Our Preoccupation With Protein Intake (substack.com) 108
A review of published meta-analyses examining protein supplementation found no evidence supporting intake beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight daily, according to an analysis by cardiologist Eric Topol. The review examined multiple randomized controlled trials encompassing thousands of participants. The most widely cited Morton study, which included 1,863 participants across 49 trials, showed no statistically significant benefit at higher protein levels, with a p-value of 0.079.
Recent research from Washington University identified the essential amino acid leucine as activating mTOR in macrophages, promoting atherosclerosis progression. The mechanism was demonstrated in both mouse models and human studies measuring circulating monocyte changes following acute high-protein challenges increasing dietary protein from 22% to 50% of energy intake. Current USDA data indicates 55% of American men and 35% of women already exceed the 0.8 g/kg/day recommendation from the National Academy of Medicine. The protein supplement industry, exemplified by David bars containing 28 grams of protein in 150 calories using a modified plant fat called EPG, projects $180 million in 2025 sales.
Recent research from Washington University identified the essential amino acid leucine as activating mTOR in macrophages, promoting atherosclerosis progression. The mechanism was demonstrated in both mouse models and human studies measuring circulating monocyte changes following acute high-protein challenges increasing dietary protein from 22% to 50% of energy intake. Current USDA data indicates 55% of American men and 35% of women already exceed the 0.8 g/kg/day recommendation from the National Academy of Medicine. The protein supplement industry, exemplified by David bars containing 28 grams of protein in 150 calories using a modified plant fat called EPG, projects $180 million in 2025 sales.
Huh? (Score:1, Redundant)
Was this written by a human? I understand that the language used by experts in a sector can be rather terse, but this doesn't seem to be formatted in a way meant to be understood by anyone else than a specialist. And even then I'd have my doubts on whether it is actually meant to convey an actual message.
Re: Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
There's also this weird notion among a large percentage of the population that a high-protein diet is "natural" and is what our ancestors ate. Certainly *some* hunter-gatherers ate a lot of protein (there's a great deal of diversity in traditional diets), but the mean hunter-gatherer society did not. In areas rich in sago, for example, it's common for ~75% of calories to be from sago alone (nearly pure carbs), and in extreme cases up to 90% - not counting other plants on top of that - with much of the protein coming from sago grubs.
If there's one thing that our ancestors almost universally tended to eat a lot more of than today (unless your ancestors were, say, Inuit), it's fibre.
Also, meat is not a synonym for protein. A typical green veggie without its water, like freeze-dried broccoli (~0% water content) has ~50% more protein per calorie than your most common grade of ground beef (20% fat) at 0% water content (beef wins per-gram, but only by ~20%), and watercress at 0% water is nearly as high as cod at 0% water per-calorie. The main difference is that said veggies are overwhelmingly water before cooking, and that most modern peoples eat way less of them than they do of meat, so in a typical modern diet it's a small percentage. But hunter-gatherer societies tend not to be so picky, and plant-based food sources in most places tended to be more available than meat-based ones - in the stone age, your ancestors were probably chowing down heavily on things like nettle stew, wild cabbage, goosefoot, dock, mugwort, plaintain, etc. That said, starchy or fatty plant-based sources tend to have poor protein/calorie ratios, and meat provided an important supplement (as well as hard-to-get nutrients like B12 and iron).
Re: (Score:2)
You know that plants carry a fair amount of protein, right? You appear to be focusing on eating animals
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason half of Americans aren't malnourished right now is because of the introduction of enriched foods. Meal, salt, and most drinks (including most tap water) are enriched with some combination of vitamins and minerals. Artificially nutrient-enriched diets are one of the great successes of modern public health. Not quite at the level of sanitation, hygiene, and mass vaccination but definitely top-10.
Re: (Score:2)
This is objectively false as your average vegan is significantly less likely to have a nutrient deficiency than your average omnivore. As long as you're combining a pulse with a grain in your diet, you'll be fine as far as amino acids go. If this weren't the case, agrarian societies would have all failed a long time ago. Pre-industrial agrarian societies were mostly vegan in practice if not ideology because animal products and byproducts were so relatively rare and expensive in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Protein deficiency is not common among modern vegans; it's actually very rare. However, certain hunter gatherer societies and esp. many sustenance farming societies have struggled with it. Sustenance farming tends to be the worst because there's commonly just one or two major crops, which may be either low protein (relative to calories) or lack sufficient of specific essential amino acids. But modern diets are so diverse that it's quite difficult to get protein deficiency, even on a vegan diet (in modern
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
It's super hard to OD on protein on a vegan diet. So, meat eaters would be the only examples of prehistoric protein OD.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's pretty easy to experience rabbit starvation from over consumption of pulses, nuts, and seeds. What prevents it is your body will just start craving less protein-rich foods to balance out.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that plants carry a fair amount of protein, right? You appear to be focusing on eating animals
The person you replied to wrote an entire paragraph about plant protein. You should read the entire comment before responding.
