Give me name of some vegetarian food rich in protein ..
Replies
-
I am only trying to understand where our difference comes from and to reconcile those positions.neanderthin wrote: »If I haven't been clear, well, let me just say, no, I haven't been talking about cooking. Later.
0 -
@BartBVanBockstaele I very much agree with your assessment that weight loss is not complicated, but definitely NOT "not hard." Your spreadsheets sound impressive, but I confess that I'm nowhere close to that level of tracking. I also don't have much extra weight to contend with, so I don't weigh myself and prefer to track ups and downs with how my clothes fit.
I definitely record exercise, for the simple reason that it gives me more calories to eat. So it's the MFP system: attempt to hit the daily calorie goal, add exercise for additional calories, repeat. I don't like complicated, and won't do things that require inordinate amounts of time and attention to detail. (Although I sew all of my own clothes, so there's that.) We're all different, and that's great that your spreadsheets and meticulous tracking work for you.
0 -
I agree wholeheartedly. Everybody is different. I like my spreadsheet very much, but for people who don't like that, MFP is a valid alternative. I had to fiddle the Excel sheet in the beginning, because it became so detailed that I was obsessed by it, so I dialed back, and now track only calories and weight, but I do write down protein, fat, net carbs and fibre as well, even if I don't track them. I started tracking my weight loss decades ago, but then threw it out when I had enough. Except for a few notes on paper that somehow survived that, I have nothing left. This Excel sheet I fully intend to keep though. It tracks 31 kg of weight loss. I suspect I will add another 6 kg or so, maybe more, it is impossible to know.vivmom2014 wrote: »@BartBVanBockstaele I very much agree with your assessment that weight loss is not complicated, but definitely NOT "not hard." Your spreadsheets sound impressive, but I confess that I'm nowhere close to that level of tracking. I also don't have much extra weight to contend with, so I don't weigh myself and prefer to track ups and downs with how my clothes fit.
I definitely record exercise, for the simple reason that it gives me more calories to eat. So it's the MFP system: attempt to hit the daily calorie goal, add exercise for additional calories, repeat. I don't like complicated, and won't do things that require inordinate amounts of time and attention to detail. (Although I sew all of my own clothes, so there's that.) We're all different, and that's great that your spreadsheets and meticulous tracking work for you.
I track calories and kilos because it enables me not only to determine whether my diet works, but also how well it works.
Where exercise is concerned, praise yourself lucky that you can track the calories! In my case, all I can say is that trackers are ridiculously inaccurate,so I just ignore them. At most, I may lose the odd extra gramme or so.
As for sewing, I used to make kimono, himo and obi myself. I loved it a lot. Still have my sewing machine, but that has essentially come to a stop when COVID hit.
Success. Keep it up.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I am only trying to understand where our difference comes from and to reconcile those positions.neanderthin wrote: »If I haven't been clear, well, let me just say, no, I haven't been talking about cooking. Later.
Nutrition as it relates to dietary guidance and what the general population should eat is full of politics and is pretty much impossible to use most of the current recommendations let alone trying to figure from what foundation would best represent current scientific data to train medical students, going forward. Again epidemiology, regulatory capture, commercial concerns of agribusiness and large food processors, and the political concerns of scientist's intent on preserving their point-of-view. Also the simple lack of interest or/and ignoring high quality randomized control trial, which of course would fly in the face of current opinion and bias that are so entrenched in current guidance. Just the conflicts of interest are mindboggling in their scope. The whole system, telling people what to eat is based in ideology at its core and most needs to be scraped in my opinion.0 -
I largely agree with that, except perhaps not with the seemingly accusatory aspect of it. You made it clear you are not talking about cooking, that is fine, it is a relief to me, because I don't see cooking as particularly important where nutrition is concerned, even if I have at least the impression that many people think that cooking is nutrition and that nutritionists and dietitians are essentially purveyors of recipes.neanderthin wrote: »Nutrition as it relates to dietary guidance and what the general population should eat is full of politics and is pretty much impossible to use most of the current recommendations let alone trying to figure from what foundation would best represent current scientific data to train medical students, going forward. Again epidemiology, regulatory capture, commercial concerns of agribusiness and large food processors, and the political concerns of scientist's intent on preserving their point-of-view. Also the simple lack of interest or/and ignoring high quality randomized control trial, which of course would fly in the face of current opinion and bias that are so entrenched in current guidance. The whole system, telling people what to eat is based in ideology at its core and most needs to be scraped in my opinion.
Randomised control trials are not really possible in nutrition, and they aren't in many other aspect of life either, unless we change our ethics and start using and treating some fellow humans as creatures to be caged and experimented on.
One example that I remember from my med school days was a story about what people awaits if they decided to live on a diet that consists exclusively of raw egg whites. I will never forget my professor's remark that there really were some weirdos out there. That was during a first-year course in organic chemistry. I forgot why we learned that there, this is over fourty years ago after all, but it was totally appropriate for the stuff we were studying at the time.
Better known, no doubt, is what we learned about vitamin C and Linus Pauling. That was during our course of inorganic chemistry. Vitamin C is clearly part of biochemistry, not inorganic chemistry, but it was nevertheless appropriate there because Linus Pauling was once a towering figure in chemistry circles but had essentially lost all his prestige by that time thanks to his embrace of vitamin C quackery. To us, it was an important lesson in more ways than one, including the fact that even highly respected scientists will lose that respect when they are shown to be wrong and also that scientists are just humans like every other human, with human failings.
For me, nutrition is both ridiculously simple and ridiculously complex. Ridiculously simple in the sense that despite our rapidly increasing knowledge, we still know so little in the face of what there is to learn that most of it can be taught in an hour or so, and even less at university level, followed by some known and more complex problems that are taught at higher levels. It is also ridiculously complex because there are thousands of molecules, most of which are barely known and there are more possible interactions between them than there are elementary particles in our universe. In that sense, humans will be long extinct before they even scratch the surface of the subject. Needless to say, not all those interactions are equally important, but still, the numbers and the complexity is staggering.
But, even far more down to earth, most of us don't really know much. Just ask, for example, a registered dietitian what he/she knows about lupini beans. If have, so far, never met one who even knew what they are. Yet, my local Loblaws sells three types of them, my local FoodBasics has them dried, and they are actively being studied in the European Union as part of what they call the "protein transition" because they are easier to cultivate in colder climates than soybeans. In other words, they are considered really important, yet remain essentially unknown.
As far as nutrition is concerned, you may want to look up "Ben Goldacre", an Oxford professor of evidence-based medicine. I quote him, because he has written quite a bit for people who are not professionally active in the medical field. He is, I think, best known for his work on homœopathy and bad practices by big pharma.
Just for fun, before I am crawling into my bed, I looked around a bit and found this article from the BMJ:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2099529/
0 -
I think it is kind of hilarious that people start threads here all the time asking for diet advice and get told they should check with their doctor - but anyone who mentions their doctor's recommendations gets told that doctors don't know anything about nutrition.
At any rate - after my doctor told me that I didn't need as much protein as I was trying to get, I did try to do some of my own research, and came to the conclusion that the evidence for me trying to load up on protein wasn't conclusive enough to warrant the stress that particular diet change was causing me.
(I did find some evidence that people who increase protein in order to lose weight actually end up increasing their calorie intake, so for me the priority at this moment in time is losing fat, not trying to cram more protein - which would be more calories - into my day.)
I am still mindful of getting a variety of protein sources every day - I just don't worry about hitting an arbitrary target that is somewhat high for my preferred way of eating.
To each their own - someone on keto would probably balk at the amount of fibre I consume in a day.
2 -
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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.2 -
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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
Your conclusion that protein wasn't warranted because of the possible increase in calories from consuming more and the fact that you eat what might be considered a very high amount of firer does lead myself for example that most of your protein are coming from plant based sources which along with protein will have carbohydrates and generally lots of them. Animal protein is nutrient dense and doesn't have carbohydrates. Maybe look to include more animal sourced protein as opposed to thinking that maybe higher protei diets might not be good, that's kinda a confirmation bias.0 -
Your reasoning is sound. I originally thought that the claim that "doctors don't know the first thing about nutrition" interesting, but after looking around, I came to the (very predictable) conclusion that while some doctors may not be up-to-the-second about the latest controversial-or-not article about nutrition, this does not mean that "sports experts" and "physical therapists" are better sources of information. There also really are actual doctors that are quacks, and there is quite an abundance of them in the weight loss field, but all it takes to find them out is to look at discussions between those who know and those who don't to figure out that one type is evidence-based and the other conjecture-based. In a post-truth world, facts no longer matter, but reality does not care about that. Reality is what it is and not what we wish it to be.I think it is kind of hilarious that people start threads here all the time asking for diet advice and get told they should check with their doctor - but anyone who mentions their doctor's recommendations gets told that doctors don't know anything about nutrition.
At any rate - after my doctor told me that I didn't need as much protein as I was trying to get, I did try to do some of my own research, and came to the conclusion that the evidence for me trying to load up on protein wasn't conclusive enough to warrant the stress that particular diet change was causing me.
(I did find some evidence that people who increase protein in order to lose weight actually end up increasing their calorie intake, so for me the priority at this moment in time is losing fat, not trying to cram more protein - which would be more calories - into my day.)
I am still mindful of getting a variety of protein sources every day - I just don't worry about hitting an arbitrary target that is somewhat high for my preferred way of eating.
To each their own - someone on keto would probably balk at the amount of fibre I consume in a day.
In the end, since we are talking about weight loss/maintenance/gain here, calories are what matter. That does not mean that other stuff, like macros/vitamins/minerals/exercise... are not important, they most definitely are, but it is also true that they have little, if anything, to do with weight. Study after study has shown that macros and exercise have next to no influence on the outcome of a diet.
When people talk about literature, they don't tend to be interested in the goose quills, the typwriters or the computers used to write it, since these tools are essentially meaningless. They are important tools because you need them, but the kind of tools has but little influence on the final result, and possibly even none at all.
It is no different for weight management.
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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.1 -
Haha, another fibre fan? I am always wondering why fibre is almost never talked about. We so often hear the claim about the caloric availibility in protein, and indeed, it does take more energy to extract energy from protein than from fat or sugar, but that is relatively insignificant, while energy availability in fibre is so low that it is about as close to "free food" as we can get. Could perceived taste have something to do with that? Fibre is great and before I started my weight loss adventure, I regularly ate more than a 100 grammes a day. Now, it is more something between 30 and 50, but if available information is correct, that would still be between two and three times what "normal" people eat. I wonder how they do that.To each their own - someone on keto would probably balk at the amount of fibre I consume in a day.
0 -
Consuming copious amounts of an indigestible substance makes about as much sense as poking myself in the eye with a sharp stick. Cheers.0
-
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.
Like many "crazes", the protein "craze" is largely born out of the fitness industry and more specifically the bodybuilding community and has seeped it's way into gen pop. This happens with a lot of things...for example, calorie cycling which was trendy about 5-10 years ago was born out of the fitness industry where athletes needing to cut weight but still maintain physical performance would cycle calories around their most physically demanding training bouts. This eventually made it's way into mainstream as a "magical" weight loss approach. The oh so trendy HIIT is a training modality used by elite athletes to get that extra .00002% and then trickled down to gen pop as being the type of cardio everyone should be doing...even though pretty much everything marketed as HIIT really isn't and true HIIT would obliterate someone who wasn't already a very seasoned athlete or someone with a substantial base of fitness.
There is evidence that more protein than the RDA is beneficial for those who are dieting in that it helps mitigate muscle loss...but I've seen nothing that points to it having to be at a bodybuilders level of consumption. There is also evidence that more protein is beneficial to active individuals but to what degree that protein amount would be would also be dependent on what kinds of activity that person was engaged in. Someone engaged light to moderate physical activity most days (like someone recreationally active) would likely benefit from a bit more protein than the RDA, but would see little benefit IMO of consuming protein in the quantities that would benefit a bodybuilder or someone who is regularly engaged in rigorous physical activity that is breaking down the body over and over and over on a regular basis.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
Your conclusion that protein wasn't warranted because of the possible increase in calories from consuming more and the fact that you eat what might be considered a very high amount of firer does lead myself for example that most of your protein are coming from plant based sources which along with protein will have carbohydrates and generally lots of them. Animal protein is nutrient dense and doesn't have carbohydrates. Maybe look to include more animal sourced protein as opposed to thinking that maybe higher protein diets might not be good, that's kinda a confirmation bias.
I don't think I said that higher protein diets aren't good. I think that I said I came to the conclusion that worrying about it was not required for me. 120 grams of protein per day does not fit into my preferred eating style. 75 (ish) grams does and I believe that to be sufficient for my needs at this time.
Thus my original post that *I* stopped worrying about it.
(Including more animal sourced protein is not an option for me, thus the original dilemma that caused me stress.)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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.
The RDA is the basement for protein consumption to prevent a negative nitrogen balance on a population level. Also the bioavailability of protein are not equal and some protein is barely absorbed and if the diet is high in fiber that will further block absorption, so when someone says higher protein intake than the RDA isn't necessary, I going to assume they have little understanding of nutrition in general and it's time to talk with someone else, which is especially true if someone is elderly. imo0 -
Thanks @cwolfman13 - makes perfect sense. Funny you mention HIIT. That label has been slapped on many a home workout DVD -- hardly the elite athlete crowd!! (I know I'm not, but hey, any exercise is good exercise, especially when it's consistent.)0
-
IMO a 9 out of 10 explaining protein and the recommended dietary allowances, RDA. It's long though, but valuable.
https://youtu.be/BqmG2y4IeY80 -
It is always an individual choice, but consider this: when something goes wrong, the doctor usually gets the blame. When something goes right, the quack usually gets the credit. I wonder why that is, I have a few suspicions, but suspicions are nothing more than that, they are not proof.I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
As for the protein hedge-bet, don't forget that PSMF (protein-sparing modified fast) is a doctor-developed diet. It is highly successful, but is often blamed for unsustainability. That criticism is quite warranted. What those criticising usually leave out however, is that it was not designed to be sustainable. It was designed for fast natural weight loss while *attempting* to minimise lean tissue loss and mitigating nutritional deficiencies as much as reasonably achievable. It is meant for fast weight loss in urgent circumstances, nothing more. In other words, it is a treatment, not a lifestyle.
But, and that is the point here, it is higher in protein than normally considered acceptable. There are some claims that it is dangerous, but –to the best of my knowledge– these claims have never been substantiated. That said, there are good medical reasons to fear that the protein-intake is too high and not ideal. I am *guessing* but cannot prove, that the main reason negative effects have not been substantiated is the short duration of the diet.
The high protein levels often recommended in weight loss are controversial for a very simple reason: there are good reasons to suspect it is dangerous, we just don't know *if* that is truly the case and we don't know how long such diets can be followed before they become really detrimental. We should never forget that things seem to go well until they don't. For comparison, look at the road system in the US. It is almost universally reviled for how bad it is. Yet, for decades, red *and* blue administrations chose to cut back on maintenance costs and claimed that all was well. It was, but the system was deteriorating, and the people are now paying the price for that negligence. The same might be true with high protein intakes. We know for a fact that they are harmful for some people, we know they are beneficial and even necessary for others, but we don't know what the long-term effects are yet, and –sadly– it is next to impossible to find it out in an ethically responsible manner.
In short: the warnings against high-protein intakes could well be wrong, but as long as this has not been conclusively demonstrated, the warnings will and should continue. Let's not forget that modern evidence-based and science-based medicine is still very young. The term itself did not even exist when I went to med school. I.ow., we have a lot to learn. Let's not run before we can walk. What that does, was nicely demonstrated by Boeing and its crashing 737-MAX. Weight loss is good, it is desirable, but it comes with its own set of negative effects and dangers. It is best not to make those dangers even worse.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.
The RDA is the basement for protein consumption to prevent a negative nitrogen balance on a population level. Also the bioavailability of protein are not equal and some protein is barely absorbed and if the diet is high in fiber that will further block absorption, so when someone says higher protein intake than the RDA isn't necessary, I going to assume they have little understanding of nutrition in general and it's time to talk with someone else, which is especially true if someone is elderly. imo
Well firstly I am not elderly - don't know where that came from. And secondly you are putting words in my mouth - I didn't say anything about the RDA - I said that she told me the goal that I was trying to reach (which was about double the RDA) was not necessary.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »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.
Sounds like you are of the opinion that your doctor doesn't keep up on new research and is less capable than you of accessing said research? What make you think that your doctor isn't aware of the 2013 report?
If my doctor hadn't updated their knowledge base in 40 years I think I would be tempted to change doctors.
I don't look to my individual doctor for detailed dietary recommendations. That's not his wheelhouse. He does keep up on recent research, and I have consulted with him about my weight goals, plus we've specifically done blood tests to ensure that I'm on track with specific nutritional issues (to the extent that can be determined) that could be relevant for me. You're welcome to differ, but I think an expert study-group formed by a major geriatric medical organization is worth paying attention to.
I'm more focused on getting my doctor's guidance in personal issues more central to his scope of practice. (That's also where I think it's most important for him to keep up with research. Doctors are humans with limited time budgets, like the rest of us.)
I don't know whether you're in the US, but in my case, we're talking about 15-20 minute appointments every 6 months (unless some symptoms develop). Those focus on things like my hypothyroidism, early COPD, status with vaccinations and screening tests, symptoms that may be relevant post-cancer, and that sort of thing.
I'm not arguing with your personal take, or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that there are alternatives to "ask your doctor" that may be relevant to others in the MFP community who may be interested in other sources of information, in addition to "ask your doctor". That's it.
ETA: While I consider some of the more recent recommendations (in research, or from such study groups) to be non-definitive, I do think it's odd to see the recommendation of more protein (than the USDA/WHO minimums) to be characterized as unfounded myth-making, quackery, or anything of that nature. I think there are enough hints of value to make it a good bet-hedge, especially for someone who's older, active, or losing weight. That's an individual choice.
Me either - but when I mentioned I was trying to lose weight and having a hard time hitting my protein goal she asked me why I was trying to eat so much protein and assured me that it wasn't necessary. Which is when I began to question what I was trying to do and looked into it further.
The RDA is the basement for protein consumption to prevent a negative nitrogen balance on a population level. Also the bioavailability of protein are not equal and some protein is barely absorbed and if the diet is high in fiber that will further block absorption, so when someone says higher protein intake than the RDA isn't necessary, I going to assume they have little understanding of nutrition in general and it's time to talk with someone else, which is especially true if someone is elderly. imo
Well firstly I am not elderly - don't know where that came from. And secondly you are putting words in my mouth - I didn't say anything about the RDA - I said that she told me the goal that I was trying to reach (which was about double the RDA) was not necessary.
Yeah, the elderly comment was just a general comment about the need for additional amino acids as we age. Curious how did she determine that double the RDA wasn't necessary? Or what's it just her opinion? The reason I ask is because most scientists that study protein will say if most of the protein are coming from plant sources to at least double the RDA.0 -
The Recommended Dietary allowances are for amino acids not protein so we should think of protein as a vitamin pill and we don't have a requirement for a vitamin pill per se, but need what is inside that vitamin pill and in the case of protein, it's amino acids.
Protein is to protect against a negative nitrogen balance, as well as for protein turnover or building blocks for new protein, basically growth and maintenance. These amino acids have specific jobs and are needed in specific quantities to accomplish those goals and the simple fact that some AA's will not be sufficient for optimal health, maybe acceptable but not ideal when looking at the RDA and amino acid degradation is affected by age, big time.
One of the major missed opportunities with protein is understanding that it's not a macro like fat and carbs. Fat and carbs are fuel or energy and that can be manipulated any way a person feels comfortable with but their protein needs are etched in stone basically, and shouldn't be adjusted regardless of any adjustment in calorie intake. In other words, the more calorie deficit a person has the more protein should show up as an increase as a percentage of calories. In simple terms, the protein requirements for ideal health doesn't change regardless of which diet we're on or how many calories we're consuming. Cheers.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions