1 gram of protein per lbs myth
Replies
-
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
0 -
Even sans any exercise just the additional effect that protein has on satiety and total calorie consumption would be enough to justify recommending levels above the RDA for a lot of people, in my opinion.0
-
No it wouldn't.Just for what it's worth as I'm sharing this more for amusement: Since I'm of the belief that the RDA is just pathetic in it's recommendations for protein, I decided to ask Eric Helms. The way I phrased the question specifically was:
"Can you tell me a context or circumstance or population under which the RDA of protein is actually sufficient and appropriate"
I phrased it this way because for the life of me I couldn't come up with much in terms of a legitimate answer.
Erics reply:
"People with only 1 kidney"
Interesting. That would imply a recommendation of 2x the RDA for those who are intact.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »Well, yes. But they recommend that as a minimum because they see no need for much more. The end of that article puts it like this: "There’s no need to go overboard on protein. Though some studies show benefits of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets in the short term, avoiding fruits and whole grains means missing out on healthful fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients."
I'm not arguing against anyone's chosen level. I think there are all kinds of goals and schools of thought.
That's not what minimum means at all and that's not what that quote implies either.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant (full disclosure: I've only seen 1 of the 3 -- I'm aware of this from discussing it with Alan shortly after Menno wrote that blog post and Alan at the time mentioned the excluded studies).
I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a good set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.0 -
srs?FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »It's 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body mass.
and you got flagged for that...
It must be a "totes accurate" flag. Or just a flag troll.
Maybe some people think flagging a post is the same as "liking" a post? Or perhaps they think flagging it is like marking it to find again later?
Never mind... I just started the flag process to see what happens. It is quite clear that flagging is to be used for improper posts.
yup. She didn't warrant a flag for that. It's dumb.
The flag is gone. Poof. Disappeared. It's magic
I should flag it for the lulz.
You wouldn't dare
You know my style better than that... lol.
True but I like to think you are nicer than you come across in the forums… you know, giving you the benefit of the doubt
0 -
The other thing that's worth mentioning for context that was touched on earlier in this thread --- 1g/lb bodyweight for a lean person in an energy deficit trying to get leaner is probably quite reasonable and I wouldn't consider that absurd by any stretch. Less fat is available for fuel at that point (and therefore muscle becomes a more available fuel source) so it seems reasonable to me that going on the high end makes sense.
But making that same recommendation to an obese person and that starts to become ridiculous. Take a 300lb person for example who legitimately needs to lose 120lbs, and they are probably going to do just fine on 1g/lb goal weight or something similar. Fat is a very readily available fuel source and provided they are at least doing some form of exercise they're likely to have a much easier time to maintain LBM.
In fact in that circumstance I'd be leaning on protein primarily for satiation with LBM retention being an afterthought. But 300g in this situation would be silly most of the time, IMO.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant. I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references.
Did you read all of his references? If not, that's not a realistic claim. How do you know a set of information is good unless you read it?The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
Unfortunately, more current research on the same topic can absolutely make the older research irrelevant or invalid.
0 -
I did read the article but it's clearly coming from a bodybuilding stance, which is a unique one. I'm aware of the recs from that school of thought. What does if I read it matter? What is "not good enough" implying? That I'm looking for validation from you? Eat what you want, I don't care. Believe the sources you want. It's not an argument you can win. There are two schools of thought. They exist. Is that so troubling to you?WalkingAlong wrote: »
If you feel you're part of a special population with unique dietary needs that the US RDA and mainstream medicine ignores, by all means, use the information sources you choose. All I've done is mention that other recs exist.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I don't think you missed any special group for people who lift or for dieters. They don't break that out as a group needing special consideration so I imagine they assume we all follow the rec to include resistance training and/or it's not a special need.WalkingAlong wrote: »This is unpopular here but the mainstream medical community recommends around 50g a day for most adults.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/
Maybe I missed it but where exactly was the section that talks about individuals that practice resistance training and their recommended protein minimums?
Here's the groups you often see broken out as having special needs. Sometimes you also see a different rec for nursing mothers. But mostly it's by age and gender.
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
I'm not going to just accept a link and say "Well I assume they mean we don't need any thing different". The OP's link is much better and is actually widely accepted, not the 1g per lb of bodyweight which is just bro science tossed around in the gym or those that don't know better. I've heard it plenty of times.
You are saying if I feel I'm unique that I don't need to follow the US RDA go follow my link yet the link you provided does not even address resistance training, endurance training etc. You said yourself that you imagine they assume, assume, assumptions. Not good enough. It's as if you didn't even read the information in the OP.
0 -
How would you address the mainstream rec to eat a maximum of 35% protein?stevencloser wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »Well, yes. But they recommend that as a minimum because they see no need for much more. The end of that article puts it like this: "There’s no need to go overboard on protein. Though some studies show benefits of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets in the short term, avoiding fruits and whole grains means missing out on healthful fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients."
I'm not arguing against anyone's chosen level. I think there are all kinds of goals and schools of thought.
That's not what minimum means at all and that's not what that quote implies either.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein
0 -
That's 175 grams for someone at 2000 maintenance. Which is probably someone with less than 175 lbs of lean mass.WalkingAlong wrote: »
How would you address the mainstream rec to eat a maximum of 35% protein?stevencloser wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »Well, yes. But they recommend that as a minimum because they see no need for much more. The end of that article puts it like this: "There’s no need to go overboard on protein. Though some studies show benefits of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets in the short term, avoiding fruits and whole grains means missing out on healthful fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients."
I'm not arguing against anyone's chosen level. I think there are all kinds of goals and schools of thought.
That's not what minimum means at all and that's not what that quote implies either.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein0 -
This is an interesting definition.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/Dietary_Reference_Intakes.aspx
Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy people.0 -
"meet nutrient requirements" implies a minimalist approach.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »This is an interesting definition.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/Dietary_Reference_Intakes.aspx
Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy people.
Isn't that the same group that back in the 80's / 90's stated that people should eat a low-fat high carbohydrate diet and then the obesity rate in the US sky-rocketed?0 -
A gram per lb of body weight isn't common. I've never even heard it.
Me neither. It might be common in bro circles or among some lifting circles (I wouldn't know), but I've always heard 1 g/LBM if you are working out and trying to build muscle, or eating at a deficit and want to retain muscle. I'm a little skeptical that level is necessarily beneficial, but my feeling initially was can't hurt, and I've found my diet works better that way (in fact that would be less than 25% of my diet, and I find I naturally like eating about 30% protein most days at my current calorie level).
Probably more than anyone needed to know about me. ;-)0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »This is an interesting definition.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/Dietary_Reference_Intakes.aspx
Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy people.
Isn't that the same group that back in the 80's / 90's stated that people should eat a low-fat high carbohydrate diet and then the obesity rate in the US sky-rocketed?
I wonder how much lobbyist cash that lark took.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant. I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references.
Did you read all of his references? If not, that's not a realistic claim. How do you know a set of information is good unless you read it?The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
Unfortunately, more current research on the same topic can absolutely make the older research irrelevant or invalid.
Newer research should be taken into consideration with older research and the body of evidence should be evaluated as a whole to make conclusions. You don't simply discard research based on date.
Yes I have read all of his references. Why are you assuming otherwise?0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
How would you address the mainstream rec to eat a maximum of 35% protein?stevencloser wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »Well, yes. But they recommend that as a minimum because they see no need for much more. The end of that article puts it like this: "There’s no need to go overboard on protein. Though some studies show benefits of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets in the short term, avoiding fruits and whole grains means missing out on healthful fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients."
I'm not arguing against anyone's chosen level. I think there are all kinds of goals and schools of thought.
That's not what minimum means at all and that's not what that quote implies either.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein
It conflicts with the cherry picked "recommendation" of a flat 46g/56g (female/male) goal and your assertion that 46g/56g is the only thing these sources are saying. Unless a 525 calorie/day diet is appropriate (46g of protein is 35% of 525 cals). Or that RDA "says" no women need more than 1840 calories daily (10% of 1840 = 46g protein). I sure need much more than that, and I'm very average.
Clearly, your sources understand that different lifestyles and people require different amounts of protein, much exceeding the minimum RDA. But you are ignoring those parts.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.
I agree with you regarding the above for the record.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
How would you address the mainstream rec to eat a maximum of 35% protein?stevencloser wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »Well, yes. But they recommend that as a minimum because they see no need for much more. The end of that article puts it like this: "There’s no need to go overboard on protein. Though some studies show benefits of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets in the short term, avoiding fruits and whole grains means missing out on healthful fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients."
I'm not arguing against anyone's chosen level. I think there are all kinds of goals and schools of thought.
That's not what minimum means at all and that's not what that quote implies either.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein
That number is from the Institute of Health. If you look at their chart, it states that "no defined intake rate at which potential adverse effects of protein was identified" (in other words, that 35% was not chosen because more was believed to be detrimental) and instead that the upper end of the range was chosen simply to fit with the ranges identified for carbs and fat. The carbs range was 45-65%, but although a reason is given for the high end, I don't see one for the low end in the chart (I'm sure there's more in the report itself). I personally find 45% at the high end of what I like (I'm normally 40% or less). That kind of thing is probably related more broadly to the protein levels people like.
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Macronutrients.pdf
0 -
I wouldn't get too hung up on whether it is a myth or not -- the specific circumstances will dictate what an appropriate protein target would be for any given individual. For example, protein intake is more important to preserve lean mass when losing weight than it is when attempting to add mass. Especially when cutting, leanness of the individual, training experience, and severity of deficit all play a role in determining what might be an optimal protein target. See Helms' research detailed in the thread below -- finds that 1.1g - 1.4g per pound of lean body mass is appropriate for resistance-trained, adult individuals maintaining a calorie deficit and desiring to minimize loss of lean mass.
Thread: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1167386/review-of-dietary-protein-during-caloric-restriction/p1
Conclusion from the research abstract: "Protein needs for energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes are likely 2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness."
Sara devoted her 10,000th post or something along those lines to a detailed discussion of the same research (but I don't have the link handy). EDIT TO ADD: The Sara thread is actually linked in the first page of the thread I posted above. END EDIT
I think it's fine to recommend 1g per pound of body weight, especially for someone trying to lose fat and preserve lean mass.
It was my 20,000th post lol.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1158604
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant. I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references.
Did you read all of his references? If not, that's not a realistic claim. How do you know a set of information is good unless you read it?The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
Unfortunately, more current research on the same topic can absolutely make the older research irrelevant or invalid.
Newer research should be taken into consideration with older research and the body of evidence should be evaluated as a whole to make conclusions. You don't simply discard research based on date.
Yes I have read all of his references. Why are you assuming otherwise?
I don't disagree, but newer studies can correct for flaws in older research and make the older irrelevant. At one point there was research indicating that Creatine was harmful to the kidney's of healthy individuals and there is much more current research that that rebukes the older research.
I didn't assume anything, was curious as to how you formed your opinion.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm curious what would be recommended for adults who are in their 40s and beyond who are just trying to maintain muscle without necessarily training.I wouldn't get too hung up on whether it is a myth or not -- the specific circumstances will dictate what an appropriate protein target would be for any given individual. For example, protein intake is more important to preserve lean mass when losing weight than it is when attempting to add mass. Especially when cutting, leanness of the individual, training experience, and severity of deficit all play a role in determining what might be an optimal protein target. See Helms' research detailed in the thread below -- finds that 1.1g - 1.4g per pound of lean body mass is appropriate for resistance-trained, adult individuals maintaining a calorie deficit and desiring to minimize loss of lean mass.
Thread: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1167386/review-of-dietary-protein-during-caloric-restriction/p1
Conclusion from the research abstract: "Protein needs for energy-restricted resistance-trained athletes are likely 2.3-3.1g/kg of FFM scaled upwards with severity of caloric restriction and leanness."
Sara devoted her 10,000th post or something along those lines to a detailed discussion of the same research (but I don't have the link handy). EDIT TO ADD: The Sara thread is actually linked in the first page of the thread I posted above. END EDIT
I think it's fine to recommend 1g per pound of body weight, especially for someone trying to lose fat and preserve lean mass.
As far as I am aware, there is not that much out there other than indications that older people need bigger boluses (and for those people with dirty minds reading this...well, ohai!).
There have been review(s) of the RDA for older people - and the RDA was lacking based on the studi(es). Note: I need to find the links for the others before being vague if there is more than one. One study is linked below:
Note: the study was on 55 - 70 year olds, not 40 year olds, and as with all studies, it has its limitations, but it can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11382798
"These results suggest that the RDA for protein may not be adequate to completely meet the metabolic and physiological needs of virtually all older people."0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »This is unpopular here but the mainstream medical community recommends around 50g a day for most adults.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/
And not for people losing weight either.
Or particularly active. I cannot recall if it is mentioned in the blurb re setting of the RDA, but I know that the WHO mentions that it increases with activity.0 -
I think many are still ignoring the vital importance of context.
A minimum target of 1 gram per pound of body weight (or lbm if you like) may be absurdly high for an obese, non-trained, older female who, while not necessarily *encouraging* fat free mass losses, is nonetheless more concerned with simply losing weight, or lifestyle or diet choices etc. (i.e., where preservation of FFM is not a top priority).
A minimum target of 1 gram per pound of body weight (or lbm if you like) may actually be lower than optimal for a young, quite lean, resistance-trained athlete, especially where that athlete is making an aggressive cut to make weight or something.
Context people!
^^yep.
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant. I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references.
Did you read all of his references? If not, that's not a realistic claim. How do you know a set of information is good unless you read it?The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
Unfortunately, more current research on the same topic can absolutely make the older research irrelevant or invalid.
It may - but unless there is something out there that contradicts it, then just because something is older, does not make it invalid.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »If you're concerned about your protein go to PubMed or some other site that publishes primary or secondary peer-reviewed sources (the OP's link is neither of those two), and do a search for what your exercise and nutrition goals are see what you find.
But the site that the OP listed is referenced. Do you take issue with the references that Menno uses on his site?
Here's what I know. In my MS program I've had some very critical professors and if I used that site as a reference I would probably fail the paper, assignment, etc. Real research is a Peer Reviewed Primary or Secondary source. What Menno is presenting is somewhat of a Meta-Analysis but I doubt it's been reviewed accordingly. If he did it could be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning, JISSN, etc. It is purely Menno's interpretation of what he's reading. I'm not saying Menno is wrong, but his information is not absolute either.
Specific to his references, he should keep his references within 10-years unless there is absolutely nothing else available. He should find newer references for the 80's and 90's materials if available.
To my knowledge he's excluding 3 studies that exist on the topic that he didn't find relevant. I'm not sure of the reason behind it. He excluded Helms paper because it wasn't in print at the time he wrote that post.
Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references (ie not cherry picked strictly to support his stance).
Chances are that he extends the research as far as he does based on what is available, not because he's picking things that support his stance.
The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
I never said he's discriminating certain research to better fulfill his conclusions. Much of what he's stated does seems accurate as I've read similar research, but it's definitely not absolute and there are reasons to consider higher levels of protein; it's all within context of the group being evaluated.Beyond that though I think it's a very complete set of references.
Did you read all of his references? If not, that's not a realistic claim. How do you know a set of information is good unless you read it?The date of a paper doesn't necessarily mean the info in the paper is more or less relevant IMO.
Unfortunately, more current research on the same topic can absolutely make the older research irrelevant or invalid.
Newer research should be taken into consideration with older research and the body of evidence should be evaluated as a whole to make conclusions. You don't simply discard research based on date.
Yes I have read all of his references. Why are you assuming otherwise?
I don't disagree, but newer studies can correct for flaws in older research and make the older irrelevant. At one point there was research indicating that Creatine was harmful to the kidney's of healthy individuals and there is much more current research that that rebukes the older research.
I didn't assume anything, was curious as to how you formed your opinion.
They can do that with studies that are 2 years old just as easily as ones that are 20 years old.
Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.0 -
Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Now, many of the newer studies include some 'better' data, due to the passage of time and therefore technology. For example, better BF% assessments - it does not negate the older ones, but mitigates limitations.
It really depends. Newer could negate the older ones due to new information, better understanding of the topic. It could expand upon older research and provide new insight. Or it can provide something completely different that warrants further research. Think about stuff like DOM's. At one time the data said it was lactic acid build-up, now the data says it's micro-damage to the muscle tissue. There's probably little reason to look at the old data on that subject at this point. It really depends on what's being reviewed. I was surprised that such old information was used on the subject of protein when protein has been researched at nauseum over the last 10 years, there is so much current info out there.
Did not say that they could not.
Also, it may be been studied ad nauseum, but you need to ring fence to try to be applicable to the population you are looking at addressing. Can you point out studies that you think should have been included that were not?0 -
RDA is not a one-size fits all proposition. Your activity and needs will determine the best macro and micro nutrient value for you...Sedentary adults may not need as much, but bodybuilders, both figurative (weight lifters) and literal (pregnant women) need to fuel very specific tasks which use more protein, and therefore should have more in their diet.
The caloric needs of those two groups of people are also higher, so this doesn't mean skimping on other important nutrients. Just that protein is a macronutrient that is particularly in demand in those bodies.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions