Science: Cell: Nutrition is personal. Identical foods produce “healthy” and “unhealthy” responses
kitsilana
Posts: 50 Member
An interesting new study of 800 test subjects on the different responses to the same meals between individuals.
Sounds like we might be looking at what's healthy or unhealthy in a completely different way in a few years time...
Sounds like we might be looking at what's healthy or unhealthy in a completely different way in a few years time...
0
Replies
-
I read an article on this and thought that it sounded pretty interesting. Would love to get tested to see what I respond to best0
-
Thanks for posting this. I look forward to seeing where this line of research goes.0
-
So, this is a fascinating study!0
-
It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.0 -
Interesting.0
-
It seems to be a well done study. However some of the primary assumptions are a stretch - I disagree with the idea that postprandial glucose response (PPGR) should be given the weight of "healthy" or "unhealthy" that the researchers outline. It is facile - while it is a useful parameter to measure, their hypothesis of a indicator of health is based on research for diabetics - where it IS an indicator of potential further health issues - from microvascular and microvascular complications.
However, the references that they use for this theoretical justification (Gallwitz, ADA, Nishida) are for people already in a disease state.
For example - they make a case that PPGR is an indicator of risk of death (overall mortality) except this is true in the article cited (Cavalot), only in diabetics, who already demonstrate poor glucose regulation.
PS - Conflict of interest statement: I worked in the recent past for a company that builds PPGR monitors - it would be in my interest to support any research that increased the use of them by the general population. But the idea that controlling PPGR is the best or even a good indicator of meal "health" in a healthy and active population (non-diabetic, non-metabolic syndrome) is questionable at best.
PPS - Too bad a site like MFP isn't doing work like this. Certainly the kind or research they could provide.
PPPS - I can hear the special snowflake people crying "we are all different" from this research - which goes counter to their findings - they were actually able to create a PPGR predictor algorithm from a few parameters that has relatively strong correlation (Higher that those shown in research for the TDEE calculators used on this site). This suggests we are "all the same" just a complex "all the same".0 -
It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It seems to be a well done study. However some of the primary assumptions are a stretch - I disagree with the idea that postprandial glucose response (PPGR) should be given the weight of "healthy" or "unhealthy" that the researchers outline.
"Reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (as long as post-prandial insulinaemic responses are not
disproportionally increased) may be a beneficial physiological effect." http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/2223.pdf so not everyone agrees on this.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It seems to be a well done study. However some of the primary assumptions are a stretch - I disagree with the idea that postprandial glucose response (PPGR) should be given the weight of "healthy" or "unhealthy" that the researchers outline.
"Reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (as long as post-prandial insulinaemic responses are not
disproportionally increased) may be a beneficial physiological effect." http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/2223.pdf so not everyone agrees on this.
Yes, it may. The reference of the EFSA you posted is:
Venn BJ and Green TJ, 2007. Glycemic index and glycemic load: measurement issues and their effect on diet-disease relationships. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61 Suppl 1, S122-131.
Which clearly states:
...functionality in terms of a low glycemic response alone does not necessarily justify a health claim.
0 -
and yet EFSA approved a health claim on labelling, presumably forming a different opinion to the one in the abstract of the referred paper. Seems to be a controversial area.0
-
and yet EFSA approved a health claim on labelling, presumably forming a different opinion to the one in the abstract of the referred paper. Seems to be a controversial area.
Well, the panel kind of skips the controversy by a starting assumption that they clearly state:
"The Panel assumes that the target population is individuals who wish to reduce their post-prandial glycemic responses."
Which, again is valid for a lot of people with disease conditions. It also assumes that there is a population not wishing to, or needing to reduce their PPGR. The panel never states the reduction of PPGR as either necessary or even a recommended clinical endpoint.0 -
I find the study interesting - whether or not the algorithm developed brings positive results to the population willing to spend money on it remains to be seen. I would imagine that companies/researchers that sell/investigate nutrigenomics/nutrigenetics will take a good look at it.
The only observation I have is: why would anyone be surprised that a change in diet changes the gut (microbiome)? I thought that that has been known for a while (the gut of vegans is different from the gut of vegetarians which is different from the gut of omnivores, and all of them are unique to the individual ). Did I dream this?
I agree that "healthy is what healthy does". There is no objective criteria of "healthy"; what exists is a definition of "state of health" (WHO) - "healthy" is what is necessary and sufficient to reach that state.0 -
I find the study interesting, but I will find the second study conducted by a research group completely unaffiliated with the first one even more interesting!0
-
-
It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Some people do need less protein per body weight. They're actually the ones that have lifted heavy for years - protein utilization efficiency goes up with muscle mass and training years.
Not sure of studies that say people who don't feel the need for protein needing less of it.0 -
I'm curious to see how narrow the margin of difference is going to prove to be though. I mean, it's obvious that the same treatment works for obesity on a broad spectrum of people - eat less, lose weight. There might be a small margin of difference in terms of how it affects people, but it's pretty obvious that it does work 99% of the time.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.0 -
I didn't attribute anything to anything. I just wonder and hope.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.
Even if I did, though, that would just be wrong and not actually "magical thinking." It's a little more than misattribution.
It's very satisfying, hunger-wise. That is one of my problems with meat. More than 75g or so...it sits in my stomach like a rock. Don't love that feeling. Also...just don't want to eat much meat. I don't dislike the taste so much. I just don't want it. I add chicken to my salad because I should eat some chicken, not because I want it. I want the peas, though.
Most Americans get more than enough protein. Not me! Most of my protein is a chore...but most of us.
0 -
Have you asked your doctor if there is reason for that?
I didn't attribute anything to anything. I just wonder and hope.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.
Even if I did, though, that would just be wrong and not actually "magical thinking." It's a little more than misattribution.
It's very satisfying, hunger-wise. That is one of my problems with meat. More than 75g or so...it sits in my stomach like a rock. Don't love that feeling. Also...just don't want to eat much meat. I don't dislike the taste so much. I just don't want it.
Most Americans get more than enough protein. Not me, but most of us.
0 -
Have you asked your doctor if there is reason for that?
I didn't attribute anything to anything. I just wonder and hope.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.
Even if I did, though, that would just be wrong and not actually "magical thinking." It's a little more than misattribution.
It's very satisfying, hunger-wise. That is one of my problems with meat. More than 75g or so...it sits in my stomach like a rock. Don't love that feeling. Also...just don't want to eat much meat. I don't dislike the taste so much. I just don't want it.
Most Americans get more than enough protein. Not me, but most of us.
Very cute, resorting to personal insults.
How very scientific and impressive...and so witty and original. You should be very proud of yourself. Clever, clever man.0 -
Have you asked your doctor if there is reason for that?
I didn't attribute anything to anything. I just wonder and hope.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.
Even if I did, though, that would just be wrong and not actually "magical thinking." It's a little more than misattribution.
It's very satisfying, hunger-wise. That is one of my problems with meat. More than 75g or so...it sits in my stomach like a rock. Don't love that feeling. Also...just don't want to eat much meat. I don't dislike the taste so much. I just don't want it.
Most Americans get more than enough protein. Not me, but most of us.
Very cute, resorting to personal insults.
How very scientific and impressive...and so witty and original. You should be very proud of yourself. Clever, clever man.
I was making a health suggestion. Are you saying you think when people suggest asking or talking to their doctor about issues it is an insult by the person advising getting medical advise to the person they're advising?0 -
Have you asked your doctor if there is reason for that?
I didn't attribute anything to anything. I just wonder and hope.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.
Even if I did, though, that would just be wrong and not actually "magical thinking." It's a little more than misattribution.
It's very satisfying, hunger-wise. That is one of my problems with meat. More than 75g or so...it sits in my stomach like a rock. Don't love that feeling. Also...just don't want to eat much meat. I don't dislike the taste so much. I just don't want it.
Most Americans get more than enough protein. Not me, but most of us.
Very cute, resorting to personal insults.
How very scientific and impressive...and so witty and original. You should be very proud of yourself. Clever, clever man.
so anytime one recommends a doctors advice that is now a persona insult, really???0 -
In fairness, not all cookies are the same. I like Nairn's oat biscuits, which are classed as low GI food, whereas a chocolate chip cookie would be a high GI food. I haven't read the study, but it may well be that not all cookies were created equal.0
-
I have worked out for years. I see some people that lift hard, eat and drink protein shakes, and struggle to add a pound
Others like me have to watch every calorie and do intense cardio
It is quite apparent there is some difference.
These are sometimes people I work with and see this guy eat 2500 calories just at work and in a massive protein shake
Interesting study
At the end of the day it really is just comforting knowledge. It won't change anything
I eat sparingly and gain muscle easily, he eats constantly and stays skinny
Weird0 -
Working2BLean wrote: »I have worked out for years. I see some people that lift hard, eat and drink protein shakes, and struggle to add a pound
Others like me have to watch every calorie and do intense cardio
It is quite apparent there is some difference.
These are sometimes people I work with and see this guy eat 2500 calories just at work and in a massive protein shake
Interesting study
At the end of the day it really is just comforting knowledge. It won't change anything
I eat sparingly and gain muscle easily, he eats constantly and stays skinny
Weird
I wonder how massive you're talking, when a regular ol' protein shake is barely 300-400.0 -
Have you asked your doctor if there is reason for that?
I didn't attribute anything to anything. I just wonder and hope.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.
Even if I did, though, that would just be wrong and not actually "magical thinking." It's a little more than misattribution.
It's very satisfying, hunger-wise. That is one of my problems with meat. More than 75g or so...it sits in my stomach like a rock. Don't love that feeling. Also...just don't want to eat much meat. I don't dislike the taste so much. I just don't want it.
Most Americans get more than enough protein. Not me, but most of us.
Very cute, resorting to personal insults.
How very scientific and impressive...and so witty and original. You should be very proud of yourself. Clever, clever man.
How was that a personal insult? It sounded like a legit question based on what you said. Is telling someone to consult a doctor an automatic insult now?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Working2BLean wrote: »I have worked out for years. I see some people that lift hard, eat and drink protein shakes, and struggle to add a pound
Others like me have to watch every calorie and do intense cardio
It is quite apparent there is some difference.
These are sometimes people I work with and see this guy eat 2500 calories just at work and in a massive protein shake
Interesting study
At the end of the day it really is just comforting knowledge. It won't change anything
I eat sparingly and gain muscle easily, he eats constantly and stays skinny
Weird
I wonder how massive you're talking, when a regular ol' protein shake is barely 300-400.
Yeah. How do you know the shake is 2500 calories? That doesn't seem possible. Maybe for a 64 oz milkshake deal, but not a protein shake.0 -
Have you asked your doctor if there is reason for that?
I didn't attribute anything to anything. I just wonder and hope.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »It makes total sense to me! Different people respond differently to meds, so why not food?
I really hope that one day they say, "Hey, it turns out that different people do better with different foods and everyone doesn't need all that protein, after all!"
I just cannot believe that I really need .8g/kg. If I needed it, why would I have to struggle so hard to get it? Wouldn't I want to eat that stuff?
It seems to me that a person should be able to eat the food they like and not always and forever have to be eating protein that they seriously don't want to eat. If I needed it, why would I be like, "God, I'm so sick of protein foods!"
It is probably wishful thinking, but I really think that if you actually need something, you wouldn't have to force yourself to eat it. You'd want it.
Wishful magical thinking.
According to your logic there would be no nutritional deficiencies in America. People would just eat what they need.
The study doesn't say "anything goes" just "there is a lot of variability".
By the way - you are probably eating more protein than you think. Getting 50g of protein a day is pretty easy (DRI), logging it properly isn't. A glass of milk, an egg, a yoghurt, half a cup of lentils. Done. Even easier if you include meat or fish in your diet.
It's not magical thinking. That term gets used a lot around here and is usually used incorrectly, as you just used it. That's a real thing, "magical thinking" - it has a real definition. It's not just a ridiculous, made-up insult like "special snowflake" that everyone gets to define for themselves. I it gets used that way a lot, but it's being used incorrectly.
I'm not getting more protein than I think. I'm not sure what you find difficult about logging (or logging protein), but it's not that big a deal for me. I just don't eat a lot of protein-containing foods. Some (like most dairy) don't agree with me and others (like meat) I just don't want. There are some I like, but if I eat enough of them to hit the protein goal, I get sick of them really fast.
I don't eat as much as they advise us to eat. Almost every day, I'm under that .8g/kg.
It is good that you can see the future of science, what they will and will not discover. Since I can't, I will continue to hope (probably in vain) that they'll find out that different people have different requirements where food is concerned. And, again, hoping for something to happen when you know it's unlikely to happen isn't magical thinking.
Magical thinking is thought that has a fundamental attribution error. Attributing a lack of interest in protein to being caused by a lack of need for protein, rather than a dietary preference, is an attribution error. Protein actually seems to cause satiety to a surprisingly fixed degree in ad libium eating humans - I recall some research that the amount of protein in most traditional diets in healthy weight populations is rather fixed.
http://www.science20.com/deconstructing_obesity/the_protein_leverage_hypothesis-156539While self-regulating human populations across the world and across several decades can be shown to eat a wide range of fat and carbohydrate calories, the amount of protein in the diet is nearly always 15% of the total.
Even if I did, though, that would just be wrong and not actually "magical thinking." It's a little more than misattribution.
It's very satisfying, hunger-wise. That is one of my problems with meat. More than 75g or so...it sits in my stomach like a rock. Don't love that feeling. Also...just don't want to eat much meat. I don't dislike the taste so much. I just don't want it.
Most Americans get more than enough protein. Not me, but most of us.
Very cute, resorting to personal insults.
How very scientific and impressive...and so witty and original. You should be very proud of yourself. Clever, clever man.
It isn't, though. The feeling you're describing is not common to a healthy gut. It may be you have a digestive issue. Or not - maybe you're so used to faster digesting foods that slower digesting ones feel odd to you. But asking the question was not out of line.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions