Protein Minimums - fixed or rolling target?

[LisaS]

I know what I think and I know what I think the "official" answer is - but I keep getting asked this question.
What does the PP plan really say about protein minimums - do you figure based on LBM and stay the same throughout weight loss - or do you figure based on current body weight and reduce the minimum as your weight reduces.
PP would seem to say base on LBM - PPLP would seem to say base on body weight and adjust downward as the weight is lost -
What does PP really suggest to do?

Let's say you have a man weighing 250 with a goal of 180. LBM will be assumed to stay constant throughout the weight loss.
What Protein Min do you use - the chart for a 250 lb man? The chart for a 180 lb man? A formula for active XXX lb LBM?

If you say the chart for 250 lb man - why is his min protein requirement higher than the 180 lb man with the same LBM? Why not just pick the protein minimum for the target weight?

These are the questions I'm getting asked - what would the Official Plan say?

[laughingW]

I was just reading that section in the PPLP and, because it has the minimum protein per body weight, you start off at your current weight and recalculate as you go.

But for myself I much prefer the older PP, based on LBM, because I'm a small person and the newer, simplified calculations give me even more food than simple satisfaction.

[LisaS]

that's how I remember PPLP - but how does that make sense logically/biologically?

If you assume the same LBM throughout the weight loss - why would the minimum requirement go down as you lose weight? Why not choose the minimum from your goal weight then and eat constant portions of protein at your maintenance level the whole time?

[greenheron]

My hunch as to what the "official" view would be is to go ahead and use the PP figure based on lean body mass.

I get the feeling the Eadeses put that simplified chart in PPLP for people who don't want to do the math required for the formula in PP. I think it's there as an ok substitute for the method in PP, but if one is up for doing the PP method that would be best.

It still might be a good idea to recalculate occasionally. A person who is exercising and eating lots of protein might increase lean body mass even while losing weight.

My two cents.

[laughingW]

If you assume the same LBM throughout the weight loss - why would the minimum requirement go down as you lose weight? Why not choose the minimum from your goal weight then and eat constant portions of protein at your maintenance level the whole time?

You sure could, sounds like.

But, sometimes people need more than the minimum for satiety and preventing hunger/binge, and the bodyweight calculation takes care of that. Also there is an increased exercise cost with more fat which the older calculations said to take care of by taking a higher number for activity.

Also, fat is not just lying around there, there are hormone signals that change with decreasing bodyfat, and maybe the extra protein gets used for that signaling. Also, I would hope to lose the extra LBM I have just for carrying around twice my bodyweight. I only want the LBM I need for my target size.

[BeccainSC]

I'm probably repeating some of what's been said, but to give my 2 cents...

My impression of the PPLP chart is for people that don't want to do the math give in the PP book therefore they don't even know their LBM to use that number instead.

Protein is a MINIMUM so too much is okay. At the higher weights (when it is more likely to have a marked difference in the minimum) this helps with curbing hunger and cravings I think too.

From my own experience, when I first started with the October challenge, PPLP had me at 40/meal - 120/day but if I calculated it was like 97/day so their "34" chart. Now that I've lost weight I'm actually in between the 34/40 on the PPLP (cuz neither my actual height or weight are on the chart). I personally just FEEL better having more.

Also, too, I think the PPLP chart takes into account the fact that heavier people are working their muscles harder just "living" without even doing exercise, plus assumes that folks will be doing SOMETHING. They were trying to cover all possible scenarios to insure that folks would at least get the minimums.

If someone were to ask me which to use, I'd say if you know your actual LBM or don't mind doing the math to find it, then use the calculated method. The chart is just quick and easy.

'becca

[LisaS]

the question I'm being asked by a "devil's advocate" is
the books are different - one is based on LBM and you'd only change if LBM or activity levels change - the other is based on current weight and implies that you would alter your minimum downward as you lose weight - which is REALLY the Protein Power Plan?

[laughingW]

Why can't they both be? Both books are the PP plan.

Is your devil's advocate upset at the idea of two minimums?

[LisaS]

if the Plan says "either or" - then why don't they say that - if that is the case, (he asks) how can you have 2 concurrent minimums that are different? If you pick one or the other - which is really The Plan? Etc.

[laughingW]

Well, they do say "either or" in the PPLP. They say, to get your minimum protein, you can get the PP book and do the LBM calculation, or you can use the newer, simpler chart.

Both are "The Plan."

He sounds very literal, bless his heart as they say in the US South.

[LisaS]

he's literal when it suits the purpose -

[Gaelen]

he's literal when it suits the purpose -

;)

Lisa, it sounds like he's being 'literal' to no particular purpose except to have a discussion. PP was written in '95, I think, and PPLP in 2000. Now, if they hadn't made some 'revisions' or adjustments, what point would there be to have published the second book? Ummm....none. In the five years between books, the Drs. Eades and their editors had some time to evaluate public response to doing the math and to the bare-bones of PP. I'm guessing the consensus was to simplify the calculations for PPLP, since the were outlining some varied approaches to the plan (Hedonist, Dillettante, Purist) to go with the Phase I, Phase II, transition and maintenance eating levels. They didn't want to lose people who wouldn't do the math... and they wanted to keep the work fresh for those who'd seen the first book. ;)

What is the 'real' plan? The one that works for the person that uses it, the one a person is drawn to use. PPLP didn't repudiate any of the science advanced in PP; it just expanded upon it (except for the part about aspartame...)

[cmcole]

Just to add my .02

If it is a minimum - then going over occasionally should have no negative impact, especially if you are having a spell of increased activity/requirement for protein.

[maxlharris]

LisaS, all others:

From Page 314 of PPLP, printing #10:



It is important to understand, however, that in streamlining the calculating process, we've taken a method involving numerous body measurements and activity variables and compressed them into a two-variable table based on slightly above average activity levels and average body-fat percentages for a given height and weight. By doing so, we've sacrificed a little refinement and accuracy for ease and expedience. There's no doubt that the convoluted calculations method is more accurate, and those of you who wish to use it should pick up a copy of PP and go for it. But rest assured, these average numbers we've worked out will provide you with plenty of good quality protein to ensure your health and success on whichever PPLP regiment you select, and without all the hassle."


*I added the emphasis.

I think this passage makes the answer pretty clear. If you can do the math and use the old method, that is the best. If you can't, the PPLP charts are good enough ("for guv'ment work" - Eades). Either way, you should get enough protein.

If your friend is as big a nitpicker as you make them out to be, then s/he can use the old formula, measue the waist-wrist-height-weight or whatever it is women have to measure (I think it's three measurements + height and weight) adjust their protein needs as they lose. I suspect they will find that it doesn't move that much (we're talking less than 1/3rd of a gram per lb of lbm, which isn't moving very much anyway).

[Gaelen]

Actually, in my case the main reason for sticking to the PP measurements vs. PPLP charts numbers for minimum recommended protein is that, based on my height and weight, the charts gave me a minimum that was about 34g higher in protein per day than the measurements' recommended 70g. When you're first on plan, the amounts of protein recommended on the charts can sometimes be overwhelming.

[Inez]

The way I've always understood minimum protein requirements is that they are the minimum amount of protein your body needs -- you don't want to go under that number -- if you go over that number, that's OK. Trouble starts when you don't get enough protein. From The 30-Day Low-Carb Diet Solution, "Protein keeps your metabolic rate high. Because the body understands that protein is its most critical nutrient, it keys its metabolic rate (the number of calories it uses each day) to the amount of protein it receives). So it's not going to hurt you to choose the higher protein requirement unless you end up taking in too much fat as well, in which case you may end up consuming more calories than you need to lose weight. Also, your protein needs vary depending on your state of health and activity levels, so you may need considerably more than the minimum at different times in your life.