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

41–50 of 90 posts

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

#41

Post by croon »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #11
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.

I learned that any 'health' bars with 12+ grams of carbs are just candy. Yet all except one was over that limit. The exception was 5g yet had sugar alcohol (artifical sweetener?) putting the real number at 20g. So maybe those bars are intended as whole meal replacement? If so it's not clear on the labels.

I think you're being too charitable. I don't think they have any intention other than to sell bars. I've read the content declaration of every bar I've encountered and have yet to ingest a single one of them.

Just buy a bag of nuts if you want what bars portray themselves to be, but are not.

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

#42

Post by bingohbangoh »

rtpg wrote: post #39
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

One wonders where the line is drawn with processed foods as well.

Take sausages. These have been around for ages but are, technically, processed. Are these now bad? They seem to pass the lindy test.

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

#43

Post by tovej »

rtpg wrote: post #39
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

Processed foods are chemically altered for longer shelf-life. Heavily processed foods have a very homogeneous substance, which means they have fewer nutrients that the body needs. To top it off, the substances they _do_ contain are unhealthy, and are processed faster, because the body has to do less work to separate the nutrients (because the nutrients are already... processed). Because the body does less work, we also burn less energy digesting the food. => Calorie intake is higher & calorie consumption is lower

https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/may-2019/the-many...

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

#44

Post by BoHerfIIIJrEsq »

mft_ wrote: post #40
Rompect wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not joking -- I think it may be all of those. See e.g. the work of Ivor Cummins, books like "Eat Rich, Live Long".

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

#45

Post by chii »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #42
rtpg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One wonders where the line is drawn with processed foods as well. Take sausages. These have been around for ages but are, technically, processed. Are these now bad? They seem to pass the lindy test.

> where the line is

high salt and/or sugar content foods, whether processed or not, is probably not great for you.

It's just that "processed foods" usually have extra flavourings added (such as salt) to enhance it, for sale purposes.

So instead of targeting processed foods, the targeting for healthy eating should be portion size and amount, followed by freshness.

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

#46

Post by nradov »

kortex wrote: post #21

> Fortunately, it’s difficult to have too much protein. While we do have an upper limit of protein intake, it’s “virtually impossible” to reach, says Tipton. “There are concerns among some dieticians that a high protein diet can hurt the kidneys and bones, but evidence in otherwise healthy people is minimal. That's all I really need to know. Of the big 3 macros, I "trust" carbs the least, then fat, then protein. Ther…

Whether saturated fats are good or bad depends on more than the length.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510972...

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

#47

Post by Pyramus »

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.

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

In any case, while human bodies are amazing in the way they can strive on different diets, we know that the traditional Intuit diet (~50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs) leads to significantly increased cardiovascular risk:

"However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population.[27][28] Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.[29]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine#Nutrition

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

#48

Post by hannob »

rtpg wrote: post #39
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

I think the "processed food" guidance is widely misunderstood.

From what I gather you shouldn't consider that as a strict rule. It's more a rule of tendencies. Less processed food tends to have more fiber, less sugar, less calorie density. There are exceptions, and obviously it's sometimes debatable what counts as "more processed".

But despite these inaccuracies, it's probably a good simple guidance in a field where there's a lot of uncertainty.

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

#49

Post by open-source-ux »

tovej wrote: post #37
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.

Sugar remains a villain, but the issue of fat is more complex.

Not all fats are equal. For example, high-fat foods like nuts, butter, avocados, cold-pressed olive oil etc do not occupy the same space as highly processed fats (e.g. trans fat/hydrogenated fat).

Salt remains divisive among health researchers after many years of public campaigns warning the public to limit salt intake. But is it less harfmul than previously thought?

The Guardian: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study (2018):

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/09/salt-not-as-...

Post reply on HN