Protein: Grams or % of Calories?
Options
Replies
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
3 -
This is fascinating! So let's say I meet the absolute upper limit of my protein for the day, but I still have a lot of calories left because of exercise. Do I just fill in the remainder with carbs and fat regardless of the percentages?1
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need-every-day-201506188096
Meeting the bare minimum is should not be a goal. It should be to consume the optimal amount of protein to align to ones goal. More protein is a good thing.
Here is a Harvard article discussing the RDA. Essentially, its enough to get the essential amino acids and to prevent one from getting sick.3 -
adrianegenette582 wrote: »This is fascinating! So let's say I meet the absolute upper limit of my protein for the day, but I still have a lot of calories left because of exercise. Do I just fill in the remainder with carbs and fat regardless of the percentages?
You can fill them based on preference. As a runner, that might be carbs.0 -
Also, lets not forget that higher protein diets help maintain metabolic function, it has been shown to be the most effective diet in terms of energy expediture, compliance, and weight loss compared to any other diet; it helps maintain, build and repair muscle and much more.
There is a reason why no coach, PhD, or dietetian would advocate a low protein diet (outside of having a kidney disease).6 -
@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe.
Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion. It seems that people reading scientific literature like research papers ignore these words and interpret things like "unlikely to be harmful" as "not harmful".
Anyway, it's apparent that everyone has strong views and this discussion is going nowhere. I prefer to believe the panels of scientists, others (the majority it seems) seem to prefer to believe the fitness coaches. Each to their own I guess.
How about a guy with a PhD and studies nutrition and metabolism every day? Because that is who I get my nutritional recommendations from that counter guidelines that were published over a decade ago (which is science years is eons...unless it’s a seminal work)2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe.
Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion. It seems that people reading scientific literature like research papers ignore these words and interpret things like "unlikely to be harmful" as "not harmful".
Anyway, it's apparent that everyone has strong views and this discussion is going nowhere. I prefer to believe the panels of scientists, others (the majority it seems) seem to prefer to believe the fitness coaches. Each to their own I guess.
How about a guy with a PhD and studies nutrition and metabolism every day? Because that is who I get my nutritional recommendations from that counter guidelines that were published over a decade ago (which is science years is eons...unless it’s a seminal work)
You must have missed the qualification I made in my first post where I stated that giving protein intake recommendations that are outside of dietary guidelines without knowing the medical history or other pertinent information, etc of the person being advised is what I think is not a good idea. The responsible, in my opinion, option is to recommend they stick to the guidelines or get advise from a professional. A dietician (or a nutritionist with a PhD I guess) presumably has enough details concerning the person they are advising that they can make a recommendation for that individual and that's a whole different matter and not what I was talking about at all.
3 -
adrianegenette582 wrote: »This is fascinating! So let's say I meet the absolute upper limit of my protein for the day, but I still have a lot of calories left because of exercise. Do I just fill in the remainder with carbs and fat regardless of the percentages?
Well, we don't really know what the absolute upper limit of protein per day is, but let's assume you've picked some number you feel comfortable with as an upper limit. And you've hit at least your minimum of fat. Sure, fill in the remainder with carbs and fat regardless of the percentages. Percentages are pretty stupid, in my opinion, because your goal for things you need X grams per day of don't change based on whether you're on a deep cut, a small cut, a maintenance day, a refeed day, a bulk day, a forget-tracking-it's-[annual holiday or once in a lifetime event of your choice] day.0 -
Also, lets not forget that higher protein diets help maintain metabolic function, it has been shown to be the most effective diet in terms of energy expediture, compliance, and weight loss compared to any other diet; it helps maintain, build and repair muscle and much more.
There is a reason why no coach, PhD, or dietetian would advocate a low protein diet (outside of having a kidney disease).
I agree, I think most experts would advocate eating at the higher end of the spectrum and council that, without any pre-existing kidney issues, going over the upper end of the recommended range is absolutely fine.
I have seen articles questioning the need to eat protein at such high levels, but these are only coming at it from the point that protein tends to be the most expensive macro nutrient. I have not seen anyone advocating eating below the minimum range.2 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
No I was referencing this study - definitely per lb.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/221504250 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
No I was referencing this study - definitely per lb.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425
Oh, ok. Thanks for the link.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe.
Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion. It seems that people reading scientific literature like research papers ignore these words and interpret things like "unlikely to be harmful" as "not harmful".
Anyway, it's apparent that everyone has strong views and this discussion is going nowhere. I prefer to believe the panels of scientists, others (the majority it seems) seem to prefer to believe the fitness coaches. Each to their own I guess.
How about a guy with a PhD and studies nutrition and metabolism every day? Because that is who I get my nutritional recommendations from that counter guidelines that were published over a decade ago (which is science years is eons...unless it’s a seminal work)
You must have missed the qualification I made in my first post where I stated that giving protein intake recommendations that are outside of dietary guidelines without knowing the medical history or other pertinent information, etc of the person being advised is what I think is not a good idea. The responsible, in my opinion, option is to recommend they stick to the guidelines or get advise from a professional. A dietician (or a nutritionist with a PhD I guess) presumably has enough details concerning the person they are advising that they can make a recommendation for that individual and that's a whole different matter and not what I was talking about at all.
If the OP had a kidney concern or other medical concern, than it would be their responsibility to have that conversation with their medical team. The OP is very active and it is not irresponsible or unreasonable to suggest higher levels of protein to aid in recovery and muscle maintenance based on a plethora or evidence. The data i have posted is from some of the top PhDs in the field who hold multiple certifications and degrees in nutritional sciences. The information is based on a computation of recent studies. Protein is one of the most studied things in nutritional science.
You can certainly recommend following dietary guidelines, but i will not recommend them as they address minimums, not what is optimal.6 -
One more thing, the panel of members that make the recommendation requires decades of evidence before they make changes; which is why they just increased protein a few years ago. But also take into consideration that there comes inherent biased that can or won't drive changes. So yes, government bureaucracy does come into play.3
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
As a person who is active (rowing, spinning, lifting, etc.), aging (62), and vegetarian (so some/many of my protein grams are incomplete WRT essential amino acids), I think it's a reasonable bet-hedge to exceed the USDA/WHO/etc. RDA. Research supports that.
And, old (senile?
) though I may be, I do still understand the difference between pounds and kilograms. To suggest that I've missed that tiny detail . . . that's insulting. 5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
As a person who is active (rowing, spinning, lifting, etc.), aging (62), and vegetarian (so some/many of my protein grams are incomplete WRT essential amino acids), I think it's a reasonable bet-hedge to exceed the USDA/WHO/etc. RDA. Research supports that.
And, old (senile? ) though I may be, I do still understand the difference between pounds and kilograms. To suggest that I've missed that tiny detail . . . that's insulting.
Not to white knight, but how can you be insulted by a post that wasn't responding to you? Embedding doesn't show you on the line of threads you're responding to.
And the post that did elicit the statement about the numbers being based on .8 g/kg not per pound was a response to discussion of RDI, which is expressed in g/kg, not g/lb. So it seems like a reasonable point to make when someone responds with a statement that ".82 g/lb is the maximum not the minimum." Even if those two posters (neither of which was you) were having a misunderstanding and not talking about the same thing, that's a misunderstanding, not an insult.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
As a person who is active (rowing, spinning, lifting, etc.), aging (62), and vegetarian (so some/many of my protein grams are incomplete WRT essential amino acids), I think it's a reasonable bet-hedge to exceed the USDA/WHO/etc. RDA. Research supports that.
And, old (senile? ) though I may be, I do still understand the difference between pounds and kilograms. To suggest that I've missed that tiny detail . . . that's insulting.
Not to white knight, but how can you be insulted by a post that wasn't responding to you? Embedding doesn't show you on the line of threads you're responding to.
And the post that did elicit the statement about the numbers being based on .8 g/kg not per pound was a response to discussion of RDI, which is expressed in g/kg, not g/lb. So it seems like a reasonable point to make when someone responds with a statement that ".82 g/lb is the maximum not the minimum." Even if those two posters (neither of which was you) were having a misunderstanding and not talking about the same thing, that's a misunderstanding, not an insult.
I responded specifically to a post that said "These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound)" on a thread that included:
". . . recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg)."
". . . 0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption."
I don't need to have been a previous participant in this specific thread to hold the opinion that repeatedly implying or explicitly saying that others can't tell pounds from kilograms is insulting. And, as a person who routinely advocates for more than the USDA/WHO minimums for people in a deficit, active, aging, largely plant-based, etc., I don't think it's a far reach to consider myself in that ill-defined "often see cited on MFP" sort of group.
I routinely underscore on such threads that I do mean pounds, not kilograms, specifically because of this perception by the occasional poster that somehow people like me are confused about units. It's entirely possible that I'm over-sensitive about this issue because of reading this "kilograms not pounds" thing repeatedly. If I've over-reacted on that account, I'm sorry.
They and I disagree about optimal protein intake. That's fine. Saying that people who disagree with one about protein requirements are confusing pounds and kilograms - without attempting any kind of clarifying discussion - goes a bit beyond civil disagreement about protein requirements, IMO.
Edited: Typo5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
0.82g / lb is the maximum not the minimum. Although there is nothing unhealthy with going over that quantity.
Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound):
https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12
As a person who is active (rowing, spinning, lifting, etc.), aging (62), and vegetarian (so some/many of my protein grams are incomplete WRT essential amino acids), I think it's a reasonable bet-hedge to exceed the USDA/WHO/etc. RDA. Research supports that.
And, old (senile? ) though I may be, I do still understand the difference between pounds and kilograms. To suggest that I've missed that tiny detail . . . that's insulting.
Not to white knight, but how can you be insulted by a post that wasn't responding to you? Embedding doesn't show you on the line of threads you're responding to.
And the post that did elicit the statement about the numbers being based on .8 g/kg not per pound was a response to discussion of RDI, which is expressed in g/kg, not g/lb. So it seems like a reasonable point to make when someone responds with a statement that ".82 g/lb is the maximum not the minimum." Even if those two posters (neither of which was you) were having a misunderstanding and not talking about the same thing, that's a misunderstanding, not an insult.
I responded specifically to a post that said "These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound)" on a thread that included:
". . . recommending anything other than 0.8g/kg of body weight is not advisable. I know that many fitness coaches recommend way more than that and I often see 0.8/lb cited on MFP (every time I see someone mention 0.8g/lb I wonder if they really mean 0.8g/kg)."
". . . 0.83g/kg/day is 0.38g/lb/day. An intake of 0.82g/lb/day is 1.8g/kg/day (only about twice the amount discussed in the WHO report, and many others, so probably safe). I start getting annoyed though when I see people on MFP consistently recommending to others that they eat more protein than leading world health organisations recommend; I don't know if it's because of a confusion between metric/imperial units and this has led to the perpetuation of error, or if there is some other reason behind the sometimes excessive recommendations for daily protein consumption."
I don't need to have been a previous participant in this specific thread to hold the opinion that repeatedly implying or explicitly saying that others can't tell pounds from kilograms is insulting. And, as a person who routinely advocates for more than the USDA/WHO minimums for people in a deficit, active, aging, largely plant-based, etc., I don't think it's a far reach to consider myself in that ill-defined "often see cited on MFP" sort of group.
I routinely underscore on such threads that I do mean pounds, not kilograms, specifically because of this perception by the occasional poster that somehow people like me are confused about units. It's entirely possible that I'm over-sensitive about this issue because of reading this "kilograms not pounds" thing repeatedly. If I've over-reacted on that account, I'm sorry.
They and I disagree about optimal protein intake. That's fine. Saying that people who disagree with one about protein requirements are confusing pounds and kilograms - without attempting any kind of clarifying discussion - goes a bit beyond civil disagreement about protein requirements, IMO.
Edited: Typo
I don't disagree with the optimal protein intake per se. My own protein intake is closer to 1.3-1.5g/kg/day. What I disagree with is recommending to others that they exceed dietary guidelines (and/or linking to videos or other material that recommend eating up to 8x what guidelines recommend) without referring them to their health professional. E.g. in the case of the OP, all these assertions that she is eating no where near enough protein (when she's actually eating pretty much exactly what population-level guidelines suggest) when in fact nobody on here can know if that's the case or not.4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »@kpsyche This is an honest question because I am not well versed in this subject - where have you seen that people can get sick from eating 0.8g per lb of goal weight? I've seen that level recommended all over health and fitness sites, along with the rec that those who are actively losing weight and/or exercising consume more than the RDI, but I'd hate to be repeating it if it's problematic. The paragraph you posted said twice the RDI is safe.
I'll add, there IS a difference between adequate to avoid deficiency, and adequate to be robustly healthy. RDI is adequate to avoid deficiency. I'd rather give my body more than the minimum necessary for basic bodily function, but that's personal opinion.
OP said she is very active and lifting weights, so in this particular instance it would seem more than the min is warranted I believe.
I always find it fascinating that protein is one of the polarizing subjects here, who knew
It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe.
Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion. It seems that people reading scientific literature like research papers ignore these words and interpret things like "unlikely to be harmful" as "not harmful".
Anyway, it's apparent that everyone has strong views and this discussion is going nowhere. I prefer to believe the panels of scientists, others (the majority it seems) seem to prefer to believe the fitness coaches. Each to their own I guess.
How about a guy with a PhD and studies nutrition and metabolism every day? Because that is who I get my nutritional recommendations from that counter guidelines that were published over a decade ago (which is science years is eons...unless it’s a seminal work)
You must have missed the qualification I made in my first post where I stated that giving protein intake recommendations that are outside of dietary guidelines without knowing the medical history or other pertinent information, etc of the person being advised is what I think is not a good idea. The responsible, in my opinion, option is to recommend they stick to the guidelines or get advise from a professional. A dietician (or a nutritionist with a PhD I guess) presumably has enough details concerning the person they are advising that they can make a recommendation for that individual and that's a whole different matter and not what I was talking about at all.
If the OP had a kidney concern or other medical concern, than it would be their responsibility to have that conversation with their medical team. The OP is very active and it is not irresponsible or unreasonable to suggest higher levels of protein to aid in recovery and muscle maintenance based on a plethora or evidence. The data i have posted is from some of the top PhDs in the field who hold multiple certifications and degrees in nutritional sciences. The information is based on a computation of recent studies. Protein is one of the most studied things in nutritional science.
You can certainly recommend following dietary guidelines, but i will not recommend them as they address minimums, not what is optimal.
That's where the misunderstanding lies, I think. They certainly do not address minimums (an RDI/RDA/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is not a minimum) and I don't know why many people think they do.
Anyway, I've had enough of this thread; it's just going around in circles
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions