Jump to content

How many grams of protein intake recommended


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Out of curiosity, as I haven't heard this discussed elsewhere - Do rawfoodists believe that if they had exactly the same diet, but just cooked, they would lose the benefits?

 

I'm sure they do Richard. I said this on another thread, but I'll ask it again because we have alot of good researchers here (beforewisdom, DV, etc...). I read an article awhile back that compared certain foods when you eat them raw, cooked, canned, frozen, etc and it compared their nutritional content. What they found was that SOME foods had more nutrients consumed raw, SOME had more nutrients frozen and SOME (believe it or not) had more nutrients even canned. I thought it was really interesting, and that is what makes the most sense to me. Is that there are probably foods that provide the most nutrients raw and some that provide more bioavailability when cooked, frozen or canned. I'd love to see more articles about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of curiosity, as I haven't heard this discussed elsewhere - Do rawfoodists believe that if they had exactly the same diet, but just cooked, they would lose the benefits?

 

I'm sure they do Richard. I said this on another thread, but I'll ask it again because we have alot of good researchers here (beforewisdom, DV, etc...). I read an article awhile back that compared certain foods when you eat them raw, cooked, canned, frozen, etc and it compared their nutritional content. What they found was that SOME foods had more nutrients consumed raw, SOME had more nutrients frozen and SOME (believe it or not) had more nutrients even canned. I thought it was really interesting, and that is what makes the most sense to me. Is that there are probably foods that provide the most nutrients raw and some that provide more bioavailability when cooked, frozen or canned. I'd love to see more articles about this.

 

 

Yeah but no raw foodist is going to care. Doesn't fit into their dogma, so they will dismiss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Good1Use.gif.2f20f64e0e00a93b29c0932d27aef7aa.gif

Protein is nonsense. I eat ONLY 5-7% of total calories as protein; ALL I eat is raw fruit and green leafy veggies. I lift twice a week for 30 minutes and do no other exercise. As you can see in the photo, I'm as muscular as half the guys in here who lift hours and hours a week and eat protein like candy. Protein is linked to many long term health problems like arthritis and cancer. If your eating enough calories of just about anything (short of soda pop), your getting all the protein you need. Most doctors never see a case of protein deficiency in their entire careers-even in the third world simply increasing starving peoples calories to adequate levels will eliminate any protein deficiency. Anyone can look healthy in their 20s; come back and see how these youngsters are doin when their 50 like me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Protein is nonsense. I eat ONLY 5-7% of total calories as protein; ALL I eat is raw fruit and green leafy veggies. I lift twice a week for 30 minutes and do no other exercise. As you can see in the photo, I'm as muscular as half the guys in here who lift hours and hours a week and eat protein like candy.

No offense intended, because this certainly isn't a bad thing, but you look like a runner, not a lifter. I don't think anyone here doubts you can have a runner's physique on a low-protein diet, but you're not providing evidence that someone can get big or bodybuild that way.

 

Protein is linked to many long term health problems like arthritis and cancer.

A quick google shows no link between dietary protein and arthritis. Some articles about RAGE inflammation and soy protein relieving symptoms, but that's all. As to protein and cancer, all I can find is the Washington U study from 2006, which is flawed on its face. They didn't control for caloric intake, protein source, or GI, all of which are significant when looking at IGF. If you have other studies I should look at, please share.

 

If your eating enough calories of just about anything (short of soda pop), your getting all the protein you need. Most doctors never see a case of protein deficiency in their entire careers-even in the third world simply increasing starving peoples calories to adequate levels will eliminate any protein deficiency.

This isn't just about deficiency, though. The OP specifically said he's a lifter. He just wants to know how to get 100 g of protein on a vegan diet, not how much is necessary to stave off deficiency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I'm not huge. Obviously not a priority since I lift only an hour a week. I was at our community swimming pool yesterday with about 350 people. Out of that group, I'd say not one person had my combination of muscle and leaness. For many of us who do not want to be competition level body builders excellent strength and fitness is enough. I also have no interest in compromising my health (consuming protein or other supplements), which I assure you, becomes increasingly precious as you age.

 

The average size of the five most recent men's world record marathoners was 127 lbs: I'm more than 30% heavier than a world class runner. Pro distance runners shoot for BMI of about 18.5; I'm 22; a full 20 lbs heavier than a pro runner my height. That's a lot of extra muscle on versus a 144 pounder.

 

Leading Health Organizations advising no more than 10% protein:

World Health Organization "Diet,Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases..." Report No. 912 section 5.1

US National Academies Institute of Medicine "Report offers New Eating..." press release dated Sept 5, 2002

National Research Council "Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition"

Dr Colin Campbell "The China Study" "About 9-10% protein has been recommended for the past fifty years to be assured that most people get at least get their 5-6% requirement."

Institute of Medicine Food and Nutrition Board "There is little evidence that muscular activity increases the need for protein, except for the small amount required for the development of muscles during physical conditioning."

The Physicians Comm for Responsible Medicine also has numerous articles about the health riskd of excess protein consumption. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 

Protein content of: spinach 30%, asparagus 27%, lettuce 22%....whole milk 23%.

 

See The China Study for the effects of high protein diets causing acidification of the body leaching calcium from the bones leading to osteoporosis. Also The China Study for the strong link between protein consumption and cancer. There are additional reports of proteins' link with arthritis, autoimmune dysfunction, impaired liver function, and kidney failure.

 

Look at veggiePrincess: as beautiful as she is, I bet her BMI is below mine and I believe she's a pretty big protein advocate who also exercises far more than me-not to mention being probably half my age.

 

There are real health risks associated with high protein consumption and the benefits are spotty at best. Why risk your health when you can be otherwise very strong and vigorous?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at veggiePrincess: as beautiful as she is, I bet her BMI is below mine and I believe she's a pretty big protein advocate who also exercises far more than me-not to mention being probably half my age.

 

She's also a woman with a testosterone level significantly lower than yours. Pretty normal for her BMI to be less than yours. Although, if you keep up the raw food fruit and veg only diet for a few more years, you may well have her beat.

 

There are real health risks associated with high protein consumption and the benefits are spotty at best. Why risk your health when you can be otherwise very strong and vigorous?

 

You've not convinced me of this yet, given the fact that your only source is The China Study.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no separate BMI charts for men and women which means we should weigh the same for a given height-though a women would have a slightly higher fat percentage. And my strength and endurance have significantly increased since going raw. I'm 7 lbs heavier now than last year and lifting quite a bit more than when I was plain vegan. Of course the huge improvement in my joints (after going raw), which allows me to always lift heavy, probably has a lot to do with it. My sex drive is always good and strong (probably better than when I was a teenager), so I think my testosterone is just fine.

 

It's pretty easy to monitor the effects for high protein consumption: just observe your urine. Healthy urine should be almost clear indicating few waste products being processed and removed by the body. Its ph should be above 7 (practically matching healthy blood 7.3-7.5) indicating that excess acid forming minerals(like sulphur often bound into proteinaceous molecules) are not being buffered by leaching calcium from the bones-and leaving residue that accumulates over time in joint and muscle tissue, and over loading the kidneys and liver.

 

I think if you read through the Arthritis section of The Physicians Comm for Responsible Medicine you'll see a fair amount on the protein/acidification/bone loss issue. And if you actually read The China Study, you'll see its conclusions are based on dozens of studies done over decades in many different countries. It also cites dozens of studies that link protein to cancer.

 

Protein loading is probably a lot like taking steroids: a short term muscle enhancer (though far less effective) with potentially dire long term consequences.

 

I've been weight lifting for 38 years-off and on. I'm curious if anyone else in here, whose been lifting as long as me, still has nearly flawless joints that never impede my lifting-I've never taken protein supplements. Have any lifters in here been eating lots of protein (as in powders and such) for 30 plus years and still have good joints head to toe? All the guys I know who are my age and still lift baby at least one joint-back, elbow, knee, or something.

Edited by RawVgn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you only think raw veganism needs to be backed up with research. I geuss if something is popular, its fine to accept it at face value. Hmmm, logical fallacies 101- argumentum ad populem...sigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree I'm not huge. Obviously not a priority since I lift only an hour a week. I was at our community swimming pool yesterday with about 350 people. Out of that group, I'd say not one person had my combination of muscle and leaness. For many of us who do not want to be competition level body builders excellent strength and fitness is enough.

And that's fine, but your goals are different from the OP's.

 

Leading Health Organizations advising no more than 10% protein:

World Health Organization "Diet,Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases..." Report No. 912 section 5.1

This actually advises between 10-15%, not 10% and lower. But more importantly, if you read the whole report, there are no indications that a higher level of vegetable protein is harmful. The only mention in the report of protein increasing risk for any disease is with regards to osteoporosis, and it specifies animal protein:

"To date, the accumulated data indicate that the adverse effect of protein, in particular animal (but not vegetable) protein, might outweigh the positive effect of calcium intake on calcium balance."

If you read the section on cancer, which you specifically mentioned as a risk, you'll see no mention of protein at all.

 

US National Academies Institute of Medicine "Report offers New Eating..." press release dated Sept 5, 2002

The press release actually recommends between 10% and 35% protein. And if you read the study the press release is about, "DRI for Macronutrients," you'll see those numbers are the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range, the ideal range to minimize chronic disease. The report doesn't even set any tolerable upper intake levels.

 

National Research Council "Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition"

The RDA is more concerned with minimum required intake. They recommend 0.8g/kg based on digestibility of reference proteins. Digestibility of vegan protein sources averages about 90% of reference, sometimes significantly lower (beans are 82%, greens are 86%). They also state that there is no evidence that increase protein intake leads to renal problems. They mention that it has been "suggested" that habitual high protein intake might contribute to osteoporosis, but it has "not [been] demonstrated" and "seems unlikely based on present evidence." In the end, they believe it's prudent to set an upper bound of twice the RDA, which is 1.6g/kg at 100% digestibility, and is significantly higher than 10% of energy intake.

 

Dr Colin Campbell "The China Study" "About 9-10% protein has been recommended for the past fifty years to be assured that most people get at least get their 5-6% requirement."

The China Study is still as flawed as it was when first published. 65 observations and hundreds of variables. It's statistically useless. And it focuses more on meat than on protein. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml

 

Institute of Medicine Food and Nutrition Board "There is little evidence that muscular activity increases the need for protein, except for the small amount required for the development of muscles during physical conditioning."

That may indeed be true. I honestly don't know. But it also doesn't say anything about increased levels being harmful.

 

The Physicians Comm for Responsible Medicine also has numerous articles about the health riskd of excess protein consumption. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

You haven't made a point. Your sources boil down to papers that contradict your 10% figure, make no mention of increased protein intake contributing to health risks, or are statistically invalid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm between 115-120 lbs

 

I was recommended by my trainer if I want to cut and gain muscle.

That I should be taking at least 120 grms of protein per day.

 

And it's possible on a vegan diet.

Or for that matter for myself, on a raw vegan diet

 

It's if you're wanting to take that step in organizing food and your training schedule around your busy life.

And you can drive yourself to reach your life goals. Never say can't, because it's reaches failure.

Just from my mind point of view, you can do it !

Link to post
Share on other sites

<--- raw foodist

 

1.0 gms per lb of bw while cleansing

1.5 gms per lb of bw while maintaining

2.0 gms per lb of bw while BUILDING

 

a body'builder', builds. I am not going into just how much this whole thread saddened me to read nor am i saying one is right or the other is wrong. What I will say is that the consensus of folks here want to 'build' and that to me is about adding more than a minimal amt of protein to your diet. I have taken very low amts of protein in and I do not get the same results. It doesn't make sense for a bodybuilder, well at least for this bodybuilder

 

Anyhow, to not get tied up into all this craziness, this is my supplementation:

 

When i'm building as much as possible: (my bodyweight 185-190lbs)

 

350grams spirulina = 231 grams of protein

150grams sunwarrior = 137 grams of protein

8-16 cups of sprouts (bean and grain) = ? alot

 

You don't need to take in that much but I strive to. I can't always afford to in regards to both money and time but it is optimal for me. Even if you get 1.0 gm per lb of bw, if you train hard, you'll build lots of quality muslce

 

@ Washer; thanks for chiming in my Raw Food Friend!

Link to post
Share on other sites
<--- raw foodist

@ Washer; thanks for chiming in my Raw Food Friend!

 

<--------- BRFFL = Best Raw Foodies For Life.

I love you Lean and Green and I terribly miss our meal and preparations together !

I'll never forget all you did for me.

All our memories together are staying here in my heart <3 xoxo

 

I sense a Durian fest Celebration next time we saw one another. For my goals to compete on stage and

your accomplishments. I wish more then anything to be there by your side in Arizona.

Next time Buddy with Durian goodness.

 

 

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v260/68/121/800195712/n800195712_3586616_2527.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
<--- raw foodist

 

 

 

http://www.youthing.com/survival.jpg

http://www.youthing.com/images/loveyourbody.jpg

http://www.youthing.com/images/loversdiet.jpg

 

http://www.livefoodsunchild.com/images/archives/photo_gallery/kulvinskas.jpg

http://b2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00874/25/38/874398352_l.gif

 

No Doctors no herbs, no therapy, no broken bones, built like steal.

 

 

Curious LG is Viktoras on your wallpaper or is the Washer still ? lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's fine, but your goals are different from the OP's.

 

Hmm, The website says "...Bodybuilding and Fitness." To me, fitness suggests not doing things like consuming excessive protein which are known from the theory and experience to create health problems like arthritis, osteoporosis, and kidney and liver problems.

and it specifies animal protein:{/quote]

 

Proteins are made of the same building blocks, regardless of animal or plant source; in fact, animals do not create protein. Any amino acids in an animal came from a plant. Its curious how you found it necessary to insert the "but not animal." As I said, the report advised 10% overall protein, in spite of massive pressure from dairy and meat industry lobbyists who spend 100s of millions of dollars a year defending their trillion dollar plus industry. The real figures are believed by many researchers to be below 10%.

If you read the section on cancer, which you specifically mentioned as a risk, you'll see no mention of protein at all.

 

If you read the China Study. the largest nutritional epidemiological study ever conducted (funded for more than 20 years by the National Institute of Health and the Chinese government, you will see that it contains nearly a thousand references. Most of them are primary research published in peer reviewed journals, and many of them (over 30) deal with the well known link between protein consumption and cancer;this extensive body of published research has been ongoing for more than 2 decades (there are of course very powerful agrobusiness interests who do not want it known.)

 

The press release actually recommends between 10% and 35% protein.

 

Right, 10% like I said. And any vegan knows how upwardly politicized these figures are. So if they say 10% that includes margin of error so the actual number is 10% or less.

 

significantly higher than 10% of energy intake.

 

Protein is not normally taken as energy. Only if insufficient carbs and fats are consumed is protein converted to carbs for burning. Protein's purpose is to build and replace damaged tissue; a very, very small requirement when compared to energy needs. In fact, digesting protein into carbs for energy is a net energy loss which is why Atkins Diets work and high protein diets cause fatigue.

 

The RDA is more concerned with minimum required intake

 

Assuming that more is better, particularly considering the large body of evidence to the contrary, is very dangerous. More is not better when it comes to protein.

 

The China Study is still as flawed as it was when first published

 

You obviously have never read one word of the China Study; it was conducted over decades involving thousands of people and millions of data points. It is the largest nutritional epidemiological study ever done. And it was funded by the NIH because they understood just how unique the opportunity was. Instead of reading some blurb on a website, you should take an evening or two, and actually read it. It's an extremely influential vegan health book, and no vegan should not have read it.

 

People who consume large amounts of protein, in order to MAYBE gain some additional mass (expert bodybuilders like Dr Ellington Darden-exercise physiology- state protein loading is useless), are gambling with their health.

Edited by RawVgn
Link to post
Share on other sites
Any extreme outlook must be considered with skepticism until valid proof is presented. Otherwise we would all be running around believing in tarot cards, astrology, and big foot...

 

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populem. Judging the value of an argument by its popularity is not wise. If we did it consistently, women wouldn't be able to vote, children would be working 60 hour work weeks, blacks would be slaves, and the sun would orbit the earth: ALL prevailing widespread beliefs in their time which small groups of radicals eventually undermined creating greater joy and well being for millions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They lived well into their 90z!!!!

 

I love you Washer; please come back eventually. I miss you terribly; it makes me so sad sometimes but i know you're doing well and that makes me happy

 

 

<--- raw foodist

 

 

 

http://www.youthing.com/survival.jpg

http://www.youthing.com/images/loveyourbody.jpg

http://www.youthing.com/images/loversdiet.jpg

 

http://www.livefoodsunchild.com/images/archives/photo_gallery/kulvinskas.jpg

http://b2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00874/25/38/874398352_l.gif

 

No Doctors no herbs, no therapy, no broken bones, built like steal.

 

 

Curious LG is Viktoras on your wallpaper or is the Washer still ? lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's fine, but your goals are different from the OP's.

Hmm, The website says "...Bodybuilding and Fitness." To me, fitness suggests not doing things like consuming excessive protein which are known from the theory and experience to create health problems like arthritis, osteoporosis, and kidney and liver problems.

And there are other areas in the forum in which to discuss those theories.
and it specifies animal protein:

Proteins are made of the same building blocks, regardless of animal or plant source; in fact, animals do not create protein. Any amino acids in an animal came from a plant.

You don't have a point. Proteins are made of the same building blocks, but so what? That doesn't mean all they behave the same way, nor that they're treated the same way in the body. There's so much wrong with that implication that I don't even know where to start.
Its curious how you found it necessary to insert the "but not animal." As I said, the report advised 10% overall protein, in spite of massive pressure from dairy and meat industry lobbyists who spend 100s of millions of dollars a year defending their trillion dollar plus industry. The real figures are believed by many researchers to be below 10%.
I didn't insert the "but not animal." That was in the report. Bottom line is that the report recommends 10-15% and gives no indication that intake over that level is dangerous. If you don't like the report or think it's biased, then don't use it to support your arguments. And if the "real figures" trusted by "many researchers" are below 10%, then give sources from those researchers showing those numbers. I don't know why you'd use a source you don't trust.
If you read the section on cancer' date=' which you specifically mentioned as a risk, you'll see no mention of protein at all. [/quote']{snip China Study}
So you agree that the WHO report shows no link between protein and cancer. Your only source for that claim remains the China Study.
The press release actually recommends between 10% and 35% protein.
Right, 10% like I said. And any vegan knows how upwardly politicized these figures are. So if they say 10% that includes margin of error so the actual number is 10% or less.
No, not "10% like [you] said." You said "no more than 10%." Last I checked, 35% was more than 10%. If that and "politiciz[ation]" are your only complaints about my rebuttal, I assume you'll be withdrawing this source as well.
significantly higher than 10% of energy intake.
Protein is not normally taken as energy. Only if insufficient carbs and fats are consumed is protein converted to carbs for burning. Protein's purpose is to build and replace damaged tissue; a very, very small requirement when compared to energy needs. In fact, digesting protein into carbs for energy is a net energy loss which is why Atkins Diets work and high protein diets cause fatigue.
It's not like excess protein simply disappears. Excess aminos are deaminated in the liver and either used immediately or converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis, then stored as glycogen or fat. Either way, it's stored as energy and counts as part of your energy intake. Also, digesting protein into carbs is not a "net energy loss." The suggestion is absurd. Gluconeogenesis, glycogenesis, and fatty acid synthesis are efficient processes. If they weren't, your body wouldn't use them. The caloric content of protein at about 4kcal/g is well-known and takes into account the mechanisms required to convert it into usable energy. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18523160. Deamination is already accounted for.
The RDA is more concerned with minimum required intake

Assuming that more is better, particularly considering the large body of evidence to the contrary, is very dangerous. More is not better when it comes to protein.

I'm saying you shouldn't assume anything either way. And despite your repeated claims, you haven't actually provided any evidence.
The China Study is still as flawed as it was when first published

You obviously have never read one word of the China Study; it was conducted over decades involving thousands of people and millions of data points. It is the largest nutritional epidemiological study ever done. And it was funded by the NIH because they understood just how unique the opportunity was. Instead of reading some blurb on a website, you should take an evening or two, and actually read it. It's an extremely influential vegan health book, and no vegan should not have read it.

I've read it, but I'm not going to reacquire a copy and find specific passages just for this thread. It's easier just to Google. Anyway, I think you missed the point regarding the statistics. More data points don't matter unless they're differentiable. Once you reach a statistically significant number of data points that are going to coalesce into a single set upon aggregation, it doesn't matter if you add more data points to that set. They're indistinguishable. You'll get as much value by simply copying and pasting the data over and over to artificially increase the sample. Additional data points only matter if they differentiate. Regardless of how long it took to collect the data or how many people were involved, the China Study boils down to the equivalent of 65 observations across the hundreds of variables they were studying. That's a Bad Thing. It's scientifically and statistically compromising.

And again, it's very specific to certain proteins. Casein, for instance. Within the book, Campbell even admits that he generalizes from casein to all animal proteins (and animal foods in general) in his early studies. And he himself notes that other proteins (soy and wheat) are "safe proteins." Those are his own words. Or do you prefer the Morrison study that he misrepresents? And as for the China Study itself, even if we ignore the statistical shortcomings, the data itself doesn't match his claims. None of the protein consumption numbers had a statistically significant relationship to cancer or heart disease mortality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1-2g per lb.

 

I take in 200-250g ED of protein along with tons of food and LOTS of water.

(at 185-190lbs and growing, 5'7", low bf% "13%ish" )

 

I see alot preach "your crazy you don't need that, you only need 50-70g" well i have yet to meet or see a pic of one of these peeps that ACUALLY look like a bodybuilder, and most of the time they dont even look like they eat at all.

 

so i stand by what iv seen for others and know for my self.

if you take less then 1-2 (opt 1.5g) of protein per lb. your short changing your self in gains.

 

I mean a few protein shakes and a few penutbutter sandwiches ED, you can get it in. but dont forget your good fats and veggies/carbs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

People who consume large amounts of protein, in order to MAYBE gain some additional mass (expert bodybuilders like Dr Ellington Darden-exercise physiology- state protein loading is useless), are gambling with their health.

 

One expert does not scientific fact make. Anyone can quote one source out of many that cites their own agenda, but that doesn't necessarily make it universal truth

 

People can live long and healthy lives on high protein diets, people can get terribly ill and die early on said diets. People can live long and healthy lives on low protein diets, people can get terribly ill and die early on said diets. Same goes for just about anything - vegan, omni, raw, macrobiotic, high-carb, low carb...it goes on and on. There's no perfect diet, nutrient ratios, etc. that guarantee anything to anyone. Protein in high levels MAY not be good for some sedentary people. However, studies based on non-athletes do not have the same carryover to athletes, so citing references for general population and using them in comparison to someone who might be weight training 5x/week is invalid. I don't know why so many vegans still feel the need to bash all protein as if it's equal whether it be from plant or animal sources (perhaps the notion that we need to think of it as if it were always connected to meat, perhaps?), but I feel it's high time we get beyond the old notions that have never been proven and accept that you CAN consume a high protein diet and it isn't necessarily going to be the end of you. Just like there are plenty of "studies" to say that we don't need much protein, you can find "respected experts" who will also tell you that a vegan diet will mean you're not likely to live a dozen years after going meat and dairy-free.

 

You're gambling with your health by living in an urban area in numerous ways. You're gambling by driving a car or riding a bicycle. You're gambling by getting out of bed in the morning. Everything is a risk, so let's not blow things out of proportion when there's not even a considerable amount of scientific concensus that would point to high protein for athletes being detrimental to health. It doesn't further the movement, rather, makes us look like we're living in a bubble, only listening to experts who are already siding with the veagn agenda (such as, being parts of vegan-related organizations, those who have products to sell relating to their theories, etc.) vs. those who do not have a vested interest. Not that there's anything wrong with these people, however, when you ONLY choose to cite them, it kind of reduces the credibility of the argument.

 

So, to summarize...

 

Athelte - can eat more protein with less risk of any health issues

Sedentary non-athlete - no need to consume massive quantities of protein

 

Doesn't get much simpler than that

 

As final food for thought -

 

Some people claim that a macrobiotic diet can reverse many diseases such as cancer (and many people have overcome serious illness after adopting such a diet). However, both Michio Kushi (one of the main faces of modern macrobiotics) and his wife (who is now deceased) both have had cancer. The Kushi's daughter also passed away from cancer. Does this mean that the diet won't work? Maybe for some people it will, for others it might not. While one person may stave off illness because it's what their body needs to be healthy will benefit from it, someone else may not find any advantage to it. THIS is why I ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS preach the rule of individual differences, and can't stand it when someone will paint a specific diet or something similar in a light where it's claimed to be "best for everyone", because such claims are a prue crock of...well...I don't think I need to put that last word in, do I?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan, your posts are always so thorough and well thought out.

 

A high protein vegan diet has worked for me, continues to work for me, allows me to feel great, perform well in the gym, and sculpt my body towards what I want it to look like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...