# @mackinprof on Instagram

- **Type:** Image
- **Original URL:** https://www.instagram.com/p/DeOq2mYCUue
- **Gondola URL:** https://gondola.cc/posts/71321067-mackinprof-instagram
- **Thumbnail:** https://img.gondola.cc/tr:w-,h-,fo-auto/postThumbnails/60843321ea.jpg
- **Posted:** 2026-10-08T10:00:21.000+00:00
- **Account Owner:** Stuart Phillips (@mackinprof) — https://gondola.cc/mackinprof

## Caption

1.6 g protein/kg/d (0.7 g/lb) still does it, and there's no data to show otherwise. New preprint: link in bio

Greg Nuckols made the case for more protein carefully, with his work shown. Thank you, Greg. He's right that our 2018 breakpoint was soft. He puts the plateau near 2.0, and we're closer than people think.

Where we differ is what we're measuring. Nearly every trial reports lean mass, and about half of it isn't muscle. Take it at face value anyway: about three months of lifting adds 1.1 kg and extra protein adds 0.3 on top. Double the protein from 1.6 to 3.2 for 16 weeks? Not significant. Strength, no difference.

The arithmetic says the same. An absurd 20 kg of new muscle in a year costs 13.7 g of protein a day. About two eggs. Muscle rebuilds largely from its own amino acids, and lifting makes that recycling more efficient. We measured it in 1997.

Women do NOT have protein requirements different than men. Menopause does not change this. Lifting is ALWAYS the big stimulus.

Like eating more protein? Fill your boots. Just stop telling people they NEED it. And if I'm wrong, the preprint describes the trial that would show it. It has to measure muscle.

Until better data is available: lifting bakes the cake and protein adds a (very) thin layer of icing!

The preprint is on SportRxiv. Link in bio. Read, learn, stay informed.

#evidencebased

## Stats

- **Views:** 0
- **Likes:** 2,845
- **Shares:** 0
- **Comments:** 138

## Credits

No public credits are recorded here. This does not identify who made the post.

## Tags

evidencebased

---
Copyright (c) Gondola