the protein myth

[Beef]

.

[Beef]

found an interesting article on protein. it think it raises some interesting points

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/hu ... wders.html

[rose]

it raises some interesting points

Such as? Not much of a discussion starter if you don't elucidate? You go first \:D/

[Beef]

"Our entire society is on a protein binge, brainwashed with misinformation that we have been hearing since childhood. The educational materials used in most schools have been provided free by the meat, dairy, and egg industries for more than seventy years. These industries have successfully lobbied the government, resulting in favorable laws, subsidies, and advertising propaganda that promote corporate profits at the expense of national health."

"The increased need of protein is proportional to the increased need for calories burned with the exercise. As your appetite increases, you increase your caloric intake accordingly, and your protein intake increases proportionally. If you meet those increased caloric demands from heavy exercise with an ordinary assortment"

not saying i agree, just think its an interesting opinion

[Sakura]

. The educational materials used in most schools have been provided free by the meat, dairy, and egg industries for more than seventy years. These industries have successfully lobbied the government, resulting in favorable laws, subsidies, and advertising propaganda that promote corporate profits at the expense of national health."

Yup, it's the same with other industries as well. Who promoted the "6 serves of bread and cereals a day"? Um, the bread industry! They're hardly gonna say "just one piece of bread is fine". And the "Rinse and Repeat" on your shampoo bottle? They just want you to use more.

These guys want to make money, plain and simple. They'll say whatever they have to to get it.

And as for research, most of it is funded by companies with a vested interest in the outcome. Facts are found to fit peoples theories or agendas.

[ThePman]

And as for research, most of it is funded by companies with a vested interest in the outcome. Facts are found to fit peoples theories or agendas.

The latter statement, sure. The former? Not so much.

The good thing about published research is that it's transparent. Funding source aside, bad methodology and bad conclusions are pretty obvious.

[Beef]

here's a good article that uses evidence to back up its argument

What if you're trying to build more muscle? Shouldn't you eat even more protein? Not necessarily. There's been evidence that bodybuilders, much like exercisers or athletes, do require more protein but that any more than double the RDA won't necessarily help you build more muscle. In one study, experts studied three groups of weight lifters: A low protein group (0.86 g/kg), a moderate protein group (1.40 g/kg) and a high protein group (2.40 g/kg) and found that, "There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass."

try telling that to the meat/dairy/supplement industry :pfft:

[ThePman]

There's a good reason I rarely take other people's opinions on research at face value. If you give me a citation for that paper, I can have a look at it and I guarantee I'll find some confounds.

[Beef]

There's a good reason I rarely take other people's opinions on research at face value. If you give me a citation for that paper, I can have a look at it and I guarantee I'll find some confounds.

yeah , i agree with you. it's pretty hard to find "unbiased" research, if there is such a thing. it's a study done at McMaster University in Canada

http://exercise.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1 ... d_RVDocSum

[Luigi]

[ThePman]

There's a good reason I rarely take other people's opinions on research at face value. If you give me a citation for that paper, I can have a look at it and I guarantee I'll find some confounds.

yeah , i agree with you. it's pretty hard to find "unbiased" research, if there is such a thing. it's a study done at McMaster University in Canada

http://exercise.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1 ... d_RVDocSum

No I don't think you get me. Most of what you read online is where somebody else takes a research paper and then reports what it says. That's a secondary source.

If you want to know what research is really saying, you need primary sources - which will be peer-reviewed journal articles (from reputable journals, Med Hypotheses doesn't count). Pubmed indexes all of those, though you'll need a database account to get the full texts of most.

I don't tend to trust what most people say about research, because in my experience they don't have the actual paper and they don't tend to think past the reported conclusions in the abstract.

Ninety-nine percent of the time you see a mass-media article reporting something like "New paper suggests that ", the study didn't say any such thing. Or it did, and it's being taken entirely out of context.

The only thing to trust is the original research. The reporting of the research might as well be as made-up as anything else (unless it's from somebody I trust) as far as I'm concerned.

[seascott]

Interesting topic.

Some good points as regards to marketing from product companies wanting to make crap loads of revenue.

If it were the case with the protein amounts eaten you would think that everyone doing increased activity in any form would be increasing lean mass to their frame.

For me its all about the diet.

Pman has the right attitude about documentation and its authenticity.

I have seen in Muscle & Fitness that at the end of some of the articles it gives ref to where and who the study was done by.

Maybe only prob there is new studies come out every few years that contadict what the last one said!!!!

[Beef]

I have seen in Muscle & Fitness that at the end of some of the articles it gives ref to where and who the study was done by.

the problem with these "studies" is that the supplement/meat/dairy industries probably fund a lot of them.

[seascott]

yeah probably, i wonder if they are allowed to influence the outcome of the study?? I suppose any thing is possable these days and that you have to choose which information you want to run with.

Confusing or what????

I have seen in Muscle & Fitness that at the end of some of the articles it gives ref to where and who the study was done by.

the problem with these "studies" is that the supplement/meat/dairy industries probably fund a lot of them.

[ThePman]

I have seen in Muscle & Fitness that at the end of some of the articles it gives ref to where and who the study was done by.

the problem with these "studies" is that the supplement/meat/dairy industries

probably fund a lot of them.

Naw, that's really not an issue at all. If you read the paper and there's bias or poor methods or anything else, it'll show up. Peer review is pretty good at sifting that kind of thing out.

The problem isn't the research. The problem is people reporting the research, when they really have no idea what it says.