Re: (Score:3)
"A typical green veggie ... ~50% more protein per calorie than your most common grade of ground beef (20% fat)..."
You are conflating amino acids with "protein". Protein is not a specific nutritional element, not all sources of "protein" are the same.
Worse yet, you have devised this data to mislead. Green veggies have essentially no fat or carbs, their ONLY calorie source is "protein", so of course "protein per calorie" is high. Duh. And you've compared it to meat with high calorie content from fat. Thi
Re: (Score:2)
"Also, meat is not a synonym for protein."
And absolutely no one is making that mistake.
Except everyone I know who decided to go on a low carb diet....
Another fun fact: Everyone who did that became moody and grumpy to a point where I started avoiding them. Sample size with n around 5 may be small, but big enough to notice. And they were Independent.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the girl at work was going boiled rice with boiled chicken while the guy at choir and his friend went the steak & salad route. I don't remember the details, but I guess the bland chicken was the high protein variety. Another friend went the salad & boiled pork leg route, so definitely high fat. Or maybe she cut off the actual greasey parts like skin and fat layer... but as I said, I never went into the details, but made a vow that I never want to become such a miserable person by going that lo
Re: (Score:2)
so of course "protein per calorie" is high
Not forgetting,. our guts suck at extracting much of value from plants.
Meat, on the other hand.... not an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Our guts are very good at digesting protein, regardless of source.
There are certain things that it's difficult to extract from plants, such as iron. Protein is not among them.
Re: (Score:2)
When eating plants, fiber blocks some of their protein from being digested. How much depends on the plant. Meat is supposed to fully liquefy in the stomach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are conflating amino acids with "protein". Protein is not a specific nutritional element, not all sources of "protein" are the same.
I would really like to hear what you think the difference is between amino acids and "protein".
Re: (Score:2)
That's because almost all of the amino acids you consume are consumed in the form of protein.
Deficiencies of specific amino acids, while common in some sustenance farming societies, are extremely rare in modern societies. Even a modicum of diversity in diets prevents it. It's a problem if you're, say, overwhelmingly eating just corn, or just rice, or whatnot.
Re: (Score:2)
Our bodies attempt to hit a set point of energy usage per day. A consistent increase in your physical activity simply down regulates other internal processes so you end up spending roughly the same amount of energy had you not exercised. This has all been well tested using metabolic chambers across a wide group of people and animals. A runner and a couch potato use the same amount of energy, they just use that energy differently.
I don't exactly care what cave men ate. The carnivore diet fixed a bunch of
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my god, I'm literally arguing with someone who thinks that calorie consumption doesn't increase when you exercise.
No, you're TOTALLY RIGHT! Your body sits around all day just THROWING AWAY ENERGY en masse, and exercise just causes it to stop throwing away energy! What o
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, your muscles use more energy when you exercise. The point you're missing is that your body then spends less energy on its immune, reproductive, or other systems thus the net energy use is similar. You've got a wiggle room of around +/- 200 cals before it starts adapting. Though that adaptation can take days to months depending on how far it needs to go and how consistent you are.
our body sits around all day just THROWING AWAY ENERGY en masse
Maybe. Some people think that's why inactive people have so much excess inflammation. The immune system becomes over act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Even if it's natural, it's also natural to die by age 40.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really accurate. Yes, it's common for early societies to have short mean lifespans. But most of that is due to high child mortality, not "most people die in their 40s".
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Hunter/gatherers absolutely died in their 40s. What you're referring to is life expectation without violence. On that metric, ancient people often lived as long as pre modern humans. But they were still far more likely to die from animal attack or warfare at an early age.
The point being, few hunters were making it to heart disease age.
Re: (Score:2)
This just isn't true. Hunter-gatherer societies with limited interaction with the outside world still exist. Yes, without access to external healthcare, they have mean a mean age of 40 (or even lower!) is not uncommon. But that mean age is due to offsetting their high child mortality rates, not due to mass death in their 40s. Only about 60% of people in a typical early hunter-gatherer society reached the age of 15. Mathematically, to get a mean age of 40, when 40% of your population is dying before the
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
We find lots of skeletons of 20-50 year olds and almost none of 50-60 year olds.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation Needed]
Literally, isolated hunter-gatherer societies still exist. You can literally go observe them. There are old people.
Going to argue that, meh, they have too much exposure to the modern world? Go look at early black and white photos from early western explorers in Africa, South America, etc. Guess what? Old people.
Societies have always had the old. They've commonly been considered "wise men" / "wise women", sometimes attributed as healers, those with spiritual power, etc. To repeat: once
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Sorry, but modern hunter gatherers societies are not an acceptable stand in for pre agrarian man.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
The median age of a dead person today is over 70 years old. That means if you were correct, half of the skeletons we find would be over 70.
It's you who needs to find a citation for that wild claim, not me.
Yup, that's why bodybuilders eat veggies alone! (Score:2)
A typical green veggie without its water, like freeze-dried broccoli (~0% water content) has ~50% more protein per calorie than your most common grade of ground beef (20% fat) at 0% water content (beef wins per-gram, but only by ~20%), and watercress at 0% water is nearly as high as cod at 0% water per-calorie.
Veggies are a good source of protein? WTAF? You're willfully wrong and debating in bad faith. If freeze-dried broccoli was a good protein supplement, every athlete would be consuming a ton of it. Fit people don't fabricate benefits of meat to justify their existing taste in food. They prioritize fitness over food...they'd happily eat nothing but broccoli if what you said actually worked. It's safe to say that a lot of fit people are kinda sick of meat. I work out a lot and need to eat a lot of prote
Re: Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Americans overdosing on protein."
Nothing in the summary or the article supports that claim.
The article makes one claim in this regard: "Yet the most recent data from USDA says the federal protein recommendation is exceeded by more than 55% of men and 35% of women. "
It then provides a single link to support that claim: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUs... [usda.gov]
Seems legit, until you look at the citation. In the data, first, the time frame is pre pandemic and the subjects are filtered against an unstated BMI, then only food and beverage is considered. There are many reasons to be concerned over generalizing to the broader population, but then when you look at the data you realize there is NO WAY they could get the 55% and 35% numbers from this data. The data suggests higher percentages, but what is clear is that the link provided was there to give the appearance of a citation when there clearly isn't a source for the claims made. It's gratuitously dishonest.
That's not to say that protein supplementation is a good idea, but it is to say that this article has fraud in plain sight. Excessive protein is not needed and not helpful, but each person needs to understand what "excessive" is.
Underdosing. (Score:2)
The summary actually points out 45% of men ant 65% of women don't meet the RDA for protein.
I decided to track and realized I was eating too many calories and not enough protein. I'm targeting about 1g/lb.
I'm slightly under my daily calorie target, and find the protein highly satiating.
Big change was massive cuts to carbs, which means it's a bit heavier on fat relatively speaking.
4 cups of rice or mashed potato just doesn't fit in a lot of diets.
Re: (Score:3)
Americans overdosing on protein.
That's really not supported. TFS leads with a claim that there's no benefit in consuming more than 1.6 g protein per kg of body weight per day, but the later bits say that many Americans consume more than ... half that amount. Presumably "overdose" is somewhere above the 1.6 g/kg/day limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is quoting actual science. I know this may be unfamiliar to you since it is so rare.
Most nutrition advice is "popularized" by skipping the details and actual science and posting extreme clickbait titles which draw views but distort the science.
Let me put it this way:
- Most people eat too much protein.
- Eating too much protein is bad for you.
- The protein supplement industry is a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at the quoted science. I think you did not. I did. The quoted data did not support the article's claims.
"Let me put it this way:
- Most people eat too much protein.
- Eating too much protein is bad for you.
- The protein supplement industry is a scam."
I see, claims without quoting science. Not "so rare".
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was an attempt to be subtle about advertising David bars, whatever they are. (Yes, I could Google it. No, I don't see the need).
Our preoccupation? (Score:2)
Yours perhaps. I have never even considered my protein intake.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans spent $13B on protein supplements last year.
That's about $40 per person.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of that is "protein bars" and similar things. Not all "protein supplements" are "protein supplementation", just like a steak dinner is not a protein supplement even though it does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go into any supermarket in the UK and look at the shelves. At least 33% of the pre-packaged food products will be screaming "PROTEIN!" from their labels in big bold letters. You want yoghurt with 50% more protein? How about some soup, now with 34% more protein? Chocolate pudding with 68% added protein! Protein pancakes, protein cereal, protein bars, 500g of protein in every 100g! COME GET YER PROTEIN!
