Give me name of some vegetarian food rich in protein ..
Karansahani8123
Posts: 1 Member
I can't reach my protein goal.
0
Replies
-
Try a plant based protein powder?
Tofu!
Beans!
Broccli!
Quinoa!
2 -
My favourites are soybeans, lupini and spinach.0
-
Eggs, chickpeas, lentils.
There's a spreadsheet here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10247171/carbs-and-fats-are-cheap-heres-a-guide-to-getting-your-proteins-worth-fiber-also
If you scroll down past all the meat and fish you'll find vegetarian options too.1 -
Low-fat dairy (milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, buttermilk, kefir, ricotta, certain lower fat cheeses) and/or eggs if you're lacto/ovo veg.
Beans of all kinds
Bean products (tofu, soy milk, commercial meat replicas such as crumbles, patties, chick' n, sausage, even fish)
Grains, e.g., quinoa
Seeds and nuts, but typically those come with more fat than protein
Protein powders
Defatted peanut flour0 -
I had my best (vegetarian) protein day ever yesterday and I was still short. It's ridiculous!! Sometimes I just have to not pay attention to that macro because I find it discouraging.
I don't eat hard boiled eggs or yogurt. I have found these new(er) protein bars at Aldi, called Elevation High Protein Bar, for a whopping 20g of protein in a bar (and also 270 calories, ouch) ~ they make a decent mid day meal for me. I also use collagen peptides in my coffee every morning for 9g protein. I'm sure there's bovine product in there -- but at this point I'm desperate to get enough protein. While I do eat dairy and eggs (only scrambled and almost never), I don't drink milk. The old suggestion of "nuts and seeds" isn't ideal because of the calorie count in a measly quarter cup of nuts -- but a snack of 1 oz Parmesan cheese and 20g walnuts comes in under 250 calories and it's delicious. It's not a ton of protein but it's something.
Good luck! Protein and vegetarianism sans eggs and yogurt is no joke, lol0 -
Karansahani8123 wrote: »I can't reach my protein goal.
What is your protein goal? We see a lot of posters on here with unnecessarily high goals (usually given by a trainer from the gym.)
Here's a reputable protein calculator:
https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/
I shoot for 400 - 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I achieve that, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from examine. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.0 -
Use the links Kshama and Lietchi suggested to get an evidence- based protein goal in grams, and to find new protein sources, respectively.
I'm ovo-lacto vegetarian, have been for 48+ years, thin to obese and back again. Now, at 5'5", maintaining weight in mid-120s pounds, quite active athletically, age 66, I target a 100g protein minimum daily, and usually exceed it. I don't use protein powder or fake meats - nothing wrong with those IMO, I just don't personally find them tasty/satisfying.
I got slightly less protein - usually 80s-90s grams and up - when on lower calories while losing.
I don't eat many eggs, but do eat a fair amount of dairy. (I think I could reach my goals fully plant based, but prefer my current eating style.)
My main advice would be to use your food log actively as a tool. Review what you've eaten, notice foods with relatively many calories, but relatively little protein, that aren't very important to you for satiation, other nutrition, or general happiness. Reduce or eliminate those, and replace the calories with other foods you enjoy that have more protein.
The "one big protein per meal" idea is important, but also look at other foods: Snacks, sides, flavorings, beverages, desserts, etc. Seeking small amounts of protein in those is a help. The small amounts add up through the day.
By going through the above kind of thought process, you can gradually revise your eating habits in the direction of more protein. (It's what I did when I first started calorie counting to lose weight.)
As rough rules of thumb for label-reading at the store, I consider single foods with 10ish or fewer total calories per gram of protein to be useful vegetarian protein sources. For actual multi- ingredient dishes, 20ish total calories per gram of protein seems good to me. You might choose different specific numbers, but looking at labels in that general way helped me along the way.
The only specific major-source foods I can think of offhand that I find useful, that weren't mentioned already, are seitan, tempeh, and legume-based higher-protein pastas. On the small-adds side, as flavorings and such, I like nutritional yeast, miso, and peanut butter powder.2 -
People seem obsessed with high protein now - that examine calculator up thread gave me a goal of MINIMUM 120. There is no way I am ever going to eat 120 grams of protein in a day.
My doctor told me that around 60-75 grams is more than enough. I stopped worrying about it.5 -
Wise choice. The standard (including safety margin) is 0.8 g protein per kg ideal weight. That standard has been used since more than half a century, and to the best of my knowledge, it has not killed anyone yet.People seem obsessed with high protein now - that examine calculator up thread gave me a goal of MINIMUM 120. There is no way I am ever going to eat 120 grams of protein in a day.
My doctor told me that around 60-75 grams is more than enough. I stopped worrying about it.
4 -
@33gail33 I totally agree about the being obsessed aspect. How did it happen? Protein was never a concern in my (fairly) recent past, but you start reading some nutrition boards and protein is the holy grail, not to be trifled with. I'm glad to read your post that 60-75g is enough. I'd like to stop worrying about it as well.1
-
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Wise choice. The standard (including safety margin) is 0.8 g protein per kg ideal weight. That standard has been used since more than half a century, and to the best of my knowledge, it has not killed anyone yet.People seem obsessed with high protein now - that examine calculator up thread gave me a goal of MINIMUM 120. There is no way I am ever going to eat 120 grams of protein in a day.
My doctor told me that around 60-75 grams is more than enough. I stopped worrying about it.
Well, there's a question of adequate vs. optimal, and different life circumstances influence that issue. But sure, no otherwise healthy person will die from kwashiorkor (or whatever) while getting the USDA/WHO recommended amounts.
FWIW, one example of circumstances where some might benefit from more than 0.8g/kg:To help older people (>65 years) maintain and regain lean body mass and function, the PROT-AGE study group recommends average daily intake at least in the range of 1.0 to 1.2 g protein per kilogram of body weight per day.
https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610(13)00326-5/fulltext
For active seniors, and those with some chronic diseases, they recommend 1.2g/kg and above.
The protein calculator upthread links to a protein guide that explains the rationale behind the calculator recommendations, and that includes links to research on which it relies, so folks interested in nutrition can take a look, decide whether the recommendations are useful to them or not.2 -
Sure. That distinction is valid. Unfortunately, we don't know (yet) what optimal levels are. Until there is hard evidence for that, we'd be wise not to play l'Apprenti Sorcier. A lot of harm can be - and is - caused by misinterpretations and overextrapolations by often well-meaning people.Well, there's a question of adequate vs. optimal, and different life circumstances influence that issue. But sure, no otherwise healthy person will die from kwashiorkor (or whatever) while getting the USDA/WHO recommended amounts.
Not just some, many, I recently had a lecture about protein-needs of people with kidney failure for example, but these are all people who are no longer what could reasonably be considered healthy. Pathological situations, for lack of a better word, require different ways of reasoning and different standards.FWIW, one example of circumstances where some might benefit from more than 0.8g/kg
I am afraid that protein has essentially become the "radioactive water" of our time.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Sure. That distinction is valid. Unfortunately, we don't know (yet) what optimal levels are. Until there is hard evidence for that, we'd be wise not to play l'Apprenti Sorcier. A lot of harm can be - and is - caused by misinterpretations and overextrapolations by often well-meaning people.Well, there's a question of adequate vs. optimal, and different life circumstances influence that issue. But sure, no otherwise healthy person will die from kwashiorkor (or whatever) while getting the USDA/WHO recommended amounts.
Not just some, many, I recently had a lecture about protein-needs of people with kidney failure for example, but these are all people who are no longer what could reasonably be considered healthy. Pathological situations, for lack of a better word, require different ways of reasoning and different standards.FWIW, one example of circumstances where some might benefit from more than 0.8g/kg
I am afraid that protein has essentially become the "radioactive water" of our time.
It's interesting that you went to pathologies, when the main example I cited was for healthy, active people . . . unless being over 65, or specifically an athlete over 65, is a pathology? (I'm aware of that particular recommendation because that's my demographic, and part of my rationale for a personal minimum goal around 100g, which is just under 1.8g/kg goal weight.)
You're implying that suggesting higher protein than 0.8g/kg is some kind of dangerous pseudo-scientific myth. It's not.
I have no argument with you choosing to stick to the traditional "standard (that) has been used since more than half a century" as you describe it. My position is that it's misleading to tell others there's no reason even to consider more recent research.
Of course there's still debate at the margin. If someone is uninterested in more personalized nutrition, it's not unreasonable to stick with the USDA/WHO numbers. Humans are adaptive omnivores: Quite a range of choices can work out OK.
It's also not unreasonable for someone to take a deeper interest, consider more recent mainstream research . . . as a bet-hedge, if nothing else, since there's no evidence that it's dangerous for a healthy person to get protein at the higher levels being suggested here, and some evidence that there can be benefits.1 -
I went to pathologies because that was the subject I attended a lecture about a few days ago, nothing more needs to be sought after that, and I did it to show exactly your point: namely that there are situations where higher protein needs have been demonstrated.It's interesting that you went to pathologies, when the main example I cited was for healthy, active people . . . unless being over 65, or specifically an athlete over 65, is a pathology? (I'm aware of that particular recommendation because that's my demographic, and part of my rationale for a personal minimum goal around 100g, which is just under 1.8g/kg goal weight.)
You're implying that suggesting higher protein than 0.8g/kg is some kind of dangerous pseudo-scientific myth. It's not.
I have no argument with you choosing to stick to the traditional "standard (that) has been used since more than half a century" as you describe it. My position is that it's misleading to tell others there's no reason even to consider more recent research.
Of course there's still debate at the margin. If someone is uninterested in more personalized nutrition, it's not unreasonable to stick with the USDA/WHO numbers. Humans are adaptive omnivores: Quite a range of choices can work out OK.
It's also not unreasonable for someone to take a deeper interest, consider more recent mainstream research . . . as a bet-hedge, if nothing else, since there's no evidence that it's dangerous for a healthy person to get protein at the higher levels being suggested here, and some evidence that there can be benefits.
It gets more complicated when older people are considered. What is older? What is a healthy older person? I have been wrestling with that point myself. I am "only" 60 about to become 61, but I feel there are good reasons to consider the consequences of becoming older. In medicine, a person of 65 and older is traditionally considered "elderly" and there are very good reasons why that is the case. We now have longer life expectancies than every before (not in the US, because COVID-19 has led (and is leading) to a drop, but I think we can consider that a bit of an anomaly that is not necessarily to be taken into account here). Longer life expectancies does not mean that we are now becoming elderly later. That is not the case. What is happening, is that we are now (on average) elderly for a longer time.
We should not forget that biological reality does not change. Evolution is all about living until reproduction. Once we are no longer reproducing, we have no longer an influence on evolution (there are a few potential exceptions to that claim, but –as far as I know– they have never been substantiated, but still, they should be considered/studied).
In other words, once the reproductive phase is over deterioration starts in earnest. While completely normal, I consider it nevertheless a pathological sitation because it is typically a time when different kinds of chronic pathologies start to become really debilitating and because even normal and natural biological changes are creating abnormal situations.
In summary, I would not be surprised if a doctor would tell me to consult a geriatrician. It is unlikely, especially in view of current shortages of geriatricians, but just because there aren't any available, does not miraculously turn me into someone who does not need one. I almost certainly don't but I may very well be wrong.
I hope that explains why I am talking about pathologies. You don't have to agree. You can hammer me down. If I am certain of something, I should be able to defend that position or at the very least explain why I have it. If neither is possible, I should reconsider my position. There is nothing more to it than that. I think it was Don Corleone who said "it's nothing personal", but it has been a few decades since I read the book, so I could well be wrong.
As for implying that more protein than 0.8 g/kg is dangerous pseudoscience, I implied nothing of the sort. All I meant, is that the recommendations are based on hard science, while claims of needing more in normal people have not been demonstrated. That includes "athletes" by the way. Most of the extra protein they are being sold by quacks of all stripes will simply be stripped of its nitrogen and turned into normal body fat which will then be used as a source of energy.2 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »@33gail33 I totally agree about the being obsessed aspect. How did it happen? Protein was never a concern in my (fairly) recent past, but you start reading some nutrition boards and protein is the holy grail, not to be trifled with. I'm glad to read your post that 60-75g is enough. I'd like to stop worrying about it as well.
The best thing you can do is ask a doctor. A real one, i.e. an MD, he/she should be able to put your mind at ease. You can also find the information online, but it will take you much more time and effort to learn to distinguish between information and disinformation and to put it all together in a coherent understanding.
While there are some genuine reasons to up protein intake, the vast majority of people do not need it and while, if they are in good health, it is not very likely to do them harm, it is also not going to do them any good.
Please do not do what I do (or anyone else does), just because I do it, but I just looked at my numbers for the time I have been of MFP (since 25 September). Most of my intake is between 60 g and 65 g. There are a few outliers as well: the lowest one was 40 g. That is clearly not enough, but nothing to worry about, since it was exactly that, an outlier, the only case in fact. I also had an outlier of 104 g. Again, nothing to worry about, as it was the only time.
My main message remains unchanged: ask an MD. These people study this stuff in depth. They know what they are recommending. Once you have done that, you could go to a dietitian to get advice on how to achieve the recommended goals, but do not skip the doctor. He/she is your most reliable source of information even if you are studying medicine yourself (because you do not know yet what he/she knows already ^_^)0 -
I just noted this unfortunate typo. Please note I am not OF MFP. I meant ON MFP.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »for the time I have been of MFP
1 -
Most Dr's don't have a clue, literally, when it comes to nutrition and most guidelines are political at best, and of course, that's just my opinion. I'm just over 2.0 on average. For the average westerner, protein malnutrition is never going to happen unless of course they're chronically undereating. The AMDR range is around 10-35% of energy intake, and most experts from what I've gleaned from the literature recommend at least 2g and more for elderly populations. cheers.
2 -
I tend to agree that a doctor isn't the be-all, end-all of nutrition advice. I've learned about nutrition predominantly from this website. Long time reader of the forums, and the forums have helped to dispel much misinformation around "dieting" and weight loss. (The most refreshing information ever: you can eat whatever you'd like, and as long as you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight.)
I'm not super stressed about the protein, but as I approach 60 I want to make sure I have enough. So I'm inclined to shoot for "adequate," rather than "optimal." I exercise consistently 4 to 5 days a week and want to preserve whatever muscle I've got. It can be hard to hit the protein goals MFP prescribes, and there was a time that it would bother me greatly. (Plus, it doesn't help that my favorite foods are all pretty much bereft of protein...can you say Sweet Tooth?
) 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Most Dr's don't have a clue, literally, when it comes to nutrition and most guidelines are political at best, and of course, that's just my opinion. I'm just over 2.0 on average. For the average westerner, protein malnutrition is never going to happen unless of course they're chronically undereating. The AMDR range is around 10-35% of energy intake, and most experts from what I've gleaned from the literature recommend at least 2g and more for elderly populations. cheers.
I know that claim, I hear it often. I wonder where it comes from because it is contrary to my experience. When I went to med school, now a little over 40 years ago, nutrition information already started being given from the very first weeks of instruction. It was everywhere. The only thing that could be said, is that there was no course called "nutrition". Such a course would not have made much sense, because nutrition permeated everything.
While I am always ready to be proven wrong, and having to change my mind, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence before I accept that claim. I also find it rather suspicious that it is (seemingly) mostly quacks who make the claim. How do they know, since what they know is largely based on nothing or disproven nonsense?1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Dr's don't have a clue, literally, when it comes to nutrition and most guidelines are political at best, and of course, that's just my opinion. I'm just over 2.0 on average. For the average westerner, protein malnutrition is never going to happen unless of course they're chronically undereating. The AMDR range is around 10-35% of energy intake, and most experts from what I've gleaned from the literature recommend at least 2g and more for elderly populations. cheers.
I know that claim, I hear it often. I wonder where it comes from because it is contrary to my experience. When I went to med school, now a little over 40 years ago, nutrition information already started being given from the very first weeks of instruction. It was everywhere. The only thing that could be said, is that there was no course called "nutrition". Such a course would not have made much sense, because nutrition permeated everything.
While I am always ready to be proven wrong, and having to change my mind, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence before I accept that claim. I also find it rather suspicious that it is (seemingly) mostly quacks who make the claim. How do they know, since what they know is largely based on nothing or disproven nonsense?
https://hindawi.com/journals/jbe/2015/357627/
Most US medical schools (86/121, 71%) fail to provide the recommended minimum 25 hours of nutrition education; 43 (36%) provide less than half that much. Nutrition instruction is still largely confined to preclinical courses, with an average of 14.3 hours occurring in this context.
It cannot be a realistic expectation for physicians to effectively address obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hospital malnutrition, and many other conditions as long as they are not taught during medical school and residency training how to recognize and treat the nutritional root causes.
2 -
Traditionally, protein recommendations have been based on studies that estimate the minimum protein intake necessary to maintain nitrogen balance [3,8]. However, the problem with relying on these results is that they do not measure any physiological endpoints relevant to healthy aging, such as muscle function.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924200/#:~:text=Experts%20in%20the%20field%20of%20protein%20and%20aging,value%20at%20the%20lowest%20end%20of%20the%20AMDR.
This suggests that the lack of muscle responsiveness to lower doses of protein in older adults can be overcome with a higher level of protein intake. The requirement for a larger dose of protein to generate responses in elderly adults similar to the responses in younger adults provides the support for a beneficial effect of increased protein in elderly populations [8]. The consumption of dietary protein consistent with the upper end of the AMDRs (as much as 30%–35% of total caloric intake)1 -
Thank you for the link. I read the article, and it seems largely (but certainly not entirely) consistent with what I described, especially this part:neanderthin wrote: »https://hindawi.com/journals/jbe/2015/357627/
Most US medical schools (86/121, 71%) fail to provide the recommended minimum 25 hours of nutrition education; 43 (36%) provide less than half that much. Nutrition instruction is still largely confined to preclinical courses, with an average of 14.3 hours occurring in this context.
It cannot be a realistic expectation for physicians to effectively address obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hospital malnutrition, and many other conditions as long as they are not taught during medical school and residency training how to recognize and treat the nutritional root causes.In fact, there are few areas of medical practice that are completely isolated from nutritional links or influences.
My main question is, and has always been since I first heard the claim, that I wonder what a "nutrition course" would add to the knowledge that so permeates almost all courses (there are a few very logical exceptions to that claim).
One of the problems related to nutrition is that, while we know quite a bit, there is a lot more that we don't know and can't know, due to ethical concerns. Ethical concerns are probably the biggest problem in research and they are all too often insurmountable. We can't teach what we don't know, after all.
As a result, a course in nutrition is bound to be problematic at best, and I would argue that one can easily see that when one looks at many claims made by dietitians that don't seem to be well thought out or just plain wrong. For example, when a dietitian tells me there are no carbs in Greek yoghurt or that mangoes are full of fibre, I am highly motivated to run away, except that running is not something I do well or even badly.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »@33gail33 I totally agree about the being obsessed aspect. How did it happen? Protein was never a concern in my (fairly) recent past, but you start reading some nutrition boards and protein is the holy grail, not to be trifled with. I'm glad to read your post that 60-75g is enough. I'd like to stop worrying about it as well.
The best thing you can do is ask a doctor. A real one, i.e. an MD, he/she should be able to put your mind at ease. You can also find the information online, but it will take you much more time and effort to learn to distinguish between information and disinformation and to put it all together in a coherent understanding.
While there are some genuine reasons to up protein intake, the vast majority of people do not need it and while, if they are in good health, it is not very likely to do them harm, it is also not going to do them any good.
Please do not do what I do (or anyone else does), just because I do it, but I just looked at my numbers for the time I have been of MFP (since 25 September). Most of my intake is between 60 g and 65 g. There are a few outliers as well: the lowest one was 40 g. That is clearly not enough, but nothing to worry about, since it was exactly that, an outlier, the only case in fact. I also had an outlier of 104 g. Again, nothing to worry about, as it was the only time.
My main message remains unchanged: ask an MD. These people study this stuff in depth. They know what they are recommending. Once you have done that, you could go to a dietitian to get advice on how to achieve the recommended goals, but do not skip the doctor. He/she is your most reliable source of information even if you are studying medicine yourself (because you do not know yet what he/she knows already ^_^)
No, they really don't.1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Thank you for the link. I read the article, and it seems largely (but certainly not entirely) consistent with what I described, especially this part:neanderthin wrote: »https://hindawi.com/journals/jbe/2015/357627/
Most US medical schools (86/121, 71%) fail to provide the recommended minimum 25 hours of nutrition education; 43 (36%) provide less than half that much. Nutrition instruction is still largely confined to preclinical courses, with an average of 14.3 hours occurring in this context.
It cannot be a realistic expectation for physicians to effectively address obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hospital malnutrition, and many other conditions as long as they are not taught during medical school and residency training how to recognize and treat the nutritional root causes.In fact, there are few areas of medical practice that are completely isolated from nutritional links or influences.
My main question is, and has always been since I first heard the claim, that I wonder what a "nutrition course" would add to the knowledge that so permeates almost all courses (there are a few very logical exceptions to that claim).
One of the problems related to nutrition is that, while we know quite a bit, there is a lot more that we don't know and can't know, due to ethical concerns. Ethical concerns are probably the biggest problem in research and they are all too often insurmountable. We can't teach what we don't know, after all.
As a result, a course in nutrition is bound to be problematic at best, and I would argue that one can easily see that when one looks at many claims made by dietitians that don't seem to be well thought out or just plain wrong. For example, when a dietitian tells me there are no carbs in Greek yoghurt or that mangoes are full of fibre, I am highly motivated to run away, except that running is not something I do well or even badly.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Thank you for the link. I read the article, and it seems largely (but certainly not entirely) consistent with what I described, especially this part:neanderthin wrote: »https://hindawi.com/journals/jbe/2015/357627/
Most US medical schools (86/121, 71%) fail to provide the recommended minimum 25 hours of nutrition education; 43 (36%) provide less than half that much. Nutrition instruction is still largely confined to preclinical courses, with an average of 14.3 hours occurring in this context.
It cannot be a realistic expectation for physicians to effectively address obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hospital malnutrition, and many other conditions as long as they are not taught during medical school and residency training how to recognize and treat the nutritional root causes.In fact, there are few areas of medical practice that are completely isolated from nutritional links or influences.
My main question is, and has always been since I first heard the claim, that I wonder what a "nutrition course" would add to the knowledge that so permeates almost all courses (there are a few very logical exceptions to that claim).
One of the problems related to nutrition is that, while we know quite a bit, there is a lot more that we don't know and can't know, due to ethical concerns. Ethical concerns are probably the biggest problem in research and they are all too often insurmountable. We can't teach what we don't know, after all.
As a result, a course in nutrition is bound to be problematic at best, and I would argue that one can easily see that when one looks at many claims made by dietitians that don't seem to be well thought out or just plain wrong. For example, when a dietitian tells me there are no carbs in Greek yoghurt or that mangoes are full of fibre, I am highly motivated to run away, except that running is not something I do well or even badly.
This is just my opinion on this.
1st bolded statement
I seriously don't understand this line of thinking at all. The basics in nutrition are not something that can be tosses around in general medical conversation and then assume we're good to go, it doesn't work that way. First of all, nutrition is a daunting field. There are scientists with PhD's in nutritional science that spend their whole life trying to figure out something as simple as why mitochondria have their own DNA and why sunlight effectively controls it's course of action, or why we have a common ancestry with fungi and how that relates to our gut microbiome and it's connection to the brain and it's influences on our metabolism. But it can start with the basics, which could undoubtably fill a full curriculum over their formal learning timeframe and still a long way from understanding nutrition without the individual taking it upon themselves to research separately, adding to their life's knowledge and application and still have questions that are unanswered, that is science, and some of those are scientists with the PhD's.
2nd bolded statement
Anytime someone infers an outcome in mortality and I believe this is what you're referring to, and in this respect too many Dr's, Dietitians, media and people have put too much faith in nutritional epidemiology because the basic essence of that field is to evaluate what happens over time on a population level only. Basically, the verbiage starts with "risk" and then based on the data vetted from a particular epidemiological study, comes to a conclusion extrapolated out over time, then forecasts a mortality or "risk". Pure hogwash and like I've always said nutritional epidemiology is the weapon of mass confusion. And when we have this type of science influencing policy it has broad implication that can have devastating effects.
Risk assessment requires a control, it's that simple. What we have in nutrition are controlled trials which generally involve smaller to very small groups, because to control variables for a simple trial costs millions on average and it also requires funding and the two are difficult bedfellows sometimes, and these are the scientists with those PhD's that are doing these studies. Most of these controlled trials offer only a comparison and for further questions, theories and trials and generally draw no mortally conclusions. For a controlled study to draw a conclusion for
mortality it again needs a control and it would also need to be started at birth then controlled for all confounders in a ward where they can be controlled all of their life until death, then you can reach a conclusion and only then.....that is a study for mortality and well as we know, that's never going to happen. Cheers0 -
I hear this claim all the time, though I have qualify that: I only started hearing that claim when I moved to Canada. It seems therefore not impossible that there is a difference between med schools in Europe and med schools in North America, but as long as I have not been shown good arguments –i.e. not mere claims– it is something I accept hearing but have no good reasons accepting as credible. I am being influenced by the fact that I hear quacks making those claims all the time.lynn_glenmont wrote: »No, they really don't.
A second part I think I should add to that is this: what do people mean when they talk about nutrition? It is clear, for example, and that is also true for what I experienced, that there are no cooking classes or recipe classes in med school. I also think that should not really be part of the curriculum, but it certainly is a valid subject for discussion. I have always seen dietitians as the "translators" of medical science into recipe and/or cooking recommendations.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Most Dr's don't have a clue, literally, when it comes to nutrition and most guidelines are political at best, and of course, that's just my opinion. I'm just over 2.0 on average. For the average westerner, protein malnutrition is never going to happen unless of course they're chronically undereating. The AMDR range is around 10-35% of energy intake, and most experts from what I've gleaned from the literature recommend at least 2g and more for elderly populations. cheers.
I know that claim, I hear it often. I wonder where it comes from because it is contrary to my experience. When I went to med school, now a little over 40 years ago, nutrition information already started being given from the very first weeks of instruction. It was everywhere. The only thing that could be said, is that there was no course called "nutrition". Such a course would not have made much sense, because nutrition permeated everything.
While I am always ready to be proven wrong, and having to change my mind, I'd need to see some pretty hard evidence before I accept that claim. I also find it rather suspicious that it is (seemingly) mostly quacks who make the claim. How do they know, since what they know is largely based on nothing or disproven nonsense?
So, it would be better for me to learn about my protein needs from my individual personal general practice MD (for whom medical school was probably 40 years back) than to believe a 2013 report on the subject from a group formed for the purpose by the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society; authors of which include 10 MDs (among others); and that cites and discusses research that supports the study group's conclusions? Because such a report (together with its references) would not be evidence, and its authors would be quacks?
Interesting.1 -
Of course it is, and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. I am trying to understand where the claim comes from, since it is inconsistent with what I know, taking into account that what I know is over 40 years old and that things are likely to have changed.neanderthin wrote: »This is just my opinion on this.
Two points here: what do you mean with nutrition? I have the impression that what you call nutrition is what I call cooking or –in more general terms– preparation of food for consumption. There is –to the best of my knowledge– nothing about that in medical curricula, nor could there be. The reason for that is reality: We have a varying number of about 200 bones (more in the very young), some 600 muscles, an unknown number of blood vessels of which a few hundred (can't be more precise) are important. We have a much smaller number of organs, a very large number of important structures in the brain, hundreds of clinically important nerves... and that is just basic gross anatomy without talking about a single disease or syndrome or treatment thereof.1st bolded statement
I seriously don't understand this line of thinking at all. The basics in nutrition are not something that can be tosses around in general medical conversation and then assume we're good to go, it doesn't work that way. First of all, nutrition is a daunting field. There are scientists with PhD's in nutritional science that spend their whole life trying to figure out something as simple as why mitochondria have their own DNA and why sunlight effectively controls it's course of action, or why we have a common ancestry with fungi and how that relates to our gut microbiome and it's connection to the brain and it's influences on our metabolism. But it can start with the basics, which could undoubtably fill a full curriculum over their formal learning timeframe and still a long way from understanding nutrition without the individual taking it upon themselves to research separately, adding to their life's knowledge and application and still have questions that are unanswered, that is science, and some of those are scientists with the PhD's.
The tragedy of (especially modern) medicine is that we have learned a lot and are learning more and more. Modern medicine is really only a few decades old. even in my time, a lot was still "magic" (placebo effect, non-specific effect, for example). That is why we have more and more (sub)specialties, and ever large multidisciplinary teams of specialists resulting in ever more errors in communication and an ever more expensive medical environment despite declining incomes of and pressures on physicians resulting in more and more doctors calling it quits.
In short: if you are talking about preparing foods, I am wholeheartedly in agreement. If not, I'd like to hear/read it. I have always seen this part as a task of dietitians. Unfortunately, one only needs to look around to know that many dietitians do not seem to know much about the subject. For example, when I hear a dietitian claim there is no sugar in Greek yoghurt or that mangoes are "full of fibre", I don't know where they get that from, but I sure as hell know it is wrong.
Actually, no, you assume wrongly. I am essentially in complete agreement with what you say in this second part. There is an enormously important difference between statistical descriptions of populations and evaluations and predictions at the clinical level. It would, unfortunately, not be hard to write an entire treatise about this. If that is interesting to anyone, I am rather fond of what David Colquhoun writes about statistics in medicine. In short, risk assessments at the population level are absolutely not to be seen as having any predictive value in individuals, a problem that is all too common in the popular literature.2nd bolded statement
Anytime someone infers an outcome in mortality and I believe this is what you're referring to, and in this respect too many Dr's, Dietitians, media and people have put too much faith in nutritional epidemiology because the basic essence of that field is to evaluate what happens over time on a population level only. Basically, the verbiage starts with "risk" and then based on the data vetted from a particular epidemiological study, comes to a conclusion extrapolated out over time, then forecasts a mortality or "risk". Pure hogwash and like I've always said nutritional epidemiology is the weapon of mass confusion. And when we have this type of science influencing policy it has broad implication that can have devastating effects.
Risk assessment requires a control, it's that simple. What we have in nutrition are controlled trials which generally involve smaller to very small groups, because to control variables for a simple trial costs millions on average and it also requires funding and the two are difficult bedfellows sometimes, and these are the scientists with those PhD's that are doing these studies. Most of these controlled trials offer only a comparison and for further questions, theories and trials and generally draw no mortally conclusions. For a controlled study to draw a conclusion for
mortality it again needs a control and it would also need to be started at birth then controlled for all confounders in a ward where they can be controlled all of their life until death, then you can reach a conclusion and only then.....that is a study for mortality and well as we know, that's never going to happen. Cheers
This is –for example– one of the problems with weight loss. People tend to forget that BMI (which I still know as the Quételet Index) was an attempt to study populations, not individuals. As an example, I am of normal BMI (even to Asian standards, since a day or two) but anyone who takes even a cursory look at my abdominal region will know I am still grossly overweight and could be credibly called obese by some people. I just usually say that I am a (recovering) fatty.
As for tests: you got it exactly right. There are a lot of unknowns in nutrition and many of these unknowns are essentially impossible to solve because of financial reasons (solutions can be found for these, at least in principle) and for ethical reasons (solutions may be impossible to find for many if not most of these).
We can even see problems like this in the relatively simple field of vitamins and minerals. We are seeing that recommended intakes are being increased quite regularly but simultaneously seeing that maximum intakes are being lowered quite regularly. On top of that, doctors are being confronted more often with mysterious symptoms that were essentially unknown in the past, as they are related to overconsumption of vitamin and mineral supplements, which could be considered to be a relatively new group of civilisation diseases.
My thinking about this is rather simple for now: we can't blame med schools for not teaching about elements that could not possibly have been known when they were teaching. That said, if med schools cannot possibly know about them, others cannot possibly know about them either, so it does not make sense to look elsewhere for what is essentially fantasy-based disinformation, just because we would prefer to have "answers" instead of information that has been verified and confirmed.0 -
I don't think that is something that can be deduced from what I said, and it is most definitely not what I meant.So, it would be better for me to learn about my protein needs from my individual personal general practice MD (for whom medical school was probably 40 years back) than to believe a 2013 report on the subject from a group formed for the purpose by the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society; authors of which include 10 MDs (among others); and that cites and discusses research that supports the study group's conclusions? Because such a report (together with its references) would not be evidence, and its authors would be quacks?
Interesting.
That said, I am uninclined to "believe" anything. I am very much inclined to take a thorough look at well-studied and well-argued information while taking into account that while a single report can be interesting, it is something that is not to be used as a basis for decision-making until its findings are confirmed by other teams using different methods.
1 -
You may want to look up "Robert Baron" "UCSF" on Youtube. He has a few no-nonsense videos on weight loss and obesity as part of a "mini medical school for the public". He is a professor of medicine at the university of California in San Francisco.vivmom2014 wrote: »The most refreshing information ever: you can eat whatever you'd like, and as long as you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight.
What you quote has been "controversialised" in the popular press, but it remains an establish fact against which no valid objections have ever been raised, even if many have tried and are still trying, although they are usually making claims without any substantiation of those claims.
You may also want to look up "Ruben Meerman" on Youtube. He is an Australian scientist who has made a very nice presentation about energy and weight management. The only thing I disagree with is his use of "not hard", I'd prefer to call it "not complicated", but I think it is clear that this is what he means.
If you track your intake and your weight daily, you will see that calorie tracking can be incredibly precise, and that is despite the inherent problems with calorie counts as we currently have them.
I have always (for the last four years anyway) used, and continue to use, a simple spreadsheet to do this, and all I can say, is that my observations are completely in line with what calorie-based information shows. The only problematic times have been when it was not possible to track accurately, and times when I changed my diet (but that was simply normal, if unpredictable, variation that turned out to be quite correct when looked at over a week or two).
My current Excel sheet has 8708 rows, from 20181203 to 20221022 and it is very informative. One advantage of closely tracking intake and weight for longer periods of time, is that you can actually accurately deduce your personal energy expenditure and hence start to risk predictions on that basis. Once you can do that, no one needs to tell you you are right or wrong, your own information is telling you that already.
It has taught me personally to no longer track my exercise. It was a waste of time and effort for me, the effects were too small to be noticed. That may not be the case for everyone, but it is for me. In weeks I take walks of four hours and more, I see no increased weight loss as compared to weeks during which I take no walks at all. That does not mean I stopped exercising. It may not be important for weight loss, but it certainly is for health.
What I have done, and continue to do, with Excel can easily be done with MFP. Not everyone likes spreadsheets as much as I do, and that is perfectly fine.0 -
If I haven't been clear, well, let me just say, no, I haven't been talking about cooking. Later.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions