# So what would happen if you hit your calories (deficit, maint, or bulk) but just...



## trodizzle (May 9, 2017)

*So what would happen if you hit your calories (deficit, maint, or bulk) but just...*

My wife asked this today and I didn't have a solid answer and wanted to run it by the bro's.

So what would happen if you hit your calories (deficit, maint, or bulk) but just didn't get enough protein? For instance, she tracks what she eats but doesn't seem to get much protein. Some protein, but nowhere near .8g-1g per her body weight right now.

What would happen if someone did that over time?


----------



## DieYoungStrong (May 9, 2017)

She would stay the same weight at maint, lose weight on a deficit, and gain weight on a bulk. #caloriesarewhatmatters


----------



## trodizzle (May 9, 2017)

DieYoungStrong said:


> She would stay the same weight at maint, lose weight on a deficit, and gain weight on a bulk. #caloriesarewhatmatters



I know the weight may change (stay the same, go up, or go down), but how about muscle mass? Would having a low protein but most fat/carb diet change anything in regards to that aspect?


----------



## BigSwolePump (May 9, 2017)

The 1-2g of protein per pound theory has been disproved time and time again. Your muscles need protein, yes but you don't HAVE to have a gram per pound to maintain muscle mass. I have seen studies where .36g per pound were used without any muscle wasting. Your body will only use the protein that it needs then the rest will be wasted. The key is making sure that you have a steady supply IMO.
All that ever did for me, is make me bloated from all of the beef in my intestines that took days to digest. If she is getting half of a gram per pound she will still be fine. Its all about the total calories.


----------



## widehips71 (May 9, 2017)

trodizzle said:


> I know the weight may change (stay the same, go up, or go down), but how about muscle mass? Would having a low protein but most fat/carb diet change anything in regards to that aspect?




Unless she were in a highly anabolic state I dont believe it would matter much.  No studies, just my opinion


----------



## MrRippedZilla (May 9, 2017)

Context matters. 

Training status, bf%, training volume, sex and the factors you mentioned (bulk, maintain, cut) all play a part in determining the ideal protein content for her. I'm not going to go through every single possibility but suffice to say that women have approx. 20% lower protein needs across the board compared to men due to the physiological differences between us that, again, I'm not going to go into. 

To directly address your question, if she does get less then she needs over time then she will simply struggle to build muscle/risk losing more of it compared to if she did. Fairly simple.


----------



## PillarofBalance (May 9, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> the physiological differences between us that, again, I'm not going to go into.



Boys have a penis. Girls have a vaginer.


----------



## PillarofBalance (May 9, 2017)

trodizzle said:


> My wife asked this today and I didn't have a solid answer and wanted to run it by the bro's.
> 
> So what would happen if you hit your calories (deficit, maint, or bulk) but just didn't get enough protein? For instance, she tracks what she eats but doesn't seem to get much protein. Some protein, but nowhere near .8g-1g per her body weight right now.
> 
> What would happen if someone did that over time?



Skinny fat if carried on for a lengthy period is my understanding.  Like those distance runners you see with the gut but lean arms and legs.


----------



## therealkozmo (May 10, 2017)

BigSwolePump said:


> The 1-2g of protein per pound theory has been disproved time and time again. Your muscles need protein, yes but you don't HAVE to have a gram per pound to maintain muscle mass. I have seen studies where .36g per pound were used without any muscle wasting. Your body will only use the protein that it needs then the rest will be wasted. The key is making sure that you have a steady supply IMO.
> All that ever did for me, is make me bloated from all of the beef in my intestines that took days to digest. If she is getting half of a gram per pound she will still be fine. Its all about the total calories.


1-2g of protein studies where made specifically for selling whey protein to athletes


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (May 10, 2017)

BigSwolePump said:


> The 1-2g of protein per pound theory has been disproved time and time again. Your muscles need protein, yes but you don't HAVE to have a gram per pound to maintain muscle mass. I have seen studies where .36g per pound were used without any muscle wasting.



please post these studies you speak of. You realize preventing muscle wasting /= optimizing muscle gain?



> Your body will only use the protein that it needs then the rest will be wasted.



Protein doesn't get wasted. What you eat gets used. 



> The key is making sure that you have a steady supply IMO.



No it's not. There's no solid evidence to support protein timing while there is some evidence to support excessive protein feelings being a hindrance.


----------



## BigSwolePump (May 10, 2017)

I like these 



DocDePanda187123 said:


> please post these studies you speak of. You realize preventing muscle wasting /= optimizing muscle gain? I don't save these studies like MrRippedZilla. Maybe he can chime in. A simple google search of "how much protein do I need" will bring up all sorts of studies. The very first one that popped up had my exact number. There are also studies that suggest .8g per _*kg*_. I think that this is something that gets confused, kg vs lbs. I have never seen a study that doesn't support that women need less than a man. It would seem that studies have not been consistent however the majority support that more more than 1 gram is not needed. Sure, you can take more if it suits your caloric need but it doesn't do anything more to muscle gain or loss than its equal part in carbs or fat. There are a ton of variables but I personally have taken less than 1g per pound and still managed to gain muscle. While this isn't my common protein intake, it still happened while I was on that diet.
> 
> Protein doesn't get wasted. What you eat gets used.
> Ok, fair enough, poor choice of words. As with any calorie whether it be protein, carbs or fat, your body will only use what it needs. The body will store the excess. By wasted, I am referring to being stored and or shat out of your bunghole.
> ...



I don't know to to do the fancy quotes so I highlighted in red.

BTW. I don't claim to know more than anyone else here but I feel like my points are valid.


----------



## bubbagump (May 11, 2017)

PillarofBalance said:


> Boys have a penis. Girls have a vaginer.



Did you just assume their gender.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (May 12, 2017)

BigSwolePump said:


> I like these
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The red writing is fine for me. No issues there. 

I am not questioning what you feel about your posts but rather the content included in them. In some aspects you're not presenting the whole picture and in other aspects you're incorrect. 

1) if you plan on using the "I have seen studies line" then you had better be able to link the study or at least provide enough information so someone else can look it up without a great deal of effort. Simply saying you've seen a study and then refusing to post it up or look for it to post up is a cop out plain and simple. No offense meant to you but that's just the facts. You also don't want Zilla to chime in here bc he's going to explain the same things to you that I am. Zilla and I have a long history together and I know exactly what he thinks on most topics. This is one of those topics. 

2) I can assure you I never confuse pounds and kilograms. 

3) your stance on protein intake is incomplete bc it's highly context dependent and you're misapplying or misinterpreting the studies. For example, the studies you refer to likely use nitrogen retention as a primary means to measure anabolism or catabolism. While it is the most common method it's also the one with the least accuracy. Nitrogen retention does not measure body composition changes and there are plenty of examples where a negative nitrogen retention didn't correlate to a decrease of lean body mass and examples where positive nitrogen retention didn't correlate to increased lean body mass. Furthermore, Nitrogen from leucine catabolism can be used for the formation of other non essential amino acids to support other bodily processes for example which underestimated protein needs. Bottom line, go back and look at the studies you think suppor your stance and look to see if they use nitrogen rententiom as their primary measure. I guarantee you most of them do making them inaccurate in regards to body comp. 

protein needs for sedentary people is VASTLY different from a training population. This has been shown so many times it's not even up for debate anymore. So your 0.8g/kg or 0.36g/lb number is the RDA recommendation for maintiming muscle on a SEDENTARY NON-OBESE individual. Its applicability to a resistance training crowd is none. Lifting is a proteolytic activity meaning that it breaks down stored protein aka muscles. A measly .36g/lb is fine to maintain muscle mass in someone who sits at a desk and watches tv all day but it's not near enough to optimize muscle gain on a bulk or prevent/minimize muscle loss on a cut where the person is lifting. 

As as I said before, the answer is context dependent, i.e.,cutting, maintaining, bulking, male vs female, etc etc. you can't make a blanket statement for a universal protein requirement bc it will vary depending on context. 

4) of course extra protein above your 0.8g/kg recommendation (youve used several different amounts now lol) has an effect different than an equal amount of carbs or fat bc neither carbs nor fat can be stored as muscle or replace lost muscle. Only protein can do that and sufficient quantities insures progress is optimized. 

5) I never said you can't gain muscle with less than 1g/lb of protein but your results will sure as hell not be optimized. Eating too little protein is like trying to race your bike but purposely tying a weight to it as well to slow you down. 

6) excessive protein will never be stored as fat. To suggest that it does shows an ignorance to human physiology. Carbs too don't get stored as far unless a few very special and extreme circumstances happen first. Neither does excess protein get shat out of your bunghole unused. Protein will primarily go towards building new muscle and replacing lost amino acids from muscle. It's other fate is gluconeogenesis and being converted to glucose to be used for energy. 

7) so your evidence in support of protein timing is looking in the mirror? I don't mean to be an ass but how can you see your posts as being valid with that kind of statement??? Meals can be spread throughout the day if that's what the person wants to do but it's only a matter of preference since it doesn't change body comp. 

you're showing a lack of ability to interpret studies. An acute study will show larger fat storage due to a larger insulin spike IN THE ACUTE SETTING OR SHORT TERM but you miss the forest for the trees. We don't care about short term but long term results. What happens when someone has a big meal vs small meal? It means the rest of the meals will be smaller to compensate. So for a short period of time you have higher insulin levels but for the entire rest of the day you have lower insulin levels. This balances out. 

8) finally, protein utilization doesn't change due to spreading it out throughout the day. Protein utilization is around 97% regardless of how much, how little, when, or how often you eat it. ~97% of it will always be utilized no matter what while the remaining ~3% becomes metabolic byproducts from digestion.


----------



## BigSwolePump (May 12, 2017)

DocDePanda187123 said:


> The red writing is fine for me. No issues there.
> 
> I am not questioning what you feel about your posts but rather the content included in them. In some aspects you're not presenting the whole picture and in other aspects you're incorrect.
> 
> ...


 At this point, I feel like we are so far off of the simple question that was asked that I just feel guilty to continue. I don't follow all these research journals. From time to time, I come across one and will read through it while taking a dump. I base my opinion on what I have seen not what I have read. I typically use a personal experience as an example when giving advice. Anyone could post up a "study" that claimed if you lift hard and eat right, you will get fat. I would disagree because of personal experience. I guess my point is this, take my opinion for what its worth. If it doesn't help, don't do it. If you wanna debate studies and research, find someone who follows it. I fell into a trap by responding to a scientific breakdown of my first post. It won't happen again.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (May 12, 2017)

BigSwolePump said:


> At this point, I feel like we are so far off of the simple question that was asked that I just feel guilty to continue.



Your original post to the "simple question" was wrong. Doc has been kind enough to explain why it was wrong. The ideal response would be to have an open mind and learn from his response, not "feel guilty to continue" because you've been called out. This is partially why I didn't bother to call you out myself...that and the "bullying" bullshit accusations that would probably follow.



BigSwolePump said:


> I don't follow all these research journals. From time to time, I come across one and will read through it while taking a dump. I base my opinion on what I have seen not what I have read. I typically use a personal experience as an example when giving advice.



Your basically agreeing with what Doc said - you don't know how to interpret research correctly in the proper context. This is fine, plenty of people have the same flaw, but the response should be to either a) admit it and learn or b) avoid using science to justify your views (as you tried to do in your op). A) is the correct choice, but if you value experience over science than B is more realistic. The response should not be to feel like this whole thing was a "trap", which comes from the lack of open mindedness flaw I mentioned earlier.


----------



## BigSwolePump (May 12, 2017)

MrRippedZilla said:


> Your original post to the "simple question" was wrong. Doc has been kind enough to explain why it was wrong. The ideal response would be to have an open mind and learn from his response, not "feel guilty to continue" because you've been called out. This is partially why I didn't bother to call you out myself...that and the "bullying" bullshit accusations that would probably follow.


Actually, my response was not wrong. You don't HAVE to have 1g per pound to maintain muscle, especially in a female. If you want to dig through your massive computer database of studies to disprove it go for it...I have personally done it. That is all the proof I need. 
I mentioned feeling guilty for continuing simply because a simple question was asked and answered. The ramblings of details of research studies to disprove someone elses personal experiences is silly. I am not Jesus and my story is not fiction. If you step off of your "high horse" for just a moment, you would realize that the OP hasn't even posted again. He received his answers and/or opinions and has been satisfied. I wouldn't think that dicks have to be measured here on who was right or wrong. 
I'll address the bullying accusations now: You can't bully me. That isn't even possible. The fact that you use that word makes me giggle. If you are referring to a post weeks ago where you were called out for making an attempt, get over it. If you think that your narrative about other peoples studies make you the superior authority on subjects then I'll just pat your head and let you feel all warm inside. I anxiously await the day that you give personal experience on topics but as usual, you quote someone elses experiences with your interpretations while correcting the person or persons who actually did the leg work.
Don't get me wrong, I read the little articles and copy/paste studies that you post sometimes but if I ask a question, I want to know personal experiences as they will weigh heavier in my decisions. Personally, I would rather hear from the guy that lead or participated in these studies not some guy who reads them.


MrRippedZilla said:


> _*Your*_ basically agreeing with what Doc said - you don't know how to interpret research correctly in the proper context. This is fine, plenty of people have the same flaw, but the response should be to either a) admit it and learn or b) avoid using science to justify your views (as you tried to do in your op). A) is the correct choice, but if you value experience over science than B is more realistic. The response should not be to feel like this whole thing was a "trap", which comes from the lack of open mindedness flaw I mentioned earlier.



Dude, you make me laugh, seriously LOL!! It's comical that you really believe that you are the final authority on everything. Get a grip fella. You read research papers then give your opinion on what you've read. They aren't your research, you sit around in your spare time and read them then correct them to match your ideas. Your opinion does not mean anything more than just that...your opinion. If there is a flaw, it would be to think that your interpretation of the material read was more or less accurate than someone else. People will listen to your interpretations and use it to form their own opinion. You are not the god of interpreting research, you arrogant buffoon. You don't get to tell me or anyone else for that matter what my correct choice is. You are a guy who reads and collects studies then posts them on the internet while trying to correct even the person providing the facts. You are not superior, you are guy with time on his hands.

One more thing since you feel that you have to be part of Doc and I's discussion, we handled this in PM instead of making a personal spectacle for everyone else to read. I respect his opinion and his views. I would have shown you the same respect but arrogant people like you need an awaking in front of others. The last post of mine was to the OP like all of these post should be.

I guess I do have to be flattered that you took the time to give your opinion of what I should do according to you...BUT, just so you know, you mean nothing to me. I remember a time when I just read your narrative about someone elses studies and actually enjoyed it. That was before I actually saw you in action.

Lastly, Mr Correction....It's YOU'RE not YOUR!!!


----------



## TrickWilliams (May 12, 2017)

Zilla the God of interpreting research.

Got a nice ring to it.


----------

