kpsyche Member

Well, yes. And that's why the sugar recommendations refer to added sugar and not sugar naturally present in fruit.

An alternative to weighing the marinade before and after marinating (which would work) is to make a sauce out of the marinade and eat it (obviously cook it because it's had chicken sitting in it ;)); that way you could just log the whole lot or whatever percentage of the total you eat

That's ok. Similar to your apple example varying due to the growing environment, farmers manipulate the food they feed livestock to achieve certain results... a good example might be omega-3 enriched/fortified eggs that are "created" by feeding chickens flax (the omega 3 in the flax ends up in the eggs)

There's a whole bunch of standards for analysis of food: https://www.iso.org/ics/67.050/x/ Mineral content is variable based on the soil things are grown in, or the foods that an animal eats. As for energy, the Atwater system is a common method for determining metabolisable energy and the results are usually (or should be)…

Dunno. Here in Australia it's gone (well, you can still find leftover stock in some shops until they run out) but they've replaced it with "Coke No Sugar" which tastes better IMO anyway (although you'll find plenty of people online who say the opposite and that they preferred Coke Zero)

It looks like a typical elliptical galaxy to me

It helped Steve Jobs. Oh... wait. Hmm. Ok, it helped him come up with the name for Apple so it must be ok.

It's just bread that uses baking soda instead of yeast (or something else) as a leavening agent

Umm, tomatoes are a fruit as well. Just sayin'

Yes, so that can be compared to the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein Looking at the amino acids listed in that product and the table on wikipedia it can be seen that lysine is lower (by about half) than what a "complete" protein would have. Other amino acids are higher. How much does this matter…

Complete proteins are those which contain all 9 essential amino acids[1], in the proper proportion to each other, for dietary needs. Soy lacks adequate amounts of methionine and cysteine[2]. Rice has limited amounts of lysine. So compared to a complete protein, these two have gaps in them -- they're not complete. However…

That's where the misunderstanding lies, I think. They certainly do not address minimums (an RDI/RDA/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is not a minimum) and I don't know why many people think they do. Anyway, I've had enough of this thread; it's just going around in circles :/

I don't disagree with the optimal protein intake per se. My own protein intake is closer to 1.3-1.5g/kg/day. What I disagree with is recommending to others that they exceed dietary guidelines (and/or linking to videos or other material that recommend eating up to 8x what guidelines recommend) without referring them to…

Oh, ok. Thanks for the link.

Everyone responds differently I guess, but I was drinking 10 to 12 cans of soft drink a day[1] and stopped cold turkey without feeling any different at all really. My eyesight changed though: about 2 days after I stopped drinking all the sugar-filled drinks my close distance vision became very blurry. Both of my doctors…

Twice a week? Is once every 2 or 3 months ok?

You must have missed the qualification I made in my first post where I stated that giving protein intake recommendations that are outside of dietary guidelines without knowing the medical history or other pertinent information, etc of the person being advised is what I think is not a good idea. The responsible, in my…

It's lucky you didn't mention myocytes or glycolysis because you've got enough undeserved woos already. I have no idea why correct information gets woos so often -- maybe it's because of the big words.

Current US RDA for protein is 46g/day for females aged 14-50 and 52-56g/day for males. These number are based on 0.80g/kg (not per pound): https://www.nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/12

It says that twice the RDI is probably safe not that it is safe. Edit: I think the problem is that scientists choose their words carefully; they'll use terms like likely, probably, apparently, unlikely, etc. This is because there is always uncertainty and there always needs to be caution making any statement or conclusion.…

Yes, it does assuming that 40g/day equates to 0.8g/kg/day. And the reason is because the development of guidelines includes athletes in the general population. Only an estimated 2.5% of people -- some who may be athletes, others who aren't -- will not be getting enough protein at 0.8g/kg/day (given the OP's weight that's…

And that makes it ok to suggest to random people that they consume 2 to 4 (or more) times the RDI? I don't think so, but it's obvious that safety is not a priority when you're on the internet and if someone gets sick because of poor advice then who's going to do anything anyway. The scientific community and these large…

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It's adequate for 97.5% of individuals (that's you). What more could you ask for without putting a huge chunk of the population at risk?

Yes it works, but it takes a little bit longer than 6 days ETA: You don't need to try a zero carb approach again (sounds terrible to me, for a start); the only thing you need to do is eat fewer calories than you burn

Given the lack of evidence of benefit in terms of athletic performance or physique, it might be prudent to avoid such intakes High-protein diets can both increase exercise-induced amino acid oxidation, especially in untrained individuals and those with an inadequate energy intake, and increase risk of negative nitrogen…

Of course it's for adequacy for 97.5% of the population because they (and dietary guidelines) need to address the majority of the population because these are population-based guidelines. The average requirements of any nutrient, where sufficient data are available, in general form a classic bell curve with the average…

I edited the passage for brevity (notice that I did not change any of the words or leave out the key points; I left sentences intact and left those that were pertinent). Perhaps I should have left the wall of text and made the important bits bold -- and in hindsight that would have been the better strategy -- but having…

I retract my statement then; I didn't realise that the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies referenced by all the guidelines were incorrect.

Oh wait. Maybe you're right and all these large health organisations are involved in a conspiracy to make people not eat enough protein. My bad.