Every product that could possibly
have protein added to it has had it added and used as marketing. Somehow,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bizarre angle re EAT recommendations (Score:1)
"A review of .. found no evidence supporting intake beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight daily,"
Okay, so there is no evidence supporting intake BEYOND 1.6 grams per day. That kind of implies from the wording that there is evidence supporting UP TO 1.6 grams per day.
However, the EAT commission recommends 100 grams of red meat per week, about 500 grams meat/fish total: https://eatforum.org/lancet-co... [eatforum.org]
500 grams of meat contains roughly about 130 grams of protein.
Unless we are talking a truly gigantic
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so there is no evidence supporting intake BEYOND 1.6 grams per day. That kind of implies from the wording that there is evidence supporting UP TO 1.6 grams per day.
No, it does not imply that. Just like ruling out you did not murder your mother in 2024 does not imply you murdered her in 2023.
Re: (Score:2)
They're also making the weird assumption that only meat contains protein.
It's a shame that all of the world's vegans (let alone vegetarians) have spontaneously died of protein deficiency.
Re: (Score:1)
All the world's vegans will suffer from protein deficiency if they don't already. You don't die from a deficiency spontaneously. Also, long term vegans learn to manage the downside, generally with behavioral changes along with dishonesty.
Are you incapable of anything other than bad faith argument?
Re: (Score:2)
This is demonstrably false. Vegans consume on average less protein than the median population, to be sure, but most vegans are still well above the recommended daily consumption. The population in the US that suffers from protein deficiency is alcoholics [nih.gov].
What vegans tend to commonly suffer deficiencies of without supplementation is iron and B12. Without fortification, B12 cannot be gotten in any meaningful quantity from a ve
Re: (Score:2)
Per calorie or per gram? And if per gram, raw or cooked, and if the latter, to what water percentage? Green vegetables are actually quite comparable to or superior to meat on a per-calorie basis. Per gram, if cooked to equivalent water content, meat usually leads, but not by that much. However, raw, meat vastly exceeds raw green vegetables in protein per gram. The main differ
Re: (Score:2)
(I'd also add that, beyond water, while plant cell walls (fibre) do also "water down" their protein content, plant cells also tend to be lower in fats than animal cells, and said fats "water down" their protein content (particularly on a per-calorie basis, but also to a lesser extent on a volumetric basis)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bizarre angle re EAT recommendations (Score:2)
To put this in perspective (Score:1, Redundant)
Thatâ(TM)s like eating 10 chicken breasts per day.
Thatâ(TM)s 7 1/2 pounds of meat per day.
That could also be 14 scoops of a protein shake.
While I appreciate some scientific information here, I think they are talking about a truly excessive amount of protein.
Re:To put this in perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Thatâ(TM)s like eating 10 chicken breasts per day. .
At 56 g protein per chicken breast, that's 560g. At the discussed level of intake (1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight daily,) you are talking about someone who weighs 350 kg.
Re: (Score:1)
Try to read the summary again... slowly and it helps to move your lips.
The summary states 0.6 g/kg, not 1.6 g/kg
Math is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to read the summary again... slowly and it helps to move your lips.
The summary states 0.6 g/kg, not 1.6 g/kg
Maybe take your own advice? from TFS
found no evidence supporting intake beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight
In fact, 0.6g/kg is nowhere in the summary, the recommended amount is 0.8g/kg.
Math is hard.
Especially true when merely reading TFS is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
If you really read TFA you would know that RDA is 0.6 to 0.8 g/kg and that your risk of atherosclerosis and kidney problems rises above that level.
From TFA:
"The body of evidence about protein does not provide support very high protein intake, certainly not in excess of 1.6 g/kg/day, twice the recommended dietary allowance. Even that high level is not adequately substantiated for the reasons reviewed above. I cannot find any high quality data (e.g. from any randomized trial among hundreds that have been done
Re: (Score:2)
The pervasive call for higher protein intake stems from the assertion that people are not getting adequate amounts in their diet, namely the 0.8 g/kg/day recommended by the National Academy of Medicine and the World Health Organization.
and your quote, where the relevant part is
1.6 g/kg/day, twice the recommended dietary allowance
Last time I checked, 0.6 is half of 1.2, not of 1.6, that would be ... 0.8, surprise! - so I'm not even certain what you were trying to prove with that quote?
Re: (Score:2)
Try to read the summary again... slowly and it helps to move your lips. The summary states 0.6 g/kg, not 1.6 g/kg Math is hard.
The post leads off with:
A review of published meta-analyses examining protein supplementation found no evidence supporting intake beyond 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight daily, according to an analysis by cardiologist Eric Topol.
This (and 2.2 g/kg) are the levels of consumption that people have been recommending which Topol is addressing in the article.
Dripdry's comment:
Thatâ(TM)s like eating 10 chicken breasts per day.
The post does also mention the recommendation of 0.8 g/kg/day from the National Academy of Medicine, but whatever lets try the math again with 0.6 g/kg:
For someone to be eating 560 grams of protein a day at a rate of 0.6 g/kg, they would have to weigh 933 kg.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been on a fitness forum for a while then.
The obsession with protein by some (many?) is kind of insane, trying to get 40g+ each meal, plus shakes on top of that, exceeding 200g per day.
Also, don't forget protein recommendations are for lean body mass, not total body mass. There are online calculators for this, and your lean body mass is a lot lower than you'd think, meaning you really don't need all that much protein, even for athletes.
Glad to see this research coming out, I've been wondering wha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is absurd. You do NOT pee out excess protein, protein in the urine is a sign of serious disease.
"If your urine gets slightly thick, then you've been eating too much protein, and have been peeing it out."
Unbelievably ignorant. Leave it to a "conservative".
Excess protein is metabolized into sugar. Excessive protein knocks you out of ketosis which is readily measurable for anyone who pays attention to that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Ketosis is triggered from a lack of carbohydrates, not from an excess of protein.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope someone marks this as funny, because that's a hilariously ignorant take.
If we just excreted unused calories, obesity would be unheard of.
Excess protein is mostly converted to fat or partially carbs. Calories in, if unused, get stored. Happens with all macro nutrients.
If your urine is even remotely 'thick', it's not protein or anything you're likely to say, it's dehydration, or something much more concerning.
Good. Fucking. Grief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Calories in, if unused, get stored.
Incorrect. You can only digest and store so many calories, the rest goes through you. Fat for example requires bile for you to be able to absorb it. If your fat intake is too high in regards to your bile production, that excess fat simply passes through you unless you keep your intake up long enough for your bile production to adapt. Those calories simply become part of your calories out.
Interestingly, pregnant people/animals normally give birth when their and their baby's total caloric intake become gr
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can overload your system.
How much fat does the average person have to eat to actually hit that limit?
Certainly enough to put on SIGNIFICANT amounts of weight, and on a day-to-day basis, the vast majority (if not all) calories consumed are absorbed by the average person.
The underlying point is if you're eating huge amounts of a macro nutrient, don't expect to piss or shit out what you don't 'need'. The vast majority of it WILL remain in your body.
And that birthing 'fact' sounds extremely unlikely t
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what I meant in regards to giving birth. When the baby's and the mom's bodies are burning more energy than the mom can digest, that's around when labor begins. Simply eating more doesn't cause the baby to require more energy. The info is presented well in the book "Burn": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The fat needed to hit your bile limit is different for everyone as your bile production dynamically adjusts to what you're eating and it builds up if you're eating too little fat. The point i
Re: (Score:2)
Err I think that's more coincidence than anything. I am highly doubtful that's the actual causation.
According tho this, if a woman found herself in a famine state at 9 months, then she wouldn't give birth until more food was eaten? That's not how it works.
If you eat more butter than you can absorb, you'll still absorb a LOT of it, as much as your body can, which will be more than you need.
Sure, you can eat so much that you eventually shit it out. But most people don't eat THAT much. They still eat way more
Re: (Score:3)
Your math sucks. Let's say you weigh 200 pounds, which (per the above) means you need a maximum of 0.73g * 200 = 146 grams of protein.
According to Google, chicken has 123g of protein per pound ... which means that at 200 lbs. a person only needs about 1.15 lbs. of chicken to hit the daily max.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you using grams per pound? I mean, I understand not using the SI measurements, but at least stick to only one system. The original article cites 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight. I make that to be 0.0256 ounces per pound. Though I have no idea what unit of measure you use for stuff smaller than an ounce over there. 25.6 milliounces?
Re:To put this in retrospective (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So which pint is human sized? The Imperial one or the US one? Same question for ton.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you using grams per pound?
In the US, protein on food labels is measured in grams. Body weight is measured in pounds.
Talking about grams per pound is the standard by all US fitness people talk about dietary macros.
It works out to easy math. 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight is the standard recommendation for people looking to build muscle in the gym.
Re: (Score:2)
What unit are you using? 1.6 grams per kilo for a largish 100 kg man is 160 grams which is less than a steak. Slightly over 1/3 lb for you americans.
Worth noting (Score:3)
It's worth noting that current nutrition guidelines pegs recommended protein @ ~50 grams a day for an adult male, which is far below the 1.6 grams discussed in this article.
Let's take your average 160lb dude. That's around 72kgs. The article says there's no benefit beyond 1.6 grams per kg, so he should be eating 115.2 grams per day, far exceeding the "recommended" amount of ~50 grams.
Re: (Score:2)
While I do agree that we don't need as much as the protein industry claims, that ~50 g/day is minimum, and doesn't not take into account rebuilding, muscle growth, etc.
I would suggest people losing weight up their protein a bit to help prevent loss of muscle as well as people actively doing physical exercise where they want to get stronger.
Also the older you are, the more you need to maintain, and for people young and growing, need more too.
I'm trying to keep mine in the 60-75 range, if I get to going back
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest people losing weight up their protein a bit
One of the ways of losing weight is to lower protein intake. When protein is less than 9% of total calories consumed your hormones shift and you end up losing weight.
My observations (Score:4, Insightful)
Here comes a data-point of one, which makes this simply an anecdote...
When I work out hard (resistance training to beyond failure) I find that consuming protein at around 1.6-1.8g per kilo of body weight significantly improves my recovery time -- perhaps because of the effect on muscle-protein synthesis which seems to be optimal at this level.
Working out hard with lower levels of protein intake adds at least a day to my recovery so it's easy to see why, given the fixation on strength and fitness that abounds right now, many people are consuming more protein than they might actually need if their goal is simply to remain healthy.
One consideration for many is that when you bias towards a high-protein low fat/carb diet it becomes easier to lose weight or prevent weight gain. Protein is generally more satiating than carbs and leaves you feeling fuller for longer, reducing hunger pangs. A diet higher in protein is also less likely to produce insulin resistance (type 2 diabetes) than one higher in carbs. However, protein is usually also far more expensive (per calorie) than protein which can be a factor in many people's decision-making.
Increasing protein intake (as a percentage of total calories) is also important as you age because it plays a role in reducing the effects of sarcopenia, a condition that affects most over-50s and predisposes people to becoming frail and increasing their likelihood of death from many causes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Eric Cartman chowing down on Weight Gain 4000.
Re: (Score:1)
"One consideration for many is that when you bias towards a high-protein low fat/carb diet it becomes easier to lose weight or prevent weight gain. "
This is false, and it is based on the assumption that low carb diets are "high protein low fat". They are not.
A traditional low carb diet is, in reality, a high fat diet. Every diet should have a right amount of protein, whatever that is.
Keto diets are NOT low fat, they are exactly the opposite. Too much protein works AGAINST a keto diet. It is the fat that
It's never been about protein (Score:2)
Carbs, Fats, Fiber and Proteins. That is about all we eat.
Carbs and fats are the things we love to overeat. Nobody really likes fiber.
That leaves protein. We can eat more protein without ballooning up. So people make all protein diets. It's something we an eat and lose weight.
Do you want protein with that? (Score:2)
What really bugs me is that when I go to a restaurant and order some vegan type entree, the waitperson will often ask if I want to add some "protein with that" by offering to put a slab of meat on top of it.
This is profound ignorance of the protein content of plant food (or maybe just commercial up selling greed).
Re: (Score:2)
"This is profound ignorance of the protein content of plant food (or maybe just commercial up selling greed)."
No it's not, it's catering to public interest. In fact, I suspect the "profound ignorance" here is yours, "plant food" and "slab of meat" have very different protein content.
Re: (Score:2)
Pushing extra protein when the customer is not asking for it is commercial greed or ignorance (probably both).
Re: (Score:1)
Vegetarians (Score:1)
p-value of 0.079? (Score:2)
There is a lot of backlash against p-values. I won't enter that argument here.
But, accepted standards are that p-values need to be below 0.05 in order to be taken seriously in a biological study, and, even then, they aren't that strong until they get substantially smaller. (Note that in physics, they've been burned so many times by crappy significance values that the standard there is 5 sigma, or about p = 0.0000003.)
This paper, according to the summary, reported an effect at p = 0.079. That's substantia
Say what ???? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has it caused any kidney problems?