachelor's degree in mathematics? You cannot be serious?

Also, no, Redleader did NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM say that 40 grams of protein "tests the body's limits" You badly misunderstood what he said, showing a startling lack of understanding of the subject on your part. You then further misunderstood his clarification, which he gave for YOUR benefit since you obviously misunderstood his statement initially. Trust me, I know Redleader well. He was just being polite. He did not "correct himself," as you suggested, he clarified for your benefit something that you somehow misunderstood.

Also, removing my post about "facts" is a blatant abuse of your moderator privilege. There was no ad hominum whatsoever. Congratulations on demonstrating that you have no idea what an "ad hominum" is. I mocked your IDEAS and your STATEMENTS, not you personally. Do you really not understand the difference?

One final question, and I mean this in all seriousness - What exactly does a bachelor of arts degree in mathematics involve? I was working toward a bachelor of science degree in mathematics, but my school did not have a bachelor of arts degree in mathematics, so I am curious as to the difference.

 

[Dave]

Ah fjones, it's been a while! The peeves thread is waiting for you... :D

Some schools just call all their bachelor's degrees BAs. I've seen people with BAs in Chemistry on their CV. Makes no sense to me, but it might just be a historical quirk.