How much protein should one consume?
Replies
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them
) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
There aren't any.2 -
Well, I was further behind in this thread than I realized.5
-
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.
Yes, @lynn_glenmont please post the URL and a screen shot of the ad because I turned off my blocker, checked at least three pages, and did not see any ads.
I clicked on a URL given up thread. https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
I don't generally leaves websites open in my browser that I don't know and trust, so even if I were willing to show the entire Internet my desktop, I can't show you a screen shot of the ad I saw before.
Right now I'm seeing an internal ad in that space for their own products (a guide to whey protein).
Everyone has to make their own judgments about what indicators give them more or less trust in seeing things on the Internet. My level of interest in convincing anyone else to choose the same indicators I have is fairly low in general. Since the question of whether someone needs more or less protein doesn't seem terribly high stakes for the vast majority of people, it hardly seems like it's worth any more energy.
0 -
You have unfairly criticized the site for supplement ads that don't exist and, even after proven wrong multiple times in multiple way by multiple people, still can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about supplement ads?
Use examine.com or not. Your choice. Nobody is forcing you. Many find their evidence based approach extremely unbiased and, as has been demonstrated beyond a doubt, uninfluenced by advertisers. Including useful info on protein intake.8 -
Lynn, I think it's time for new eyeglasses.
I agree that Examine is a good non-biased site. If you have a better source, let us know. I don't know why all the arguing though. The protein recommendations just about everywhere are the same.7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.
Yes, @lynn_glenmont please post the URL and a screen shot of the ad because I turned off my blocker, checked at least three pages, and did not see any ads.
I clicked on a URL given up thread. https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
I don't generally leaves websites open in my browser that I don't know and trust, so even if I were willing to show the entire Internet my desktop, I can't show you a screen shot of the ad I saw before.
Right now I'm seeing an internal ad in that space for their own products (a guide to whey protein).
Everyone has to make their own judgments about what indicators give them more or less trust in seeing things on the Internet. My level of interest in convincing anyone else to choose the same indicators I have is fairly low in general. Since the question of whether someone needs more or less protein doesn't seem terribly high stakes for the vast majority of people, it hardly seems like it's worth any more energy.
Links to other (related) articles on their site are not ads.
Also, calling an article about whey a "product" is a very loose definition of the word.
Seriously, if "you may also like our other article on a related topic" is a bias red flag for you, I can't imagine that there is any source of information anywhere on the planet that you would find trustworthy.3 -
7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.
Yes, @lynn_glenmont please post the URL and a screen shot of the ad because I turned off my blocker, checked at least three pages, and did not see any ads.
I clicked on a URL given up thread. https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
I don't generally leaves websites open in my browser that I don't know and trust, so even if I were willing to show the entire Internet my desktop, I can't show you a screen shot of the ad I saw before.
Right now I'm seeing an internal ad in that space for their own products (a guide to whey protein).
Everyone has to make their own judgments about what indicators give them more or less trust in seeing things on the Internet. My level of interest in convincing anyone else to choose the same indicators I have is fairly low in general. Since the question of whether someone needs more or less protein doesn't seem terribly high stakes for the vast majority of people, it hardly seems like it's worth any more energy.
I created this screenshot with the tool https://gyazo.com/ which allows you to access your last 10 captures for free. (You can save important ones for future reference. This link will continue to work, although I won't be able to access it directly via the interface after I make another 10 captures.)
I'm not sure that that can be classified as a conflict of interest, as one has to buy the guide, and at this point we don't know if the Definitive Guide to Whey Protein is actually recommending specific brands - it could be talking about types and sources of whey, best places to buy in general, etc. It may even say that chicken is a cheaper source of protein than whey. /shrug/6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
I created this screenshot with the tool https://gyazo.com/ which allows you to access your last 10 captures for free. (You can save important ones for future reference. This link will continue to work, although I won't be able to access it directly via the interface after I make another 10 captures.)
I'm not sure that that can be classified as a conflict of interest, as one has to buy the guide, and at this point we don't know if the Definitive Guide to Whey Protein is actually recommending specific brands - it could be talking about types and sources of whey, best places to buy in general, etc. It may even say that chicken is a cheaper source of protein than whey. /shrug/
I went one click further. Here is the actual ad where Examine is selling their guide, not a supplement
As an aside. Anyone who has a problem with free content on a website that occasionally promotes their paid content shouldn't be on MFP. Similar business model.7 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
I created this screenshot with the tool https://gyazo.com/ which allows you to access your last 10 captures for free. (You can save important ones for future reference. This link will continue to work, although I won't be able to access it directly via the interface after I make another 10 captures.)
I'm not sure that that can be classified as a conflict of interest, as one has to buy the guide, and at this point we don't know if the Definitive Guide to Whey Protein is actually recommending specific brands - it could be talking about types and sources of whey, best places to buy in general, etc. It may even say that chicken is a cheaper source of protein than whey. /shrug/
I went one click further. Here is the actual ad where Examine is selling their guide, not a supplement
As an aside. Anyone who has a problem with free content on a website that occasionally promotes their paid content shouldn't be on MFP. Similar business model.
I don't know...seems like the kind of information GNC would pay Examine to peddle. lol1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
I created this screenshot with the tool https://gyazo.com/ which allows you to access your last 10 captures for free. (You can save important ones for future reference. This link will continue to work, although I won't be able to access it directly via the interface after I make another 10 captures.)
I'm not sure that that can be classified as a conflict of interest, as one has to buy the guide, and at this point we don't know if the Definitive Guide to Whey Protein is actually recommending specific brands - it could be talking about types and sources of whey, best places to buy in general, etc. It may even say that chicken is a cheaper source of protein than whey. /shrug/
I went one click further. Here is the actual ad where Examine is selling their guide, not a supplement
As an aside. Anyone who has a problem with free content on a website that occasionally promotes their paid content shouldn't be on MFP. Similar business model.
I don't know...seems like the kind of information GNC would pay Examine to peddle. lol
4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
I created this screenshot with the tool https://gyazo.com/ which allows you to access your last 10 captures for free. (You can save important ones for future reference. This link will continue to work, although I won't be able to access it directly via the interface after I make another 10 captures.)
I'm not sure that that can be classified as a conflict of interest, as one has to buy the guide, and at this point we don't know if the Definitive Guide to Whey Protein is actually recommending specific brands - it could be talking about types and sources of whey, best places to buy in general, etc. It may even say that chicken is a cheaper source of protein than whey. /shrug/
I went one click further. Here is the actual ad where Examine is selling their guide, not a supplement
As an aside. Anyone who has a problem with free content on a website that occasionally promotes their paid content shouldn't be on MFP. Similar business model.
I don't know...seems like the kind of information GNC would pay Examine to peddle. lol
Yeah, I can see it: Painstakingly set up a high-effort, tenuous, low-probability-of-return business model, then torpedo the sucker like the adult equivalent of a toddler bashing over their lego tower.
Seems legit. 5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
I created this screenshot with the tool https://gyazo.com/ which allows you to access your last 10 captures for free. (You can save important ones for future reference. This link will continue to work, although I won't be able to access it directly via the interface after I make another 10 captures.)
I'm not sure that that can be classified as a conflict of interest, as one has to buy the guide, and at this point we don't know if the Definitive Guide to Whey Protein is actually recommending specific brands - it could be talking about types and sources of whey, best places to buy in general, etc. It may even say that chicken is a cheaper source of protein than whey. /shrug/
I went one click further. Here is the actual ad where Examine is selling their guide, not a supplement
As an aside. Anyone who has a problem with free content on a website that occasionally promotes their paid content shouldn't be on MFP. Similar business model.
I don't know...seems like the kind of information GNC would pay Examine to peddle. lol
5 -
So is the following a fair summary of the thread?
One user thinks we should all eat less than 50g of protein or so because we will probably pee the rest but it is not actually dangerous for most people to eat more.
Myself and some other people are saying 0.6g to 0.8g per lb of bodyweight at normal weight as a proxy for 0.8g to 1g per lb of lean mass at normal weight and a bit more or a bit less is not the end of the world. Go by preference, satiation, and not crowding out other also important macros and nutrients.
One person at least is saying 1g per lb of weight (though I believe they did say within the normal weight range)
Examine.com is a relatively credible source.
Lynn is currently getting flooded by Google ad-sense ads selling eyeglasses and protein powder!
Once she gets the new glasses she is going to smack us all upside the head for dangling her on a tightrope over shark infested waters; but she would still rather buy and eat fish, chicken or seitan as opposed to protein powder!12 -
Your own link says0.36g/lbs is not for sedentary persons only - that is a fabrication, it is nowhere mentioned in the governmental sites, as this one;
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/dietary-reference-intakes/tables/reference-values-macronutrients-dietary-reference-intakes-tables-2005.html#fn_t1b29
You weigh 140lbs? 50g will keep you up and running.
You are more muscular and weigh 180lbs? 65g will keep you up and running.
Now if you want to develop more muscular mass, you can guess that eating more of them will help you. Just a guess, though.
I think being muscular and engaging in the activities that maintain that state might fall under physiological, health and lifestyle characteristics.Note: These are reference values for normal, apparently healthy individuals eating a typical mixed North American diet. An individual may have physiological, health, or lifestyle characteristics that may require tailoring of specific nutrient values.
Are you really under the impression that there aren't any studies or guidelines in nutrition / dietician literature with different protein recommendations for people engaged in high activity like sports / athletics / fitness?4 -
There is no way anyone can state an average that people need to consume with any accuracy. It all depends on your lean mass or how much lean mass you want. 50 gm a day is one meal for me, I try to get 165 gm a day and that is barely enough to support my goal lbm weight.
You don’t just need protein to gain muscle, you need it to maintain muscle as well, it is especially important if you are in a calorie deficit.
I would not go any lower than .83 gm per pound of lean mass.1 -
Here is an interesting discussion all be it both a bit technical and a bit of a rant about others research, on how protein synthesis occurs not just in muscle fibers but in all connecting tissues and at about the same rate. I think the conclusion is more research needs to be done to fully understand the issue:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-requirements-athletes.html/1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.
Yes, @lynn_glenmont please post the URL and a screen shot of the ad because I turned off my blocker, checked at least three pages, and did not see any ads.
I clicked on a URL given up thread. https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
I don't generally leaves websites open in my browser that I don't know and trust, so even if I were willing to show the entire Internet my desktop, I can't show you a screen shot of the ad I saw before.
Right now I'm seeing an internal ad in that space for their own products (a guide to whey protein).
Everyone has to make their own judgments about what indicators give them more or less trust in seeing things on the Internet. My level of interest in convincing anyone else to choose the same indicators I have is fairly low in general. Since the question of whether someone needs more or less protein doesn't seem terribly high stakes for the vast majority of people, it hardly seems like it's worth any more energy.
Links to other (related) articles on their site are not ads.
Also, calling an article about whey a "product" is a very loose definition of the word.
Seriously, if "you may also like our other article on a related topic" is a bias red flag for you, I can't imagine that there is any source of information anywhere on the planet that you would find trustworthy.
If they're selling it, it's a product.0 -
You have unfairly criticized the site for supplement ads that don't exist and, even after proven wrong multiple times in multiple way by multiple people, still can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about supplement ads?
Use examine.com or not. Your choice. Nobody is forcing you. Many find their evidence based approach extremely unbiased and, as has been demonstrated beyond a doubt, uninfluenced by advertisers. Including useful info on protein intake.
SInce this is my exact position, I don't understand the ad hominem attacks.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »You have unfairly criticized the site for supplement ads that don't exist and, even after proven wrong multiple times in multiple way by multiple people, still can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about supplement ads?
Use examine.com or not. Your choice. Nobody is forcing you. Many find their evidence based approach extremely unbiased and, as has been demonstrated beyond a doubt, uninfluenced by advertisers. Including useful info on protein intake.
SInce this is my exact position, I don't understand the ad hominem attacks.
As compared to people attacking your family? Ad hominem means "to the person", generally being the speaker. So as you're using it as a qualifier, that's what it sounds like you'd be differentiating if you're trying to talk about someone attacking you.
Normally, the connotation of referencing ad hominem instead of saying "personal attacks" is invoking the ad hominem fallacy. Insulting or attacking someone, even directly, is not inherently an ad hominem fallacy. The fallacy is the improper reasoning of saying the argument itself is wrong because of the person. So there's a certain line between "you're wrong and your argument is wrong" and "you're wrong, therefore your argument is wrong". It really isn't an ad hominem to point out how you're wrong about a site to show you committed unfair criticism.
Funnily enough, saying a site is wrong because they have a conflict of interest (even a legitimate one) would be an ad hominem...7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »You have unfairly criticized the site for supplement ads that don't exist and, even after proven wrong multiple times in multiple way by multiple people, still can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about supplement ads?
Use examine.com or not. Your choice. Nobody is forcing you. Many find their evidence based approach extremely unbiased and, as has been demonstrated beyond a doubt, uninfluenced by advertisers. Including useful info on protein intake.
SInce this is my exact position, I don't understand the ad hominem attacks.
As pointed out, it is not an ad hominem attack at all. I find it totally lacking in integrity for you to criticize this site for ads they don't have and then when you are proven wrong to still dodge and deflect instead of just admitting it. You accused them of ads for supplements. They don't have any. They are selling their own research in order to sustain their business. I can't for the life of me understand how this undermines their credibility in any way. I guess pedants just need to pedant sometimes.
It's interesting how one's posts can reveal the nature of their character....4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »You have unfairly criticized the site for supplement ads that don't exist and, even after proven wrong multiple times in multiple way by multiple people, still can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about supplement ads?
Use examine.com or not. Your choice. Nobody is forcing you. Many find their evidence based approach extremely unbiased and, as has been demonstrated beyond a doubt, uninfluenced by advertisers. Including useful info on protein intake.
SInce this is my exact position, I don't understand the ad hominem attacks.
There comes a time just to say "oops - sorry I made a mistake".
And that time was a few pages ago!8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions