Hacker News Reader

Comment by mym1990 | Hacker News Reader

mym1990

Its per kilogram, not per pound, which would be a LOT of protein.

In the fitness world it it’s thought of as g/lb so if a 170lb person wants to gain muscle (or preserve it on a diet) they should aim for roughly 170g of protein a day minimum. There is more nuance to it than this (should be g/lb of lean muscle mass for example) but as a rule of thumb it’s pretty good and proven to be effective at building/maintaining muscle.

It sounds a lot but it’s not too hard to hit even without whey supplementation. Anyone who has focussed on nutrition and build muscle/strength will have been at this level (or higher) for weeks and months on end.

I was just saying in the context of the article, it’s kg not lbs. For a regular person, 170-200g of protein is not trivial, and you will not hit this without either protein powder or having every meal containing a protein portion. You say “anyone who has focused on nutrition and building muscle” like these people are everywhere. In the general context, few have “building muscle” as a goal.

Hehe you are right. Wanted to point out how weird g per pound g/lb is . It’s half imperial half metric system … You Americans are moving in the right directions. Next ist g/kg.

Have a good day

Hmm, you’re right! And yet, all the sports nutrition that I’ve been reading is 1g per pound, not per kilogram. Sedentary lifestyle vs not, I suppose.

It's an error that has been continuously repeated in locker rooms after Americans misunderstood what a kg is.

Sorry, but while the meathead stereotype is probably not entirely unfounded, I guarantee that 1) I don't get my information from locker rooms and 2) weightlifters are plenty familiar with what a kilogram is.

Not sure the sources, but I would not be surprised if it is 1g/lb for athletes, or 1g/lb of lean body mass, as someone mentioned.

For the general population, 1g/lb is way too much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com