The Protein Myth

mmapags

This topic and the fear of health risk comes up about every other day. Acg67 put together some great info that addresses this in a couple of posts. I'm am putting it here as I think it is relevant and helpful to this discussion. The bottom line is there have been multiple studies that indicate high protein intake is not harmful at all in otherwise healthy individuals.

Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
www.uni.edu/dolgener/Advanced_Sport.../protein_intake.pdf


QUOTE:

Since 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#B4


QUOTE:

Indeed, 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.



QUOTE:

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/2/1/25


QUOTE:

Conclusion

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.[

carrieous

I have never in my life had a protein shake. I think they are unnecessary. I prefer real foods.

Matt_Wild

I have never in my life had a protein shake. I think they are unnecessary. I prefer real foods.

Protein is protein, it is real food.

It comes from cheese or milk.

No more or less real than anything made from grain. Unless people are going to say that bread and similar are not real food?

carrieous

I have never in my life had a protein shake. I think they are unnecessary. I prefer real foods.

Protein is protein, it is real food.

It comes from cheese or milk.

No more or less real than anything made from grain. Unless people are going to say that bread and similar are not real food?

Its a powder made in a factory. No thanks. Unless i dont understand what is meant by "protein shake"? All i have seen is powder in can sold on a shelf.

abrahamsitososa

I have to rattle a cage. It seems to be "common knowledge" on mfp that everyone needs loads of protein to A. Lose fat, and B. Increase strength and that it's imperative that normal people have a protein shake after each strength work out. I'm not talking about heavy lifting, I'm talking about your basic run of the mill strength workouts so if you want to lecture about heavy lifting and protein move along as that is not what I'm talking about. So I'm wondering why that is and why everyone says mfp's settings for protein are "too low" for most people. When someone asks about protein, someone had to come in and say their setting is "too low" because it's what mfp set for them. Why would mfp set it too low really? If it was too low wouldn't they have corrected it? Wouldn't there be a huge disclaimer about it being "too low"? Is it impossible for someone to lose fat and get stronger with 50g -70g of protein? To most mfp "experts" yes, how did this rumor come about that mfp settings are too low and that people need 100g of protein to lose fat?

I agree with you. The amount of protein you can get from salads is good enough.

mmapags

I have never in my life had a protein shake. I think they are unnecessary. I prefer real foods.

Protein is protein, it is real food.

It comes from cheese or milk.

No more or less real than anything made from grain. Unless people are going to say that bread and similar are not real food?

Its a powder made in a factory. No thanks. Unless i dont understand what is meant by "protein shake"? All i have seen is powder in can sold on a shelf.

And what exactly do you think it's made from? What do you think is in that powder?

Also, would you not take penicillin if you had a bacterial infection because it's a powder made in a factory? How about advil for a headache?

jonnythan

I have never in my life had a protein shake. I think they are unnecessary. I prefer real foods.

Protein is protein, it is real food.

It comes from cheese or milk.

No more or less real than anything made from grain. Unless people are going to say that bread and similar are not real food?

Its a powder made in a factory. No thanks. Unless i dont understand what is meant by "protein shake"? All i have seen is powder in can sold on a shelf.

You know cheese, right?

When they make cheese the parts of the milk leftover are whey.

They dry it up and sell it as a powder.

Suddenly it's not food because they dry it up first?

Joreanasaurous

I have never in my life had a protein shake. I think they are unnecessary. I prefer real foods.

Uh... Good for you?

Personally I love my protein powder. Fast, easy, delious and convient. Not to mention delightful in smoothies. So you go ahead and don't use it and everyone who does use it will continue to do so as well.

Mokey41

I have to rattle a cage. It seems to be "common knowledge" on mfp that everyone needs loads of protein to A. Lose fat, and B. Increase strength and that it's imperative that normal people have a protein shake after each strength work out. I'm not talking about heavy lifting, I'm talking about your basic run of the mill strength workouts so if you want to lecture about heavy lifting and protein move along as that is not what I'm talking about. So I'm wondering why that is and why everyone says mfp's settings for protein are "too low" for most people. When someone asks about protein, someone had to come in and say their setting is "too low" because it's what mfp set for them. Why would mfp set it too low really? If it was too low wouldn't they have corrected it? Wouldn't there be a huge disclaimer about it being "too low"? Is it impossible for someone to lose fat and get stronger with 50g -70g of protein? To most mfp "experts" yes, how did this rumor come about that mfp settings are too low and that people need 100g of protein to lose fat?

Somehow, as usual, this thread got way off track from the original post.

It is possible to lose fat on 50 to 70g or protein. It isn't necessary to gulp down a protein shake after 20 minutes of 30 Day Shred. There's a huge difference between an athlete eating to perform to their fullest potential and an overweight housewife sweatin' to the oldies.

The OP is right, as soon as someone asks about nutrition out come the big guns with suggestions to eat more protein and which protein powder is the best. If that's the way you choose to get your nutrition, fine but you can be fit and healthy without making the sellers of all this stuff rich.

mmapags

I have to rattle a cage. It seems to be "common knowledge" on mfp that everyone needs loads of protein to A. Lose fat, and B. Increase strength and that it's imperative that normal people have a protein shake after each strength work out. I'm not talking about heavy lifting, I'm talking about your basic run of the mill strength workouts so if you want to lecture about heavy lifting and protein move along as that is not what I'm talking about. So I'm wondering why that is and why everyone says mfp's settings for protein are "too low" for most people. When someone asks about protein, someone had to come in and say their setting is "too low" because it's what mfp set for them. Why would mfp set it too low really? If it was too low wouldn't they have corrected it? Wouldn't there be a huge disclaimer about it being "too low"? Is it impossible for someone to lose fat and get stronger with 50g -70g of protein? To most mfp "experts" yes, how did this rumor come about that mfp settings are too low and that people need 100g of protein to lose fat?

Somehow, as usual, this thread got way off track from the original post.

It is possible to lose fat on 50 to 70g or protein. It isn't necessary to gulp down a protein shake after 20 minutes of 30 Day Shred. There's a huge difference between an athlete eating to perform to their fullest potential and an overweight housewife sweatin' to the oldies.

The OP is right, as soon as someone asks about nutrition out come the big guns with suggestions to eat more protein and which protein powder is the best. If that's the way you choose to get your nutrition, fine but you can be fit and healthy without making the sellers of all this stuff rich.

The seller's of what stuff? Protein powder? Most people can get 1 gram per lb of lean body mass per day just from food if they choose. If someone chooses to utilize protein powder, that's up to them. It is an inexpensive and effective suur pplement. I use it daily most of the time to get about 50 of my 162 gram target per day. It costs me about $1.50 per day. Hardly expensive or making anyone rich!! lol Some day's I get all my protein from whole food sources.

So, it's all about your goals. If you think the most effcient was to achieve you goals is 50 to 70 grams per day, that's up to you. For optimum body composition and muscle recovery/ growth, that would only get it if that was your lean mass amout. Do what you want.

No_Finish_Line

Bob on Biggest Loser told a contestant that they should eat protein after a workout to help rebuild the muscles.

only watched the biggest loser a few times, but noticed that the last thing one of the trainers said when they exited the gym was 'now lets go eat'. personally i think post exercise nutrion is very important.

I don't really know about the protein issue. I just know that the 'bodybuilding community' has generally suggested at least 1 g per lbs body weight or even 2.

Doesn't seem that the pervailing school of thought amoungst nurtionists agrees with this. Thats probably why MFP sets as they do.

How much protein should i be eating while doing X is just one of the many questions that doesn't yet have a definetive answer in the world of fitness, tho many on both sides will claim that its an open and shut case.

but i like to eat meat and i like my protein powder and i like to lift a LOT. I'm probably not hurting myself by taking in excess protein, while the possibility exists that i'm under cutting my gains by not eating enough. i shoot for a little over 1 g per lbs most of the time to be safe.

Cr01502

I have to rattle a cage. It seems to be "common knowledge" on mfp that everyone needs loads of protein to A. Lose fat, and B. Increase strength and that it's imperative that normal people have a protein shake after each strength work out. I'm not talking about heavy lifting, I'm talking about your basic run of the mill strength workouts so if you want to lecture about heavy lifting and protein move along as that is not what I'm talking about. So I'm wondering why that is and why everyone says mfp's settings for protein are "too low" for most people. When someone asks about protein, someone had to come in and say their setting is "too low" because it's what mfp set for them. Why would mfp set it too low really? If it was too low wouldn't they have corrected it? Wouldn't there be a huge disclaimer about it being "too low"? Is it impossible for someone to lose fat and get stronger with 50g -70g of protein? To most mfp "experts" yes, how did this rumor come about that mfp settings are too low and that people need 100g of protein to lose fat?

Glad you came in here with your very well researched data of "wouldn't MFP do this?"

Clearly you are one of these "experts" you intend to criticise.

Thanks for playing . . . .

Matt_Wild

I have to rattle a cage. It seems to be "common knowledge" on mfp that everyone needs loads of protein to A. Lose fat, and B. Increase strength and that it's imperative that normal people have a protein shake after each strength work out. I'm not talking about heavy lifting, I'm talking about your basic run of the mill strength workouts so if you want to lecture about heavy lifting and protein move along as that is not what I'm talking about. So I'm wondering why that is and why everyone says mfp's settings for protein are "too low" for most people. When someone asks about protein, someone had to come in and say their setting is "too low" because it's what mfp set for them. Why would mfp set it too low really? If it was too low wouldn't they have corrected it? Wouldn't there be a huge disclaimer about it being "too low"? Is it impossible for someone to lose fat and get stronger with 50g -70g of protein? To most mfp "experts" yes, how did this rumor come about that mfp settings are too low and that people need 100g of protein to lose fat?

Glad you came in here with your very well researched data of "wouldn't MFP do this?"

Clearly you are one of these "experts" you intend to criticise.

Thanks for playing . . . .

Agreed.

Considering protein has a higher TEF, it useful to have in ones diet, not to mention it is easier to feel full on protein/fats.

Of course there is nothing wrong with carbs, at all, whatsoever.

However, why not use the most efficient method and one that makes the whole thing less arduous?

mmapags

I have to rattle a cage. It seems to be "common knowledge" on mfp that everyone needs loads of protein to A. Lose fat, and B. Increase strength and that it's imperative that normal people have a protein shake after each strength work out. I'm not talking about heavy lifting, I'm talking about your basic run of the mill strength workouts so if you want to lecture about heavy lifting and protein move along as that is not what I'm talking about. So I'm wondering why that is and why everyone says mfp's settings for protein are "too low" for most people. When someone asks about protein, someone had to come in and say their setting is "too low" because it's what mfp set for them. Why would mfp set it too low really? If it was too low wouldn't they have corrected it? Wouldn't there be a huge disclaimer about it being "too low"? Is it impossible for someone to lose fat and get stronger with 50g -70g of protein? To most mfp "experts" yes, how did this rumor come about that mfp settings are too low and that people need 100g of protein to lose fat?

Glad you came in here with your very well researched data of "wouldn't MFP do this?"

Clearly you are one of these "experts" you intend to criticise.

Thanks for playing . . . .

Agreed.

Considering protein has a higher TEF, it useful to have in ones diet, not to mention it is easier to feel full on protein/fats.

Of course there is nothing wrong with carbs, at all, whatsoever.

However, why not use the most efficient method and one that makes the whole thing less arduous?

aaaaaand which, based on all available scientific info is completely safe for an otherwise healthy person?