all posts post new thread

Nutrition Protein mania

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
I ate lunch with Prof. T. Colin Campbell and his wife at a conference, and after a lifetime of research on the subject he is completely bewildered at what he calls this “reverence” for animal protein.

Ask people what diet for losing weight, “more protein” is the answer. Want to gain weight? “More protein.”

Wait, . . . what?
 
I calculated out my average protein without any supplements and it came to not much over 60gm. Not bad, but not enough if trying to increase muscle mass. And then requirement goes up as you age. I should be getting between 90 and 120 or so.

A lot of food has very low protein content, many meats (check out your bacon), and even many minimally processed foods have squat for protein.

Virtually all processed foods including granola bars and such might have no more than 2-3 gms/serving. IDK, it pays to check the label. I find it hard to believe the average person is getting 90gms/day, 30 grams of protein per meal doesn't happen by accident.
 
I like this:
"The current protein mania has partly come about because so many people now regard carbohydrates or fats (and sometimes both) with suspicion. In the current nutrition wars, protein has emerged as the last macronutrient left standing."

Something about being human. We want everything in tidy stacks of "good" and "bad," and we want it all to be the same for everyone. It's easy to disregard our own sense of health based on what we're told we should be doing.

I think they did a good job of pointing out that it's the rare person who can hurt themselves with too much protein, but there's also no need for most people to get more than a certain amount.
 
Ask people what diet for losing weight, “more protein” is the answer. Want to gain weight? “More protein.”
Not to be nit-picky (sorry), but the main reason this statement seems contradictory is that it's using the same word (weight) for two distinctly different things (fat and muscle mass).
I could say that I'll die if I go too long without breathing gas, but I'll die if I breathe gas for too long. It doesn't make sense unless you know that I'm talking about oxygen and carbon monoxide, respectively.
 
Not to be nit-picky (sorry), but the main reason this statement seems contradictory is that it's using the same word (weight) for two distinctly different things (fat and muscle mass).
I could say that I'll die if I go too long without breathing gas, but I'll die if I breathe gas for too long. It doesn't make sense unless you know that I'm talking about oxygen and carbon monoxide, respectively.
I understand the issue, but does the average bloke? In my experience this throws them for a loop.

The food industry knows the word protein on the label means more sales.
 
Not to be nit-picky (sorry), but the main reason this statement seems contradictory is that it's using the same word (weight) for two distinctly different things (fat and muscle mass).
I could say that I'll die if I go too long without breathing gas, but I'll die if I breathe gas for too long. It doesn't make sense unless you know that I'm talking about oxygen and carbon monoxide, respectiv
pun intended or not. Wittgenstein dealt quite some time with "Sprachspiele" "language/word games". Sometimes fun sometimes annoying. Just an observation...back to discussion.
 
I ate lunch with Prof. T. Colin Campbell and his wife at a conference, and after a lifetime of research on the subject he is completely bewildered at what he calls this “reverence” for animal protein.

T. Colin Campbell

Campbell's The China Study reminds me of Ancel Keys pseudo-science research on Cholesterol; only quoting information, regardless of the validity of it, that supported his believe and disregarding all other reputable research that counter it.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Last edited:
This article seems to be missing its own point. It zeroes in on protein, then spends a lengthy time describing the issues, not honestly of protein, but more generally of non-natural foods like bars and shakes, etc.

Eat stuff as close as reasonable to how it looks and nature, and most things should be taken care of. (I type as I eat tortilla chips with a “hint of lime”).

@North Coast Miller has it right - everything needs it’s nutrition and ingredients label checked. “Plant-based” is sometimes squished by marketers to imply vegan, when the ingredients list will show a very non-vegan gelatin. I’ve seen lots of things claim “high protein” to read the back and see 3g protein, 25g sugar. Greek yogurt, especially!

I’m not sure I’d trust The Guardian on nutrition in general...really any media outlet. Nor most “scientific” “studies” funded by one opinion holder or another. Nor myself, really.
 
T. Colin Campbell

Campbell's The China Study reminds me of Ancel Keys pseudo-science research on Cholesterol; only quoting information, regardless of the validity of it, that supported his believe and disregarding all other reputable research that counter it.

Kenny Croxdale
Yes, from what I’ve randomly seen here and there Ancel Keys seems to be somewhat of a “missionary” with lots of biases clouding his “research”....

There are documentaries and books about the several flaws of the China study.

But in this age/topic of misinformation, it’s all essentially who you choose to trust.

Without placing blame or whatever, no offense intended...one side of the “nutrition argument” always vouches for the China study and Ancel Keys (and others) as they all tend to agree with each other, while if you reject one you necessarily reject them all, so the opposite side of the “nutrition argument” will toss them out.

As much as we claim to be scientific and rational, humans are actually very emotional and illogical, and that is well-displayed in this arena. Most everything is tainted.
 
Yes, from what I’ve randomly seen here and there Ancel Keys seems to be somewhat of a “missionary” with lots of biases clouding his “research”....

Biases Clouding His Research

Lying by omission is what it come down.

The Seven Countries study was actually composed of 22 nations. Keys omitted 15 countries because didn't support his believe. No matter how you spin that, is pseudo-science, misleading other by omission.

But in this age/topic of misinformation, it’s all essentially who you choose to trust.

Cross Referencing Information

One of the primary issues is that the majority of individual chose to be ignorant. That because the information they obtain is based on a sound bit on the news or a one sentence they read.

They want a "Yes" or "No" answer to a complicated question. Anything beyond a sentence is too long.

Reading one article for them is a lot. They aren't going to preform any more investigation into topic (Cross Reference it). They have the answer, right or wrong.

Without placing blame or whatever, no offense intended...one side of the “nutrition argument” always vouches for the China study and Ancel Keys (and others) as they all tend to agree with each other, while if you reject one you necessarily reject them all, so the opposite side of the “nutrition argument” will toss them out.

Selective Ignorance and Cults

The description you have provide identifies individuals who only read information to support their own cause or belief; then band together in Cult and metaphorically 'Worship together".

As much as we claim to be scientific and rational, humans are actually very emotional and illogical, and that is well-displayed in this arena.

Them Rather Than We

Individuals who base their decision on emotions are not logical. Emotional individual are unreachable.

The masses represent "Them" the minority represent "We".

Most everything is tainted.

Tainted

Yes and No.

Campbell and Keys pseudo-research is tainted because it is based on omitting information as a means of pushing their objective. Purposefully Tainting Lying that is inexcusable.

Some information is tainted due to the fact sometimes researcher's make honest mistakes with an experiment or misread the results.

As Einstein said, "Research is what I am doing, when I don't know what I am doing." There were time when even Einstein initially got it wrong.

Kenny Croxdale
 
Thanks for posting. Thought it was a balanced piece bringing in many topics without getting too heavy on the the food wars and politics. On that note! -

Ancel Keys - there is this view that he cherry picked his stats to back up his view. This 64 page white paper addresses issues in defence of his original paper.

https://www.truehealthinitiative.or...loads/2017/07/SCS-White-Paper.THI_.8-1-17.pdf

"Disparagements of the methods, intentions, and conclusions of
the Seven Countries Study are currently much in vogue.
They populate books and on line commentary,
and figure prominently in prevailing dietary trends and
debates.
Critics frequently point out alleged flaws in the seminal study in order to contest its primary dietary finding, that saturated fat was correlated with heart disease, and call into question subsequent nutrition research.
This paper was commissioned by the True Health Initiative
to explore the historical record and address the popular contentions with primary source material and
related work, and in consultation with investigators directly involved.
Popular criticisms directed at the study, and the lead investigator, Ancel Keys, turn out to be untrue when
the primary source material is examined."

Science, spin, propaganda, fake news, pseudo-science, agendas, business and lifestyles to promote. Quite a cocktail.
 
No one cares how tall you are. Research has shown you need around .8g per lb of body weight. More does not really mean more optimal. If you want to take in higher amounts of protein go for it, but you won't experience improved gains.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom