A Deadly Myth: How Much Protein Do We Really Need?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To have that much "excess" ability to excrete protein over 70 plus year in evolutionary terms makes no sense whatsoever...evolution won't randomly deal 1000% excess ability into the equation
 
I'm not sure how "newsworthy" that is as it appears it's written with an agenda in mind.

I suspect moderation is the rule that leads to a long and healthy life. Not going to extremes in one direction or another.

I really doubt the objectivity of a group cheering the clear disregard for property rights as evidenced by their cheering on of those who deface billboards.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/06/06/18681231.php
 
I like how the article hints that kidney damage will arise, but doesn't outright say it. Probably doesn't say it because there's studies showing that it will not happen.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16174292

"While protein restriction may be appropriate for treatment of existing kidney disease, we find no significant evidence for a detrimental effect of high protein intakes on kidney function in healthy persons after centuries of a high protein Western diet."

Your article is written in the way most of these "nutrition science" articles are. The disjunctive logic you see on Dr. Oz and other "pop health" phenomenons. I truly feel bad for the general public because they are fed such awful health advice that changes every year that it's difficult to decipher the garbage from the truth. High carb diets, low carb diets, low fat diets, high fat ketogenic diets, saturated fat is bad for you, saturated fat is good for you, etc.

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I suspect moderation is the rule that leads to a long and healthy life. Not going to extremes in one direction or another.


Exactly, the best health advice anyone can give is "everything in moderation".
 
Everything in the human body has a "normal" range, just like motor oil. Drastic changes in either direction (too much or too little) will make you not "feel right" and cause problems.

A few examples of this that the public is familiar with are sugar, sodium and potassium. The general normal range for sodium is 135-145 mmol/L, potassium is 3.5-5.0 mmol/L. Any true absolute increase or decrease will cause health problems and if left untreated can lead to death. The normal ranges for sugar will depend on if it is a fasting or random sugar.

The human body is an amazing "piece of work." it can and will try to keep everything in it at a value where it can function but if we intake or deprive it too much of anything, it will start to give us symptoms and make us not feel well.
 
All that meat eating (200 pounds a year per American on average) harms the eater as they suffer from premature coronary diseases, obesity or diabetes. That would be OK since it can be argued that it's a personal choice.

However, there are societal costs such as environmental pollution with the runoff from feed lots into the rivers and drinking water. There is also the increased cost of health care that the less unhealthy people shoulder.
 
What about Inuits who eat nothing but whale meat? Public is extremely misinformed and some still believe that meat causes problems, whereas that theory has been disproved long ago.

It is sugar and not fat that causes diabetes, heart disease and possibly even cancer. Insulin produced when our blood glucose levels are high inhibits the released of fatty acids from fat cells and switches on the glucose uptake by muscle cells. This results in obesity and other "diseases of Western civilization".

Think about it, what did "Western civilization" have and have been recently consuming more of and what native people didn't have? They could always hunt. They didn't have refined sugar, refined (white) rice, white flour.

Gary Taubes has a couple of books about it - "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It".

The whole issue turned into some holy war where blind beliefs (and sometimes moralizing) matter much more than science or fact.

I used to eat low-fat and always felt fatigued at the end of workday. I gained some weight too. After reading the above books, I started eating way more fat, meat and cheese and cut sugar and carbs. Not only did I loose weight and body fat (from 26% to under 20% so far), I feel energetic the whole day. My HDL went way up (good) and triglycerides are low.

To each their own but, but making decisions that your health depends on based on some stupid articles with unproven statements therein and also based on moralizing is just dumb.

P.S. Beef should be grass-fed and all food should be humanely raised. It is good for animals and good for us as well.
 
An average meal consist of a few ounces of meat placed in between two slices of carbs and doused with sugary condiments. On the side you have carbs deep fried in fat. All this is downed with a fizzy substance full of acid and artificial sweetener.

That is not an Inuit diet. The person eating this meal is not an Inuit, either. Inuits hunt their own food. When does an average american hunt his burger and fries?
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
... There is also the increased cost of health care that the less unhealthy people shoulder.


I agree that people need to be responsible for their health, but it is unclear what kind of penalty can be imposed on those that don't.

As far as your idea that meat consumption is the cause of coronary disease, obesity and diabetes... you are mistaken. Unfortunately, people rely on the government for accurate information here, but it has not been forth-coming. I have hope that this issue will resolve in the next decade as more research (and proper reporting of that research) establishes the truth of the matter.
 
My meat consumption consists of steak+green salad or burger patty+green salad or some other type of cooked meat + some other type of veggie or salad. Meat per se (or protein) is not the problem (the way it is implied in that article). And nobody makes people eat sugary and starchy junk with it.
 
Last edited:
The big issue is that most of the "vegetable" that we eat is starchy, sugary, non-nutritious stuff that causes sugar responses that key inflammation and all sorts of funky blood chemistry.

It is REALLY tough to avoid though, based upon taste buds and availability.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The big issue is that most of the "vegetable" that we eat is starchy, sugary, non-nutritious stuff that causes sugar responses that key inflammation and all sorts of funky blood chemistry.

It is REALLY tough to avoid though, based upon taste buds and availability.


It was really funny when french fries were considered 'vegetables' but Jamie Oliver's vegetable dishes did not qualify to be on the school menu in one of the Food Revolution episodes.
 
The articles are interesting and clearly well-meaning, but it's not clear whether they're particularly helpful.

One of the biggest challenges in North American eating is the "more is better" messaging that permeates marketing and advertising messages. A 6 ounce steak is all most people who work indoors at a desk actually need to feel full. If you eat slowly and have some vegetables and a little high quality carbohydrate (yam fries, potato with skin, brown rice, etc) with it, you're just fine. The problem is that most restaurant steaks start at 12 ounces (maybe an 8 or 10 "for the smaller appetite") and go up from there. This makes it almost impossible not to overeat when you're out, and it's hard to stop when you're home. I saw an article recently that said that since the early 1900's, the "dinner plate" has nearly doubled in size measured in square inches.

The other factor is cost. In the fast and packaged food world, carbohydrates dominate because they are cheap to produce and generally taste good. In order to feed the masses they've become a major source of our daily intake.

Next time you have a fast food burger meal, stop before you start eating and just look at what's in front of you: most of what you see is sugar: it's mixed into the bread dough, it's the main component of the drink, some restaurants blend it into the french fries, and the condiments are loaded with it. With the exception of the protein, the whole meal is basically flavored and colored sugar. And some places even use sugar in the patties to make them brown nicely.

Good nutrition starts with variety and quality. It's tough to find.
 
When we were in the States last year, we were astounded at the low cost, and the portion sizes that were dished up...and the fried potatoes that came with breakfast.

And quite a few times, we "offended" business owners by the amount that we left on the plate, and we'd have to explain that the food was lovely, just too much.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
All that meat eating (200 pounds a year per American on average) harms the eater as they suffer from premature coronary diseases, obesity or diabetes.


Linus Pauling proved that he could block or unblock an artery at will, simply by elevating or reducing the amount of insulin in that artery, and in healthy animals, block single selected arteries.
 
I just had a Denver Omelette for dinner, chock full of peppers, ham, bacon and cheese.

What a wonderful way to die.
laugh.gif
 
Red Bell Peppers are a fave with eggs in our place...alas they are $7.15/lb at present.

Have noticed shoppers who used to have reasonable amounts of fruit/veg in their trolleys now have breads and frozen stuff.
 
The only problem is that all this strict dietary advice is given as though we all have the same needs.

We don't.

So advice that is excellent for you may kill me.
 
Originally Posted By: jaj
The articles are interesting and clearly well-meaning, but it's not clear whether they're particularly helpful.

One of the biggest challenges in North American eating is the "more is better" messaging that permeates marketing and advertising messages. A 6 ounce steak is all most people who work indoors at a desk actually need to feel full. If you eat slowly and have some vegetables and a little high quality carbohydrate (yam fries, potato with skin, brown rice, etc) with it, you're just fine. The problem is that most restaurant steaks start at 12 ounces (maybe an 8 or 10 "for the smaller appetite") and go up from there. This makes it almost impossible not to overeat when you're out, and it's hard to stop when you're home.


Not really. All it takes is some self control or forethought. Either get a takeout box right away and take half your dining out meal and put it in the box, or split a plate with someone.

Since I've started my weight loss quest, I've lost over 30 pounds in just over 60 days. What am I doing? Watching my portions.

My wife and split portions, or if we want something different, we put 1/2 in the takeout box and set it aside.
Originally Posted By: jaj


I saw an article recently that said that since the early 1900's, the "dinner plate" has nearly doubled in size measured in square inches.

The other factor is cost. In the fast and packaged food world, carbohydrates dominate because they are cheap to produce and generally taste good. In order to feed the masses they've become a major source of our daily intake.


It's just as easy to stop in a grocery store and buy fresh fruit and vegetables. You can get a fruit container and/or a veggie container, pay no more than you would for a fast food meal in terms of both time and money.

Sure, it's more costly for the vegetables, but if quick is what you want, then there are choices for those who take 5 minutes and do some research.
Originally Posted By: jaj


Next time you have a fast food burger meal, stop before you start eating and just look at what's in front of you: most of what you see is sugar: it's mixed into the bread dough, it's the main component of the drink, some restaurants blend it into the french fries, and the condiments are loaded with it. With the exception of the protein, the whole meal is basically flavored and colored sugar. And some places even use sugar in the patties to make them brown nicely.

Good nutrition starts with variety and quality. It's tough to find.


It's not tough to find. It's tough to change the habit. If you decide you are not going to eat fast food, or that you will limit it, you can find better choices.

I ate at a restaurant yesterday and had a Buffalo Chicken sandwich. Of course I asked for it grilled, not fried. (No breading, a lot less oil.) Instead of cheese I asked for extra red onion. I kept the chibatta bun and the hot sauce. Instead of fries I had the green beans, but could have chosen a salad. I probably should have, my co-worker had a salad with his burger and it looked pretty good.

I think my lunch was about 300 calories with an unsweetened iced tea.

Add the fries and fry the chicken instead of grilling it and I bet the calorie count doubles.

It's what you chose, and if one educates themselves, they can make better choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom