High protein?
Replies
-
The food pyramid is wrong for your average person who doesn't workout. Hello type 2 diabetes
There's nothing wrong with the food pyramid or My Plate...nowhere do gov't recommendations say to eat a bunch of *kitten* and make sure you pile your plate with it. It emphasizes eating a variety of fruits and vegetables and lean proteins and whole grains like oats, etc. If people actually followed it, they would be fine.10 -
The country did not actually do low fat.0
-
tabbiyoung13 wrote: »How do I get in my protein without affing a lot of cholesterol and sodium. Seems like peanut butter, seafood, and chicken is high in sodium and cholesterol. I went over in my cholesterol yesterday for having just 2 eggs with breakfast 😶
There is absolutely no cholesterol in peanut butter, unless you've found some brand that adds lard. You can buy peanut butter that is just ground peanuts, no added salt. Of course, the real problem is that peanut butter is more of a fat source than a protein source.
Chicken breast and other lean meats are not particularly high in cholesterol, and if you buy raw cuts from the market, you can control how much salt gets added (there's not much sodium in the raw poultry or meat). Just don't buy brined. Fish is another option.2 -
-
The country did not actually do low fat.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/28/295332576/why-we-got-fatter-during-the-fat-free-food-boom
The point is, while people were saying "low fat this and that" and buying Snackwell cookies, they were still eating plenty of fast food, restaurant food, margarine, desserts etc. While all the talk was low fat, people weren't actually eating a low fat diet. They were eating a high fat/high sugar diet but making themselves feel like they were healthier by buying some "low fat" substitutes. People got fatter because they were eating too much.
I'm certainly not saying the low fat craze was a good idea, just that most people didn't actually eat a low fat diet.
None of which has anything to do with the OP, maybe you can start a thread in the Debate forum if you wantto continue discussing this to avoid derailing OP's thread.
OP, it doesn't sound like you need to worry about sodium and cholesterol, but if you want to, just check your labels. It sounds like you're getting chicken and fish that has sodium added to it. It might be as simple as grabbing a different brand.6 -
SOME people thrive off lower protein jus' sayin'
I'm on 15% according to an Ayurvedic system and I'm actually losing weight compared to when I was on 25%
Please don't hurt me :96 -
Chaos_Angel wrote: »SOME people thrive off lower protein jus' sayin'
I'm on 15% according to an Ayurvedic system and I'm actually losing weight compared to when I was on 25%
Please don't hurt me :9
Protein doesn't affect your rate of weight loss. It affects satiety and muscle retention. More important than your percentage is how many grams you're getting. If you are getting less than 0.6-0.8g per lb of goal body weight and especially if you aren't focusing on strength training, you risk losing far more muscle than you would want as you lose weight.
My comment not meant to hurt you
just caution you and anyone else who might be reading. Everyone has to find that personal balance where they are comfortable and doing the best they can. 5 -
Skim milk has 8g of protein for 83 calories very little cholesterol or soduim0
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
If you don't think the AMA and the pharmaceuticals are in bed together, you're living under a rock.
Yes, it's truly surprising that the American Medical Association and the companies that create cures and treatments have associations with each other. If only they could be truly separated and never communicate, that would really be a better state of affairs. I would welcome the day when my doctor knows nothing about treatments for diseases and drug companies are creating drugs without involving doctors in the process.9 -
azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”0 -
patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
True. At some point we just have to decide what we want to choose to believe, because there will always be studies, evidence, opinions that state what we believe isn't right - no matter what.0 -
patrickaa5 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
True. At some point we just have to decide what we want to choose to believe, because there will always be studies, evidence, opinions that state what we believe isn't right - no matter what.
Yes, but my point was more that there are solid criteria that can help us decide what information is more reliable than other information. We aren't "just deciding" what to believe, we can set parameters that help us evaluate contradictory information.3 -
I agree. By "deciding", I'm assuming one does the best due diligence they can do with their given level of ability. I've read tons of studies. Many seem to be very plausible and well controlled with few conflicts of interest. Others are often selling a book - which I tend to discount to some degree. But, in the end, we have to "decide" what to believe. And, there is a decent chance we've decided wrongly. There. I've depressed myself. Back to the Twinkie diet.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
Yeah, peer review doesn't mean the conclusion of a study is settled science. If a study is published and peer reviewed, it means it met basic criteria and is open for others to review the data. Other researchers can review it and decide the study missed something important. You are looking for a preponderance of research and data. One study doesn't really determine anything.
Let's say a peer reviewed study of 25 men in Finland draws a correlation between blueberry consumption and lung cancer. Sure, someone who has a thing against blueberries can cite this as proof blueberries are evil. But where the actual science comes in is if this result can be duplicated and expanded. If no other studies show the correlation, and research papers find no cancer causing compounds in blueberries, then someone who understands the scientific process is going to keep eating blueberries.
While there is a lot of noise in nutrition science, most of it is just theories based on lone wolf studies or research and over-dramatized by snake oil salesmen and the media. Reading the parameters of a study, matching the results to the conclusions drawn, and looking for duplication go a long way to weeding out a lot of it.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »patrickaa5 wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »
Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
At some point you have to move beyond believing something just because it's documented somewhere in the literature and begin evaluating the studies based on their methodology, number of people involved, if they've been replicated, etc. Not every peer-reviewed study is a good one, peer review is just one tool.
Yeah, peer review doesn't mean the conclusion of a study is settled science. If a study is published and peer reviewed, it means it met basic criteria and is open for others to review the data. Other researchers can review it and decide the study missed something important. You are looking for a preponderance of research and data. One study doesn't really determine anything.
Let's say a peer reviewed study of 25 men in Finland draws a correlation between blueberry consumption and lung cancer. Sure, someone who has a thing against blueberries can cite this as proof blueberries are evil. But where the actual science comes in is if this result can be duplicated and expanded. If no other studies show the correlation, and research papers find no cancer causing compounds in blueberries, then someone who understands the scientific process is going to keep eating blueberries.
While there is a lot of noise in nutrition science, most of it is just theories based on lone wolf studies or research and over-dramatized by snake oil salesmen and the media. Reading the parameters of a study, matching the results to the conclusions drawn, and looking for duplication go a long way to weeding out a lot of it.
Unfortunately the average American adult reads at a 7/8th grade level hence the snake oil salesmen have a field day0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 389.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43K Getting Started
- 259.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232.1K Fitness and Exercise
- 359 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.4K Motivation and Support
- 7.7K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 746 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions