Veggies may not be that good for you

[FireDragon76]

In the Sydney Diet-Heart Study....The group consuming more vegetable oil had a 62% higher rate of death during the seven-year study compared to the group eating less vegetable oil.
Consuming vegetable oil increases your risk of death more than physical inactivity and heavy drinking, and for all the attention that red meat and sodium get, eating vegetable oil is 12 to 20 times more deadly...

That's a correlation, which isn't the same as causation. Obviously, there are many foods that are not so healthy, like ultra-processed foods, that contain alot of vegetable oil. These are also often cheap to manufacture, and consumed in larger quantities by poor people.

The reason there's so much cheap refined grain and seed oil has alot to do with agriculture policies in industrialized nations: favoring cheap grain and grain products to feed to livestock, or to sell as livestock feed.

In another study, the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, participants who increased their consumption of corn oil and margarine had 86% more heart attacks, and for those aged 65 or older, a higher risk of death after four years

Death by Vegetable Oil: What the Studies Say

In a world without vegetable oil, we may be twenty pounds lighter, have half the amount of heart disease and cancer, live longer, think clearer, feel better, and be happier and less depressed.

www.jeffnobbs.com

Of course, margarine production involves hydrogenation of a liquid vegetable oil, which creates a saturated fat, which is known to raise the risk of heart disease.

What makes junk food to be junk food? Seed oils, sugar, preservatives and frying.

That's too reductive. It's actually the processing itself that seems to be the culprit. Corporations design the food to be hyper-palatable and overconsumed (that's how they make more money), and the foods are typically devoid of fiber and micro-nutrients of the original food sources.

All these things are industrial, our ancestors did not do them, so our body cannot process them properly. A higher amount or their combination with each other is more deadly, indeed.

Our ancestors ate alot of different foods and dietary patterns. There was no single ancestral dietary pattern. A particular ancestral diet cannot be considered optimum just because a particular group ate it for a long time. Empirical evidence, especially intervention trials, are the best way to find which foods or dietary patterns are better for promoting health and longevity, followed by careful statistical analysis (in cases where intervention trials are either impossible, or unethical).

Also, what is the oil put on home-made salads or greens? Mostly extra virgin olive oil, which is made by just cold pressing the olives. If used in a rational amount, its like eating a handful of olives. Not too comparable to industrial seed oils which equal to eating thousands of seeds. However, about 50% of olive oil sold as extra virgin is faked. Also, EVOO is not used in sold salads, because its too expensive. And its certainly not used in donuts, only the cheapest junk is used in such products.

Even cheap seed oils are not harmful if they are consumed as a part of a balanced diet. There are no science-based guidelines in the developed world that make foods like donuts a routine part of a healthy diet.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think I said those things in the context you're presenting.

Anyway, that's serious accusation. I would have expected you to report my posts to the mods if you truly believe what you're saying that I'm giving advice that may cause harm to others.



The context of your previous post is that "moving a lot" will also cause harm. But you used the example of mining work which doesn't make sense in our discussion about diet and exercise.

There's a huge difference between physical labor in mining work vs recreational exercise. >40 hrs/week in mining vs my 8 hrs/week exercise. That and the lack of structure in work-related physical labor increase probability of chronic injuries and inflammation.

The "fattest town in Britain" is actually a former coal mining town in Wales.

It's not that different in the US. High rates of obesity are found in areas with a history of extractive industries like mining.

 

[timewerx]

But there is still a lot of various physical labor (in steelworks, ironworks and similar factories), there and people are mostly slim, although not living long lifes because of their terrible diet and bad environment.

I have worked in a factory floor on a standing station two decades ago. A common problem is bad posture. If that's not bad enough, you become numb to the pain of bad posture because of intense focus on the job.

Worse still, we don't get sufficient guidance to avoid injuring ourselves doing physical exertion. It's a factory floor after all, not a gym with a gym coach.

Some had chronic pain. If you have chronic injuries, the body would have compromised healing. And then people working long hours over time. They come home tired, no time and energy to make their own healthy meals so they end up eating fast food or street food junk.

Then there's toxic fumes

That's why I tell you're not making sense using a horrible example to pin the blame on "high volume exercise" on increased mortality.

 

[timewerx]

The "fattest town in Britain" is actually a former coal mining town in Wales.

It's not that different in the US. High rates of obesity are found in areas with a history of extractive industries like mining.

The have become sedentary!

 

[trophy33]

That's a correlation, which isn't the same as causation.

Its based on a single blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled trial.

Obviously, there are many foods that are not so healthy, like ultra-processed foods, that contain alot of vegetable oil. These are also often cheap to manufacture, and consumed in larger quantities by poor people.

The reason there's so much cheap refined grain and seed oil has alot to do with agriculture policies in industrialized nations: favoring cheap grain and grain products to feed to livestock, or to sell as livestock feed.

Of course, margarine production involves hydrogenation of a liquid vegetable oil, which creates a saturated fat, which is known to raise the risk of heart disease.

I agree that vegetable oil is a junk. It actually originated as an industrial waste. But corporations figured out it can be used as a substitution to more expensive fats in sold food.

I do not agree that saturated fat found in our natural food as such is known to raise the risk of heart disease. Its actually just a repeated error:

"The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke."

https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077

That's too reductive. It's actually the processing itself that seems to be the culprit. Corporations design the food to be hyper-palatable and overconsumed (that's how they make more money), and the foods are typically devoid of fiber and micro-nutrients of the original food sources.

I agree that junk food does not have enough of nutrients, thats one problem with it. Another problem with it is sugar, seed oils, frying, preservatives - those harm our bodies, namely mitochondria.

P.S. Many people are better off without fiber, if they eat the right food.

Our ancestors ate alot of different foods and dietary patterns. There was no single ancestral dietary pattern. A particular ancestral diet cannot be considered optimum just because a particular group ate it for a long time.

Actually, not true. During ice ages, there could be some slight differences depending on where one lived, but nobody of them used seed oils, sugars, much fruit (fruit was sour, not like today's bred kinds) or nuts. And vegetables were basically non-existent.

There is a space to discuss if berries are a part of our diet, if dairy is OK or if fish is better than a beef, but we know for sure that they did not eat 99% of what is in a common western supermarket. They would not even consider it food, including most of veggies.

Empirical evidence, especially intervention trials, are the best way to find which foods or dietary patterns are better for promoting health and longevity, followed by careful statistical analysis (in cases where intervention trials are either impossible, or unethical).

I agree, to an extent. Another way to know what is the best food is to look at our past. The ideal diet is a combination of what is body designed to eat and of empirical evidence regarding what can be done better, for example with anti-aging supplements.

For example, its quite clear that an ideal diet for a cow is grass, because thats what cows are designed to eat. We can empirically examine what kind of grass, but we do not need scientific studies to confirm that their ideal diet is not fish, chocolate, coffee or rice.

Even cheap seed oils are not harmful if they are consumed as a part of a balanced diet.

This does not make much sense to me. Cheap seed oils are not a part of a balanced diet. Depends on what you mean by balanced, though.

There are no science-based guidelines in the developed world that make foods like donuts a routine part of a healthy diet.

Thats great. But some countries, like USA, created misleading food pyramids with pastries/cereals to be fundamental for healthy diet. Its wrong as it is, but on the top of that, its hard for many common people to distinguish between various pastries sold in supermarkets, almost all have sugars, seed oils and other junk in it.

 

[trophy33]

That's why I tell you're not making sense using a horrible example to pin the blame on "high volume exercise" on increased mortality.

It seems you simply do not want to understand.

Again and please read carefully - wrong diet is bad. Wrong diet with intensive exercise is bad and the exercise can easily become more harmful than useful.

What people need - great diet. Suitable exercise. Great sleep. Low stress. No alcohol, no smoking. Optimism. Life purpose. Clean environment.

Not just one or two of these, but all of these.

On the top of that we can add modern achievements like preventive care, vaccination, supplements, UV protection... but those are the basics without which the general population will not be healthy.

 

[trophy33]

The "fattest town in Britain" is actually a former coal mining town in Wales.

It's not that different in the US. High rates of obesity are found in areas with a history of extractive industries like mining.

What is bad in the USA is frequently even worse in the UK. UK goes down very quickly in almost any measure of a good life. Also, NHS is quite behind other European countries' health care systems.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have worked in a factory floor on a standing station two decades ago. A common problem is bad posture. If that's not bad enough, you become numb to the pain of bad posture because of intense focus on the job.

Sitting at a desk for hours on end is actually worse for your health. Smarter companies here are starting to pay attention to this, some are moving to standing desks as an option for employees.

If you have a desk job sitting all day, it better pay good because you are going to need it for the gym and physiotherapy as you get older. There's a host of subtle musculo-skeletal problems that can develop as a result of this pattern of work.

Some had chronic pain. If you have chronic injuries, the body would have compromised healing. And then people working long hours over time. They come home tired, no time and energy to make their own healthy meals so they end up eating fast food or street food junk.

The major cause of ill health in industrial and post-industrial areas of the US and Britain seems to be overall poor lifestyles, with food playing only a part. Up until recently, smoking for instance was very common. Now days it's more common to find addiction to junk food. I suspect the level of stress in peoples lives, low bargaining power at work (union membership is way down compared to decades ago), and lack of mental healthcare access plays a role in that. This kind of ill-health tends to go hand in hand with relatively low levels of social participation and high levels of social mistrust, especially in social institutions. Basically, demoralized working class people.

There's some good advice I heard a few years ago, "Love the food that loves you back". Well, if you have no idea what love looks like because you are mentally broken and have a basically fearful and adversarial outlook on life, that's not going to get you far. Lots of people in those situations live lives just going through the motions of old, and often inflexible social scripts and chronically stressed and unhappy.

 

[FireDragon76]

The have become sedentary!

Lack of strenous physical activity might have something to do with it, but it actually looks like a fair number of the folks in that town walk regularly to obtain goods and services (or ride around on personal scooters when their knees give out).

If you notice, chips, fried potatoes, are served with every meal (even with rice). As one comment on Youtube put it, they are still eating like 1960's Britain. Working people back then stayed relatively thinner by smoking like chimneys, not exactly the healthiest way to slim down.

At any rate, you don't have to have strenuous physical labor to stay slim. Obesity is a complex condition that rarely has a single cause, although poor diet seems to play the biggest role.

 

[timewerx]

Low stress. No alcohol, no smoking. Optimism. Life purpose. Clean environment.

Not just one or two of these, but all of these.

On the top of that we can add modern achievements like preventive care, vaccination, supplements, UV protection... but those are the basics without which the general population will not be healthy.

In my situation, you'll have to be insane to have low stress and optimism.

Modern medicine, nope. I only took Covid vaccine because it's free.

Tetanus, flu shots, I don't need. I never had tetanus since birth and haven't had flu for more than 10 years now. Hallelujah for small favors eh?

Supplements I don't like because I read they're hard on the kidneys and I can see how they dramatically make your urine more yellow. But if you have health insurance, why not, right? Take supplements as you please. But as for me, I try to get all nutrients from vegetables, meat, and milk. Sometimes, I eat bones too, chicken bones. Yet, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. I had "better" diet when life used to be better like bigger portion of red meat and often, fish meat (I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that). I even took food supplements, yet I don't remember feeling better physically back then.

UV protection, I don't think I need one. I'm tan in color and UV rays don't seem to affect me. I don't get sunburn, wrinkled skin nor get noticeably tanned on exposed skin while spending 4 hrs under the sun cycling without sunscreen lotion. I get exposure to the sun on a daily basis when I'm working out at the balcony of our apartment because I workout without a shirt on.

I get cut a lot when I'm working with old and dirty computer CPUs. Remember I don't have tetanus shot. Of course, bigger wounds from cycling accidents. Some of these wounds are as deep as the bones but never been infected. I don't take antibiotics because they can be bad for the gut colony and can negatively affect your body's natural immune system.

Seldom needed bandages because even big, deep wounds stops bleeding in seconds and becomes waterproof in minutes. My blood has properties like super glue. It's almost as sticky as super glue if you're trying to get your two fingers stuck together. Haven't tried it on metal yet but I guess it only works on biological tissues.

Don't do as I do - just to make myself clear.

 

[timewerx]

Sitting at a desk for hours on end is actually worse for your health. Smarter companies here are starting to pay attention to this, some are moving to standing desks as an option for employees.

If you have a desk job sitting all day, it better pay good because you are going to need it for the gym and physiotherapy as you get older. There's a host of subtle musculo-skeletal problems that can develop as a result of this pattern of work.

Factory workstations are different and you're usually looking down on the work article and sometimes bent over, instead of looking forward on a computer monitor.

I think sitting on a gym ball is better option than standing workstation. It's good use of posture muscles and keeping them engaged and you're not putting all your weight on your feet all day.

Now days it's more common to find addiction to junk food.

Fortunately, we literally can't afford junk/fast food to make it part of our diet.

I can buy home-cooked steamed green leafy vegetables at the wet market good for four meals at cheaper price than junk food!

I'd be fishing if we live near a lake. I love fish but we can't afford it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Personally, I do use quite a bit of pea protein because I have a slight allergy to milk products. I'm not lactose intolerant (I can drink gallons of milk without gastric distress), but it fills my head with mucus. I recognize my pea protein supplements for what they are not, however, and "natural" they are not.

That's why I said earlier there were no people groups who were vegan because that diet is not sustainable generation after generation through local natural food sources anywhere.

Plant protein might even be a superior choice for muscle growth, not just for those that are lactose intolerant, because of something called renal acid load. Meat, especially fish, is low in potassium and high in phosphorous, causing the blood to become more acidic. The kidneys balance this out through a complicated process of neutralizing the acid load using the amino acid glutamine, which it mostly gets from breaking down muscle tissue, in the absence of dietary glutamine. This isn't just speculation, either, it's been shown that muscle protein declines under acidic conditions (one reason cancer leads to muscle wasting is that it causes body tissues to become acidic, they break down, the cancer eats the dying tissue and grows, and so on). And as we age, our bodies tend to become more acidified, not less so: so it's not surprising sarcopenia increases with advanced age in most western nations.

You don't necessarily have to be a vegan or vegetarian to see the benefits of a low acid load diet, just eat alot of fruits and vegetables high in potassium, calcium, and sodium, and low in phosphorous (most grains and dairy are acidic, but less so than meat... BTW, most soft drink cola is also highly acidic and full of phosphorous, it's what gives Coke and Pepsi their "twang"). You can actually see the PRAL (potential renal acid load) calculated in an app like Cronometer. Most Americans don't eat many fruits and vegetables, though, so they don't see the benefits, and it's not surprising we might see higher incidence of sarcopenia in such a population.

There's alot of buzz on places like Youtube among fitness influencers and biohackers about muscle wasting or sarcopenia, protein supplements are being pushed and sold in greater amounts, and it seems to be becoming a new hot-button fitness topic, but when you look at what actual medical experts on sarcopenia have to say, they admit there's no good evidence increased protein consumption, such as through supplementation, improves the condition in people getting an otherwise adequate diet. In fact, some studies show that higher protein intakes are correlated with a higher incidence of sarcopenia, not less (perhaps due to the higher renal acic load, among other things). The only thing consistently proven to work is resistance training of some sort.

High Protein Intake Associated With Sarcopenia | Lifespan.io

Researchers publishing in Age and Ageing have found that, rather than being protective, an increase in dietary protein is associated with an increased chance of sarcopenia. Sarcopenia […]

www.lifespan.io

 

[RDKirk]

Plant protein might even be a superior choice for muscle growth, not just for those that are lactose intolerant, because of something called renal acid load. Meat, especially fish, is low in potassium and high in phosphorous, causing the blood to become more acidic. The kidneys balance this out through a complicated process of neutralizing the acid load using the amino acid glutamine, which it mostly gets from breaking down muscle tissue, in the absence of dietary glutamine. This isn't just speculation, either, it's been shown that muscle protein synthesis declines under acidic conditions (one reason cancer leads to muscle wasting is that it causes body tissues to become acidic, they break down, the cancer eats the dying tissue and grows, and so on). And as we age, our bodies tend to become more acidified, not less so (so it's not surprising sarcopenia increases with advanced age).

You don't necessarily have to be a vegan or vegetarian to see the benefits of a low acid load diet, just eat alot of fruits and vegetables high in potassium, calcium, and sodium, and low in phosphorous. You can actually see the PRAL (potential renal acid load) calculated in an app like Cronometer. Most Americans don't eat many fruits and vegetables, though, so they don't see the benefits, and it's not surprising we might see higher incidence of sarcopenia in such a population.

There's alot of buzz on places like Youtube among influencers about muscle wasting or sarcopenia, and it seems to be becoming a new hot-button fitness topic, but when you look at what actual medical experts on sarcopenia have to say, they admit there's no good evidence increased protein consumption, such as through supplementation, improves the condition in terms of actually helping slow the condition. In fact, some studies show that higher protein intakes are correlated with a higher incidence of sarcopenia, not less (likely due to the higher renal acid load). The only thing consistently proven to work is resistance training of some sort.

High Protein Intake Associated With Sarcopenia | Lifespan.io

Researchers publishing in Age and Ageing have found that, rather than being protective, an increase in dietary protein is associated with an increased chance of sarcopenia. Sarcopenia […]

www.lifespan.io

When a single study group admits "surprising" results, I take it with the same grain of salt. I'd have to see that established to the point that it's not surprising. It's more likely they did something wrong than that they've proven everyone else wrong.

 

[FireDragon76]

When a single study group admits "surprising" results, I take it with the same grain of salt. I'd have to see that established to the point that it's not surprising. It's more likely they did something wrong than that they've proven everyone else wrong.

It's actually not that surprising if you look at the totality of actual research on the relationship between protein and health. Many of the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea traditionally lived on quite low protein intakes, yet they had the strength to engage in small scale horticulture and the hunting of wild pigs. Some of my own ancestors were Irish peasants that thrived for generations on a relatively low protein diet, eating potatoes for the vast majority of their calories (potatoes actually have a good amino acid profile, though they are relatively low in protein).

It's not that surprising, though, that some might find it surprising, the majority of dieticians, the gatekeepers of much of the dietary advice out there, get their dietary guidelines straight from places like the USDA. They aren't actually trained in medicine, basically just a few steps up from lunch lady in terms of their scientific expertise, and that's the kind of environment they tend to operate in. Nutritionists can be even worse. And mainstream dietary advice, especially in the US, is heavily shaped by agribusiness, always looking for ways to make more value out of their industrially produced products. They want simple, un-nuanced messages that are above all... profitable. There's very little profit in potatoes, lentils, or brocoli for a big corporation, they need a manufactured product to sell to make the big money.


Unfortunately, I don't have a link to a discussion of the gerontology symposium I read handy right now. I'll try to get back to you if I run across it again. It wasn't what I expected, either.

 

[RDKirk]

It's actually not that surprising if you look at the totality of actual research on the relationship between protein and health. Many of the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea traditionally lived on quite low protein intakes, yet they had the strength to engage in small scale horticulture and the hunting of wild pigs. Some of my own ancestors were Irish peasants that thrived for generations on a relatively low protein diet, eating potatoes for the vast majority of their calories (potatoes actually have a good amino acid profile, though they are relatively low in protein).

It's not that surprising, though, that some might find it surprising, the majority of dieticians, the gatekeepers of much of the dietary advice out there, get their dietary guidelines straight from places like the USDA. They aren't actually trained in medicine, basically just a few steps up from lunch lady in terms of their scientific expertise, and that's the kind of environment they tend to operate in. Nutritionists can be even worse. And mainstream dietary advice, especially in the US, is heavily shaped by agribusiness, always looking for ways to make more value out of their industrially produced products. They want simple, un-nuanced messages that are above all... profitable.


Unfortunately, I don't have a link to a discussion of the gerontology symposium I read handy right now. I'll try to get back to you if I run across it again. It wasn't what I expected, either.

"Survived on relatively low protein" is not the same thing as "optimum muscle anabolic results with optimum protein." There is just as much, if not more, practical information from thousands of data examples in sports medicine and military medicine giving evidence that 0.7 to 1.0 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass (not total body weight) is optimum for the best anabolic performance, and particularly when fighting sarcopenia.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Survived on relatively low protein" is not the same thing as "optimum muscle anabolic results with optimum protein."

True, but I think it's suggestive that less protein dense diets could at least be adequate. It takes quite a bit of strength to do all the work needed in planting, growing, and harvesting potatoes, and it was all done by hand with a few tools. The only parts animals might have worked was hauling seaweed or manure for fertilizer (usually hauled by donkeys, sometimes by humans).

There is just as much, if not more, practical information from thousands of data examples in sports medicine and military medicine giving evidence that 0.7 to 1.0 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass (not total body weight) is optimum for the best anabolic performance, and particularly when fighting sarcopenia.

I don't think either of those institutions are free from conflicts of interest, or having their own insular perspectives.

The only reason I use protein supplements is for weight loss (to spend calories on more nutrient dense foods, and to a lesser extent, for increased thermic effect), but I've experienced no noticeable difference in muscle gains eating 65g of protein vs. 100g+. In some studies of actual trained bodybuilders placed on low protein diets, nitrogen balance remained positive and they retained muscle mass for several weeks despite consuming far less protein than .7g per pound of lean mass.

The myth of 1 g/lb: Optimal protein intake for bodybuilders

Protein. It’s every bodybuilder’s favorite macronutrient and for good reason. Protein is extremely essential, super satiating and amazingly anabolic. Protein is awesome… but you’re consuming too much of it. Like most myths, the belief that you should take in 1g/lb of body weight has become so...

mennohenselmans.com

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think either of those institutions are free from conflicts of interest, or having their own insular perspectives.

The perspective of both sports medicine and military practice is that they must show real, practical results.

For sports medicine, a mere study is not sufficient...professional athletes must actually win. Soldiers must actually perform better in the field.

For my own experience, I've worked out all my life, and showed little to speak of...until in just these later five years I've seriously met the recommended protein levels and for the first time see results I'd have been happy to see in my 20s.

 

[timewerx]

True, but I think it's suggestive that less protein dense diets could at least be adequate. It takes quite a bit of strength to do all the work needed in planting, growing, and harvesting potatoes, and it was all done by hand with a few tools. The only parts animals might have worked was hauling seaweed or manure for fertilizer (usually hauled by donkeys, sometimes by humans).



I don't think either of those institutions are free from conflicts of interest, or having their own insular perspectives.

The only reason I use protein supplements is for weight loss (to spend calories on more nutrient dense foods, and to a lesser extent, for increased thermic effect), but I've experienced no noticeable difference in muscle gains eating 65g of protein vs. 100g+. In some studies of actual trained bodybuilders placed on low protein diets, nitrogen balance remained positive and they retained muscle mass for several weeks despite consuming far less protein than .7g per pound of lean mass.

The myth of 1 g/lb: Optimal protein intake for bodybuilders

Protein. It’s every bodybuilder’s favorite macronutrient and for good reason. Protein is extremely essential, super satiating and amazingly anabolic. Protein is awesome… but you’re consuming too much of it. Like most myths, the belief that you should take in 1g/lb of body weight has become so...

mennohenselmans.com

The perspective of both sports medicine and military practice is that they must show real, practical results.

For sports medicine, a mere study is not sufficient...professional athletes must actually win. Soldiers must actually perform better in the field.

For my own experience, I've worked out all my life, and showed little to speak of...until in just these later five years I've seriously met the recommended protein levels and for the first time see results I'd have been happy to see in my 20s.

You're both right here.

There's a reason why you're both seeing (the possibility to have) positive results from two relatively differing amounts of protein consumption.

This is established by the fact the body can only absorb a limited amount of protein within a certain time frame and factors like these things can affect the outcome of protein amount in your meals:

- Digestibility of your protein source food like plants, meat, dairy, etc. (Slow digesting protein food may increase daily protein absorption)

- How often do you take protein. (Eating smaller portions of protein foods but more frequently during the day may increase daily absorption)

- And if you're taking protein shortly before workouts, during, or immediately after. (simply greater absorption during and immediately after exercise)

You'll probably read many articles saying nothing about eating protein shortly before or even during exercise or advice against it. They're right in any case because most protein foods may cause digestion problems if taken with exercise. But studies were taken to investigate this matter and yielded positive results like preventing/reducing "muscle catabolism" (loss of muscles mass) during exercise.

However, there's only very few protein sources that can be safely taken right before or even during exercise without causing digestion problems. I like unsweetened cocoa powder (from the baking goods section in the grocery store, NOT the beverage, not the snack section!). I've used "Dutch Alkaline Processed" cocoa for low/zero acidity with good efficacy. Unsweetened baking cocoa is quite bitter though. You may use sweetener just to reduce the bitter taste but better without if you can tolerate it.

Never use premixed hot choco drink powder like Nesquick. Though it may taste 100x better, it may contain dairy and loads of high carb sweeteners. Same thing for dark chocolate bars from the snack section. Bad stuff to eat or drink during or shortly before exercise. But otherwise, totally OK to eat or drink AFTER the exercise.

 

[FireDragon76]

You're both right here.

There's a reason why you're both seeing (the possibility to have) positive results from two relatively differing amounts of protein consumption.

This is established by the fact the body can only absorb a limited amount of protein within a certain time frame and factors like these things can affect the outcome of protein amount in your meals:

- Digestibility of your protein source food like plants, meat, dairy, etc. (Slow digesting protein food may increase daily protein absorption)

- How often do you take protein. (Eating smaller portions of protein foods but more frequently during the day may increase daily absorption)

- And if you're taking protein shortly before workouts, during, or immediately after. (simply greater absorption during and immediately after exercise)

Timing is important over the long term, not so much short term. Not eating anything after resistance training can be detrimental for muscle growth over the long term, because the body tends to only use about 20g of protein efficiently at once, so if you miss that window, the muscles aren't going to be stimulated as much to grow. There are benefits to going higher in terms of protein consumption, but they aren't as dramatic ( mostly beneficial for people that want to be competitive bodybuilders or weight lifters).

For me it's a tradeoff since I tend to eat little or nothing for supper in the evening. I had a history of GERD in the past, and eating a big meal before you go to bed is a no-no there. Part of the reason I have had problems keeping slim is due to the fact I was raised on big meals in the evening, as were most Americans. That tends to create alot of visceral fat around the midsection that is stubborn and doesn't easily go away, so you can keep it for years, even decades, despite dieting frequently.

A real problem I am having is that so many commonly available snack foods aren't particularly high in protein, or they are also high in calories. So I am taking a protein bar with me more frequently when I go out some where. The plant-based protein bars tend to be lower in calories, but are more difficult to find where I live. In a pinch, I will drink something like coconut water if I have to, on the theory that the carbs in it might be at least somewhat protein sparing, or I'll eat a nut bar (not as good for protein, has more fat and calories).

You'll probably read many articles saying nothing about eating protein shortly before or even during exercise or advice against it. They're right in any case because most protein foods may cause digestion problems if taken with exercise. But studies were taken to investigate this matter and yielded positive results like preventing/reducing "muscle catabolism" (loss of muscles mass) during exercise.

However, there's only very few protein sources that can be safely taken right before or even during exercise without causing digestion problems. I like unsweetened cocoa powder (from the baking goods section in the grocery store, NOT the beverage, not the snack section!). I've used "Dutch Alkaline Processed" cocoa for low/zero acidity with good efficacy. Unsweetened baking cocoa is quite bitter though. You may use sweetener just to reduce the bitter taste but better without if you can tolerate it.

Never use premixed hot choco drink powder like Nesquick. Though it may taste 100x better, it may contain dairy and loads of high carb sweeteners. Same thing for dark chocolate bars from the snack section. Bad stuff to eat or drink during or shortly before exercise. But otherwise, totally OK to eat or drink AFTER the exercise.

Cocoa powder is about 15 percent protein, which is about average for a plant-based food ingredient. There are alot of other minerals in cocoa that can make it beneficial (like zinc, it's one of the better plant-based sources in fact). It also has quite a few polyphenols that do all sorts of good things. Personally, I have to be careful with cocoa because it tends to cause my skin to break out if I eat enough of it (I still get acne occasionally even at age 47, but it some ways that's a good thing as it means my skin is less prone to aging). That's too bad as I do like chocolate.

I've been using commercially available protein blends after a workout. I just put about 3-5g of protein in a bit of soymilk (soya, if you are in the rest of the world). I figure I'm not working out quite as intensely as a bodybuilder. Plus I tend to get stopped up if I eat too much undiluted protein at once.

I would look into defatted peanut flour for protein. Peanuts (or ground nuts, as they are sometimes called outside the US) are good as a protein source, especially the defatted flour. I use peanut flour in alot of cooking, but sometimes I also mix it with a banana to make a smoothie. You can also put it in oats or sauces, it makes a great thickener and is often used that way in Asia or Africa. If you aren't trying to cut calories, you can make up some peanut butter based sauce and put that on your food.

 

[RDKirk]

The amount of protein utilizatized in a single meal varies. The amount for most individuals is not limited to 20 grams, but is 20-30 grams in a meal. For older individuals in their 60s, amounts up to 40 grams show utilization because older individuals need as much as 30 grams just to "prime the pump" for utilization. And older body may not put smaller amounts to anabolic use at all.

I eat right after my morning weight training. That's a mostly protein meal of at least 30 grams of protein. I might eat a couple of pea protein bars, but if I do, I also eat an egg with them. Or I might eat enough meat to give me 30 grams of protein.

And, of course, resistance training should be a long-term activity.