Do Amino Acids Build Bigger Muscles?

Amino acids enhance workout performance, promote recovery, and help build muscle. But do we need to buy supplements to keep on hand during workouts?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Let’s start with the basics. The most common muscle-building supplement there is can be found right in your fridge. It’s called protein.

When you eat protein, your body breaks the protein down into amino acids. Those amino acids are then used to repair and grow new muscle fibers. When you consume an adequate amount of protein, your body will experience something called a positive balance of nitrogen.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Nitrogen balance is a measure of protein metabolism. That may sound complicated, but it simply means that if the intake of nitrogen into your body is greater than the loss of nitrogen from your body, there is an increase in the total body pool of protein. This positive balance signals your body to get itself into an anabolic, or muscle-building, state.

Here’s an interesting aside: Periods of growth in children, hypothyroidism, tissue repair, and pregnancy are also associated with a positive nitrogen balance.

People who don’t have access to sufficient amounts of protein can experience muscle atrophy and muscle wasting. The US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for protein is 0.36 grams per pound. You’ve probably heard reports saying that Americans eat far more protein than required. But, as my fellow Quick and Dirty Tipper, the Nutrition Diva, pointed out in an article, that isn’t exactly true.

Most Americans are not tearing down muscle under a barbell regularly. But for an active person who works out, a protein intake of approximately 0.45 grams per pound of body weight is adequate.

But before the higher number I just gave gets you thinking that more protein must be better, keep in mind that many studies have found that protein intake above 1.2 grams per pound of bodyweight provided no additional muscle-building benefits. In fact, in extreme cases, excess protein consumption could increase the risk of dehydration and kidney damage.

So yes, we need to consume adequate protein to build muscle, but don’t go overboard. Researchers recently measured the effects of protein on muscle synthesis by feeding people steaks and then measured the rate at which their bodies built new muscle tissue after the meal. They found that muscle synthesis went up by 50% after eating some beef. But 4 ounces of beef worked just as well as 12 ounces.

»Continue reading “ Do Amino Acids Build Bigger Muscles?” on QuickAndDirtyTips.com

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe