We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume(bbc.com)
bbc.com
We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180522-we-dont-need-nearly-as-much-protein-as-we-consume
89 comments
What is the magical problem with processed foods? It’s not like the body can tell if something was smooshed by a machine or by my mouth.
I kinda believe it but it’s real “chemicals!!” sort of generality. I can imagine a granola bar being less bad than like… my grandma’s paté
I kinda believe it but it’s real “chemicals!!” sort of generality. I can imagine a granola bar being less bad than like… my grandma’s paté
One thing about processed foods is that they're usually based on refined grains, i.e. preprocessed carbs. Your body sucks up these carbs too quickly, resulting in insulin resistance and pancreatic failure.
Look down the aisles of a store. If it's in a box, or a bag, it's probably based on processed carbs.
Disclosure: Biased diabetic who has struggled with management, and now "strictly" (with the best of intentions) limits processed carbs. Bread of any kind, especially. Toss the hamburger bun, for example. And it's worked, with help from meds.
Look down the aisles of a store. If it's in a box, or a bag, it's probably based on processed carbs.
Disclosure: Biased diabetic who has struggled with management, and now "strictly" (with the best of intentions) limits processed carbs. Bread of any kind, especially. Toss the hamburger bun, for example. And it's worked, with help from meds.
Processed foods are chemically altered for longer shelf-life.
Heavily processed foods have a very homogeneous substance, which means they have fewer nutrients that the body needs.
To top it off, the substances they _do_ contain are unhealthy, and are processed faster, because the body has to do less work to separate the nutrients (because the nutrients are already... processed). Because the body does less work, we also burn less energy digesting the food.
=> Calorie intake is higher & calorie consumption is lower
https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/may-2019/the-many...
https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/may-2019/the-many...
> What is the magical problem with processed foods?
It's not that it's "processed" necessarily. Your grandmother processes fresh pumpkin to turn it into pumpkin soup, and that's still healthy, nutritious, and delicious.
The problem with food from Cargill. Nestle, Pepsico, Kraft, Unilever, Kellog, General Mills and the like is the added sugar, added fat, and added salt in every can, box, jar, bottle and packet they sell in supermarkets.
Read the labels. They'll tell you how much sugar, fat and salt is in every 100g of product.
If its more than 2g of sugar per 100g, you're being manipulated to crave and buy more.
Check the ketchup and the breakfast cereal labels. Compare the sugar in those to the sugar in Coke. What do you find?
How much sugar is listed in the label for your granola bar?
It's not that it's "processed" necessarily. Your grandmother processes fresh pumpkin to turn it into pumpkin soup, and that's still healthy, nutritious, and delicious.
The problem with food from Cargill. Nestle, Pepsico, Kraft, Unilever, Kellog, General Mills and the like is the added sugar, added fat, and added salt in every can, box, jar, bottle and packet they sell in supermarkets.
Read the labels. They'll tell you how much sugar, fat and salt is in every 100g of product.
If its more than 2g of sugar per 100g, you're being manipulated to crave and buy more.
Check the ketchup and the breakfast cereal labels. Compare the sugar in those to the sugar in Coke. What do you find?
How much sugar is listed in the label for your granola bar?
Between stripping away all fiber and phytonutrients/prebiotics (which aren't returned in "enriched" products), and the added fat that tends to throw off the omega 3/6 balance, and the sugar, and the salt, there are negative outcomes. Typically are high calorie with low satiety, and yields a high insulin response to boot. Processed meats also bad owing to nitrates but also salt and very high saturated fat typically paired with refined carbohydrates. Saturated fat in itself appears to only raise total cholesterol levels (considered a risk by health authorities but some disagree), but when paired with sugar and carbs the ldl/hdl profile worsens and CVD risk heightens.
One wonders where the line is drawn with processed foods as well.
Take sausages. These have been around for ages but are, technically, processed. Are these now bad? They seem to pass the lindy test.
Take sausages. These have been around for ages but are, technically, processed. Are these now bad? They seem to pass the lindy test.
> Take sausages
Not a great example to make your point because processed meats (specifically, cured meats) are carcinogenic. [0]
> Are these now bad?
Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now.
If you don’t change your assumptions and biases with new data, you will be stuck in the past. Blood letting would have passed the lindy test throughout the 18th century.
[0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...
Not a great example to make your point because processed meats (specifically, cured meats) are carcinogenic. [0]
> Are these now bad?
Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now.
If you don’t change your assumptions and biases with new data, you will be stuck in the past. Blood letting would have passed the lindy test throughout the 18th century.
[0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...
> Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now.
Your linked source claims processed meats can cause a 18% increased incidence of colorectal cancer. The CDC [0] says rates of those cancers are 36.5 per 100,000, or 0.03%. Since some of those people undoubtedly eat processed meat, lets assume the cancer rate is 0.025% for people who don't eat processed meats.
For me, those numbers really dont move the needle - its highly unlikely to get colorectal cancer and abstaining from processed meats doesnt really change the rate much at all. There are probably other good arguments in favor of not eating these foods, but cancer doesnt appear to be one of them.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index.htm
Your linked source claims processed meats can cause a 18% increased incidence of colorectal cancer. The CDC [0] says rates of those cancers are 36.5 per 100,000, or 0.03%. Since some of those people undoubtedly eat processed meat, lets assume the cancer rate is 0.025% for people who don't eat processed meats.
For me, those numbers really dont move the needle - its highly unlikely to get colorectal cancer and abstaining from processed meats doesnt really change the rate much at all. There are probably other good arguments in favor of not eating these foods, but cancer doesnt appear to be one of them.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index.htm
If you like eating processed meat, your energy is probably better spent having good prevention around colorectal cancer than eating less processed meat.
> where the line is
high salt and/or sugar content foods, whether processed or not, is probably not great for you.
It's just that "processed foods" usually have extra flavourings added (such as salt) to enhance it, for sale purposes.
So instead of targeting processed foods, the targeting for healthy eating should be portion size and amount, followed by freshness.
high salt and/or sugar content foods, whether processed or not, is probably not great for you.
It's just that "processed foods" usually have extra flavourings added (such as salt) to enhance it, for sale purposes.
So instead of targeting processed foods, the targeting for healthy eating should be portion size and amount, followed by freshness.
Canned or frozen can contain more nutrients because of the preservation process though. Fresh foods lose nutrients as they are shipped around.
The vitamins may have leached into the water, but toss that water into a soup and you're good.
I don't think freshness matters much at all. Flour certainly doesn't need to be fresh to make good bread.
The vitamins may have leached into the water, but toss that water into a soup and you're good.
I don't think freshness matters much at all. Flour certainly doesn't need to be fresh to make good bread.
Fresh pasta vs store bought? Worlds of difference. When I lived in Europe the quality of produce and dairy blew me away compared to what we were eating in America. Tons of flavor in fresh natural produce.
There is a difference between fresh in producer market and fresh in a supermarket. Supermarket canned tomatoes (with no added salt, i got surprised once) are better, more ripe than supermarket fresh tomatoes. This extend to a lot of canned food (as long as the process is just food+water in bain-marie or similar).
Indeed. And plenty of frozen options too, if that's your preference.
People underrate canned veggies in regards to healthy eating. They're really not bad at all from a health perspective, and can often taste very fresh.
Pineapples, pears, peaches are great canned. Artichoke, corn, beans, string beans, spinach, and tomatoes are also good canned products in my experience.
I'm not hating on fresh: big leafy Romaine Lettuce is best fresh, as are onions. But certain foods hold really well in a can, and its extremely convenient to mix-and-match storage strategies. (Ex: Use that Romaine Lettuce for salads this week, and canned corn next week)
People underrate canned veggies in regards to healthy eating. They're really not bad at all from a health perspective, and can often taste very fresh.
Pineapples, pears, peaches are great canned. Artichoke, corn, beans, string beans, spinach, and tomatoes are also good canned products in my experience.
I'm not hating on fresh: big leafy Romaine Lettuce is best fresh, as are onions. But certain foods hold really well in a can, and its extremely convenient to mix-and-match storage strategies. (Ex: Use that Romaine Lettuce for salads this week, and canned corn next week)
What is "fresh pasta"? That flour's been sitting in my pantry for months!
Yes, fresh eggs taste better. But fresh flour? Not really. grains, beans, flour, rice... these "preserved" foods can last months or even well into a year or longer.
Yes, fresh eggs taste better. But fresh flour? Not really. grains, beans, flour, rice... these "preserved" foods can last months or even well into a year or longer.
If by store bought you mean dry, dry pasta is not ‘worse’ than fresh pasta, it is just suited to different dishes
> It’s not like the body can tell if something was smooshed by a machine or by my mouth.
One obvious difference is time and fineness. The machine will grind it significant smaller than your teethes. And processed meat from machines has far longer time to sit and change.
Some other reasons are that processed food is usually not just the meat itself. but a mass that is mixed and enriched with several other elements. And in the money-driven food-industry they are usually not the most healthy things.
One obvious difference is time and fineness. The machine will grind it significant smaller than your teethes. And processed meat from machines has far longer time to sit and change.
Some other reasons are that processed food is usually not just the meat itself. but a mass that is mixed and enriched with several other elements. And in the money-driven food-industry they are usually not the most healthy things.
I think the "processed food" guidance is widely misunderstood.
From what I gather you shouldn't consider that as a strict rule. It's more a rule of tendencies. Less processed food tends to have more fiber, less sugar, less calorie density. There are exceptions, and obviously it's sometimes debatable what counts as "more processed".
But despite these inaccuracies, it's probably a good simple guidance in a field where there's a lot of uncertainty.
From what I gather you shouldn't consider that as a strict rule. It's more a rule of tendencies. Less processed food tends to have more fiber, less sugar, less calorie density. There are exceptions, and obviously it's sometimes debatable what counts as "more processed".
But despite these inaccuracies, it's probably a good simple guidance in a field where there's a lot of uncertainty.
FWIW, I am pretty sure "[your] grandma's pâté" is also a "processed food".
No. I've been eating beef meat, chicken and a suet that is 99.8% fat for more than a month now and it's great. Nobody needs vegetables or nuts.
I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.
In any case, while human bodies are amazing in the way they can strive on different diets, we know that the traditional Intuit diet (~50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs) leads to significantly increased cardiovascular risk:
"However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population.[27][28] Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.[29]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine#Nutrition
In any case, while human bodies are amazing in the way they can strive on different diets, we know that the traditional Intuit diet (~50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs) leads to significantly increased cardiovascular risk:
"However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population.[27][28] Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.[29]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine#Nutrition
I really hope no one on this board follows this and starts eating only meat. Fruit and vegetables are extremely healthy for your body. Tons of fiber, nutrients, and keeps your immune system strong. This will be a decisive comment but if you think no one needs vegetables and should be eating only meat you have reached maximum levels of retardation and I recommend you not to poison the brains of other people. Sometimes it’s best to keep things to yourself
"Needs" is ambiguous. You can survive on garbage. Optimal health is probably the metric focused on here. Meat-only is an elimination diet that, if followed properly, avoids refined products (or allergens) that yield adverse effects. That doesn't mean that including vegetables doesn't yield better results. The long, thorough body of research suggests it does.
