Another IIFYM post?
Replies
-
At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
That sounds like too much protein for most people. Bodybuilders may need that much, but the average person does not. If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys .8 to 1 gram per kg of body weight or 25% of calories is probably safer for most people.
There is no kidney issue with this level of protein consumption is someone who does not have pre-existing kidney issues. If you believe there is, please cite proof sources. Additionally, my statement was "as a general rule" with the understanding that you may vary up or down from this based on your goals as I also stated.
And I disagree that it's a good "general rule". A general rule should be something that is generally safe for the masses. I've never seen evidence that eating that much protein would be safe for everyone without a pre-existing condition. Have you?
I sure have. See the sources in Acg's post above. So, you can disagree all you want but it is only your opinion unless you have better proof sources. That general rule is 'safe for the masses".
I saw his sources and I don't disagree. They say there is no evidence that it will cause damage, which is not the same as saying there is evidence that it won't cause damage.0 -
??? I am not talking about the govt or carbs.
Well, if you're not eating as much protein, it's got to come from fat or carbs.
Of course.0 -
While I agree that protein suggestions are usually higher than most need, but assuming no pre existing kidney conditions there isn't much evidence of damage from high protein intakes
High-Protein Weight Loss Diets and Purported Adverse Effects: Where is the Evidence? Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2004, 1:45-51 doi:10.1186/1550-2783-1-1-45
http://www.jissn.com/content/1/1/45#B4Indeed, the recent study Dawson-Hughes et al. did not confirm the perception that increased dietary protein results in urinary calcium loss.[36] According to Dawson-Hughes et al., "Theconstellation of findings that meat supplements containing 55 g/d protein, when exchanged for carbohydrate did not significantlyincrease urinary calcium excretion and were associated withhigher levels of serum IGF-I and lower levels of the bone resorption marker, N-telopeptide, together with a lack of significant correlationof urinary N-telopeptide with urinary calcium excretion in thehigh protein group (in contrast to the low protein) point tothe possibility that higher meat intake may potentially improvebone mass in many older men and women."
Finally, the cross-cultural and population studies that showed a positive association between animal-protein intake and hip fracture risk did not consider other lifestyle or dietary factors that may protect or increase the risk of fracture.[35] It is of some interest that the author of the most cited paper favoring the earlier hypothesis that high-protein intake promotes osteoporosis no longer believes that protein is harmful to bone.[34] In fact, he concluded that the balance of the evidence seems to indicate the opposite.Despite its role in nitrogen excretion, there are presently no data in the scientific literature demonstrating the healthy kidney will be damaged by the increased demands of protein consumed in quantities above the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). Furthermore, real world examples support this contention since kidney problems are nonexistent in the bodybuilding community in which high-protein intake has been the norm for over half a century.[3] Recently, Walser published comprehensive review on protein intake and renal function, which states: "it is clear that protein restriction does not prevent decline in renal function with age, and, in fact, is the major cause of that decline. A better way to prevent the decline would be to increase protein intake. there is no reason to restrict protein intake in healthy individuals in order to protect the kidney."[4]
Dietary protein intake and renal function. Nutrition & Metabolism 2005, 2:25 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-2-25
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/25Conclusion
Although excessive protein intake remains a health concern in individuals with pre-existing renal disease, the literature lacks significant research demonstrating a link between protein intake and the initiation or progression of renal disease in healthy individuals. More importantly, evidence suggests that protein-induced changes in renal function are likely a normal adaptative mechanism well within the functional limits of a healthy kidney. Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.[
I agree that there isn't much evidence showing kidney damage from overly high protein, but there also isn't much evidence showing no damage. This is why I say it's safer not to eat much more than your body actually uses. What can I say? I'm not a gambler.
