21–28 of 28 posts
It's very beneficial and necessary for muscle growth. Strength through your older years is also a metric for healthier aging. I think the moral of the story here is moderate based on your activity. And don't listen to anything rfkjr has to say as a general rule.
The buried important part: "It’s absolutely crystal clear that there are benefits of protein to muscle growth and exercise response of active individuals," study author Dudley Lamming said in a statement. "But because most people are relatively sedentary, many people are likely consuming more protein than they actually need, which probably has negative health consequences." [/me proceeds to have more protein and keep…
Seems like “probably has negative health consequences” in the article is missing “ ceteris paribus ” (negative when remaining sedentary).
Anecdotally I find the ones into protein at least have a moderate amount of physical activity. So probably not too big of a deal? I find articles using dramatic words for an article without any metrics on effect sizes the epitome of modern journalism.
A lot of protein bros are all about muscle size and not much else. It's better than being a couch potatoe but it's far from optimal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of protein bros are all about muscle size and not much else. It's better than being a couch potatoe but it's far from optimal
Protein bros? Why so angry? Do you think hypertrophy and strength are not correlated?
i did some research: here's the methionine content per gram of protein per food category: the highest ones were any kind of animal based protein are typically 30+ mg per gram of protein. whole grains, and nuts typically 15mg to 30mg or so. Beans, Veg and fruit have the lowest about 12 to 15mg per gram of protein.
sure you could just eat less protein and that's fine but the type of protein your eating also matters
Who posts this brainrot? Protein is used within your body for far more than just maintaining or increasing muscle mass. It also fails to mention the balance of essential amino acids within the body. Which is critical because eating say 30g, doesn't guarantee all of it is utilized unless it's complete. Readers, you're better off continuing what you are doing that considering this at all.
>Readers, you're better off continuing what you are doing that considering this at all. Most Americans get sufficient protein, almost none (about 5%) get sufficient fibre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Readers, you're better off continuing what you are doing that considering this at all. Most Americans get sufficient protein, almost none (about 5%) get sufficient fibre.
Proteins (amino acids) are a nutrient. Fibre is not a nutrient as it is indigestible by our mono gastric digestive systems. There is no such thing as “sufficient fibre”. There are countless examples of indigenous people eating near-zero dietary fibre for tens of thousands of years and sustaining entirely on animals, seafood and dairy. Fibre is only recommended today because it is relatively ‘more’ digestible than the…
What a shit article that doesn’t match what it is saying. If you are active you benefit from more protein. If you are not then maybe it’s not good without any reporting on how they even got to the main conclusion except for a citation which may or may not pan out.
>If you are active you benefit from more protein. More protein than what level though? 0.75g per kilogram of body weight per day? or 1.5g? 3g? I find it hard to believe there isn't some optimum level. Current US intake is about 1g per Kg of body weight which is already a third higher than the UK's recommended level.