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

61–70 of 90 posts

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

#61

Post by bobobob420 »

dragontamer wrote: post #54
chii wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Canned or frozen can contain more nutrients because of the preservation process though. Fresh foods lose nutrients as they are shipped around. The vitamins may have leached into the water, but toss that water into a soup and you're good. I don't think freshness matters much at all. Flour certainly doesn't need to be fresh to make good bread.

Fresh pasta vs store bought? Worlds of difference. When I lived in Europe the quality of produce and dairy blew me away compared to what we were eating in America. Tons of flavor in fresh natural produce.

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

#62

Post by slothtrop »

Ambolia wrote: post #29

I wouldn't trust mainstream nutrition advice coming out from any country with a >20% obesity rate. So maybe from Japan, China, Thailand, Indonesia or Buthan. But not from the UK.

Interestingly, Hong Kong residents appear to have a high meat-consumption rate. However they also walk far more than Westerners. Vegetable consumption may be higher as well.

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

#63

Post by mumblemumble »

croon wrote: post #41
paulryanrogers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have occasionally seen products along these lines that actually are what they claim to be. They never seem to stick around for long.

The problem with making a consumer product that isn't primarily designed to sell is, you tend not to sell very much of it. When it comes to convenience foods - and anything ready-to-eat in a Mylar wrapper is, almost by definition, a convenience food - what most people want to buy is junk food. Not out of some moral failing, I don't think, so much as that, when you're going for convenience foods, you just happen to be working with a part of your brain that's hard-wired to crave junk food. So we tend to go for junk food, and, even when that's not what we think we want, it's ridiculously easy to be taken in by junk food whose Mylar wrapper loudly proclaims that it's actually healthy food.

From there, it's just the law of the jungle. Products that sell better get the shelf space, products that don't sell as well don't. That determines who gets the shelf space, and therefore who gets to survive as a company.

I've also seen this play out at a macro scale in the rise of Whole Foods Market. They devote every bit as much of their shelf space to convenience foods as any other supermarket. Between that and their distressingly ironic name, it's hard for me to feel surprised that I've seen them out-compete a great many beloved stores that were more genuinely focused on selling whole foods over the past quarter century.

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

#64

Post by a3n »

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 thing about processed foods is that they're usually based on refined grains, i.e. preprocessed carbs. Your body sucks up these carbs too quickly, resulting in insulin resistance and pancreatic failure.

Look down the aisles of a store. If it's in a box, or a bag, it's probably based on processed carbs.

Disclosure: Biased diabetic who has struggled with management, and now "strictly" (with the best of intentions) limits processed carbs. Bread of any kind, especially. Toss the hamburger bun, for example. And it's worked, with help from meds.

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

#65

Post by bobobob420 »

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 really hope no one on this board follows this and starts eating only meat. Fruit and vegetables are extremely healthy for your body. Tons of fiber, nutrients, and keeps your immune system strong. This will be a decisive comment but if you think no one needs vegetables and should be eating only meat you have reached maximum levels of retardation and I recommend you not to poison the brains of other people. Sometimes it’s best to keep things to yourself

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

#66

Post by slothtrop »

Rompect wrote: post #59
Ambolia wrote: post #29

I wouldn't trust mainstream nutrition advice coming out from any country with a >20% obesity rate. So maybe from Japan, China, Thailand, Indonesia or Buthan. But not from the UK.

Sadly, I wouldn't trust any mainstream nutrition advice at all. When you see the McDonalds and Coca Cola logos behind footballers, and find out that the food pyramid was made by the Department of Agriculture and unsurprisingly advocates for crops, you become really suspicious.

Papers in journals disclose conflicts of interest. You can't just hand-wave bodies of research including systematic reviews as untrustworthy on the conceit that some of it is cherry-picked in mainstream media.

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

#67

Post by bobobob420 »

I agree with this article. As someone who has been weightlifting since I was in high school, most people are obsessed with protein for the wrong reasons. The truth is you only need to eat slightly above normal protein intake, and the part most people don’t understand is you need to increase carbs for muscle growth. Without the increase in carbs you will not be able to put on a large mass of muscles.

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

#68

Post by 0-_-0 »

Ambolia wrote: post #55
0-_-0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since macronutrients are interchangeable to some degree, they could have written an article called "We don’t need nearly as much fat as we consume" or "We don’t need nearly as much carbs as we consume" as well.

Seeing the obesity crisis in the UK, you could just write "We don't need nearly as much food as we consume".

Sure, but that wouldn't make it to HN!

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

#69

Post by xenocratus »

mumblemumble wrote: post #32
xenocratus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, however they just didn't link to anything (unlike other parts, e.g. in the paragraph prior to that one, where they send you to published research).

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

#70

Post by timwaagh »

slothtrop wrote: post #58
timwaagh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weightlifting concerns aside (I think a man's need to look good is a very legitimate concern) very high protein is linked to decreased life expectancy and cancer. So even if it doesn't cause belly flop it's still not healthy.

Doesn't that depend on the type of protein? Specifically, too much muscle-tissue protein.

I couldn't tell you. Usually these kinds of population surveys don't make such detailed distinctions.
Post reply on HN