Daily protein too high on MFP?
Replies
-
Okay guys, I didn't mean for this to turn into a giant debate. As far as getting my sources from "they" and the internet, the FDA says at least 50 grams. And Mayo Clinic say 10-35%.
When I started this question I hadn't seen the 10-35% information, just one source that said 46, which is why MFP's recommendation of 120 seemed so high. Now I know that I should get between 40 and 120 grams.
Again, MFP's recommendation isn't high. You changed your goals manually, changed them away from MFP's recommendations.
MFP's standard recommendations are 55% carbs, 15% protein, 30% fat. At 1600 calories thats only 60 grams of protein. You would have to be eating over 3000 calories to get a recommendation from MFP for 120 g of protein per day.
Or if you custom change your macros...
Yes, that was what I was getting at. Long shift = incomplete posts. It made sense in my head.0 -
I don't know what the perfect level of protein intake is, but you can absolutely get too much. If you get too much protein it can lead to renal failure, particularly if you don't drink enough water.
Not if you have no medical issue that requires you to limit protein such as already existing kidney issues.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-controversies.html
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne38.htm0 -
I think it may have something to do with the fact that he's only 66 years old and still SHOULD be alive...why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?
you realize he had a massive heart attack right? and eating a plant-based diet has been proven to reverse heart disease.0 -
Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
www.uni.edu/dolgener/Advanced_Sport.../protein_intake.pdfSince there is evidence that protein intakes above the RDA may be beneficial to athletes, a risk–benefit analysis may be useful. An important consideration is the potential harm that may arise from elevated protein intakes. There is little research into the maximum tolerable protein intake in healthy individuals. It has been suggested that excessive protein intakes may increase calcium loss, thus affecting bone health. However, since a major portion of bone is protein, excessive protein does not appear to influence bone health. High protein intakes have been suggested to pose a risk for the kidneys but, in healthy individuals with no underlying kidney disease (presumably most elite athletes), there is no evidence for harm to kidneys with higher intakes. Certainly, it would be detrimental for an athlete to consume excess protein at the expense of other nutrients required to support the necessary level of training and competition. There is a suggestion that intakes greater than 40% of total energy intake might be the upper limit. Protein intakes greater than 40% may limit intake of fat and/or carbohydrates, thus compromising the benefits of these nutrients. However, given the high energy intakes of most elite athletes, protein intakes higher than 40% are unlikely in most. Even a small female restricting energy intake and consuming only 1500 kcal would need to consume 150 g of protein to reach 40%.
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.[0 -
A lot of people have massive heart attacks and live on. My grandfather had a massive heart attack at 59 and lived on to die of cancer in his late 80s. Still ate a lot of meat every day for the rest of his life.
I think it may have something to do with the fact that he's only 66 years old and still SHOULD be alive...why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?
you realize he had a massive heart attack right? and eating a plant-based diet has been proven to reverse heart disease.0 -
I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors
can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.
I already did, in a previous thread on this subject, I gave you the work already done to discredit this.
But I suggest you go and read Campbell's original research - look in particular at what happened to his low protein rats. They didn't develop cancer because they died of acute flavotoxin poisoning. And the flavotoxin levels were astronomical in that study.
Flawed study is flawed.
This. Glad you saved me the bother.
Someone needs to go back and do more intense research rather than just reading a single book and proclaiming it as law.0 -
I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors
can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.
I already did, in a previous thread on this subject, I gave you the work already done to discredit this.
But I suggest you go and read Campbell's original research - look in particular at what happened to his low protein rats. They didn't develop cancer because they died of acute flavotoxin poisoning. And the flavotoxin levels were astronomical in that study.
Flawed study is flawed.
This. Glad you saved me the bother.
Someone needs to go back and do more intense research rather than just reading a single book and proclaiming it as law.
regardless of what you think of it, the book still stands as the most comprehensive study of nutrition that's ever been done. yes, it's one book, but one book with almost a thousand citations and sources.
no other study has ever been done that comes close to matching it in terms of scope.
you don't have to believe it, and you don't have to live it, that's totally cool. it's your choice. but it has as much validity and credibility as any nutrition study that's been done to date. what does that mean? it means it's not proof, it's not a certainty, and nothing in the china study proves causation. but that's because it's impossible to prove causation in nutritional studies - but it is possible to show a very, very strong correlation, and that the china study does in spades.
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.0 -
A lot of people have massive heart attacks and live on. My grandfather had a massive heart attack at 59 and lived on to die of cancer in his late 80s. Still ate a lot of meat every day for the rest of his life.
I think it may have something to do with the fact that he's only 66 years old and still SHOULD be alive...why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?
you realize he had a massive heart attack right? and eating a plant-based diet has been proven to reverse heart disease.
good for him! some people get lucky.
0 -
+I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors
can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.
I already did, in a previous thread on this subject, I gave you the work already done to discredit this.
But I suggest you go and read Campbell's original research - look in particular at what happened to his low protein rats. They didn't develop cancer because they died of acute flavotoxin poisoning. And the flavotoxin levels were astronomical in that study.
Flawed study is flawed.
This. Glad you saved me the bother.
Someone needs to go back and do more intense research rather than just reading a single book and proclaiming it as law.
regardless of what you think of it, the book still stands as the most comprehensive study of nutrition that's ever been done. yes, it's one book, but one book with almost a thousand citations and sources.
no other study has ever been done that comes close to matching it in terms of scope.
you don't have to believe it, and you don't have to live it, that's totally cool. it's your choice. but it has as much validity and credibility as any nutrition study that's been done to date. what does that mean? it means it's not proof, it's not a certainty, and nothing in the china study proves causation. but that's because it's impossible to prove causation in nutritional studies - but it is possible to show a very, very strong correlation, and that the china study does in spades.
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html#redux0 -
I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors
can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.
I already did, in a previous thread on this subject, I gave you the work already done to discredit this.
But I suggest you go and read Campbell's original research - look in particular at what happened to his low protein rats. They didn't develop cancer because they died of acute flavotoxin poisoning. And the flavotoxin levels were astronomical in that study.
Flawed study is flawed.
This. Glad you saved me the bother.
Someone needs to go back and do more intense research rather than just reading a single book and proclaiming it as law.
regardless of what you think of it, the book still stands as the most comprehensive study of nutrition that's ever been done. yes, it's one book, but one book with almost a thousand citations and sources.
no other study has ever been done that comes close to matching it in terms of scope.
you don't have to believe it, and you don't have to live it, that's totally cool. it's your choice. but it has as much validity and credibility as any nutrition study that's been done to date. what does that mean? it means it's not proof, it's not a certainty, and nothing in the china study proves causation. but that's because it's impossible to prove causation in nutritional studies - but it is possible to show a very, very strong correlation, and that the china study does in spades.
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
You also need to look at the limitations of the study as well as the cherry picking and information bias done rather than continually quoting is as 'proof' of anything, especially taking it as the panacea of nutritional information.
There have already been many references given that have discussed the flaws in the interpretation of the data. I suggest you read them.0 -
regardless of what you think of it, the book still stands as the most comprehensive study of nutrition that's ever been done. yes, it's one book, but one book with almost a thousand citations and sources.
please tell me you're joking. That was written for sales to the middle masses, mass consumption. Please don't make me wall you again.0 -
LOL. Did somebody really post this in the thread? Really??? If Bill Clinton and the China Study is all somebody has, he/she should lay down their guns and just surrender. Intelligent people have posted links to peer-reviewed clinical studies, and they get Bill Clinton and the China Study (which has been thoroughly debunked as cherry-picked junk science) in return. Wow.there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.
why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?0 -
LOL. Did somebody really post this in the thread? Really??? If Bill Clinton and the China Study is all somebody has, he/she should lay down their guns and just surrender. Intelligent people have posted links to peer-reviewed clinical studies, and they get Bill Clinton and the China Study (which has been thoroughly debunked as cherry-picked junk science) in return. Wow.there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.
why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?
Nooooo! lol Milo agrees with me, he was just being funny.
0 -
Ah, gotcha. My 'ignore this user' list causes me to miss at least part of the thread, so it gets a little disjointed at times.Nooooo! lol Milo agrees with me, he was just being funny. 0 -
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
I don't think that the declining health of the American population is due to excess protein consumption. I don't think the average American is eating 200+ grams of protein. When I think of the Standard American Diet, I think of a diet that consists largely of starches, oils, and sugars (pasta, pizza, deep-fried anything, chips, sodas, candy, etc). To blame the health of the American population on excess protein consumption is a leap that just doesn't even make sense to me.0 -
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
I don't think that the declining health of the American population is due to excess protein consumption. I don't think the average American is eating 200+ grams of protein. When I think of the Standard American Diet, I think of a diet that consists largely of starches, oils, and sugars (pasta, pizza, deep-fried anything, chips, sodas, candy, etc). To blame the health of the American population on excess protein consumption is a leap that just doesn't even make sense to me.
Exactly!
(Not that I didn't agree with a ton of other posts as well)0 -
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
I don't think that the declining health of the American population is due to excess protein consumption. I don't think the average American is eating 200+ grams of protein. When I think of the Standard American Diet, I think of a diet that consists largely of starches, oils, and sugars (pasta, pizza, deep-fried anything, chips, sodas, candy, etc). To blame the health of the American population on excess protein consumption is a leap that just doesn't even make sense to me.
Exactly! I'm shocked to find how very little protein there is in the foods that are cheaply and easily accessible by the general American population. I have to go out of my way to try to find foods that are high in protein.0 -
Agree 100%. The standard American diet is very high in carbohydrates and low in protein. As you said, I have to make a concerted, specific effort to hit my protein macro. Only somebody with an obvious, transparent (and thoroughly misguided) bias could point to protein as the cause of disease, obesity and/or declining health in the American population....most people don't get enough of it.Exactly! I'm shocked to find how very little protein there is in the foods that are cheaply and easily accessible by the general American population. I have to go out of my way to try to find foods that are high in protein.0 -
Show 1 reference in a study where it's used by his peers. And I'm not talking about his best selling book The China Study, I'm talking about the raw data. You are biased, you have to believe everything unquestioning, otherwise cracks begin to form and things tumble down, that's what happens when someone, anyone, takes an extreme stance, they ignore all the other information/studies/critics just in case in throws a shadow of a doubt.......not a very good mindspace to be in imo. Do you really think if everything you think was actually true that all of the other people that disagree are just ill informed, uneducated, or haven't seen the light yet. lolI work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors
can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.0 -
I think it may have something to do with the fact that he's only 66 years old and still SHOULD be alive...why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?
you realize he had a massive heart attack right? and eating a plant-based diet has been proven to reverse heart disease.
I'm trying to figure out what exactly you eat. You seem to be opposed to dairy and animal protein. What does that leave? Fruits and vegetables? You can find fault with everything. I don't think that eating a healthy, balanced diet is the culprit. We are all going to die at some point.0 -
I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors
can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.
I already did, in a previous thread on this subject, I gave you the work already done to discredit this.
But I suggest you go and read Campbell's original research - look in particular at what happened to his low protein rats. They didn't develop cancer because they died of acute flavotoxin poisoning. And the flavotoxin levels were astronomical in that study.
Flawed study is flawed.
This. Glad you saved me the bother.
Someone needs to go back and do more intense research rather than just reading a single book and proclaiming it as law.
regardless of what you think of it, the book still stands as the most comprehensive study of nutrition that's ever been done. yes, it's one book, but one book with almost a thousand citations and sources.
no other study has ever been done that comes close to matching it in terms of scope.
you don't have to believe it, and you don't have to live it, that's totally cool. it's your choice. but it has as much validity and credibility as any nutrition study that's been done to date. what does that mean? it means it's not proof, it's not a certainty, and nothing in the china study proves causation. but that's because it's impossible to prove causation in nutritional studies - but it is possible to show a very, very strong correlation, and that the china study does in spades.
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
Wrong. Again.
Even on the most basic level of hype.
It's nice that you can quote the book cover but the most comprehensive study it is not. Framingham, 4S, 7 Countries, Women's Health initiative are all more impactful and mostly longer term.
So your first point is incorrect - there are several studies that both match and exceed the scope. But it doesn't matter - its still a massive work and highly impressive.
But Framingham alone has led to more publications the the China Cornell Oxford.
But hey, continue with the cherry picking. I've responded to your requests for references, it's nice to see you ignore those posts.
But let's assume for a second that the hypothesis that animal protein results in cancer is correct. Let's call this H0, our test hypothesis. Clearly if a population exists that has a higher animal protein consumption than average then the cancer rates should show up as increasing. Please point me to the epidemiological study of ... say, body builders vs vegan body builders that shows that. Or just body builders versus general pop. H0 is unsupported .0 -
I have noticed something in these arguments. Everyone looks at the populations tested in these studies in china and the Philippines we actually have a huge population that we can study right now....
Weightlifters. The have been eating high protein for 40-50 years. I don't see a rash of colon CA, or kidney failure in healthy exercising weightlifters. I would think if eating high protein was THAT bad then it would certainly show up in this population. Does that mean that this group won't get these disease? No. But what we should see is a rash of it in this population and we don't.
I have been a nurse for over 20 years, most of it cardiac, I have seen maybe 3 healthy males in the hospital with an issue. One was heart failure, not a heart attack, it was caused by a virus. I can't remember what was wrong with the other two.
What I have seen more of is exercise induced rabdo. But them again I have seen rabdo in other people more frequently than exercising people.
If protein was that bad I would expect to see a lot of weightlifters undergoing colon surgeries or having dialysis. I don't...I see old frail people and the occasional person who has kidney failure for other reason. None of them protein eating that I know of.
If your kidneys do fail then yes you have to eat less protein because the kidneys are limping along and can't filter proteins....but that doesn't mean that protein causes it.
Just saying....0 -
But I think "lean body mass" means muscle -- not including the weight of your bones or being 72% water. I read a study a couple years ago (can't remember the university) and they said women might only need 30-35 grams of protein a day. Your body repairs and replaces tissue/muscle constantly and uses the amino acids to build new tissue/muscle.MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.
I aim for about 70 grams a day which is 1 chicken breast, 1 can of tuna and 1-2 eggs. I also like protein shakes and have a few good recipes that are EASY.0 -
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.
All of it is complete BS.
The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.
High protein diets do not cause cancer any more than low protein or plant based diets. There is no science supporting the low protein argument.
there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.
why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?
Vegan =/= low protein diet
I'm vegan but I still get about 30% of my calories from protein.0 -
Why is anyone bothering responding to this guy? I've never seen him make one post where he makes sense and yet people keep letting him bait them.
I've never really been 100% sure he is a troll until I saw his - Bill Clinton is alive therefore protein is bad - comment.0 -
But I think "lean body mass" means muscle -- not including the weight of your bones or being 72% water. I read a study a couple years ago (can't remember the university) and they said women might only need 30-35 grams of protein a day. Your body repairs and replaces tissue/muscle constantly and uses the amino acids to build new tissue/muscle.MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.
I aim for about 70 grams a day which is 1 chicken breast, 1 can of tuna and 1-2 eggs. I also like protein shakes and have a few good recipes that are EASY.
LBM is everything except fat so it includes muscle, organs, bones, water, food in the intestines etc0 -
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
I don't think that the declining health of the American population is due to excess protein consumption. I don't think the average American is eating 200+ grams of protein. When I think of the Standard American Diet, I think of a diet that consists largely of starches, oils, and sugars (pasta, pizza, deep-fried anything, chips, sodas, candy, etc). To blame the health of the American population on excess protein consumption is a leap that just doesn't even make sense to me.
the average american is eating 500% more meat than they did 100 years ago. but yes, absolutely processed foods have also played a massive role. I'm not saying it's one thing specifically or the other, but dairy, meat, wheat, processed junk, they've all contributed.0 -
Why is anyone bothering responding to this guy? I've never seen him make one post where he makes sense and yet people keep letting him bait them.
I've never really been 100% sure he is a troll until I saw his - Bill Clinton is alive therefore protein is bad - comment.
We can see from his profile pic what the effects of low protein are :ohwell: - that is enough argument for me to keep on with 1-1.5g/lb LBM.
lol if you saw my before's you'd think differently. i'm genetically skinny, crazy high metabolism. for me to put on weight/muscle i need to eat a TON of food.
regardless, my views on health and food are actually incredibly mainstream, but for some reason this board is full of ketogenic disciples, fad diets, and everyone trying to lose weight the fastest they possibly can regardless of health. you don't wanna read my posts, then hit ignore. Anvil does and it works great. 0 -
Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.
I don't think that the declining health of the American population is due to excess protein consumption. I don't think the average American is eating 200+ grams of protein. When I think of the Standard American Diet, I think of a diet that consists largely of starches, oils, and sugars (pasta, pizza, deep-fried anything, chips, sodas, candy, etc). To blame the health of the American population on excess protein consumption is a leap that just doesn't even make sense to me.
the average american is eating 500% more meat than they did 100 years ago. but yes, absolutely processed foods have also played a massive role. I'm not saying it's one thing specifically or the other, but dairy, meat, wheat, processed junk, they've all contributed.
Have you noticed the trend of the obesity rate skyrocketing lately to the increase in sales and consumption of the super heavily processed Shakeology? I have, how anyone can say that is a good product in good conscience is beyond me0 -
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.
All of it is complete BS.
The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.
High protein diets do not cause cancer any more than low protein or plant based diets. There is no science supporting the low protein argument.
there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.
why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?
Vegan =/= low protein diet
I'm vegan but I still get about 30% of my calories from protein.
this0
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
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions