Study: U.S. dietary recommendations for protein intake are too low(bigthink.com)
bigthink.com
Study: U.S. dietary recommendations for protein intake are too low
https://bigthink.com/health/us-dietary-protein-recommendations-too-low/
165 comments
I think its necessary to point out that one of the authors is Mary Weiler and Steve Hertzler who work for Abbott - who makes Ensure products and Pediasure products which supplement protein for the old and the young.
They're also behind Similac, and have a history of funding research that makes infant formula look better than it actually is.
As others note, this doesn't make the study automatically invalid, but it does make it highly suspect. I'm personally growing rather tired of industry-funded nutritional research that inevitably makes the product being pushed by the funder look good, often in contradiction to other research funded by opposite industries. Fat vs sugar, carbs vs protein, dairy, red meat, alcohol. At this point you can find a study supporting pretty much any dietary decision you want to make.
As others note, this doesn't make the study automatically invalid, but it does make it highly suspect. I'm personally growing rather tired of industry-funded nutritional research that inevitably makes the product being pushed by the funder look good, often in contradiction to other research funded by opposite industries. Fat vs sugar, carbs vs protein, dairy, red meat, alcohol. At this point you can find a study supporting pretty much any dietary decision you want to make.
Well if you haven't figured it out already, all nutritional advice in the US and most other countries is not about nutrition. In the US particularly, it's about special interest and national security by way of food security.
All of these studies, changes to the food pyramid (and the food pyramid itself) and the like are designed to entrench existing food production industries at the expense of foreign dominated industries to ensure food security, particularly in the event of conflict or other fast changing global circumstance. It's viewed as a win-win by the policy setters: our buddies make money, they break us off a little, and nobody starves, even if they're not ideally healthy. A little corruption goes a long way! All it takes is a little herding of the sheep so to speak and everyone is better off than yesterday. There's conflicts of interest, there's perverse incentive, but until very recently it worked alright, developed countries virtually eliminated foodbourne illness and life threatening vitamin deficiency. Only recently has there been an issue involving pharma, healthcare in general and food production that created this very profitable obesity quagmire we find ourselves in today. But not so long ago, the approach worked out pretty well.
You're never going to get good nutritional advice from the government, or from industry insiders. You might get better than the status quo, and you might get facts, but at best you're getting carefully selected honesty and lying by omission. And unfortunately the "other side" of this is so chock full of crystal healing quacks that you're basically on your own.
My current model on this is: carbohydrates from fruits and starches, focus more on fat, then protein, in that order, and particularly animal fat and animal protein. This should cover trace minerals and fat soluble vitamins so that I don't have to think much about them and focus on macros.
All of these studies, changes to the food pyramid (and the food pyramid itself) and the like are designed to entrench existing food production industries at the expense of foreign dominated industries to ensure food security, particularly in the event of conflict or other fast changing global circumstance. It's viewed as a win-win by the policy setters: our buddies make money, they break us off a little, and nobody starves, even if they're not ideally healthy. A little corruption goes a long way! All it takes is a little herding of the sheep so to speak and everyone is better off than yesterday. There's conflicts of interest, there's perverse incentive, but until very recently it worked alright, developed countries virtually eliminated foodbourne illness and life threatening vitamin deficiency. Only recently has there been an issue involving pharma, healthcare in general and food production that created this very profitable obesity quagmire we find ourselves in today. But not so long ago, the approach worked out pretty well.
You're never going to get good nutritional advice from the government, or from industry insiders. You might get better than the status quo, and you might get facts, but at best you're getting carefully selected honesty and lying by omission. And unfortunately the "other side" of this is so chock full of crystal healing quacks that you're basically on your own.
My current model on this is: carbohydrates from fruits and starches, focus more on fat, then protein, in that order, and particularly animal fat and animal protein. This should cover trace minerals and fat soluble vitamins so that I don't have to think much about them and focus on macros.
Thank you. I knew it read like a PR piece.
So who funded the original US dietary recommendations?
Edit: and the studies that the USDA cited to support its recommendation
Edit: and the studies that the USDA cited to support its recommendation
Originally, and currently, the USDA does.
And the USDA is run by an executive from the Dairy Export Council, which supports dairy farmers and promotes milk and other dairy product consumption.
The mission of the USDA is not the health of the populace, it's to promote the products of the agriculture and food industries.
I mean. Is it unreasonable that researchers work at a company that they think is doing something valuable?
This is a datapoint but it's not really a black mark. It's like PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. Well, yes.
This is a datapoint but it's not really a black mark. It's like PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. Well, yes.
You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say
The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation.
If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.
The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation.
If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.
> The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation.
Grant money is distributed based on the perception of a problem. Nobody would be funding climate change research if the scientific consensus is that it wasn't a problem.
I am 100% a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no financial incentive for researchers to find positive results.
Grant money is distributed based on the perception of a problem. Nobody would be funding climate change research if the scientific consensus is that it wasn't a problem.
I am 100% a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no financial incentive for researchers to find positive results.
I think the point is valid.
There is "A-LOT" more money in selling Protein based products than there is in any pro-climate change product.
I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money?
Whereas, with food products, there is a clear and long history of the 'science' being warped by the financial incentives.
There is "A-LOT" more money in selling Protein based products than there is in any pro-climate change product.
I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money?
Whereas, with food products, there is a clear and long history of the 'science' being warped by the financial incentives.
There's a lot of money being thrown into climate research. All those researchers like their jobs. We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives.
I mean I don't blame them, I like my job too, but we should recognize the incentive exists.
Since 1993, OMB has reported over $154 billion in funding for federal climate change activities, spread across the government—raising questions about fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223
For comparison, this was Ensure's sales in 1996, not profit.
In 1996, Ensure had sales of about $300 million and accounted for 80% of protein supplement sales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensure
I mean I don't blame them, I like my job too, but we should recognize the incentive exists.
Since 1993, OMB has reported over $154 billion in funding for federal climate change activities, spread across the government—raising questions about fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223
For comparison, this was Ensure's sales in 1996, not profit.
In 1996, Ensure had sales of about $300 million and accounted for 80% of protein supplement sales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensure
>"In 1996, Ensure had sales of about $300 million and accounted for 80% of protein supplement sales"
In 1996 Protein shakes were still new. Back then people using whey were 'cutting' edge.
Today: >"The global protein supplements market size was USD 25.34 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow from USD 27.41 billion in 2023 to USD 51.81 billion by 2030 at a CAGR of 9.5% during 2023-2030."
25 Billion a Year.
Meanwhile. Your Climate numbers on that linked site.
Yes, something like 8 Billion a Year on Research.
A pittance, that is to carry out the studies, not get paid.
And, A big chunk of that is on Technology, not 'proving if it's real or not', but on actually creating new tech, which goes into expanding the economy.
Joe Blow Researchers are not rich people.
In 1996 Protein shakes were still new. Back then people using whey were 'cutting' edge.
Today: >"The global protein supplements market size was USD 25.34 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow from USD 27.41 billion in 2023 to USD 51.81 billion by 2030 at a CAGR of 9.5% during 2023-2030."
25 Billion a Year.
Meanwhile. Your Climate numbers on that linked site.
Yes, something like 8 Billion a Year on Research.
A pittance, that is to carry out the studies, not get paid.
And, A big chunk of that is on Technology, not 'proving if it's real or not', but on actually creating new tech, which goes into expanding the economy.
Joe Blow Researchers are not rich people.
So the private companies making that tech are definitely incentivized.
>Joe Blow Researchers are not rich people.
Neither are cops, but there is plenty of incentive to fear monger crime to keep their headcount up and their budgets increasing. Do you not think there is an incentive to keep research grants for climate change flowing?
Here's something that came out recently. I don't know if you've read it, but it's interesting. I know a few people in the academic world and they are always desperate to get research grants to keep the lights on.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-pu...
>Joe Blow Researchers are not rich people.
Neither are cops, but there is plenty of incentive to fear monger crime to keep their headcount up and their budgets increasing. Do you not think there is an incentive to keep research grants for climate change flowing?
Here's something that came out recently. I don't know if you've read it, but it's interesting. I know a few people in the academic world and they are always desperate to get research grants to keep the lights on.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-pu...
Sure. All researchers are scrounging to find grants.
I did read that article. Isn't one of the findings was that the data that was left out didn't change the results? Leaving it out just helped clarify the results? I guess if people did the opposite, they could include hundreds of 'possible' things that would really muddy the results.
Everyone in every form of writing is taught to stick to the basics and leave out extraneous 'possibilities' to clarify the message. That is just being succinct. If it doesn't change the results, then it is a matter of style.
I'm just saying the scale is orders of magnitude different.
You were equating the incentives of pretty lowly researchers scrounging for grants to do very basic research, to big money food production companies with huge incentives to sway opinions.
The climate scientist is not promoting a product, sure they want to get the next grant, and that is just how research is. But that is a really low bar. I don't think any grants specify that the results of the previous grant better result in "X".
That would be like saying, "I better produce something that proves that String Theory is real or I wont get another grant". -- OOOPS. Might have contradicted myself since string theory is garbage.
So. All studies, as all humans, have bias. All academic fields have bias.
So with all studies in all fields, the bias has to be factored in.
It was only a few years ago really that hundreds of studies said smoking was not only safe, but could be healthy. But those were corporate studies.
And like the protein study, there is just far greater scales of bias in corporate funded studies. They have bigger money, bigger stakes, more to protect.
The lowly climate scientist isn't getting much beyond a citation and enough money for dinner.
This narrative that there is some big money in climate science is a full on press of BS to discredit it, by the same people producing biased studies to disprove it. Just like with Tabaco companies.
I did read that article. Isn't one of the findings was that the data that was left out didn't change the results? Leaving it out just helped clarify the results? I guess if people did the opposite, they could include hundreds of 'possible' things that would really muddy the results.
Everyone in every form of writing is taught to stick to the basics and leave out extraneous 'possibilities' to clarify the message. That is just being succinct. If it doesn't change the results, then it is a matter of style.
I'm just saying the scale is orders of magnitude different.
You were equating the incentives of pretty lowly researchers scrounging for grants to do very basic research, to big money food production companies with huge incentives to sway opinions.
The climate scientist is not promoting a product, sure they want to get the next grant, and that is just how research is. But that is a really low bar. I don't think any grants specify that the results of the previous grant better result in "X".
That would be like saying, "I better produce something that proves that String Theory is real or I wont get another grant". -- OOOPS. Might have contradicted myself since string theory is garbage.
So. All studies, as all humans, have bias. All academic fields have bias.
So with all studies in all fields, the bias has to be factored in.
It was only a few years ago really that hundreds of studies said smoking was not only safe, but could be healthy. But those were corporate studies.
And like the protein study, there is just far greater scales of bias in corporate funded studies. They have bigger money, bigger stakes, more to protect.
The lowly climate scientist isn't getting much beyond a citation and enough money for dinner.
This narrative that there is some big money in climate science is a full on press of BS to discredit it, by the same people producing biased studies to disprove it. Just like with Tabaco companies.
>You were equating the incentives of pretty lowly researchers scrounging for grants to do very basic research, to big money food production companies with huge incentives to sway opinions.
I wasn't defending the corporation.
>The climate scientist is not promoting a product, sure they want to get the next grant, and that is just how research is. But that is a really low bar. I don't think any grants specify that the results of the previous grant better result in "X".
So you agree, there are perverse incentives to keep climate research funding flowing. That was my assertion.
I wasn't defending the corporation.
>The climate scientist is not promoting a product, sure they want to get the next grant, and that is just how research is. But that is a really low bar. I don't think any grants specify that the results of the previous grant better result in "X".
So you agree, there are perverse incentives to keep climate research funding flowing. That was my assertion.
No. I do NOT agree that climate science has any incentives beyond any research topic any any field. There are no 'perverse incentives' special to climate science. I never said that.
You are really taking some generic statements about how all research must guard against bias, about how bias is a characteristic in all humans. And then micro-focusing on climate science seeming to assert that this one particular field is much more biased than all other fields.
To do this you need to come up with some proof.
Saying all research contains some bias, climate science is research, thus climate science is biased, -> Is really just trolling.
You know gravity is just a theory, it is researched, that doesn't mean research on gravity is biased thus gravity is not real.
You are really taking some generic statements about how all research must guard against bias, about how bias is a characteristic in all humans. And then micro-focusing on climate science seeming to assert that this one particular field is much more biased than all other fields.
To do this you need to come up with some proof.
Saying all research contains some bias, climate science is research, thus climate science is biased, -> Is really just trolling.
You know gravity is just a theory, it is researched, that doesn't mean research on gravity is biased thus gravity is not real.
>And then micro-focusing on climate science seeming to assert that this one particular field is much more biased than all other fields.
I don't believe I asserted climate science was much more biased. I was just acknowledging the perverse incentive. I did assert it was very well funded though.
I don't believe I asserted climate science was much more biased. I was just acknowledging the perverse incentive. I did assert it was very well funded though.
Ok 152 Billion since 1993 for a field.
Ok how much is the supplements field making a year …. 30billion in the US . That’s how you compare a field with a field …. Your comparison sucks dude.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/235801/retail-sales-of-v...
Ok how much is the supplements field making a year …. 30billion in the US . That’s how you compare a field with a field …. Your comparison sucks dude.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/235801/retail-sales-of-v...
I don't think I understand the comparison you are making.
$154 billion in 30 years for a whole field like climate change, is ~$5 billion a year.
I don't think that the whole supplement industry in the US alone is making less than that.
$154 billion in 30 years for a whole field like climate change, is ~$5 billion a year.
I don't think that the whole supplement industry in the US alone is making less than that.
I'm just demonstrating how much the government spends on climate change activities and compared it to sales of a single year of Ensure. What don't you understand?
Also that GAO report was published Apr 30, 2018. Publicly Released: May 30, 2018, so 25 years.
Also that GAO report was published Apr 30, 2018. Publicly Released: May 30, 2018, so 25 years.
> What don't you understand?
I don't understand where this comparison goes.
Any study sponsored by any given industry, that may have any effect on their bottom line, are generally treated with suspicion because the whole point of private ventures is to increase profits. The narrative is driven by that, not the other way around.
In contrast, climate research would happen with or without climate change happening.
I don't understand where this comparison goes.
Any study sponsored by any given industry, that may have any effect on their bottom line, are generally treated with suspicion because the whole point of private ventures is to increase profits. The narrative is driven by that, not the other way around.
In contrast, climate research would happen with or without climate change happening.
So my original assertion was. I was demonstrating how much money is spent on climate research, then compared it with what Equate sells (which was mentioned earlier). The comparison was to demonstrate how much $154 billion was compared to a market leader at a given time. You know, like "how high is space in Eiffel towers."
>There's a lot of money being thrown into climate research. All those researchers like their jobs. We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives.
>In contrast, climate research would happen with or without climate change happening.
Sure, but when something generates as much media attention and has as much fervor and staying power as climate change does, it gets a whole lot more funding. That's why most of what we hear as the consequence of climate change is absolute worst case scenarios. If people were to lose interest (fear), researchers would lose funding. Getting hit by an asteroid would be more devastating, but I'll bet it doesn't get nearly as much funding, because there isn't as much fervor.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
Nope, not even a fraction of a fraction.
>There's a lot of money being thrown into climate research. All those researchers like their jobs. We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives.
>In contrast, climate research would happen with or without climate change happening.
Sure, but when something generates as much media attention and has as much fervor and staying power as climate change does, it gets a whole lot more funding. That's why most of what we hear as the consequence of climate change is absolute worst case scenarios. If people were to lose interest (fear), researchers would lose funding. Getting hit by an asteroid would be more devastating, but I'll bet it doesn't get nearly as much funding, because there isn't as much fervor.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
Nope, not even a fraction of a fraction.
Dude wtf to take your numbers … you said this nutrition enterprise was making like 300 million a year and then you are whining about that the budget for planetary defense is to low … it’s 150 million a year .. soo please Google bevor you speak.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
>soo please Google bevor you speak.
>https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
You gotta be trolling. You liked the same article I did. Must be that fervor I was talking about. Do you even know what you are arguing against?
>https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasas-planetary-defense-b...
You gotta be trolling. You liked the same article I did. Must be that fervor I was talking about. Do you even know what you are arguing against?
> Getting hit by an asteroid would be more devastating, but I'll bet it doesn't get nearly as much funding, because there isn't as much fervor.
Perhaps because the chance of an asteroid triggering an extinction level event is infinitesimal, whereas climate change is a very palpable, ongoing issue?
Why did we spent so much money developing vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic, when there are supervolcanoes that could end all life on Earth as we know it?
> We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives.
Corporations, especially publicly traded ones, will almost always pursue maximizing profits. That's quite literally the fiduciary duty of the C-Suite towards shareholders.
Academia really is not the most profitable endeavor. Spending 10+ years as a researcher to make less money than a software engineer sounds too dumb for someone smart enough to get a PhD, because it is [0]:
> For example, at Pennsylvania State University, professors in the earth and mineral sciences department made an average salary of $157,773, which was below the universitywide average of $166,731. Professors in earth and environmental sciences earned $98,567 on average at Iowa State University, compared with the average salary of $134,039.
It's worth noting that, to become an associate university professor, one needs to earn a MSc and a PhD, and spend handful of years as a postdoctorate.
Grants aren't "pocket money" for researchers either. In fact they aren't even awarded to individuals, but projects and organizations:
> [...] Dr. Hayhoe explained how a $1.1 million grant she received was spent: It was divided over four years, was split with her university for facilities costs, helped pay for a graduate assistant and covered the costs of conferences, laptops and publishing in scientific journals.
In short, I don't think these two are remotely comparable.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-repor...
Perhaps because the chance of an asteroid triggering an extinction level event is infinitesimal, whereas climate change is a very palpable, ongoing issue?
Why did we spent so much money developing vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic, when there are supervolcanoes that could end all life on Earth as we know it?
> We have a massive oversupply of academics and scientists with PhDs. Corporations aren't the only entities with perverse incentives.
Corporations, especially publicly traded ones, will almost always pursue maximizing profits. That's quite literally the fiduciary duty of the C-Suite towards shareholders.
Academia really is not the most profitable endeavor. Spending 10+ years as a researcher to make less money than a software engineer sounds too dumb for someone smart enough to get a PhD, because it is [0]:
> For example, at Pennsylvania State University, professors in the earth and mineral sciences department made an average salary of $157,773, which was below the universitywide average of $166,731. Professors in earth and environmental sciences earned $98,567 on average at Iowa State University, compared with the average salary of $134,039.
It's worth noting that, to become an associate university professor, one needs to earn a MSc and a PhD, and spend handful of years as a postdoctorate.
Grants aren't "pocket money" for researchers either. In fact they aren't even awarded to individuals, but projects and organizations:
> [...] Dr. Hayhoe explained how a $1.1 million grant she received was spent: It was divided over four years, was split with her university for facilities costs, helped pay for a graduate assistant and covered the costs of conferences, laptops and publishing in scientific journals.
In short, I don't think these two are remotely comparable.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-repor...
> I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money?
Grant money, this is not a mystery. That's what all research labs are on the hunt for, at all times.
Grant money, this is not a mystery. That's what all research labs are on the hunt for, at all times.
As others have pointed out.
The person chasing grant money is getting a few thousands of dollars.
The person chasing a food product is getting billons.
The incentives are very different in scale.
The person chasing grant money is getting a few thousands of dollars.
The person chasing a food product is getting billons.
The incentives are very different in scale.
The marketing team for a protein shake is not making billions. If you mean the CEO and shareholders then you can’t compare them to scientists chasing grants, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.
Think your head is in the sand a little bit.
It is just anecdotal but:
All the researchers I know are driving old used cars and scraping by. Nobody is rich.
All the big firm researchers/marketers I know are living very comfortable upper class lives, and don't want to jeopardize that with any 'counter findings'.
How hard is this to understand:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor
It is just anecdotal but:
All the researchers I know are driving old used cars and scraping by. Nobody is rich.
All the big firm researchers/marketers I know are living very comfortable upper class lives, and don't want to jeopardize that with any 'counter findings'.
How hard is this to understand:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor
I feel that it’s fair to point out biases, especially when there is financial self interest involved
I can’t buy a box of climate change but I can buy one of Ensure.
So, no. Not the same at all.
So, no. Not the same at all.
I've seen multiple ultra-processed foods (with which meal replacement shakes are often grouped) topics in unrelated places.
Was there some big study or government guidance that was changed recently?
Was there some big study or government guidance that was changed recently?
Probably spamming their media contacts and trying to spend down their Q3/Q4 PR budgets
Maybe. But I did see the UK recently published something related so I'm wondering if there was some recent guidance push in the US as well.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on...
Is this website reputable?
The related articles it's trying to give me are:
The related articles it's trying to give me are:
- Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights
- Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research
- Years of shoddy research have overstated the risk.
- What you eat can reprogram your genes
- How to eat if you want to age slowly
- Americans are ignoring the one true “superfood”The website itself doesn't really matter, the paper is linked directly:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/4/838
Is "Nutrients" a reputable journal? Do the authors have a good track record? I have no idea, but would love if someone more knowledgeable here can comment.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/4/838
Is "Nutrients" a reputable journal? Do the authors have a good track record? I have no idea, but would love if someone more knowledgeable here can comment.
There's lots of claims on the websites article beyond that made in the study.
There's lots of negative press about the journal it's published in.
> Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers
> Nutrients editors quit en masse from MDPI journal
> https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-...
Further, the paper is published by employees of Abbot Nutrition who financially benefit from the conclusions of the paper. "Conflicts of Interest - The authors S.R.H. and M.W. are employed by Abbott Nutrition. "
That's not to say it's right or wrong, but i didn't know any of the above until i googled to respond to your comment.
There's lots of negative press about the journal it's published in.
> Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers
> Nutrients editors quit en masse from MDPI journal
> https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-...
Further, the paper is published by employees of Abbot Nutrition who financially benefit from the conclusions of the paper. "Conflicts of Interest - The authors S.R.H. and M.W. are employed by Abbott Nutrition. "
That's not to say it's right or wrong, but i didn't know any of the above until i googled to respond to your comment.
MDPI is controversial, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
and also
https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed...
I know YOShInOn ingests a lot of articles from MDPI journals, more than any other source. The report I have at my fingertips now is "bottom scoring" articles by my preference and MDPI papers feature prominently in that but that's not because I never like anything from MDPI or because the quality of articles is necessarily bad but because I'd certainly downvote "Vaccinatiopn In Immunosuppressed Patients With Established Skin Warts and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Single-Institutional Cohort Study". It still shows me quite a few. ArXiv papers rank better overall but that's because I only subscribe to CS on arXiv.
---
It's actually a high priority for YOShInOn to have some process to track down links from articles like this that link to scientific articles because sometimes the original article is a better link than the recap and sometimes the other way around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
and also
https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed...
I know YOShInOn ingests a lot of articles from MDPI journals, more than any other source. The report I have at my fingertips now is "bottom scoring" articles by my preference and MDPI papers feature prominently in that but that's not because I never like anything from MDPI or because the quality of articles is necessarily bad but because I'd certainly downvote "Vaccinatiopn In Immunosuppressed Patients With Established Skin Warts and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Single-Institutional Cohort Study". It still shows me quite a few. ArXiv papers rank better overall but that's because I only subscribe to CS on arXiv.
---
It's actually a high priority for YOShInOn to have some process to track down links from articles like this that link to scientific articles because sometimes the original article is a better link than the recap and sometimes the other way around.
In my field, which is not science, MDPI seems to publish many, many bad journals. They're embedded in the for-profit publishing corner of the science-industrial complex and I would consider the very real possibility this paper is part total garbage part evil moneymaking scheme.
It’s consistent with other research I’ve seen that suggests higher protein intake is beneficial.
That doesn't answer OP's question. Is that other research published in reputable journals by people without a conflict of interest, or is it also funded by a protein shake company and published in a controversial journal?
We've long passed the point where we can trust papers written in the field of nutrition without looking extremely critically at their funding and research methods.
We've long passed the point where we can trust papers written in the field of nutrition without looking extremely critically at their funding and research methods.
- "Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights"
There's a ton of information out there about this, from my understanding it is really important as you age, especially for females, and then for males as testosterone levels drop.
WebMD overview about it: https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/features/weight-training
There's a ton of information out there about this, from my understanding it is really important as you age, especially for females, and then for males as testosterone levels drop.
WebMD overview about it: https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/features/weight-training
The authors of the paper are employed by Abbott Nutrition, who make the Ensure high-protein meal replacement shake.
Well, there it is.
What websites do you think are more reputable?
>Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights
Resistance training is well known to increase bone density and that's one of (not the only) reason it's often suggested for older folks
>Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research
Just a clickbait news article about a new study and supports an emerging, shifting consensus on red meat. No issue ?
>What you eat can reprogram your genes
Epigenetics. It's not wrong
>Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights
Resistance training is well known to increase bone density and that's one of (not the only) reason it's often suggested for older folks
>Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research
Just a clickbait news article about a new study and supports an emerging, shifting consensus on red meat. No issue ?
