How much protein should one consume?
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them
) Of course they have ads.
Their Research Digest is subscription (lots more detail), but their main site is free as you say.
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Interesting, thanks for this info. And like you, I don't find publications, internet or otherwise, less credible because they accept advertising. Typically, the editorial/ information side and the ad revenue side are walled off from each other. Also, I am confident in my own ability to vet the info I read.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
wronglynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
Instead of just admitting you are wrong, you are sidestepping the question with a pretty convoluted rationale.
They provide a free service and have to finance it somehow. They do that through advertising. That doesn't change the integrity of their data at all. They never recommend a brand or a supplement that hasn't been researched.
Quite honestly, your implication is not based on fact, unseemly and comes across as a poor attempt to double down on an outright false claim instead of owning your error.
Eta: Many websites sell advertising to finance their free service and we all have a financial motive in keeping our business or our job solvent. There is no harm or shame in that.
The fact that advertising-supported businesses are not in the habit of biting the hand that feeds them is not a convoluted rationale. It is, in fact, one of the reasons that bloggers are required to disclose when they receive payments or even free products.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.1 -
I'm a little confused, because I consult Examine all the time, and the only ads I see are for getting a subscription to Examine. I don't have an ad blocker. Is it possible these ads are Google ads, and they are triggered by the content of the site?
I tend to distrust sources that sell items they review or that compete with items they review. But if you are going to hold advertising on the site against them, you're pretty much limiting yourself to government and some university sites. Which is fine, but it does limit your research.
Regardless, it's quite possible to discern over time whether a site is trustworthy or not. I have never heard anyone until this thread suggest Examine isn't a trustworthy source, I've seen many scholarly sources suggest Examine as a good source of information, and I've never seen the site publish anything that suggested to me a conflict of interest. What a weird derail.Hi guys, so i have been taking notes and reading information/facts on how to lose weight and I’ve read somewhere that you should consume 1g of protein for every pound you weigh as it helps fasten your metabolism. Is this true, can yall confirm?
I've never seen any research suggest that protein increases your metabolism, at least not enough to be concerned about it. The RDA is the minimum necessary to avoid being deficient, so you definitely want to get over that! Typical "middle of the road" recommendation is 0.6-0.8g per lb of your ideal body weight. And I've seen some bodybuilding or fitness sites suggest 1g per, but that's 1g per lb of IDEAL WEIGHT, not your current weight.
While eating in a deficit, you want to prioritize protein to spare muscle loss, and if you are working out to get fit, you want to prioritize protein for muscle repair and building. So if either of those are your situation, you might want to aim for the higher side of the recommendations (like 0.8g+). As long as you are generally healthy, and prioritizing protein doesn't make you deficient in other areas, it seems unlikely that even 1g per lb or over would cause any harm.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
wronglynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
Instead of just admitting you are wrong, you are sidestepping the question with a pretty convoluted rationale.
They provide a free service and have to finance it somehow. They do that through advertising. That doesn't change the integrity of their data at all. They never recommend a brand or a supplement that hasn't been researched.
Quite honestly, your implication is not based on fact, unseemly and comes across as a poor attempt to double down on an outright false claim instead of owning your error.
Eta: Many websites sell advertising to finance their free service and we all have a financial motive in keeping our business or our job solvent. There is no harm or shame in that.
The fact that advertising-supported businesses are not in the habit of biting the hand that feeds them is not a convoluted rationale. It is, in fact, one of the reasons that bloggers are required to disclose when they receive payments or even free products.
Two things:
1. What actually fundamentally matters is whether their content is materially biased, or not. Understanding a site's funding mechanisms and sources can help us understand where to look for bias, and some kinds of funding may be bigger red flags than others, but it's the bias (or lack) that matters.
2. Most advertising, on internet sites that are not selling just their own or closely affiliated products, is happening through brokers. The site has relatively little control or insight into who those specific advertisers are. The advertisers and brokers have more control, and the nature of the site will factor into the advertising one sees there (typically along with the user's browsing history, among other things). Naturally that means you'll see brokered supplement ads on a supplement evaluation site, just as you'll see brokered cookware and ingredient ads on cooking sites. The idea of biting the hand of someone with whom you have at most an indirect relationship is a curious one.
On the scale of how things are generally done on the internet, Examine has policies reasonably oriented to distancing themselves from inappropriate sources of biasing influence. More importantly, their content bears out the idea that they're striving to be neutral and evidence-based, in my reading of it.
Have you found Examine to be biased in some way? Quite seriously, I'm open to rethinking my generally positive opinion of them, if you have examples of troubling bias in their content.7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.2 -
There is a bunch of static and politics, and frankly, BS on this thread, so I'll just reiterate one of the first posts. Yes, about one gram per pound of weight. If you're normal-leanish in weight just go with total bodyweight, if you're pretty overweight, try to guestimate lean body mass and go with that. As long as it's in the ballpark, you'll be fine.1
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.
I was just about to post exactly that. I just went back and checked (on two different device types/OSes/browsers) before posting, looking around the site for ads, to make sure I wasn't missing something. The only advertising I see is for their own more in-depth or integrative (cross-topic) research guides that they sell, that go beyond the fairly extensive free content they provide on the site.
I suppose, in that sense, that the whole site is an ad for their product, but only in approximately the sense that free MFP could be considered advertising for premium MFP. That's kinda reaching.
They do have a few April Fool's Day articles (clearly-labeled) that were fake "advertisements" for imaginary supplements: Pretty funny.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.
Yes, @lynn_glenmont please post the URL and a screen shot of the ad because I turned off my blocker, checked at least three pages, and did not see any ads.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
I turned off my blocker and clicked around the site, including the three links in this thread, and couldn't find any regular ads or pitches for supplements. On what page did you see that they are selling supplements or ads for supplements?
https://examine.com/about/#funded
How is Examine.com funded?
Examine.com is an entirely independent organization, and does not accept any money from outside sources.
For the vast majority of nutrition websites, revenue is directly proportional to pageviews or products sold—whether they be supplement bottles or diet plans. Thus, rather than an evenhanded and thorough interpretation of the evidence, for many websites, sensationalism sells (read more on sensationalism).
Rather, 100% of our revenue is generated from additional research syntheses that we sell to both health professionals and laypeople. All of the information on the website is freely accessible; these additional informational products are meant for those looking for added depth and step-by-step instructions.
Supplement Guides- The Examine.com Research Digest
- Examine Plus
- Fitness Guide
- Whey Guide
- Evidence-based Keto
We do not allow:- Donors
- Sponsors
- Consulting clients
- Advertisements
- Affiliations
We have a very strict no-gift policy for our staff members. Even books that are sent our way are simply deposited into recycling.
***************
Regardless, I don't find the NY Times less credible because they have ads. (Not that I see them ) Of course they have ads.
Since there are advertisements on there sites, I don't see how they can make that claim.
I am seriously curious. What ads? Can you screen print. I have never seen an advertisement on examine.com on any web browser I have used. The literally cut up checks and deny goods so they aren't influenced.
Yes, @lynn_glenmont please post the URL and a screen shot of the ad because I turned off my blocker, checked at least three pages, and did not see any ads.
I also just checked after reading this discussion and found not a single ad.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »
wronglynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
Instead of just admitting you are wrong, you are sidestepping the question with a pretty convoluted rationale.
They provide a free service and have to finance it somehow. They do that through advertising. That doesn't change the integrity of their data at all. They never recommend a brand or a supplement that hasn't been researched.
Quite honestly, your implication is not based on fact, unseemly and comes across as a poor attempt to double down on an outright false claim instead of owning your error.
Eta: Many websites sell advertising to finance their free service and we all have a financial motive in keeping our business or our job solvent. There is no harm or shame in that.
The fact that advertising-supported businesses are not in the habit of biting the hand that feeds them is not a convoluted rationale. It is, in fact, one of the reasons that bloggers are required to disclose when they receive payments or even free products.
I'm not sure what a convoluted rationale is, but saying a site is wrong merely because they accept ads would be fallacious - an ad hominem, and for once a proper example of the fallacy instead of just using it about name calling. Funding, particularly in undisclosed relations, is a reason to be skeptical of a claim, but it isn't a prima facia reason to dismiss it.
Every article on examine is backed by citations so thick I'm surprised they don't induce hypertrophy in their readers' eye muscles.
6 -
For me personally, protein does not impact my weight loss or my feeling of fullness. My weight loss is due to calorie deficit whether I do high or low protein. My feeling of fullness is most impacted by a higher carb diet of beans and veg.
I think (hope) most of us here generally agree that weight loss is due to deficit, not protein level, at least if one is tracking cals.
I am like you in that I don't find that protein makes such a difference in my feeling of fullness. If hungry, it is something that can help me feel more satisfied, but there are other options, and I've definitely found that I don't need as much protein as I used to assume at, say, breakfast to feel satisfied until my next meal (and same with lunch).
I think satiety is more complicated than macros, although if you make a single change and it is adding protein, I'd bet it can help many with satiety (especially if the protein isn't in liquid form or part of a chocolate bar, which are both forms that can be easily overeaten). (When traveling I used to sometimes grab a bar at the airport if there at breakfast or lunchtime, and my personal experience has not been that a higher protein bar (like Quest) is more filling than the same cals in a lower protein bar (like Kind), but obviously people have different experiences.
Just IMO an interesting topic.3 -
For me personally, protein does not impact my weight loss or my feeling of fullness. My weight loss is due to calorie deficit whether I do high or low protein. My feeling of fullness is most impacted by a higher carb diet of beans and veg.
I think (hope) most of us here generally agree that weight loss is due to deficit, not protein level, at least if one is tracking cals.
I am like you in that I don't find that protein makes such a difference in my feeling of fullness. If hungry, it is something that can help me feel more satisfied, but there are other options, and I've definitely found that I don't need as much protein as I used to assume at, say, breakfast to feel satisfied until my next meal (and same with lunch).
I think satiety is more complicated than macros, although if you make a single change and it is adding protein, I'd bet it can help many with satiety (especially if the protein isn't in liquid form or part of a chocolate bar, which are both forms that can be easily overeaten). (When traveling I used to sometimes grab a bar at the airport if there at breakfast or lunchtime, and my personal experience has not been that a higher protein bar (like Quest) is more filling than the same cals in a lower protein bar (like Kind), but obviously people have different experiences.
Just IMO an interesting topic.
This likely a psychological thing, but my experience has been that foods that inherently have protein (for me, things like tofu, beans, and seitan) are more filling than foods with protein added to them, like protein bars.4 -
The average human weight in the world is 137lbs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9345086/The-worlds-fattest-countries-how-do-you-compare.html
0.36g/lbs computes indeed with 50g.
Overweight & obesity for justification of more proteins is not right (at least, not suiting the agenda of that 'World Resource Institute' site)
Who's using overweight and obesity for justification of more protein? At 5'10" and 137 Lbs I would look like an emaciated bag of bones with no muscle. At 180 I'm around 15% BF...so not over fat or obese.5 -
Whole bunch of thread derailing here... Stick to .8g/lb of LBM or more to maintain as much muscle as you can via diet. No harm in increasing that protein intake higher. It does not cause kidney failure. Certainly can have success at different numbers, but that is pretty much the standard recommendation for any body sculptor I've come across.0
-
Scottgriesser wrote: »Whole bunch of thread derailing here... Stick to .8g/lb of LBM or more to maintain as much muscle as you can via diet. No harm in increasing that protein intake higher. It does not cause kidney failure. Certainly can have success at different numbers, but that is pretty much the standard recommendation for any body sculptor I've come across. And no, it won't help you lose more weight. The "increase in metabolism" is more accurately called maintaining muscle and since muscle tissue requires more effort to maintain than fat your BMR will be higher the more you have.
Considering that one of the people in the 'derailment' discussion is a moderator, I think we're good 3 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Scottgriesser wrote: »Whole bunch of thread derailing here... Stick to .8g/lb of LBM or more to maintain as much muscle as you can via diet. No harm in increasing that protein intake higher. It does not cause kidney failure. Certainly can have success at different numbers, but that is pretty much the standard recommendation for any body sculptor I've come across. And no, it won't help you lose more weight. The "increase in metabolism" is more accurately called maintaining muscle and since muscle tissue requires more effort to maintain than fat your BMR will be higher the more you have.
Considering that one of the people in the 'derailment' discussion is a moderator, I think we're good
Yes, and there's generally been a broad consensus (with one dissenter that I've noticed) on the answer, so I assume OP has that answer unless he/she wants to ask for more detail.3 -
Though I note Nony that moderator participation means they are not personally moderating the thread. Not unless they call a friend which any one of us can do anyway.
To reiterate RDA is a consensus minimum that promotes basic health. RDAs are not always perfect. What is the RDA for iron and why? How is that 100% RDA iron intake level relevant to a male or menopausal female?
There exists plenty of evidence, even backed by registered dietitian association recommendations, for 2x RDA for protein. Especially for athletes, elderly, and people losing weight. There exists some, but less in quantity, evidence for higher than 2x RDA. There exists little evidence for inducing damage to healthy kidneys, especially at the 2x RDA level.4 -
The average human weight in the world is 137lbs.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9345086/The-worlds-fattest-countries-how-do-you-compare.html
0.36g/lbs computes indeed with 50g.
Overweight & obesity for justification of more proteins is not right (at least, not suiting the agenda of that 'World Resource Institute' site)
As many posters have clarified despite you ignoring them, the definition of the US RDA is the minimum required to be sufficient to maintain health. Not the best amount for everyone. Not the most you should have. The minimum. So even by your logic, the minimum amount for an average person would be 50g, not the best amount.
However, there is also a glaring misunderstanding of math in your post. If the required amount is based on a person's weight, then of course being heavier is a reason to get more protein, being lighter a reason to eat less. That is literally the point of the RDA being "per lb". It makes no sense to use the average weight of every person on the planet as the number to use for everyone. Otherwise, they would have just made the RDA 50g for everyone.
The US RDA is low enough, that even if a person is over-fat, they would not be consuming an unhealthy amount of protein following the RDA. A 400lb person would only be getting 144g of protein following the RDA, and while that might be more than necessary, would not be enough to cause any harm. (Having said that, using the actual current recommendations and research requires using either lean body mass, or if you don't have that info, ideal body weight.)
Regardless, I don't know many people who are trying to improve themselves who use the bare minimum of anything as a goal. If you're more comfortable setting the bar super low, that's your prerogative. But you are misrepresenting both the RDA and the common recommendations based on current research.9 -
Though I note Nony that moderator participation means they are not personally moderating the thread. Not unless they call a friend which any one of us can do anyway.
Yes, but they're also presumably not going to participate in the apparent derailment if it could be viewed as breaching guidelines, one would think I was specifically pointing out that a mod was engaging in the 'off topic' discussion, not just the thread. 4 -
0.36g/lbs is not for sedentary persons only - that is a fabrication, it is nowhere mentioned in the governmental sites, as this one;
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/dietary-reference-intakes/tables/reference-values-macronutrients-dietary-reference-intakes-tables-2005.html#fn_t1b29
You weigh 140lbs? 50g will keep you up and running.
You are more muscular and weigh 180lbs? 65g will keep you up and running.
Now if you want to develop more muscular mass, you can guess that eating more of them will help you. Just a guess, though.
0 -
RDA / AI = Recommended Dietary Allowance / Adequate Intake. Adequate = / = Optimal.
The PAGE YOUR QUOTE SAYS AT THE VERY BOTTOM: 19 years and over: Total Protein Percent of energy 10 to 35%
For your typical mythical female on 2000 Calories this would equate to 200 to 700 Cal or 50g to 175g, at the high end more than most of us have suggested . For your typical mythical male on 2500 this would equate to 250 to 875 Calories from protein, i.e. 63g to 219g, at the high end, again, more than most of us would suggest.
MFP's default recommendation is 20%, not only within the 10% to 35% range, but actually on the low side of mid-point for the range. And most of us will actually say that for most people who eat more than 1200/1500 Calories the MFP recommendation for protein is good enough to start with.
Honestly I don't get this. Do you have something you would like to site where one sees better results in an iso-caloric diet by reducing protein intake below 0.6g per targeted lean mass lb within the normal weight range? If you do, please educate us. Again adequate vs optimal. Nobody disputes that your intake at the RDI / AI is probably Adequate. That's why it is called adequate!!!
Certainly if you have impaired kidney function you probably ought to be eating less as opposed to more protein. Beyond that you should eat in a way that allows you to adhere to your caloric targets. Once you are able to achieve your caloric targets (or in the process of figuring out how you can do that), it may be worth your while to target macros for optimization.
Please explain to me how adequate has all of a sudden become optimal for you?6 -
"Optimal" is a fabrication that just doesn't exist on these sites either...
If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?
Going over the RDA/AI calories has the risk of being fat, no studies needed.
Going over the RDA/AI proteins has no significant risk until you pass 30-35%, studies-backed. It probably just goes in the toilets...
0 -
"Optimal" is a fabrication that just doesn't exist on these sites either...
If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?
Going over the RDA/AI calories has the risk of being fat, no studies needed.
Going over the RDA/AI proteins has no significant risk until you pass 30-35%, studies-backed. It probably just goes in the toilets...
So, if the RDA/AI calories are 2600, that's the number of calories all of us should eat, regardless of circumstances?
For many of us, that would have a very big risk - a certainty, actually - of becoming quite fat, quite quickly.
"Optimal" is not so much a fabrication, as it is a very situation-specific, context-driven, possibly individual thing. There are very few things for which there is an "optimal" that applies to every person in every set of circumstances.3 -
Which sites? Optimal in our context is a generic amount that people have discussed based on various research papers they've read and which generally argues that a bit more protein than what is considered to be adequate helps people achieve better results during weight loss. And when trying to build muscle. And when they are older. Notably absent during the discussion was when they're pregnant, though this also applies at that time."Optimal" is a fabrication that just doesn't exist on these sites either...
I, most certainly, and I think most people who have put up a number will not tell you that unless you eat optimal protein you will die. Most of us will probably tell you that eating closer to optimal than to adequate might help you achieve slightly better results. Assuming that doing so doesn't impede you from meeting your caloric goals. And doesn't crowd out other nutrition.
You are the one arguing for adequate or am I confused?
For some people 2600 would have them losing weight, among them myself since I lost more than 70lbs eating 2550 Calories, so yes, some people would probably have to aim higher. Though I had never heard of an RDA for Calories. Given that people come in different sizes, ages, and activity levels, I would hope that you would realize that there would definitely be an optimal caloric intake that would be different than the adequate one for many people!"saintor1 wrote:If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?"saintor1 wrote:Going over the RDA/AI proteins has no significant risk until you pass 30-35%, studies-backed.
OK: if you agree with the above statement, then for the sake of all the baby **kittens** in this world why are you sitting there arguing that people should NOT eat more than 50g of protein for kitten's sake?
4 -
If RDA/AI calories is 2600 for a normal individual , why aim higher? Because it is "optimal" ?
This calorie comparison is odd, since obviously (as others have pointed out) the right amount of cals is going to vary depending on goals (weight loss), size, lean mass percentage, and, of course, activity.
Re protein, as I cited above, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), and Dietitians of Canada all recommend higher protein intakes for athletes (meaning people who are physically active) because of the role in repair and maintenance of muscle. The same reasoning would apply to people doing other things that tend to be hard on muscle, i.e., weight loss, especially if it is at the same time as vigorous exercise programs and, especially, lifting programs (which usually are intended to protect and if possible gain some muscle).
Also, as explained above (with a link to Jack Norris, a vegan RD), vegans and older people should get more than the minimum recommended, the former to make sure all amino acids are covered and the latter because as you get older you tend to lose muscle which is generally not good for overall fitness and health.
The recommendations are not that high -- 0.55 g-0.9 g/lb for the athletes as a minimum, and at least .45 g for vegans, for example. But they contradict the claim that 0.36 g/lb is what all should be aiming for unless actively trying to build muscle (many are trying to build some muscle, though).
As the Examine piece explained, there is some evidence of possible other benefits from more protein (although it's not conclusive yet), and many find from personal experience that increasing protein as a percentage of overall diet can help with satiety (although one should experiment to see if that's true for you, as for some of us it seems not to matter much).
As an analogy, I think the current recommendations for veg are only something like 3 servings (along with 2 servings of fruit). There's some evidence, though, that more may be better, and many of us (me included) like to eat quite a bit more and believe that that's likely going to have some benefits nutritionally, as well as it helping us (in some cases) with satiety, even if the recommendations don't say everyone needs to do that. Same with protein -- I think the indication for some benefits (especially if one is in a group that engages in activity that requires more rebuilding of muscle or which is more likely to lose muscle) is there in the research to date, even if the RDA just focuses on what we need to not have a deficiency.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
No, they aren't.
They may have ads asking you to subscribe to their site but they don't receive funds from supplement companies to advertise products.
Per their "About Us" page, "100% of [their] revenue is generated from additional research synthesis that [they] sell to health professionals and individuals."
In other words, they make money by providing even more research than is found on their free site to those who are willing to pay for it.
They don't make money by advertising supplements.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »nationalvillage3215 wrote: »Amount of protein and how it correlates to weight loss has always been confusing to me. Seems like a lot of products are pushing high protein content. When I have had problems losing weight I have been told to cut back on protein (weight watchers). Everything I read says for women 60 grams per day is all that is required to maintain a healthy level. MFP also calculated 60 grams to be my daily macro. However in the last week and a half I have followed the Cleveland Clinic 1200 calorie 3 day meal plan and the protein per day is anywhere from 88 to 130 grams. I have been more successful with this meal plan than any other 1200 calorie daily diet so far! Go figure.
From what I've learned, WW coaches know little more than how to encourage you to count points and weight you in every week.
Most that attempt to offer nutritional advice should not.
The official Weight Watchers recommendations are to pay attention to what fills you up/satisfies you more (higher protein, fat, or carbs) and skew your selections towards those foods. It has been several years so it may have changed but this is how it was last time I went.
That may still be the case.
I'm just speaking of the individual coaches. Being a WW coach isn't exactly like being an RD (or even a nutritionist, really, and that's a low bar).
The things I've heard after "my WW coach said..." don't instill much confidence.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »This is a good survey of recent research, written for a non-scientist audience, that covers different circumstances:
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-do-you-need/
They even have a spiffy protein "calculator" now:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I don't know. They're selling supplements, which doesn't give me great confidence in the objectivity of their recommendations.
Examine.com does not sell supplements. That is incorrect. They state that in the banner on the opening page of their website.
https://examine.com/
Then they are supported by advertisers who sell supplements (I didn't click to see who was selling -- they looked like native ads). There's not a big difference in financial motive, other than the ability to carry off the pretense that you don't have a financial motive.
Call me a skeptic but the fact that Examine.com is ad free (as in zero ads for anything other than their own subscription service, not even Google Adsense sidebar ads) has me squinting at the claim that "they looked like native ads."
How can nonexistant ads look native?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions