I've also read going very light helps, too. But I'm not sure if I want to take a chance and have the pain prolong while doing stretching exercises. I dunno, maybe I will. I'll ask a couple of trainers that actually know what they're talking about tommorrow.
And it's not my specifically my elbows as I've said. It's the medial epicondylitis/ulnar bone. It's that tiny round bone on the inside of your forearm.
A trainer may be able to give you some advice on stretching, but in my experience, personally and professionally, if you have enough pain in a joint that a NSAID, ice, and some rest isn't resolving you probably should speak to an Orthopedic specialist.
It could be a complete waste of money and they may not find anything on an X-Ray, but if your worried to the point you want to take a month off from putting stress on your elbow, you really should search for somebody locally and see what they can do for you.
MrCity's (that he's posted to me before) doesn't really come to any conclusion on the issue. Your link is actually sweet, but it recommends .8g/lb of bodyweight based off of that study, much less than the amount people are recommending in the thread. Although .8g/lb makes way more intuitive sense than 1.4+g/lb.
This is the portion of that particular abstract that is key:
A suggested recommended intake for S (sedentary subjects) was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA (Strength Athletes) was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S.
So, while the .8g per 1lb of body weight resulted in adaptation for the SA (strength athlete), the HP diet resulted in a nutrient overload. Thus, more calories, thus probably leading to an increase in mass. The main point of the article is that the more you train, the more you need to eat.
With the above in mind, you're correct in that .8g is enough for adaptation. Most though aren't trying to adapt, they're trying to set new PRs or get bigger. Hence the larger requirement in protein (which, once again, you should be eating more of anyways as 30% or more of your daily caloric intake should be coming from protein calories, yadda yadda yadda).
It's all a fairly silly argument in the long run, as the solution to 90% of stalling on anything is eat more clean calories of all macronutrients. What I'd love to see is the full article to view what sports/routines the SAs were on to see what the study considered a strength athlete, however I don't care enough to drop twenty dollars to see the full study.