Originally Posted by Mark Fenner
I get your point. I really do. I'm a trained scientist. I love science. I look for scientific evidence and reasoning whenever possible. We're each free to gather evidence from difference sources, analyze and weight that evidence given our experience and the reliability of the source, and make our conclusions.
I guess we have different perspectives on Lyle's credibility. If I want a five minute answer, I'm very satisfied looking to Lyle for advice. If I wanted to assess your recommendation, I'd have to take a ton of time looking at the credibility of that textbook, the research reviewed to reach that conclusion, etc. That would be a general waste.
I'm not questioning Lyle's credibility it's just that in this instance there's no evidence to support his recommendation.
If I care, the method of resolution is simple: go on a baseline training program for 4 weeks. Consume 1.5g/kg/d. Assess results. Take 2 weeks to re-normalize. Go on baseline training for another 4 weeks. Consume 3g/kg/d. Assess results. Compare consumption 1 and consumption 2. Compare dollars out of pocket. Compare life satisfaction. Make decision.
The experiment you describe and others like it have been done many times and the results consistently show that athletes require a protein intake of 1-1.8g/kg/d.