This shit will not die. Protein "may" be bad. And not a single concrete reference to anything but speculation. In the meantime, Type II continues to explode.
Starting Strength Coach
NYT Article in protein requirements
Rip, have you seen this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/we...rds=AudDevGate
TMPHBITEU
This shit will not die. Protein "may" be bad. And not a single concrete reference to anything but speculation. In the meantime, Type II continues to explode.
Member
Alright, let's see. I have my handy checklist of "misconceptions that detrained novices and novices who have only just started lifting weights will have about protein" at the ready.
No more than 40g of protein consumed by the body (or some other arbitrary amount), check.
Protein bad for the kidneys, check.
Protein causes cancer, probably because "meat is carcinogenic" or whatever, check.
Following FDA guidelines as gospel or at all (56g of protein a day haha), check.
Supplements is big money so go for vaygan alternatives instead, check. More of an implied one, this one.
Ex science member telling you gainzzz are bad, probably has none, himself, check. Jim White actually has a cancerous website that sells functional fitness to "the willing". How ironic.
Gotta drop in diabetes or some scary shit like that, yup, check. How else did you want to scare "the willing" into listening to what you have to say?
One study linked that nobody's seen before or has cared to remember, check.
Arsenic, mercury, lead, iron, steel, gold, silver; it's all in what you're eating, people. Check.
Finally, a sound but altogether simplistic conclusion that supplements are only supplements, check.
Some journalistic concerns. The use of weasel words is not entirely unexpected, but still disgusting. I hope their readership knows better than to just believe them for their word when they say "doctors say!", but this is exercise and nutrition we're talking about, so they're probably holding onto their own preconceived conclusions. The end conclusion, which is horribly rushed, would seem to at least be the beginning of something positive; none of us would disagree that supplements are, indeed, supplements. But the way it's presented almost makes it seem ironic, as though the author or editor believed the recommendation of eating food, mostly, and consuming supplements as an aid was somehow contradictory or absurd. Something about the word "but" used as a linking adverbial of contrast with the meaning of "however" just rubs me the wrong way. But what? In contrast to what/whom? Nobody and nothing. It's more of an ad for Jim White and Whole Foods than a nuanced conclusion to a train of thought with a dismissal of supplements entirely now that I think about it. Vaygan alternatives, anyone?
Then there's the end note below the article that reveals to us how the original title was "Is Protein a Magic Bullet?", a title that reeks of desperation and the digital age's influence of clickbait titles and slideshows. Not only will it make people want to read because of its clickbait qualities (I dunno, is it X?), but it also invites readers to condemn yet another macronutrient baselessly as the term "magic bullet" is only used in discussions of whether or not JFK was murdered by the government. In reality what that headline says is "is protein going to fuck you up and make your head essplode like it did the most beloved POTUS of the second half of the 20th century?", a question to which the article responds with a solemn "probably". And that's probably the worst thing about this article; it's actively trying to again push the narrative of "one of these macronutrients has to be the reason people are dying in droves". But I think that's clear to everyone here, so I won't comment on that.
You'd think journalists would know better after how their coverage and partisanship during this past American election turned out. Then again, people who are capable of learning at all wouldn't make such yuge mistakes as these kinds of mistakes have been made before (there's a quote by Napoleon in there somewhere). On the bright side, I can add yet another poorly written POS article/essay/blog post/"""study""" to my list of "reasons why you shouldn't be a detrained novice in reading form" which I keep in reserve for my friends who scoff when I say ex science is clueless. No luck with that last part yet; they keep dismissing case after case after case with "but that's just an anecdote; that's just one example". Oh well, have to keep collecting. Thanks, NYT.
Member
So pathetic. If a grown ass man eats 200g of protein every day, that totals 800 calories. Assuming an active man who wants to take in 2400 calories (I know, I know) that leaves him with 1600 caloires to divde among carbs and fats. What the fuck does these people think we should be eating? Dont they know "the long term consequences" of high carbs? Oh yeah - beetus.
So stupid. Lord Trump will right it all.
✓ Member
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”
-George Orwell
Member
"No one can tell you the long-term effects, and that’s what worries me as a physician. No one can tell you what the results are going to be in people’s bodies 10 or 15 years later."
Well, if the long-time trainees at my gym are any indication, the long term effects are that you get strong as fuck and pretty damn muscular.
TMPHBITEU
This is because the Doctor thinks that nobody started taking supplemental protein until just a couple of years ago. So there's just no data. And if there's no data, you can't recommend it. Because you might get sued.
Starting Strength Coach
What percentage of frail, deconditioned, and unable to live independently patients I see got that way because of supplemental protein?Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
TMPHBITEU
That's kind of an important question.
Member
Wild guess here, but I believe it's way less than those who got that way because of "low fat diet is better for your heart".
Posting Permissions