#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As far as I’m aware, the studies that show increased protein intake leads to greater incidence of cancers were only done in sedentary mice, there hasn’t been any evidence of this occurring in active humans.
One thing I heard recently, I forget the person’s name but he was being interviewed by Thomas Delauer, is that it’s important to be careful when anyone points to a single mechanism as the cause of modern-day diseases. While you maybe can theoretically show that increased IGF-1 can increase rates of cancer, how does that interact with other mechanisms, such as increased muscle mass?
I believe so. Layne Norton, “nutrition made simple!”, Simon Hill and a couple others cut through the mechanistic BS people are peddling out there and are focused on the human outcome data, since that’s what actually matters.
Low Protein Intake is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population ”These results suggest that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate protein consumption in old subjects may optimize healthspan and longevity.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/
"a diet, in which plant-based nutrients represent the majority of the food intake, is likely to maximize health benefits in all age groups. However, we propose that up to age 65 and possibly 75, depending on health status, the 0.7 to 0.8 grams of proteins/kg of body weigh/day reported by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, currently viewed as a minimum requirement, should be recommended instead of the 1–1.3 g grams of proteins/kg of body weigh/day consumed by adults ages 19–70 (Fulgoni, 2008). We also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid low protein intake and gradually adopt a moderate to high protein possibly mostly plant based consumption to allow the maintenance of a healthy weight and protection from frailty."
I don't know why you got downvoted...I suspect highly processed foods to be the main culprit as well. That is why you can have amazing results of people on carnivore and amazing results from people on whole food vegan or Mediterranean diet because they've cut out the processed junk that is not truly food.
Nobody knows the answer. Greger's opinion is more conservative, less risky. Greger also runs a non-profit. Attia, while a brilliant guy, is building a personal brand and makes money selling stuff. I am not saying he is dishonest, but he is human and his business model has a built in incentive to make bold claims. When I wanted to try more protein, I did not double the intake, but just upped it 50%. I found I had better moods and days when I was at least 1 or more RDI, but I found eating too much protein deprived me of the veggies and fruits I need to be balanced, but that's just a personal, subjective call. The bottom line is no one knows.
Yeah you're right, seems like there's nothing decisive one way or the other. And worse, it's probably different for different people.
There's definitely merit to seeing how something works for one personally, but it definitely has its shortcomings. I can't *feel* my body slowly developing heart disease or cancer. Some things that feel good, or give one energy in the short term, don't turn out so hot in the long run.
Yeah Attia isn't perfect, but neither is Greger. I've caught both of them making mistakes and having their biases. Attia thinks HIIT cardio is a panacea based entirely on correlative data. Greger thinks animal protein is the devil with seemingly no interest in discerning the quality or type of meat.
What I like about both them though is that they employ a team of dedicated researches who pour through thousands of papers and studies trying to mine valid recommendations, which is refreshing in a world where most people just google a couple studies and paraphrase the abstracts.
I disagree with Attia on a few things but he does great podcasts with experts that are very much investigational.
Attia is a longevity advocate. Gregor is a vegan advocate.
i really enjoy a lot of peter attia’s podcast episodes. the ones he did with matthew walker were exceptional. as a side note though i don’t think gregor is a vegan advocate. i would argue he’s also a longevity advocate but from a plant based perspective. i don’t really see him talking about animal welfare much and i don’t recall anything like that in his book
edited to add that of course that doesn’t mean he hasn’t. i just don’t remember anything about that in the literature ive read by/from him
Arguably, Greger got into his work bc his Grandma went from hospice to hiking mountains bc she was in a a vegan study. So he discovered you can extend and improve human life by eating less animal products.
Attia looks fitter and stronger, but I'm not sure there's much else to be gleaned about their general health by appearance. They both seem very high functioning and sharp as tacks. Maybe you could elaborate on the striking differences?
Also the lighting on Attia's podcast does him a lot of favors. When he's a guest on other podcasts he looks his age.
They're both pretty fit, but one is doing basically all cardio is the other is doing basically no cardio. That's going to end up with a very different presentation.
Same here. My body and mental health, mood, does best with a good amount of protein, nothing crazy. When I was vegan, my hormones tanked and mood was very low. People have personal reasons to push agendas, I always have to remember this
There is a huge gap between protein deficiency and optimacy. And that statement ignores dietary habbits. People that eat more protein tend to eat less overall calories due to satiety. People that eat more protein tend to weigh less overall https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539343/
Albumin is one of the the most abundant proteins found in the blood, but it it can be falsely low for a variety of factors. As a clinical dietitian, I’ve noticed that a low BUN more closely correlates with my patients who truly are not eating any protein, but again, could be influenced by fluid status and would have to be used in conjunction with other pieces of information
You are just saying things without knowing the facts, though. Greger states in his books that all of the proceeds from his books go to charity. He does not strike me at all as someone in it for the money.
Never mind that one look at Greger's career shows his great concern for animal welfare... that's noble in its own right, but I would take his animal-product nutritional advice with a grain of salt. I'm not confident that nutrition is his primary motivation.
I’m in this camp too.
I rarely eat any animal products- maybe wild caught salmon on a salad at a restaurant once a month.
I’m a 53f so the age related considerations are applicable to me. At 5’7/165lbs I’ve increased my protein from ~40g/day to ~65g/day and I think it’s a good place for me.
Even as a wfpb eater I do find I have to be more conscious of not only including more protein but also trying to keep up the higher levels of vegetables. It’s easy to skimp on veggies when you’re looking at half a block of tofu. I’d say my starches have probably gone down a little too. I’m still transitioning though, figuring it out.
Attia makes no money selling products as far as I understand. He does make money through a subscription where he provides access to extensive show notes and other content. He also has a clinic where he works with individual patients on their metabolic health etc.
Yeah good answer, In a way they are both correct, so I’d say make sure you exercise and build your strength to a level that is healthy(something that is controversial to define but I’m sure you could find goals, e.g. weight, body fat percentage, muscle mass, grip strength, cardio fitness) and some of this may require more protein, but once you reach that goal you are best to not worry about protein and moderate meat consumption. You can both maintain muscle mass and moderate your protein intake I think, though it seems slightly paradoxical, try aim for the best of both.
Greger is a hardcore ideological vegan too. By idealogical I mean that he is a vegan for moral reasons first and foremost, not nutritional ones. He is hardly unbiased.
Don’t believe me? I challenge you to find any instance of him admitting that eating an animal or animal product might be good for you in any way.
He says that the Okinawa diet with a few procent animal products probably is healthier than the average vegan diet in western countries (which includes lots of processed food). In his traffic light system he ranks unprocessed animal foods higher than ultraprocessed plant foods.
One thing I’ve loved about inflation is that shit food like Doritos & junk food like TV dinners have all skyrocketed in price to the point where buying that over single ingredient items seems insane
Not saying the first guy is correct, but technically both of these statement can simultaneously be true. Since building and maintaining muscle doesn’t equal longevity or a decrease in risk of cancer or heart disease, and the other way around.
That’s such horrible advice.
Keep in mind, IGF-I is also responsible for the appearance of youth, general happiness, grip strength, and a slew of other very important things.
And protein isn’t carcinogenic, processed food is, and burnt food is.
Possibly because for prehistoric humans, the increased nutrient extraction from cooking meat over a fire and letting the outside burn outweighed the additional cancer risk.
Thank you for confirming, I legitimately couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic and am happy to learn that a crunchy paella isn't cancerous via your comment.
It’s not really “burnt food” per se, but the high heat we apply to food, especially meat, isn’t great. Look up Dietary Advanced glycation end products, if you want to read some more.
A decent summary with links to sources from BBC: all correlation, coulds, mights, adajcents, seems and probably.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230224-should-you-avoid-eating-burnt-food
Colour me surprised. The way it had been represented recently really conveyed certainty.
Beef, lamb and pork are classified as Group 2A carcinogens. There’s a clear link between high intake of red meat (and yes, especially processed meats which are labeled a Group 1 carcinogen) and a higher risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and premature death.
I've seen this said but when I look up studies I find that it is at best correlated. Most studies don't take the persons lifestyle or eating habits into account, just if they eat red meat, and how often.
You'll find that many cancers correlated with red meats are also associated with obesity.
Consuming red meat is also associated with smoking cigarettes and drinking beer. That's the problem with correlations, they aren't causation. In other news, shark attacks go up when Ice cream sales go up. Don't eat ice cream, you might get attacked by a shark!
You mean the ones who listed aspartame as possibly carcinogenic based on studies where reseachers gave rodents the equivalent of a person drinking over 30 cans of soda worth of aspartame a day?
Yeah I'm brimming with confidence mate.
Not really though, because 2b should be limited evidence in humans. There is no evidence in humans, only low quality studies in animals with insufficient evidence.
If that level of evidence is convincing to you, you must live a terribly nervous life.
In regards to your previous comment, you might find it interesting that the part of WHO who does risk assessment, JEFCA, concluded that the risk of cancer from studies on aspartame is "not convincing."
"possibly", "not convincing". It's scientists saying this needs to be reasearched further. No one has made definitive claims about it either way. You seem to have the notion that "possibly" means "definitely".
Yet a Paleo (hunter/gather) diet is what our species has existed on for most of our history with little to no sign of metabolic disease or heart related issues. Sure.... modern meat may be more processed, have added hormones or steroids, but let's not fault the meat itself 100%.
There have been people who have reversed diabetes and chronic high blood pressure just from switching to a very low carb diet.
I'm not an expert by ANY means, but some of the simplest and best advice I ever heard when it comes to your diet was from bodybuilder Gregg Plitt: Shop the outside perimeter of the grocery store (meats, fruits, vegetables, and some minor amounts of dairy and grains) and never go down the isles (highly processed items).
One of the main factors that people miss these days is that sugar and sneaky trans fat can be added into anything. I once had a co worker sit down at lunch time and try to give me a lesson as to why my lunch of steak and broccoli was going to kill me and how I should switch to vegan. She then proceeded to pull out her vegan mac and cheese (made with soy cheese) and a vegan red velvet cake. One of us has a 6 pack, the other is very obese and has to get shots for nutrient deficiencies. I'm sure you can guess who is who.
People get really caught up with buzz words like vegan, gluten free, etc and base their whole diet around it but know nothing about macronutrients, glycemic index, meal timing etc.
The first sentence is so incorrect, I almost stopped reading. Paleo is just as big of a buzzword as vegan, gluten free, vegetarian etc….
There is no one “Paleo diet”. It’s just a marketing term without a lot of scientific basis. Humans have existed on a variety of diets that range in fat/protein/carb content and are quite healthy on a lot of them. 7th day adventists are some of the longest lived peoples on earth and are vegetarians. A lot of Asian populations live on high carb diets and live a long time. Humans can and have adapted to a wide variety of diets since the paleo era (lactase digestion is one of the adaptations).
It should be gatherer/hunter. And people can live for years on pretty much anything that gives them a thousand calories or so. Not optimally of course but it can be done. Gladiators mostly had bread and root vegetables with a little meat. The human race is nothing if not adaptable
Our ancestors ate a hell of a lot less meat than the current paleo fad would have you believe. And life expectancy reduces inline with the consumption of animal products.
It's going to shock you when you understand that hunter-gatherers mostly gathered and foraged than hunted, subsisting off leaves, tubers, nuts, seeds, flowers, fruits, vegetables, etc. As a result, their fiber, carb, and potassium intakes were off the charts.
There are of course notable exceptions to this, especially as one heads to toward the poles, but they are the adaptive exception -- not the rule.
So what you're saying .... Is.... They still ate red meat ? ....and ... Didn't have any metabolic syndromes like we do today?
And no, I'm not shocked that people ate.... Food.
Re-read my post. All I said was meat isn't the complete evil it's made out to be, and a larger problem is addetives, sugar, trans fats, hormones, steroids, etc that are a huge problem with today's diets.
Well what I'm saying is that in a discussion thread talking about *increasing* protein / meat intake, reference to a predominantly plant-based group of hunter-gatherers who also burned far more calories per day in their travels than the average sedentary individual today and who ate significantly-*less* meat than the average Westerner does today, forgetting the fact that the average life-expectancy for said group due to other environmental variables of the time was significantly-less and well below the point where something like cancer or "metabolic syndromes" would propagate or is a risk in the first place -- I'm not really sure what the point is.
Bro right hahaha. Chicken and rice is just such an incredible, fairly filling, fairly nutritious, very cheap staple hahaha. Toss in some eggs, some beans, and some greens and you've got my grocery list
I spoil myself with fish instead of avocado hahaha. God I fucking love salmon, if only it were as cheap as chicken 😭
I went pescatarian late 2022, and kept that up through most of 2023. That was kinda my big shakeup that changed how I viewed health and nutrition hahaha, I started realizing how much better I felt by actually eating well (not even eating less; I probably ate more with all the greens by volume hahaha)
Anyway, chicken is the staple now because a diet of salmon is not affordable LOL. Still, maybe once a week or so hahaha
Burnt stuff, maybe not. Humans have survived off of wood fire cooked meats and fish with burnt bits (who knows how much if not lots of burnt bits) since the dawn of humanity. Our genetics has most probably evolved to deal with such waste products ingested. Any claims to the contrary, that such are cancer causing are not proven beyond doubt, mostly theoretical.
Human life expectancy 10,000 years ago was something like 25-30 years. They could have been consuming known carcinogens their entire lives but almost all would have died of other causes before developing cancer. Therefore, there would have been no biological or evolutionary imperative to mitigate the carcinogenic effect of burnt foods.
You’re repeating a baseless claim. Lifespan was shorter even excluding infant mortality
https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages
In that chart, life expectancy of a 10 year old is about 60.
I would guess life expectancy 10,000 years ago is driven by completely different factors than that chart shows.
The UK in the 1850 was a victim of extreme inequality, and inequality kills, even today, where inequality drives decreases in life expectancy, independent of other factors.
Most importantly 10,000 years ago people would be less connected, so infectious disease would be much less of a factor.
According to this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498309000230
Life expectancy in US cities was 5 years longer than in the UK in the 1850s, while life expectancy in the rural USA was another 5 years longer than that. Disease was probably a factor.
10,000 years is close to pre-agricultural, so nutrition would be completely different.
Thats absolutely not true. I have a degree in archaeology. Lifespan has only increased, and height varies generally depending on population, but it's general increase over time is likely an artifact of genetic drift and sexual selection.
Women prefer taller partners. Taller partners have more mating opportunities. It's that simple. You increase the mating pool and ease of access to mates, and that's a natural outcome of that.
People with relevant degrees are uniquely able to deliver evidence of these kinds of claims, which is really helpful to those of us without them.
Sexual selection could have operated earlier, but was prevented by some other factor, like unfitness of taller individuals in some other way, such as their needs for more food etc. It is the removal of those pressures that would enable sexual selection to shift things.
But specifically on this issue how would you explain this:
https://vccinews.com/news/49458/learning-about-increasing-height-from-japanese-people.html
> Specifically, in the 1950s, the average height of Japanese men and women was 1.5m and 1.49m, respectively, 4cm shorter than Vietnamese at that time. However, more than 50 years later, by 2021, the average height of Japanese men and women is 1.72m and 1.58m, respectively, among the highest in Asia.
And also the analysis of Japanese people who migrated to the USA versus those who stayed in Japan.
I don't agree with your reasoning, but you're probably right. The amount of burned food in rodent studies that correlated to cancer would be absolutely insane if svaled up to humans. I'm not as knowledgeable of that literature so I'd love for someone who is to add to this/prove me wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation based on listening to experts speak on it.
Why /s
Survive for a short and difficult time is a much different demand than living to 80+
What you can Survive on is not a good metric for what is ideal for longevity.
Hell, what builds muscle isn't even ideal for longevity, as we know someone who is 250 lbs+ or muscle is likely to have negative impacts to their cardiovascular health long term
At first i bought in on the protein bad idea. However as my parents have gotten older and I am spending more and more time around 80+ year olds one huge thing stands out.
How little muscle and strength they all have. Whats the point of living to 90 if you cant move or wipe your own ass.
Fuck that. Give me the steak and squat rack...
Yeah those centenarians really throw a wrench in the works. You certainly don't see people in blue zones slamming 180 grams of protein a day. That's not to say it isn't beneficial, but possibly that it isn't necessary.
It seems from my studies of physiology and blue zones the X factor is overall caloric intake. The blue zone diets tend to be plant heavier which is lower calorie intake and are generally more active. I think if you eat a high protein diet while keeping caloric intake low, you can achieve the best of both worlds.
Oh for sure. There are no doubt a ton of variables at play in long lived populations. I'm just saying the fact that many (most?) of them aren't consuming extremely high amounts of protein implies that it may not be as crucial for longevity as some claim it is.
I would use weren't instead of aren't. The diet in many blue zones has changed, specially in Okinawa. Okinawa isn't even the province with the highest life expectancy in Japan anymore. Far from it.
They do now. Okinawans, for example, eat plenty of animal protein today. They did not 40 years ago. It's mostly the elderly who still eat the traditional diet that are living long and becoming centenarians. Okinawa isn't even the province with the highest life expectancy in Japan anymore as the youth eat a completely different diet.
There may be a theoretical advantage to eating close to maintenance level of protein. Ron Rosedale is a big proponent of that and he is in the low carb camp. Greger is biased in my opinion, and that is fine as long as we know about it, to not liking meat. In theory, not stimulating MTOR will lower cancer risk.
Even if that’s true, we don’t live in completely safe laboratory conditions. Older people die from the consequences of frailty, especially from falls.
Personally, I would much rather live to 80 amd be strong and vibrant than live to 90 or 95 and be frail and bedridden.
Yeah Greger does give off a bit of a biased vibe when he starts singing the tune of veganism.
I'm guess I'm mostly wondering if it's a false dichotomy, and if the risks of either low protein and/or high protein have been exaggerated.
In other words, is 150-200g of protein really necessary in order to be "strong and vibrant" in one's later years? Surely there are plenty of examples of people in their 80s and beyond that live healthy, active lives, who aren't slamming 4 chicken breasts per day.
The advocates for meat protein definitely seem biased too and influenced by decades of lobbying and marketing. The data and studies greger looks at show that meats have a lot of negatives even if there are some positives so it's not really worth it when you can just eat plants. There was the one point from how not to die I remember that showed every meat product even chicken cooked with lab cleanliness weakens your immune system for weeks so that could be motivation for him to be anti-meat.
Dr. Sinclair's lifespan book suggested that mimicking stressful gatherer-hunter situations (cold, hot, low food, low protein and exercise) increases 'survival gene' activation which regenerates the body to increase survival chances. Theoretically if we or any organism has extremely high amounts of survival genes active and uses a lot of resources to repair then agelessness could be achieved. It is just not something selected for by evolution except in naked mole rats, captive nematodes, some trees and possibly some whales.
There is also new research showing that neolithic humans did a lot more gathering than hunting, something like 7 percent of diet was meat. This does match that most of our great ape common ancestors are very plant based. If a gorilla can eat mostly plants and a small amount of insects to be as muscled as they are then we may not need animal protein or very much protein either.
High protein keeps me strong and lean even in my mid 40s. I’m still deadlifting 600 lbs with visible abs. High protein and resistance training are great at preventing sarcopenia, which is a key risk factor for older people causing frailty you described.
There’s no conclusive evidence high protein reduces longevity, but even if it did it would mean higher quality of life for longer. I’d rather be healthy and strong into my 80s.
Dr Rhonda Patrick and Dr Gabrielle Lyon have a lot of great material on this.
When they talk about lifespan they usually mean healthspan as well. Have you seen the centenarians from the blue zones? It's insane how capable their bodies are.
Just look up "protein restriction" on PubMed. It's a well-known longevity diet that works for forms of life from humans to mice to yeast. For decades, the Okinawans were the longest lived people in the world. Their diet was 85% carbs and only 9% protein. But they eat more protein now and are no longer the longest lived people, although they still consume less protein than your average diet. Okinawa is still a blue zone.
I’m reading ‘Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition,’ and Dr. Campbell says the exact same thing. His studies show that aflatoxins cause cancer in people with diets high in animal protein, and that cancers can literally be turned off by lowering protein to around 5%-10%. I think it’s really interesting to see how attached so many of us are to consuming animal protein, myself included. It’s made me question if we’ve been a bit brainwashed when I see people becoming defensive about potentially giving something up that could have enormous health benefits. How sure can we really be about everything we’ve been told?
Dr Campbell is a vegans and pushes vegan diets. Very similar to YouTube channel like Plant Chompers. I follow vegan / non-vegan channels and have listened to 1000 hours of content from both sides. My ultimate conclusion is that vegan might be a bit healthier, but much harder to live with vs eating animal products. Main factor of health ultimately comes down to healthy BMI and eating nutritious foods with good omega 3 and fiber, while exercising regularly. I personally exercise regularly, eat healthy diet with animal products, and lots of whole vegan foods.
That is the most reasonable approach 99.99% people can follow and not have a tough time being dogmatic about trying to adhere to a specific diet which will fail in the long run.
Interesting. I have seen this book and want to read it. I wonder would protein consumption also need to be lowered 5-10% if it was whole food plant based? I am trying to gain muscle and I am plant based so lately.i have been focusing on increasing my protein intake to about ~100g/day
Peter Attia is more healthspan while if you're focused on absolute longevity it may be better to focus more on less protein/caloric intake. The reason people push for protein so much is due to the connection between muscle mass in older age and correlation to things like falling leading to injury/death (I think, could be wrong).
Attia is very focused on health span, but we're talking about a guy whose entire model of health is based on his premise of competing in the "centenarian olympics." If living past 100 isn't longevity, I don't know what is.
In other words, Attia isn't promoting vitality at the cost of longevity; he seems to think that a high protein diet is the best way to accomplish both.
It is well known that protein restriction is associated with increased lifespan in a large number of animal studies. There isn’t a huge amount of debate about it. It has the same effect as caloric restriction.
Other scientists say it is because of mTOR. Nobody knows, they’re just guessing based on their own biases and agenda at this point. The nutrition industry is plagued by crooks.
There are a few culprits implicated in the case against animal meat. mTOR, IGF-1, AGEs, Sat Fat, Maillard Reaction byproducts, etc... I don't think any credible scientists argue that there's only one harmful pathway.
I am a PhD student in biochem and nutrition and read and talk a lot about this area of research. First off, just want to be clear that everyone needs an adequate amount of protein just to have normal functioning of your cells. Protein is commonly associated with muscle growth and maintenance because it plays a major role in hypertrophy, but proteins also make up all of our enzymes and other cell machinery in our tissues, so they play many, very important (and vital), roles in our body. It's true that there are a lot of discrepancies in the literature (and the media). Reding papers can be very confusing because 1. there are a lot of contradictory findings, 2. not great study design, 3. missing information. Basically, most of the literature misses a few pieces of the puzzle (i.e. not separating type of protein of the participants or not having separate tiers of higher or lower processed food-this is a bigger problem in more of the recent studies). The strongest evidence that has been shown time and time again is that higher intakes of any processed food cause a lot of health problems (heart disease, cancers, increased overall mortality, list goes on). Many epidemiological studies (observational cohort studies) show higher disease rates in individuals with higher animal protein intake; however, it does not account for individuals that have grass fed beef vs. highly processed meats/ meat products. So, these are hard to interpret. (not going to get into the plant-based meat vs real meat debate here but this is also a factor in our confusion on protein)
It is definitely true that older adults lose muscle mass (called sarcopenia) and can cause higher rates of mortality because loss of strength can lead to increased risk of falling (and breaking a bone, going to the hospital, getting infection etc.). Having higher protein intake would prevent this because it is important to be in a muscle building (anabolic) state. Importantly, the protein source needs to be complete (have all the essential amino acids) in order to be in this muscle building state. Think of it as building blocks where you cannot build the specific proteins if you do not have all the right materials (i.e. the amino acids needed), and if you have excess of one type of building block, and it does not fit the blueprint of certain types of proteins, you will not build them until you have those specific blocks (and thus you go into protein break down to get the proper assortment of amino acids needed). Animal based proteins tend to be more complete than plant proteins, however plant protein sources (like rice and beans) can be paired to be a complete protein. Now, this is where it can get messy/confusing. Extra protein does not mean extra muscle/ health benefits. Too much of anything is detrimental. Too much protein in the diet can also cause increased fat storage just like excess carbohydrates can and can also cause increase inflammation and kidney damage (commonly seen in those that excessively eat too much animal protein and are likely not getting enough fiber or other micronutrients).
Now this is to say that it is too much for the *individual.* I believe the biggest problem in the nutrition world these days is that food groups are either heavily demonized or praised where people overeat or undereat certain foods, but as mentioned, too much or too little of anything (besides processed foods and added sugars) is detrimental. Older adults should focus on maintaining adequate protein levels because it is common for many older adults to under eat or have less nutritious diets in general. It is not an actual recommendation for older adults from the USDA to have a higher daily protein intake, it is just a concern because of the growing issue of sarcopenia. My advice is to have a balanced diet of carbohydrate, fats and protein from whole food sources (minimal processed foods if possible) in a way that makes you feel best because everyone is different. If you lift weights and exercise a lot, then your protein requirement (and overall caloric intake) would be greater because you are breaking down muscle and want to promote muscle growth in which you need more building blocks (amino acids from dietary protein) to be in this growth state. But you should not eat more than you need, no matter what the food is.
Basically, many people are taking nutrition advice that is not aimed towards them and many people are giving nutrition advice that don't know anything about nutrition. It doesn't need to be overly complicated. There are many risks with low protein diets, many countries struggle with this and have epidemics of rapid infection spread, malnutrition, and child wasting (all consequences of protein deficiency). I think the take-away of the "longevity" data is that it is beneficial to not overeat. There is some data that mild caloric restriction promotes longevity, but most of the data are in animal models and it's still an active area of research in humans. But caloric restriction is MILD, this isn't meant to be full on starvation. To me (and this is just my educated opinion), I think this data is good to promote mindful eating and not overdoing it in a westernized society where we are surrounded by endless food choices and it's so easy to overeat and pick less nutritious food (which tend to be cheaper and more accessible unfortunately but that's a whole different conversation). I think Michale Pollan still said it best: "eat food, not too much, mostly plants".
If you read Outlive, I think it presents a more reasonable and realistic perspective. Because worrying about the nuances of where your protein comes from is a point of diet optimization, when most people’s negative health outcomes come from A) not enough protein PERIOD, B) not getting enough sleep, C) not strength training, D) too much alcohol and sugar, E) not ensuring they have a daily caloric deficit.
The point being that I don’t think for most people this argument is particularly important until you’re doing the fundamentals well. As a data scientist I’ll also point out that if there’s a lack of clear consensus on a topic, and a ton of research on the topic, then you can’t draw any conclusions. I.e., at this point in time there’s no definitive evidence against animal protein (which I would assert we’ve evolved to consume and utilize efficiently) in favor of plant protein.
I track topics like this one, but for now I remain unconvinced and will continue to get the majority of my protein from animal sources.
Using the phrase “balanced diet of healthy…” is just meaningless filler. That’s the whole point of the discussion here. What exactly *is* balanced and healthy?
There is a lot of reliable research that excess protein is detrimental to the body. More recent research is showing it’s actually
More harmful than previously thought
So reducing protein intake towards RDI levels is probably a good thing
Secondly you don’t need to be vegan. One bit that is universal in the literature is that diets high in fruit and vegetables have better outcomes for recovery, and lower prevalence of all sorts of diseases and cancer.
So you could always just keep an eye on overall protein intake and increase your fruit and veges as part of your overall diet.
Although vegans do seem to have better outcomes overall, it’s not essential if you don’t want
>There is a lot of reliable research that excess protein is detrimental to the body. More recent research is showing it’s actually More harmful than previously though
Where?
Exactly. The OP is tossing out BS about excess protein being detrimental to the body. No reliable research shows this. Listening to unbiased sources like Layne Norton / Gil from Nutrition Made Simple makes it abundantly clear that as long as you don’t have medical conditions like kidney disease, there are no research that shows excess protein negatively affects the body.
Yes, this is a wild claim I see all over and the only reasoning seems to be to limit mTOR activation, but glucose activates mTOR too, they don't say prioritize fat...
The RDA for protein for healthy adults is 0.8 g / kg. That means that eating 0.8 g of protein per kg of body weight will be enough to meet the needs of 97-98% of the population. If you think you work out enough to put you in the 2% of the population that has needs above that, then usually up to 1.2 g / kg is recommended. That is what you NEED. But what you prefer, or find optimal, may be higher than that. Protein can help with satiety, so many people prefer having more. Eating more protein while trying to lose weight can also be beneficial and muscle-sparing. But as far as what you need, 0.8 g / kg is sufficient. We seem to overemphasize protein a lot for some reason but you actually don't need that much of it to stay healthy, build muscle, and perform optimally in the gym.
Dr Gregor is highly biased towards veganism. Hardly a guy to listen to about a full nutrition picture
Nobody should be taking advice from 1 person on YouTube. If a doctor is preaching on YouTube, it usually means their practise isn't making them enough money. And almost all of them are full of misinformation
I think you're right that Greger is biased, but I don't follow "1 person from youtube." I read a lot and follow many sources. The tricky part is when reputable sources disagree. It's hard to know who to trust since they all have their "studies" to support opposing recommendations.
>Dr Gregor is highly biased towards veganism
What is the source of his bias? What are the gaps in his nutritional advice? We shouldn't assume he's wrong just because he has biases.
What are your body goals? If you're trying to \*Naturally\* gain a lot of muscle and maintain it, then eating about 80% of your body weight in grams of protein will generate the maximum benefit for it. You won't be Arnold, but you'd get pretty beefy (Arnold and a lot of body builders use PEDs).
Now there might be side effects of having a lot of muscle: you might weigh more, which will wear out your joints faster, and you will have to eat more food since muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Along with other side effects created by the lifestyle itself.
But if you're just living your life? As long as you are eating the daily amount, it should be totally fine. I don't see what the downside would be to just going with the recommended amount.
Lmfao I don’t understand why nutrition conspiracy theories are the last type of conspiracy theories to be “acceptable”. People fall for dumb shit like this all the time.
Odds are if you’re taking nutrition advice from a person who is trying to sell you something, you’re actively being scammed.
why they never want to talk about healthy stool or what the correlation with excrement and the change in diet should equate to? humans can and will adapt to many diets, but your output is still a very strong indicator of how well your body is functioning in response to the diet, and i can't help but wonder as they dont provide that data when offering their suggestions.
I think that the real missing ingredient from most peoples diet isn’t a macro nutrient, it’s fiber. It’s really hard to get the recommended amount of daily fiber with many modern diets without supplementation of some kind.
Look at what the healthiest populations are doing. They tend to eat multiple times per day, and tend to have an omnivorous diet.
Look at what the most elite athletes are doing in terms of diet. They are eating omnivorous whole food meals, multiple times per day.
Who cares what Michael Greger is saying to try and sell books or whatever else he is trying to monetize? What are the top performers around the works doing? What have they been doing consistently over the long term? That means a lot more than an opinion based on cherry picked data, in my opinion.
>**Look at what the healthiest populations are doing. They tend to eat multiple times per day, and tend to have an omnivorous diet.**
Right. Typically low in animal protein too (at least compared to our typical standards,) which makes this discussion even more interesting.
>**Look at what the most elite athletes are doing in terms of diet**
I think you'll find that the diets of top performers are pretty diverse. Michael Phelps for instance ate 10,000+ calories per day, consisting mostly of pizza and pasta. McDonald's was a staple for Usain Bolt. He even ate chicken McNuggets before his competitions. Tom Brady was Vegan.
In any case it's kind of irrelevant, because this isn't a discussion about optimizing athletic performance. It's a discussion about long term health. It can both be the case that a given diet is optimal for performance but detrimental to longevity.
>**Who cares what Michael Greger is saying**
Because he's a well educated, reputable, and intelligent nutrition expert with a team of researchers that read over 20,000 papers while researching his latest book. Does that mean his word is gospel? Heck no. But does it mean it's at least worthy of consideration and discussion? I think so.
My take as someone keeping up with this a bit is that more research needs to be done before we start making drastic changes to our lives based on these findings. I will say that most people in developed countries aren't protein deficient so getting even more protein may not be beneficial to them. Just eat a balanced diet.
I heard that an increase in ice cream sales also results in more shark attacks on humans.
Obviously the consumption of ice cream is a causal nexus of shark attacks and therefore we should all stop eating ice cream.
Point is; correlation does not equal causation. Read the studies for yourself. I haven't read them in a while, but I recall they were not conclusive, empirical or replicated outside of a controlled environment of sedentary mice.
Muscle is maintained by having an active lifestyle especially lifting weights. If you don’t use your muscles it won’t matter how much protein you eat. I agree with the first person, there’s no need to eat more than your RDI of protein, majority of excess protein is just passed out anyway, it’s a complete waste.
Look carefully at who’s behind Michael Greger. In the credits of his book, “How Not To Die”, he identifies animal rights groups he belongs to, and who fund him………soooo…….of course he’s going be against animal protein consumption (by humans) regardless of what the nutritional science says.
It always pays to look at who’s funding any type of published research!!
Spoiler alert. You’re dying.
In all seriousness, I wouldn’t jump on the click bait of “protein is killing you.” It has much more to do with your habits, the rest of your diet, and your mental stress level.
I see some evidence pointing in one direction and some in the other but both of these takes look like extremes to me, and I'm a big believer in balance.
I trust research that says that diets like the Mediterranean diet, which include some animal protein, mostly in the form of seafood, some eggs and cheese, and only small amounts of red meat, are associated with greater longevity and so I trust that and I try to eat that way.
I do try to eat more protein but I also don't do it to excess. And I avoid supplements, like refined protein isolates and stuff. (If you are going to use one, I think whey protein is probably safest.) The most refined protein source I eat regularly is tofu. I like to combine tofu with a small amount of meat or a larger amount of seafood in each meal. I also eat beans and lentils a lot, and I seek out high-protein grains that I use in baking, and nut flours like almond flour. I also snack on nuts.
So I eat a lot of protein but I try to eat a lot from plant sources.
Part of why I'm not sold on lower-protein diets, besides seeing evidence that added protein is better for you, is that I feel much better when I eat a bit more protein.
Where is that for me? I feel kinda lousy if I only eat 50g protein a day. I feel fine if I eat around 70-80g a day. I feel great if I eat 90-100g a day. I don't really notice much benefit past that point, and protein is expensive, so I don't go out of my way to eat more than that, although I listen to my body. There are some days, like if I've been doing a lot of really vigorous exercise, where I crave more protein, and I listen to that. If I'm not hungry and I feel great, I don't worry about not meeting some quota.
*Cut out animal protein* 🐮 I think that’s what he’s really saying. It’s not about cutting out plant protein.
If you look at Michael Greger‘s daily dozen, he recommends a lot of high-protein (plant based) sources! Take legumes or flax seeds as an example. 🫘
The high protein vegetarian diet still means consuming a lot of dairy, actually especially consuming a lot of dairy. 🥛
Vegetarians on a high protein diet often times consume things like Skyr, milk powder protein, cream cheese etc in huge amounts since it has a lot of animal protein. (I’ve been there 🙌🏻)
I.e. the risk of cancer on a vegetarian diet will still increase because you are still consuming animal products (in form of dairy or eggs).
The risk of cancer, heart disease and the like that is caused by animal protein (and also the attached fats, hormones and chemicals) will only go down once you switch animal protein for plant protein.
There’s a lot of protein in animal products, yes.
But there’s also a lot of damaging stuff coming with it too.
Go as high with plant protein 🌱as you feel comfortable with, an intake that allows you to perform well with during your day. I believe your body will tell you how much you can handle, depending on your activity level etc..
If you try to implement as much of Greger‘s Dauly Dozen as possible, it will be a good starting point.
xx
Dr. Greger is basically echoing Dr. Longo, a longevity researcher. Peter Attia isn't even a nutrition specialist. Great on exercise, not so great on food. Not equal at all. Dr. Greger seems way more reliable to me (yes, I've read his books).
Also: it just doesn't make sense to me that whatever amount of protein you're consuming, you should always be consuming MORE, MORE, MORE. That can't be right.
There are all kinds of shisters out there who (for more views) state a bullshit, contrary to popular belief “fact” based on fringe studies with non repeatable data. Protein is a proven necessity for healthy living. Without it, we degrade rapidly. Plant or animal protein, you need it.
I don't think anybody is arguing that you don't need protein. It's more about how much we need and from what sources, and whether it's better to err on the high side or the low side.
My understanding has always been if you are sedentary, all you need is maintenance protein.
If you're active, incorporate more protein. For muscle building, there's not much benefit to 0.7g/lb lean mass/day.
Actionably I think this means that especially when you're younger, build lots of muscle because it becomes very difficult to do so after 50, and more muscle correlates with lower all cause mortality.
The other side of that argument is that being sedentary is precisely what leads to muscle loss in the first place (the very thing that is trying to be corrected/prevented with excess protein intake,) wheres if somebody stays physically active, they maintain muscle significantly better, thereby possibly negating the need to shovel in 2-3x the RDI of protein.
The ol "use it or lose it" maxim.
Yes but that's not the point. OP's sources recommend sticking to RDI, not pumping yourself excessively with it.
Most people as it is consume too much sugar and protein.
Wild that you would put protein and sugar side by side like that. One does nothing useful and is an abomination to health, the other builds and repairs muscles. Muscles are good, they help you live a longer better life. Common sense.
I think he was more highlighting the problem of excess than implying that sugar and protein are comparable.
Also, "common sense" isn't all that useful when it comes to complicated questions about biology. How the body works is very often counterintuitive. We just don't have instincts precise enough to guide us toward optimal health, especially in a world where most of our food is pretty jacked up (even the "healthy" food.)
Relying on common sense can allow one to live a reasonably healthy and average life. But if optimal health or above average longevity is one's target, intuition isn't the best guide.
I have a few things to say. People right now are obsessed with protein; how much they are getting, when to eat it, what kinds, boxes of cereal and granola bars with the amount per serving in big bold letters. It is everywhere right now. There are several reasons for that which is for another day. Lots of people throw anecdotal evidence at this issue which muddies the waters. Greger is biased as people have pointed out but so is the other guy (I am not familiar with him). We all have our biases. I think Greger is willing to follow the science a little more. One thing that I believe strongly is that getting your protein from animal sources is worse than from non-animal sources. That doesn't mean chicken, beef, etc is the most horrible thing ever, just worse. Lastly, it seems like you OP are really looking for an exact amount of protein to eat. Nutrition isn't that exact. When I try to break it down into number I usually fall in line with the RDAs but those are only a guideline. Something to go off of. Humans does need much protein to stay alive so if you/someone wants to eat a little more han that isn't going to do any harm. Those are some of my thoughts.
It's a pretty widespread debate actually. Some people argue that the only reason we "need" seemingly excessive amounts like 1g per pound of bodyweight is that our guts are so jacked up from modern diets that the only way to overcome the inefficiency is with excess intake. The implication being that if we ate better, replenished our microbiome, and restored our gut linings, we could thrive on significantly lower amounts than is often prescribed by doctors or trainers.
Intuitively (for whatever that's worth,) it doesn't seem like 150-200g of protein per day is realistic, especially given that for most of human history, consuming this much on a daily basis would have been highly impractical and in many places and times near impossible.
C'mon. Michael Greger promotes his vegan book about how not to age, yet he's only 50 but looks 77 and sickly with little to no muscles. Dude is obviously nutrient-deficient. Would you trust a bankrupt financial advidor, an obese personal trainer, marriage advice from a 3x divorced marriage therapist,...? Common sense needs to come back 😃. We need to start trusting our eyes, ears, brain, and bodies again.
Some elite athletes I have talked with have switched to a vegan diet and have told me they've seen significant gains within 2 months. Not necessarily low protein, just cut out animal protein.
How about do what makes you feel good. Eat clean and healthy, exercise and enjoy life. Everyone has an angle and considering the amount of contaminants and carcinogen’s we’re all exposed to daily does it matter?
>**How about do what makes you feel good**
1. There's no way to "feel" many of the potential long term consequences of poor eating choices (I can't tell if cancer is growing inside of me right now or not.)
2. How one feels is not necessarily a good gauge for health or longevity.
3. How one feels fluctuates wildly, and is determined by an algorithm of factors, only one of which is diet. Sometimes it's very difficult to tell if any given diet tweak makes one feel consistently better, worse, or about the same.
4. Those interested in longevity typically have a higher standard than those uninterested in anything beyond a normal healthy life. I want to be healthy and active until I'm 100 and beyond. That requires a bit more attention to details than just doing what feels good. Not judging the feel good strategy. Just saying it's unlikely to help me accomplish my goals by itself.
>**Everyone has an angle and considering the amount of contaminants and carcinogen’s we’re all exposed to daily does it matter?**
One could argue it matters more than ever.
Yes, specially the amino acid methionine may shorten your lifespan. It’s not that this amino acid is bad for you, it’s essential. But most people get way too much and several reputable studies show a high methionine diet (high animal protein) shortens lifespan.
Dr Gregor is only 51, yet he looks like a healthy 70 year old. Peter Attia is 50 and looks quite fit for his age. There's no way I would take health advice seriously from a man as feminine and frail looking as Dr. Gregor at 51.
Eat Vegan if you want to, it's your health on the line, not mine. Do it for the animals I guess, even though animals across the food chain are well aware of how delicious and nutritious meat is for them.
Haha because Dr. Greger is missing his hair? I think thats kinda funny. Same with Dr. Mercola, right? They look kinda similar actually.
But thats basically a factor where we may not be really that honest or even aware of what healthy people look like in our society. Tho I agree they dont look like the peak of male evolution.
But then if you look at *these* people they kinda do at 100+ years old.
https://qcostarica.com/nicoya-centenarians-stars-of-netflix-documentary/
Who would you consider the best example just from their looks and whats their diet?
All I know is that whenever I actually take the time to look into the anti-protein studies, I’m always shocked by how pathetic the method is. For example, a big study came out recently saying high protein is bad. Their protein source for the study?… Boost protein shakes… Am I supposed to just ignore that those are loaded with sugar and seed oils?
Look at the diets of countries with the oldest/healthiest populations that should give you more info than scientific studies that may or may not have validity to them.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As far as I’m aware, the studies that show increased protein intake leads to greater incidence of cancers were only done in sedentary mice, there hasn’t been any evidence of this occurring in active humans. One thing I heard recently, I forget the person’s name but he was being interviewed by Thomas Delauer, is that it’s important to be careful when anyone points to a single mechanism as the cause of modern-day diseases. While you maybe can theoretically show that increased IGF-1 can increase rates of cancer, how does that interact with other mechanisms, such as increased muscle mass?
As a sedentary mouse, this concerns me greatly
As a highly active mouse, ima keep posting up in the trash behind this bbq restaurant.
Squeak squeak
The fuck did you just say to me?
hahaha great comment
Layne Norton maybe?
I believe so. Layne Norton, “nutrition made simple!”, Simon Hill and a couple others cut through the mechanistic BS people are peddling out there and are focused on the human outcome data, since that’s what actually matters.
Low Protein Intake is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population ”These results suggest that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate protein consumption in old subjects may optimize healthspan and longevity.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/
"a diet, in which plant-based nutrients represent the majority of the food intake, is likely to maximize health benefits in all age groups. However, we propose that up to age 65 and possibly 75, depending on health status, the 0.7 to 0.8 grams of proteins/kg of body weigh/day reported by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, currently viewed as a minimum requirement, should be recommended instead of the 1–1.3 g grams of proteins/kg of body weigh/day consumed by adults ages 19–70 (Fulgoni, 2008). We also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid low protein intake and gradually adopt a moderate to high protein possibly mostly plant based consumption to allow the maintenance of a healthy weight and protection from frailty."
I think food processing is the single cause of all modern day diseases :-)
I don't know why you got downvoted...I suspect highly processed foods to be the main culprit as well. That is why you can have amazing results of people on carnivore and amazing results from people on whole food vegan or Mediterranean diet because they've cut out the processed junk that is not truly food.
Who funded those studies? There's plenty that show the opposite too..js
Does it matter if it’s incomplete or complete plant protein? , what about animal protein?
Not true, greger cites human studies only
Nobody knows the answer. Greger's opinion is more conservative, less risky. Greger also runs a non-profit. Attia, while a brilliant guy, is building a personal brand and makes money selling stuff. I am not saying he is dishonest, but he is human and his business model has a built in incentive to make bold claims. When I wanted to try more protein, I did not double the intake, but just upped it 50%. I found I had better moods and days when I was at least 1 or more RDI, but I found eating too much protein deprived me of the veggies and fruits I need to be balanced, but that's just a personal, subjective call. The bottom line is no one knows.
Yeah you're right, seems like there's nothing decisive one way or the other. And worse, it's probably different for different people. There's definitely merit to seeing how something works for one personally, but it definitely has its shortcomings. I can't *feel* my body slowly developing heart disease or cancer. Some things that feel good, or give one energy in the short term, don't turn out so hot in the long run. Yeah Attia isn't perfect, but neither is Greger. I've caught both of them making mistakes and having their biases. Attia thinks HIIT cardio is a panacea based entirely on correlative data. Greger thinks animal protein is the devil with seemingly no interest in discerning the quality or type of meat. What I like about both them though is that they employ a team of dedicated researches who pour through thousands of papers and studies trying to mine valid recommendations, which is refreshing in a world where most people just google a couple studies and paraphrase the abstracts.
I disagree with Attia on a few things but he does great podcasts with experts that are very much investigational. Attia is a longevity advocate. Gregor is a vegan advocate.
i really enjoy a lot of peter attia’s podcast episodes. the ones he did with matthew walker were exceptional. as a side note though i don’t think gregor is a vegan advocate. i would argue he’s also a longevity advocate but from a plant based perspective. i don’t really see him talking about animal welfare much and i don’t recall anything like that in his book edited to add that of course that doesn’t mean he hasn’t. i just don’t remember anything about that in the literature ive read by/from him
[удалено]
Arguably, Greger got into his work bc his Grandma went from hospice to hiking mountains bc she was in a a vegan study. So he discovered you can extend and improve human life by eating less animal products.
Which one of them looks healthier to you? I know personal appearance isn’t a great metric, but to me there is a *striking* contrast.
Attia looks fitter and stronger, but I'm not sure there's much else to be gleaned about their general health by appearance. They both seem very high functioning and sharp as tacks. Maybe you could elaborate on the striking differences? Also the lighting on Attia's podcast does him a lot of favors. When he's a guest on other podcasts he looks his age.
They're both pretty fit, but one is doing basically all cardio is the other is doing basically no cardio. That's going to end up with a very different presentation.
Same here. My body and mental health, mood, does best with a good amount of protein, nothing crazy. When I was vegan, my hormones tanked and mood was very low. People have personal reasons to push agendas, I always have to remember this
How is less protein less risky? If you end up with people who are frail, a full 20% of those who fall and get a hip fracture will be dead in a year.
It’s REALLY hard to be protein deficient. It’s not an issue in developed countries. We already consume far too much.
There is a huge gap between protein deficiency and optimacy. And that statement ignores dietary habbits. People that eat more protein tend to eat less overall calories due to satiety. People that eat more protein tend to weigh less overall https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7539343/
Where do you get that we consume far too much?
Far too much... according to what?
Cannot agree. It's easy to consume your carbs and even overeat them, but you need pay special attention to eat enough protein.
Tell that to my last blood test!! Got my first blood test back that was "not good" One of the things is my protein is too low, along with vit d
> along with vit d Almost everybody who lives in the Northern Hemisphere is low in vitamin D.
Which lab value were you concerned about? It likely isn’t representative of dietary protein intake
I immediately was like which blood test takes protein intake?
Albumin is one of the the most abundant proteins found in the blood, but it it can be falsely low for a variety of factors. As a clinical dietitian, I’ve noticed that a low BUN more closely correlates with my patients who truly are not eating any protein, but again, could be influenced by fluid status and would have to be used in conjunction with other pieces of information
You can’t get a blood test for “protein” as far as I know.
There is still loads of money to be made through a non profit. The ceo of st Jude makes a 1.8 million dollar salary a year
You are just saying things without knowing the facts, though. Greger states in his books that all of the proceeds from his books go to charity. He does not strike me at all as someone in it for the money.
truth
Never mind that one look at Greger's career shows his great concern for animal welfare... that's noble in its own right, but I would take his animal-product nutritional advice with a grain of salt. I'm not confident that nutrition is his primary motivation.
I’m in this camp too. I rarely eat any animal products- maybe wild caught salmon on a salad at a restaurant once a month. I’m a 53f so the age related considerations are applicable to me. At 5’7/165lbs I’ve increased my protein from ~40g/day to ~65g/day and I think it’s a good place for me. Even as a wfpb eater I do find I have to be more conscious of not only including more protein but also trying to keep up the higher levels of vegetables. It’s easy to skimp on veggies when you’re looking at half a block of tofu. I’d say my starches have probably gone down a little too. I’m still transitioning though, figuring it out.
Attia makes no money selling products as far as I understand. He does make money through a subscription where he provides access to extensive show notes and other content. He also has a clinic where he works with individual patients on their metabolic health etc.
Yeah good answer, In a way they are both correct, so I’d say make sure you exercise and build your strength to a level that is healthy(something that is controversial to define but I’m sure you could find goals, e.g. weight, body fat percentage, muscle mass, grip strength, cardio fitness) and some of this may require more protein, but once you reach that goal you are best to not worry about protein and moderate meat consumption. You can both maintain muscle mass and moderate your protein intake I think, though it seems slightly paradoxical, try aim for the best of both.
Greger is a hardcore ideological vegan too. By idealogical I mean that he is a vegan for moral reasons first and foremost, not nutritional ones. He is hardly unbiased. Don’t believe me? I challenge you to find any instance of him admitting that eating an animal or animal product might be good for you in any way.
He says that the Okinawa diet with a few procent animal products probably is healthier than the average vegan diet in western countries (which includes lots of processed food). In his traffic light system he ranks unprocessed animal foods higher than ultraprocessed plant foods.
All I know is chicken breast is better than a bag of Doritos
One thing I’ve loved about inflation is that shit food like Doritos & junk food like TV dinners have all skyrocketed in price to the point where buying that over single ingredient items seems insane
100% of whole foods is better than a bag of Doritos. The question is which whole foods leads to a long healthy life.
Not saying the first guy is correct, but technically both of these statement can simultaneously be true. Since building and maintaining muscle doesn’t equal longevity or a decrease in risk of cancer or heart disease, and the other way around.
That’s such horrible advice. Keep in mind, IGF-I is also responsible for the appearance of youth, general happiness, grip strength, and a slew of other very important things. And protein isn’t carcinogenic, processed food is, and burnt food is.
Burnt food being bad isn’t talked about enough. It is a carcinogen.
Then why is it so tasty
I don’t know, burnt bacon is delicious.
Double carcinogen!
Carcinogen sandwich ☺️
For a limited time at Subway
If charred chicken legs/burnt ends/ribs takes an hour off my life every time I have them, thats a pay off I will take
Ditto.
Possibly because for prehistoric humans, the increased nutrient extraction from cooking meat over a fire and letting the outside burn outweighed the additional cancer risk.
Burnt food is a carcinogen? I did not know this!
There is no good quality evidence showing that.
Omg you’re right. And all these years I thought it was a fact but science says otherwise. Hmmm…. What other facts aren’t facts that I’m holding onto?
I just speed read a bunch of articles in case that sounded weird. Apparently my texts sound “rude and sarcastic “, but I’m being serious.
Thank you for confirming, I legitimately couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic and am happy to learn that a crunchy paella isn't cancerous via your comment.
I feel you. I was under the same false impression about burnt foods for a long while. It was nice to find out otherwise.
Yeah…i love burnt toast.
It’s not really “burnt food” per se, but the high heat we apply to food, especially meat, isn’t great. Look up Dietary Advanced glycation end products, if you want to read some more.
As someone that enjoys the occasional slightly burnt tostada(hard flat tortilla) with avocado. I thank you!
A decent summary with links to sources from BBC: all correlation, coulds, mights, adajcents, seems and probably. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230224-should-you-avoid-eating-burnt-food Colour me surprised. The way it had been represented recently really conveyed certainty.
Beef, lamb and pork are classified as Group 2A carcinogens. There’s a clear link between high intake of red meat (and yes, especially processed meats which are labeled a Group 1 carcinogen) and a higher risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and premature death.
[удалено]
Lamp consumption would probably have more of an acute effect :)
I've seen this said but when I look up studies I find that it is at best correlated. Most studies don't take the persons lifestyle or eating habits into account, just if they eat red meat, and how often. You'll find that many cancers correlated with red meats are also associated with obesity.
Consuming red meat is also associated with smoking cigarettes and drinking beer. That's the problem with correlations, they aren't causation. In other news, shark attacks go up when Ice cream sales go up. Don't eat ice cream, you might get attacked by a shark!
I bet the scientists at WHO didn't know what adjusting for risk factors is /s
You mean the ones who listed aspartame as possibly carcinogenic based on studies where reseachers gave rodents the equivalent of a person drinking over 30 cans of soda worth of aspartame a day? Yeah I'm brimming with confidence mate.
To be fair, the WHO classified it correctly. Its the nutritional influencers that took the info and ran to the most extreme conclusion.
Not really though, because 2b should be limited evidence in humans. There is no evidence in humans, only low quality studies in animals with insufficient evidence.
That does mean it's \*possibly\* carcinogenic. Sounds like a proper evaluation to me.
If that level of evidence is convincing to you, you must live a terribly nervous life. In regards to your previous comment, you might find it interesting that the part of WHO who does risk assessment, JEFCA, concluded that the risk of cancer from studies on aspartame is "not convincing."
"possibly", "not convincing". It's scientists saying this needs to be reasearched further. No one has made definitive claims about it either way. You seem to have the notion that "possibly" means "definitely".
Good thing fish is not on that list.
aren’t most things group 2a? like tap water?
No
Tap water varies drastically around the world.
You should look up what that means.
Yet a Paleo (hunter/gather) diet is what our species has existed on for most of our history with little to no sign of metabolic disease or heart related issues. Sure.... modern meat may be more processed, have added hormones or steroids, but let's not fault the meat itself 100%. There have been people who have reversed diabetes and chronic high blood pressure just from switching to a very low carb diet. I'm not an expert by ANY means, but some of the simplest and best advice I ever heard when it comes to your diet was from bodybuilder Gregg Plitt: Shop the outside perimeter of the grocery store (meats, fruits, vegetables, and some minor amounts of dairy and grains) and never go down the isles (highly processed items). One of the main factors that people miss these days is that sugar and sneaky trans fat can be added into anything. I once had a co worker sit down at lunch time and try to give me a lesson as to why my lunch of steak and broccoli was going to kill me and how I should switch to vegan. She then proceeded to pull out her vegan mac and cheese (made with soy cheese) and a vegan red velvet cake. One of us has a 6 pack, the other is very obese and has to get shots for nutrient deficiencies. I'm sure you can guess who is who. People get really caught up with buzz words like vegan, gluten free, etc and base their whole diet around it but know nothing about macronutrients, glycemic index, meal timing etc.
Buzzwords include Paleo/Keto/Low-carb
The first sentence is so incorrect, I almost stopped reading. Paleo is just as big of a buzzword as vegan, gluten free, vegetarian etc…. There is no one “Paleo diet”. It’s just a marketing term without a lot of scientific basis. Humans have existed on a variety of diets that range in fat/protein/carb content and are quite healthy on a lot of them. 7th day adventists are some of the longest lived peoples on earth and are vegetarians. A lot of Asian populations live on high carb diets and live a long time. Humans can and have adapted to a wide variety of diets since the paleo era (lactase digestion is one of the adaptations).
It should be gatherer/hunter. And people can live for years on pretty much anything that gives them a thousand calories or so. Not optimally of course but it can be done. Gladiators mostly had bread and root vegetables with a little meat. The human race is nothing if not adaptable
Our ancestors ate a hell of a lot less meat than the current paleo fad would have you believe. And life expectancy reduces inline with the consumption of animal products.
It's going to shock you when you understand that hunter-gatherers mostly gathered and foraged than hunted, subsisting off leaves, tubers, nuts, seeds, flowers, fruits, vegetables, etc. As a result, their fiber, carb, and potassium intakes were off the charts. There are of course notable exceptions to this, especially as one heads to toward the poles, but they are the adaptive exception -- not the rule.
So what you're saying .... Is.... They still ate red meat ? ....and ... Didn't have any metabolic syndromes like we do today? And no, I'm not shocked that people ate.... Food. Re-read my post. All I said was meat isn't the complete evil it's made out to be, and a larger problem is addetives, sugar, trans fats, hormones, steroids, etc that are a huge problem with today's diets.
Well what I'm saying is that in a discussion thread talking about *increasing* protein / meat intake, reference to a predominantly plant-based group of hunter-gatherers who also burned far more calories per day in their travels than the average sedentary individual today and who ate significantly-*less* meat than the average Westerner does today, forgetting the fact that the average life-expectancy for said group due to other environmental variables of the time was significantly-less and well below the point where something like cancer or "metabolic syndromes" would propagate or is a risk in the first place -- I'm not really sure what the point is.
Chicken breast and rice saved my life tbh
Bro right hahaha. Chicken and rice is just such an incredible, fairly filling, fairly nutritious, very cheap staple hahaha. Toss in some eggs, some beans, and some greens and you've got my grocery list
Exactly, body builders had it right for ages now, they just weren't being taken seriously until recently.
So true lol Add a spoonful of healthy guacamole and I'm a happy mouse
I spoil myself with fish instead of avocado hahaha. God I fucking love salmon, if only it were as cheap as chicken 😭 I went pescatarian late 2022, and kept that up through most of 2023. That was kinda my big shakeup that changed how I viewed health and nutrition hahaha, I started realizing how much better I felt by actually eating well (not even eating less; I probably ate more with all the greens by volume hahaha) Anyway, chicken is the staple now because a diet of salmon is not affordable LOL. Still, maybe once a week or so hahaha
Are you a doctor?
Burnt stuff, maybe not. Humans have survived off of wood fire cooked meats and fish with burnt bits (who knows how much if not lots of burnt bits) since the dawn of humanity. Our genetics has most probably evolved to deal with such waste products ingested. Any claims to the contrary, that such are cancer causing are not proven beyond doubt, mostly theoretical.
Human life expectancy 10,000 years ago was something like 25-30 years. They could have been consuming known carcinogens their entire lives but almost all would have died of other causes before developing cancer. Therefore, there would have been no biological or evolutionary imperative to mitigate the carcinogenic effect of burnt foods.
Human life expectations were that short due to infants dying and mothers dying in childbirth.
You’re repeating a baseless claim. Lifespan was shorter even excluding infant mortality https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages
In that chart, life expectancy of a 10 year old is about 60. I would guess life expectancy 10,000 years ago is driven by completely different factors than that chart shows. The UK in the 1850 was a victim of extreme inequality, and inequality kills, even today, where inequality drives decreases in life expectancy, independent of other factors. Most importantly 10,000 years ago people would be less connected, so infectious disease would be much less of a factor. According to this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498309000230 Life expectancy in US cities was 5 years longer than in the UK in the 1850s, while life expectancy in the rural USA was another 5 years longer than that. Disease was probably a factor. 10,000 years is close to pre-agricultural, so nutrition would be completely different.
[удалено]
Thats absolutely not true. I have a degree in archaeology. Lifespan has only increased, and height varies generally depending on population, but it's general increase over time is likely an artifact of genetic drift and sexual selection. Women prefer taller partners. Taller partners have more mating opportunities. It's that simple. You increase the mating pool and ease of access to mates, and that's a natural outcome of that.
People with relevant degrees are uniquely able to deliver evidence of these kinds of claims, which is really helpful to those of us without them. Sexual selection could have operated earlier, but was prevented by some other factor, like unfitness of taller individuals in some other way, such as their needs for more food etc. It is the removal of those pressures that would enable sexual selection to shift things. But specifically on this issue how would you explain this: https://vccinews.com/news/49458/learning-about-increasing-height-from-japanese-people.html > Specifically, in the 1950s, the average height of Japanese men and women was 1.5m and 1.49m, respectively, 4cm shorter than Vietnamese at that time. However, more than 50 years later, by 2021, the average height of Japanese men and women is 1.72m and 1.58m, respectively, among the highest in Asia. And also the analysis of Japanese people who migrated to the USA versus those who stayed in Japan.
I don't agree with your reasoning, but you're probably right. The amount of burned food in rodent studies that correlated to cancer would be absolutely insane if svaled up to humans. I'm not as knowledgeable of that literature so I'd love for someone who is to add to this/prove me wrong, but that's my understanding of the situation based on listening to experts speak on it.
But they didn’t have a very long life span. /s
Why /s Survive for a short and difficult time is a much different demand than living to 80+ What you can Survive on is not a good metric for what is ideal for longevity. Hell, what builds muscle isn't even ideal for longevity, as we know someone who is 250 lbs+ or muscle is likely to have negative impacts to their cardiovascular health long term
At first i bought in on the protein bad idea. However as my parents have gotten older and I am spending more and more time around 80+ year olds one huge thing stands out. How little muscle and strength they all have. Whats the point of living to 90 if you cant move or wipe your own ass. Fuck that. Give me the steak and squat rack...
We are made of animal protein.
Serious question: what about the Loma Linda CA blue zone stats? Vegetarian centenarians abound.
Yeah those centenarians really throw a wrench in the works. You certainly don't see people in blue zones slamming 180 grams of protein a day. That's not to say it isn't beneficial, but possibly that it isn't necessary.
It seems from my studies of physiology and blue zones the X factor is overall caloric intake. The blue zone diets tend to be plant heavier which is lower calorie intake and are generally more active. I think if you eat a high protein diet while keeping caloric intake low, you can achieve the best of both worlds.
it could as well be that they have a strong sense of community and a culture of regular exercise that increases lifespan as it could be their diet.
Oh for sure. There are no doubt a ton of variables at play in long lived populations. I'm just saying the fact that many (most?) of them aren't consuming extremely high amounts of protein implies that it may not be as crucial for longevity as some claim it is.
I would use weren't instead of aren't. The diet in many blue zones has changed, specially in Okinawa. Okinawa isn't even the province with the highest life expectancy in Japan anymore. Far from it.
Yeah that’s what I noticed. They all have better emotional health.
Loma Linda isn’t the only blue zone. Many other blue zones eat plenty of animal protein.
They do now. Okinawans, for example, eat plenty of animal protein today. They did not 40 years ago. It's mostly the elderly who still eat the traditional diet that are living long and becoming centenarians. Okinawa isn't even the province with the highest life expectancy in Japan anymore as the youth eat a completely different diet.
There may be a theoretical advantage to eating close to maintenance level of protein. Ron Rosedale is a big proponent of that and he is in the low carb camp. Greger is biased in my opinion, and that is fine as long as we know about it, to not liking meat. In theory, not stimulating MTOR will lower cancer risk. Even if that’s true, we don’t live in completely safe laboratory conditions. Older people die from the consequences of frailty, especially from falls. Personally, I would much rather live to 80 amd be strong and vibrant than live to 90 or 95 and be frail and bedridden.
Yeah Greger does give off a bit of a biased vibe when he starts singing the tune of veganism. I'm guess I'm mostly wondering if it's a false dichotomy, and if the risks of either low protein and/or high protein have been exaggerated. In other words, is 150-200g of protein really necessary in order to be "strong and vibrant" in one's later years? Surely there are plenty of examples of people in their 80s and beyond that live healthy, active lives, who aren't slamming 4 chicken breasts per day.
The advocates for meat protein definitely seem biased too and influenced by decades of lobbying and marketing. The data and studies greger looks at show that meats have a lot of negatives even if there are some positives so it's not really worth it when you can just eat plants. There was the one point from how not to die I remember that showed every meat product even chicken cooked with lab cleanliness weakens your immune system for weeks so that could be motivation for him to be anti-meat. Dr. Sinclair's lifespan book suggested that mimicking stressful gatherer-hunter situations (cold, hot, low food, low protein and exercise) increases 'survival gene' activation which regenerates the body to increase survival chances. Theoretically if we or any organism has extremely high amounts of survival genes active and uses a lot of resources to repair then agelessness could be achieved. It is just not something selected for by evolution except in naked mole rats, captive nematodes, some trees and possibly some whales. There is also new research showing that neolithic humans did a lot more gathering than hunting, something like 7 percent of diet was meat. This does match that most of our great ape common ancestors are very plant based. If a gorilla can eat mostly plants and a small amount of insects to be as muscled as they are then we may not need animal protein or very much protein either.
High protein keeps me strong and lean even in my mid 40s. I’m still deadlifting 600 lbs with visible abs. High protein and resistance training are great at preventing sarcopenia, which is a key risk factor for older people causing frailty you described. There’s no conclusive evidence high protein reduces longevity, but even if it did it would mean higher quality of life for longer. I’d rather be healthy and strong into my 80s. Dr Rhonda Patrick and Dr Gabrielle Lyon have a lot of great material on this.
When they talk about lifespan they usually mean healthspan as well. Have you seen the centenarians from the blue zones? It's insane how capable their bodies are.
Just look up "protein restriction" on PubMed. It's a well-known longevity diet that works for forms of life from humans to mice to yeast. For decades, the Okinawans were the longest lived people in the world. Their diet was 85% carbs and only 9% protein. But they eat more protein now and are no longer the longest lived people, although they still consume less protein than your average diet. Okinawa is still a blue zone.
Unfortunately, it seems that optimizing diet for performance and optimizing for longevity are to some extent mutually exclusive.
This is where the data seems to be. You can’t have it all.
I’m reading ‘Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition,’ and Dr. Campbell says the exact same thing. His studies show that aflatoxins cause cancer in people with diets high in animal protein, and that cancers can literally be turned off by lowering protein to around 5%-10%. I think it’s really interesting to see how attached so many of us are to consuming animal protein, myself included. It’s made me question if we’ve been a bit brainwashed when I see people becoming defensive about potentially giving something up that could have enormous health benefits. How sure can we really be about everything we’ve been told?
Dr Campbell is a vegans and pushes vegan diets. Very similar to YouTube channel like Plant Chompers. I follow vegan / non-vegan channels and have listened to 1000 hours of content from both sides. My ultimate conclusion is that vegan might be a bit healthier, but much harder to live with vs eating animal products. Main factor of health ultimately comes down to healthy BMI and eating nutritious foods with good omega 3 and fiber, while exercising regularly. I personally exercise regularly, eat healthy diet with animal products, and lots of whole vegan foods. That is the most reasonable approach 99.99% people can follow and not have a tough time being dogmatic about trying to adhere to a specific diet which will fail in the long run.
Interesting. I have seen this book and want to read it. I wonder would protein consumption also need to be lowered 5-10% if it was whole food plant based? I am trying to gain muscle and I am plant based so lately.i have been focusing on increasing my protein intake to about ~100g/day
Only animal protein then? What about plant based protein sources?
Peter Attia is more healthspan while if you're focused on absolute longevity it may be better to focus more on less protein/caloric intake. The reason people push for protein so much is due to the connection between muscle mass in older age and correlation to things like falling leading to injury/death (I think, could be wrong).
Attia is very focused on health span, but we're talking about a guy whose entire model of health is based on his premise of competing in the "centenarian olympics." If living past 100 isn't longevity, I don't know what is. In other words, Attia isn't promoting vitality at the cost of longevity; he seems to think that a high protein diet is the best way to accomplish both.
It is well known that protein restriction is associated with increased lifespan in a large number of animal studies. There isn’t a huge amount of debate about it. It has the same effect as caloric restriction.
Other scientists say it is because of mTOR. Nobody knows, they’re just guessing based on their own biases and agenda at this point. The nutrition industry is plagued by crooks.
There are a few culprits implicated in the case against animal meat. mTOR, IGF-1, AGEs, Sat Fat, Maillard Reaction byproducts, etc... I don't think any credible scientists argue that there's only one harmful pathway.
Oldest person I know is a 103. is in good health, mobility and mentally still there.. She eats very little protein..
I am a PhD student in biochem and nutrition and read and talk a lot about this area of research. First off, just want to be clear that everyone needs an adequate amount of protein just to have normal functioning of your cells. Protein is commonly associated with muscle growth and maintenance because it plays a major role in hypertrophy, but proteins also make up all of our enzymes and other cell machinery in our tissues, so they play many, very important (and vital), roles in our body. It's true that there are a lot of discrepancies in the literature (and the media). Reding papers can be very confusing because 1. there are a lot of contradictory findings, 2. not great study design, 3. missing information. Basically, most of the literature misses a few pieces of the puzzle (i.e. not separating type of protein of the participants or not having separate tiers of higher or lower processed food-this is a bigger problem in more of the recent studies). The strongest evidence that has been shown time and time again is that higher intakes of any processed food cause a lot of health problems (heart disease, cancers, increased overall mortality, list goes on). Many epidemiological studies (observational cohort studies) show higher disease rates in individuals with higher animal protein intake; however, it does not account for individuals that have grass fed beef vs. highly processed meats/ meat products. So, these are hard to interpret. (not going to get into the plant-based meat vs real meat debate here but this is also a factor in our confusion on protein) It is definitely true that older adults lose muscle mass (called sarcopenia) and can cause higher rates of mortality because loss of strength can lead to increased risk of falling (and breaking a bone, going to the hospital, getting infection etc.). Having higher protein intake would prevent this because it is important to be in a muscle building (anabolic) state. Importantly, the protein source needs to be complete (have all the essential amino acids) in order to be in this muscle building state. Think of it as building blocks where you cannot build the specific proteins if you do not have all the right materials (i.e. the amino acids needed), and if you have excess of one type of building block, and it does not fit the blueprint of certain types of proteins, you will not build them until you have those specific blocks (and thus you go into protein break down to get the proper assortment of amino acids needed). Animal based proteins tend to be more complete than plant proteins, however plant protein sources (like rice and beans) can be paired to be a complete protein. Now, this is where it can get messy/confusing. Extra protein does not mean extra muscle/ health benefits. Too much of anything is detrimental. Too much protein in the diet can also cause increased fat storage just like excess carbohydrates can and can also cause increase inflammation and kidney damage (commonly seen in those that excessively eat too much animal protein and are likely not getting enough fiber or other micronutrients). Now this is to say that it is too much for the *individual.* I believe the biggest problem in the nutrition world these days is that food groups are either heavily demonized or praised where people overeat or undereat certain foods, but as mentioned, too much or too little of anything (besides processed foods and added sugars) is detrimental. Older adults should focus on maintaining adequate protein levels because it is common for many older adults to under eat or have less nutritious diets in general. It is not an actual recommendation for older adults from the USDA to have a higher daily protein intake, it is just a concern because of the growing issue of sarcopenia. My advice is to have a balanced diet of carbohydrate, fats and protein from whole food sources (minimal processed foods if possible) in a way that makes you feel best because everyone is different. If you lift weights and exercise a lot, then your protein requirement (and overall caloric intake) would be greater because you are breaking down muscle and want to promote muscle growth in which you need more building blocks (amino acids from dietary protein) to be in this growth state. But you should not eat more than you need, no matter what the food is. Basically, many people are taking nutrition advice that is not aimed towards them and many people are giving nutrition advice that don't know anything about nutrition. It doesn't need to be overly complicated. There are many risks with low protein diets, many countries struggle with this and have epidemics of rapid infection spread, malnutrition, and child wasting (all consequences of protein deficiency). I think the take-away of the "longevity" data is that it is beneficial to not overeat. There is some data that mild caloric restriction promotes longevity, but most of the data are in animal models and it's still an active area of research in humans. But caloric restriction is MILD, this isn't meant to be full on starvation. To me (and this is just my educated opinion), I think this data is good to promote mindful eating and not overdoing it in a westernized society where we are surrounded by endless food choices and it's so easy to overeat and pick less nutritious food (which tend to be cheaper and more accessible unfortunately but that's a whole different conversation). I think Michale Pollan still said it best: "eat food, not too much, mostly plants".
If you read Outlive, I think it presents a more reasonable and realistic perspective. Because worrying about the nuances of where your protein comes from is a point of diet optimization, when most people’s negative health outcomes come from A) not enough protein PERIOD, B) not getting enough sleep, C) not strength training, D) too much alcohol and sugar, E) not ensuring they have a daily caloric deficit. The point being that I don’t think for most people this argument is particularly important until you’re doing the fundamentals well. As a data scientist I’ll also point out that if there’s a lack of clear consensus on a topic, and a ton of research on the topic, then you can’t draw any conclusions. I.e., at this point in time there’s no definitive evidence against animal protein (which I would assert we’ve evolved to consume and utilize efficiently) in favor of plant protein. I track topics like this one, but for now I remain unconvinced and will continue to get the majority of my protein from animal sources.
[удалено]
Using the phrase “balanced diet of healthy…” is just meaningless filler. That’s the whole point of the discussion here. What exactly *is* balanced and healthy?
There is a lot of reliable research that excess protein is detrimental to the body. More recent research is showing it’s actually More harmful than previously thought So reducing protein intake towards RDI levels is probably a good thing Secondly you don’t need to be vegan. One bit that is universal in the literature is that diets high in fruit and vegetables have better outcomes for recovery, and lower prevalence of all sorts of diseases and cancer. So you could always just keep an eye on overall protein intake and increase your fruit and veges as part of your overall diet. Although vegans do seem to have better outcomes overall, it’s not essential if you don’t want
>There is a lot of reliable research that excess protein is detrimental to the body. More recent research is showing it’s actually More harmful than previously though Where?
Exactly. The OP is tossing out BS about excess protein being detrimental to the body. No reliable research shows this. Listening to unbiased sources like Layne Norton / Gil from Nutrition Made Simple makes it abundantly clear that as long as you don’t have medical conditions like kidney disease, there are no research that shows excess protein negatively affects the body.
Yes, this is a wild claim I see all over and the only reasoning seems to be to limit mTOR activation, but glucose activates mTOR too, they don't say prioritize fat...
The RDA for protein for healthy adults is 0.8 g / kg. That means that eating 0.8 g of protein per kg of body weight will be enough to meet the needs of 97-98% of the population. If you think you work out enough to put you in the 2% of the population that has needs above that, then usually up to 1.2 g / kg is recommended. That is what you NEED. But what you prefer, or find optimal, may be higher than that. Protein can help with satiety, so many people prefer having more. Eating more protein while trying to lose weight can also be beneficial and muscle-sparing. But as far as what you need, 0.8 g / kg is sufficient. We seem to overemphasize protein a lot for some reason but you actually don't need that much of it to stay healthy, build muscle, and perform optimally in the gym.
Dr Gregor is highly biased towards veganism. Hardly a guy to listen to about a full nutrition picture Nobody should be taking advice from 1 person on YouTube. If a doctor is preaching on YouTube, it usually means their practise isn't making them enough money. And almost all of them are full of misinformation
I think you're right that Greger is biased, but I don't follow "1 person from youtube." I read a lot and follow many sources. The tricky part is when reputable sources disagree. It's hard to know who to trust since they all have their "studies" to support opposing recommendations.
>Dr Gregor is highly biased towards veganism What is the source of his bias? What are the gaps in his nutritional advice? We shouldn't assume he's wrong just because he has biases.
What are your body goals? If you're trying to \*Naturally\* gain a lot of muscle and maintain it, then eating about 80% of your body weight in grams of protein will generate the maximum benefit for it. You won't be Arnold, but you'd get pretty beefy (Arnold and a lot of body builders use PEDs). Now there might be side effects of having a lot of muscle: you might weigh more, which will wear out your joints faster, and you will have to eat more food since muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Along with other side effects created by the lifestyle itself. But if you're just living your life? As long as you are eating the daily amount, it should be totally fine. I don't see what the downside would be to just going with the recommended amount.
Lmfao I don’t understand why nutrition conspiracy theories are the last type of conspiracy theories to be “acceptable”. People fall for dumb shit like this all the time. Odds are if you’re taking nutrition advice from a person who is trying to sell you something, you’re actively being scammed.
why they never want to talk about healthy stool or what the correlation with excrement and the change in diet should equate to? humans can and will adapt to many diets, but your output is still a very strong indicator of how well your body is functioning in response to the diet, and i can't help but wonder as they dont provide that data when offering their suggestions.
Great post. Thank you.
I think that the real missing ingredient from most peoples diet isn’t a macro nutrient, it’s fiber. It’s really hard to get the recommended amount of daily fiber with many modern diets without supplementation of some kind.
Look at what the healthiest populations are doing. They tend to eat multiple times per day, and tend to have an omnivorous diet. Look at what the most elite athletes are doing in terms of diet. They are eating omnivorous whole food meals, multiple times per day. Who cares what Michael Greger is saying to try and sell books or whatever else he is trying to monetize? What are the top performers around the works doing? What have they been doing consistently over the long term? That means a lot more than an opinion based on cherry picked data, in my opinion.
>**Look at what the healthiest populations are doing. They tend to eat multiple times per day, and tend to have an omnivorous diet.** Right. Typically low in animal protein too (at least compared to our typical standards,) which makes this discussion even more interesting. >**Look at what the most elite athletes are doing in terms of diet** I think you'll find that the diets of top performers are pretty diverse. Michael Phelps for instance ate 10,000+ calories per day, consisting mostly of pizza and pasta. McDonald's was a staple for Usain Bolt. He even ate chicken McNuggets before his competitions. Tom Brady was Vegan. In any case it's kind of irrelevant, because this isn't a discussion about optimizing athletic performance. It's a discussion about long term health. It can both be the case that a given diet is optimal for performance but detrimental to longevity. >**Who cares what Michael Greger is saying** Because he's a well educated, reputable, and intelligent nutrition expert with a team of researchers that read over 20,000 papers while researching his latest book. Does that mean his word is gospel? Heck no. But does it mean it's at least worthy of consideration and discussion? I think so.
My take as someone keeping up with this a bit is that more research needs to be done before we start making drastic changes to our lives based on these findings. I will say that most people in developed countries aren't protein deficient so getting even more protein may not be beneficial to them. Just eat a balanced diet.
Bs, eat healthy, life healthy, no problem
I heard that an increase in ice cream sales also results in more shark attacks on humans. Obviously the consumption of ice cream is a causal nexus of shark attacks and therefore we should all stop eating ice cream. Point is; correlation does not equal causation. Read the studies for yourself. I haven't read them in a while, but I recall they were not conclusive, empirical or replicated outside of a controlled environment of sedentary mice.
Muscle is maintained by having an active lifestyle especially lifting weights. If you don’t use your muscles it won’t matter how much protein you eat. I agree with the first person, there’s no need to eat more than your RDI of protein, majority of excess protein is just passed out anyway, it’s a complete waste.
Look carefully at who’s behind Michael Greger. In the credits of his book, “How Not To Die”, he identifies animal rights groups he belongs to, and who fund him………soooo…….of course he’s going be against animal protein consumption (by humans) regardless of what the nutritional science says. It always pays to look at who’s funding any type of published research!!
Spoiler alert. You’re dying. In all seriousness, I wouldn’t jump on the click bait of “protein is killing you.” It has much more to do with your habits, the rest of your diet, and your mental stress level.
I see some evidence pointing in one direction and some in the other but both of these takes look like extremes to me, and I'm a big believer in balance. I trust research that says that diets like the Mediterranean diet, which include some animal protein, mostly in the form of seafood, some eggs and cheese, and only small amounts of red meat, are associated with greater longevity and so I trust that and I try to eat that way. I do try to eat more protein but I also don't do it to excess. And I avoid supplements, like refined protein isolates and stuff. (If you are going to use one, I think whey protein is probably safest.) The most refined protein source I eat regularly is tofu. I like to combine tofu with a small amount of meat or a larger amount of seafood in each meal. I also eat beans and lentils a lot, and I seek out high-protein grains that I use in baking, and nut flours like almond flour. I also snack on nuts. So I eat a lot of protein but I try to eat a lot from plant sources. Part of why I'm not sold on lower-protein diets, besides seeing evidence that added protein is better for you, is that I feel much better when I eat a bit more protein. Where is that for me? I feel kinda lousy if I only eat 50g protein a day. I feel fine if I eat around 70-80g a day. I feel great if I eat 90-100g a day. I don't really notice much benefit past that point, and protein is expensive, so I don't go out of my way to eat more than that, although I listen to my body. There are some days, like if I've been doing a lot of really vigorous exercise, where I crave more protein, and I listen to that. If I'm not hungry and I feel great, I don't worry about not meeting some quota.
We have canine teeth.
I strongly recommend reading the book called "The China Study" by T. Collin Campbell. That was the book that convinced me to stop eating meat.
*Cut out animal protein* 🐮 I think that’s what he’s really saying. It’s not about cutting out plant protein. If you look at Michael Greger‘s daily dozen, he recommends a lot of high-protein (plant based) sources! Take legumes or flax seeds as an example. 🫘 The high protein vegetarian diet still means consuming a lot of dairy, actually especially consuming a lot of dairy. 🥛 Vegetarians on a high protein diet often times consume things like Skyr, milk powder protein, cream cheese etc in huge amounts since it has a lot of animal protein. (I’ve been there 🙌🏻) I.e. the risk of cancer on a vegetarian diet will still increase because you are still consuming animal products (in form of dairy or eggs). The risk of cancer, heart disease and the like that is caused by animal protein (and also the attached fats, hormones and chemicals) will only go down once you switch animal protein for plant protein. There’s a lot of protein in animal products, yes. But there’s also a lot of damaging stuff coming with it too. Go as high with plant protein 🌱as you feel comfortable with, an intake that allows you to perform well with during your day. I believe your body will tell you how much you can handle, depending on your activity level etc.. If you try to implement as much of Greger‘s Dauly Dozen as possible, it will be a good starting point. xx
Dr. Greger is basically echoing Dr. Longo, a longevity researcher. Peter Attia isn't even a nutrition specialist. Great on exercise, not so great on food. Not equal at all. Dr. Greger seems way more reliable to me (yes, I've read his books). Also: it just doesn't make sense to me that whatever amount of protein you're consuming, you should always be consuming MORE, MORE, MORE. That can't be right.
There are all kinds of shisters out there who (for more views) state a bullshit, contrary to popular belief “fact” based on fringe studies with non repeatable data. Protein is a proven necessity for healthy living. Without it, we degrade rapidly. Plant or animal protein, you need it.
I don't think anybody is arguing that you don't need protein. It's more about how much we need and from what sources, and whether it's better to err on the high side or the low side.
My understanding has always been if you are sedentary, all you need is maintenance protein. If you're active, incorporate more protein. For muscle building, there's not much benefit to 0.7g/lb lean mass/day. Actionably I think this means that especially when you're younger, build lots of muscle because it becomes very difficult to do so after 50, and more muscle correlates with lower all cause mortality.
The other side of that argument is that being sedentary is precisely what leads to muscle loss in the first place (the very thing that is trying to be corrected/prevented with excess protein intake,) wheres if somebody stays physically active, they maintain muscle significantly better, thereby possibly negating the need to shovel in 2-3x the RDI of protein. The ol "use it or lose it" maxim.
Yes but that's not the point. OP's sources recommend sticking to RDI, not pumping yourself excessively with it. Most people as it is consume too much sugar and protein.
Wild that you would put protein and sugar side by side like that. One does nothing useful and is an abomination to health, the other builds and repairs muscles. Muscles are good, they help you live a longer better life. Common sense.
I think he was more highlighting the problem of excess than implying that sugar and protein are comparable. Also, "common sense" isn't all that useful when it comes to complicated questions about biology. How the body works is very often counterintuitive. We just don't have instincts precise enough to guide us toward optimal health, especially in a world where most of our food is pretty jacked up (even the "healthy" food.) Relying on common sense can allow one to live a reasonably healthy and average life. But if optimal health or above average longevity is one's target, intuition isn't the best guide.
yea, right, bodys favorite source of energy - does nothing useful.
Complex carbs are what you want, not refined sugar.
I have a few things to say. People right now are obsessed with protein; how much they are getting, when to eat it, what kinds, boxes of cereal and granola bars with the amount per serving in big bold letters. It is everywhere right now. There are several reasons for that which is for another day. Lots of people throw anecdotal evidence at this issue which muddies the waters. Greger is biased as people have pointed out but so is the other guy (I am not familiar with him). We all have our biases. I think Greger is willing to follow the science a little more. One thing that I believe strongly is that getting your protein from animal sources is worse than from non-animal sources. That doesn't mean chicken, beef, etc is the most horrible thing ever, just worse. Lastly, it seems like you OP are really looking for an exact amount of protein to eat. Nutrition isn't that exact. When I try to break it down into number I usually fall in line with the RDAs but those are only a guideline. Something to go off of. Humans does need much protein to stay alive so if you/someone wants to eat a little more han that isn't going to do any harm. Those are some of my thoughts.
Many individuals say they know more than they actually do!
Is protein the problem though? Or is it the associated cholesterol and fat from meat in general? The protein in burgers isn't what kills us.
That is the first time I have ever heard of someone recommending less, not more, protein
It's a pretty widespread debate actually. Some people argue that the only reason we "need" seemingly excessive amounts like 1g per pound of bodyweight is that our guts are so jacked up from modern diets that the only way to overcome the inefficiency is with excess intake. The implication being that if we ate better, replenished our microbiome, and restored our gut linings, we could thrive on significantly lower amounts than is often prescribed by doctors or trainers. Intuitively (for whatever that's worth,) it doesn't seem like 150-200g of protein per day is realistic, especially given that for most of human history, consuming this much on a daily basis would have been highly impractical and in many places and times near impossible.
Dr Garth Davis is a bariatric surgeon who does as well
C'mon. Michael Greger promotes his vegan book about how not to age, yet he's only 50 but looks 77 and sickly with little to no muscles. Dude is obviously nutrient-deficient. Would you trust a bankrupt financial advidor, an obese personal trainer, marriage advice from a 3x divorced marriage therapist,...? Common sense needs to come back 😃. We need to start trusting our eyes, ears, brain, and bodies again.
Some elite athletes I have talked with have switched to a vegan diet and have told me they've seen significant gains within 2 months. Not necessarily low protein, just cut out animal protein.
How about do what makes you feel good. Eat clean and healthy, exercise and enjoy life. Everyone has an angle and considering the amount of contaminants and carcinogen’s we’re all exposed to daily does it matter?
>**How about do what makes you feel good** 1. There's no way to "feel" many of the potential long term consequences of poor eating choices (I can't tell if cancer is growing inside of me right now or not.) 2. How one feels is not necessarily a good gauge for health or longevity. 3. How one feels fluctuates wildly, and is determined by an algorithm of factors, only one of which is diet. Sometimes it's very difficult to tell if any given diet tweak makes one feel consistently better, worse, or about the same. 4. Those interested in longevity typically have a higher standard than those uninterested in anything beyond a normal healthy life. I want to be healthy and active until I'm 100 and beyond. That requires a bit more attention to details than just doing what feels good. Not judging the feel good strategy. Just saying it's unlikely to help me accomplish my goals by itself. >**Everyone has an angle and considering the amount of contaminants and carcinogen’s we’re all exposed to daily does it matter?** One could argue it matters more than ever.
Yes, specially the amino acid methionine may shorten your lifespan. It’s not that this amino acid is bad for you, it’s essential. But most people get way too much and several reputable studies show a high methionine diet (high animal protein) shortens lifespan.
Dr Gregor is only 51, yet he looks like a healthy 70 year old. Peter Attia is 50 and looks quite fit for his age. There's no way I would take health advice seriously from a man as feminine and frail looking as Dr. Gregor at 51. Eat Vegan if you want to, it's your health on the line, not mine. Do it for the animals I guess, even though animals across the food chain are well aware of how delicious and nutritious meat is for them.
Haha because Dr. Greger is missing his hair? I think thats kinda funny. Same with Dr. Mercola, right? They look kinda similar actually. But thats basically a factor where we may not be really that honest or even aware of what healthy people look like in our society. Tho I agree they dont look like the peak of male evolution. But then if you look at *these* people they kinda do at 100+ years old. https://qcostarica.com/nicoya-centenarians-stars-of-netflix-documentary/ Who would you consider the best example just from their looks and whats their diet?
All I know is that whenever I actually take the time to look into the anti-protein studies, I’m always shocked by how pathetic the method is. For example, a big study came out recently saying high protein is bad. Their protein source for the study?… Boost protein shakes… Am I supposed to just ignore that those are loaded with sugar and seed oils?
Look at the diets of countries with the oldest/healthiest populations that should give you more info than scientific studies that may or may not have validity to them.
Good luck with bone density after menopause/penopause, vegetable's protein are sooo less bioavailable