>What you eat can reprogram your genes
Epigenetics. It's not wrong
> > What you eat can reprogram your genes
> Epigenetics. It's not wrong
Calling epigenics "reprogramming" makes it seem like the right combination of vitamins and heart-shaped herbs can turn you into a were-panther.
Your genes can be reprogrammed, but the relationship between epigenics and actual reprogramming is more like the relationship between Chrome and iOS — in that, in the few occasions when it's possible for the former to mess with be later, this is widely regarded as catastrophically bad.
> Epigenetics. It's not wrong
Calling epigenics "reprogramming" makes it seem like the right combination of vitamins and heart-shaped herbs can turn you into a were-panther.
Your genes can be reprogrammed, but the relationship between epigenics and actual reprogramming is more like the relationship between Chrome and iOS — in that, in the few occasions when it's possible for the former to mess with be later, this is widely regarded as catastrophically bad.
[deleted]
I mean the first one is definitely true (or is an additional reason, especially as people age).
I think when people say "red meat is bad for you" they need to define red meat. Burgers and sausages - probably not great. Steak, chops etc - probably OK.
I think when people say "red meat is bad for you" they need to define red meat. Burgers and sausages - probably not great. Steak, chops etc - probably OK.
Red meat isn't "bad for you".
Eating too many cheeseburgers is a problem, mostly because it's easy to consume too many calories and cheeseburgers aren't good at making you feel full, but nothing is inherently wrong about red meat in a balanced diet, in fact it has many beneficial properties.
Eating too many cheeseburgers is a problem, mostly because it's easy to consume too many calories and cheeseburgers aren't good at making you feel full, but nothing is inherently wrong about red meat in a balanced diet, in fact it has many beneficial properties.
I'm pro red meat. To be clear - most of the ill effects ascribed to red meat are due to people eating shitty red meat with a load of crap added.
Cured meats have issues. In moderation, I think they also have their place.
Why do you believe a steak is better than a burger? Isn't burger ground steak?
> Isn't burger ground steak?
It very much depends where you get it.
From a butcher that grinds it in front of you? sure. Frozen patties from the average cheap supermarket ? You might have less than 70% meat, and some of it might be from sick horses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal
It very much depends where you get it.
From a butcher that grinds it in front of you? sure. Frozen patties from the average cheap supermarket ? You might have less than 70% meat, and some of it might be from sick horses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal
You're implying that this somewhat isolated incident (which, if you see the causes, seems to be related to cross-border mistranslation of words and relabeling issues) is cause to assume that every piece of ground beef you buy at a store is garbage. Seems like quite the leap of logic to me.
Oh no that's just the worst case scenario. Go to any Lidl or similar and look up the nutrition labels on frozen patties.
https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/4056489047520/hambur...
> beef preparation, ingredients: 88% beef "origin: beigia), egg*, salt, wheat flour, water, yeast, herbs, spices, dextrose, beef proteins, sugar, acid: lemon - zuur, antioxidants: ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate, *of dab releieren, may contain traces of other grains containing gluten, milk, seiderij, mustard and soy
Another one: https://www.coursesu.com/p/steaks-haches-burger-prix-mini-10....
> Beef 51% (EU origin), rehydrated SOJA protein 30%, water, beef fat, vegetable fiber, salt, glucose syrup, flavoring, herbs, dehydrated beet. May contain traces of gluten.
And another: https://www.carrefour.fr/p/steaks-haches-special-burger-tend...
> beef from France 75%, water, rehydrated pea protein 3.5%, vegetable fiber, alcohol vinegar, natural flavors, dextrose, starch, dehydrated red beet, salt, pepper.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7379565/Do-know-m...
https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/4056489047520/hambur...
> beef preparation, ingredients: 88% beef "origin: beigia), egg*, salt, wheat flour, water, yeast, herbs, spices, dextrose, beef proteins, sugar, acid: lemon - zuur, antioxidants: ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate, *of dab releieren, may contain traces of other grains containing gluten, milk, seiderij, mustard and soy
Another one: https://www.coursesu.com/p/steaks-haches-burger-prix-mini-10....
> Beef 51% (EU origin), rehydrated SOJA protein 30%, water, beef fat, vegetable fiber, salt, glucose syrup, flavoring, herbs, dehydrated beet. May contain traces of gluten.
And another: https://www.carrefour.fr/p/steaks-haches-special-burger-tend...
> beef from France 75%, water, rehydrated pea protein 3.5%, vegetable fiber, alcohol vinegar, natural flavors, dextrose, starch, dehydrated red beet, salt, pepper.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7379565/Do-know-m...
What exactly is wrong with those ingredients lists, especially the first one? Those all look like standard things you would put in a burger patty (egg, salt, herbs, spices) with the addition of the usual preservatives and other agents to help them being a burger patty shape.
The stuff that's subbing other protein blends in... well, that seems unrelated to the beef content there. You're just picking crap patties.
When I think of beef patty, I think of buying ground beef and then making my own. It's literally as simple as salt, spices, maybe an egg, and some simple prep. No worry about pea protein or soy protein additives.
The stuff that's subbing other protein blends in... well, that seems unrelated to the beef content there. You're just picking crap patties.
When I think of beef patty, I think of buying ground beef and then making my own. It's literally as simple as salt, spices, maybe an egg, and some simple prep. No worry about pea protein or soy protein additives.
idk man you do you but my beef patties surely have more than 51% meat in them.
You should watch a few documentaries about industrial scale food factories, especially meat: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10tzbi
What ends up in a lot of supermarket patties is the leftover of all the other "higher quality" meat parts, you get stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aponeurosis &c. which don't exist in regular minced meat. We even have a term for these in France, "minerai de viande", literally "meat ore", back in the days it mostly went to the trash or for animal food. Some products are so processed that they can't be legally named "meat" but "meat preparations"
You should watch a few documentaries about industrial scale food factories, especially meat: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10tzbi
What ends up in a lot of supermarket patties is the leftover of all the other "higher quality" meat parts, you get stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aponeurosis &c. which don't exist in regular minced meat. We even have a term for these in France, "minerai de viande", literally "meat ore", back in the days it mostly went to the trash or for animal food. Some products are so processed that they can't be legally named "meat" but "meat preparations"
Can hamburger meat contain other ingredients?
If labeled as a "Hamburger," it can contain all beef or beef and beef fat. Other permitted ingredients include dry seasonings like spices and flavorings. Water (and other liquids) and fillers (like breadcrumbs and flours) are not permitted. Products including these ingredients may be called "Beef Patties" and the added ingredients must be listed on the label. https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Can-hamburger-meat-contain-ot...
For the US, obviously. You sound like you may be in another country.
I'll add that LFTB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime), which is meat, can be up to 15% of the content of ground beef.
If labeled as a "Hamburger," it can contain all beef or beef and beef fat. Other permitted ingredients include dry seasonings like spices and flavorings. Water (and other liquids) and fillers (like breadcrumbs and flours) are not permitted. Products including these ingredients may be called "Beef Patties" and the added ingredients must be listed on the label. https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Can-hamburger-meat-contain-ot...
For the US, obviously. You sound like you may be in another country.
I'll add that LFTB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime), which is meat, can be up to 15% of the content of ground beef.
So, then make your own patties like I suggest then? Also, meat preparations seems like an accurate term for something like a patty that contains herbs, spices, and possibly egg ingredients. Nothing nefarious there to my mind.
> So, then make your own patties like I suggest then?
Sure, but look at what people buy ... the "meat bad" argument (the start of this conversation) comes from the fact that people are allowed to consume absolute garbage. A steak from your local farmer hasn't much to do with your cheap supermarket bacon or the "51% meat" patty which are both much more processed and contains god knows what
Sure, but look at what people buy ... the "meat bad" argument (the start of this conversation) comes from the fact that people are allowed to consume absolute garbage. A steak from your local farmer hasn't much to do with your cheap supermarket bacon or the "51% meat" patty which are both much more processed and contains god knows what
It seems the problem is that Europe has crap ground beef. That's not a problem in America, since we like our ground beef.
This is pretty typical of the Ingredients list for a burger patty in the U.S.: https://www.vons.com/shop/product-details.960119123.html?pro...
100% ground beef
That's true of the patties ground up by the store's butcher and the ones in the freezer section. It's also true of our ground beef (aka minced meat).
This is pretty typical of the Ingredients list for a burger patty in the U.S.: https://www.vons.com/shop/product-details.960119123.html?pro...
100% ground beef
That's true of the patties ground up by the store's butcher and the ones in the freezer section. It's also true of our ground beef (aka minced meat).
> some of it might be from sick horses
What kinds of sickness would make horse flesh a worse source of meat than cattle flesh?
What kinds of sickness would make horse flesh a worse source of meat than cattle flesh?
Swap burgers for salami or something then.
Ideally yes but in reality it is low quality meat that is fortified and highly processed.
Buy better burgers
What do you mean fortified?
They very often add vitamins and minerals to low quality products to make up for bad nutritional values
What bad nutritional values? It's beef. Are you implying that some fancy high end ground beef has materially different contents of vitamins and minerals compared to cheap ground beef at a store? I'd like to see sources on that.
100% beef fat also is beef.
100% beef patties made form 50% meat and 50% additives also is beef
You see where I'm going ? Lot of patties are made from absolute dog shit meat parts, skin, fat, scraps, byproducts, &c.
100% beef patties made form 50% meat and 50% additives also is beef
You see where I'm going ? Lot of patties are made from absolute dog shit meat parts, skin, fat, scraps, byproducts, &c.
>100% beef patties made form 50% meat and 50% additives also is beef
I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. According to the USDA
>Beef fat may be added to "hamburger," but not "ground beef." A maximum of 30% fat is allowed in either hamburger or ground beef. Both hamburger and ground beef can have seasonings, but no water, phosphates, extenders, or binders added.
For Hannaford supermarkets at least, the ground beef burger patties that you get out of the meat case next to the ground beef are made from ground beef. They are likely the ground beef FROM those packs, formed into patties by Craig in the back and then put in a new container. It used to be normal for these stores to actually HAVE butchers (my dad was one for decades), and grind and pack the ground beef right there, with a beautiful stainless steel grinder that you can literally hose down with bleach every night. You might even still be able to ask them to grind you some fresh stuff right then and there, that was a service they explicitly advertised at one point.
I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. According to the USDA
>Beef fat may be added to "hamburger," but not "ground beef." A maximum of 30% fat is allowed in either hamburger or ground beef. Both hamburger and ground beef can have seasonings, but no water, phosphates, extenders, or binders added.
For Hannaford supermarkets at least, the ground beef burger patties that you get out of the meat case next to the ground beef are made from ground beef. They are likely the ground beef FROM those packs, formed into patties by Craig in the back and then put in a new container. It used to be normal for these stores to actually HAVE butchers (my dad was one for decades), and grind and pack the ground beef right there, with a beautiful stainless steel grinder that you can literally hose down with bleach every night. You might even still be able to ask them to grind you some fresh stuff right then and there, that was a service they explicitly advertised at one point.
It’s about beef paties.
Here a good comment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37559265
Every ground beef I've ever purchased has a stated fat to lean ratio. So, 100% beef fat is not ever gonna happen.
As per the 'patties are made of dog shit' claim... the difference in cost between beef with a stated location/content (e.g., sirloin, or chuck) and the generic ground beef is so low I don't see how your claim could be true. And if you're actually worried about that, just buy patties with a stated location of the cut.
As per the 'patties are made of dog shit' claim... the difference in cost between beef with a stated location/content (e.g., sirloin, or chuck) and the generic ground beef is so low I don't see how your claim could be true. And if you're actually worried about that, just buy patties with a stated location of the cut.
I'll let you check my other comment with examples to not repeat myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37557686
People don't care much but a lot of food is very far from what you'd expect. A butcher's minced meat isn't the same as a supermarket's minced meat despite having the same name, some of them are barely 50% meat
People don't care much but a lot of food is very far from what you'd expect. A butcher's minced meat isn't the same as a supermarket's minced meat despite having the same name, some of them are barely 50% meat
First two started strong and all downhill from there
Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site?
Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided.
The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes.
The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.
Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided.
The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes.
The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.
> Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site?
This should be your first instinct any time you read anything online. Most websites are garbage, pushing sensational "new" ideas to get clicks. If you don't immediately think critically about what you're reading (and part of that is considering reputation), you'll either fall for confirmation bias or you'll be tossed about with each new thing that trends in TikTok.
This should be your first instinct any time you read anything online. Most websites are garbage, pushing sensational "new" ideas to get clicks. If you don't immediately think critically about what you're reading (and part of that is considering reputation), you'll either fall for confirmation bias or you'll be tossed about with each new thing that trends in TikTok.
Haha. No. The source of the information never matters. The content is all that matters. Alas the population has been trained not to think for them self but be told what ideas are good or bad based off who said them. This idiotic thinking runs rapid through out the world causing havoc.
I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me.
Is this infallible? no. Is it more reliable than me making a judgement based on nothing but my own biases? yes.
Is this infallible? no. Is it more reliable than me making a judgement based on nothing but my own biases? yes.
> I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me.
Then pointing out the source is not to your standard is moot. This is a conversation, where opinions and conversations can be had out side in the views or credibility of the source which posted it.
If we were merely to consider the source then hacker news might as well be dig , but with a few “trusted” sources like what cnn?
Then pointing out the source is not to your standard is moot. This is a conversation, where opinions and conversations can be had out side in the views or credibility of the source which posted it.
If we were merely to consider the source then hacker news might as well be dig , but with a few “trusted” sources like what cnn?
A while back I spent a decent amount of time trawling through literature in an attempt to figure out the ground truth for protein intake.
My takeaways were:
- People often conflate "body mass" with "lean body mass". If you have a ton of extra fat on you that does not imply you need to eat more protein to retain/grow muscle mass. Lean muscle mass is the right calculation. For an average individual, this is ~15-20% reduction from body mass.
- Oddly, I saw people often conflating "kg" and "lb". 1kg = 2.2lb.
- There are numerous studies which reference ~1.5g per 1kg as a floor and north of ~2.0g protein as still providing benefit without concern for energy. A quick Google yields:
Here's what I ate yesterday: https://i.imgur.com/fVgtvnl.png
I could reduce the amount of chicken I eat by over half, and skip adding chocolate whey to my yogurt, and still be above the maximum suggested guidelines. I could eliminate eating chicken and whey and still be above the minimum suggested guidelines.
Conversely, if I just ate chicken and whey with Greek yogurt, I would still be above the minimum suggested guidelines without eating a single bit of protein in any of my other foods.
Also, it's possible to swap out the chicken with Tofu/Tempeh if you're vegetarian. Firm Tofu is 17g/protein per 100g, Tempeh is 19g, chicken breast is 31g.
My takeaways were:
- People often conflate "body mass" with "lean body mass". If you have a ton of extra fat on you that does not imply you need to eat more protein to retain/grow muscle mass. Lean muscle mass is the right calculation. For an average individual, this is ~15-20% reduction from body mass.
- Oddly, I saw people often conflating "kg" and "lb". 1kg = 2.2lb.
- There are numerous studies which reference ~1.5g per 1kg as a floor and north of ~2.0g protein as still providing benefit without concern for energy. A quick Google yields:
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5852756/ (270 citations)
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680710/ (87 citations)
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/ (148 citations)
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5477153/ (919 citations)
Here's what I ate yesterday: https://i.imgur.com/fVgtvnl.png
I could reduce the amount of chicken I eat by over half, and skip adding chocolate whey to my yogurt, and still be above the maximum suggested guidelines. I could eliminate eating chicken and whey and still be above the minimum suggested guidelines.
Conversely, if I just ate chicken and whey with Greek yogurt, I would still be above the minimum suggested guidelines without eating a single bit of protein in any of my other foods.
Also, it's possible to swap out the chicken with Tofu/Tempeh if you're vegetarian. Firm Tofu is 17g/protein per 100g, Tempeh is 19g, chicken breast is 31g.
One thing glossed over regularly is that grams of protein is misleading, since a human has essential amino acids requirements that may be absent in some protein sources. I think the slang term for getting all the required amino acids is a "complete protein", which might be a blend of more than one "protein" source, with lentils and certain grains a famous example.
Point is that your chart is very cool, but has a single column tracking grams of protein, and that's too low resolution of information to know if those grams themselves are adequate in represented amino acids.
you could go over recommended grams of protein and be missing types of protein constituents in so doing.
Point is that your chart is very cool, but has a single column tracking grams of protein, and that's too low resolution of information to know if those grams themselves are adequate in represented amino acids.
you could go over recommended grams of protein and be missing types of protein constituents in so doing.
