The protein and amino acid supplement market is big business. Bars, shakes, giant tubs of powder and specialist amino acid supplements dominate supplement shelves. But the decision to use protein supplements is based more on slick marketing claims than anything else; protein supplements offer few real performance benefits that an athlete’s normal diet isn’t already delivering.
Few athletes would disagree that more muscle is an advantage in their sport. And protein is the perfect source of amino acid building blocks needed for new muscle growth and repair.
Taken together, strength training and sufficient protein will stimulate new muscle protein synthesis. Note that the keyword here is sufficient, because this is where protein supplement marketers like to extend to “the more the better”.
So how much protein do sportspeople need? Consensus position statements such as those produced by the American College of Sports Medicine give the range of 1.2 grams to 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight.
But the top end of that range is for elite endurance athletes, power sportspeople and those in the early stages of a strength training phase. The “recreational athlete”, which describes the majority of active sportspeople, should aim for the bottom end of the range.
So how do those protein requirement numbers stack up against a regular diet? Protein intake and body weights collected in the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey, as an example, show the average Australian male already eats 1.2 grams and the average female 1.1 grams of protein per kilogram body weight. And this is for mostly sedentary people who are not following any special “high protein” training diet.
Sportspeople do have higher energy needs. But by simply eating a greater volume of food with a focus on higher protein content, it’s very feasible for an athlete to get their protein requirements from food alone.
This has been backed up by research; numerous dietary surveys show the normal diet of strength-based athletes provides around two grams of protein per kilogram body weight per day. And that’s before using any protein powders.
Some merit
But protein supplements can’t be dismissed altogether. There are circumstances where supplementation is an appropriate and convenient option for athletes, such as when travelling, or during an intense training schedule.
Athletes trying to drop weight on energy-restricted diets may find it harder to meet protein requirements, so a supplement could be of use during that time. But those situations are the exception, not the norm for the bulk of supplement users.
Optimal muscle growth and recovery is more than just about meeting daily protein needs. And this is where the concept of protein timing around exercise has some credence. Consuming protein after exercise is the best studied; about 20 grams of high-quality protein is sufficient to stimulate muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise.
How long this window is open for is still debated, but it likely exists for several hours. So, fear not gym goers, your muscle gains aren’t going to shrivel away because you didn’t chug down your protein shake five minutes after your last set of bench presses.
Combining all the protein timing research together leads to the conclusion that the body likely responds best to regular “doses” of protein throughout the day. I like to call this new muscle growth optimisation protocol “regular meals and snacks with a focus on higher protein foods”. Others may call it eating.
The right stuff
Not all protein sources are created equal. And in the field of sports nutrition research, it’s dairy protein that consistently receives much of the attention, and for good reason.
The two main proteins in dairy are casein and whey. They are digested and absorbed at different rates, with whey appearing in the bloodstream quicker. Most protein supplements are based on whey, but that’s more due to convenience because of its ready availability: it’s a waste product from cheese manufacturing.
Whey protein is of particular interest because it appears to have a stronger anabolic effect on muscle growth, thanks to a higher content of a specific essential amino acid called leucine. It may not fill up glossy advertising in fitness magazines, but something as unsexy as chocolate milk is well supported by research as ticking all the boxes for an effective recovery drink.
Chocolate milk contains a good mix of carbohydrates (to promote glycogen restoration and stimulate insulin release) and high-quality whey and casein protein all in the one package. It also has the added bonus of contributing to post-exercise rehydration. Science has never been so tasty.
But outside of cost, is there a downside to protein supplements? Yes, because they move the focus away from the undisputed benefits of a varied training diet. Research is now finding that body-conscious men are using these supplements for weight loss, setting them up for potential eating disorders.
The biggest performance gains in sport don’t come from protein supplements. They come from the triad of a broad varied diet, adequate rest and recovery, and the one supplement that all athletes need to be taking: BHW (bloody hard work).
Naomi says
Would love to know more about pea protein or hemp protein as a alternative to whey based proteins – and their effectiveness ?
Leon Massage says
Hi Tim
I enjoyed reading your excellent article. However,I’m surprised the humble egg white didn’t get a mention because of the high quality amino acids in egg albumin.
Cheers
Leon
Tim Crowe says
Hello Leon. Ah yes, so many good sources of protein to have in the diet as whole foods rather than using powdered supplements!
Cheers
Tim
Laura Troiano says
Great article. As a fellow RD based in UK with an interest in sport it’s great to have an article to refer people to and de-bunk all the protein myths.
Tim Crowe says
Hi Troy – your reading is correct that there isn’t firm evidence of a valid upper cut-off value for protein intake in otherwise healthy people. A figure of 2 g/kg body weight is used at times as a safe prudent level. As for red meat, it is one of the few foods that attained the highest level of evidence of ‘convincing’ by the World Cancer Research Fund in linking it to colorectal cancer, though intakes of 500 grams of cooked fresh red meat per week is considered safe, but processed meat is a different matter.
Longer-term observational evidence points to dietary patterns that are high in plant-based foods and that contain a variety of different animal food sources (not just red meat, but fish, poultry etc) as being linked the best to long-term health as I blogged about here http://www.thinkingnutrition.com.au/dietary-patterns-for-long-term-health/
Troy says
Thanks Tim.
I feel bad that despite your help often in the past that it’s taken me this long to start reading your blog posts (they’re great BTW).
“Longer-term observational evidence points to dietary patterns that are high in plant-based foods and that contain a variety of different animal food sources (not just red meat, but fish, poultry etc) as being linked the best to long-term health ”
Makes sense, thanks.
On that I just finished a workout so I best go get some WPI in me as soon as humanly possible so as to not miss my anabolic window of opportunity (or do we call that a thrity minute bro-window now?)
Troy says
Great article Tim.
In the absence of kidney and liver pathology, is there a limit or cut-off point to protein intakes theoretically speaking (seeing practically consuming lots is very hard to do)? My understanding is that the evidence is either not there yet or not applicable enough to be applied over the longer term but would love your clarification.
I’m also just generally curious about protein coming from animals. While I too have noticed that dairy tends to be very effective to fulfill the protein requirements of athletes, is meat protein in excess going to cause concerns related to CVD or the bowel (the latter speaking strictly outside of red meat production and more so inclusive of white meats)? Please inform me if I’m incorrect but in dissecting the Key’s study is it reasonable to assume correlation with higher animal protein intakes and heart disease?
Thanks again Tim.