by Greg E. Bradley-Popovich, DPT, MSEP, MS, CSCS

© 2000

The lore and common wisdom promoted in muscle magazines and gyms everywhere place protein high on a pedestal. Protein is generally regarded as an essential and almost mystical ingredient in achieving optimal progress in physique enhancement. It’s no secret that people who participate in resistance exercise benefit from increased protein consumption. But, we don’t all train the same way. Does your particular training preference affect how much protein you need to make the best progress in muscular development?

A review of past research has estimated that resistance-trained persons may require 1.6 to 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram bodyweight per day (Lemon, 1998). Another review recently estimated 1.2 to 1.8 grams of protein per kilogram bodyweight per day to allow maximal muscle growth (Walberg Rankin, 1999). For my master’s thesis, I reviewed all of the prior resistance training studies employing nitrogen balance, an index of muscle growth, and calculated that increases in lean body mass most favorably occurred at protein intakes over 1.35 grams of protein per kilogram body weight per day (unpublished data). Clearly, ample evidence exists to show that those who pump iron need to pump in the protein. The common recommendation of 1 gram of protein per pound bodyweight to increase muscle mass is equal to 2.2 grams of protein per kilogram, which is just a bit higher than what has been demonstrated to offer benefits under laboratory conditions.

There are myriad resistance training protocols out there advocating radically different amounts of exercise to help you put on muscle mass. For example, some fitness authorities recommend 5-10 sets per exercise (Hartmann and Tunnemann, 1995) and a frequency of 6 days per week (Bompa & Cornacchia, 1998) while others may recommend as few as a single set of three exercises performed once every 7-10 days (McGuff, 1999). Given these diametrically opposed training methods, a question asked of me some time ago by a reader was whether the chosen resistance training method affected protein needs for optimal training adaptations. What an excellent question! I’ll attempt to provide an answer by looking at individual training variables below.

In my own statistical analysis of the effects of resistance training on protein needs (as assessed by nitrogen balance), there was no significant interaction between total training time and nitrogen balance. In simple terms, it appears that training duration, a rough reflection of exercise volume, does not change the requirements for optimal muscle mass increases. More strength training does not necessarily mean more protein is needed. This makes sense given some other facts.

There are about ten published studies comparing single-set versus multiple-set resistance exercise programs which examined the differential effect of number of exercise sets on muscle mass measurements. Despite widespread belief to the contrary, multiple sets (greater than one set) have never been scientifically shown to be superior to single sets in stimulating muscle mass increases in studies lasting up to 6 months (Carpinelli & Otto, 1998; Curto & Fisher, 1999; Sanborn et al., 2000). An exception is one author’s work comparing different exercises, different sets, different repetition ranges, and different frequencies between training groups, which makes it tough to say that what led to greater body mass differences in higher-volume trainees (Kraemer, 1997). If you’re a multiple-set proponent, please don’t throw things at your computer monitor! I don’t wish to open up a can of worms here; I’m donning my white lab coat and simply stating what the sum of the scientific evidence has shown. Given what the preponderance of evidence suggests to date, there should be no reason that more protein is required of either high-volume or low-volume trainees if training-induced increases in lean body mass are generally expected to be the same.

Some may believe that higher lifting volume must breakdown more protein to meet higher energy demands of longer workout sessions. However, it is well-established that protein does not contribute considerably to the energy needs of athletes except for extreme endurance athletes (Lemon, 1998). So, although high-volume trainees may expend more energy during a training session, only a few grams of protein may be catabolized to meet energy demands.

What about the extra wear and tear on the body from multiple-set routines? Undeniably, more tissue trauma may result from higher-volume routine or one that incorporates ballistic lifts. Despite what additional muscle and connective tissue damage these lifting preferences may inflict, the body is very efficient at recycling damaged proteins.

In addition to the amount of exercise performed in a given workout, weighttraining programs also vary in the amount of recommended rest between similar workouts. Some people may reason that those who train less frequently may need less daily protein because they’ll have longer to recuperate, thus getting more protein between workouts because you can consume a lot more protein over, say, a seven-day rest period as opposed to a two-day rest period. Superficially, this argument may sound plausible. But, let’s turn it around to analyze its validity. This line of reasoning would suggest that those who trained more frequently would have to increase the amount of protein consumed daily. However, the net amount of protein consumed between workouts probably does not affect protein needs because consuming tons of protein will not increase the rate at which muscle protein synthesis occurs (Lemon, 1998). In other words, supplying more lumber doesn’t make the little muscle carpenters hammer any faster.

There are three repetition ranges that are commonly used by strength-trained persons. Traditionally, folks do low repetitions with heavy weights for strength, moderate reps for muscle size, and high reps for "toning." Again, I must challenge these basic assumptions because they are not strongly supported by scientific evidence. Studies have failed to reliably demonstrate differences in muscle size depending on repetition range (Chestnut & Docherty, 1999; Hisaeda et al., 1996), and results are inconsistent at best (Weiss, Coney, & Clark, 2000). The common element of growth-stimulating exercises appears to be exerting significant effort during the last repetitions of the set. So, regardless of what repetition range you perform, chances are that you will still gain similar increases in muscle and therefore you will require similar quantities of protein intake. I suppose if trainees of the strength or toning persuasion really wanted to minimize the gain of muscle tissue, then they could "sabotage" their diets by intentionally consuming less protein than what is recommended.

Although to my knowledge no studies have directly assessed the protein needs of one resistance training style versus another, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that low-volume and high-volume trainees have greatly different protein requirements for optimal muscle mass increase. While the absolute amount of protein in grams should be nearly the same regardless of the number of sets performed, the percent of protein in the diet would be more for low-volume trainees because they obviously would need to consume less calories from carbohydrates and fat for energy.

Because people tend to be very defensive of their training orientation, I’ve self-enacted a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy. Regardless of whatever training routine you advocate and implement, the following calculations should help you estimate your daily protein needs to meet the demands of muscle growth.

It’s easy. Since protein needs are usually expressed in grams per kilograms, let’s stick with that convention. Just divide your body weight in pounds by 2.2. This converts pounds to kilograms. Then, multiply by 1.8 to find your grams of protein per kilogram. Let’s have an example.

Body weight: 150 pounds

Next, divide by 2.2: 150 pounds / 2.2 kilograms per pound = 68.2 kilograms

Now multiply by 1.8: 68.2 kilograms X 1.8 grams of protein per kilogram

= 123 grams of protein per day

See, that wasn’t so bad. Please do not obsess over the exact number of grams, as this is not that precise of a science at this time. So, for the person in the example above, I would arbitrarily call 110-130 grams of protein just fine.

I suggest that anyone interested in maximizing muscle mass consume the upper end of the range (1.8 grams per kilogram body weight per day), which should cover about 97.5% of all strength trainees. Your needs may be further increased if you:

• are just beginning strength training
• are performing prolonged endurance training in addition to strength training
• are vegetarian, thus making it harder to consume high-quality proteins
• are restricting calorie intake

Don’t worry. Even if you are modestly over consuming protein at the upper intake, it is highly unlikely that it will have any negative health consequences (Poortmans & Dellalieux, 2000). (For more on the topic of protein safety, see my article entitled "Protein Paranoia" at this site.)

Ah yes, we may be separated by that great training divide, but we are all united under a common protein recommendation.

Dr. Greg Bradley-Popovich holds dual master's degrees in Exercise Physiology and Human Nutrition from West Virginia University as well as a doctorate in Physical Therapy from Creighton University. He is the Director of Clinical Research at Northwest Spine Management, Rehabilitation, and Sports Conditioning in Portland, Oregon.

Back to Library Main Page

• Bompa, T. O. & Cornacchia, L. J. (1998). Serious strength training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
• Carpinelli, R. N., & Otto, R. M. (1998). Strength training: Single versus multiple sets. Sports Medicine, 26, 73-84.
• Chestnut, J. L. & Docherty, D. (1999). The effects of 4 and 10 repetition maximum weight-training protocols on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13, 353-359.
• Curto, M. A., & Fisher, M. M. (1999). The effect of single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise on strength in trained males [Abstract]. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31 (Suppl.), S114.
• Hartmann, J. & Tunnemann, H. (1995). Fitness and strength training for all sports. Toronto, ON: Sports Books Publisher.
• Hass, C. J., Garzarella, L., De Hoyos, D., & Pollock, M. L. (2000). Single versus multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 235-242.
• Hisaeda et al. (1996). Influence of two different modes of resistance training in female subjects. Ergonomics, 39, 842-852.
• Kraemer, W. J. (1997). A series of studies--the physiological basis for strength training in American football: Fact over philosophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11, 131-142.
• Lemon, P. W. R. (1998). Effects of exercise on dietary protein requirements. International Journal of Sport Nutrition, 8, 426-447.
• McGuff, M. D. (1999). Ultimate exercise bulletin number 1. Seneca, SC: Ultimate Exercise.
• Poortmans, J., & Dellalieux, O. (2000). Do regular high protein diets have potential health risks on kidney function in athletes? International Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 10, 28-38.
• Sanborn, K., Boros, R., Hruby, J., Schilling, B., O’Bryant, H. S., Johnson, R. L., Hoke, T., Stone, M. E., & Stone, M. H. (2000). Short-term performance effects of weight training with multiple sets not to failure vs. a single set to failure in women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14, 328-331.
• Walberg Rankin, J. (1999). Role of protein in exercise. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 18(3), 499-511.
• Weiss, L. W., Coney, H. D., Clark, F. C. (2000). Gross measures of exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy. Journal of Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 30, 143-148.