Yeah, true enough! The screenshot is from MyFitnessPal - I think there's more complete tools out there.
Fortunately, poultry eggs and dairy are all complete proteins and those comprise essentially all the proteins in the screenshot :)
Certainly something to be mindful of if you're trying to cram beans to get your numbers, though.
Fortunately, poultry eggs and dairy are all complete proteins and those comprise essentially all the proteins in the screenshot :)
Certainly something to be mindful of if you're trying to cram beans to get your numbers, though.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a food that's completely missing a particular amino acid.
Most "incomplete sources of protein" still will get you what you need if you eat enough of it (in practical amounts, not impractical technically true amounts).
That said, if you're eating a sufficiently diverse diet, this shouldn't be a problem. And if you're going out of your way to get sufficient protein, tracking what you eat, etc., this is unlikely to be a problem.
Particularly if you're eating more than enough protein by any measure, lacking particular amino acids is a non-issue.
Most "incomplete sources of protein" still will get you what you need if you eat enough of it (in practical amounts, not impractical technically true amounts).
That said, if you're eating a sufficiently diverse diet, this shouldn't be a problem. And if you're going out of your way to get sufficient protein, tracking what you eat, etc., this is unlikely to be a problem.
Particularly if you're eating more than enough protein by any measure, lacking particular amino acids is a non-issue.
> That said, if you're eating a sufficiently diverse diet, this shouldn't be a problem.
that's the key...with a diverse diet in adequate quantity.
a counterexample would be a diet of blueberries and a huge bucket of lysine, you'd be starving for other essential amino acids, because their "essential" adjective means our livers can not synthesize them...in this contrived example from blueberries and lysine.
that's the key...with a diverse diet in adequate quantity.
a counterexample would be a diet of blueberries and a huge bucket of lysine, you'd be starving for other essential amino acids, because their "essential" adjective means our livers can not synthesize them...in this contrived example from blueberries and lysine.
> You'd be hard-pressed to find a food that's completely missing a particular amino acid.
lentils aren't complete, nor are grains, but the union of their amino acids spans those essential for humans, famously.
lentils aren't complete, nor are grains, but the union of their amino acids spans those essential for humans, famously.
> - When you crunch the numbers, it's really not that challenging to achieve.
I slightly disagree. It is kind of hard to achieve, especially if you're trying to control calories as well (and especially if you're trying to cut).
You're effectively swapping out a lot of otherwise-standard, tasty foods (usually carbs) for lots of food that is more expensive, often harder to come by, and often harder to make taste good on its own. It is much easier (and cheaper!) to eat a "normal" diet.
I slightly disagree. It is kind of hard to achieve, especially if you're trying to control calories as well (and especially if you're trying to cut).
You're effectively swapping out a lot of otherwise-standard, tasty foods (usually carbs) for lots of food that is more expensive, often harder to come by, and often harder to make taste good on its own. It is much easier (and cheaper!) to eat a "normal" diet.
When I was growing up the recommendation was to eat a lot of grains/carbs and avoid red meat. Beyond incompetence I think partly this was because cheap calories were needed historically to feed a manual labor force. Now that much of our labor is knowledge work, and people live sedentary lifestyles unless they exercise, the dietary recommendations should be altered. Whole foods and animal proteins, lower calories required, two meals a day.
> Beyond incompetence
And economics. Expensive food (protein) has lower margins. Cheap food is profitable. The high margin pasta dishes and alcohol keep restaurants alive (steak houses famously have almost 0 margin on steak), and it's the same for the entire food industry.
The USDA represents American agricultural industry - not consumers. Eight servings of carbs a day on the food pyramid was essentially a license to Americans to buy as much carbs as they wanted.
And economics. Expensive food (protein) has lower margins. Cheap food is profitable. The high margin pasta dishes and alcohol keep restaurants alive (steak houses famously have almost 0 margin on steak), and it's the same for the entire food industry.
The USDA represents American agricultural industry - not consumers. Eight servings of carbs a day on the food pyramid was essentially a license to Americans to buy as much carbs as they wanted.
Could you give me more information about the low margin of meat? This is interesting. Would have assumed that meat would be a win for fast food industry.
Dr Brad Stanfield just covered the low protein diet as detrimental to longevity. Maintaining muscle mass is critical.
Also included - Resveratrol and Metformin.
https://youtu.be/vLATzbt9Io8?si=Y2ryN-ZlOwMdUHCC&t=12
Also included - Resveratrol and Metformin.
https://youtu.be/vLATzbt9Io8?si=Y2ryN-ZlOwMdUHCC&t=12
Would be good to understand the source of the claim at the top. Not casting judgment, and they are nutrition folks, but there may be a profit motive behind the funding/research.
https://www.abbottnutrition.com/our-brands
https://www.abbottnutrition.com/our-brands
This is an interesting result, even though it seems to have arrived at the (edit: not!) same place sports nutritionists have been at for decades when it comes to the general population edit: 1g per kg. The things it says that I mostly hadn’t thought about or didn’t know:
1) older people are less efficient converting dietary protein into muscle, so they need 1.25g/kg
2) pregnant and lactating women obviously have higher needs, so they should eat up to 2g/kg!
3) children are doing a lot of growing, so they need 1.55g/kg
Americans get a lot of protein already in their diet (edit: for a sedentary lifestyle).
For the non-sedentary, I can say from experience (160lb, 5’10”, somewhat lean male) that eating 160g of protein spaced out in 4 meals (sports nutritionists also recommend spacing your protein intake out so that it’s consistently available) is actually pretty hard. You end up needing to eat a lot of chicken and eggs, unless you’re willing to go full-on body builder and start eating supplement shakes. Of course that’s while trying to keep a small calorie surplus — a lot of Americans are very overweight, and likely do eat more protein than they need because they eat more than they need of all the macronutrients.
1) older people are less efficient converting dietary protein into muscle, so they need 1.25g/kg
2) pregnant and lactating women obviously have higher needs, so they should eat up to 2g/kg!
3) children are doing a lot of growing, so they need 1.55g/kg
Americans get a lot of protein already in their diet (edit: for a sedentary lifestyle).
For the non-sedentary, I can say from experience (160lb, 5’10”, somewhat lean male) that eating 160g of protein spaced out in 4 meals (sports nutritionists also recommend spacing your protein intake out so that it’s consistently available) is actually pretty hard. You end up needing to eat a lot of chicken and eggs, unless you’re willing to go full-on body builder and start eating supplement shakes. Of course that’s while trying to keep a small calorie surplus — a lot of Americans are very overweight, and likely do eat more protein than they need because they eat more than they need of all the macronutrients.
I have a pet theory that one reason people overeat is because they are unconsciously trying to get more protein. So eating tons of donuts or chips etc doesn’t satiate and they eat until they hit the requisite protein and end up consuming way more carbs and fat in the process.
Its per kilogram, not per pound, which would be a LOT of protein.
In the fitness world it it’s thought of as g/lb so if a 170lb person wants to gain muscle (or preserve it on a diet) they should aim for roughly 170g of protein a day minimum. There is more nuance to it than this (should be g/lb of lean muscle mass for example) but as a rule of thumb it’s pretty good and proven to be effective at building/maintaining muscle.
It sounds a lot but it’s not too hard to hit even without whey supplementation. Anyone who has focussed on nutrition and build muscle/strength will have been at this level (or higher) for weeks and months on end.
It sounds a lot but it’s not too hard to hit even without whey supplementation. Anyone who has focussed on nutrition and build muscle/strength will have been at this level (or higher) for weeks and months on end.
I was just saying in the context of the article, it’s kg not lbs. For a regular person, 170-200g of protein is not trivial, and you will not hit this without either protein powder or having every meal containing a protein portion. You say “anyone who has focused on nutrition and building muscle” like these people are everywhere. In the general context, few have “building muscle” as a goal.
Hehe you are right. Wanted to point out how weird g per pound g/lb is . It’s half imperial half metric system …
You Americans are moving in the right directions.
Next ist g/kg.
Have a good day
Have a good day
Hmm, you’re right! And yet, all the sports nutrition that I’ve been reading is 1g per pound, not per kilogram. Sedentary lifestyle vs not, I suppose.
Not sure the sources, but I would not be surprised if it is 1g/lb for athletes, or 1g/lb of lean body mass, as someone mentioned.
For the general population, 1g/lb is way too much.
For the general population, 1g/lb is way too much.
It's an error that has been continuously repeated in locker rooms after Americans misunderstood what a kg is.
Sorry, but while the meathead stereotype is probably not entirely unfounded, I guarantee that 1) I don't get my information from locker rooms and 2) weightlifters are plenty familiar with what a kilogram is.
I hate these types of articles that spend a bulk of your attention telling you nothing new before they spend less than a paragraph glossing over the conclusion of the study, right before they tell you to eat more protein.
I’m sorry, but nitrogen balance and protein metabolism is one small facet of overall nutrition.
Nutrition is complicated, most of us are ignorant and puff pieces like this do nothing to improve people’s understanding of nutrition.
I’m sorry, but nitrogen balance and protein metabolism is one small facet of overall nutrition.
Nutrition is complicated, most of us are ignorant and puff pieces like this do nothing to improve people’s understanding of nutrition.
I think 0.8g per kg is just fine. The big issue with American diet is too much sugar, not enough fiber, from eating highly processed foods.
What does fiber have to do with protein intake? They're essentially unrelated, besides fiber and protein both being high satiety (fiber being essentially infinite satiety to calories).
Nothing, but there is no RDA for fiber, and the FDA also doesn't say that people shouldn't have too much sugar/refined starch, which they really should.
Better retention of protein so also a better resorption.
What do you mean? Pretty much all calories are readily absorbed outside of extreme levels of excess.
I found this out the hard way. I was a morbidly obese binge eater until I greatly increased the protein content of my diet. Overnight the binge eating stopped without effort. Over the next few years I became merely overweight. I believe that the protein RDA is contributing to the obesity epidemic.
The mechanism for this is protein increases satiety (feeling full/not hungry) better than carbs or fats.
Eating more white potatoes (very high on the satiety index[0]) would have a similar effect.
[0]http://ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDW...
Eating more white potatoes (very high on the satiety index[0]) would have a similar effect.
[0]http://ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDW...
I doubt that most Americans are even aware of the RDA, so I doubt it's contributed much to obesity. Availability of high calorie foods that are low in protein could be part of it though.
I do generally agree that more protein is good, but have you ever had a blood panel to see if you were low on some nutrient(s)? Common sources of protein contain a lot of high doses of other nutrients you may have been low on, causing cravings.
Dude - start lifting. Turn that protein into muscle. https://startingstrength.com/get-started/programs
A study by a pill manufacturer whose business is sickness, promoting a sick diet for more obedient consumer customers.
Adult humans require surprisingly little protein. So little, in fact, it's virtually impossible to be protein deficient eating an adequate isocaloric diet with even a modicum of variety. This is a very well cited page which explains most misconceptions and falsehoods about protein in diet https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm
Adult humans require surprisingly little protein. So little, in fact, it's virtually impossible to be protein deficient eating an adequate isocaloric diet with even a modicum of variety. This is a very well cited page which explains most misconceptions and falsehoods about protein in diet https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm
McDougall promotes a vegan fad diet. Not sure why I would trust his literature when there's plenty of contrary scientific evidence today. Also, it's been 16 years since that article was written. Scientific consensus has advanced considerably.
Just because humans survive on very little protein doesn't mean there are not negative implications, notably on muscle mass and development.
Just because humans survive on very little protein doesn't mean there are not negative implications, notably on muscle mass and development.
Fad diet? Until recent history, and coincidentally before the prevalence of vast diet-related disease, most of the world lived on a mostly vegan diet. You are welcome to cite some of this advanced scientific evidence refuting McDougall or suggesting protein deficiency is a concern anywhere in the Western world.
McDougall's diet promotes low dietary cholesterol. Scientific evidence supports dietary cholesterol has no link to blood serum cholesterol. One easy example of promotion of non-evidence-based dietary restrictions. Also, extremely low fat recommendations, far below scientific concern levels. What's left is carbs and fiber for satiety, which is going to be extremely difficult to adhere to.
McDougall has also promoted his diet for treating diabetes, cancer, and other non-diet-related ailments.
Yes, I think it's fair to call it a fad diet. Nothing specifically wrong with reasonable vegan diets, but his seems full of specious claims.
McDougall has also promoted his diet for treating diabetes, cancer, and other non-diet-related ailments.
Yes, I think it's fair to call it a fad diet. Nothing specifically wrong with reasonable vegan diets, but his seems full of specious claims.
You're confusing requirements vs thriving. Yeah humans can essentially starve themselves for months and survive, that doesn't mean it's optimal.
You miss the point: reducing protein intake to the small required amount is what is optimal for health.
Except, low protein intake is correlated to problems in elder age. As you get older, you need more protein to support muscles from atrophying (explicitly a point the main article discusses). Muscle weakness and atrophy is a huge problem for elderly, and leads to numerous health risks, quality of life problems, etc. Stronger older individuals are better at caring for themselves, much more likely to survive accidents such as falls, and generally going to be more mobile.
This eating proteins seems like a some sort of mind virus these days propelled by clever marketing.
I don't think anyone ever have to worry about how much protein they need
the body tell you when you need to eat more protein
it usually comes with desire or craving certain foods
having the condition that you need to eat certain amount of protein everyday is probably a lot worse for your health than eating to little protein one day
having the condition that you need to eat certain amount of protein everyday is probably a lot worse for your health than eating to little protein one day
> I don't think anyone ever have to worry about how much protein they need the body tell you when you need to eat more protein it usually comes with desire or craving certain foods
People can barely differentiate hunger from thirst, let alone protein hunger, what happens actually is the complete opposite of your interpretation though, low protein diet cause hunger, and since sugar and fat are addictive people go for these food first.
Your body doesn't send a lot of signals and the vast majority of these signals were for our ancestors who only had access to the most basic of foods in relative low quantity coupled with a lot of exercise. In our modern world of unlimited cheap calorie dense food that you can get delivered to your sofa in 20 minutes these signals are your greatest enemy.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2022.021...
> However, where low-protein diets are simultaneously high in fats and carbohydrates and low in non-caloric diluents such as fibre and water, the homeostatic mechanisms can be overwhelmed leading to positive energy balance, particularly where carbohydrates are rapidly digested non-resistant starches and sugars. If exposure is chronic, this leads to increased adiposity which itself can exacerbate the imbalance by decreasing protein efficiency thus increasing its deficiency and triggering further intake
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18296329/
> Several studies have shown that high protein meals and foods are more satiating than high carbohydrate or high fat meals
People can barely differentiate hunger from thirst, let alone protein hunger, what happens actually is the complete opposite of your interpretation though, low protein diet cause hunger, and since sugar and fat are addictive people go for these food first.
Your body doesn't send a lot of signals and the vast majority of these signals were for our ancestors who only had access to the most basic of foods in relative low quantity coupled with a lot of exercise. In our modern world of unlimited cheap calorie dense food that you can get delivered to your sofa in 20 minutes these signals are your greatest enemy.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2022.021...
> However, where low-protein diets are simultaneously high in fats and carbohydrates and low in non-caloric diluents such as fibre and water, the homeostatic mechanisms can be overwhelmed leading to positive energy balance, particularly where carbohydrates are rapidly digested non-resistant starches and sugars. If exposure is chronic, this leads to increased adiposity which itself can exacerbate the imbalance by decreasing protein efficiency thus increasing its deficiency and triggering further intake
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18296329/
> Several studies have shown that high protein meals and foods are more satiating than high carbohydrate or high fat meals
skip studies, skip science.
This is yoga find out for your self.
If you exercise, if you meditate if you eat organic
You become receptive and sensitive and all the information you could ever want is right there available within
Including what you need to eat
Your body's feedback mechanisms are only approximations, and furthermore need to be trained. You crave the foods that you've been regularly exposed to that have the nutrients you're lacking, but if someone hasn't been exposed to good food, they won't crave it. Telling people to eat more protein is a signal that they should pay attention to how much protein they're actually ingesting because it may be lacking (which it typically is).
There is absolutely no mechanism in your body to signal the need for specific nutrients or macro-nutrients. The signs of protein deficiency are simply hunger and weakness[1], which is pretty vague.
[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/are-you-getting-enough-prote...
[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/are-you-getting-enough-prote...
This is a function of higher mind; awareness, you have everything you need I would go with instinct. Science will never be able to explain how this works, just abandon all hope of scientific rescue. You have everything you need within.
You're describing magical thinking. As a counterpoint you can look at the problem of scurvy on per-industrial naval voyages. They didn't have an instinct to eat citrus, it was discovered by a long and painful period of trial and error. As another counterpoint, historically "rabbit starvation"[1] otherwise know as protein poisoning has been an issue periodically. If people innately felt the need to consume fat in particular this wouldn't happen.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning
This is hardly surprising given America's addiction to sugary and carb heavy food products which generally have low protein.
I have noticed a lot of inconsistency on (US) "nutrition facts" labels. I've seen anywhere from 5g being 3% of the daily recommended amount (~150g per day) to 15g being 33% of the daily amount (~50g per day).
Usually recommended protein intake per day is 1 gram per kilogram of body weight, for sedentary people. For more active, its 1.5-2.2 grams per kg.
The USDA doesn’t have a recommendation for protein (yet does for added sugar is if some is “needed”), that’s a big part of the problem.
Every serious weightlifter has known this for decades, if not centuries.
The vast majority of people aren't serious weightlifters and consequently don't need to eat like they are.
Given the benefits of strength training as they relate specifically to the top diseases of developed nations, they probably should eat and train.
A competitive level isn't necessary, but reaching a non-trivial level of fitness has tremendous benefits to one's health and well-being.
Like if a pill could deliver them, it would be the most profitable medication ever developed.
A competitive level isn't necessary, but reaching a non-trivial level of fitness has tremendous benefits to one's health and well-being.
Like if a pill could deliver them, it would be the most profitable medication ever developed.
> A competitive level isn't necessary, but reaching a non-trivial level of fitness has tremendous benefits to one's health and well-being.
Yes, but it's also a significant time and money investment. The additional time and food cost of nutrition/gym membership/supplements is easily $5000/yr or more.
Yes, but it's also a significant time and money investment. The additional time and food cost of nutrition/gym membership/supplements is easily $5000/yr or more.
Time, yes. Money, no. $5k/yr to lift and eat enough protein? That's quite possibly the most insane claim I've _ever_ seen on HN.
... for pregnant and old people.
That's not what the article says. It says "generally too low". The mentions of pregnant [people] and old people are preceded by "especially", so it's just more true in their case and not only in their case.
Additionally the list following "especially" includes lactating women (not the same thing as pregnant women) as well as children over age 3.
Additionally the list following "especially" includes lactating women (not the same thing as pregnant women) as well as children over age 3.
The article also says, “The good news is that Americans are already eclipsing that intake on average, and children appear to be getting plenty of protein, per data collected by the CDC.”
"Pregnant women and older Americans don’t appear to be eating enough, however. "
Literally the very next sentence.
Literally the very next sentence.
Sure, but the “too low” comment was about the dietary recommendations, not about the actual quantities typically consumed.
From TFA:
> For everyone else, the RDA should probably be boosted roughly 25% up to 1 gram per kilogram of body weight per day.
> For everyone else, the RDA should probably be boosted roughly 25% up to 1 gram per kilogram of body weight per day.
But on average, aren’t most people getting enough protein already, regardless of what the RDA is?
The RDA is used to set policy for institutions which do effect people. No matter how stupid an "official" recommendation is, institutions take it seriously because following it deflects blame if something happens.
Also, protein is pretty filling.
Boosting the RDA probably filters through to stuff like school lunch programs sooner or later. If school lunches needed to boost protein they'd likely do it at the expense of carbs and fat. Less bread and seed oils, more proteins for the kids - sounds like a win to me.
Boosting the RDA probably filters through to stuff like school lunch programs sooner or later. If school lunches needed to boost protein they'd likely do it at the expense of carbs and fat. Less bread and seed oils, more proteins for the kids - sounds like a win to me.
RDI/RDA is intended to be the minimum value that would be sufficient for something like 98% of the population to be maximally healthy (ie, no negative side effects). Even if people are exceeding the currently defined limits on average, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be raised.
most meals are made to have 20-30g of protein.
Let’s have western meal of one day
Breakfast 2 eggs = 12g Two slice bread 3g
First meal Pizza 30g Or Burger 30g Or Fisch 40g With sidedish potatoes 3g more
Same for the second meal. So those are around 70-90g of protein.
So this is enough for most people. But are most people eating that much? I don’t know. But I know people who can barely scrap money for food…..
Let’s have western meal of one day
Breakfast 2 eggs = 12g Two slice bread 3g
First meal Pizza 30g Or Burger 30g Or Fisch 40g With sidedish potatoes 3g more
Same for the second meal. So those are around 70-90g of protein.
So this is enough for most people. But are most people eating that much? I don’t know. But I know people who can barely scrap money for food…..
The other aspect is in general people who are strapped for cash also tend to be strapped for time, and the vast majority of junk food and quick premade meals don't have nearly enough protein in them for all the calories they contain. Very easy to end up overloading on low quality carbs and fats while skimping on protein and healthier sources of the former. As a rule the healthier stuff tends to be more expensive and less easily accessible to the busy/poor/stressed consumer (since a proper diet almost always includes a lot of cooking from scratch).
Anyone who works out at all knows this. Good luck growing muscle and recovering without proper protein intake.
Imo anti-meat stances have contributed to this. People really need to be eating quality meat to hit that protein mark. You'll never eat enough broccoli in a day to get enough protein, and good luck being bloated as hell if you try.
Imo anti-meat stances have contributed to this. People really need to be eating quality meat to hit that protein mark. You'll never eat enough broccoli in a day to get enough protein, and good luck being bloated as hell if you try.
> People really need to be eating quality meat to hit that protein mark. You'll never eat enough broccoli in a day to get enough protein, and good luck being bloated as hell if you try.
Mixed veg proteins are virtually identical to whey, which is more of less the best you can get in term of amino acids.
If you're not vegan eggs will do the job very very well, better than most meat actually.
You _really_ don't need meat, at all
Of course if you try to bulk on broccoli and salad you're doomed, but you're the only one making that argument
Mixed veg proteins are virtually identical to whey, which is more of less the best you can get in term of amino acids.
If you're not vegan eggs will do the job very very well, better than most meat actually.
You _really_ don't need meat, at all
Of course if you try to bulk on broccoli and salad you're doomed, but you're the only one making that argument
Weird seeing this blatant industry funded talking point about broccoli spread. It's pure strawman. No one suggests you get your protein from broccoli. There are vegetarian and vegan weightlifters, MMA fighters, and all manner of elite athletes.
Do you really believe they are trying to get all their protein from broccoli? How can you possible believe this if you stop and think for more than a few seconds? Have you never heard of all manner of soy products, other beans, certain grains that are rich in protein, rice protein extracts, pea protein extracts, and of course dairy and eggs for vegetarians?
Do you really believe they are trying to get all their protein from broccoli? How can you possible believe this if you stop and think for more than a few seconds? Have you never heard of all manner of soy products, other beans, certain grains that are rich in protein, rice protein extracts, pea protein extracts, and of course dairy and eggs for vegetarians?
Vegetarians don't eat broccoli for protein.
They eat legumes. Chickpeas, lentils, beans, etc.
Meat is still superior, but not as extreme as your initial dichotomy.
They eat legumes. Chickpeas, lentils, beans, etc.
Meat is still superior, but not as extreme as your initial dichotomy.
Yeah, you're going to have trouble getting enough calories for hard work from eating broccoli for that matter. Wheat contains a lot of protein for a grain although it is terribly imbalanced and is best when complemented. Note protein requirements are higher when calorie input is low
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein%E2%80%93energy_malnutr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein%E2%80%93energy_malnutr...
Same problem, different source. Bloating nightmare.
Also, they do eat broccoli, maybe you don't but it's always touted as an alternative protein when veganism and vegetarianism is brought up.
Also, they do eat broccoli, maybe you don't but it's always touted as an alternative protein when veganism and vegetarianism is brought up.
> Anyone who works out at all knows this.
> Bloating nightmare.
Everyone who works out take whey and it'll make you fart chemical weapon tier gas so let's be real 2 minutes lmao
You can supplement enzymes to fix bloating, just like """meat eaters""" taking whey supplement enzymes too
> Bloating nightmare.
Everyone who works out take whey and it'll make you fart chemical weapon tier gas so let's be real 2 minutes lmao
You can supplement enzymes to fix bloating, just like """meat eaters""" taking whey supplement enzymes too
They eat broccoli, but not for protein. I'm not a vegetarian or vegan either, stop looking for an enemy when there isn't one :)
Also, whey protein powder is vegetarian, so I would say it's not the 'anti-meat' crowd but rather the 'pro-vegan' crowd
Also, whey protein powder is vegetarian, so I would say it's not the 'anti-meat' crowd but rather the 'pro-vegan' crowd