Do you think your self-reported experience of “greatness” of a particular diet over one month is sufficient evidence to make such a conclusion?
Can I ask what you’re optimising for with that diet? e.g. energy, or weight loss, or cardiac health, or longevity?
Not joking -- I think it may be all of those. See e.g. the work of Ivor Cummins, books like "Eat Rich, Live Long".
There's one unmentioned aspect of this that's especially sinister. Salt, sugar, and fat are addictive.
Sugar remains a villain, but the issue of fat is more complex.
Not all fats are equal. For example, high-fat foods like nuts, butter, avocados, cold-pressed olive oil etc do not occupy the same space as highly processed fats (e.g. trans fat/hydrogenated fat).
Salt remains divisive among health researchers after many years of public campaigns warning the public to limit salt intake. But is it less harfmul than previously thought?
The Guardian: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study (2018):
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/09/salt-not-as-...
Not all fats are equal. For example, high-fat foods like nuts, butter, avocados, cold-pressed olive oil etc do not occupy the same space as highly processed fats (e.g. trans fat/hydrogenated fat).
Salt remains divisive among health researchers after many years of public campaigns warning the public to limit salt intake. But is it less harfmul than previously thought?
The Guardian: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study (2018):
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/09/salt-not-as-...
[Intro]
How not to die
By the weapon
Formerly known as food
[Verse 1] Sugar, sugar, who you talkin' to? Dirty water who be lovin' you? Stroke, no joke, musta hit that salt Don't look at me, 'cause it ain't my fault I know you want it, say you need it And you eat it, 'cause you want it Sugar, sugar, you don't love me Sugar, sugar, you don't need me Now, it be eating me (Eat, eat it up) Got us fightin' diabetes Stress level, sleepless, emotional, mental Drugs in the food I love screwin' up my physical I'll never fall in love again With this hate on my plate and Food and drug administration Is my my hallucination?
[Verse 2] Sugar, sugar, I know you move me I know you wanna drink me You in everything, not just candy Worse than a pow pow, shoot 'em up, kill 'em up movie A riot goin' on in that corner About a word on a bird in that corner Toxic, yeah, they just box it Hard to tell the paranoid "Avoid it like a opioid" How sweet it is They just line up these kids How happy is a meal when dancin' with cancer? With that God bless America FDA romancing A new old kinda ganster get down Pesticide chemical get around Fast food industrial sit down EPA's a gang, throw it up now
[Verse 1] Sugar, sugar, who you talkin' to? Dirty water who be lovin' you? Stroke, no joke, musta hit that salt Don't look at me, 'cause it ain't my fault I know you want it, say you need it And you eat it, 'cause you want it Sugar, sugar, you don't love me Sugar, sugar, you don't need me Now, it be eating me (Eat, eat it up) Got us fightin' diabetes Stress level, sleepless, emotional, mental Drugs in the food I love screwin' up my physical I'll never fall in love again With this hate on my plate and Food and drug administration Is my my hallucination?
[Verse 2] Sugar, sugar, I know you move me I know you wanna drink me You in everything, not just candy Worse than a pow pow, shoot 'em up, kill 'em up movie A riot goin' on in that corner About a word on a bird in that corner Toxic, yeah, they just box it Hard to tell the paranoid "Avoid it like a opioid" How sweet it is They just line up these kids How happy is a meal when dancin' with cancer? With that God bless America FDA romancing A new old kinda ganster get down Pesticide chemical get around Fast food industrial sit down EPA's a gang, throw it up now
Required Protein intake depends on many other factors.
Carbs are protein preserving.
If someone does a lot of weight lifting and or really hard cardio and is on a low carb diet, they will have an elevated protein requirement, else the body will simply consume its own proteins, aka muscle and tendon tissue, you don't want that.
For the average Joe with a sitting job and zero sports activity and a regular no care diet, yeah, they don't need 2lbs of red meat every other day.
But protein is the macro nutritient which is least likely to get you fat, too much fat, you will gain fat if you don't work out and are in a calorie surplus, same for carbs. Too much protein is hard to achieve consistently and will give you flatulence, but not much else.
Too many scenarios and factors to sum up all in a one size fits all statement.
If someone is trying to lose weight, protein intake should be bit higher, to preserve the muscle tissue.
But protein is the macro nutritient which is least likely to get you fat, too much fat, you will gain fat if you don't work out and are in a calorie surplus, same for carbs. Too much protein is hard to achieve consistently and will give you flatulence, but not much else.
Too many scenarios and factors to sum up all in a one size fits all statement.
If someone is trying to lose weight, protein intake should be bit higher, to preserve the muscle tissue.
I’m a bit dubious of the articles core claim that excess protein is wasteful - the alternative of excess fat/carbs is wasteful and harmful.
I don’t use any sports supplements but I do try to prioritize my diet in terms of protein > fat > carbs. It’s tough to find unprocessed protein sources that aren’t at least somewhat healthy. Even red meat provides a great iron source at 1 8 oz filet every week or 2.
I don’t use any sports supplements but I do try to prioritize my diet in terms of protein > fat > carbs. It’s tough to find unprocessed protein sources that aren’t at least somewhat healthy. Even red meat provides a great iron source at 1 8 oz filet every week or 2.
Why are you claiming the alternative to excess protein is excess fat/carb? Why not a calorie neutral diet with the correct macros?
Aiming for strict calorie neutrality is fairly difficult in my experience. Unless you are tracking, it's pretty easy in the US to slip up on empty carbs or processed fats.
Sit anyone down in front of their local pizza joint and tell them to eat a calorically neutral diet without a tracker and see what happens. Compare this to what happens when someone is sat in front of roast chicken and a high fiber vegetable like asparagus/spinach etc.
Odds are you'll get closer to calorie neutrality and balanced macros in the latter scenario than the former.
Sit anyone down in front of their local pizza joint and tell them to eat a calorically neutral diet without a tracker and see what happens. Compare this to what happens when someone is sat in front of roast chicken and a high fiber vegetable like asparagus/spinach etc.
Odds are you'll get closer to calorie neutrality and balanced macros in the latter scenario than the former.
Don't worry, all the healthy fats and slow released carbs are much worse than the worst protein source.
Excess protein might be wasteful to the wallet and the environment, but at least it will not get you as fat.
Excess protein might be wasteful to the wallet and the environment, but at least it will not get you as fat.
Calories get you fat. It's CICO. Protein is satiating, which is a major advantage if weight-loss is a goal. But then again, so is fiber. Many people have successfully lost weight on a high fiber diet.
But why not the combination of both?
Losing weight and losing fat is not always the same, a diet with insufficient protein intake might cause muscle loss and thus, decrease metabolic rate(muscle metabolism rate is less than people think, but over a year, it makes a big difference).
However, i understand that not everyone cares about preserving muscle on a diet, some people just want to be slimmer, fair enough.
Losing weight and losing fat is not always the same, a diet with insufficient protein intake might cause muscle loss and thus, decrease metabolic rate(muscle metabolism rate is less than people think, but over a year, it makes a big difference).
However, i understand that not everyone cares about preserving muscle on a diet, some people just want to be slimmer, fair enough.
Well there's no reason it has to be "insufficient" and having too little protein is certainly a bad idea. If you consume a source of protein at every meal, whatever the makeup, you can easily hit 16%+ as part of your macros. Even vegetables like broccoli and peas have protein.
I read somewhere that the human intestines are not well fitted to digest protein (as we are omnivorous). They start to "rot" as soon as digestive fluids attack them. So the proteins are correctly absorbed in the first meters. After that, the proteins are just wastes going downward (can't find the source back sr).
That's why carnivorous have short but large intestines: they digest proteins as quickly as possible before they turn useless.
Maybe a key point is to span a large amount of proteins intake across several hours (as bodybuilders do, if I am not mistaken).
That's why carnivorous have short but large intestines: they digest proteins as quickly as possible before they turn useless.
Maybe a key point is to span a large amount of proteins intake across several hours (as bodybuilders do, if I am not mistaken).
I highly doubt that without a reliable source. Proteins don't "rot", they fall apart into amino acids which are absorbed. I have never heard amino acids becoming unusable due to long digestion tracts.
The reason I've always heard about carnivores having shorter digestive tracks is that animal matter is much easier to digest than fiber-and-cellulose-laden plant material. In most organisms (expect humans) digestion takes the most % of energy so shortening the digestive tract if it's not necessary is a no-brainer for evolution.
The reason I've always heard about carnivores having shorter digestive tracks is that animal matter is much easier to digest than fiber-and-cellulose-laden plant material. In most organisms (expect humans) digestion takes the most % of energy so shortening the digestive tract if it's not necessary is a no-brainer for evolution.
Excess protein gets you just as fat as excess carbs or fat does. The only difference is people tend to think of protein as more essential even if it’s just being used as energy.
1000 of each isn’t obviously excessive of any one but without exercise you will get fat.
1000 of each isn’t obviously excessive of any one but without exercise you will get fat.
Well, not really.
This all depends on other factors as well.
For example, how much glucose is stored at the moment of the food intake.
If you are full of glucose, any fat will go straight to the fat deposits.
Carbs, if the stores are full, will be converted to body fat in a calorie surplus, up to 25percent, depending on genetics.
If glucogen stores are empty, fat won't get stored easily. And carbs will not be converted to fat until the stores are full.
And the most important, carbs are metabolized very fast, especially sugars. Fats are relatively slow, protein takes forever and gives you a fullness sensation much sooner than the other macros.
Try to eat 500gramm of cake(400grams of carbs give or take) and then try to eat 1.3 kilos of tuna in water, 400gramms of protein, give or take.
The perceptual differences between different energy sources are one thing, but in the end energy is energy. Take a perfectly healthy and balanced diet without weight gain or weight loss, then add just 100 calories per day of extra protein and you will gain weight.
But the body does not work like that.
Metabolism is an ongoing mechanism with very fast adaptions and it cares a great deal about macros.
Sugars will cause blood sugar spikes and release many hormones to trigger hunger soon again.
In the strictest sense, a calorie is a calorie, but you can't expect that someone who eats a protein scoop a day and the remainder comes from oil and beer will have the same results and body composition as someone who eats mostly protein, some rice and a bit of fats and no junk food at all, then that's wrong.
There is a reason why olímpica athletes have special diets.
There is a reason why olímpica athletes have special diets.
> a calorie is a calorie
See that voice in the back of your head is a little cognitive dissonance. People’s behavior changes based on their diet, but outside of starvation metabolism doesn’t speed up with extra calories they just result in weight gain.
Look all kinds of stuff happens when you go to extremes. But, the human diet has a lot of flexibility which is why we don’t have the one true diet despite a lot of research. At the middle of the healthy range +/- a few percent doesn’t do anything. That’s why so much nutrition research is inconclusive we can’t optimize for an ideal peak of perfect nutrition because close enough gives identical results.
Which is what I am talking about. Take a perfectly reasonable heathy diet that wouldn’t result in long term weight gain or loss and then toss in 100 calories of protein and you get weight gain the same way adding 100 of any other macronutrients or even an even split of all three. That’s true because a perfectly reasonable diet is far from the limits on how much protein you can digest per day.
See that voice in the back of your head is a little cognitive dissonance. People’s behavior changes based on their diet, but outside of starvation metabolism doesn’t speed up with extra calories they just result in weight gain.
Look all kinds of stuff happens when you go to extremes. But, the human diet has a lot of flexibility which is why we don’t have the one true diet despite a lot of research. At the middle of the healthy range +/- a few percent doesn’t do anything. That’s why so much nutrition research is inconclusive we can’t optimize for an ideal peak of perfect nutrition because close enough gives identical results.
Which is what I am talking about. Take a perfectly reasonable heathy diet that wouldn’t result in long term weight gain or loss and then toss in 100 calories of protein and you get weight gain the same way adding 100 of any other macronutrients or even an even split of all three. That’s true because a perfectly reasonable diet is far from the limits on how much protein you can digest per day.
It's more costly to turn protein into glucose, though.
Efficiency isn’t that important. An extra 100 calories per day of protein, fat, or carbs is largely interchangeable assuming an otherwise balanced diet. In other words if your in a balanced diet with 33% of each and you add 100 calories of any of them you will gain weight.
Weightlifting concerns aside (I think a man's need to look good is a very legitimate concern) very high protein is linked to decreased life expectancy and cancer. So even if it doesn't cause belly flop it's still not healthy.
Maybe not to lose weight, but as far as I know the primary goal of most people who take protein supplements is to gain muscle. From my understanding this is literally impossible if you don't consume enough protein. So the question of how much should you be consuming based really depends on your training level, goals, diet, etc.
> A 2014 analysis of 36 papers found that protein supplements have no impact on lean mass and muscle strength during the first few weeks of resistance training in untrained individuals.
Seems like any difference you would see with a couple few weeks of training would be a rounding error? In my experience, any noticeable differences in muscle mass require months of training.
> A 2014 analysis of 36 papers found that protein supplements have no impact on lean mass and muscle strength during the first few weeks of resistance training in untrained individuals.
Seems like any difference you would see with a couple few weeks of training would be a rounding error? In my experience, any noticeable differences in muscle mass require months of training.
Beginners do not have the muscular coordination for a while, unless they have done some sort of competitive sports before. This takes a while to develop, and if they go to the gym , eat as usual and add one or two protein supplements a day, it's doomed to fail.
Summary, their training intensity does not mobilize the body to process more protein and basically every meal would need to be conform.
The diet is really 90percent of all, everyone can train, but nobody wants to give up pizza and usual diet schedule. Personal trainers know that, but if they tell this to the customers, they will never see them again.
So they tell them white lies.
Building muscle takes a lot of time, consistency over long periods, it has to become second nature, else it won't happen.
In every gym, you see most people look the same every year, those are the ones.
Then you have the ones on performance enhancing drugs and the ones with proper diets, these will have the real results.
If someone gains 2kilos of pure muscle(not fat and water) in a year , it's a lot. That is like 175grams a month, so yeah, these studies are done by people who shouldn't have any business doing such studies.
They leave out too many factors, of course supplements will do nothing for a newcomer.
The only supplements that work you will find on the banned substances lists. The next best thing is a proper diet. I think bodybuilding is a rather dumb sport, but they know how to diet, they have decades of pioneer experience.
If someone gains 2kilos of pure muscle(not fat and water) in a year , it's a lot. That is like 175grams a month, so yeah, these studies are done by people who shouldn't have any business doing such studies.
They leave out too many factors, of course supplements will do nothing for a newcomer.
The only supplements that work you will find on the banned substances lists. The next best thing is a proper diet. I think bodybuilding is a rather dumb sport, but they know how to diet, they have decades of pioneer experience.
I was reading https://mennohenselmans.com/protein-is-not-more-satiating-th... yesterday, trying to understand the role of protein in satiation.
It makes the case that roughly 15% of calories is what we should be eating, which is the proportion in the average diet. The basis for this is the protein leverage hypothesis, which states that when protein falls below roughly 15% of our diet, we overeat to compensate. 15% of daily calories corresponds to 1.2g/kg/d, substantially more than the suggested 0.75g/kg/d from the BBC article.
I'm not sure that it's correct to say we eat too much protein for our level of exercise. It seems like it might be more accurate to say we exercise too little for our natural level of protein consumption.
It makes the case that roughly 15% of calories is what we should be eating, which is the proportion in the average diet. The basis for this is the protein leverage hypothesis, which states that when protein falls below roughly 15% of our diet, we overeat to compensate. 15% of daily calories corresponds to 1.2g/kg/d, substantially more than the suggested 0.75g/kg/d from the BBC article.
I'm not sure that it's correct to say we eat too much protein for our level of exercise. It seems like it might be more accurate to say we exercise too little for our natural level of protein consumption.
This isn't really about protein, just how ultra-processed, high-carb candy bars are masquerading as protein. Good quality protein is necessary and healthy, and as we age we actually need more of it, not less.
Not doubting, just curious: do you have a source (on the "need more protein as we age" claim)?
EDIT: Nevermind, found some:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/5/295 [from 2016]
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/35/1/6/469334... [from 1982]
One that says it doesn't differ: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/88/5/1322/4648885 [from 2008]
EDIT: Nevermind, found some:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/5/295 [from 2016]
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/35/1/6/469334... [from 1982]
One that says it doesn't differ: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/88/5/1322/4648885 [from 2008]
The article itself would also serve as a source:
Another demographic who can benefit from extra protein? The elderly. That’s because as we age, we need more protein to retain muscle mass. But we also tend to eat less protein as we get older because our taste-buds begin to prefer sweet over savoury.
Another demographic who can benefit from extra protein? The elderly. That’s because as we age, we need more protein to retain muscle mass. But we also tend to eat less protein as we get older because our taste-buds begin to prefer sweet over savoury.
True, however they just didn't link to anything (unlike other parts, e.g. in the paragraph prior to that one, where they send you to published research).
That, though, would be a reason to aim a [citation needed] at the BBC, not at someone who's just offering a TL;DR type summary of what the BBC said.
I learned that any 'health' bars with 12+ grams of carbs are just candy. Yet all except one was over that limit. The exception was 5g yet had sugar alcohol (artifical sweetener?) putting the real number at 20g.
So maybe those bars are intended as whole meal replacement? If so it's not clear on the labels.
So maybe those bars are intended as whole meal replacement? If so it's not clear on the labels.
I think you're being too charitable. I don't think they have any intention other than to sell bars. I've read the content declaration of every bar I've encountered and have yet to ingest a single one of them.
Just buy a bag of nuts if you want what bars portray themselves to be, but are not.
Just buy a bag of nuts if you want what bars portray themselves to be, but are not.
I have occasionally seen products along these lines that actually are what they claim to be. They never seem to stick around for long.
The problem with making a consumer product that isn't primarily designed to sell is, you tend not to sell very much of it. When it comes to convenience foods - and anything ready-to-eat in a Mylar wrapper is, almost by definition, a convenience food - what most people want to buy is junk food. Not out of some moral failing, I don't think, so much as that, when you're going for convenience foods, you just happen to be working with a part of your brain that's hard-wired to crave junk food. So we tend to go for junk food, and, even when that's not what we think we want, it's ridiculously easy to be taken in by junk food whose Mylar wrapper loudly proclaims that it's actually healthy food.
From there, it's just the law of the jungle. Products that sell better get the shelf space, products that don't sell as well don't. That determines who gets the shelf space, and therefore who gets to survive as a company.
I've also seen this play out at a macro scale in the rise of Whole Foods Market. They devote every bit as much of their shelf space to convenience foods as any other supermarket. Between that and their distressingly ironic name, it's hard for me to feel surprised that I've seen them out-compete a great many beloved stores that were more genuinely focused on selling whole foods over the past quarter century.
The problem with making a consumer product that isn't primarily designed to sell is, you tend not to sell very much of it. When it comes to convenience foods - and anything ready-to-eat in a Mylar wrapper is, almost by definition, a convenience food - what most people want to buy is junk food. Not out of some moral failing, I don't think, so much as that, when you're going for convenience foods, you just happen to be working with a part of your brain that's hard-wired to crave junk food. So we tend to go for junk food, and, even when that's not what we think we want, it's ridiculously easy to be taken in by junk food whose Mylar wrapper loudly proclaims that it's actually healthy food.
From there, it's just the law of the jungle. Products that sell better get the shelf space, products that don't sell as well don't. That determines who gets the shelf space, and therefore who gets to survive as a company.
I've also seen this play out at a macro scale in the rise of Whole Foods Market. They devote every bit as much of their shelf space to convenience foods as any other supermarket. Between that and their distressingly ironic name, it's hard for me to feel surprised that I've seen them out-compete a great many beloved stores that were more genuinely focused on selling whole foods over the past quarter century.
Sugar alcohols are not artificial sweeteners. Some, like erythritol, are a byproduct of fermentation. They usually don't "count" as carbs because they are not fully digested. They act more like fibers.
If something has more than 10grams of carbs and more than say 7 grams of fat per 100g , it should never be labelled as protein bar.
Check the labels, don't trust the packaging brand text.
Some of these bars are worse than a Snickers.
> Fortunately, it’s difficult to have too much protein. While we do have an upper limit of protein intake, it’s “virtually impossible” to reach, says Tipton. “There are concerns among some dieticians that a high protein diet can hurt the kidneys and bones, but evidence in otherwise healthy people is minimal.
That's all I really need to know. Of the big 3 macros, I "trust" carbs the least, then fat, then protein. There's bad carbs - sugars and simple starches, and bad fats - trans fats and long saturated fats, with cholesterol being iffy, but are there "bad proteins" outside of their associated fats?
That's all I really need to know. Of the big 3 macros, I "trust" carbs the least, then fat, then protein. There's bad carbs - sugars and simple starches, and bad fats - trans fats and long saturated fats, with cholesterol being iffy, but are there "bad proteins" outside of their associated fats?
Whether saturated fats are good or bad depends on more than the length.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510972...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510972...
I wouldn't trust mainstream nutrition advice coming out from any country with a >20% obesity rate. So maybe from Japan, China, Thailand, Indonesia or Buthan. But not from the UK.
Interestingly, Hong Kong residents appear to have a high meat-consumption rate. However they also walk far more than Westerners. Vegetable consumption may be higher as well.
Sadly, I wouldn't trust any mainstream nutrition advice at all. When you see the McDonalds and Coca Cola logos behind footballers, and find out that the food pyramid was made by the Department of Agriculture and unsurprisingly advocates for crops, you become really suspicious.
Papers in journals disclose conflicts of interest. You can't just hand-wave bodies of research including systematic reviews as untrustworthy on the conceit that some of it is cherry-picked in mainstream media.
Trying to paint USDA here as some sort of conspiracy to push processed grains on the population is really doing it a huge disservice and sounds like bad faith argument.
USDA is responsible for pretty much all food and farming oversight, including animal products and fresh vegetables. Just because one of their initiatives produced a misguided food pyramid poster isn't reason to denigrate the entire institution.
I'm sure you enjoy mad cow disease-free beef and salmonella free vegetables and chicken eggs when you go to the supermarket. You can thank USDA for that.
USDA is responsible for pretty much all food and farming oversight, including animal products and fresh vegetables. Just because one of their initiatives produced a misguided food pyramid poster isn't reason to denigrate the entire institution.
I'm sure you enjoy mad cow disease-free beef and salmonella free vegetables and chicken eggs when you go to the supermarket. You can thank USDA for that.
I've always eaten a lot of meat, and had cognitive dissonance about headlines like this. If I didn't eat much meat in a given day, I'd just feel like garbage. When I did keto, it wasn't a super difficult adjustment for me after the first week (which sucks for almost everyone). It felt closer to how I always wanted to be, to be honest, though I think keto is a little too into fat.
Well, I learned recently I have low B12 levels via a blood test. B12 is found in meats, fish, and dairy. We'll see if supplementation reduces my carnivore desires.
Just a single data point but it seemed salient for the discussion.
Well, I learned recently I have low B12 levels via a blood test. B12 is found in meats, fish, and dairy. We'll see if supplementation reduces my carnivore desires.
Just a single data point but it seemed salient for the discussion.
I agree with this article. As someone who has been weightlifting since I was in high school, most people are obsessed with protein for the wrong reasons. The truth is you only need to eat slightly above normal protein intake, and the part most people don’t understand is you need to increase carbs for muscle growth. Without the increase in carbs you will not be able to put on a large mass of muscles.
You don't need nearly as much nutritional advice as we publish. But hey, clicks.
Protein bars are bullcrap, but try to write somewhere that you should eat protein equivalent of 0.5kg of meat to maximize our muscle potential.
[deleted]
I have tried different diets. Nutrient dense carbohydrates, healthy fats and high protein works the best for me.
According to some studies I should be fat or my muscles would grow as if I Was eating half the protein which is not the case.
According to some studies I should be fat or my muscles would grow as if I Was eating half the protein which is not the case.
So I thought carbs were bad? Oh no, it was fat right? Or sugar, or meat, or...
This article is a convoluted joke, just like the rest of the nutritional science field. In few other fields can you find so many contradictory theories. Mainly due to the poor research methodologies.
This article is a convoluted joke, just like the rest of the nutritional science field. In few other fields can you find so many contradictory theories. Mainly due to the poor research methodologies.
It doesn't have to do with poor research methodologies specifically in the field of nutritional science, since they do not differ from other fields. It's just that people are easily exploited by the industry because they believe there is a cheat code in dealing with obesity and other food related diseases
Research methodologies in nutrition are almost universally underpowered for the results they claim. You'll very rarely find double-blind clinical trials with large numbers of participants, and since we know little of the possible confounding factors between individuals when it comes to nutrition, that's what you need.
Instead, most knowledge in nutrition comes either from extremely small clinical studies (often less than 50 people), often with co-morbidities such as obesity or diabetes or endocrine diseases; or from professional atheltics. Or, from huge national-level statistics that rely on interviews for self-reported diet information, and are thus forced to mix diet, diet perception, excersise levels, lifestyle (stress, sleep) and environmental factors in one big mess, out of which come recommendations like the mediteranean diet, instead of siesta or 5-7 weeks of vacation per year or year-round sun.
Instead, most knowledge in nutrition comes either from extremely small clinical studies (often less than 50 people), often with co-morbidities such as obesity or diabetes or endocrine diseases; or from professional atheltics. Or, from huge national-level statistics that rely on interviews for self-reported diet information, and are thus forced to mix diet, diet perception, excersise levels, lifestyle (stress, sleep) and environmental factors in one big mess, out of which come recommendations like the mediteranean diet, instead of siesta or 5-7 weeks of vacation per year or year-round sun.
Nutritional studies also frequently suffer from the healthy subject effect. Dietary is highly correlated with other behaviors in ways that are difficult to control for.
Since macronutrients are interchangeable to some degree, they could have written an article called "We don’t need nearly as much fat as we consume" or "We don’t need nearly as much carbs as we consume" as well.
These two paragraphs are very confusing:
> In the early 20th Century, Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent a collective five years eating just meat. This meant that his diet consisted of around 80% fat and 20% protein. Twenty years later, he did the same as part of a year-long experiment at the New York City’s Bellevue Hospital in 1928.
> Stefansson wanted to disprove those who argued that humans cannot survive if they only eat meat. But unfortunately for him, in both settings he very quickly became ill when he was eating lean meats without any fat. He developed "protein poisoning”, nicknamed “rabbit starvation”. His symptoms disappeared after he lowered his protein intake and he raised his fat intake. In fact, after returning to New York City and to a typical US diet with more normal levels of protein, he reportedly found his health deteriorating and returned to a low-carb, high fat, and high protein diet until his death aged 83.
This doesn't seem like an anecdote about too much protein, it seems like an anecdote about too little fat. Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning confirms that this is the right interpretation, and mentions (as this article does, later) that there is no point at which you can get poisoned by too much protein consumption, as long as you are also consuming enough fat.
Wikipedia goes into more detail about the experiment at Bellevue. The two types of diets he was on were a) all meat, with fat and b) all lean meat (analogous to eating solely rabbits, which are naturally lean and have little fat, hence the name). Diet A was fine; diet B was not.
The article's phrasing "a typical US diet with more normal levels of protein" implies that the levels were higher than his previous diet, which caused him problems again. It seems pretty implausible for the standard US diet of the '20s and '30s to be higher-protein than either of these all-meat diets! And the article does mention he returned to a "high protein" diet. It seems like the more reasonable reading is that the important part was that his diet was "low-carb, high fat," which the typical US diet was and is not.
> In the early 20th Century, Arctic explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent a collective five years eating just meat. This meant that his diet consisted of around 80% fat and 20% protein. Twenty years later, he did the same as part of a year-long experiment at the New York City’s Bellevue Hospital in 1928.
> Stefansson wanted to disprove those who argued that humans cannot survive if they only eat meat. But unfortunately for him, in both settings he very quickly became ill when he was eating lean meats without any fat. He developed "protein poisoning”, nicknamed “rabbit starvation”. His symptoms disappeared after he lowered his protein intake and he raised his fat intake. In fact, after returning to New York City and to a typical US diet with more normal levels of protein, he reportedly found his health deteriorating and returned to a low-carb, high fat, and high protein diet until his death aged 83.
This doesn't seem like an anecdote about too much protein, it seems like an anecdote about too little fat. Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning confirms that this is the right interpretation, and mentions (as this article does, later) that there is no point at which you can get poisoned by too much protein consumption, as long as you are also consuming enough fat.
Wikipedia goes into more detail about the experiment at Bellevue. The two types of diets he was on were a) all meat, with fat and b) all lean meat (analogous to eating solely rabbits, which are naturally lean and have little fat, hence the name). Diet A was fine; diet B was not.
The article's phrasing "a typical US diet with more normal levels of protein" implies that the levels were higher than his previous diet, which caused him problems again. It seems pretty implausible for the standard US diet of the '20s and '30s to be higher-protein than either of these all-meat diets! And the article does mention he returned to a "high protein" diet. It seems like the more reasonable reading is that the important part was that his diet was "low-carb, high fat," which the typical US diet was and is not.
How is the title accurate, when in the middle of the article there's this:
"Most experts agree with Tipton that protein is best consumed in food instead of supplements. But there are some exceptions, such as athletes who find it difficult to hit their daily protein targets, points out Graeme Close, professor of human physiology at Liverpool John Moores University. “I believe most need more than the recommended daily allowance, and there’s good evidence to support this,” he says. In this case, he says, a shake can be useful.
Another demographic who can benefit from extra protein? The elderly. That’s because as we age, we need more protein to retain muscle mass. But we also tend to eat less protein as we get older because our taste-buds begin to prefer sweet over savoury."
In my opinion there is no such thing as too much protein. You should have an estimate of how much calories you burn each day and eat accordingly. Supplements, like shakes, are just easier to consume since they're liquids, and some people have low appetite.
Most people should eat more protein and vegetables, but ditch any refined sugars, oils, processed food, and cook their meals instead of eating garbage snacks.
"Most experts agree with Tipton that protein is best consumed in food instead of supplements. But there are some exceptions, such as athletes who find it difficult to hit their daily protein targets, points out Graeme Close, professor of human physiology at Liverpool John Moores University. “I believe most need more than the recommended daily allowance, and there’s good evidence to support this,” he says. In this case, he says, a shake can be useful.
Another demographic who can benefit from extra protein? The elderly. That’s because as we age, we need more protein to retain muscle mass. But we also tend to eat less protein as we get older because our taste-buds begin to prefer sweet over savoury."
In my opinion there is no such thing as too much protein. You should have an estimate of how much calories you burn each day and eat accordingly. Supplements, like shakes, are just easier to consume since they're liquids, and some people have low appetite.
Most people should eat more protein and vegetables, but ditch any refined sugars, oils, processed food, and cook their meals instead of eating garbage snacks.
I don't understand why this is downvoted - not only is this correct, it's also in accordance with the experts quoted in the article.
> Fortunately, it’s difficult to have too much protein. While we do have an upper limit of protein intake, it’s “virtually impossible” to reach, says Tipton.
> Fortunately, it’s difficult to have too much protein. While we do have an upper limit of protein intake, it’s “virtually impossible” to reach, says Tipton.
What the body really needs is not processed foods, which are loaded with salt, sugar, and fat [0, 1]. Processed foods are what the world's largest food corporations need you to buy in order to generate profits that feed their businesses.
What the body needs is fresh foods - fruits, vegetables, grains, pulses, nuts and meat.
[0] https://www.penguin.com.au/books/salt-sugar-fat-978144813387...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eATmXufOvIk