# @mackinprof on Instagram

- **Type:** Image
- **Original URL:** https://www.instagram.com/p/DXBwlA7AQkA
- **Gondola URL:** https://gondola.cc/posts/63892916-mackinprof-instagram
- **Thumbnail:** https://img.gondola.cc/tr:w-,h-,fo-auto/postThumbnails/63c642e0c4.jpg
- **Posted:** 2026-04-12T10:00:29.000+00:00
- **Account Owner:** Stuart Phillips (@mackinprof) — https://gondola.cc/mackinprof

## Caption

How many people do you know who gained 22 lb of pure muscle (not weight, not lean mass, muscle) in a year? I'll wait...

An 80 kg person gains 10 kg of muscle (best case). But ~75% of muscle is water. So, the actual protein gained? 2.5 kg. Over a full year, that's 6.8 g of extra protein per day. Factor in efficiency (you need ~6x what your muscles actually use) and you get 0.5 g/kg/d on top of the RDA.

0.8 + 0.5 = 1.3 g/kg/d. Add a generous margin for error → 1.6 g/kg/d.

That's it. That's the number. For fat loss, muscle gain, recomp... all of it.

The meta-analyses agree (Morton et al., 2018). The RCTs agree. The back-of-the-envelope math agrees. In fact, when you add some of the higher protein intake studies to the infamous Morton breakpoint analysis (likely not the correct way to analyze the data)

So why does the internet keep telling you to eat 2.2… 3.0… "1g per pound"? 

Because that number sells more than 1.6 ever will.

Ideal weight, target weight, high-quality protein, plant-sourced protein... all in the margins as considerations. BIG picture, it's the lifting that bakes the cake. Protein is the (thin) layer of icing.

The Confidence Interval rates how confident the science actually is on popular fitness beliefs. Not "true or false." A spectrum. Because honest evidence-based answers live in the grey. More than 1.6? 2/10... 

Save this for your next protein debate. You'll need it.

#evidencebased

## Stats

- **Views:** 0
- **Likes:** 2,550
- **Shares:** 0
- **Comments:** 227

## Tags

evidencebased

---
Copyright (c) Gondola