And when I stated a general rule depending on your goals, if you are working out less, eat less protein, if you are working out more eat at that level or more. Simple for most with basic reading comprehension skills. If you chose do do less than that, that is your prerogative. But, I wouldn't call eating this much protein a gamble by any stretch.0 -
While I agree that protein suggestions are usually higher than most need, but assuming no pre existing kidney conditions there isn't much evidence of damage from high protein intakes
High-Protein Weight Loss Diets and Purported Adverse Effects: Where is the Evidence? Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2004, 1:45-51 doi:10.1186/1550-2783-1-1-45
http://www.jissn.com/content/1/1/45#B4Indeed, the recent study Dawson-Hughes et al. did not confirm the perception that increased dietary protein results in urinary calcium loss.[36] According to Dawson-Hughes et al., "Theconstellation of findings that meat supplements containing 55 g/d protein, when exchanged for carbohydrate did not significantlyincrease urinary calcium excretion and were associated withhigher levels of serum IGF-I and lower levels of the bone resorption marker, N-telopeptide, together with a lack of significant correlationof urinary N-telopeptide with urinary calcium excretion in thehigh protein group (in contrast to the low protein) point tothe possibility that higher meat intake may potentially improvebone mass in many older men and women."
Finally, the cross-cultural and population studies that showed a positive association between animal-protein intake and hip fracture risk did not consider other lifestyle or dietary factors that may protect or increase the risk of fracture.[35] It is of some interest that the author of the most cited paper favoring the earlier hypothesis that high-protein intake promotes osteoporosis no longer believes that protein is harmful to bone.[34] In fact, he concluded that the balance of the evidence seems to indicate the opposite.Despite its role in nitrogen excretion, there are presently no data in the scientific literature demonstrating the healthy kidney will be damaged by the increased demands of protein consumed in quantities above the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). Furthermore, real world examples support this contention since kidney problems are nonexistent in the bodybuilding community in which high-protein intake has been the norm for over half a century.[3] Recently, Walser published comprehensive review on protein intake and renal function, which states: "it is clear that protein restriction does not prevent decline in renal function with age, and, in fact, is the major cause of that decline. A better way to prevent the decline would be to increase protein intake. there is no reason to restrict protein intake in healthy individuals in order to protect the kidney."[4]
Dietary protein intake and renal function. Nutrition & Metabolism 2005, 2:25 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-2-25
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/25Conclusion
Although excessive protein intake remains a health concern in individuals with pre-existing renal disease, the literature lacks significant research demonstrating a link between protein intake and the initiation or progression of renal disease in healthy individuals. More importantly, evidence suggests that protein-induced changes in renal function are likely a normal adaptative mechanism well within the functional limits of a healthy kidney. Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.[
I agree that there isn't much evidence showing kidney damage from overly high protein, but there also isn't much evidence showing no damage. This is why I say it's safer not to eat much more than your body actually uses. What can I say? I'm not a gambler.
And when I stated a general rule depending on your goals, if you are working out less, eat less protein, if you are working out more eat at that level or more. Simple for most with basic reading comprehension skills. If you chose do do less than that, that is your prerogative. But, I wouldn't call eating this much protein a gamble by any stretch.
Then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. On both that "if you workout less (than what??) this "general" rule would not apply to you" was easy to infer from your post and that eating above medical recommendations without a specific need (such as body building) is a gamble.0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
That sounds like too much protein for most people. Bodybuilders may need that much, but the average person does not. If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys .8 to 1 gram per kg of body weight or 25% of calories is probably safer for most people.
There is no kidney issue with this level of protein consumption is someone who does not have pre-existing kidney issues. If you believe there is, please cite proof sources. Additionally, my statement was "as a general rule" with the understanding that you may vary up or down from this based on your goals as I also stated.
And I disagree that it's a good "general rule". A general rule should be something that is generally safe for the masses. I've never seen evidence that eating that much protein would be safe for everyone without a pre-existing condition. Have you?
I sure have. See the sources in Acg's post above. So, you can disagree all you want but it is only your opinion unless you have better proof sources. That general rule is 'safe for the masses".
I saw his sources and I don't disagree. They say there is no evidence that it will cause damage, which is not the same as saying there is evidence that it won't cause damage.0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.
Again, your opinion. You have lot's of opinions. You don't seem to have any facts though.0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.
Of course, there are no guarantees but trying to prove a negative is never really viable - like having to try to prove that Santa does not exist. You would be at that one for a long *kitten* time...
I think it should be remembered that RDA allowances assume one thing: a maintenance diet. I think that the general protein RDA for a reasonably healthy and average adult who isn't engaged in vigorous exercise is about right and consuming more than that isn't really necessary (although I have seen nothing to suggest it is actually harmful.)
Things change when you factor in a calorie deficit, particularly the steeper it gets and the more regular exercise comes into play. Then increased protein consumption becomes much more important. Conversely if a person is bulking (a much smaller % of people) with a view to maximising muscle gains then it becomes important as well.
Having said that I have seen some absolutely ludicrous suggestions for protein requirements in the above categories which I think are more about psychology than physiology.0 -
At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
Thank you
0 -
At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
Thank you 0 -
Bump....great as usual0
-
Who is this "SideSteel" and where does he get his information????
0 -
Great Post.0
-
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.
Again, your opinion. You have lot's of opinions. You don't seem to have any facts though.
From Acg's post:
Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.
So, there's my (stolen) "fact" that there is a lack of evidence showing eating well above medical recommendations for protein intake is safe. Care to share yours that says it is safe?0 -
:drinker:??? I am not talking about the govt or carbs.
Well, if you're not eating as much protein, it's got to come from fat or carbs.
Also the protein recommendations you were talking bcattoes, are designed by government bodies. Hence I made the link.0 -
At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
That sounds like too much protein for most people. Bodybuilders may need that much, but the average person does not. If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys .8 to 1 gram per kg of body weight or 25% of calories is probably safer for most people.
I would say that its's *WAY* too much protein for obese people. It should go by lean body mass, not body weight. Fat does not need protein, it needs burning.0 -
At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
That sounds like too much protein for most people. Bodybuilders may need that much, but the average person does not. If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys .8 to 1 gram per kg of body weight or 25% of calories is probably safer for most people.
I would say that its's *WAY* too much protein for obese people. It should go by lean body mass, not body weight. Fat does not need protein, it needs burning.
Please note: what I posted was "1 gram per pound of lean body mass".0 -
...
I think it should be remembered that RDA allowances assume one thing: a maintenance diet. I think that the general protein RDA for a reasonably healthy and average adult who isn't engaged in vigorous exercise is about right and consuming more than that isn't really necessary (although I have seen nothing to suggest it is actually harmful.)
Things change when you factor in a calorie deficit, particularly the steeper it gets and the more regular exercise comes into play. Then increased protein consumption becomes much more important. Conversely if a person is bulking (a much smaller % of people) with a view to maximising muscle gains then it becomes important as well.
Having said that I have seen some absolutely ludicrous suggestions for protein requirements in the above categories which I think are more about psychology than physiology.
^^^ THIS0 -
At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
That sounds like too much protein for most people. Bodybuilders may need that much, but the average person does not. If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys .8 to 1 gram per kg of body weight or 25% of calories is probably safer for most people.
I would say that its's *WAY* too much protein for obese people. It should go by lean body mass, not body weight. Fat does not need protein, it needs burning.
Please note: what I posted was "1 gram per pound of lean body mass".
I may have confused "who-said-what" here, but my point is still valid. For an obese person, it should be based on lean body mass, not total body weight. ( No matter who said what.) 0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.
Again, your opinion. You have lot's of opinions. You don't seem to have any facts though.
From Acg's post:
Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.
So, there's my (stolen) "fact" that there is a lack of evidence showing eating well above medical recommendations for protein intake is safe. Care to share yours that says it is safe?
I'd use the same quote. " At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function." You chose to interpret that based on your clearly stated bias as saying there might be but this study didn't prove it. I'm taking it at face value. We all have choices to make. You are making your and I am making mine. This quote in no way is a proof source that protien is an issue with renal function quite the opposite.
So, what is your postive proof source that it does?? In other words, put up or .......0 -
Awesome post!0
-
At the risk of sounding dumb... I read through the pages & couldn't figure out the answer... but how do you figure out WHAT your macros should be? Is it what MFP originally gives you? Does it change as your body fat % does?
It does not change as your body fat changes. As a general rule, your priorities are as follows: protein: 1 gram per lb of lean body mass, fat .35 to .4 grams per lb of body weight, carbs for the balance. This may vary with your goals but is a decent starting point.
That sounds like too much protein for most people. Bodybuilders may need that much, but the average person does not. If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys .8 to 1 gram per kg of body weight or 25% of calories is probably safer for most people.
I would say that its's *WAY* too much protein for obese people. It should go by lean body mass, not body weight. Fat does not need protein, it needs burning.
Please note: what I posted was "1 gram per pound of lean body mass".
I may have confused "who-said-what" here, but my point is still valid. For an obese person, it should be based on lean body mass, not total body weight. ( No matter who said what.)
Then we are in agreement!0 -
Who is this "SideSteel" and where does he get his information????
Sidesteel is a WIZARD! lol0 -
bump...cause i need to understand this stuff0
-
Then we are in agreement!
K! 0 -
Who is this "SideSteel" and where does he get his information????
Sidesteel is a WIZARD! lol
I heard he has a magic wand...0 -
Who is this "SideSteel" and where does he get his information????
Sidesteel is a WIZARD! lol
I heard he has a magic wand...
You don't say!!0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.
Again, your opinion. You have lot's of opinions. You don't seem to have any facts though.
From Acg's post:
Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.
So, there's my (stolen) "fact" that there is a lack of evidence showing eating well above medical recommendations for protein intake is safe. Care to share yours that says it is safe?
I'd use the same quote. " At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function." You chose to interpret that based on your clearly stated bias as saying there might be but this study didn't prove it. I'm taking it at face value. We all have choices to make. You are making your and I am making mine. This quote in no way is a proof source that protien is an issue with renal function quite the opposite.
So, what is your postive proof source that it does?? In other words, put up or .......
I never said it does.0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.
Again, your opinion. You have lot's of opinions. You don't seem to have any facts though.
From Acg's post:
Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.
So, there's my (stolen) "fact" that there is a lack of evidence showing eating well above medical recommendations for protein intake is safe. Care to share yours that says it is safe?
I'd use the same quote. " At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function." You chose to interpret that based on your clearly stated bias as saying there might be but this study didn't prove it. I'm taking it at face value. We all have choices to make. You are making your and I am making mine. This quote in no way is a proof source that protien is an issue with renal function quite the opposite.
So, what is your postive proof source that it does?? In other words, put up or .......
I never said it does.
"If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys" Quoted from your original post. So what is your data source and at exactly what level of protein intake vs. exercise does this overtasking of the kidneys occur?
Are you so busy being oppositional based on your, as yet, unfounded opinions that you don't even remember what you said?? You didn't say it might. You didn't say it possible could. You said what is quoted above and despite multiple requests, you have yet to back it up.
One can only assume that you are duckiing and dodging and trying to shift the debate because you can't. Fair enough. Just admit it's only your opinion and you might be wrong about it and move on. Simple really. And far less time consuming.0 -
Again, reading comprehension. If it shows no evidence then that is evidece by defination of a lack of a problem. Do you have anything but your own opinion to back up your statements? If so, do share by all means! If not, your "opinion" is duly noted.
So, a lack of study on a subject = proof that said subject is safe? Sorry, I'll have to disagree again.
Again, your opinion. You have lot's of opinions. You don't seem to have any facts though.
From Acg's post:
Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.
So, there's my (stolen) "fact" that there is a lack of evidence showing eating well above medical recommendations for protein intake is safe. Care to share yours that says it is safe?
I'd use the same quote. " At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function." You chose to interpret that based on your clearly stated bias as saying there might be but this study didn't prove it. I'm taking it at face value. We all have choices to make. You are making your and I am making mine. This quote in no way is a proof source that protien is an issue with renal function quite the opposite.
So, what is your postive proof source that it does?? In other words, put up or .......
I never said it does.
"If you don't use all that protein it's just going to overtask your kidneys" Quoted from your original post. So what is your data source and at exactly what level of protein intake vs. exercise does this overtasking of the kidneys occur?
Are you so busy being oppositional based on your, as yet, unfounded opinions that you don't even remember what you said?? You didn't say it might. You didn't say it possible could. You said what is quoted above and despite multiple requests, you have yet to back it up.
One can only assume that you are duckiing and dodging and trying to shift the debate because you can't. Fair enough. Just admit it's only your opinion and you might be wrong about it and move on. Simple really. And far less time consuming.
Overtasking your kidneys does not necessarily mean damage. I have no need to duck or dodge anything. I stand by my original point which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp. There is no evidence that it is safe to eat as much extra protein (i.e. protein your body won't use) as you suggest, and lack of evidence that something is unsafe =/= evidence that it is safe. So, I still say without a specific need to eat so much protein it is safer not to do so. Agree or disagree, I won't hijack this thread and argue the point anymore.
I think we have more than made my point that figuring out what those macros may be the most difficult part of IIFYM.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions