Overdoing protein

You're on a high protein diet though, at 0.7g per pound bw. And are you lifting with progressive overload to build muscle? Those of us who are lifting are taking similar protein as % of bodyweight.

I agree about the marketing though. It's like the new "low fat", which ofc can mean "high sugar".

I think ultra processed food is more about calorie dense foods which are usually low protein.

I think protein is good a lot for the body

Based on what science?

Too much is bad if you have an existing condition. If you don't, then the high protein diets we talk about here (up to about 1g per pound say) are not just OK, but objectively useful and proven by science.

But this is the second time you've claimed too much is bad without that qualifier. It's misleading.

Two very different things:

• General medical or nutrition advice
• Personal nutritional advice in context of our individual health history

This is an example of quite comprehensive, nuanced advice about protein intake for people in 65+ from an international expert study group:

https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610(13)00326-5/fulltext

It covers general population recommendations, plus recommendations for a large number of special cases, including disease or disease-risk states that are more probable in aging adults, kidney disease among them.

Overall, that international expert study group's recommendations suggest to me that universally minimizing or lowballing protein intake is high risk for aging people. For most people, that group's basic recommendation will be well above the generic USDA recommendation of 50g. However, how much protein they recommended varies depending on lifestyle, health history, and health risk factors. Some people should limit protein, because of specific factors. In other cases - common cases - aging adults are getting too little protein for best health outcomes.

Here's a summary quote from the abstract, though I strongly recommend that older adults read the full paper for nuances that may apply in their individual case:

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. Both endurance- and resistance-type exercises are recommended at individualized levels that are safe and tolerated, and higher protein intake (ie, ≥1.2 g/kg body weight/d) is advised for those who are exercising and otherwise active. Most older adults who have acute or chronic diseases need even more dietary protein (ie, 1.2–1.5 g/kg body weight/d). Older people with severe kidney disease (ie, estimated GFR <30 mL/min/1.73m2), but who are not on dialysis, are an exception to this rule; these individuals may need to limit protein intake. 

I also second the OP's comment later in this thread that seeking individual medical advice is important, especially important when aging, and absolutely vital with diet-relevant health conditions in the picture.

Personally, as a very active person, I do eat relatively high protein, over 100g daily. For me, 100g is about 1.6g/kg. I've eaten protein at that level for around 10 years. Because of my health history in other respects, I have blood tests routinely, including BUN. My PCP has no concerns about my BUN levels up to and including most recent tests in May this year. That's me. That's not necessarily everyone.

Repeating: Personal recommendations based on individual circumstances are not the same thing as general advice.

I agree that protein is heavily hyped these days, in some cases over-hyped. It's important to try to sort out hype from solid recommendations, and also to be aware of nuances that may affect us as individuals.

As an aside, that USDA article linked in a PP also says that most aging adults get too little protein, not too much. Its recommendation is 0.54g per pound per day. For me, that's well over my personalized US DRI of 48 grams daily. Specifically, 0.54g per pound would be about 71g for me.

(BTW, the USDA link for an individualized DRI for a range of nutrients is here: https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/dri-calculator )

That USDA article linked in the PP also has some of the least helpful, most misleading comments about plant protein that I've seen lately. (This is a topic about which I'm reasonably knowledgeable. No, I don't think plant protein is the be-all end-all. Far from it. There are definitely issues. That article describes them . . . poorly.) I'm sure the researcher has more detailed knowledge than what's said there and the issue is how they've been selectively quoted by a writer with less knowledge.

There does seem to be some evidence that very high protein (over 1 g per pound) can put excess strain on and potentially further damage the kidneys. Particularly for people already experiencing kidney damage. Will it do that to everyone? No. But I do think the world has gone a bit protein crazy...

Prioritize foods that are whole and considered unprocessed with people focusing on protein tend to plan meals, read labels, and track intake, behaviors linked to better overall diet quality which generally equate to better overall health including less kidney dysfunction considering the worst possible scenario for increased kidney dysfunction generally describes processed and ultra processed foods that are high in sugar, refined carbs, and seed oils which are the main drivers of CKD. Protein in this context is expensive, not very shelf stable and compared to sugar, flour, and oil, are cheap, shelf stable, and easily flavored and colored and where protein doesn’t offer that same markup potential (PROFIT). Consciously increasing natural proteins can essentially cause an aneurism for the companies that are in it for the money (our money) and wanting to keep you as a life long client.

TLDR: eat real food including protein and eat them with vigor 😁.

Yeah, stage 3 CKD is a diagnostic blind spot buried under louder and other comorbidities like diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Apparently 90% of people with CKD didn't know they had it which leaves only 10% that are actually diagnosed and tested. Also roughly 1 in 2 patients with stage 4 CKD are unaware, and 1 in 3 with stage 5 CKD still don’t know.

I'm not going to argue whether there are a LOT of people with kidney disease diagnosed or undiagnosed.

But I am trying to wrap my brain around the first study which to me essentially reads as complaining that people who got two consecutive filtration results below 60% were undiagnosed before the two consecutive sub 60% results and up to six months after.

I realize that these things may be highly localized.

Where I am located the base EGFR test is included with any yearly blood-work I've ever done irrespective of other health concerns.

The lab report clearly marks a result below 60% as abnormal—it says so on the dang report!

Any GP who sends one out to get the test and gets back an abnormal result would be expected to follow up.

If there is no other indication of symptoms or supporting numbers (and even if there is), one would expect a second test to confirm there was no lab error together with a referral to a specialist.

How long a referral to a specialist takes… is an open question.

So I am a bit unsure as to what the study is trying to prove or not prove.

Since there is no EGFR abnormal finding before one falls below 60%, the 60% mark would be the first time one would reasonably expect to get an alert absent any symptoms.

Getting a confirmatory test when one has an abnormal result absent other symptoms strikes me… as a sensible course of action.

Getting a referral to a specialist after a confirmatory second result… would be an expectation.

Having a longer delay to see one with a 59% result vs a shorter if one presents with a 29% result would not make me happy… but wouldn't surprise me either 🤷‍♂️

In other words to me that reads as… kidney doctors have line ups. get more kidney doctors.