"It’s absolutely crystal clear that there are benefits of protein to muscle growth and exercise response of active individuals," study author Dudley Lamming said in a statement. "But because most people are relatively sedentary, many people are likely consuming more protein than they actually need, which probably has negative health consequences."
[/me proceeds to have more protein and keep working out.]
Anecdotally I find the ones into protein at least have a moderate amount of physical activity. So probably not too big of a deal? I find articles using dramatic words for an article without any metrics on effect sizes the epitome of modern journalism.
what's missing from this article, they briefly mention it, is the type of protein. that matters. the amino acid profile of the protein really matters. the most important one of course (according to several books i read on the matter (Dr Greger's series on how not to, etc), says it's all about the Methionine!
i did some research: here's the methionine content per gram of protein per food category: the highest ones were any kind of animal based protein are typically 30+ mg per gram of protein. whole grains, and nuts typically 15mg to 30mg or so. Beans, Veg and fruit have the lowest about 12 to 15mg per gram of protein.
sure you could just eat less protein and that's fine but the type of protein your eating also matters
Protein is used within your body for far more than just maintaining or increasing muscle mass. It also fails to mention the balance of essential amino acids within the body. Which is critical because eating say 30g, doesn't guarantee all of it is utilized unless it's complete.
Readers, you're better off continuing what you are doing that considering this at all.
I know this is going to be a hot take, but eating >100-120g protien for most people with even a moderate amount of exercisize isn't needed. Ratios passed around for how much protien you should eat are usually from studies on the most optimal amount for muscle growth of serious gym goers and atheltes. A normal person with moderate excersize would still see progress and be healthy at a 0.8 per pound of body weight. It would be faster with 1+g per pound but its not needed. My best cuts have been at 0.8g, and my best recomp was usually around 0.9g .
What a shit article that doesn’t match what it is saying. If you are active you benefit from more protein. If you are not then maybe it’s not good without any reporting on how they even got to the main conclusion except for a citation which may or may not pan out.
I don't like to complain but I have spent a lot of time learning about how to build a diet and I have never seen an article so bad in such a short amount of space.
> ... new federal dietary guidelines that recommended increasing protein intake to 0.5-0.7 grams per pound of body weight—nearly double the previous recommendations. Of course, this announcement left many experts somewhat confused. For starters, American men were already consuming that much protein (around 100 grams per day) despite lower federal recommendations.
This is a non sequitur. The recommendation is for the macronutrient breakdown that constitutes a healthy diet. So it shouldn't change based on what 'experts' think the American public is already doing. That way, an American can read government's guidelines to figure out what constitutes a healthy diet vs a diet that may be very heavy in carbs or fat.
> One key factor, a hormone produced by the liver called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), ramps up when protein intake declines. FGF21 can boost the body’s energy expenditure, stabilize blood sugar levels, and reduce inflammation. In mice, at least, more FGF21 translates to a longer lifespan.
Pure unadulterated pseudoscience. Carbs cause your blood sugar (glucose) to fluctuate. Blood glucose fluctuation contributed by protein is in the noise compared to carbs. The research on this is comprehensive. Better yet, you can test this on yourself with a continuous glucose monitor. Eat 400 kcal steak/chicken/whey one meal and 400 kcal rice/bread/pasta for another. The latter will give you a big blood glucose spike.
> growth-promoting methionine, isoleucine, and valine can lead to more inflammation, obesity, and age-related diseases, the researchers say. “These studies show that the amount of protein sedentary people are eating today may have negative health consequences, at least at the population level,” Lamming explained.
Amino acids can't 'promote' obesity. Obesity only comes from sustained calorie surplus. Once you are obese, you will suffer from all sort of things that will rapidly age you (chronic inflammation, arterial plaques, hepatoxic visceral fat, insulin insensitivity leading to diabetes and so on). No honest biologist would declare a causal link from amino acids to aging without controlling for obesity.
> More exercise and metabolic activity could very well mean you need more protein, not less. “Recent recommendations have encouraged people to eat more protein, but they’ve also encouraged people to exercise more,” Lamming added. “We probably need to personalize protein recommendations based not just on age, but also on how physically active people are.”
There is no reason to be coy about this because it has all been researched. 0.5-0.7 is fine for everyone including athletes. Some body builders push it to 1g/lbs, but explaining why they do this is a complicated topic. You can safely eat less than 0.5g/lb because carbs and fat have a protein sparing effect. The biggest benefit to more protein than strictly necessary is that they make meals filling, whereas fat is calorie dense and (high GI) carbs can make you hungry again quickly.
That's surprising, and the first I'd heard of it! Especially because a ton of people in Japan today seem to consider meat the most enjoyable food group.
Although it sounds like 1. it was only certain classes, 2. it was only part of the year, 3. it still allowed some meat (boar, deer).
As for it being the reason for their longevity... I doubt it's related? Since the ban ended 150 years ago and AFAIK the Japanese longevity is mostly statistics starting around the war I think.
Everyone loves to cite the "blue zone" with regards to Japan, but that zone is down near Okinawa, not mainland Japan. That region's culture did eat meat.
The buried important part:
"It’s absolutely crystal clear that there are benefits of protein to muscle growth and exercise response of active individuals," study author Dudley Lamming said in a statement. "But because most people are relatively sedentary, many people are likely consuming more protein than they actually need, which probably has negative health consequences."
[/me proceeds to have more protein and keep working out.]
Seems like “probably has negative health consequences” in the article is missing “ceteris paribus” (negative when remaining sedentary).
Well, if they can assume you’re probably sedentary they’re probably right.
It's very beneficial and necessary for muscle growth. Strength through your older years is also a metric for healthier aging.
I think the moral of the story here is moderate based on your activity. And don't listen to anything rfkjr has to say as a general rule.
[dead]
Anecdotally I find the ones into protein at least have a moderate amount of physical activity. So probably not too big of a deal? I find articles using dramatic words for an article without any metrics on effect sizes the epitome of modern journalism.
A lot of protein bros are all about muscle size and not much else. It's better than being a couch potatoe but it's far from optimal
Size or strength both depend on a ton if protein. I don’t know what your objection is.
Protein bros? Why so angry? Do you think hypertrophy and strength are not correlated?
You can def get one without much of the other, but since both require at least moderate physical activity, “too much” protein isn’t applicable.
what's missing from this article, they briefly mention it, is the type of protein. that matters. the amino acid profile of the protein really matters. the most important one of course (according to several books i read on the matter (Dr Greger's series on how not to, etc), says it's all about the Methionine!
i did some research: here's the methionine content per gram of protein per food category: the highest ones were any kind of animal based protein are typically 30+ mg per gram of protein. whole grains, and nuts typically 15mg to 30mg or so. Beans, Veg and fruit have the lowest about 12 to 15mg per gram of protein.
sure you could just eat less protein and that's fine but the type of protein your eating also matters
- what about people that exercise 6 days a week for 1 hour a day?
- 20 mins of walk/jog
- 40 mins of pushups, squats, weight training etc
> More exercise and metabolic activity could very well mean you need more protein, not less.
If you did exercise 1 hour a day for 6 days a week, you'd probably be well above the average exercise time for normal adults.
Who posts this brainrot?
Protein is used within your body for far more than just maintaining or increasing muscle mass. It also fails to mention the balance of essential amino acids within the body. Which is critical because eating say 30g, doesn't guarantee all of it is utilized unless it's complete.
Readers, you're better off continuing what you are doing that considering this at all.
>Readers, you're better off continuing what you are doing that considering this at all.
Most Americans get sufficient protein, almost none (about 5%) get sufficient fibre.
I know this is going to be a hot take, but eating >100-120g protien for most people with even a moderate amount of exercisize isn't needed. Ratios passed around for how much protien you should eat are usually from studies on the most optimal amount for muscle growth of serious gym goers and atheltes. A normal person with moderate excersize would still see progress and be healthy at a 0.8 per pound of body weight. It would be faster with 1+g per pound but its not needed. My best cuts have been at 0.8g, and my best recomp was usually around 0.9g .
What a shit article that doesn’t match what it is saying. If you are active you benefit from more protein. If you are not then maybe it’s not good without any reporting on how they even got to the main conclusion except for a citation which may or may not pan out.
>If you are active you benefit from more protein.
More protein than what level though? 0.75g per kilogram of body weight per day? or 1.5g? 3g? I find it hard to believe there isn't some optimum level.
Current US intake is about 1g per Kg of body weight which is already a third higher than the UK's recommended level.
I don't like to complain but I have spent a lot of time learning about how to build a diet and I have never seen an article so bad in such a short amount of space.
> ... new federal dietary guidelines that recommended increasing protein intake to 0.5-0.7 grams per pound of body weight—nearly double the previous recommendations. Of course, this announcement left many experts somewhat confused. For starters, American men were already consuming that much protein (around 100 grams per day) despite lower federal recommendations.
This is a non sequitur. The recommendation is for the macronutrient breakdown that constitutes a healthy diet. So it shouldn't change based on what 'experts' think the American public is already doing. That way, an American can read government's guidelines to figure out what constitutes a healthy diet vs a diet that may be very heavy in carbs or fat.
> One key factor, a hormone produced by the liver called fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21), ramps up when protein intake declines. FGF21 can boost the body’s energy expenditure, stabilize blood sugar levels, and reduce inflammation. In mice, at least, more FGF21 translates to a longer lifespan.
Pure unadulterated pseudoscience. Carbs cause your blood sugar (glucose) to fluctuate. Blood glucose fluctuation contributed by protein is in the noise compared to carbs. The research on this is comprehensive. Better yet, you can test this on yourself with a continuous glucose monitor. Eat 400 kcal steak/chicken/whey one meal and 400 kcal rice/bread/pasta for another. The latter will give you a big blood glucose spike.
> growth-promoting methionine, isoleucine, and valine can lead to more inflammation, obesity, and age-related diseases, the researchers say. “These studies show that the amount of protein sedentary people are eating today may have negative health consequences, at least at the population level,” Lamming explained.
Amino acids can't 'promote' obesity. Obesity only comes from sustained calorie surplus. Once you are obese, you will suffer from all sort of things that will rapidly age you (chronic inflammation, arterial plaques, hepatoxic visceral fat, insulin insensitivity leading to diabetes and so on). No honest biologist would declare a causal link from amino acids to aging without controlling for obesity.
> More exercise and metabolic activity could very well mean you need more protein, not less. “Recent recommendations have encouraged people to eat more protein, but they’ve also encouraged people to exercise more,” Lamming added. “We probably need to personalize protein recommendations based not just on age, but also on how physically active people are.”
There is no reason to be coy about this because it has all been researched. 0.5-0.7 is fine for everyone including athletes. Some body builders push it to 1g/lbs, but explaining why they do this is a complicated topic. You can safely eat less than 0.5g/lb because carbs and fat have a protein sparing effect. The biggest benefit to more protein than strictly necessary is that they make meals filling, whereas fat is calorie dense and (high GI) carbs can make you hungry again quickly.
[dead]
That's one of the reasons of Japan's longevity. Japanese were forbidden from eating animal meat for 1200 years.
That's surprising, and the first I'd heard of it! Especially because a ton of people in Japan today seem to consider meat the most enjoyable food group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_meat_consumption_in...
Although it sounds like 1. it was only certain classes, 2. it was only part of the year, 3. it still allowed some meat (boar, deer).
As for it being the reason for their longevity... I doubt it's related? Since the ban ended 150 years ago and AFAIK the Japanese longevity is mostly statistics starting around the war I think.
Everyone loves to cite the "blue zone" with regards to Japan, but that zone is down near Okinawa, not mainland Japan. That region's culture did eat meat.