High protein?

2

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    The country did not actually do low fat.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,943 Member
    How do I get in my protein without affing a lot of cholesterol and sodium. Seems like peanut butter, seafood, and chicken is high in sodium and cholesterol. I went over in my cholesterol yesterday for having just 2 eggs with breakfast 😶

    There is absolutely no cholesterol in peanut butter, unless you've found some brand that adds lard. You can buy peanut butter that is just ground peanuts, no added salt. Of course, the real problem is that peanut butter is more of a fat source than a protein source.

    Chicken breast and other lean meats are not particularly high in cholesterol, and if you buy raw cuts from the market, you can control how much salt gets added (there's not much sodium in the raw poultry or meat). Just don't buy brined. Fish is another option.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,413 Member
    Skim milk has 8g of protein for 83 calories very little cholesterol or soduim
  • patrickaa5
    patrickaa5 Posts: 70 Member

    Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?

    “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    patrickaa5 wrote: »

    Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?

    “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”

    At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
  • patrickaa5
    patrickaa5 Posts: 70 Member
    patrickaa5 wrote: »

    Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?

    “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”

    At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.

    True. At some point we just have to decide what we want to choose to believe, because there will always be studies, evidence, opinions that state what we believe isn't right - no matter what.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    patrickaa5 wrote: »
    patrickaa5 wrote: »

    Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?

    “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”

    At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.

    True. At some point we just have to decide what we want to choose to believe, because there will always be studies, evidence, opinions that state what we believe isn't right - no matter what.

    Yes, but my point was more that there are solid criteria that can help us decide what information is more reliable than other information. We aren't "just deciding" what to believe, we can set parameters that help us evaluate contradictory information.
  • patrickaa5
    patrickaa5 Posts: 70 Member
    I agree. By "deciding", I'm assuming one does the best due diligence they can do with their given level of ability. I've read tons of studies. Many seem to be very plausible and well controlled with few conflicts of interest. Others are often selling a book - which I tend to discount to some degree. But, in the end, we have to "decide" what to believe. And, there is a decent chance we've decided wrongly. There. I've depressed myself. Back to the Twinkie diet.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,413 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    patrickaa5 wrote: »

    Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?

    “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”

    At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.

    Yeah, peer review doesn't mean the conclusion of a study is settled science. If a study is published and peer reviewed, it means it met basic criteria and is open for others to review the data. Other researchers can review it and decide the study missed something important. You are looking for a preponderance of research and data. One study doesn't really determine anything.

    Let's say a peer reviewed study of 25 men in Finland draws a correlation between blueberry consumption and lung cancer. Sure, someone who has a thing against blueberries can cite this as proof blueberries are evil. But where the actual science comes in is if this result can be duplicated and expanded. If no other studies show the correlation, and research papers find no cancer causing compounds in blueberries, then someone who understands the scientific process is going to keep eating blueberries.

    While there is a lot of noise in nutrition science, most of it is just theories based on lone wolf studies or research and over-dramatized by snake oil salesmen and the media. Reading the parameters of a study, matching the results to the conclusions drawn, and looking for duplication go a long way to weeding out a lot of it.

    Unfortunately the average American adult reads at a 7/8th grade level hence the snake oil salesmen have a field day