The Protein Debate: Dr. Layman Reacts to Dr. Gardner's claims on The Huberman Lab

Summary

---

The Protein Debate: Dr. Layman Reacts to Dr. Gardner's Claims on The Huberman Lab

Podcast: The Dr. Gabrielle Lyon Show
Host: Dr. Gabrielle Lyon
Guest: Dr. Donald Layman (Protein metabolism expert)
Date: August 19, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Dr. Gabrielle Lyon, joined by Dr. Donald Layman, critically examines claims made by Dr. Christopher Gardner on The Huberman Lab regarding protein requirements, protein metabolism, plant versus animal protein quality, and longstanding myths around dietary protein. The discussion reacts to clips from Dr. Gardner and Dr. Andrew Huberman, thoroughly dissecting the science and misconceptions about recommended dietary allowances (RDAs), nitrogen balance, protein "excess," and the true meaning of deficiency. The episode advocates for evidence-based perspectives, individualized nutrition, and a shift toward "protein-conscious" eating.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Misconceptions about Protein Requirements

• Nitrogen Balance Origins & Limitations

  • Early protein requirement studies (e.g., "Penthouse" studies at Berkeley) were conducted in artificial conditions on (primarily male) conscientious objectors, using nitrogen balance to estimate minimal requirements.
    • [11:22]
  • Nitrogen balance notoriously overestimates intake and underestimates losses—skewing protein requirement data low by up to 20%.
    • [05:09], [27:55]
  • The RDA is set two standard deviations above the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) to cover nearly all the population—but the outcome it measures is nitrogen balance, not optimal health.
    • [06:45], [07:15]
  • Dr. Layman: "His use of the word deficiency is a gross extrapolation from what reality is." [05:09]

• Minimum vs. Optimal Requirements

  • RDA (0.8 g/kg) is a minimum to prevent overt deficiency, not the optimal amount for health, muscle maintenance, or longevity.
    • [23:11], [32:38]
  • Most experts in protein believe that a more realistic minimum for health is around 1.0–1.2 g/kg, especially as people age or during weight loss.
    • [27:55], [65:37]

2. Protein Intake in the US: What Do Americans Actually Eat?

• Contrary to some claims, US adults average around 0.9–1.0 g/kg per day—not the 1.2 g/kg often cited, and fewer get the high intakes implied.
  • [00:42], [13:37]
• Protein intake is heavily skewed towards grains as plant source proteins—resulting in lower essential amino acid density for most Americans.
  • [77:09]

3. Protein "Excess," Storage, and Metabolic Fate

• The claim that "excess" protein is simply converted to carbohydrates is an oversimplification; all digested protein not used for synthesis is oxidized, not just that consumed above a mythic threshold.
  • [16:38], [55:46]
  • Dr. Layman: "Whether it's Gardner's 60 grams or whether it's Huberman's 175, they both convert it all to carbohydrates and fats." [55:46]
• There is no storage depot for protein—that’s why daily intake is crucial. But requirements are not a "fixed wall"—protein is repartitioned and used for multiple metabolic purposes.
  • [16:38], [67:56]
  • "Every amino acid you eat every day has to be oxidized every day. Doesn't matter whether you're eating 60 or 160, they still get oxidized." [67:56]

4. Plant vs. Animal Protein: Quality and Quantity Matters

• All plants do contain all 20 amino acids, but their essential amino acid proportions are less optimal than animal sources.
  • The myth that plants are "incomplete" is technically incorrect—but plant proteins are less efficiently utilized due to lower essential amino acid content and density.
    • [51:17], [53:29], [59:33]
  • Dr. Layman: "They're not incomplete, meaning that the amino acid is there, but they're not in the right balance." [51:17]
• Achieving the same essential amino acid targets from plant proteins requires higher total intake and more calories, resulting in less practical and less nutrient-dense diets for many individuals.
  • Example: “It would take 420 almonds for the amino acid equivalent of a chicken breast.” [63:48]
  • “If you look at leucine that way, what you end up with is you can meet your protein requirement at a meal, say 30 grams, with about 23 grams of whey protein, where it takes 45 grams of quinoa protein, which is a thousand calories.” [51:17]

5. Debunking Myths: Protein and Health Outcomes

• False Dichotomy: The belief that if you meet the RDA, all extra protein is wasted, or "turns to carbs," is simply incorrect.
• Higher protein intakes (above RDA) are shown to:
  • Improve satiety
  • Preserve lean muscle during weight loss
  • Support metabolic health, lower triglycerides, improve insulin sensitivity
    • [36:16], [48:03], [65:37]
• Low protein intakes (especially with aging or metabolic disease) fail to protect muscle, compromise metabolic flexibility, and may accelerate chronic disease risk.
  • “If people got below 100 grams per day, the metabolic benefits you get with protein... we would lose all of those.” [66:03]

6. RDAs: Consistency and Misapplication in Guidelines

• Carbohydrate recommendations are routinely exceeded in Western diets—often 2-3x above the RDA, yet "high carb" is not demonized the way "high protein" is.
  • “The RDA for carbohydrates is 130 grams per day. Americans are eating almost 300.” [23:11], [34:19]
• The RDA should be implemented as a minimum, not an optimal target, and should be interpreted consistently across all macronutrients.
  • “If we're going to treat the RDA as a magic number, we need to treat it consistently that way. And what Dr. Gardner is doing is selectively deciding how he's going to apply it.” [23:11]

7. The Relevance of “Protein Leverage” and Satiety

• Humans (and animals) eat towards a protein target; when protein is diluted in the diet (e.g., with ultra-processed, grain-heavy foods), people overconsume calories to reach minimum protein needs.
  • “Protein is the most satiating of all macronutrients. We get lost talking about protein and lean body mass or protein and muscle mass. But we forget that protein has a very high thermogenic effect … a high satiety effect.” [48:03]

8. Personalizing Protein Intake

• Older adults, persons losing weight, and those seeking optimal metabolic health likely need protein intakes of at least 1.2 g/kg, and/or at least 100g/d for women and more for men.
  • “The minimum amount [for a 45-50 year old woman] should be the 1.2 grams per kilogram.” [65:46]
  • “We always found that if people got below 100 grams per day, the metabolic benefits you get with protein... we would lose all of those.” [66:03]
• Protein needs are dynamic—activity level, age, health status, and goals (e.g., muscle building, metabolic health) matter.

9. Amino Acid Supplements and Fasting

• Free-form amino acid supplements do have calories—labeling laws are misleading. Taking them breaks a fast in calorie and metabolic terms.
  • “If you are taking a complete amino acid supplement in between meals or you are taking it while you are fasting, technically you are no longer fasting.” [73:00]

10. Global & Cultural Context of Protein Intake

• US is not an outlier among developed nations—Nordic, Mediterranean, and Australian diets are often higher in protein than the US.
  • The US has shifted away from red meat toward ultra-processed chicken, reducing intake of key micronutrients (iron, zinc, B vitamins).
    • “We have shifted since, you know, the 70s. We shifted away from red meats toward chicken ... micronutrient quality—iron, zinc, selenium, B6, B12, riboflavin—have all gone down.” [78:40]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• Dr. Donald Layman on RDA origins:
  “We have a measure [nitrogen balance] that evolved out of animal science in the 1800s … But when you start trying to apply these same measures to adults who are not changing body weight and growth, they become very hard to apply. And his use of the word deficiency is a gross extrapolation from what reality is.” [05:09]

• On practical plant protein equivalence:
  “If you’re going to do that [meet RDA of protein] with almonds … it would take 420 almonds. I mean that’s over 50 grams of fiber and is pretty disruptive to the GI system.” [63:48]

• On protein & satiety:
  “All animals, all humans, all people, tend to eat toward a protein target. … But when you fake people out with what are called ultra processed foods ... we have faked out the satiety system. Protein is the most satiating of all macronutrients.” [48:03]

• On minimum effective intake for metabolic health:
  “We found that we lost all of the metabolic benefits if we got below 100 grams per day.” [66:03]

• On plant “completeness”:
  “They're not incomplete, meaning that the amino acid is there, but they're not in the right balance. And in general, animal proteins are about 50% essential amino acids or plant proteins are about 35%.” [51:17]

• Dr. Lyon on cultural dietary norms:
  "When I was a child growing up on a farm in the Midwest, we were very protein conscious ... and then we shifted away where we kind of got to a point where we treated protein as a garnish." [48:03]

• On amino acid supplements and fasting:
  “Those amino acids all have calories. So that's a problem with the labeling laws.” [71:33]
  “If you are taking a complete amino acid supplement in between meals or you are taking it while you are fasting, technically you are no longer fasting.” [73:00]

---

Key Segments & Timestamps

• 00:00 – 09:56: Setting up the protein debate, examining the limitations of nitrogen balance, RDA/EAR definitions, and what deficiency truly means.
• 10:39 – 16:38: Deep dive into historical protein requirement studies, the artificiality of experimental contexts, and over-interpretation of short-term data.
• 16:38 – 22:40: Debunking the notion of “protein excess” and discussing the metabolic fate of protein, inefficiency of assimilation, and relevance to aging.
• 23:11 – 36:16: Defining RDA and EAR, comparison to carbohydrate requirements, and effects of protein-carb ratios in intervention studies.
• 36:16 – 50:39: Macronutrient priorities, personalized needs, fallacies in demonizing protein versus carbs, and revisiting the consequences of overconsumption.
• 50:41 – 66:03: Plant protein quality, misleading labeling, protein adequacy with plant-based diets, practical barriers, and setting actionable intake targets.
• 66:03 – 77:59: The issue of protein storage and wastage, supplement calories, broader health outcomes, aging, and long-term deficiency risks.
• 78:12 – 81:10: Global context for protein intake, shifts in American dietary patterns, micronutrient consequences, and summary of key insights.

---

Takeaways & Practical Recommendations

• RDA is a minimum—not a universal “enough”; optimal health generally requires higher intakes, especially with age and in metabolic disease.
• Protein quality matters; plant proteins can meet needs, but require careful planning and higher calorie intakes for similar effect.
• Don’t fear “excess” protein; the real health risks arise from overconsuming carbohydrates and failing to prioritize protein.
• Aim for at least 1.0–1.2 g/kg bodyweight, and for most adults, a minimum of 100g/day, especially for women over 45, to preserve muscle and metabolic health.
• Be wary of labeling and supplement claims; even "zero-calorie" amino acid products can undermine fasting and add unaccounted energy.
• Question headlines and guidelines that demonize protein; review the actual evidence and remember the context of RDAs.

---

Summary prepared for new listeners and practitioners seeking clear, actionable truth in the crowded conversation on protein and health.

Transcript

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

If you're getting 175 grams of protein a day, you, like, you met your needs at 60 or 70 grams, and I think you're converting the rest to carbs.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

That's simply not true. He converts all of it. That's just a gross misunderstanding of metabolism.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

Protein myths are everywhere.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

But what if some of them were started by doctors themselves?

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

In this episode, Dr. Gabrielle Lyon and.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

Her guest, Dr. Donald Lehman react to.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

A controversial clip of Dr. Christopher Gardner on the Huberman Lab.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

We have national data on what the protein intake is of Americans. The average intake is like 1.2 grams per kilogram body weight per day.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I'm just gonna pause him there.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

The average intake in the United States, based on the NHANES data is around 80 grams per day, and that translates into 0.9 to 1 gram per kilogram. I'm sure there are people taking 1.2 and higher, but that's not the average.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

He was so convincing, though.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

That's the way to be. Be convincing. Even if you're.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

They'll expose how outdated research has shaped the conversation around protein and reveal what the science really says about your body's needs.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

As I hear, you know, professors and doctors talk about how our diet is wrong and that we can stop stressing about dietary protein. I have to say I disagree.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

Let's talk about protein.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

Protein is the main source of nitrogen in your body. If you were to do one of these bomb calorimeter things that blew up and burned your whole body, minerals would be left. You can't get rid of minerals, and nitrogen is in that list. And so you can actually do a nitrogen analysis of food that you're eating, and it'll tell you how much protein is in the food. And if you were to be in a blue zoot suit all day and collect your poop, your pee, your nasal blowing.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Let's stop there for just a second. His comment about doing a nitrogen analysis and determining the amount of protein isn't truly accurate because all amino acids don't have the same amount of nitrogen. So they tend to use a standard factor of 16% nitrogen, which. Non essential amino acids that you find in plants have more non essential amino acids than animal proteins. So when you use a nitrogen analysis, you're always overestimating the amount of actual nitrogen coming in. So it's, it's inaccurate. It's an inaccurate measure.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

To start with, if you captured everything that left your body, you would know how much protein you had eliminated during the day. So somebody came up with this idea for a Nitrogen balance study. And they took these conscientious war objectors and put them in these suits for months and they lowered their protein to zero. At which point they realized, wow, this is fascinating. The losses that you have from protein decrease as you lower your protein to zero because your body realizes you need to be more efficient with what you had. And then they raised the dietary protein level back up until they were in balance. So the amount of protein leaving the body was the same as the amount going in. And they said, this is the protein requirement. It's the amount that will replace your losses in this group of people. And it wasn't just Morgan hall and the penthouse at Berkeley. It was multiple other groups who were doing this in other places. And they pooled all their data and said, this is. And there's a range and some people need more and some people need less. Let's pretend it's a normal distribution. It isn't quite. But after all this, they came up with what would be an estimated average requirement for this population that we've studied in this bizarre prison incarceration, food manipulation thing with this clever idea focusing on nitrogen just because it's so unique to protein. And they came up with 0.66 grams of protein per kg body weight per day. Not the. Yeah. And this is the estimated average requirement. Okay, now let's do some super simple math. Let's say if you told the American public now they've done this bizarre, disgusting task, this is how much everybody requires this estimated average requirement. And therein, after everybody got exactly that much protein, what proportion of the population would be deficient at that level if they picked the average requirement? Half. By definition, that's only the average. Half of the people are above average. The recommended daily allowance of protein is set at 2 standard deviations above the value determined by this disgusting nitrogen balance test decades and decades ago. And I understand that the community of protein fanatics doesn't like that. That's not an optimal protein. It's like a minimal protein requirement. Okay, so I totally buy that argument, but I think the first thing.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

So let's stop there for a minute. His analysis, that is partially correct. But first it's important to recognize that nitrogen balance is well accepted, that intake is overestimated, and that excretion is underestimated, even in, as he says, his disgusting body suits. So that's well established. And most of the estimates are that they're missing it by up to 20%. So we have to always frame it. His discussion of the ear. The estimated average is correct. But he applies the word deficiency to nitrogen balance. And so the only deficiency that he's actually measuring is some level of negative nitrogen loss. And I don't know what health outcome that relates to. So we have a measure that evolved out of animal science in the 1800s. It didn't really evolve in a penthouse in Berkeley. It evolved actually in the 1800s when animal scientists were trying to measure growth. And what you can do with growth is you can measure nitrogen accumulation, and they were trying to distinguish between body weight, which might be body fat, and actually lean tissue. So we have measures for nitrogen. At that point, you can measure it. But when you start trying to apply these same measures to adults who are not changing body weight and growth, they become very hard to apply. And his use of the word deficiency is a gross extrapolation from what reality is. Basically, it's only measured nitrogen balance.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

He makes a statement, and I'll. I'll let this play about 0.66 grams per kilogram actually being the minimum, in his words, to prevent a deficiency. And the number of the RDA set at 0.8 grams per kilogram to protect individuals from becoming deficient and making it two standard deviations above.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

I mean, that's exactly right. So it set two standard deviations above so that 98% of the population would be reflected as somehow a nitrogen balance. But again, extrapolating this to requirement and deficiencies aren't really what the terms mean. The terms mean that they're a nitrogen balance. And again, I'm not quite sure we can go into that in more detail, but relating that to a deficiency in adult is a leap of faith.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

The first thing that people get wrong is they think that that old method is recommending the average requirement. And it's not. It's got a safety buffer, it's got two standard deviations built on top of it. So that it. If Everybody got that 0.8 grams per kilogram body weight per day, 2.5% of the population would be deficient. And not only would 97.5% of the population meet their requirement, they would exceed it. If you drew the graph right, you're seeing the line. This whole group would exceed it, and this group would not meet it. And this group would get just a small sliver, would get what they needed.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Again, he's trying to extrapolate this RDA and this measure of nitrogen balance as deficiency. And so his entire argument hangs on that. What it is is basically a minimum reflection for nitrogen balance. But I don't know of Any health outcomes that relate to that and he doesn't cite any either. So the issue of what is nitrogen balance and does that actually reflect a deficiency? That's something he's emotionally trying to make everybody believe, but there's really no data of what it represents.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

