Posted: July 16, 2005
Science of Sport: How much protein do athletes need – and how safe are high-protein diets?
Protein is not just an essential nutrient, but the largest
component in the body after water, typically representing about 15%
of body weight. Most of this protein mass is found in skeletal
muscle, which explains the importance of protein to athletes.
However, proteins also play an important role in the following:
- Transport and storage of other nutrients;
- Catalysing biochemical reactions;
- Control of growth and differentiation;
- Immune protection;
- Providing our bodies with structural integrity.
Although the basic biochemistry and functional roles of protein
in the body have long been understood, there’s still a huge
amount of mythology and confusion surrounding protein nutrition,
especially where athletes are concerned. This is partly because of
general misconceptions about basic protein metabolism and partly
because new research continues to throw up surprises about exactly
what constitutes optimum protein nutrition!
Figure 1, below, provides a brief overview of protein
metabolism. The protein we eat is made up of around 20 amino acid
‘building blocks’. The process of digestion breaks down
dietary protein into its constituent amino acid building blocks,
which can then be absorbed into the body and reassembled to make
various kinds of human protein, such as muscle, connective tissue,
immune proteins, and so on.
Figure 1: overview of protein metabolism
However, it is important to understand that protein metabolism
is in a constant state of flux; although muscle and other tissues
contain a large amount of stored protein, this protein is not
‘locked away’. When dietary amino acids are
insufficient, tissue protein can rapidly be broken down back to
amino acid building blocks, which are then used to replenish the
‘amino acid pool’, a reservoir of amino acids that can
be drawn upon to support such vital functions as energy production
or immune function. This explains why muscle mass is often lost
during times of stress, disease and heavy training loads, or poor
nutrition.
Conversely, when dietary amino acids are in plentiful supply and
other demands for protein are low, tissue protein synthesis can
become the dominant process. The overall control of protein
turnover – ie whether the body is in a state of anabolism
(building up) or catabolism (breaking down), also known as positive
or negative nitrogen balance – is governed by hormonal
factors, caloric intake and availability of amino acids,
particularly of the nine ‘essential’ amino acids that
cannot be synthesised in the body and therefore have to be obtained
from the diet.
Maintaining optimum protein status
An athlete has to move his or her body to perform, and this
requires the muscles to generate force to accelerate body mass. As
a rule of thumb, the greater an athlete’s power-to-weight
ratio, the faster he or she can move, and (to a lesser extent) the
longer he or she will be able to maintain any given speed of
movement. Since all force and movement is generated by muscles,
most power athletes benefit from maximising muscle mass and
strength, while minimising the amount of superfluous body mass
– ie fat.
And while out-and-out muscle strength is less important for
endurance athletes, maintaining sufficient muscle mass is
critically important, not least because high training volumes are
known to increase the rate of protein oxidation from the amino acid
pool, potentially leading to delayed recovery, a loss of muscle
mass and consequent loss of power, and increased injury risk.
Given that athletic training is known to increase the demands on
the amino acid pool, many athletes, particularly bodybuilders and
strength athletes, adopt high-protein diets to maintain a positive
nitrogen balance, or at least prevent catabolism and loss of muscle
tissue. However, even today there remains much debate about how
much protein athletes really need to optimise and maintain
performance.
Protein v carbohydrate
There are other questions too. For example, should any extra
protein be ingested at the expense of carbohydrate, the
body’s preferred fuel for high-intensity training? And what
about the possible health implications of high-protein diets, about
which health professionals often express concerns?
Until recently the protein requirements of athletes were thought
to be similar to those of sedentary people, and athletes were
advised that they need only consume the recommended daily amount
(RDA) of protein (currently set at 0.8- 1.0g of protein per kg of
body weight per day) to maintain proper nitrogen balance. For a
70kg athlete, this would equate to 56-70g per day.
However, research over the past decade has indicated that
athletes engaged in intense training actually need to ingest about
1.5-2 times the RDA in order to maintain a positive protein
balance(1-5). This equates to
105-140g of protein per day for a 70kg athlete, which is equivalent
to three to four medium-sized chicken breasts or 13-20oz of canned
tuna per day! There is also evidence that training at altitude
imposes an even higher demand for protein – perhaps as much
as 2.2g per kg per day(6).
Unfortunately, these more recent findings on protein needs have
not yet become widely accepted by some of the powers that be. For
example, the UK’s Food Standards Agency website (in its
section on sports nutrition) simply states that protein is
important in the diet, especially ‘if you’re trying to
build muscle’. It goes on to advise: ‘Try not to eat
more protein than you need because your body won’t use it to
build muscle. Instead it converts excess protein to fat, which is
then stored, so try to make sure your protein intake is just right
for your needs.’ However, it never actually states what those
needs are.
Meanwhile, the EU’s Scientific Committee on Food recently
acknowledged that the increased training loads and energy
expenditure of athletes can increase protein requirements, and now
recommends that their protein intake should comprise around 10-11%
of total energy intake(7). For our
mythical 70kg athlete, burning 3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000kcal per
day (quite easily achieved with two-plus hours of vigorous training
at or above 75% VO2max per day), this equates to just
over 75, 100 or 125g of protein per day respectively.
Although foods like breads, cereals and legumes contain
significant amounts of protein, which can add to that contributed
by high-protein foods, such as meat, fish, milk and eggs, larger
athletes, or those engaged in high volumes of training, may
struggle to include the increased amounts of protein now
recommended in a ‘normal’ diet; indeed, a number of
nutritional surveys have indicated that protein insufficiency may
be a problem for certain groups of athletes, including runners,
cyclists, swimmers, triathletes, gymnasts, skaters and
wrestlers(8).
Forty years ago, it was protein that dominated the thoughts of
power athletes and bodybuilders. Employing the simple logic that
muscles are made of protein, and that to build muscle you need lots
of protein, steak-and-egg diets were the order of the day! But as
the importance of carbohydrates in supplying energy and driving the
insulin system (the most anabolic hormone in the body) became
clearer, the emphasis gradually shifted.
This shift in emphasis was encouraged by an appreciation of the
health benefits of dietary fibre present in unrefined
carbohydrates, and also by research suggesting that very high
protein intakes simply resulted in increased protein oxidation,
imposing an additional load on the liver and kidneys. A scientific
consensus began to form around the notion that diets containing
substantially more than 1.0g of protein per kg per day were not
only wasteful but potentially harmful, increasing the risk of
kidney and liver problems, cardiac disease and even loss of bone
density.
However, the recent meteoric rise in popularity of high-protein
diets, such as Zone and Atkins, for slimmers has ignited a fierce
debate about the safety and efficacy of high-protein diets, which is
also relevant for athletes who routinely consume high-protein
diets. In 2001, the American Heart Association’s nutrition
committee published a statement on dietary protein intakes,
claiming that: ‘Individuals who follow these [high-protein]
diets are at risk for potential cardiac, renal, bone and liver
abnormalities overall’(9).
If you examine the scientific literature, it is hard to see how
this consensus, linking high protein intakes to increased health
risks, has become so widespread. In a recent meta-review of the
literature, Finnish scientists searched for any evidence supporting
the hypothesis that high protein diets, containing two to three
times the current RDA for protein, increase the risk of a number of
health conditions – and drew a big fat blank(10). They concluded that:
- There is no evidence to suggest that (in the absence of overt
disease) renal function is impaired by high protein diets;
- Far from reducing bone mineral density, high-protein diets may
actually increase it;
- Such diets are associated with lower not higher blood
pressures.
These conclusions have also been confirmed by other researchers;
healthy athletes should not, therefore, be dissuaded from
increasing their protein intake to up to three times the RDA level
if they so wish.
High-protein diets and hydration
There’s a fairly linear relationship between protein
intake and urea production, which means that high protein diets
increase the amount of urea the kidneys have to excrete. With this
elevated production of urea comes an increase in the obligatory
water requirement of the kidneys to do their job, and that in turn
has raised the question of whether athletes (whose fluids needs are
already increased) on high-protein diets are at increased risk of
dehydration.
To answer this question, scientists at the University of
Connecticut compared the hydration levels of athletes consuming low
(0.8g per kg per day), medium (1.8g) and high (3.6g) protein diets,
each containing the same number of calories(11). Analysis of the results showed that, while
there were significant increases in urine and plasma urea on the
high-protein diet, the effects of increasing dietary protein on
fluid status was minimal.
Moreover, to date there have been no studies conclusively
demonstrating that increased protein intake leads to a loss in
total body water. However, the researchers pointed out that the
subjects in their study probably consumed enough water to meet any
increased requirement, which explains – at least in part
– why their hydration status was not compromised. They also
concluded that more research is needed. In the meantime, however,
it seems prudent to recommend that all athletes on high-protein
diets should drink plenty of extra fluid, especially in warm
conditions.
For many athletes, power-to-weight ratio is more important than
outright power for optimum performance, and this explains why
reducing excess body fat is often beneficial. New evidence is now
emerging that high-protein diets might actually help in this
process. Although research indicates that, providing the same
number of calories are eaten, the relative proportions of protein
and carbohydrate in the diet do not affect the amount or
composition of weight loss in a reduced calorie regime(12-14), these ratios do affect appetite, with
subjects tending to be more hungry on higher carbohydrate intakes
and less hungry on higher protein intakes.
More generally, scientists now believe that diet composition
strongly affects ad lib energy intake, with both laboratory and
free-living studies highlighting protein as a more satiating
macronutrient than carbohydrate or fat(15). This theory is supported by studies
indicating that subjects consuming high-protein (more than 20%
protein by energy) diets consume less overall than those on
low-protein diets(16,17). The exact
mechanisms are as yet unclear, but probably involve hormonal and
chemical changes in regions of the brain known to be associated in
hunger and appetite control.
Protein and weight loss
In one of the studies mentioned above(17), 13 obese men were split into two groups and
fed lowcalorie diets. One group received a high-protein diet (45%
protein, 25% carbohydrate and 30% fat) and the other a
high-carbohydrate diet (12% protein, 58% carbs and 30% fat). Not
only was weight loss greater in the high-protein group but basal
metabolism decreased less than in the highcarb group, suggesting
that the high-protein diet was able to offset the loss in lean body
mass (basal metabolism being a function of lean body mass) that
normally occurs while dieting.
No studies of this type have been carried out on athletes, but
it seems likely that high-protein diets have something to offer
athletes seeking a reduction in body fat while conserving muscle
tissue. While high-protein/low-carbohydrate diets of the type
described above would not contain sufficient carbohydrate to permit
normal training, our mythical 70kg athlete, consuming a 25% protein
diet on a mildly calorie-restricted diet of 2,500kcals per day,
would be consuming around 600kcal of protein, or 150g, a day. This
is well within the ‘safety zone’ of two to three times
the RDA (0.8-1.0g per kg per day) yet with a sufficiently high
protein content to exert an increased satiation effect.
Moreover, the athlete would still be able to consume up to 50%
carbohydrates (1,250kcal per day, sufficient for moderate training
volumes), while consuming enough calories (25%) from fat to meet
essential fat requirements. However, athletes need to remember,
given the importance of carbohydrate for energy requirements, that
even this regime would contain insufficient carbohydrate for
higher-volume training and competition phases!
In summary, there is good evidence that athletes need a
plentiful supply of protein in their diets and that, contrary to
previous recommendations, they do need substantially more protein
than their sedentary counterparts – at least 50% and possibly
up to 120% more. For a 70kg athlete, this can mean up to 150g of
pure protein per day.
However, the role of carbohydrates in supplying energy for fuel
and recovery remain as important as ever, which means the diet must
contain high-quality, low-fat sources of protein in order to enable
adequate carbohydrate intake without an overall excess of calories.
Simply assuming that because you eat more food than the average
person you’ll be consuming adequate protein is not good
enough!
There is no evidence that routinely exceeding the recommended
protein intake has any additional benefits on nitrogen balance,
unless this extra protein is consumed as a protein/ carbohydrate
drink before, during or after training – something
we’ll tackle in the next article (see below). However, there
is evidence that even higher protein intakes may help suppress
appetite, control hunger and reduce lean tissue loss during
restricted calorie routines, which may be useful for athletes
needing to reduce or maintain body weight, although such diets are
not really compatible with high-volume training routines.
Finally, despite what you may have read elsewhere, healthy
athletes can rest assured that high protein diets containing up to
three times the current RDA for protein are perfectly safe,
although it is important to remain well hydrated on such diets.
Andrew Hamilton
References
- J Appl Physiol 1992;73(2):767-75
- J Appl Physiol 1988;64(1):187-93
- J Appl Physiol 1992;73(5):1986-95
- Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 1999;2(6):533-7
- Sportscience 1999. Available: www.sportsci.org;3(1)
- Butterfield G (1991). Amino acids and high protein diets. In
Lamb D, Williams M (editors), Perspectives in exercise science and
sports medicine, vol 4; Ergogenics, enhancement of performance in
exercise and sport (pages 87-122). Indianapolis, Indiana: Brown
& Benchmark
- EU Scientific Committee on Food, 2004, Working Document –
20 April. Available: www.food.gov.uk
- Sports Nutrition Review Journal 2004; 1(1):1-44
- Circulation 2001; 104:1869-74
- Sports Nutrition Review Journal 2004; 1(1):45-51
- Presentation by WF Martin at Experimental Biology meeting,
April 2002 New Orleans, USA
- Am J Clin Nutr 1996; 63, 174-178
- Diabet. Care 2002; 25, 652-657
- N Engl. J. Med 2003; 348, 2074- 2081
- Eur J Clin Nutr 1996; 50, 418-430
- Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999; 23, 528-536
- Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999; 23(11), 1202-6
|
|