Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#31

Post by yawaworht1978 »

lumost wrote: post #25
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #5

Required Protein intake depends on many other factors. Carbs are protein preserving. If someone does a lot of weight lifting and or really hard cardio and is on a low carb diet, they will have an elevated protein requirement, else the body will simply consume its own proteins, aka muscle and tendon tissue, you don't want that. For the average Joe with a sitting job and zero sports activity and a regular no care diet,…

I’m a bit dubious of the articles core claim that excess protein is wasteful - the alternative of excess fat/carbs is wasteful and harmful. I don’t use any sports supplements but I do try to prioritize my diet in terms of protein > fat > carbs. It’s tough to find unprocessed protein sources that aren’t at least somewhat healthy. Even red meat provides a great iron source at 1 8 oz filet every week or 2.

Don't worry, all the healthy fats and slow released carbs are much worse than the worst protein source.

Excess protein might be wasteful to the wallet and the environment, but at least it will not get you as fat.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#32

Post by mumblemumble »

xenocratus wrote: post #8
lambdaba wrote: post #3

This isn't really about protein, just how ultra-processed, high-carb candy bars are masquerading as protein. Good quality protein is necessary and healthy, and as we age we actually need more of it, not less.

Not doubting, just curious: do you have a source (on the "need more protein as we age" claim)? EDIT: Nevermind, found some: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/5/295 [from 2016] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/35/1/6/469334... [from 1982] One that says it doesn't differ: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/88/5/1322/4648885 [from 2008]

The article itself would also serve as a source:

Another demographic who can benefit from extra protein? The elderly. That’s because as we age, we need more protein to retain muscle mass. But we also tend to eat less protein as we get older because our taste-buds begin to prefer sweet over savoury.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#33

Post by mattgreenrocks »

I've always eaten a lot of meat, and had cognitive dissonance about headlines like this. If I didn't eat much meat in a given day, I'd just feel like garbage. When I did keto, it wasn't a super difficult adjustment for me after the first week (which sucks for almost everyone). It felt closer to how I always wanted to be, to be honest, though I think keto is a little too into fat.

Well, I learned recently I have low B12 levels via a blood test. B12 is found in meats, fish, and dairy. We'll see if supplementation reduces my carnivore desires.

Just a single data point but it seemed salient for the discussion.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#34

Post by Rompect »

wombatmobile wrote: post #26

TFA curiously asks questions about what the body really needs, in order to investigate a processed food category from an industry that spends billions on advertising and technology designed to make people eat more than they need for only one reason - to generate profits for manufacturers. What the body really needs is not processed foods, which are loaded with salt, sugar, and fat [0, 1]. Processed foods are what the…

No. I've been eating beef meat, chicken and a suet that is 99.8% fat for more than a month now and it's great. Nobody needs vegetables or nuts.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#35

Post by alistairSH »

lumost wrote: post #25
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #5

Required Protein intake depends on many other factors. Carbs are protein preserving. If someone does a lot of weight lifting and or really hard cardio and is on a low carb diet, they will have an elevated protein requirement, else the body will simply consume its own proteins, aka muscle and tendon tissue, you don't want that. For the average Joe with a sitting job and zero sports activity and a regular no care diet,…

I’m a bit dubious of the articles core claim that excess protein is wasteful - the alternative of excess fat/carbs is wasteful and harmful. I don’t use any sports supplements but I do try to prioritize my diet in terms of protein > fat > carbs. It’s tough to find unprocessed protein sources that aren’t at least somewhat healthy. Even red meat provides a great iron source at 1 8 oz filet every week or 2.

Why are you claiming the alternative to excess protein is excess fat/carb? Why not a calorie neutral diet with the correct macros?

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#36

Post by tsimionescu »

HanaShiratori wrote: post #7
adflux wrote: post #4

So I thought carbs were bad? Oh no, it was fat right? Or sugar, or meat, or... This article is a convoluted joke, just like the rest of the nutritional science field. In few other fields can you find so many contradictory theories. Mainly due to the poor research methodologies.

It doesn't have to do with poor research methodologies specifically in the field of nutritional science, since they do not differ from other fields. It's just that people are easily exploited by the industry because they believe there is a cheat code in dealing with obesity and other food related diseases

Research methodologies in nutrition are almost universally underpowered for the results they claim. You'll very rarely find double-blind clinical trials with large numbers of participants, and since we know little of the possible confounding factors between individuals when it comes to nutrition, that's what you need.

Instead, most knowledge in nutrition comes either from extremely small clinical studies (often less than 50 people), often with co-morbidities such as obesity or diabetes or endocrine diseases; or from professional atheltics. Or, from huge national-level statistics that rely on interviews for self-reported diet information, and are thus forced to mix diet, diet perception, excersise levels, lifestyle (stress, sleep) and environmental factors in one big mess, out of which come recommendations like the mediteranean diet, instead of siesta or 5-7 weeks of vacation per year or year-round sun.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#37

Post by tovej »

wombatmobile wrote: post #26

TFA curiously asks questions about what the body really needs, in order to investigate a processed food category from an industry that spends billions on advertising and technology designed to make people eat more than they need for only one reason - to generate profits for manufacturers. What the body really needs is not processed foods, which are loaded with salt, sugar, and fat [0, 1]. Processed foods are what the…

There's one unmentioned aspect of this that's especially sinister. Salt, sugar, and fat are addictive.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#38

Post by dtech »

glecedric wrote: post #28
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #5

Required Protein intake depends on many other factors. Carbs are protein preserving. If someone does a lot of weight lifting and or really hard cardio and is on a low carb diet, they will have an elevated protein requirement, else the body will simply consume its own proteins, aka muscle and tendon tissue, you don't want that. For the average Joe with a sitting job and zero sports activity and a regular no care diet,…

I read somewhere that the human intestines are not well fitted to digest protein (as we are omnivorous). They start to "rot" as soon as digestive fluids attack them. So the proteins are correctly absorbed in the first meters. After that, the proteins are just wastes going downward (can't find the source back sr). That's why carnivorous have short but large intestines: they digest proteins as quickly as possible befor…

I highly doubt that without a reliable source. Proteins don't "rot", they fall apart into amino acids which are absorbed. I have never heard amino acids becoming unusable due to long digestion tracts.

The reason I've always heard about carnivores having shorter digestive tracks is that animal matter is much easier to digest than fiber-and-cellulose-laden plant material. In most organisms (expect humans) digestion takes the most % of energy so shortening the digestive tract if it's not necessary is a no-brainer for evolution.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#39

Post by rtpg »

wombatmobile wrote: post #26

TFA curiously asks questions about what the body really needs, in order to investigate a processed food category from an industry that spends billions on advertising and technology designed to make people eat more than they need for only one reason - to generate profits for manufacturers. What the body really needs is not processed foods, which are loaded with salt, sugar, and fat [0, 1]. Processed foods are what the…

What is the magical problem with processed foods? It’s not like the body can tell if something was smooshed by a machine or by my mouth.

I kinda believe it but it’s real “chemicals!!” sort of generality. I can imagine a granola bar being less bad than like… my grandma’s paté

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#40

Post by mft_ »

Rompect wrote: post #34
wombatmobile wrote: post #26

TFA curiously asks questions about what the body really needs, in order to investigate a processed food category from an industry that spends billions on advertising and technology designed to make people eat more than they need for only one reason - to generate profits for manufacturers. What the body really needs is not processed foods, which are loaded with salt, sugar, and fat [0, 1]. Processed foods are what the…

No. I've been eating beef meat, chicken and a suet that is 99.8% fat for more than a month now and it's great. Nobody needs vegetables or nuts.

Can I ask what you’re optimising for with that diet? e.g. energy, or weight loss, or cardiac health, or longevity?
Post reply on HN