Team St.Peter personal training

We are back from vacation and excited to get back to work! Hope everyone kept moving while we were away cause we’re recharged and ready to rock!!!

Say it louder for those in the back!!

👀

Eat-your-protien…

Your body can only use 25-30 grams of protein per meal. Anything above that gets wasted." This is one of the most widely repeated claims in fitness nutrition. It has been repeated for over a decade, and it was always based on incomplete data. Not wrong data. Incomplete data. The studies that built this claim were measuring the right thing over the wrong timescale.

The origin of the claim traces to dose-response studies in the late 2000s. Moore et al. (2009, Am J Clin Nutr) gave young men 0, 5, 10, 20, or 40g of egg protein after leg-only resistance exercise and measured muscle protein synthesis for approximately 4 hours. They found that MPS plateaued at 20g with no further increase at 40g, and that amino acid oxidation increased at the higher dose. This was a well-designed study, but it had three important limitations: only 6 subjects, only leg exercise, and only a 4-hour window. Witard et al. (2014, Am J Physiol) repeated a similar design with whey protein at 0, 10, 20, and 40g. They found a trend toward higher MPS at 40g compared to 20g, but the difference did not reach statistical significance, likely because the study had only 12 subjects per group and a similarly short measurement period. These two studies became the foundation for the 20-25g recommendation. Fitness culture rounded it to 30g. The number calcified.

But there were early cracks. Macnaughton et al. (2016, Physiol Rep) tested 20g versus 40g of whey protein after whole-body resistance exercise rather than leg-only exercise. With 30 resistance-trained men divided into higher and lower lean body mass groups, they found that 40g produced significantly greater MPS than 20g regardless of body size. Their explanation: whole-body exercise activates more muscle tissue, disperses blood flow more broadly, and therefore requires more amino acids to reach each muscle group. This was the first published evidence that the "ceiling" might depend on how much muscle you just trained, not a fixed biological limit.

Trommelen et al. (2023, Cell Reports Medicine) settled it. They gave 36 recreationally active young men either 0g, 25g, or 100g of milk protein after a 60-minute whole-body resistance exercise session and tracked muscle protein synthesis for 12 hours using a quadruple isotope tracer approach.

Here is why this matters. Think of your digestive system like a funnel. The funnel has a fixed flow rate. If you pour a cup of water through it, it drains in minutes. If you pour a gallon in, the funnel does not overflow. The water sits above the opening and drains at the same rate over a longer period. Protein works the same way. A 25g dose digests quickly, amino acids peak in the blood within a couple of hours, MPS peaks shortly after, and by about 6 hours the process is done. A 100g dose does not overwhelm the system. The stomach slows gastric emptying. The intestine releases amino acids gradually over many hours. Each wave of amino acids that arrives finds muscle tissue ready to incorporate them. The body does not waste the protein. It just takes longer to process it.

This is exactly what Trommelen found. The 25g dose elevated MPS for approximately 6 hours, then returned to baseline. The 100g dose was still elevated at 12 hours when the study ended. The advantage of the larger dose was modest in the first 4 hours but became substantially larger from hours 4 through 12. That is the window every previous study missed.

The oxidation question is the other half of the ceiling argument. The claim was that protein above 20-25g just gets burned for energy. Trommelen measured this directly: in the first 4 hours, less than 15% of ingested protein-derived amino acids from the 100g dose were oxidized. The vast majority were incorporated into tissue protein, including muscle, connective tissue, and plasma proteins. The paper states it plainly: "Protein ingestion has a negligible impact on whole-body protein breakdown rates or amino acid oxidation rates."

Caveats matter here. This study was conducted in recreationally active young men, not trained athletes, not women, not older adults. A 2024 commentary by Witard and Mettler in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism specifically cautioned that this finding may not translate to resistance-trained young women. Older adults with blunted anabolic sensitivity might also respond differently. Nobody has repeated this protocol in those populations with a 12-hour window yet.

This was also an acute MPS study, not a longitudinal hypertrophy trial. More muscle protein synthesis over 12 hours does not automatically mean proportionally more muscle over 12 weeks. MPS is a building rate measured at one time point. It correlates with long-term outcomes but is not a guarantee.

One disclosure: a co-author was employed by FrieslandCampina, a dairy company. The company had no role in funding, data collection, analysis, or manuscript preparation per the conflict of interest statement. The Macnaughton 2016 study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Industry involvement in protein research is common. It does not invalidate findings, but it is part of a complete read.

The study used milk protein as a liquid, not a steak dinner. A mixed meal with fat, fiber, and other macronutrients would slow gastric emptying further, likely extending the absorption window even more. Real-world meals may show an even more prolonged response than this controlled protocol captured.

What this means practically: you do not need to eat exactly 25-30g of protein every 3 hours to avoid "wasting" it. If you eat a larger meal, your body will use the protein. It will just take longer to digest and absorb, and the anabolic window extends accordingly. Distribution across the day still has value for satiety, blood sugar, and hitting your daily target. But the biological case for rigid per-meal portioning is weaker than the fitness industry claimed for two decades. The ceiling was never in the muscle. It was in the clock.

Moore et al., Am J Clin Nutr, 2009
Witard et al., Am J Physiol, 2014
Macnaughton et al., Physiol Rep, 2016
Trommelen et al., Cell Rep Med, 2023

Quality content!

Strength training lowers death risk. The benefit caps at about two hours a week.

A new analysis pooled three Harvard cohorts. 147,374 adults. Up to 30 years of follow-up. 35,798 deaths. Resistance training time was self-reported repeatedly across the follow-up window. The analysis is observational, which means it cannot prove causation. It can map the dose-response curve, and the shape of that curve is the entire point.

The shape is consistent across every major cause of death. Risk drops fast as weekly training rises from zero. By 60 minutes a week, most of the benefit has already happened. By 120 minutes a week, the curve goes flat. Past two hours, more lifting did not produce further reductions in any outcome the study measured. At the plateau, compared to no resistance training, all-cause death was 13% lower. Cardiovascular death was 19% lower. Neurological death was 27% lower. Cancer was the only outcome that did not follow the same curve. The cancer benefit appeared only at low volumes (1 to 59 minutes per week) at 9 to 12% lower risk, and by the time training crossed two hours, that signal was gone.

This is where the broader literature matters, because the Zhang paper is not an outlier. It is the largest cohort to date to confirm a curve that pooled data was already showing four years ago. Shailendra et al. (2022, Am J Prev Med) ran a meta-analysis of 10 prior studies looking at this exact question. They reported a 15% reduction in all-cause mortality from any resistance training, with a peak benefit of 27% reduction at around 60 minutes per week, and explicitly noted that reductions diminished at higher volumes. Same curve. Same plateau. Same peak benefit window. The Zhang 2026 analysis confirms the shape with a sample size more than ten times larger and a follow-up window long enough to capture neurological mortality, which prior cohorts were underpowered to detect.

This consistency matters because the field has had a quiet running disagreement about whether resistance training's mortality benefit is real or whether it is mostly a marker of people who are generally more health-conscious. The shape of the curve is the strongest argument against the marker hypothesis. If the relationship were purely confounded by lifestyle, you would not expect a clean, replicable dose-response with a plateau at the same time window across independent cohorts. You would expect the benefit to track total exercise volume and not flatten. It does flatten. And it flattens in the same place every time.

Adults who layered meaningful aerobic exercise on top of their resistance training saw the largest reductions in this analysis, up to 47% lower all-cause death at the high end of combined volume. This is also consistent with the broader literature. Every major cohort that has looked at combined activity has found that aerobic plus resistance outperforms either alone, often by a large margin. The lifting plateau is a real ceiling on what more strength training can buy you. It is not a ceiling on what more total exercise can buy you.

The mechanistic reading is that resistance training and aerobic training drive partly overlapping and partly distinct biology. Resistance training is doing most of its work on muscle mass, insulin signaling, glycemic control, and skeletal strength. Those adaptations saturate. The marginal lifter going from zero to two hours a week gains them. The marginal lifter going from two to four hours a week has already captured them. Aerobic training drives cardiac output, mitochondrial density, endothelial function, and VO2 max. Those pathways do not saturate at the same training volume. The combined effect on mortality is larger than either alone because the two stimuli are not doing the same job.

The minimum effective dose for the survival benefit of lifting is closer to 60 minutes a week than to the 150 minutes the guidelines push. The optimal dose is about two hours. Past two hours a week, hours four through ten are doing something for your physique, your strength, your enjoyment, your performance. They are not doing anything additional for your death risk in this dataset. If your goal is longevity rather than performance, two hours a week of lifting plus 150 to 300 minutes a week of moderate aerobic activity is the combination the data supports.

This is observational data. Self-reported exercise time is noisy. The cohorts skew toward US health professionals, which means the population is healthier and more educated than the general population. The study measured time, not intensity, exercise selection, or program design. The 47% figure for the combined group is the upper bound and applies to high aerobic volumes. The 13/19/27% reductions for lifting alone at two hours a week are the more defensible numbers.

Lifting cuts death risk. The benefit plateaus at around two hours a week. The way to move the number further is to stack cardio on top, not more sets.

Zhang et al., Br J Sports Med, 2026
Shailendra et al., Am J Prev Med, 2022

So it begins! First offers on the book kid!! Complex Sports

Last practice of the season, 98 degrees most of the kids weren’t there… you’re damn right we still ran after practice and scrimmage!! Thank you to all the coaches and refs for showing up and helping these kids learn the game!! We appreciate you sweating out there!! ⚽️ ⚽️ 🥵