Daily protein too high on MFP?

Sarauk2sf

Also, where are your sources that athletes are at just as high a risk for heart disease as anyone else unless they eat correctly?

Have not seen this question answered yet

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p4zeJHaVdSoJ:www.philmaffetone.com/files/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXVXd3gV4c7lB9R4JEfpPnfxdyO6r8QMH90wvcL-cb6yr1Y6uCTLFoSHRusJmUeJMRXAGCzOpDN0n6B3yaEAhN9oVy03bNdyCKM4QLlllRyFx8aTwT0hGKosYX0-4-hqnEfgJt&sig=AHIEtbQ3EBojVPib0icVGnIV4x_w28PVhA

That does not actually support what you say. There is no comparison showing athletes v non-athletes with a less nutrient dense or 'unhealthy' diet. .

Iron_Feline

Also, where are your sources that athletes are at just as high a risk for heart disease as anyone else unless they eat correctly?

Have not seen this question answered yet

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p4zeJHaVdSoJ:www.philmaffetone.com/files/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXVXd3gV4c7lB9R4JEfpPnfxdyO6r8QMH90wvcL-cb6yr1Y6uCTLFoSHRusJmUeJMRXAGCzOpDN0n6B3yaEAhN9oVy03bNdyCKM4QLlllRyFx8aTwT0hGKosYX0-4-hqnEfgJt&sig=AHIEtbQ3EBojVPib0icVGnIV4x_w28PVhA

Hmm no sources or references to where he got his information from.

Seem legit. :huh:

AnvilHead

Also, where are your sources that athletes are at just as high a risk for heart disease as anyone else unless they eat correctly?

Have not seen this question answered yet

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p4zeJHaVdSoJ:www.philmaffetone.com/files/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXVXd3gV4c7lB9R4JEfpPnfxdyO6r8QMH90wvcL-cb6yr1Y6uCTLFoSHRusJmUeJMRXAGCzOpDN0n6B3yaEAhN9oVy03bNdyCKM4QLlllRyFx8aTwT0hGKosYX0-4-hqnEfgJt&sig=AHIEtbQ3EBojVPib0icVGnIV4x_w28PVhA

That does not actually support what you say. There is no comparison showing athletes v non-athletes with a less nutrient dense or 'unhealthy' diet. .

CoachReddy

Also, where are your sources that athletes are at just as high a risk for heart disease as anyone else unless they eat correctly?

Have not seen this question answered yet

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p4zeJHaVdSoJ:www.philmaffetone.com/files/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXVXd3gV4c7lB9R4JEfpPnfxdyO6r8QMH90wvcL-cb6yr1Y6uCTLFoSHRusJmUeJMRXAGCzOpDN0n6B3yaEAhN9oVy03bNdyCKM4QLlllRyFx8aTwT0hGKosYX0-4-hqnEfgJt&sig=AHIEtbQ3EBojVPib0icVGnIV4x_w28PVhA

That does not actually support what you say. There is no comparison showing athletes v non-athletes with a less nutrient dense or 'unhealthy' diet. .

be happy you got that much. i was about to just say Darryl Kile and let it be.

it talks about fitness vs. health - which is what I'm constantly talking about with folks like you who think the two words are interchangeable.

trojanbb

Also, where are your sources that athletes are at just as high a risk for heart disease as anyone else unless they eat correctly?

Have not seen this question answered yet

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p4zeJHaVdSoJ:www.philmaffetone.com/files/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXVXd3gV4c7lB9R4JEfpPnfxdyO6r8QMH90wvcL-cb6yr1Y6uCTLFoSHRusJmUeJMRXAGCzOpDN0n6B3yaEAhN9oVy03bNdyCKM4QLlllRyFx8aTwT0hGKosYX0-4-hqnEfgJt&sig=AHIEtbQ3EBojVPib0icVGnIV4x_w28PVhA

That does not actually support what you say. There is no comparison showing athletes v non-athletes with a less nutrient dense or 'unhealthy' diet. .

be happy you got that much. i was about to just say Darryl Kile and let it be.

it talks about fitness vs. health - which is what I'm constantly talking about with folks like you who think the two words are interchangeable.

ummm. this is a bit ironic coming from the guy that continuously conflates dieting for optimal body composition and "health".

Sarauk2sf

Also, where are your sources that athletes are at just as high a risk for heart disease as anyone else unless they eat correctly?

Have not seen this question answered yet

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p4zeJHaVdSoJ:www.philmaffetone.com/files/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXVXd3gV4c7lB9R4JEfpPnfxdyO6r8QMH90wvcL-cb6yr1Y6uCTLFoSHRusJmUeJMRXAGCzOpDN0n6B3yaEAhN9oVy03bNdyCKM4QLlllRyFx8aTwT0hGKosYX0-4-hqnEfgJt&sig=AHIEtbQ3EBojVPib0icVGnIV4x_w28PVhA

That does not actually support what you say. There is no comparison showing athletes v non-athletes with a less nutrient dense or 'unhealthy' diet. .

be happy you got that much. i was about to just say Darryl Kile and let it be.

it talks about fitness vs. health - which is what I'm constantly talking about with folks like you who think the two words are interchangeable.

First of all, when have I said that?

Secondly....neh.....still waiting for you to actually back up your statement
I do find the site amusing though as a source of reference - maybe it's in one of the CDs he sells.

http://www.philmaffetone.com/home.cfm

mmapags

Also, where are your sources that athletes are at just as high a risk for heart disease as anyone else unless they eat correctly?

Have not seen this question answered yet

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:p4zeJHaVdSoJ:www.philmaffetone.com/files/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXVXd3gV4c7lB9R4JEfpPnfxdyO6r8QMH90wvcL-cb6yr1Y6uCTLFoSHRusJmUeJMRXAGCzOpDN0n6B3yaEAhN9oVy03bNdyCKM4QLlllRyFx8aTwT0hGKosYX0-4-hqnEfgJt&sig=AHIEtbQ3EBojVPib0icVGnIV4x_w28PVhA

That does not actually support what you say. There is no comparison showing athletes v non-athletes with a less nutrient dense or 'unhealthy' diet. .

Lol, so true!! And so typical. Sad really.

MoreBean13

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

CoachReddy

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

TR0berts

Pro Tip: Not everything is about you.

CoachReddy

Pro Tip: Not everything is about you.

haha fair enough. it was just odd timing because i recently changed my protein settings AND i'm taking in 100-120g. my bad.

TR0berts

Good to see you can take a joke.

Sarauk2sf

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

CoachReddy

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

Mine's only that high because of how many calories I need to eat daily. There's a big difference between someone eating 3,200 calories and taking in 120g of protein vs someone who eats 1,400 cal and 120g of protein.

trojanbb

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

Mine's only that high because of how many calories I need to eat daily. There's a big difference between someone eating 3,200 calories and taking in 120g of protein vs someone who eats 1,400 cal and 120g of protein.

Actually, no, there isn't. Especially in the context of every "study" you have given thus far. For cancer growth/reduction, kidney health, etc it would be the actual amount of protein consumed, not macro ratio.

It's not like your kidney suddenly becomes more efficient because your ratio to carbs/fats changes. Or the cancer for that matter. Of course, I reject the idea that protein even negatively affects health except for kidney health when protein is mega dosed (400+g protein).

Furthermore, all the science I've seen and every plausible argument leads me to believe health markers would be better in your 1400cal with 120g protein person than yours, holding all else constant.

CoachReddy

You yourself changed the protein setting to a %age of your calories. IMO 100-120 grams of protein is a good target for most active women.

Did not read thread, sorry if this answer has already been addressed. :laugh:

huh?

yeah my protein is set at 15% right now and I'm seeing how that works. also - I only weigh 140ish, so 120g is fine.

So using rough math - that's about 1g of protein per lb of LBM which is what everyone was actually suggesting in the first place (getting it back to the actual OP)

Mine's only that high because of how many calories I need to eat daily. There's a big difference between someone eating 3,200 calories and taking in 120g of protein vs someone who eats 1,400 cal and 120g of protein.

Actually, no, there isn't. Especially in the context of every "study" you have given thus far. For cancer growth/reduction, kidney health, etc it would be the actual amount of protein consumed, not macro ratio.

It's not like your kidney suddenly becomes more efficient because your ratio to carbs/fats changes. Or the cancer for that matter. Of course, I reject the idea that protein even negatively affects health except for kidney health when protein is mega dosed (400+g protein).

Furthermore, all the science I've seen and every plausible argument leads me to believe health markers would be better in your 1400cal with 120g protein than yours, holding all else constant.

it's all completely relative. I'm not talking about two identical people eating 3,200 cal vs. 1,400. The amount of protein your kidneys can deal with changes depending on how big you are, your age, etc. there are a ton of factors. a 5 foot woman weighing 100 pounds compared to a 5'7" guy weighing 140 compared to a 6'5" guy weighing 270 will all require different amounts of protein... and different calorie intakes...

the studies I've referenced (The China Study for instance) talk about protein as a % of calorie intake.

trojanbb

a 5 foot woman weighing 100 pounds compared to a 5'7" guy weighing 140 compared to a 6'5" guy weighing 270 will all require different amounts of protein... and different calorie intakes...

of course. and the kidney takes much more abuse on that 260lb guy than the 100lb girl. Regardless of the fact that that guy needs more protein to support his much larger body.

etoiles_argentees

That's it, you mentioned China Study 3 times. Wall! Read it!

CandiSki

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.

^This^ However, the study (The China Study) named animal protein the culprit. Watch the documentary Forks over Knives (You can find it on Netflix). It will open your eyes to the effects of animal protein on your body.

^^^^^^^^^^^^Yup, totally agree that watching Forks over Knives can change a lot of perspectives on protein intake.

Also, I took an applied nutrition class when I was in college and there is a formula that can be used to calculate your protein intake based on weight and activity level. I will find the book later when I get home from work (still have the book because I thought it would be helpful to go over later on in life, which has proven to be the case) and re edit this. I calculated mine a couple of days ago and the most protein I can have for my body weight is around 83 grams, weighing 179 lbs.

CoachReddy

a 5 foot woman weighing 100 pounds compared to a 5'7" guy weighing 140 compared to a 6'5" guy weighing 270 will all require different amounts of protein... and different calorie intakes...

of course. and the kidney takes much more abuse on that 260lb guy than the 100lb girl. Regardless of the fact that that guy needs more protein to support his much larger body.

right. which was my point originally.