New protein consumption article-- everyone is going to go nuts over this!
Options
Replies
-
Gotcha. Well then, if you are active and especially if strength training, 160 would be a good number. If you are less active, 100 grams may be fine.2 -
Gotcha. Well then, if you are active and especially if strength training, 160 would be a good number. If you are less active, 100 grams may be fine.
I think at my top weight I aimed for 140g, which is where aeloine is right now. It wasn't hard to hit with losing 1lb per week and exercise calories. Much like now I often exceeded it because I'd aim for a good hit of protein with each meal and then there's the protein in things you don't realise that bumps it up again.0 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".3 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
If you are 200+ lbs, 160 grams does not seem unreasonable, assuming you are at a healthy BF%. If you are over weight, then the amount could be lower, as in 1.6 grams per lb of goal weight. So if your goal was 150 lbs, that would be a protein intake of 109 grams
Which is exactly why I asked my initial question. I have been calculating my protein intake based on GOAL weight, not CURRENT weight. There's almost a 50% difference between 109 and 160, so it's quite shocking.0 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
If you are 200+ lbs, 160 grams does not seem unreasonable, assuming you are at a healthy BF%. If you are over weight, then the amount could be lower, as in 1.6 grams per lb of goal weight. So if your goal was 150 lbs, that would be a protein intake of 109 grams
Which is exactly why I asked my initial question. I have been calculating my protein intake based on GOAL weight, not CURRENT weight. There's almost a 50% difference between 109 and 160, so it's quite shocking.
The article does not seem to address the question of whether someone who is significantly overweight (so has a meaningful difference in the goal between current and goal weight) should focus on current weight. The studies were about people trying to gain muscle, not lose weight, as I understand it. My belief is that goal weight is probably okay to use, especially since the more you have to lose the less muscle is lost. In that the issue is amount of muscle, eating more for excess fat seems unnecessary. Examine.com looked at some of the same studies that make up this analysis, and came up with a similar number, but say you don't need more to account for obesity (fat above the healthy fat percentage).3 -
I usually get to about 60 grams and I'm currently 60kg. Ho hum... can't help it. If I eat much more protein I get reflux.3
-
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".
I agree that hedonism is a large contributing factor to weight/fat gain. And that mechanism triggered to store fat is by being in an energy surplus, which would be in excess of maintenance.
Whether you ingested 100 or 160g of protein, which is 400 or 640kcal, respectively, either of those values fall well within any range of calories you've calculated as maintenance (2100) or deficit (1400).
Protein is a priority for life, not just dieting. Save for a few carb sources, protein is generally the most satiating macronutrient among the three based on the satiety index of food. In other words, it's very difficult to overeat if you were to focus your diet around it.
And if the opposite of excess is restriction, then wouldn't prioritizing the most satiating macro - protein - which makes overeating difficult (e.g. restricting the consumption of other foods), make much more sense, especially if you're trying to adhere to a deficit?
I'm still failing to see the correlation that eating more protein-based food is excessive. It has the highest satiety factor, semi-self limiting, has as many calories per gram as carbs, has the highest thermogenic effect when broken down for digestion, and is the foundation for tissue repair and building.
What macros are you prioritizing?
The only interpretation that I'm able to deduce from your rebuttals (and I could very well be incorrect) is that you would prefer to sacrifice protein intake to spare more room for a higher combination of carbs and fat, which in a western obesogenic diet, are the two primary macronutrients that drive hyperpalatability and hedonic signaling - it's actually a precisely engineered combination of sugar, fat, and salt that make industrial food tasty, non-satiating, and easy to eat more. Likely because protein and micronutrients are sorely lacking from those types of food.6 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".
What macros are you prioritizing?
The only interpretation that I'm able to deduce from your rebuttals (and I could very well be incorrect) is that you would prefer to sacrifice protein intake to spare more room for a higher combination of carbs and fat, which in a western obesogenic diet, are the two primary macronutrients that drive hyperpalatability and hedonic signaling - it's actually a precisely engineered combination of sugar, fat, and salt that make industrial food tasty, non-satiating, and easy to eat more. Likely because protein and micronutrients are sorely lacking from those types of food.
You're interpreting me exactly the way that I intended. I am not prioritizing macros beyond ~109g of protein or so. I am prioritizing "tasty" and "happy". Higher protein sacrifices "tasty" (to me. Subjective. YMMV.). Which is EXACTLY why I'm complaining.
I think you're being much more clinical about this than I am, and more power to you for that, but I do not (and never have) prioritized the functionality of a food over its subjective attributes. So this new study, which somewhat implies (and I say somewhat because of @lemurcat12 's comment above) that I need to increase my protein (which I do *not* enjoy) means decreasing the amount of carbs and fats (which I *do* enjoy).
This would not be such an issue if I were in maintenance. The net calories after protein is accounted for would be plenty. But now I'm being told that those are not only to be reduced in favor of protein, but further reduced (disproportionately to protein, I might add!) by a caloric deficit.
To people like me (who struggle to get enough protein anyway), this could have emotionally debilitating consequences. After all, what's the point of trying to diet if I'm *already* not doing something right (not getting enough protein), and then on top of it I have to eat food that I don't really care for, and have to FURTHER decrease the food that I DO like in favor of the food that I don't? I'd try it for exactly four and a half days before throwing in the towel, binging on a pizza, and deciding that I'm not good enough.
TL;DR: I didn't get fat because I look at the utility of food.9 -
Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".
What macros are you prioritizing?
The only interpretation that I'm able to deduce from your rebuttals (and I could very well be incorrect) is that you would prefer to sacrifice protein intake to spare more room for a higher combination of carbs and fat, which in a western obesogenic diet, are the two primary macronutrients that drive hyperpalatability and hedonic signaling - it's actually a precisely engineered combination of sugar, fat, and salt that make industrial food tasty, non-satiating, and easy to eat more. Likely because protein and micronutrients are sorely lacking from those types of food.
You're interpreting me exactly the way that I intended. I am not prioritizing macros beyond ~109g of protein or so. I am prioritizing "tasty" and "happy". Higher protein sacrifices "tasty" (to me. Subjective. YMMV.). Which is EXACTLY why I'm complaining.
I think you're being much more clinical about this than I am, and more power to you for that, but I do not (and never have) prioritized the functionality of a food over its subjective attributes. So this new study, which somewhat implies (and I say somewhat because of @lemurcat12 's comment above) that I need to increase my protein (which I do *not* enjoy) means decreasing the amount of carbs and fats (which I *do* enjoy).
This would not be such an issue if I were in maintenance. The net calories after protein is accounted for would be plenty. But now I'm being told that those are not only to be reduced in favor of protein, but further reduced (disproportionately to protein, I might add!) by a caloric deficit.
To people like me (who struggle to get enough protein anyway), this could have emotionally debilitating consequences. After all, what's the point of trying to diet if I'm *already* not doing something right (not getting enough protein), and then on top of it I have to eat food that I don't really care for, and have to FURTHER decrease the food that I DO like in favor of the food that I don't? I'd try it for exactly four and a half days before throwing in the towel, binging on a pizza, and deciding that I'm not good enough.
TL;DR: I didn't get fat because I look at the utility of food.
Fair enough. I appreciate your honesty.
You're right that I'm being clinical simply for the fact to remove subjective bias, since subjectivity generates a lot of emotional response and loses itself in light of facts.
So I'm going to be candid as well. If focusing on subjectively tasty food led to the current situation, and just to clarify so we're on the same page, I'm equating "tasty food" to mean easily consumable food with a high satisfaction (subjective/psychological) and low satiety (physiological/physically full) factor. Then, there's going to be a bit of a gamble in keeping tasty food as the priority in your diet.
TL;DR - if you want to lose fat, some things need to change.
I'm not saying that you or anyone has to completely eliminate tasty food from your diet, but there does need to be a restriction. We're creating a deficit, so there has to be less of something coming in. For the sake of argument, I'm going to use donuts, ice cream, chips, candy, pastry, and similar foods to represent a carb+fat dense tasty food.
When people create a deficit for the first time or in a long time, the level of restriction they initially see in their mind is complete elimination, or at least extreme restriction to the point of sadness. In that sense, yes, there would be some psychological backfire to call it quits and binge. Because the level of restriction is similar to punishment.
This is not what I'm advocating. Just to support your notion, you struggle to get enough protein by nature, and it made eating donuts and ice cream that much easier. What I am saying is you create the balance in favor of protein. Up your protein intake a bit and reduce (not restrict) your tasty food a bit.
The easiest way would be to just trade out some carb grams for protein grams, since it's a 1:1 ratio in terms of calorie value. Fat is just over 2x the calories of either carbs or protein, so you can trade out 1g of fat for either 2g of carbs or protein, or 1g carb and 1g pro.
Do you haveto eat 160g of protein? Not at all. If you tried, you might just feel uncomfortably full before even reaching 120g. But that's the point I was making. You'd likely be too full to want to eat too much of anything else. Which would still allow for *some* tasty food, just not *all* tasty food.
At the same time, if you're around pizza and cookies all the time, there's probably not enough protein that would override the temptation to want to eat them. That's how strong hedonic signaling is. Being formerly obese, I can't be around a donuts. I don't eliminate them, I just don't keep them around me where they're easy to reach.
If I really want one, I'll have to get dressed (or not), get in my car, drive down the street, deal with 5 minutes of street traffic, park in a small lot, hope that no one stupidly parked next to me, then wonder if I forgot to bring cash because they don't take card by the time I already made my donut selection.
Honestly, I'm lazy as all hell and just the thought of needing to get dressed up enough to not be arrested for indecent exposure is enough to stop me from buying donuts. Same goes for ice cream or cake. And no, I'm not paying some uber delivery person virtual money to get food I can get myself.
Look, you're going to have to reduce eating your favorite foods anyway. And by being in a deficit, there's going to be some hunger issues regardless. Why not make some of that hunger a bit more manageable with a little more protein?4 -
I have been eating between 0.8-1.2g of protein/lb/day (120-200g/day) for over 20 months and it has served me well for muscle development, weight/BF loss and maintenance. No problems doing this whatsoever.1
-
I went a little off kilter with a very long response, which I think means it's a good time to ring the bell and head home.
EDIT:
Oh, what the hay, I already typed it all out:Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".
What macros are you prioritizing?
The only interpretation that I'm able to deduce from your rebuttals (and I could very well be incorrect) is that you would prefer to sacrifice protein intake to spare more room for a higher combination of carbs and fat, which in a western obesogenic diet, are the two primary macronutrients that drive hyperpalatability and hedonic signaling - it's actually a precisely engineered combination of sugar, fat, and salt that make industrial food tasty, non-satiating, and easy to eat more. Likely because protein and micronutrients are sorely lacking from those types of food.
You're interpreting me exactly the way that I intended. I am not prioritizing macros beyond ~109g of protein or so. I am prioritizing "tasty" and "happy". Higher protein sacrifices "tasty" (to me. Subjective. YMMV.). Which is EXACTLY why I'm complaining.
I think you're being much more clinical about this than I am, and more power to you for that, but I do not (and never have) prioritized the functionality of a food over its subjective attributes. So this new study, which somewhat implies (and I say somewhat because of @lemurcat12 's comment above) that I need to increase my protein (which I do *not* enjoy) means decreasing the amount of carbs and fats (which I *do* enjoy).
This would not be such an issue if I were in maintenance. The net calories after protein is accounted for would be plenty. But now I'm being told that those are not only to be reduced in favor of protein, but further reduced (disproportionately to protein, I might add!) by a caloric deficit.
To people like me (who struggle to get enough protein anyway), this could have emotionally debilitating consequences. After all, what's the point of trying to diet if I'm *already* not doing something right (not getting enough protein), and then on top of it I have to eat food that I don't really care for, and have to FURTHER decrease the food that I DO like in favor of the food that I don't? I'd try it for exactly four and a half days before throwing in the towel, binging on a pizza, and deciding that I'm not good enough.
TL;DR: I didn't get fat because I look at the utility of food.
TL;DR - if you want to lose fat, some things need to change.
Haha, I KNEW this was going to happen. Yes, some things have to change, but why can't they change PROPORTIONALLY? If I have to decrease my calories, say.... 25%, why can't that 25% come from ALL the macros?Of CURRENT body weight? That'd be 160 grams of protein for me. I rarely get above a 100. Seems excessive.
Define "excessive."
160g of pro = 640kcal.
To maintain a theoretical 100kg/220lb of bodyweight, that would be 3000-3300kcal (current bw x 14-15 = rough maintenance range).
The remaining macro calories of 2360 - 2660kcal are going to be a combination of carbs and fat.
As you lose weight, those numbers also reduce, with the caveat that leaner individuals may want to retain a higher protein content to prevent or reduce loss of lbm.
Keep in mind that I'm female and 5'6-5'7, so my maintenance calories are closer to 2,100. 2100-640=1460. If I'm on a 500-750 cal/day deficit, that gives me 710-960 of things OTHER than protein to eat, which is definitely NOT as fun as 2360-2660. And seeing as protein rarely comes in "pure" form, those 640 calories are going to get muddled while I'm trying to get my protein.
So yes, excessive.
I wouldn't know to keep your gender and height in mind since it was never mentioned.
Maintenance calories for body weight are energy parameters to sustain that exact weight. Gender and height play a relative factor in calculating a range of optimal weight and body fat, but are not the ultimate determinant to sustain mass. That's an energy balance equation based on current body weight and activity levels. If you have a metabolic issue going on, then that also gets thrown into the equation, but that was also never mentioned, so I'm basing calculated maintenance strictly from what is or isn't mentioned.
710 - 960kcal of "OTHER" things is 178-240g of all carbs, or 79-107g of all fat. Certainly a combination of any of those macros can be manageable. Food being "fun" is a hedonistic implication and by definition, indulgent.
As for protein rarely coming in "pure" form, of course natural sources of protein aren't going to be purely protein. This is constantly mentioned as calculating your total calories as a combination of other macros. Extreme examples of macros are being used to illustrate its contribution to that total.
And there's still no context for what is considered excessive. It fits within your given deficit that you've calculated for yourself.
Hedonism is what landed me here in the first place. It should be no surprised, then, that hedonism is what's helping define my measure of "excess".
What macros are you prioritizing?
The only interpretation that I'm able to deduce from your rebuttals (and I could very well be incorrect) is that you would prefer to sacrifice protein intake to spare more room for a higher combination of carbs and fat, which in a western obesogenic diet, are the two primary macronutrients that drive hyperpalatability and hedonic signaling - it's actually a precisely engineered combination of sugar, fat, and salt that make industrial food tasty, non-satiating, and easy to eat more. Likely because protein and micronutrients are sorely lacking from those types of food.
You're interpreting me exactly the way that I intended. I am not prioritizing macros beyond ~109g of protein or so. I am prioritizing "tasty" and "happy". Higher protein sacrifices "tasty" (to me. Subjective. YMMV.). Which is EXACTLY why I'm complaining.
I think you're being much more clinical about this than I am, and more power to you for that, but I do not (and never have) prioritized the functionality of a food over its subjective attributes. So this new study, which somewhat implies (and I say somewhat because of @lemurcat12 's comment above) that I need to increase my protein (which I do *not* enjoy) means decreasing the amount of carbs and fats (which I *do* enjoy).
This would not be such an issue if I were in maintenance. The net calories after protein is accounted for would be plenty. But now I'm being told that those are not only to be reduced in favor of protein, but further reduced (disproportionately to protein, I might add!) by a caloric deficit.
To people like me (who struggle to get enough protein anyway), this could have emotionally debilitating consequences. After all, what's the point of trying to diet if I'm *already* not doing something right (not getting enough protein), and then on top of it I have to eat food that I don't really care for, and have to FURTHER decrease the food that I DO like in favor of the food that I don't? I'd try it for exactly four and a half days before throwing in the towel, binging on a pizza, and deciding that I'm not good enough.
TL;DR: I didn't get fat because I look at the utility of food.
Look, you're going to have to reduce eating your favorite foods anyway. And by being in a deficit, there's going to be some hunger issues regardless. Why not make some of that hunger a bit more manageable with a little more protein?
Because it doesn't TASTE GOOD. Don't misunderstand me when I say that to mean that my food is bland. I can season a protein with the best of them, and *thoroughly* enjoy cooking. Personally, I don't find hunger to be a huge problem, and I don't find protein to be more satiating. That might be the most important part. Why is there such a large emphasis on a certain macro when the others get left by the wayside? And now it's a GROWING guideline? This obsession with protein isn't even necessarily getting in the way of my Girl Scout cookies, but it IS trying to shove protein into every single meal where I can easily go for several days without eating meat.
Maybe I need to introduce a different perspective; volume eating. I eat ALL. DAY. LONG.
For lunch today, I had a butternut squash soup, a couple of slices of veggie pizza, and a banana. For dinner, I plan to have leek, coconut milk, and potato soup, at least a pound of parmesan roasted cauliflower, and at least a whole melon. These things TASTE well, are carby and fatty, allow me to eat copious amounts of food, fit into my calories, but most certainly do not provide nearly two hundred grams of protein.
As it stands, I have to dedicate an entire meal towards at least meeting the LOWER recommendation (109g). If I had to ramp it up, and was continuing to read on these forums that "protein is all you need
" I'd lose my dang mind! DRINKING additional protein defeats the point because it's additional calories, I don't get to chew, and it's not nearly as FUN.
The title of this thread is apt in that I'm going to go nuts over this.
Main point:
If I'm a newbie coming to these forums with 50+ pounds to lose, I'm unlikely to already be getting this much protein in my diet (according to you, it's highly satisfying, so wouldn't it stand to reason that I would not be seriously over eating?). We wouldn't be seeing all of the "I'm addicted to sugar!" posts if it was *normal* to get this much protein in.
So I'm a newbie who eats your hedonistic diet, I come to MFP, learn to cut calories, and notice that if I'm depriving myself of the things that I'm *used* to, I'm more likely to binge. Telling a newbie to FURTHER deprive themselves of the things that they're used to and subbing in lean chicken breast is going to be as much of a turn off as a Whole 30, Keto, Paleo, what-have-you to someone who is just struggling in the first place. This is why we tell those posters to eat what they like, just LESS of it. Except this post is doing the opposite of that by saying eat even LESS of the PREVIOUS less and instead eat more Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, fish, chicken, legumes, red meat, etc.10 -
Brad Schoenfeld was involved with the meta analysis this article was based on.
He called the article a “nice piece” on Twitter.
Looks like the mainstream media finally got one right.2 -
-
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »According to the NYTimes, it's settled. You need to eat lots more protein than the RDA. They are recommending 1.6 g protein per kg body weight. (The US RDA is 0.8g per kg of body weight, so the NYT is pretty much recommending doubling that amount.)
https://nyti.ms/2BJefoq
Here is the study that the article is based on:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018/01/18/bjsports-2017-097608
They are doing a "meta-analysis" where they average prior studies to get a final result. The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat. Here's one of the figures, for example. They are measuring changes in muscle fiber cross section and looking for a correlation with increased protein consumption. "0" would mean there's no correlation. The results are all over the place and the ranges are very large!
My decision has been to eat somewhat more than the RDA, but I don't quite make it to 1.6 g/kg. I would think the most important part is lifting weights, not over-eating protein. I would go out on a limb to say that over-eating protein without lifting weights is pretty useless.
Meta-analyses are actually a lot more complicated than just averaging the results of a bunch of small studies, at least the way most laypeople think of "averaging" (apologies if that wasn't what you meant). A well-constructed meta-analysis can be much more statistically accurate than any individual study.
Definitely more than averages, a peer-reviewed meta analysis is a lot of work. Correlation is not the only factor, the variables being tested must also show some kind of relationship (t-test, ANOVA, etc). You can have variables that have a perfect correlation, but show no actual relationship.0 -
I went a little off kilter with a very long response, which I think means it's a good time to ring the bell and head home.
EDIT:
Oh, what the hay, I already typed it all out:
...
The title of this thread is apt in that I'm going to go nuts over this.
I assure you I read your response. There's a lot of reasons why protein is important, but ultimately, no one's forcing you to eat more. Again, there was a lot of context missing from your responses supporting any notion that hunger wasn't an issue. Really, all the information I could gather from what was written was that you enjoy palatable food and would rather opt for those over protein.
If whatever you're doing is keeping you adherent to your diet and you enjoy what you're eating, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ do you. That's more important for fat loss than anything. I mean, really, I'm just some rando on the internet. So screw what I say or what anyone else says. You don't need approval for your choices.6 -
Aeloine already explained it well, but I want to make a couple of points too.So I'm going to be candid as well. If focusing on subjectively tasty food led to the current situation, and just to clarify so we're on the same page, I'm equating "tasty food" to mean easily consumable food with a high satisfaction (subjective/psychological) and low satiety (physiological/physically full) factor. Then, there's going to be a bit of a gamble in keeping tasty food as the priority in your diet.
TL;DR - if you want to lose fat, some things need to change.
I actually think that the main reason people (or a lot of people) gain weight is they eat thoughtlessly, just whatever they want and based on taste. Not because they eat non satiating food or are hungry.
I also think that a big reason why these people may not be motivated to lose weight is that they think it's a choice between losing and not enjoying their food or being as they are and being able to eat what they want. Understanding that they can (to some degree) have both, that they can lose and eat food they enjoy, can be a huge and motivating revelation.
Your assumptions that the diet she is eating if not higher protein will leave her hungry (or does) or that the trade off is mostly stuff like donuts isn't warranted.
[Edit: I see you responded in the meantime -- I got interrupted when writing so didn't see the response before. So never mind.]4 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??
I think that's reserved for people like Fung and Taubes.
9 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??
I think that's reserved for people like Fung and Taubes. 0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The problem is that few of the prior studies show much of an effect, and some show a negative effect, so averaging them all together seems like a cheat.
So you think researchers should just throw out data that doesn't agree with their preconceptions or desired outcomes??
I think that's reserved for people like Fung and Taubes.
Lol win0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions