Daily protein too high on MFP?
Replies
-
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?0 -
-
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?
Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997) 51, 207±216
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
Protein
Retrodicted protein intake for Paleolithic humans, typically
above 30% of daily energy (Table 1), is hard to reconcile
with the 12% currently recommended for Americans. The
RDA is actually a range, 0.8±1.6 g/kg/d, which contrasts
with 2.5±3.5 g/kg/d for Stone Agers. Observed protein
intake for other primates, such as chimpanzees, gorillas,
baboons, and howler monkeys, is also higher than that
advocated by human nutritionists and ranges from 1.6±
5.9 g/kg/d in the wild (Casimir, 1975; Coelho et al, 1976;
Hladik, 1977; Whiten et al, 1991). Furthermore, veterinary
recommendations for higher primates in captivity also
substantially exceed the RDA for Americans (Panel on
nonhuman primate nutrition, 1978). It would be paradoxical
if humans, who, during evolution, added hunting and
scavenging skills to their higher primate heritage, should
now somehow be harmed as a result of protein intake
habitually tolerated or even required by their near relatives.0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?
Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997) 51, 207±216
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
Protein
Retrodicted protein intake for Paleolithic humans, typically
above 30% of daily energy (Table 1), is hard to reconcile
with the 12% currently recommended for Americans. The
RDA is actually a range, 0.8±1.6 g/kg/d, which contrasts
with 2.5±3.5 g/kg/d for Stone Agers. Observed protein
intake for other primates, such as chimpanzees, gorillas,
baboons, and howler monkeys, is also higher than that
advocated by human nutritionists and ranges from 1.6±
5.9 g/kg/d in the wild (Casimir, 1975; Coelho et al, 1976;
Hladik, 1977; Whiten et al, 1991). Furthermore, veterinary
recommendations for higher primates in captivity also
substantially exceed the RDA for Americans (Panel on
nonhuman primate nutrition, 1978). It would be paradoxical
if humans, who, during evolution, added hunting and
scavenging skills to their higher primate heritage, should
now somehow be harmed as a result of protein intake
habitually tolerated or even required by their near relatives.
better contribution. that wasn't so hard was it?
question though - where did they come up with their numbers for paleolithic humans and protein intake?0 -
The vegetarian argument, which is not wrong in the respect that during our evolutionary timeline of over 3,000,000 yrs we were canopy dwellers consuming mostly leaves and fruit, with the occasional ingestion of animal protein similar to our primate brothers. Unfortunately they don't look much further that that.....Also according the popular myth is that hunter gatherers were incapable of catching wild game of any description to allow for protein to be increased past the RDA recommendations...............no lol, just kidding.Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?
Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997) 51, 207±216
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf
Protein
Retrodicted protein intake for Paleolithic humans, typically
above 30% of daily energy (Table 1), is hard to reconcile
with the 12% currently recommended for Americans. The
RDA is actually a range, 0.8±1.6 g/kg/d, which contrasts
with 2.5±3.5 g/kg/d for Stone Agers. Observed protein
intake for other primates, such as chimpanzees, gorillas,
baboons, and howler monkeys, is also higher than that
advocated by human nutritionists and ranges from 1.6±
5.9 g/kg/d in the wild (Casimir, 1975; Coelho et al, 1976;
Hladik, 1977; Whiten et al, 1991). Furthermore, veterinary
recommendations for higher primates in captivity also
substantially exceed the RDA for Americans (Panel on
nonhuman primate nutrition, 1978). It would be paradoxical
if humans, who, during evolution, added hunting and
scavenging skills to their higher primate heritage, should
now somehow be harmed as a result of protein intake
habitually tolerated or even required by their near relatives.0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?
What people were doing 10,000 years ago does not really bear relevance on the discussion - we can absorb it, so it's a moot point. I was just addressing your misunderstanding re absorption. I also tend not to use one persons comments as a generality or to assume why they are doing things they are doing - I cannot speak for why. However, I can comment that when you do low calories, it is even more important to get your protein higher.
Edited for typo0 -
0
-
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?
What people were doing 10,000 years ago does not really bear relevance on the discussion - we can absorb it, so it's a moot point. I was just addressing your misunderstanding re absorption. I also tend not to use one persons comments as a generality or to assume why they are doing things they are doing - I cannot speak for why. However, I can comment that when you do low calories, it is even more important to get your protein higher.
Edited for typo
it absolutely bears relevance, because if human beings have been generally eating the same way for 10's of thousands of years, and then our diet undergoes a drastic change in a short period of time, it's entirely LOGICAL to assume that the new diet could pose some risk since we haven't yet adapted to it.
I mean the proof is the advent of processed foods leading to obesity. The human body isn't designed to get fat. But due to a massive change in diet over the last 100 years, now 2/3 of our population is overweight and unhealthy.
why is it so far fetched that the huge increase in animal protein consumption hasn't had some sort of similar effect?
for the record, with this whole line of questioning, I'm not saying I know the answer, I just think it's silly to say that it's impossible that there's been some sort of effect.0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?
What people were doing 10,000 years ago does not really bear relevance on the discussion - we can absorb it, so it's a moot point. I was just addressing your misunderstanding re absorption. I also tend not to use one persons comments as a generality or to assume why they are doing things they are doing - I cannot speak for why. However, I can comment that when you do low calories, it is even more important to get your protein higher.
Edited for typo
it absolutely bears relevance, because if human beings have been generally eating the same way for 10's of thousands of years, and then our diet undergoes a drastic change in a short period of time, it's entirely LOGICAL to assume that the new diet could pose some risk since we haven't yet adapted to it.
I mean the proof is the advent of processed foods leading to obesity. The human body isn't designed to get fat. But due to a massive change in diet over the last 100 years, now 2/3 of our population is overweight and unhealthy.
why is it so far fetched that the huge increase in animal protein consumption hasn't had some sort of similar effect?
for the record, with this whole line of questioning, I'm not saying I know the answer, I just think it's silly to say that it's impossible that there's been some sort of effect.
In my opinion it does not bear any relevance to the ability to absorb protein which was the incorrect statement that you made that I corrected.
Question: what does this all have to do with the OP's question?0 -
it absolutely bears relevance, because if human beings have been generally eating the same way for 10's of thousands of years, and then our diet undergoes a drastic change in a short period of time, it's entirely LOGICAL to assume that the new diet could pose some risk since we haven't yet adapted to it.
I mean the proof is the advent of processed foods leading to obesity. The human body isn't designed to get fat. But due to a massive change in diet over the last 100 years, now 2/3 of our population is overweight and unhealthy.
why is it so far fetched that the huge increase in animal protein consumption hasn't had some sort of similar effect?
for the record, with this whole line of questioning, I'm not saying I know the answer, I just think it's silly to say that it's impossible that there's been some sort of effect.
Coach, do you care to address the fact that the average life span has almost doubled in the last 100 years? By using your logic, should we conclude that eating more processed foods has enabled human beings to live decades longer than they used to? I mean,humans at the same way for 1000's of years, but died at an average age of like 43. Now we live to almost 80. So can I contribute that to Doritos and Taco Bell consumption?0 -
Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century1,2
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
You can pretty much absorb the majority of protein you eat up to a really high dosage - you body just slows down the absorption. If it cannot absorb it, you will be passing it in a very very uncomfortable fashion. Absorption =/= the amount that will be used for protein synthesis.
Raising protein for most people really has nothing to do with restricting other macros for most people, unless they are consciously trying to do low carb. Example - body builders actually try to keep their protein up but also try to keep carbs as high as possible usually, I am not sure where you are getting that our bodies have not adapted to handle increased protein levels - they handle high protein pretty well.
I'm saying it's highly unlikely that our bodies are able to adapt over a 100 year period. That's an incredibly short amount of time from an evolutionary perspective, after having spent 10,000 years eating more carbs/fat than protein.
so what about the above poster who said "high protein, low calorie"? By default that means she's restricting the other macros, and I'd say that's a pretty common weight-loss plan, yes?
What people were doing 10,000 years ago does not really bear relevance on the discussion - we can absorb it, so it's a moot point. I was just addressing your misunderstanding re absorption. I also tend not to use one persons comments as a generality or to assume why they are doing things they are doing - I cannot speak for why. However, I can comment that when you do low calories, it is even more important to get your protein higher.
Edited for typo
it absolutely bears relevance, because if human beings have been generally eating the same way for 10's of thousands of years, and then our diet undergoes a drastic change in a short period of time, it's entirely LOGICAL to assume that the new diet could pose some risk since we haven't yet adapted to it.
I mean the proof is the advent of processed foods leading to obesity. The human body isn't designed to get fat. But due to a massive change in diet over the last 100 years, now 2/3 of our population is overweight and unhealthy.
why is it so far fetched that the huge increase in animal protein consumption hasn't had some sort of similar effect?
for the record, with this whole line of questioning, I'm not saying I know the answer, I just think it's silly to say that it's impossible that there's been some sort of effect.
I really don't think it's the change of diet that's all to blame for the obesity - The change from manual labour to sedentary office work, and the time spent in front of computer games and TV has a lot more to do with it.0 -
How do I log "intellectual tap-dancing"?0
-
it absolutely bears relevance, because if human beings have been generally eating the same way for 10's of thousands of years, and then our diet undergoes a drastic change in a short period of time, it's entirely LOGICAL to assume that the new diet could pose some risk since we haven't yet adapted to it.
I mean the proof is the advent of processed foods leading to obesity. The human body isn't designed to get fat. But due to a massive change in diet over the last 100 years, now 2/3 of our population is overweight and unhealthy.
why is it so far fetched that the huge increase in animal protein consumption hasn't had some sort of similar effect?
for the record, with this whole line of questioning, I'm not saying I know the answer, I just think it's silly to say that it's impossible that there's been some sort of effect.
Coach, do you care to address the fact that the average life span has almost doubled in the last 100 years? By using your logic, should we conclude that eating more processed foods has enabled human beings to live decades longer than they used to? I mean,humans at the same way for 1000's of years, but died at an average age of like 43. Now we live to almost 80. So can I contribute that to Doritos and Taco Bell consumption?
I think it's pretty obvious he has no understanding of causality and it's implications.0 -
it absolutely bears relevance, because if human beings have been generally eating the same way for 10's of thousands of years, and then our diet undergoes a drastic change in a short period of time, it's entirely LOGICAL to assume that the new diet could pose some risk since we haven't yet adapted to it.
I mean the proof is the advent of processed foods leading to obesity. The human body isn't designed to get fat. But due to a massive change in diet over the last 100 years, now 2/3 of our population is overweight and unhealthy.
why is it so far fetched that the huge increase in animal protein consumption hasn't had some sort of similar effect?
for the record, with this whole line of questioning, I'm not saying I know the answer, I just think it's silly to say that it's impossible that there's been some sort of effect.
Coach, do you care to address the fact that the average life span has almost doubled in the last 100 years? By using your logic, should we conclude that eating more processed foods has enabled human beings to live decades longer than they used to? I mean,humans at the same way for 1000's of years, but died at an average age of like 43. Now we live to almost 80. So can I contribute that to Doritos and Taco Bell consumption?
I think it's pretty obvious he has no understanding of causality and it's implications.
yeah you're right. processed foods have had zero effect on our nation's horrific health. y'all are hilarious and kind of sad.0 -
MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.
This was the recommendation from my Dr. I was concerned about kidney problems with too much protein and he gave me this formula to follow.0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
The liver of an 80 kg person can safely deaminate about 300 g of protein per day. That's a metric sh!tload.
http://home.exetel.com.au/surreality/health/A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans.pdf0 -
The liver of an 80 kg person can safely deaminate about 300 g of protein per day. That's a metric sh!tload.
http://home.exetel.com.au/surreality/health/A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans.pdf
It's science yo!0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
The liver of an 80 kg person can safely deaminate about 300 g of protein per day. That's a metric sh!tload.
http://home.exetel.com.au/surreality/health/A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans.pdf
and if you listen to body builders, or people trying to build muscle/etc, you'll hear that they eat MORE than 300g of protein in a day (when we're talking about cal intake of 4000+)
healthy?0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
The liver of an 80 kg person can safely deaminate about 300 g of protein per day. That's a metric sh!tload.
http://home.exetel.com.au/surreality/health/A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans.pdf
and if you listen to body builders, or people trying to build muscle/etc, you'll hear that they eat MORE than 300g of protein in a day (when we're talking about cal intake of 4000+)
healthy?
What does that have the do with the original point? They *may* eat more than that and that is their prerogative..but I doubt very much you will find that amount recommended on here. Going back to the original recommendations - most people do not actually suggest more than 1g/lb LBM.
You seem to latch onto exceptions and outliers to try to make some kind of point by way of a straw man argument, whatever that may be at the time.0 -
You are a saint.Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
The liver of an 80 kg person can safely deaminate about 300 g of protein per day. That's a metric sh!tload.
http://home.exetel.com.au/surreality/health/A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans.pdf
and if you listen to body builders, or people trying to build muscle/etc, you'll hear that they eat MORE than 300g of protein in a day (when we're talking about cal intake of 4000+)
healthy?
What does that have the do with the original point? They *may* eat more than that and that is their prerogative..but I doubt very much you will find that amount recommended on here. Going back to the original recommendations - most people do not actually suggest more than 1g/lb LBM.
You seem to latch onto exceptions and outliers to try to make some kind of point by way of a straw man argument, whatever that may be at the time.
I love you.0 -
Hi
My trainer calculated my protein according to my calories and amout of exercise along with my weight.
she has me at 115g so mfp must just be a generic total. if you are exercising and not getting enough protien you will lose muscle and we dont want that. keep you protien hi and your calories low
this is something I've been thinking about since yesterday...
is the reason for high-protein diets anything other than simply forcing you to eat less carbs/fat? since your body can only process so much protein anyway, anything extra is just wasted nutrients that don't get absorbed. HOWEVER, it does help with satiety, so it makes sense to me that it's become the standard go-to diet for those looking to lose weight, simply because it limits their intake of the other macro-nutrients.
The idea of "keep your protein high and calories low" is what brought me to that... has it just become generally accepted that we're supposed to trick ourselves into eating fewer carbs, to the point where we don't even realize that's what we're doing anymore?
You got one part right - it increases satiety (plus has a higher tef) and so, no matter whether you think say 80g is ok v 160g - the question is, and assuming no medical issues, why not?
Although you do not have the absorption part right.
your telling me there's absolutely no limit to how much protein your body can process/day?
my question is whether or not raising a certain macronutrient to higher levels for the sole purpose of not eating as many of the other macronutrients is well-founded from an evolutionary perspective, where we evolved as omnivores, but getting most of our nutrients from plants (as those posed less risk to eat). Obviously we're different animals than we were thousands of years ago, but the big increase in protein consumption has really only happened over the last 100 years. Is it a stretch to hypothesize that our bodies haven't adapted to handle the increase in protein and decrease in carb/fat?
The liver of an 80 kg person can safely deaminate about 300 g of protein per day. That's a metric sh!tload.
http://home.exetel.com.au/surreality/health/A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans.pdf
and if you listen to body builders, or people trying to build muscle/etc, you'll hear that they eat MORE than 300g of protein in a day (when we're talking about cal intake of 4000+)
healthy?
Few of them weigh 80 kg. Is over consumption of protein healthy? No. Is anyone in this thread suggesting 300+ g of protein? I have not seen it. A recommendation of 300g of protein would be 300 lbs of LBM or a extreme BB at 360 lbs. I've never met or seen someone at 360 lbs with only 20% bf.
Bulking diets are transient and the actual use of protein for energy balance can be higher then than the 300g I posted for 80 kg of normal deamination.
However, I'll agree with you that some of the BB practices are not healthy. Not really part of the reco's here.
Read the link I posted, you'll find some good info supporting some of your argument and some supporting Sara's (and mine). It's a fascinating read. You'll also notice some high protein diseases that existed about 150 years ago that have almost disappeared.
Btw, I remember reading that apprentices in Paris during the 18th century would sign contracts stipulating that they would not be obligated to eat salmon (or pork) more than few days a week. Two types of cheap and abundant food in the city then. (Danton's book - maybe The Great Cat Massacre)0 -
it absolutely bears relevance, because if human beings have been generally eating the same way for 10's of thousands of years, and then our diet undergoes a drastic change in a short period of time, it's entirely LOGICAL to assume that the new diet could pose some risk since we haven't yet adapted to it.
I mean the proof is the advent of processed foods leading to obesity. The human body isn't designed to get fat. But due to a massive change in diet over the last 100 years, now 2/3 of our population is overweight and unhealthy.
why is it so far fetched that the huge increase in animal protein consumption hasn't had some sort of similar effect?
for the record, with this whole line of questioning, I'm not saying I know the answer, I just think it's silly to say that it's impossible that there's been some sort of effect.
Coach, do you care to address the fact that the average life span has almost doubled in the last 100 years? By using your logic, should we conclude that eating more processed foods has enabled human beings to live decades longer than they used to? I mean,humans at the same way for 1000's of years, but died at an average age of like 43. Now we live to almost 80. So can I contribute that to Doritos and Taco Bell consumption?
I think it's pretty obvious he has no understanding of causality and it's implications.
yeah you're right. processed foods have had zero effect on our nation's horrific health. y'all are hilarious and kind of sad.
So you only address cause and effect when you can twist it to fit your beliefs?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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