Thread: Food and Nutrition Doctor

Most nutritionists will tell you this. It has been the status quo for a number of years and at this point I'm pretty sure most of them are just parroting information. If you look at specialized athletic associations (i.e. the Olympics), they will recommend 1.5-2g/kg body weight. However it has been shown that even above 2g/kg body weight doesn't have a negative effect on healthy individuals.

Now if he had said the average person consumes to much red meat then sure I would agree with him. The majority of people should eat more lean meat along with fish.

As for specific studies that refute what he says I'm on vacation so don't have my library You can check out what I posted below, your library might have/can get it. It disputes alot of common "nutritional expert" advice with studies you can look at yourself. Its also worth buying in my opinion. I'm not bashing the guy that gave the lecture I just think its funny that they're spewing the same shit they have been since the sixties about protein. The body can process it (even in excess). Depending on what you eat its a much more efficient food and it burns more to process than any other foods. I just don't get it.


Essentials of Sports Nutrition and Supplements


Don't go by the amazon review the guy is a moron.

He actually said that red meat gets a bad rap and it is just as lean after cooking as chicken.

I will be doing research because I feel there is more to this story

There is at least one good reason to eat more protein than this man suggests: it enhances satiety. This makes it easier to eat less.

Most people don't eat nearly enough protein.

Sport Nutrition (2nd ed.). by A. Jeukendrup & M. Gleeson (2010).

This is the book he is getting all his info from.

I am liking my 1g protein for 1lb body weight and .5g fat per 1lb body weight and fill in the rest with carbs. Been working fine for me.

For a healthy young male athlete who trains three hours a day and eats triple his BMR in calories, he's going to get in enough protein no matter what he eats - I mean, 15% of 6000 calories is 225 grams of protein!

Try dieting, and the universe changes. Someone like me, for instance, whose maintenance is 2000 calories, goes on a diet and eats 1400 calories a day. 15% of 1400 calories gives me 52.5g of protein daily. Any takers on how I would feel dieting on 52.5g of protein a day?

Ask him about the impairment in postprandial satiety that accompanies the metabolic syndrome and obesity. Also ask him about protein's stimulatory effect on cholecystokinin (CCK). I'd be very interested to hear what he says.

ive heard that to much protein can have bad effects on the kidneys. thats about the extent of my knowledge with dieting as i got a good diet now from a ifbb pro but i paid for it.

There has never been a single documented case of a healthy person with normal kidneys being harmed by ANY amount of protein.

Someone with kidney disease, that's a different story. They have to be very careful. But by the time that happens, there are a lot of foods they can't eat. For example, I know this man at my first gym who was on dialysis. He told me a single banana could kill him because of the potassium.

So, buy the same reasoning as the "protein" myth, bananas can kill you! Right? Of course they can!

There is no truth to the protein myth. Not for healthy humans.

well thats good to know, myths again. i think because its a filter for your body people say that.

Originally Posted by Built

There has never been a single documented case of a healthy person with normal kidneys being harmed by ANY amount of protein.

Someone with kidney disease, that's a different story. They have to be very careful. But by the time that happens, there are a lot of foods they can't eat. For example, I know this man at my first gym who was on dialysis. He told me a single banana could kill him because of the potassium.

So, buy the same reasoning as the "protein" myth, bananas can kill you! Right? Of course they can!

There is no truth to the protein myth. Not for healthy humans.

Before my Grandpa passed he had the same issues. One of his favorite things to eat for breakfast was a banana. He went 15+ years never getting to eat one after being diagnosed. It is amazing how a healthy banana can take down an ill person.

In healthy people the body just flushes the excess protein so I've never worried about it. Creatine however is different, so is protein laced with a bunch of heavy metals :P

You think you pee out extra protein?

Really?

Originally Posted by suprfast

I just attended a meeting at my college that wasn't class related but hosted a special guest speaker. He is a doctor of Food and Nutrition as well as something in exercise. I was left puzzled with some of his comments from a scientific approach, but not convinced at all.

He said the average person consumes too much protein. I can buy that but he lumped athletes into this also, especially body builders. He said based on his studies(which I will attempt to validate or at least post so others can see) there is no reason a person should not consume more than 1.7g of protein per KG of body weight. This was on the high end. The average person shouldn't consume more than .8g of protein per kg of body weight.

He then proceeded to say our diets should consist of roughly 15% protein, 20-30% fats and 50-65% carbs.

The one thing he did say that I agreed on was the average person wanting to lose weight should do one thing, eat less and move more.

Now I do not believe him open armed, but I would like to know where I can find some research for myself to read that discredit(scientifically, otherwise it cannot be used in a scientific debate) his notion on a 175lb man needing only 64g of protein, and this is more than adequate.

Sorry to rant, just not buying his "educated" notion.

those guys always say that but you have to remember they are talking about the "average" American who leads a sedentary lifestyle. only like 18% of the US population gets regular exercise.

science and commons sense tells us that an athlete who participates in rigorous high intensity exercise regularly has a much greater amount of muscle protein turnover. this combined with greater dietary caloric intake requirements means that athletes need and can utilize more dietary protein than the sedentary individual. the greater the amount of muscle protein turnover in an individual the more protein that individual can utilize. athletes need and can utilize higher amounts of calories and nutrients in the diet, they always have and always will.

The problem, is that average Americans eat too little protein and too much carbohydrate to be healthy. This PhD is arguing otherwise.

Originally Posted by Built

The problem, is that average Americans eat too little protein and too much carbohydrate to be healthy.

Exactly. It's why I'm eating barely any carbs now...

Originally Posted by Built

The problem, is that average Americans eat too little protein and too much carbohydrate to be healthy. This PhD is arguing otherwise.

This particular doctor is, more likely than not, describing the macronutrients requirements needed to accommodate basic metabolic processes and to avoid muscle wasting for a 160# male. Although there are plenty of studies available to suggest that a 'high' protein diet is more satiating than a 'high' carb diet, satiety is still a subjective principle that is difficult to concretely test for. Therefore, researchers as a whole seem to be hesitant to make a recommendation over studies that require subjective expression of experiences. Although subjective data is used in a variety of other applications, the only explanation I have is that they are hesitant to use it in this particular one.

Studies regarding macronutrient ratios or satiety seem to be relatively similar. Of course, there's some variation but they ultimately end up amounting to about the same idea. I included some examples in the text.

For macro percentages:

Researchers typically take some subjects and get a baseline of their muscle mass and their overall stats. They put them on a very controlled diet using the macro percentages recommend. They then biopsy their calves and check for muscle loss. At 15% protein (about 95g on a 2500 cal diet), perhaps the individuals are not losing any muscle. However, they are probably very uncomfortable on the diet, and even if they are not, they very likely will not be able to maintain that style of eating for a substantial amount of time. Nevertheless, because the research objective of these types of studies is most likely to recognize muscle loss (and other general indicators that may suggest muscle wasting), their conclusion ends up affirming the idea that 15% protein is sufficient.

When checking for satiety, researchers typically take a group and stick them on a high protein diet and a group on a high carb diet. They then check their desire to eat again in a few hours. Typically, the high protein group ends up being slightly less hungry than the carb group but its usually reasonably close --- in some studies, the protein group ends up being more satiated than the carb relative to other studies. Researchers typically end up determining that the results are inconclusive as a result of too many mitigating factors --- the high protein food was less palatable etc. In reality, the average person doesn't know anything about their body. It is extremely common that he subjects are just 'regular' people who are not capable of accurately interpreting what they are feeling. As mentioned in the previous study, subjects mention that the subsequent protein isn't palatable when it is highly possible that the subjects are just satiated. The researchers collect the data of the confused subjects and end up determining that more research needs to be done to massage out the confounding variables that may not really exist to begin with.

All in all, organizations like the AMA and NPHA end up going with the ironically semi-useless "conclusive" evidence and don't weigh as heavily the data about satiety and staying power of a high protein diet.

They also (need to) ignore the anecdotal data of the bodybuilding community. It seems that it won't fly to cite "millions of bodybuilders" as a reason to make a recommendation --- the general public is better off listening to fat doctors.

Overall, it seems that there isn't a wide-reaching understanding of the very important connection between adequate (in our terms) protein intake and satiety, as well as the connection between a high carb diet and overeating. Perhaps it is possible for a 160# sedentary male to avoid muscle wasting on 100 grams of protein but that individual is going to have a very difficult time avoiding overeating. Also, as expected, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that strength-trained athletes need more protein than what is recommended.

None of this takes into account the strong political lobbies pushing for a worldwide corn-based diet.

Very very good read. He attempted to make a few points that I recall him talking about. Thinking about them now make me really find flaws in his argument, but it is hard for someone with little knowledge on others to argue against someone that does this professionally.

I am totally against HFCS. I am a food purist and I just do not think it belongs in food. I argued against him and a biology professor about HFCS being a cause for obesity and they both break it down to the molecule level and lose me with chemistry stuff.

Paraphrased from him.
HFCS has been on the rise and maybe that is the cause for obesity. Flips slide, shows that beet and cane are on the decline to correlate for the rise of HFCS. Flips slide and shows that americans have the highest use of HFCS and the highest obesity but other countries listed such as japan, mexico, etc... also have a high usage of HFCS without such a large obesity level compared to US(except mexico it too was high, just not as high).

Now we switched topics but those slides were still in my head. He said the only real changes in the US over the last 50 years or so by intake wasn't proteins(milks, cheeses, meats) or fats(oils, etc...) but the wheat and grain consumption has gone up. Hold on a second. Wasn't this the same guy that was telling me that we need to have 55-65% of our daily calories from carbohydrates! Does this not make a counter argument for itself. If we need to consume less protein because we are not needing as much but we need more carbs(in the form of wheat and grains) and the obesity level is going up, couldn't this be the issue at hand? Just a thought.

Thanks again M11. I tried giving you reps but I have to spread my love elsewhere.

Ya no sweat.

Relating obesity rate to the use of HFCS is just correlative. However, it gets us going in the right direction.

More so, I think HFCS can stand in place for a nice symbol to describe the nature of Western food. The beef we eat today is not the same as the beef we ate 150 years ago. Same thing goes for poultry, fish, vegetables, and grains. Production methods are radically different than they were in the past. For example, regarding the nature of the meat that we typically find all over grocery stores: the animals are usually very sick before we slaughter them -- they aren't fed an appropriate diet and they are pumped with drugs. The food we eat 'today' is not identical to the food of 'yesterday'.

Countries that rely (relied) on local farming do not (did not) have the issues with chronic disease that Americans have currently. Unfortunately, our Western food production methods are spreading across the globe and so is the chronic disease.

As individuals who carefully monitor our diet etc, we can get away with it. However, individuals who habitually overeat crap food end up suffering consequences far more severe than had they been overeating on the food that was produced before the heavy industrialization/commercialization of food.

a note: calories in vs calories out etc...but there is very strong evidence (Muscle, Smoke, and Mirrors Vol 1 is a great read for anyone who trains) to suggest that the garbage being put into today's food has a profound negative affect on a variety of metabolic processes.


But yea, that doctor is sounding pretty hypocritical.

You can say 50 years ago. HFCS has not been around that long at I think people use it as a correlation(like you said) to the raising rates of obesity.

I do not even eat corn on the cob anymore because of how much I hate HFCS. This is a personal standpoint though.

The one that struck me the hardest is farm raised salmon. Why the fuck are we feeding corn to salmon? To fatten it up for sales! Cows usually have large ulcers and will be dead not long after they are slaughtered. This is probably for another thread though.

Thanks M11,
Glad to know others hold similar values.
kris

Originally Posted by suprfast

Cows usually have large ulcers and will be dead not long after they are slaughtered.

haha i'll go as far as saying they'll be dead as soon as they are slaughtered

Originally Posted by m11

haha i'll go as far as saying they'll be dead as soon as they are slaughtered

errr, I guess I could have rephrased that to make sense

Originally Posted by suprfast

He actually said that red meat gets a bad rap and it is just as lean after cooking as chicken.

I will be doing research because I feel there is more to this story

dont know about you guys but my body responds better to lean beef ....compared to chicken or fish.....for adding muscle that is.