The position in his statements, and again we'll hear them, is that basically everybody is getting enough protein and that the quote, high protein messaging seems unnecessary for the general population. I will continue to play this and again, thank you so much.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

And again, I'll just, you know, follow up that state, you know, just to follow up that statement. What he's actually saying is that people are getting enough to stay in short term nitrogen balance. So Again, these are 25 year old males who are eating nothing but high quality dairy proteins and they're measuring it for maybe up to two weeks. So it's a short term measure of nothing but nitrogen balance. And the extrapolation to that to health isn't good.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I wanted to take a moment to let you know about something new we've created. It's called Forever Strong Insider and it's the premium subscription to the Dr. Gabrielle Lyon Show. As a Forever Strong insider, every week you'll get ad free episodes, written summaries with key takeaways to help you retain the most important insights from the show. A community Q and a segment where you can submit your own questions for upcoming guests. We're going to call this the Strong Seat and behind the scenes content. A closer look at how I prepare, train, travel and navigate daily Life. Go to foreverstrong.supercast.com let's keep getting stronger together.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

I have a couple of questions I know are popping up for people I just would like to tick off if we can. Who were these subjects? Was it men and women? These were conscientious objectors. So I would presume at that time we weren't sending women to Vietnam. So it would be just men.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

So this is just at Berkeley. So other people were doing this too. It wasn't just this one group and I don't know who the others were. I just remember that I got my PhD at Berkeley. And it's like as soon as I got there, people said, do you wanna see the Penthouse? I said, what the F is the Penthouse? The Penthouse is where Doris Calloway and.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Shelly Morgan figured this out.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

And like this is a famous thing. So you know, they took great pride that part of that came from their work at Berkeley.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

And they call it the Penthouse to get people up there. Cause what happened in there Sounds anything but pleasant.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

Yeah, it was unpleasant.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Yeah.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

At least for the Berkeley study. These guys are up there, or guys and gals are up there, they're in these suits, they're collecting everything. They're not exercising, they're not breathing fresh air, presumably. They're not. Are they walking around? Are they getting even like a couple thousand steps a day? I mean, my concern is that.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

Oh, absolutely, yeah, they're concerns.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

My concern is that they turn them into mice, essentially. And as somebody listen, I've published work on mice, rats, I no longer do this. But non human primates, something that I have no interest in doing anymore. And the other primates, us humans. And I know how hard it is to do a well controlled study. It's extremely difficult. So I understand why they did this. But then it becomes a very artificial circumstance. Now, the buffering with two standard deviations above this nitrogen balance amount, I think that's something really important to double click on for people because most people hear, oh, it was just the minimum amount required to maintain nitrogen balance, but in reality it's much higher than that.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

So that was the first one. I feel like that's a misperception, that that was the average requirement. All the points you made are dead on critical, important. Okay, then the second one is, where do you store it if you've eaten an excess? Because the. The fact is right after that, I had a debate with Stu Phillips at one point on Simon Hill's podcast because we had exchanged some Twitter things and said, oh my God, they disagree. They should have a debate.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

Is Stu Phillips like a carnivore guy?

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

No, Stu Phillips, I'm sorry, is an exercise. He's super great at exercise studies at McMaster University. Okay. And after we actually emailed one another, not just tweeting, however many characters you get on Twitter said, oh my God, we actually agree on most things. And that the reason we agreed is we have national data on what the protein intake is of Americans. So forget the protein bars and the protein powders and everything else. The average American doesn't do that. And the average intake is like 1.2 grams per kilogram body weight per day or higher of quality protein.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Just, just let's stop there. So the average intake in the United States, based on the NHANES data, which is the actual standard, that's the gold standard for intake, is around 80 grams per day on average for men and women. And that translates into 0.9 to 1 gram per kilogram. I'm sure there are people taking 1.2 and higher but that's not the average.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

He was so convincing, though, with that statement.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

That's so. That's the way to be. Be convincing, even if you're wrong.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

The fun thing was, as Stu and I got together, I said, you know, Stu, you hate that 0.8 grams per kilogram body weight. And you're saying people should have 1 gram per kilogram body weight, or maybe even 1.2, which would be. 1.2, would be 50% higher than 0.8. That's the average American intake. And he said, well, that's true, too. So he hates the 0.8, but he realized it's almost an irrelevant number because most people get more than that. I just served on the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and we looked at those same data, and it's still true. Americans eat more protein than the RDA on a general basis without trying, without knowing about it. It's just in more foods than you think. So the second issue is, well, if so many people are eating more, is there anything bad about the extra? Like, what do you do with the extra? And so there's sort of infinite capacity to store fat in your body. You probably know this. In your belly, in your butt, in your underarms, everywhere. Limited capacity for carbohydrate. Store you can store. I actually heard Gabrielle Lyons talk about how much is in your liver and how much is in your skeletal muscle. But if you are a marathon runner, in four hours, after 20 miles or so, you bonk because you've exhausted all your carb stores. You can exhaust all your carb stores in four hours, where it would take days and days and days with fat. But there is no storage depot for protein. At the end of the day, if you ate more than you needed, you're not storing any for the next day. It's not in your big toe. It's not in your spleen, it's not in your liver. It's nowhere. After you made all the enzymes, hormones, hair, fingernails, and muscle tissue that you wanted, you break off the nitrogen, you have to eliminate that as ammonia in your kidney, and you turn the carbon skeleton into carbs, which, if we do get back to the keto diet, is throwing the meat eaters on the keto diet out of ketosis because you just turned the protein you were eating to avoid the carbs into the carbs that you were avoiding. But we won't go there for the moment. We'll just say there's no place to store it, so you're not really getting any benefit about it. I was Very interested to hear you just say you're fine and eating the protein for the calories that the energy.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I am going to stop this here. What is the relevance of the protein storage discussion?

[Dr. Donald Layman]

I think the whole protein storage and protein use is one of the biggest misconceptions out there and that he's 100% right, that the body doesn't store protein. So that's why you need a daily supply of essential amino acids. So that's absolutely correct. Where you, you store fat and carbs, so you don't really need them every day, but you do need amino acids. The extrapolation he's making though is that once you meet your minimum nitrogen balance, sort of like thinking of protein and amino acids as building blocks for a bricklayer, once you have enough blocks for the wall, you can stop. You don't need to have another truckload of bricks. But protein's not like that. The issue of, you know, what do you do with the protein? Well, all of it gets converted into energy every day. That's a definition of baitness. So whether you're eating a minimum amount of 60 grams per day or a higher amount of 175, every gram of protein gets converted into energy every day. About 80% of it gets converted into carbohydrates and about 20% gets converted into fatty acids. But that happens every day. The misconception is that there's some one to one that when I eat an amino acid, the first one goes into protein. And that's not true at all. The body is very inefficient with this process. For example, the essential amino acid threonine. 75% of the threonine you take in never gets out of the gut. It goes directly to mucin synthesis. So how much threonine do you have to have before you satisfy the body's need? So it's not a one to one relationship. In fact, the body has to make 250 to 300 grams of protein every day. The average intake is around 80 grams. So there's no one to one relationship of that. And the idea that, you know, the first whatever 60 grams I eat goes to making protein and then everything else is wasted. That's just totally a misconception. Everything you eat is converted to energy. And the issue is efficiency. When you're young, the first amino acids you eat per day or per meal or whatever are probably going to get converted into protein quicker. The older you get, you become less efficient with it. So the requirements probably changing. So this Whole idea of storage and efficiency and waste is an incredible misconception out there by people who don't really understand protein metabolism.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

It's interesting as I'm looking at some of the comments on the YouTube. Here's a comment that says Christopher Gardner is one of the best nutrition scientists of our time. Glad you had him on Andrew. While some of his views may not be popular, they are extremely evidence based.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

He clearly doesn't understand amino acid metabolism. If his theory is correct, it would have to be based on TRNA saturation. So once you saturate the TRNAs, you would basically have fulfilled your need for protein synthesis.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

If you're like me, you love a good meat stick and are always on the go, but still committed to putting high quality fuel into your body, then you want to check out Paleo Valley, one of the sponsors of the show. Their 100 grass fed and finished beef sticks are clean, nutrient dense and free from all the garbage found in most convenience convenient snack. And by the way, this is buffalo chicken. No preservatives, no added sugar, no artificial anything. They are naturally fermented, which means they support your gut, deliver more bioavailable nutrients, and of course have a long shelf life without the use of harmful additives, which is amazing. Paleo Valley sources from regenerative farms here in the us the kind of farms that treat animals humanely and prioritize farm soil health. It's like going to the farmer's market, getting a good quality snack and it's delivered right to your door. Go to paleovalley.com drlion to get 15% off. That's paleovalley.com DrLion Nobody knows what TNA charging is on a very high level. Explain it to, I don't know, someone like Shane, my husband, sitting in studio here so that we can understand. What does that mean and what's the value of that statement you just had for us non PhD pioneers?

[Dr. Donald Layman]

So we'll go back to my brick layer concept again. So I have an individual building a wall and the bricks are my amino acids. The bricklayer is the tRNA. He's the guy who basically transfers that amino acid into the wall, transfers an amino acid into the protein. And so if I only have one bricklayer once that guy has both hands full, I don't need any more amino acids. And the issue with TRNAs is they're always saturated. You can have a total starvation for two, three days, you can have an amino acid deficiency for a week and you'll still have the TRNA charge. So the idea that there's this efficiency of protein use only up to some level is a total misunderstanding of the amino acid metabolism. The issue is how much protein and which amino acids does it take to efficiently make that 300 grams of new protein every day. And that's not the same at every stage of life. And that's the point they're missing. The whole concept of storage is being totally misinterpreted.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

There are a few things mentioned that are thrown around a lot in the nutrition space. And in general, the rda, I would love for you to define that. And also Dr. Gardner talks about the ear. I would love to hear how we piece these things together. As someone who knows nothing about nutrition or. This is their first podcast episode with us. I'm sorry you chose this as your first. Help us understand the foundations of the conversation.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Yeah. The purpose of the RDA is to establish a minimum to prevent an obvious deficiency. And with every nutrient, whether it's vitamin C or vitamin D, and in those cases, we have clear deficiencies of scurvy or rickets. And so we can prevent them. We. When you start getting into the macronutrients like carbohydrates and protein now, you have more diverse outcomes. And it's hard to really define what a deficiency looks like. I mean, we know in children in Africa, we have kwashiorkor and rasmus, but that's an extreme form, and protein doesn't necessarily change that rapidly. So, you know, I think that we have to recognize the purpose of an rda. A Recommended Dietary Allowance is define the minimum number to prevent an obvious or frank deficiency. And in protein, that has been defined as nitrogen balance, which is a pretty loose concept. I think we need to also think about how do we. If the RDA is that meaningful? We need to think about the fact that the RDA for carbohydrates is 130 grams per day. The ear for that is about 75 or 80. And so it's two standard deviations above that considered healthy is 130. The average American is eating almost 300. So the RDAs tell us we should have a 2 to 1 ratio of carbs to protein in our diet where the American public is eating four or five to one. So, you know, if we're going to treat the RDA as a magic number, we need to treat it consistently that way. And what Dr. Gardner is doing is selectively deciding how he's going to apply it.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I want to understand more by what you just said from his perspective, from what I'm hearing, him Say is that looking at the ear, which is a statistical midpoint, that number would be enough to cover half of the population. However, the ear for nitrogen balance to put half the population in a positive nitrogen balance has then been translated over to dietary protein.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Yeah. So we really need to think more about what nitrogen balance is here. So as I mentioned earlier, it's pretty widely accepted that nitrogen balance isn't very accurate. It overestimates intake and it underestimates losses. So it's inherently a low number. The other thing, as you just mentioned, is that how do they measure it? So they take these young men eating high quality protein, they take them to zero and then they begin to bring it back up. They do stages and they give them a little more and then they come into, quote, nitrogen balance. Nitrogen balance would imply that you've got a curve going up, they're storing a little bit more and then it stops. Well, that's not actually what happens. It goes up and it has a break point, but it keeps going up. So where's that protein going? And if you step back and think about nitrogen balance, his point is there's no storage form of protein. So when you're doing this nitrogen balance and you're giving increasing levels and nitrogen balance is positive, which means you're storing protein, where's it going? The inherent issue is that if there's no storage, that nitrogen balance technique has to be wrong. Because if you translate that into actual protein gain per day, it would be outrageous. And so it's a technique that shows you something about a break point where the body is partitioning protein or amino acids differently. But to extrapolate that as a meaningful requirement is a stretch.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

All I can say is, wow. I've heard you say a lot of fascinating and interesting things, but that is, that is fascinating in the way that if we all take a step back and our discussion has been on protein and the rda, whether the RDA is enough or not enough or the minimum amount. It really makes me reconsider the entire landscape about protein and how it's being spoken about. Meaning the RDA based on a nitrogen balance study seems just simply way off base.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Yeah, I think there is a lot of very good data that suggests the RDA is quite low by about 20%. If you look at estimates of using the nitrogen balance, when you realize it's not a linear, it, it's based on a linear extrapolation that this curve goes up and there's a clean break and it's linear and it's not it knows that it goes up and it's, it has a lower slope, but it's still positive. And so it's fundamentally wrong. And people think it's wrong by about 20%.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I want to pause a second because I want to know what that means. Explain to me what the graph looks like as you're talking about. What are we trying to visualize as how they've put these pieces together? And quite frankly, it's shocking that we are still talking about nitrogen balance without this reevaluation. But help me visualize the concept of what you are saying, that there is this progression and then it breaks off.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

If you go to zero protein intake, you can imagine that would be a negative nitrogen balance. If you're, if you're starving, obviously you're catabolic. And so they begin to bring in some small amounts of protein. And so you get a curve that you know is going upward, you're getting more positive nitrogen balance, okay? And at some point it begins to plateau. The analysis that is used is a linear concept where you get a break point and basically it stops gaining. It implies that you can't use any more. But it turns out the data, when you really look at it, all of them continue to go up. And so it's a curvilinear relationship as opposed to a linear relationship. And when you then begin to bring that into it, you realize that the current rda, the current concepts of the EDR are underestimating it. So, you know, so we've got the starting point that the intake and excretion are not accurate. So they're underestimating it. We're using an analytical method that is underestimating it. We're using a concept of nitrogen balance which inherently doesn't make sense in a non growing person. How can you be in positive nitrogen balance if you're maintenance? Okay, so now we've got methods that are underestimating certain things and overestimating other things. And most people who have studied this, Vernon Young's and Peter Pellet and Hamish Monroe and Mark Hagstead and Bob Wolf and all of the true experts in protein in the world have concluded that the RDA is probably about 20% too low, that the real target should probably be about 1 gram per kilogram as the absolute minimum to prevent deficiency. And that's been related to protein synthesis measurements, it's been related to glutathione measurements and erythrocytes and all sorts of true outcomes, true functional outcomes, as opposed to just a vague nitrogen balance.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

Oh, oh, sorry. It's time to record an ad for the show. Thank you to one of the sponsors of the show, Timeline. And listen, my kids still sleep with me and after 470 nighttime snack requests, bathroom breaks, my husband snoring, my cells, they're like, yo G, we're tapped out. Enter Mitopure. Timeline Nutrition is one of the most most thoroughly researched products I have come across in over a decade. Look carried in my purse. They have peer reviewed published science and this is where it gets really interesting for those of you who are following the muscle centric lifestyle, when you increase bioenergetics, you improve muscle function and health in adults. 40 +, timeline has been shown to increase muscle strength and endurance and no change in activity. So whether you've been active resistance training your whole life or you're just getting started, or you're not getting a lot of sleep and you've got a million requests, your muscles and your mitochondria need help. And they have just launched their low sugar vegan non GMO gluten free gummies, which by the way, I am eating by the handfuls, which I shouldn't, but they taste delicious. Timeline is offering our community 20% off. Your first order. Go to timelinenutrition.com DrLion and use the code DrLION to get 20% off. I recommend trying their starter pack with all three different formats and of course their gummies, which are incredible. In a perfect world. How would you rectify this?

[Dr. Donald Layman]

The way to rectify it is to just recognize that RDAs are defined to be the absolute minimum, that the healthy intake, the optimum intake for health is probably above that. So whether we're talking about vitamin C with a minimum intake of 60 milligrams and during the winter we all take 500 or vitamin D where the minimum intake is 400 IU's and we all take 2 or 3000 for bone health, et cetera. I think we need to recognize that protein has a healthy and safe range of from somewhere maybe as low as 0.8 up to probably 2.5 or higher. And then where is the healthy range for you or for me or for Huberman, who personally likes it? It's personal choice. So I think that Gardner's idea that that's the requirement and everyone should adhere to it isn't consistent with any nutrition principle. And it's certainly not the way we apply the carbohydrate requirement. We eat three times that and nobody recognizes it's too high. So, you know, I think what we're looking for is a Consistent interpretation of the RDA as the minimum of which people shouldn't go below it has nothing to do with the healthy requirement.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

The statement that you make about the RDA being 130 grams a day, but Americans are eating 300 grams a day. When you say that they need to be thought about or at least discussed comparatively, tell me what you mean.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

So we know that carbohydrates are a risk metabolically in the body, that the body has a challenge in getting rid of carbohydrates. In the short term, you might be able to store some aspects glycogen, but in the long term, if you're eating three times your level now, you have to distort metabolism. And you'll see that in things like triglyceride levels, insulin sensitivity and things like that. So Americans are eating way more carbohydrates than they need for basic metabolism, you know, three times the rda. So now you have to think about what you're distorting. My specific experiments with that is we looked at weight loss, which is a way of trying to evaluate protein requirements. And what we did was a series of experiments where all we adjusted was the ratio of protein and carbohydrates. So I mentioned earlier that the RDAs tell us that the ratio should be about 2 to 1. Americans are eating around 4 to 1. And so what we did was that basically experiment, we had one group that had a high carbohydrate diet was based on the food guide pyramid, 4 to 1, carbohydrate to protein, and they were eating exactly 0.8 grams per kilogram, that RDA. The other group, we went to twice the RDA for protein. We went to 1.6 and we reduced the carbohydrates down to about the RDA. And what we found was that when we did that, and this was a weight loss study, that the individuals on the higher protein protected their muscle, lost more body fat, lost more weight. And we did this in a series of three different clinical studies, one of which was 12 months long with 120 subjects. So we know that the higher protein diet has body composition effects.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

Would you say that the conversation about carbohydrates is changing, meaning this people are beginning to recognize that too much carbohydrates distort metabolism. And then on the flip side, we don't have that conversation about protein. We don't say too quote, too much protein distorts body composition.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

You and I talk about muscle centric health, muscle centric metabolism. And I think what's Missing in the conversation is that your carbohydrate needs relate to your muscle activity. So if you're an elite athlete putting in three hours per day of running or some activity, you probably need a lot of carbohydrates. But if you're a sedentary couch potato who's 65 or 70, your carbohydrate need may very well not be even the RDA before it begins to distort metabolism, insulin resistance, fatty liver, increased triglycerides. And so the issue is, most Americans eating close to 300 grams per day need almost three hours of exercise per day to make that work. The comment about protein being converted to carbohydrates or glucose is true. But unlike carbohydrates coming from grains, where you get an immediate spike right after the meal, the first 15 to 30 minutes after the meal with protein, it takes five, six, seven hours to metabolize the amino acids into carbohydrates. So what you get is a very slow conversion, basically 24 hours a day that requires very little insulin activity. So from a carbohydrate standpoint, you can eat either bread, you know, white bread and rice and get carbohydrate boluses, or you can get the same carbohydrates from protein. I think a lot of people learn from the keto diets and things like that, from studies of type 2 diabetes that that can be a very beneficial way to go. So you have one person who's an elite athlete who needs 3, 400 grams of carbs per day, and you have another person who's a type 2 diabetic where 100 grams might be too much. And I think that's the same with protein. We know we have a safe range of protein. So the issue is, what's the individual need? What's their healthiest lifestyle? How do they get the nutrient density they need? What's the best for protecting muscle? And the RDA has almost no relationship to those kinds of discussions.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

You bring up a very thought provoking point, and that is if we were to take a step back, which you are very good at, by the way.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

And is that an age thing you're telling me?

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I mean, I can make a lot of, but I won't. The idea of putting together our plate, carbohydrates, proteins and fats, we eat in excess. It seems as if we are in excess of calories. In general, of those calories. Typically the excess calories comes from carbohydrates and fats. But the safety, if we and obviously we don't eat individual macronutrients. We don't just say I'm going to have a bag of fat today or a bag of amino acids. Well, some people do, which we're going to get to. Or a bag of carbohydrates. We eat foods. The three of those macronutrients do not affect the body the same way. And here's where I'm going with this and I'd love your thoughts. When we overeat carbohydrates and we're eating 300 grams of carbohydrates, we know what happens to the body. Presumably, let's say this person is sedentary and they're eating 300 grams of carbohydrates at a meal or I don't know, a 150 twice a day breakfast for dessert, however you want to play that there are metabolic consequences. These metabolic consequences include elevated levels of insulin, elevated levels of glucose in the short term. In the immediate, if someone were to eat 300 grams of protein, let's say you split it up between 150. 150 again, sounds like a lot. The metabolic consequences of that, if you were to say from a patient outcome perspective or lifestyle perspective, and our outcomes, broadly speaking, are health and one could pick whatever is meaningful to them, you would not see the same negative outcome effect. And even, and I would love for you to touch on this and I'm going to throw one more expected macronutrient in there fat. I would love your take on just conceptually that hydration isn't just about drinking Coke Zero or other sugar free sweetened beverages like Red Bull. Now I'm saying this for a friend or it's not even about drinking more water. It's about keeping the right balance of electrolytes and fluids during life's most demanding season, like, I don't know, parenting, maybe pregnancy or postpartum. Your body is going through massive changes. Blood volume increases, hormones shift, breastfeeding demands. You know, all those things, all of these life transitions. You probably need more and better hydration. And you need electrolytes like sodium, magnesium and potassium. Element has formulated to replenish what you actually, actually lose without sugar fillers and junk that you don't need. It's a clean, effective way to stay hydrated. And for men, again, it's not just about hydration. It's also about performance, recovery, mental clarity and yes, even energy. Whether you're hitting the gym, chasing kids or grinding through your workday, maybe even your teeth dehydration can quietly sabotage your focus and endurance. Element helps you, you stay sharp, strong and ready. We use Element because it works, tastes amazing and it's no nonsense, just science backed hydration that actually makes a difference. And right now Element is offering a free sample pack with any purchase. That's eight flavors to try on the house. Go to drinklmnt.comdrlion to claim yours. That's drinklmnt.com stay hydrated, stay strong, and as Goggins would say, stay hard.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

You and I always talk about the macronutrients is you need to make a protein decision first. And that protein decision can be, you know, based on your personal culture or values or whatever, or your goals. It doesn't matter if you want a low protein diet or a high protein diet. But once you make that decision, that determines a lot about food foods. So that determines a lot about nutrients. Once you make that decision and you decide on your exercise and your lifestyle now you have to make a macronutrient decision. We've had a 50 year period that has said, well, fat's bad for you, you should eat more carbs. The evidence for that was really bad. Where did the 30% fat in the diet come from? That was just made up in a committee room. Where did the 10% saturated fat come from? That was just made up number in a committee room. And there's no evidence to back that. But what we've done is distort the American diet toward grain carbohydrates. We had a food guide pyramid that said, well, you should eat at the bottom, you should eat all these grains. And that's what Americans did. We got, you know, cookies with no fat. We got cookies that were nothing but sugar and things like that. And Americans were eating 16 servings a day out of that or more out of that bottom rung of the pyramid. In 2010, we got rid of the food guide pyramid because people recognized what it did to the American diet was to dilute the nutrient density and make people eat more calories to get the vitamins, minerals and amino acids that they needed. So we know, and we've now had 30 years of keto diets that we know have an impact. They certainly have an impact on type 2 diabetes. So, you know, it's time to re recognize that your choice between carbohydrates and fats is a fuel choice. Carbohydrates are actually the most risky of the fuels and you probably need to tailor that fairly precisely to your muscle needs. Fat is actually the safest of the fuel needs and that should round out your calories. So that's the way I always think about it. Make your protein decision, that's a major part of your nutrient decisions and where you're going to get your nutrients. Make a carbohydrate decision based on your muscle needs for physical activity. And then the rest of your calories really come from fat. You can also use protein to fill that in if you want to go higher. I think a lot of people who are choosing a gram of protein per pound are actually choosing it to avoid carbohydrates. I think that's a legitimate reason to do. It has nothing to do with protein turnover, but it has everything to do with body metabolism. And I think that's a legitimate reason.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

The reason I asked this question is because on one hand, I think that we are seeing the protein conversation getting a lot of pushback. We are seeing the New York Times, you know, we did an interview for the New York Times, Vanity Fair, you name it. People are coming down hard on the increase in protein discussion. That becomes thought provoking because if we were to say, wait a second, if you look at carbohydrates the same way, the conversation would be different. Just even from a metabolic perspective, here is a macronutrient that you could arguably safely over consume. It does not have the metabolic derangement associated with carbohydrates. Yet as I hear, you know, professors or, and doctors talk about how our diet is wrong and that we can stop stressing about dietary protein, I, I have to say, I, I disagree. And the reason is, is because we don't fundamentally understand the big picture of, of how we should be eating and the importance of each macronutrient. And what do I mean by this is that we have been over consuming carbohydrates for decades. 74% of us are either overweight or obese. We are eating a ultra processed, high caloric dense diet. And as we begin to have these messengers say we are stressing too much about protein, it further distorts the message. And I, I do have concerns about that. Hopefully I'm, I'm making this clear. Let's say someone ate 300 grams of fat and they were in a ketogenic diet and their carbohydrates were controlled. They probably would have a better metabolic pro profile than someone who is overeating 300 grams of carbohydrates. So this is what I'm trying to do, to concisely say with these different macronutrients, we have this conversation and group of people that are demonizing protein, telling us that we don't need to be, quote, stressing about it and saying all of these different things, and yet we have a population that is grossly, metabolically unhealthy.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

The. The idea that people are stressing about it, for me, I interpret that as meaning while they're going out and buying all kinds of weird things and protein bars or shakes or free amino acids or. And I don't. I don't really recommend any of that, But I think that we do need to make a protein first decision. We need to understand what that decision means. What we know is that the food guide pyramid, which said the worst thing in the world is to eat animal foods because of cholesterol and saturated fat, was totally wrong. That information was totally biased and totally made up. And so what we did was distort the American diet by diluting the nutrient quantity of. With carbohydrates, with grains, and that caused people to eat more calories. We know from a variety of research, one of which is referred to as the protein leverage hypothesis, that all animals, all humans, all people, tend to eat toward a protein target. We're eating toward a certain amount of protein, maybe 16, 17% of our calories, maybe up to 20%. That seems to be pretty consistent. But when you fake people out with what are called ultra processed foods, foods where we are diluting the nutrient quality with carbohydrates, with grain products, now we have faked out the satiety system. Protein is the most satiating of all proteins. We get lost talking about protein and lean body mass or protein and muscle mass. But we forget that protein has a very high thermogenic effect. Protein has a very high satiety effect. Protein is metabolized to carbohydrates in a very slower. There's a lot of metabolic outcomes that are very beneficial with protein that aren't true of any other nutrient. And so I think stressing out isn't the right term. I would just say I think it's time we shift back to being protein conscious. You know, when I was a child growing up on a farm in the Midwest, you know, we were very protein conscious. You know, protein was a central part of our meal. And then we sort of shifted away where we kind of got to a point where we treated protein as a garnish. You know, we would have big bowl of pasta with a little bit of meat sauce and refer to that as protein. You know, I think that's where we lost the track. We need to be protein Focused with a logical concept of what we're achieving nutritionally.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

Based on that, I'm going to play this other clip here.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

So here's another myth that we need to bust. So the myth part is that plants are missing amino acids. They're not complete. I'm sure everybody listening today has heard quinoa, the only plant with all nine essential amino acids. Bullshit. So I don't know if you can look at my paper in your podcast or show it and I, I have it on my.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

You can provide links on the show. Note captions.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

So we wrote a paper in 2019 and this actually was pretty fun for me. It came from working with the chefs. The chefs.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Let's stop there. The concept of complete and incomplete probably is a bit over extrapolated. It's not necessarily a good term. What it means is that the amino acid profile isn't the same. What we know is that we don't actually have a protein requirement. We have a requirement for nine individual amino acids. They're called the essential or indispensable. And so what we know is that they're perfectly balanced in animal products, and they're not as well balanced in plant products. And some plants, such as quinoa, is very low in some of them. For example, if you compare a whey protein or which is a dairy protein with quinoa, in the whey protein, the leucine essential amino acid is 12% of whey protein, where in quinoa is 6. So that means you'd have to eat twice as much quinoa protein. So if you look at leucine that way, what you end up with is you can meet your protein requirement at a meal, say 30 grams with about 23 grams of whey protein, where it takes 45 grams of quinoa protein, which is a thousand calories. You know, it's thousands of calories to do it. So they're not incomplete, meaning that the amino acid is there, but they're not in the right balance. And in general, animal proteins are about 50% essential amino acids or plant proteins are about 35%, ranging from something like almonds, which is quite low, and only about 26%, up to soy, which is high at about 40%. So they just have a lot less essential amino acids in them, which, you know our earlier comment about the nitrogen balance data, when you determine the nitrogen and extrapolate protein from it, you're always going to overestimate the quality of the protein in the plant sources because they have more non essential amino acids.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

I knew A lot about this. But to make a slideshow for them that day, I did something I had never done before, and I got a whole bunch of foods and I plotted out the amounts of every single amino acid in the food and the proportions they were in. If you looked at that 0.8 grams per kg body weight per day, and if you thought that exceeded the needs of some people, it's. It's plausible that a lot of people by that calculation need 40 grams of protein a day, which sounds, I'm sure, very little. And I'm only bringing that up because there's 20amino acids. And I would assume the average person would think, well, if I needed 40 and there's 20amino acids, I would need 2 grams of every amino acid. And that is totally not the way it works. It actually works more like the board game of Scrabble. So when you're drawing, there's 100 Scrabble letters in the bag and there's 26 letters in the Alphabet, and almost seems like there'd be four of each letter in the bag, but you all know there's only one Z and one Y and one X, or maybe there's two Y's, but there's a crap ton of E's and M's and R's, and your amino acids are just like that. So you need a crap ton of lysine and leucine, and you need very little methionine or cysteine. So it was really fun in putting these graphics together. I said, here's eggs, here's beef, here's salmon, here's pork. Get ready, because I'm going to show you beans and rice and grains and fruit. And I'm focusing on proportion. I will say per calorie, meat has more protein than plants, just in terms of calories, but proportion wise, one of the myths is the missing amino acids are the incomplete ones. Because if you make a graphic out of this, you will see all plants have all goddamn 20amino acids. They all have lysine, they all have methionine and cysteine. And the idea that they're missing is wrong. The idea that you have to complement your beans and grains is wrong. Unless you're getting very little protein at that point, it is important to complement them, but it's really not hard to get a lot of amino acids. You mentioned the quality of your protein. If you're getting 175 grams of protein a day, Quality doesn't matter who you like. You met your. Your needs at 60 or 70 grams and I think you're converting the rest to carbs.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

So I mean, so that's the point we made earlier that he's saying that in the first 60 you don't convert any of it to carbs and only the last hundred did he convert. That's simply not true. He converts all of it. Whether it's Gardner's 60 grams or whether it's Huberman's 175, they both convert it all to carbohydrates and fats. I mean every day. So that's just a, that's just a gross misunderstanding of metabolism.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I'd like to acknowledge one of the sponsors and that's our place. I'd also like to acknowledge my mom jokes that are coming in hot about my old pan. It was so toxic even my veggies wanted to detox after dinner. That's bad. Seriously. Non stick cookware is still used. Very convenient, but it comes at a cost. Non stick contains harmful chemicals like Teflon and other PFAS which can leach into your food. In our home we use our place which is toxin free high performance cookware and appliances designed for safer, simpler use. The hidden dangers of traditional non stick cookware is loaded with forever chemicals. Dump them. It is not worth it. If you want to start somewhere, start with the four piece cookware set. It is your best way to overhaul that kitchen. Stop cooking with toxic cookware. Stop spending time with toxic people. Upgrade your place today. Visit from Our Place.com DRLION and use the code DRLION for 10% off site wide. That's 10 off site wide. With a hundred day risk free trial free shipping free returns you will experience the a game changing cookware.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

So Gardner's comment was comparing protein to protein. But you know beans have four fold carbohydrates per gram of protein so it's not an equal calorie density. You have to eat a ton of beans to get to the protein.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

When you say a ton of beans to get to the protein again we'll listen to what Andrew replies and and then Chris's response. But you had calculated it's 420 almonds for the amino acid equivalent of a chicken breast. And again, if you are new to this podcast, I apologize that this is your first one. Dr. Donald Layman is my longtime best friend and mentor. The protein conversation becomes incredibly important if you want to age well. If you want to have a healthy metabolism. The information online and out there is extremely difficult to sort through. And by having a foundational understanding as to how to cognitively approach it can be very beneficial because then you can make good decisions.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

And so it's really a shame that the sort of the quality thing is like, oh, plant foods don't have quality protein. They're missing amino acids. So if I can add that to the pool. So the two standard deviations, no place to store it. And plants are better sources of protein than most people think. And so that's why there are vegan bodybuilders. You can win a gold medal in a bodybuilding competition strictly on plant proteins because they're not missing. So if I could just help dispel that myth. They're not missing, they're not absent. There is something to the proportions of proteins. So if you were to see the grid of the, the heat map of amino acids that I'll share with you later.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

I looked at this prior to this and I will say that the, the proportions of. Let's just concentrate on leucine, perhaps, since most listeners will be familiar with leucine as kind of the critical one for muscle building. I've got that in air quotes for those just listening. What, how does, how do the different sources for protein play out in that case?

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

Almost identical all the way down the list of foods that I have. Leucine is not a problem in plant food.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I'm just going to pause him there, Don Layman, because you didn't. I'm just going to put a little, I don't know, check mark on that. I'll let him play, see what else he has to say after that. And I just interjected for you. Hold on, let's see what else he has to say.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

The problem in plant food is it's low in lysine for grains and it's low in methionine for beans. They're actually called limiting amino acids. Cause they would run out if you only ate grains or you only ate beans. They would run out first and then you'd be screwed. You can't actually substitute another amino acid for a hormone or an enzyme. You have to have all the amino acids in the proportions you want. And that's where the complimentary thing came in. Because grains, although they're low in lysine, are a little high in methionine. And beans, which are low in methionine, are a little high in lysine. If you ate them together, it would be closer to the proportions in meat. Meat would still be better because animals are animals and we're animals. The proportions are perfect in animals. But what most people in this conference where I presented to the chefs, Jaws are on the floor. Seriously, the proportions are that similar? God, that is mind boggling that they're that similar. I realize they're not perfect.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

Was this made equivalent for calories? Was it a hundred calories of beans versus proportion?

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

This is proportion.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

Proportion. But if I took, let's just say 100 calories, which just for sake of example, and we took your chart, which shows, and again, I looked at this prior to our conversation today and it did hit me square in the face that like all these plant sources have a lot of. They have all the different amino acids that beef does in different proportions, but they have them. But if we said, okay, now we're going to make that chart, but for 100 calories of food. So it's either 100 calories of ribeye or 100 calories of red beans or 100 calories of quinoa. You get the idea.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

Absolutely. And that's why for the next slide, when I give these presentations, my next slide is 100 calories of 20 foods.

[Dr. Gabrielle Lyon]

We didn't plan that, folks.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

So it shows. Like for black beans, 2 1/2 cups would be 40 grams of protein. For soybeans, 2 cups would be 40 grams of protein. For rice, like 20 cups of rice would be 40 grams of protein.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

His comparisons are right. But what's the meaning of 40 grams of protein? At the very least, we think it's probably double that, that people need at least 80, if not 100 as the minimum. And so, you know, 40 is two and a half cups of black beans. That means you actually have to have six cups of black beans to get in the same category. So Andrew's comments earlier about, you know, I simply don't want to eat, I don't feel good eating that much fiber there. Absolutely. You can get the amino acids from plants, but it always comes with more total protein and more total calories to get to it. He's picking the numbers to make it look similar. But what's the meaning of 40 grams of protein? That's an irrelevant number.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I was surprised by that comment because it, it's not, it's almost as if, you know, when you look at the back of a label and it gives you a protein number and say, for example, it's collagen and it says 40 grams of protein on the label. But really that protein score is zero because it, it's not an indicator of the quality or the amino acid profile. And I understand that that would be very difficult to do, which is part of what the initiative that you're working on with the EAA 9 is, that is surprising that he would make a statement somewhat misleading. And I don't know if I'm misinterpreting it, but to say that the 40 grams of protein from beans is the same as the 40 grams of protein from chicken, I'm not sure that I'm totally understanding that.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

I mean one of the examples that we've used in papers and others is that if you take the RDA for protein as your target, you can meet the RDA with chicken breast with three and a half ounces. If you're going to do that with almonds, which some people will say is a great protein source, it would take 420 almonds. I mean that's over 50 grams of fiber and is pretty disruptive to the GI system. So you know, the plants have the amino acids, but to make it equivalent you have to eat a lot more of it. And, and you know, that's why most vegetarians or vegans tend to be low protein. And so I understand his, his goal is to make the RDA look like the target. But nobody who works in the protein field believes that. Everybody who works in the protein field believes the target is something above 1.2. And his comment to Andrew was that 175 grams of protein per day, the protein quality doesn't matter. I think that's exactly true if you get up in the hundred,120 grams of protein per day. Now the fact that it comes, a lot of it comes from plants doesn't matter. But we know, and we've done some modeling that as you go down toward the rda, you will become deficient in essential amino acid. The amount of the quantity by far is the first most important and then quality becomes second.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

Is there a number that you would feel comfortable with individuals having? Let's take a 45 year old, 50 year old postmenopausal woman. What is the minimum number of protein, the amount of protein that she should have a day?

[Dr. Donald Layman]

The minimum amount should be the 1.2 grams per kilogram.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

But what about a gram amount? I have it, I have a thought on this.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

And most of our studies were related to weight loss and people who had some metabolic issues. We found that we lost all of the metabolic benefits if we got below 100 grams per day.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

That's what I was going for and I wanted you to.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Yeah, so I, I mean, you've heard me say that before, I'm sure. But we always found that if people got below 100 grams per day. The metabolic benefits you get with protein, the satiety, the thermogenesis, the protein muscle aspects, we would lose all of those. The effects on insulin sensitivity, the effects on triglycerides, all of those seem to have a buffer at around 100 grams per day.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

Curious as to how you were able to parse that out the, the number of 100 grams per day.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

So we were doing weighed food records. A lot of the stuff that's in the literature are food frequency questionnaires and things like that. We did three studies. The first study was 12 weeks long and we actually fed every meal. The second study was 16 weeks long. We fed all the meals for the first month and taught them how to weigh them. And they had to do weighed records three days every, every week for the 16 weeks. The third study was 12 months long where we taught them to do that and they had to do weighed food records three days every week for 52 weeks. What we saw is that the effectiveness of the diets, when we started looking at the individuals, people who weren't doing well, their protein intake had slipped down. People who were doing better were above the 100 grams per day. So it was something we saw within our data set.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

There are a few other things I really wanted to touch on the upper limit of protein. He makes a point by saying there's no storage mechanism for excess protein. I don't completely understand the argument. I'm not sure that it, it matters. What, why there isn't a storage component for protein because protein is so valuable to the body.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Just, just to interrupt you there so that the whole argument is based on amino acid oxidation data or even the nitrogen balance data. What they are is break point analysis that you have. If you're, you know, direct amino acid oxidation data. If you begin to bring protein into the diet from zero, what you'll find is oxidation is very low, up to a point, and then all of a sudden it goes up. And so the argument is that at that break point, you're now oxidizing, you're wasting the amino acids. But if you actually go back and look at the data, and people like Al Harper and Brooks and others have done this, if you go back and actually look at the data, they're only recovering about 15% of the amino acids with that oxidation. So that means 75, 80% of the amino acids are still not accounted for. So the idea that you're wasting all the rest of it is a total extrapolation from the graph. That doesn't actually reflect data. So that is, you know, inherent problem with all of these interpretations of storage and wastage. Again, every amino acid you eat every day has to be oxidized every day. Doesn't matter whether you're eating 60 or 160, they still get oxidized. So let's think about the complementary protein. We did a study that we published last year in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and basically we took meals directly out of MyPlate, the USDA guidelines. And we took a meal that started out with a meal that had some chopped walnuts and chicken breast in it, and it was basically meeting the essential amino acid requirements with 260 calories. And then we looked at starting to substitute plant things into it. So if we kept the walnuts so plant based, and we substituted in what are complementary proteins. We use kidney beans, which was two and a half cups, and brown rice, which was two and a half cups. So all perfectly good nutrition. We now have met the 95% of our essential amino acids, but we now have 1150 calories. So we went from meeting our essential amino acid content with the chicken breast and 260 calories, we can meet it with the complementary proteins, but it took 1150 calories to do it. So the issue is complimentary proteins, amino acids are true, but the nutrient density of those foods is so low, you just have to eat too many calories to get to it.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

Don, I, I feel like we're on Jeopardy. What is the relevance of essential amino acid supplementation? And I'm going to frame this up for you. A friend of mine who has been doing three day fasts said, gee, I am fasting for three days, but I've been taking these amino acids. And I thought to myself, okay, well then you're not actually fasting out there. On the Internet. There's a lot of amino acid supplementation. It shows on the packaging that those supplements have zero calories, even though they're complete proteins. If someone were to take that, would they essentially still be fasting? They are fasting and then they are using a amino acid supplement, which is a full spectrum complete amino acid profile.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

You know, on the surface level of what you just said, it highlights a real problem in our labeling laws. Amino acids were never expected to be a major supplement. And so they were approved on what's referred to as the grass list, generally recognized as safe as a supplement where people might use cysteine as an antioxidant or something. But now people are putting in all these essential amino Acids. And the labeling law says when amino acid is a free amino acid, you don't have to count the calories on the label. So somebody could put in 10 grams of amino acids, which would be 40 calories, and say it's zero calories, or worse yet, 20 grams, and say it was zero calories, you know, even though it would have 80 calories in it. So your point is they're not really fasting. You know, it's like saying, well, I'm fasting, but I'm taking Gatorade or something with, with sugar in it. You know, I'm not chewing anything. But I mean, those amino acids all have calories. So that's a problem with the labeling laws.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

A really important point, friends. If you are taking a complete amino acid supplement in between meals or you are taking it while you are fasting, technically you are no longer fasting. Is that fair to say?

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Yeah. So they just need to multiply it. Whatever grams of amino acids they're taking, times four, they're taking that many calories.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

One of the statements that you've said to me many times is, how do you diagnose protein deficiency? It brings up a really important concept. There's immediate deficiency and then there's lifelong deficiency. Can you explain a little bit about how you think about protein deficiency?

[Dr. Donald Layman]

I hear people a lot of times use the nitrogen balance argument in the RDA and say, well, people don't have deficiencies. And so then I started wondering, well, what outcome are you looking for? Does it relate to heart disease or diabetes or cancer or Alzheimer's? I mean, what does it look at? What do you relate it to? So, you know, we did the clinical studies looking at weight loss and we know that higher protein diets are very good at protecting body composition, protecting lean mass during weight loss. So in my mind that means that the food guide pyramid 0.8 grams is actually protein deficient because we see a true benefit of higher levels. We also know that you can substitute protein in for carbohydrates and you can reduce it. Insulin problems, you can, you can change diabetes or is that a protein problem? But even simple things like osteoporosis, bone is first and foremost a protein matrix. Sarcopenia, loss of muscle mass and functional mobility with aging, you know, these are, these are long term outcomes that you can't measure in a three or four or six week study. So, you know, how do you, how do you assess a deficiency? You know, unlike a scurvy, where you start having gum problems in a few weeks, you know, Protein doesn't work like that. It has much longer term effects. So nitrogen balance doesn't relate to anything. And one of the markers people have been using are things like erythrocyte glutathione levels. So here we have a relationship of protein, particularly the sulfur amino acids, to one of the primary anti inflammatory mechanisms in the body. And what we can see is that when protein gets too low down toward the rda, those levels will go down. To maximize glutathione levels in older adults, we need a minimum of 1.2 grams per kilogram of protein to do that.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

Over time there are overt deficiencies, quashior core and then there are subtle deficiencies. And maybe deficiencies isn't the right word that we see over time. What we don't have and what we don't see in the immediate are those individual amino acid needs and then long term outcomes. For example, what you just said, methionine and glutathione production. Glutathione is a master antioxidant. It's very important. Our ability to make it seems to decrease as we get older. Yet we don't say we have a methionine requirement for X, Y and Z. I just wanted to mention that because it's important you do that over time.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

We can go through and we can talk about others. I mean, we can talk about tryptophan relative to serotonin in your mood and sleep. We could talk about threonine and gut health and the mucin levels. We could talk about phenylalanine and tyrosine and dopamine and cognitive function and memory. These are all amino acid roles that have nothing to do with, you know, storage or efficiency. These are amino acid metabolism roles that are significantly above the rda.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

And what would happen if we don't ingest those or meet the rda, which.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

We don't really know. And that's one of the arguments I've been making is that I Frankly think our RDAs for the essential amino acids are low. But we know that if you are eating a primarily grain based diet at the rda, you will be deficient in two or three of the essential amino acids. And that's really what Americans do. Americans get 80% of their plant based protein from wheat. And so wheat is a very poor quality protein. So we always have to be careful when we talk about plant based diets or vegetarian diets to realize that when Americans shift that way, they shift toward grains, they don't shift toward eating more beans. And chickpeas and, and almonds. They shift toward eating grains.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I see that in clinic all the time. At our group at Strong Medical, we see that. I do want to play just maybe one more segment because I think it's important.

[Dr. Andrew Huberman]

Americans eat more meat than anyone else in the world. If you see these who, World Health Organization graphics of WHO eats how much meat it is, the US and Canada and some European countries that eat the most, and there are countries who eat the least and they have limited access to foods. And some of those countries would benefit from more meat per person because really they're eating cereal, they're eating dry cereal based foods.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

So his comment that Americans eat more meat than other countries, all developed countries do tend to eat more, higher quality protein. That seems to be a goal of, you know, becoming more economically advanced. People want more protein. But in terms of comparison, all of the Mediterranean countries eat more protein than we do. All of the Nordic countries eat more protein than we do. Australia eats more protein than we do. So among the developed countries, we're not particularly high in the list and we're actually particularly low in red meat consumption. We have shifted since, you know, the 70s. We shifted away from red meats toward chicken and we eat it in a lot of ultra processed forms. So meat consumption has stayed sort of constant in the U.S. but it's dramatically shifted from red meat to chicken. And there's no evidence that that has been healthy. And in fact, what we know is that the micronutrient quality, iron, zinc, selenium, B6, B12, riboflavin, have all gone down in the American diet when we made that shift. Red meats have a lot more nutrient quality than white chicken breast.

[Podcast Host / Moderator]

I won't play anymore from this episode. I am truly hoping that Andrew has you on the show because it would be a justice to everybody listening. We've talked about a lot of things on this podcast today, things that are really important to understand, at least to lay the foundation of a conversation. And that includes dietary protein, how we think about daily dietary protein and amounts, and what the RDA really means, and nitrogen balance studies. In addition, we have to acknowledge that there is a large safe range for protein, from.08 grams per kilogram up to.2.5 grams per kilogram. In addition, the idea of protein storage, what happens when you have more than you quote need all are topics that are really important. Dr. Donald Lehman, you are a true pioneer and so gracious. There's a lot that we could continue to talk about and we will, because we didn't even touch on collagen in any kind of detail. But more to come on this. Thank you so much for spending time.

[Dr. Donald Layman]

Always fun to join you.