Protein requirements for climbing?

Not even close to being an expert in this field, but I have been following the general advice found in training for climbing literature regarding protein intake for the last year and, anecdotally, I have seen measurable gains in my strength and fitness without really doing anything to my training regiment. Still mostly plant-based except for my morning yogurt and the occasional egg.

I am not disagreeing with Long Ranger's opinion if we are talking about a member of the general population seeking a healthy lifestyle, but I tried listening to the linked podcast and it seemed to focus more on discrimination/racism than protein intake for athletes looking to improve performance. Maybe OP should edit the title to Protein Requirements for Performance Climbing. 

David K wrote:

Counterpoint, from someone who actually knows what they're talking about: nutrition for climbing.

Yeah, I had an issue with this video as well - Somewhere there's a comment of mine from 11 months ago: 

NOTE: I'm not saying the podcast you linked is wrong. However, I'll point out that literally all the nutrition resources it links are about child development, not about exercise. The evidence you're citing isn't a source for what you're saying: it literally has nothing to do with exercise, let alone climbing. Maybe protein isn't as needed for child development as previously thought, but it's certainly necessary for muscle growth and general recovery from exertion.

What I think is interesting - and why I think it's relevant is perhaps this is (one of) the genesis of why there's such a focus on the amount of protein in one's diet, how that somehow equates to health, and why that number is so high. It was just a myth created to market a product. How many times has that happened to consumers?

When you say "it works": for what purpose, and how well does it work compared to other possibilities?

Depending on what your climbing goals are, you may be able to reach your climbing goals with a truly abysmal diet if you get enough other things right (training, rest, etc.). That "works" for you, but that doesn't mean your diet is optimal.

I'm always bemused when climbers think that somehow they're protein deficient, perhaps since climbing just doesn't put a lot of pressure on the body to do this massive amount of hypertrophy - and that's just because climbers focus only on the upper body - which pound for pound of muscle, is much less than the lower body - and of that upper body, there's much more focus on pulling muscles. Serious/elite climbers are generally pretty small people. If an adult male weighing 140lbs thinks they need 200 grams of protein/day to train for climbing (7, 1/4 pound hamburger paddies - to use Earl's example), I'd say that may be on the high end. 

I'm not sure where the idea is coming from that I think someone can get away with an abysmal diet - certainly not. My only point is that you don't need extra high amounts of protein - or even supplement additional protein in one's diet, so long as you're not eating absolute garbage. For people who are looking to supplement protein, I do think it is worth looking into one's diet first and seeing just how much protein one is already getting (ie: a food diary). Maybe one is already getting enough protein already, making supplementation unneeded, or simple modifications to one's diet is all you need. I'm just of the opinion that it's better to get things through real food.

I do think it's an intriguing idea that no matter who you are, people's protein needs are pretty similar, and that activity level doesn't necessarily impact protein requirements. Personally (again, if you're not eating like garbage), if one is meeting one's personal daily calorie requirements, you'll also be getting enough protein automatically. Nothing more to think about. And to me that makes sense, since I don't change my food habits drastically from days I go bouldering at the gym for 2 hours, to days like today where I'm doing some sort of aerobic effort for (counts...) 16 hours. But somehow I'm not wasting away.  

Meat/dairy/eggs obviously aren't the only sources of protein, as vegans have shown you don't just drop dead opting out of eating them (B12 supplementation - which I would support, notwithstanding). That's more where I'm coming from when I say I don't believe in food restrictions - there's no one true, perfect diet for everyone. You could count the protein that's in the broccoli you ate towards your daily total in that food diary, and I'd say that's valid.

It's possible that the only problem someone is having when it comes to gaining muscle is just that someone isn't eating enough. In weightlifting parlance, the myth of the hard gainer is the fact of the under-eater. If you want to get those calories through protein supplementation - be my guest, but that's just an awkward/inefficient way of doing it.

I babbling at this point - that 16 hours is catching up to me.

Ted Pinson wrote: Hey everyone,

I was listening to the TrainingBeta podcast recently, and the guest mentioned that they experienced huge gains after changing their diet, as they realized that they weren’t getting enough protein and that this was affecting their recovery.  This made me wonder how much is “enough,” specifically for climbing.  According to le Google:

“To increase muscle mass in combination with physical activity, it is recommended that a person that lifts weights regularly or is training for a running or cycling event eat a range of 1.2-1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, or 0.5 to 0.8 grams per pound of body weight.”

https://www.acsm.org/docs/default-source/files-for-resource-library/protein-intake-for-optimal-muscle-maintenance.pdf?sfvrsn=688d8896_2

For those of you who track and intentionally meet a particular protein goal, is this what you use, or is there a different guideline specifically for climbing?

Everyone's protein requirements are different depending on their body type and activity they are engaged in. Experiment for best results.

Long Ranger wrote:

Yeah, I had an issue with this video as well - Somewhere there's a comment of mine from 11 months ago: 

You note that you'd be taking in 126g of protein daily by your own advice. That's more than twice the 50g universally recommended by the FDA. So it seems that you agree with me that climbing requires a lot of protein. If you've ever actually eaten that much protein, you'll notice that doing so involves choking down a whole lot of certain foods--beyond what's even comfortable to eat without supplementation.

Your belief that small snacks of protein throughout the day is ideal was probably the generally accepted belief 11 months ago, but new research seems to indicate that consuming protein in a few large boluses of >50g each is more effective. I'll be careful to say, the research doesn't seem conclusive to me yet, but given the little evidence we have, that seems to be the way to go.

What I think is interesting - and why I think it's relevant is perhaps this is (one of) the genesis of why there's such a focus on the amount of protein in one's diet, how that somehow equates to health, and why that number is so high. It was just a myth created to market a product. How many times has that happened to consumers?

Maybe the overselling of protein intake for child development is interesting in a general sense, but it's not relevant to climbing performance, period. Note the topic of this post: "Protein requirements for climbing?"

If you want to do something about the overselling of protein for child development you might want to something like boycott Nestle and other companies involved in this, instead of talking about it on the internet. But if you want to participate in discussions about nutrition research, you should bring up relevant research. Bringing up corporate manipulation of protein info for child development on a completely unrelated topic just comes across as pointless virtue signaling.

I'm always bemused when climbers think that somehow they're protein deficient, perhaps since climbing just doesn't put a lot of pressure on the body to do this massive amount of hypertrophy - and that's just because climbers focus only on the upper body - which pound for pound of muscle, is much less than the lower body - and of that upper body, there's much more focus on pulling muscles. Serious/elite climbers are generally pretty small people. If an adult male weighing 140lbs thinks they need 200 grams of protein/day to train for climbing (7, 1/4 pound hamburger paddies - to use Earl's example), I'd say that may be on the high end.

Protein is used by the human body for a lot more than hypertrophy. Some things relevant to climbing:

1. Muscles and connective tissue repair using protein, and climbing does place pretty severe recovery requirements on your fingers, elbows, and shoulders in particular. If you don't consume enough protein, you can expect to have more overuse injuries than you would otherwise.
2. Climbing optimizes for an ideal strength/weight ratio. Obviously excessive hypertrophy isn't desirable because it drives up weight too much. But when you lose fat, that's a catabolic process: losing fat will lose muscle with it in most cases (only beginners can reasonably expect to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time). Dietary protein is a necessary component for minimizing muscle loss during fat loss. If anything, maintaining muscle while losing fat requires more protein-per-calorie intake than hypertrophy alone.
3. We know from weight lifting research that hypertrophy (muscle size) isn't the same thing as strength anyway. A bodybuilder trying to maximize tricep diameter would be well-served by overhead press sets of 8-10 reps, which would not result in optimal one-rep max. On the other hand, a strength lifter trying to maximize one-rep overhead press would be well-served by overhead press sets of 3-5 reps, which would not result in optimal tricep diameter. Which is optimal for climbing, I don't know. I suspect it depends a bit on what kind of climbing you're doing, but I don't know of any research specific to that.

I'm not sure where the idea is coming from that I think someone can get away with an abysmal diet - certainly not.

Then you should read the rest of the sentence that you're referring to, because I explained that. Here's the full sentence, including the parts you ignored: "Depending on what your climbing goals are, you may be able to reach your climbing goals with a truly abysmal diet if you get enough other things right (training, rest, etc.)."

My only point is that you don't need extra high amounts of protein - or even supplement additional protein in one's diet, so long as you're not eating absolute garbage. For people who are looking to supplement protein, I do think it is worth looking into one's diet first and seeing just how much protein one is already getting (ie: a food diary). Maybe one is already getting enough protein already, making supplementation unneeded, or simple modifications to one's diet is all you need. I'm just of the opinion that it's better to get things through real food.

I agree with you here, not for any performance reasons, but from my personal experience that consuming a lot of supplementary protein makes me feel worse. My protein intake looks roughly like 50% yogurt, 25% eggs, 10% meat (preferably white meat), 10% whey supplements, and 5% other stuff.

I do think it's an intriguing idea that no matter who you are, people's protein needs are pretty similar, and that activity level doesn't necessarily impact protein requirements. Personally (again, if you're not eating like garbage), if one is meeting one's personal daily calorie requirements, you'll also be getting enough protein automatically. Nothing more to think about.

It's not intriguing only in the same sense that Lord of the Rings is intriguing if you like fantasy. If you want to talk about reality, it's not intriguing, it's simply incorrect.

And to me that makes sense, since I don't change my food habits drastically from days I go bouldering at the gym for 2 hours, to days like today where I'm doing some sort of aerobic effort for (counts...) 16 hours. But somehow I'm not wasting away.  

You completely ignored where I said, "When you say "it works": for what purpose, and how well does it work compared to other possibilities?" If your goal is just to not waste away, sure. If your goal is to climb as hard as you possibly can, you don't even have any basis for comparison to know what you could be climbing at if you consumed more protein. 

Meat/dairy/eggs obviously aren't the only sources of protein, as vegans have shown you don't just drop dead opting out of eating them (B12 supplementation - which I would support, notwithstanding). That's more where I'm coming from when I say I don't believe in food restrictions - there's no one true, perfect diet for everyone. You could count the protein that's in the broccoli you ate towards your daily total in that food diary, and I'd say that's valid.

While there's something to be said for different proteins being different, I think if you're just saying "protein is protein no matter the source" that's probably a good enough approximation unless you're trying to perform at a very elite level.

That said, I was vegan for a while, and if you want to try to get 100+g of protein without supplementation and without animal products, good luck. You're either going to be sick of seitan and tofu: a serving of broccoli has 3g of protein and most plant-based foods have in the range of 1-5g, so you're just not going to hit the numbers you want without some intentionality.

It's possible that the only problem someone is having when it comes to gaining muscle is just that someone isn't eating enough. In weightlifting parlance, the myth of the hard gainer is the fact of the under-eater. If you want to get those calories through protein supplementation - be my guess, but that's just an awkward/inefficient way of doing it.

True, but again, strength/weight ratio is the priority here, not hypertrophy and just eating more isn't necessarily an ideal solution.

David, I want to honor your reply, but you did write a ton, and I'm on an adventure hangover, so I'll try to reply to some of what you wrote, and I apologize for anything I missed out. You may have some interesting points, but my brain is not firing good enough to engage. My usual problem is that I burn more calories than the body can actual process/day, and that leads me pretty languid:  

David K wrote:

You note that you'd be taking in 126g of protein daily by your own advice. That's more than twice the 50g universally recommended by the FDA. So it seems that you agree with me that climbing requires a lot of protein. 

Is the FDA recommendation universal? As a 185lb, 40 year old dude with a high activity level, that would be a starvation diet. I think the FDA recommendation is kinda just that: the absolute minimum you need to eat to not kinda: die.

If you've ever actually eaten that much protein, you'll notice that doing so involves choking down a whole lot of certain foods--beyond what's even comfortable to eat without supplementation.

I'll try to keep a food diary today,

Your belief that small snacks of protein throughout the day is ideal was probably the generally accepted belief 11 months ago, but new research seems to indicate that consuming protein in a few large boluses of >50g each is more effective. I'll be careful to say, the research doesn't seem conclusive to me yet, but given the little evidence we have, that seems to be the way to go.

I'm fine with either one really. I think it's better to look at trends in one's eating over a long span of time, rather than just daily. 

Maybe the overselling of protein intake for child development is interesting in a general sense, but it's not relevant to climbing performance, period. Note the topic of this post: "Protein requirements for climbing?"

Maybe my thought process is that climbing is no different than anything else, and doesn't need a specific recommendation. 

If you want to do something about the overselling of protein for child development you might want to something like boycott Nestle and other companies involved in this, instead of talking about it on the internet. But if you want to participate in discussions about nutrition research, you should bring up relevant research. Bringing up corporate manipulation of protein info for child development on a completely unrelated topic just comes across as pointless virtue signaling.

Again, I think my thought was that the health and wellness industry is pretty damn good at marketing, and people are making cash money convincing others that they're deficient in one thing or another, protein being one of those things. If some is good, more must be better, right? 

What may have started out as targeting infants, then expands to the general population, since the marketing dept saw it worked so well.  If you look at protein supplements marketing, it's usually with someone with an incredible physique that was not created naturally. It's not the protein supplementation that's causing the muscle development in isolation; it's the gear. 

That podcast is actually pretty interesting as a series, as it does go into a lot of different diets and how marketing works to try to sell them to people. Good episode on Keto.

While there's something to be said for different proteins being different, I think if you're just saying "protein is protein no matter the source" that's probably a good enough approximation unless you're trying to perform at a very elite level.

That said, I was vegan for a while, and if you want to try to get 100+g of protein without supplementation and without animal products, good luck. You're either going to be sick of seitan and tofu: a serving of broccoli has 3g of protein and most plant-based foods have in the range of 1-5g, so you're just not going to hit the numbers you want without some intentionality.

There's a lot going on in the above - and I'm not without blame for muddying the waters. I think my point is, when looking at protein intake from natural sources, you look at all protein ingested, not just ones found in meat/dairy/eggs. When I dabbled in being veggie/vegan, there was the idea that you needed to combine food sources to get a "complete" protein, and this turned out to be patently false, sourced from one author of one book, yet the idea caught on like wildfire. Circling around to protein intake, to me it seems the same thing: that the myth is one needs a ton to have optimal health and elite athletes: more so. Protein supplementation is a pretty benign thing to do, and you just lose out on the $25 you spend on the 30 day supply tub of protein. But perhaps it's a dead end and what you really needed to do was something else. But I'm happy that people experiment, but it's not always miracles.

True, but again, strength/weight ratio is the priority here, not hypertrophy and just eating more isn't necessarily an ideal solution.

To me, this gets too close to disordered eating, and what ruffles my feathers. Like if you could get 120 grams of protein (or pick your amount) but still eat a low calorie diet, that somehow you could excel in climbing by somehow staying strong yet light and what I'm saying is... maybe things dont' work that way? As if without supplementation it's now real food that's enemy since it's not providing the one isolated thing you want, at the high levels you think you need. And disorder eating is something that's pretty normalized in elite climbing, especially in young'ins. How many climbers have shared those types of stories, then have come back with, "When I eat more, I perform better, despite weighing more"

(I'm getting pretty close to navel gazing, I understand)

Eggs. Steak. No processed food, mostly. For me. Not out to win awards.

Obviously, you can become very strong and agile with simple exercises and a normal diet for an active lifestyle.

Certainly, Lance Armstrong and many other pros have proven that shortcuts are available for quick gains in power and endurance. Not sure about flexibility or skill.

The other Alex:

"Alex Lowe had a reputation as one of the fittest and strongest mountaineers who ever lived. Lowe’s exceptional upper body strength was developed through a fanatical exercise regime that regularly included 400 pull-ups and hundreds of dips."

I doubt it was the protein shakes.

It’s possible macronutrients aren’t very important. Maybe the human body can thrive on quite a large variance of macronutrient ratios and the more important factor when it comes to diet and performance are micronutrients, minerals, and calorie intake. It’s possible the human body can recycle some of its amino acids.

Lone Ranger: I wrote a longer and stronger-worded post, but it basically boils down to this:

On the one hand, there are literally hundreds of scientists who have spent a lot of time doing experiments and studies on how protein intake affects athletic recovery, muscle growth, etc. The evidence that protein intake improves athletic performance and recovery is broad and deep. Research specific to rock climbing is a bit more sparse because it's a newer sport, but there is some sport-specific research, and I don't think it's controversial that research from other strength/weight ratio sports is applicable to rock climbing.

And then on the other hand, there's you. So far you've speculated that "maybe climbing isn't different from anything else" and "maybe consuming protein is a dead end" instead of doing almost any amount of research on nutrition for climbing performance, which would clearly show you that these speculations are both false. You also seem to prefer speculating about what I'm saying, instead of reading what I actually say--I never suggested eating only protein and nothing else, that's entirely something you made up. You talk about your "thought process", but your thought process seems to actually be just saying whatever random thing comes into your head, without concern for whether or not what you say is actually true. We have a word in the English language for that: lying. Let me reiterate that: if you just share whatever speculation pops into your head without at least making a basic attempt to find out whether what you are saying is true, what you are doing is lying.

Your unfiltered ideas aren't "intriguing". They aren't a contribution to the conversation. They're not reality. They're just fantasy, which directly contradicts the wide variety of information which scientists have worked hard to gather.

It's not the end of the world if you decide to lie about climbing nutrition. The worst that happens in this case is maybe someone doesn't eat enough protein and doesn't reach their full potential as a rock climber. But if this is the way you approach talking about scientific topics, you're going to end up spreading some really harmful misinformation. So I would strongly suggest that in the future, spend a few minutes finding out whether the random thought you've had is true before saying it.

Ted Pinson wrote:
For those of you who track and intentionally meet a particular protein goal, is this what you use, or is there a different guideline specifically for climbing?

Re: OP. 1g/lb is spot on for most recreational athletes. Check this International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand for details regarding professional athletes.  Any protein is more important than specific amino acids, but the combination of whey and collagen works quite well. Space it out, but you can probably absorb more than the commonly quoted 20g/day.  Regarding the protein absorption cap, check this review of the research out: https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-can-you-eat-in-one-sitting/ Disclaimer: I'm a dietitian and nutrition writer contracted with Examine.com.

David, the topic of taking protein supplements in climbing comes up fairly regularly on the forums, so I apologize if I'm not posting all my sources every time. Although embedded in an image, I did link to an article on protein intake for climbers by Brian, who is someone I know in real life and talk to about nutrition, as well as the underlying study that concludes that protein requirements may not be directly linked to sex, size, or even activity level. Here it is, 

https://www.climbingnutrition.com/diet/protein/protein-supplementation-effective-aka-much-protein-need/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11706282/

So, no I'm not basing my opinions on nothing.

And to me, yeah: that is an intriguing study. Brian's three part article goes on to explain what could be a good amount of protein to get daily, with a hearty margin of error.

In my sniff-test opinion, it seems pretty sound, and not all that different than what's already suggested by other nutritionists. Anything more than that, I would be of the opinion, is not needed. I do go on to say that pushing further protein supplementation is all about marketing a product, because that's what the fitness industry is built on. I even go to say I don't champion one specific diet. And I finally go on to say disordered eating is bad, elite climbers have struggled with disordered eating - and if it wasn't crystal clear I have experienced disordered eating when I started climbing - and one of the ways I fell into this was being obsessed over every gram of food in my diet. As a current, healthy, muscle up to my teeth ultra endurance athlete, I can at least share with you the anecdata on what has worked for me, for all that's worth.

I'm not sure where you are finding controversy.  

But, David, I also don't see any studies that you've linked, so if you'd like to, please feel free. 

Long Ranger wrote:

David, the topic of taking protein supplements in climbing comes up fairly regularly on the forums, so I apologize if I'm not posting all my sources every time. Although embedded in an image, I did link to an article on protein intake for climbers by Brian, who is someone I know in real life and talk to about nutrition, as well as the underlying study that concludes that protein requirements may not be directly linked to sex, size, or even activity level. Here it is, 

https://www.climbingnutrition.com/diet/protein/protein-supplementation-effective-aka-much-protein-need/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11706282/

Yes, I read both those links. The second link literally doesn't mention the words "climbing" or even "strength", so I'm not sure why you felt it was relevant--it does mention muscle hypertrophy, but seemingly you also said that hypertrophy isn't relevant either (and I agree).

The first link is actually pretty good, and I followed the links to the primary-source studies Here are some things those studies and that article don't say:

• "[C]limbing is no different than anything else, and doesn't need a specific recommendation." The article/studies didn't say that, you said that, in direct opposition to the Rigby article, which literally gives a climbing-specific recommendation. The article says, "My own recommendation is to get at least three, preferably four 20-30 gram protein meals in per day (i.e., 80-120 grams of protein per day)." You seem to be misinterpreting the results that say >1.6g/kg is unnecessary, seemingly ignoring the fact that the 80-120g of protein per day which Rigby recommends is 60%-140% more than the recommendations for the general population.
  
  It's worth noting as well, that the Rigby article is reporting about a new meta-analysis, which at the time the article was written, hadn't had time for peer response. In other words, there's some disagreement in the nutrition community. But the disagreement is whether 1.2-1.6g is optimal or 1.6+g is optimal for athletic performance. BOTH sides are recommending increased protein intake for athletes.
  
  Rigby's assertion that smaller athletes need more protein is certainly intriguing, but again "smaller athletes need more protein" contradicts both your idea that we're being sold too much protein, or that we don't need climbing-specific recommendations. The article says the opposite of what you've said at every turn.
• "Like if you could get 120 grams of protein (or pick your amount) but still eat a low calorie diet, that somehow you could excel in climbing by somehow staying strong yet light and what I'm saying is... maybe things dont' work that way?" The article/studies didn't say that you said that. The Rigby article you linked doesn't say that, but it doesn't directly contradict it either. However, since you seem to trust Brian Rigby, perhaps you'll consider this podcast, which discusses the topic (and says exactly the opposite of what you said).
  
  To be clear, neither I nor Brian Rigby is saying you eat 120 grams of protein and nothing else. Starving yourself will result in strength loss, which will hurt your strength/weight ratio.

So, no I'm not basing my opinions on nothing.

Well, if you're basing your opinions on something, you certainly haven't linked it, because the opinions you've shared are not represented in what you've linked.

But, David, I also don't see any studies that you've linked, so if you'd like to, please feel free. 

If you'd like, you can consider my re-linking of the article you linked and ignored to be my evidence. I needn't waste time dredging up my previous research given your own "research" directly contradicts what you've said.

David K wrote:

If you'd like, you can consider my re-linking of the article you linked and ignored to be my evidence. I needn't waste time dredging up my previous research given your own "research" directly contradicts what you've said.

Would you entertain me (and everyone) with your own interpretation on protein requirements for climbing?  I get that you think my own interpretation is complete horseshit, despite the level of fitness I've achieved, but let's drop that.

Long Ranger wrote:

Would you entertain me (and everyone) with your own interpretation on protein requirements for climbing?  I get that you think my own interpretation is complete horseshit, despite the level of fitness I've achieved, but let's drop that.

Michael, Witard and Joubert's recommendation of 1.3-1.7g/kg for olympic-style climbing is the most sport-specific recommendation I've found--the basis for this seems to be four different studies with varying levels of applicability. Michael, Witard, and Joubert also notes that the demands on climbers energy systems are consistent with those of strength training, so research from other strength sports is relevant (they do not give a recommendation based on this).

Reidy and Rasmussen survey a HUGE amount of literature on resistance exercises (263 citations--I must admit I haven't read them all). Their conclusions are varied--but ultimately my understanding what I took away from this is:

• Evidence is weak (but not nonexistent) for protein timing being relevant, and if it is relevant, the effect size is small.
• Evidence is weak (but not nonexistent) for protein composition being relevant once a leucine threshold is reached. If any specific amino acid other than leucine is important, the effect size is small.
• More protein is better, to a point: the largest amount of protein that had benefits from what I saw was Antonio et al's finding that 3.4g/kg produced equivalent strength gains but greater fat loss compared to 2.3g/kg. A sister study by the same group found no greater benefits for consuming 4.4g/kg. However the major benefits are in the 1.7g range--beyond that, gains are small (but not nonexistent).
• There's two studies which indicate that 2.3-3.8g/kg is optimal for maintenance of muscle mass during energy deficit (i.e. fat loss). Reidy and Rasmussen recommend that these studies require confirmation, but that's the best info we have on the subject until there are further studies.

Note that the Reidy and Rasmussen meta analysis is relevant because of the similarities noted by Michael, Witard and Joubert between climbing and other strength sports.

Both Michael, Witard and Joubert's, and Reidy and Rasmussen's recommendations are fairly consistent with Lattice Training's recommendations of 1.2-1.6g/kg for endurance sport climbers, closer to 1.8g/kg for boulderers, and 2.2g/kg during energy deficit (weight loss). I'm not sure how they obtained those numbers, but I'm led to believe they are based on their prioprietary data (i.e. from lattice testing, not published academically).

This is also consistent with the 1.2-1.6g/kg recommended (with caveats) by the Brian Rigby article you linked, although that's to be expected, since his main source for that post is the Reidy and Rasmussen meta-analysis.

I'm eagerly awaiting Dave MacLeod's study, as this will likely be the most sport-specific study on the subject when it's finished.

My takeaway here is, most climbers will gain close-to-maximal performance gains from around 1.6g/kg of protein during training. If you're doing a weight loss cycle, you'll want to consume even more protein to maintain muscle (the best evidence in the studies indicates around 2.7g/kg). Critically, while there's only weak evidence that more protein than 2.7g/kg is beneficial for any situation, I don't see any evidence that consuming more protein is ever harmful to performance.

The other key to note is that consuming the leucine threshold of around 0.2g/kg is key for triggering the release of hormones for protein absorption and muscle growth. Most protein meals containing greater than 20g of protein will hit this threshold, but if you want to be sure, whey supplements and milk-based protein sources such as yogurt have more leucine.

Note that there's literally nothing here that supports your conclusion that climbing-specific recommendations aren't needed. Every single source, including your own above recommends at least 1.2g/kg, which is significantly greater than the 0.8g/kg recommended for the general population, and from other sports (i.e. bodybuilding, for which something in the range of 2.2g/kg is recommended for hypertrophy).

I eat roughly 40 grams of total protein per day, sometimes less/more and have no issues building muscle or recovering after training, quite the opposite really. I eat Omad, my body weight is 149 and can deadlift 450lbs off the couch and close to sending my first 13c.  Not sure if more protein would help but I certainly do not see an advantage to cramming down a bunch more protein where it will likely just convert to glucose. This is of course antidotal, but I don't believe we need as much protein as we think.

Shaun Gregory wrote:

Not sure if more protein would help but...

...but why would that stop you from speaking confidently on the subject?

 I certainly do not see an advantage to cramming down a bunch more protein where it will likely just convert to glucose.

Or, likely not (I'm not endorsing that blog as a valid source--I'm linking it because it links a bunch of studies).

1 gram per day per pound of body weight 

here is a very informative video, from #MPMD funny at first

then later goes into scientific research findings about whey protein powder 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7YFoQeRJWM

David Y wrote:

Did you get to being able to deadlift 450lbs on your current diet? What does your meal look like?

I learned to deadlift when I was 18 so nothing new but I used to weigh 175-185 and could deadlift 500lbs. I had not deadlifted much of anything in 17 years and recently did 425(its what my gym had) on my second session. My meals are quite varied but something like ribeye with Brussel sprouts or broccoli, combined with really healthy fats (macadamia oil, duck fat or ghee). Along with these foods I try to get a healthy mix of fermented foods and aged cheeses that help promote good gut health.  

Shaun Gregory wrote:

I eat roughly 40 grams of total protein per day, sometimes less/more and have no issues building muscle or recovering after training, quite the opposite really. I eat Omad, my body weight is 149 and can deadlift 450lbs off the couch

Just so we're clear here, a 450lb deadlift at 149lb bodyweight is well within the 95th percentile of deadlifters (see here). If you're doing that without any significant deadlift-specific training, there's clearly a genetic component, as most people can't expect that sort of results even if they do deadlift-specific training for years and do everything else right. StrengthLevel lists the average time to reach this level as being over 5 years, and their data certainly includes steroid use. If your lift had occurred before steroids became widely available in the 1930s, it would be a world record lift (the unofficial record holder until 1946 was Herman Goerner with 830lbs at 290lbs bodyweight--almost double your deadlift, but at more than double your weight).

That's great for you, but people with more average genetics can't expect similar results from eating a similar diet.

This thread is so fucking cringe at this point. 

that guy named seb wrote:

This thread is so fucking cringe at this point. 

And I still haven't seen anybody tell me their typical diet!