I see this sentiment expressed in LFRV circles constantly: "It's strength training that builds muscle, not protein". Usually, people that say this mean well, but statements like this are simplistic to the point of ridiculousness. It's like saying "it's people that build roads, not asphalt". Yes, that might be true on some level, but to completely discount the role that asphalt (or concrete or other building material) plays in building roads would be just nuts. It's pretty obvious to me that both strength training and protein intake play a part in building muscle: Training is the trigger, and protein is the building block for muscle gain. I believe that when we completely discount the fact that protein plays a part in muscle gain, we do a disservice to the LFRV movement. People out there are less likely to take us seriously when we quote simplistic stuff like this. So instead, I challenge people to help sustain credibility of the LFRV movement by objectively discussing things like:
Exactly how much protein is needed to optimally support muscle gain stoked with strength training?
What is the lower limit of protein consumption necessary for bodybuilding? 10% of total cals? 5%? 3%? less than 1%?
What is the recommended daily intake of protein in grams per pound (or kilo) of bodyweight?
Where is the fault in the common idea that at least 70-120 grams of protein daily is necessary for an average male athlete (a level that many LFRVegans don't reach)?
Where do we find solid proof that protein from raw foods supports body building better than cooked protein?
All of our "LFRV Gladiators" are doing a great job in bringing credibility to LFRV. There are also others that effectively address the questions above in a clear way. Let's support all their efforts by avoiding silly over-simplifications, and keeping our discussions objective. Just sayin' :)
Replies