ill get to my point………question really.

one of the main areas im currently trying to better understand is partitioning ratio. obviously we all would like to optimize our personal p-ratio (to the small degree that we can) but exactly how is the real question. im looking to find ways to realistically do just that all while avoiding “whale” style bulking and over the top “OCD” like training/diet manipulations.

from my research to date this is what ive found/read.
in the overall grand scheme only proper nutrition, exercise and/or drugs can effect the roughly 15-20% of the p-ratio that is not already set in stone via genetics.

more specific strategies to enhance p-ratio. *excluding drugs.
-modest calorie surplus/deficit. enough to allow lbm/wgt gain or loss but not huge chunks over a short time span.
-adequate protein intake, at least 1g/lb, from quality, mainly actual food, sources.
-proper pre/post w/o nutrition involving adequate protein intake before and signif (relative)carb intake after. amounts etc usually vary per individual.
-perhaps IF eating protocol.
-w/os’ that are based primarly on heavier wgts and lower reps.
-w/o frequency. 2-4 times a week (depending on program/split etc.) but most likely more then 1x a week.

OK, now the question(s). have i missed something? have i listed something that is wrong, a myth or been disproven? have i misunderstood or misinterpreted something?     

I don’t think most people require that much protein (particularly ones with a low to moderate p-ratio). The Primary Research Data I have seen indicates 1.8-2 gms/ kg/bw per day. Now more is not necessarily bad and can be good under some conditions, but is is questionable if more further enhances gains in MPS. Observations I have made with my own quasi-experiments have shown that even lower levels can promote increases in MPS (.7-.8 gms /lbm per day). Of course I did not intravenously measure MPS I simply gauged this by strength and appearance.

“w/os’ that are based primarly on heavier wgts and lower reps”

There are a wide range of loads and reps that have been shown to increase skeletal muscle mass. The key issue is progressive increases in loads and total work (reps x load). This is covered in depth in Knowledge and Nonsense.

I think you have a good grasp on P-ratio.

your right of course about the progressive load aspect of lifting………forgot to include that key element.

ive read diff. opinions concerning amount of protein intake and have certainly come across sources that put 1g/lb as more of a “ceiling” as opposed to a minimum. i must admit ive havent yet seen lower protein req. connected to folks with low to moderate p-ratios. i would think the opposite to be true, even if just anecdotally. why is that?

i could certainly see how ones insuline (in)sensitivity could also play a signif. role.
someone with poor insuline sens. will want to place most carbs around w/o if possible to max that benefit (even going the IF diet route and place most all food around ones w/o). most fat will likely be tag along, neither seek (except efa’s) nor avoid (except excess sat.). that of course leaves protein which i would think would need to surpass 1g per lb just to have enough cals for a surplus.

now despite how it reads i am not carb phobic (dont think so anyway) as so often happens with folks who seem to think they have even the slightest hint of ins. insenst. i dont feel every gram of carb over 50 is going to fat stores. im just looking at this from a “lets max p-ratio” point of view and i would think “more” cals from pro. (for someone insuline insenst.) would be preferable to cals from carbs (except primarely around w/o) or fat.

does my thinking make any sense? am i way off base here?

Payne and Dugdale (1977) A direct relationship between protein and energy is also suggested by the P theory. During tissue mobilisation, it predicts that a constant fraction of energy should be derived from the breakdown of protein, i.e., the P ratio should remain constant. Extending this model further, I propose that the P ratio may not only influence energy balance Since the ratio FUNL/BMR has been shown to be constant in an individual, the allometric relationship reported here between FUNL/BMR and ONL suggests that all three parameters are closely connected and bear a physiological relationship to one another. It is therefore proposed that subjects with a low P ratio (i.e., the obese) will not only have a lower FUNL but also a smaller ONL and hence a lower protein requirement.