How much protein should one consume?

13»

Replies

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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 :lol: ) 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.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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 :lol: ) 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.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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 :lol: ) 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.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    earlnabby 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
    fhcvfbpsyb28.jpg


    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
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    earlnabby 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
    fhcvfbpsyb28.jpg


    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

    giphy.gif
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    saintor1 wrote: »
    0.36g/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.
    Your own link says
    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.
    I think being muscular and engaging in the activities that maintain that state might fall under physiological, health and lifestyle characteristics.
    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?
  • McBurnsalot
    McBurnsalot Posts: 14 Member
    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.
  • erjones11
    erjones11 Posts: 422 Member
    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/
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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 :lol: ) 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.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    mmapags 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.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    edited February 2020
    mmapags 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....