Daily protein too high on MFP?

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

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.

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?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.

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

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?

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?