Study: U.S. dietary recommendations for protein intake are too low

https://bigthink.com/health/us-dietary-protein-recommendations-too-low/

by PaulHoule • 3 years ago

93 161 3 years ago

bigthink.com

Daishiman• 3 years ago

... for pregnant and old people.

ot• 3 years ago

From TFA:

For everyone else, the RDA should probably be boosted roughly 25% up to 1 gram per kilogram of body weight per day.

paulcole2• 3 years ago

But on average, aren’t most people getting enough protein already, regardless of what the RDA is?

jkaplowitz2• 3 years ago

That's not what the article says. It says "generally too low". The mentions of pregnant [people] and old people are preceded by "especially", so it's just more true in their case and not only in their case.

Additionally the list following "especially" includes lactating women (not the same thing as pregnant women) as well as children over age 3.

paulcole2• 3 years ago

The article also says, “The good news is that Americans are already eclipsing that intake on average, and children appear to be getting plenty of protein, per data collected by the CDC.”

hirundo• 3 years ago

I found this out the hard way. I was a morbidly obese binge eater until I greatly increased the protein content of my diet. Overnight the binge eating stopped without effort. Over the next few years I became merely overweight. I believe that the protein RDA is contributing to the obesity epidemic.

matwood• 3 years ago

I do generally agree that more protein is good, but have you ever had a blood panel to see if you were low on some nutrient(s)? Common sources of protein contain a lot of high doses of other nutrients you may have been low on, causing cravings.

willcipriano3• 3 years ago

The mechanism for this is protein increases satiety (feeling full/not hungry) better than carbs or fats.

Eating more white potatoes (very high on the satiety index[0]) would have a similar effect.

[0]http://ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDW...

naasking2• 3 years ago

I doubt that most Americans are even aware of the RDA, so I doubt it's contributed much to obesity. Availability of high calorie foods that are low in protein could be part of it though.

gadders4• 3 years ago

Dude - start lifting. Turn that protein into muscle. https://startingstrength.com/get-started/programs

InsomniacL4• 3 years ago

Is this website reputable?

The related articles it's trying to give me are:

  -  Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights

  -  Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research

  -  Years of shoddy research have overstated the risk.

  -  What you eat can reprogram your genes

  -  How to eat if you want to age slowly

  -  Americans are ignoring the one true “superfood”

crazygringo• 3 years ago

The website itself doesn't really matter, the paper is linked directly:

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/4/838

Is "Nutrients" a reputable journal? Do the authors have a good track record? I have no idea, but would love if someone more knowledgeable here can comment.

curiousgibbon• 3 years ago

In my field, which is not science, MDPI seems to publish many, many bad journals. They're embedded in the for-profit publishing corner of the science-industrial complex and I would consider the very real possibility this paper is part total garbage part evil moneymaking scheme.

zeroonetwothree2• 3 years ago

It’s consistent with other research I’ve seen that suggests higher protein intake is beneficial.

PaulHoule2• 3 years ago

MDPI is controversial, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

and also

https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed...

I know YOShInOn ingests a lot of articles from MDPI journals, more than any other source. The report I have at my fingertips now is "bottom scoring" articles by my preference and MDPI papers feature prominently in that but that's not because I never like anything from MDPI or because the quality of articles is necessarily bad but because I'd certainly downvote "Vaccinatiopn In Immunosuppressed Patients With Established Skin Warts and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Single-Institutional Cohort Study". It still shows me quite a few. ArXiv papers rank better overall but that's because I only subscribe to CS on arXiv.

---

It's actually a high priority for YOShInOn to have some process to track down links from articles like this that link to scientific articles because sometimes the original article is a better link than the recap and sometimes the other way around.

InsomniacL4• 3 years ago

There's lots of claims on the websites article beyond that made in the study.

There's lots of negative press about the journal it's published in.

Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers
Nutrients editors quit en masse from MDPI journal
https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-...

Further, the paper is published by employees of Abbot Nutrition who financially benefit from the conclusions of the paper. "Conflicts of Interest - The authors S.R.H. and M.W. are employed by Abbott Nutrition. "

That's not to say it's right or wrong, but i didn't know any of the above until i googled to respond to your comment.

amanj41• 3 years ago

First two started strong and all downhill from there

gadders4• 3 years ago

I mean the first one is definitely true (or is an additional reason, especially as people age).

I think when people say "red meat is bad for you" they need to define red meat. Burgers and sausages - probably not great. Steak, chops etc - probably OK.

hammock5• 3 years ago

Why do you believe a steak is better than a burger? Isn't burger ground steak?

willcipriano3• 3 years ago

Red meat isn't "bad for you".

Eating too many cheeseburgers is a problem, mostly because it's easy to consume too many calories and cheeseburgers aren't good at making you feel full, but nothing is inherently wrong about red meat in a balanced diet, in fact it has many beneficial properties.

hammock5• 3 years ago

What websites do you think are more reputable?

Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights

Resistance training is well known to increase bone density and that's one of (not the only) reason it's often suggested for older folks

Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research

Just a clickbait news article about a new study and supports an emerging, shifting consensus on red meat. No issue ?

What you eat can reprogram your genes

Epigenetics. It's not wrong

ben_w• 3 years ago

> What you eat can reprogram your genes
Epigenetics. It's not wrong

Calling epigenics "reprogramming" makes it seem like the right combination of vitamins and heart-shaped herbs can turn you into a were-panther.

Your genes can be reprogrammed, but the relationship between epigenics and actual reprogramming is more like the relationship between Chrome and iOS — in that, in the few occasions when it's possible for the former to mess with be later, this is widely regarded as catastrophically bad.

40yearoldman3• 3 years ago

Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site?

Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided.

The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes.

The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.

lolinder4• 3 years ago

Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site?

This should be your first instinct any time you read anything online. Most websites are garbage, pushing sensational "new" ideas to get clicks. If you don't immediately think critically about what you're reading (and part of that is considering reputation), you'll either fall for confirmation bias or you'll be tossed about with each new thing that trends in TikTok.

lolinder4• 3 years ago

The authors of the paper are employed by Abbott Nutrition, who make the Ensure high-protein meal replacement shake.

downrightmike• 3 years ago

Well, there it is.

bretpiatt• 3 years ago

- "Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights"

There's a ton of information out there about this, from my understanding it is really important as you age, especially for females, and then for males as testosterone levels drop.

WebMD overview about it: https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/features/weight-training

piker• 3 years ago

Would be good to understand the source of the claim at the top. Not casting judgment, and they are nutrition folks, but there may be a profit motive behind the funding/research.

https://www.abbottnutrition.com/our-brands

fieldbob3• 3 years ago

This eating proteins seems like a some sort of mind virus these days propelled by clever marketing. I don't think anyone ever have to worry about how much protein they need the body tell you when you need to eat more protein it usually comes with desire or craving certain foods

having the condition that you need to eat certain amount of protein everyday is probably a lot worse for your health than eating to little protein one day

naasking2• 3 years ago

Your body's feedback mechanisms are only approximations, and furthermore need to be trained. You crave the foods that you've been regularly exposed to that have the nutrients you're lacking, but if someone hasn't been exposed to good food, they won't crave it. Telling people to eat more protein is a signal that they should pay attention to how much protein they're actually ingesting because it may be lacking (which it typically is).

ch4s32• 3 years ago

There is absolutely no mechanism in your body to signal the need for specific nutrients or macro-nutrients. The signs of protein deficiency are simply hunger and weakness[1], which is pretty vague.

[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/are-you-getting-enough-prote...

fieldbob3• 3 years ago

This is a function of higher mind; awareness, you have everything you need I would go with instinct. Science will never be able to explain how this works, just abandon all hope of scientific rescue. You have everything you need within.

lm2846910• 3 years ago

I don't think anyone ever have to worry about how much protein they need the body tell you when you need to eat more protein it usually comes with desire or craving certain foods

People can barely differentiate hunger from thirst, let alone protein hunger, what happens actually is the complete opposite of your interpretation though, low protein diet cause hunger, and since sugar and fat are addictive people go for these food first.

Your body doesn't send a lot of signals and the vast majority of these signals were for our ancestors who only had access to the most basic of foods in relative low quantity coupled with a lot of exercise. In our modern world of unlimited cheap calorie dense food that you can get delivered to your sofa in 20 minutes these signals are your greatest enemy.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2022.021...

However, where low-protein diets are simultaneously high in fats and carbohydrates and low in non-caloric diluents such as fibre and water, the homeostatic mechanisms can be overwhelmed leading to positive energy balance, particularly where carbohydrates are rapidly digested non-resistant starches and sugars. If exposure is chronic, this leads to increased adiposity which itself can exacerbate the imbalance by decreasing protein efficiency thus increasing its deficiency and triggering further intake

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18296329/

Several studies have shown that high protein meals and foods are more satiating than high carbohydrate or high fat meals

fieldbob3• 3 years ago

skip studies, skip science. This is yoga find out for your self. If you exercise, if you meditate if you eat organic You become receptive and sensitive and all the information you could ever want is right there available within Including what you need to eat

lucidguppy• 3 years ago

I think its necessary to point out that one of the authors is Mary Weiler and Steve Hertzler who work for Abbott - who makes Ensure products and Pediasure products which supplement protein for the old and the young.

steego2• 3 years ago

Thank you. I knew it read like a PR piece.

justrealist3• 3 years ago

I mean. Is it unreasonable that researchers work at a company that they think is doing something valuable?

This is a datapoint but it's not really a black mark. It's like PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. Well, yes.

elteto• 3 years ago

I can’t buy a box of climate change but I can buy one of Ensure.

So, no. Not the same at all.

c54• 3 years ago

You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say

The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation.

If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.

chaostheory• 3 years ago

I feel that it’s fair to point out biases, especially when there is financial self interest involved

lolinder4• 3 years ago

They're also behind Similac, and have a history of funding research that makes infant formula look better than it actually is.

As others note, this doesn't make the study automatically invalid, but it does make it highly suspect. I'm personally growing rather tired of industry-funded nutritional research that inevitably makes the product being pushed by the funder look good, often in contradiction to other research funded by opposite industries. Fat vs sugar, carbs vs protein, dairy, red meat, alcohol. At this point you can find a study supporting pretty much any dietary decision you want to make.

hammock5• 3 years ago

So who funded the original US dietary recommendations?

Edit: and the studies that the USDA cited to support its recommendation

EatingWithForks• 3 years ago

Originally, and currently, the USDA does.

cheschire2• 3 years ago

I've seen multiple ultra-processed foods (with which meal replacement shakes are often grouped) topics in unrelated places.

Was there some big study or government guidance that was changed recently?

jassyr• 3 years ago

Probably spamming their media contacts and trying to spend down their Q3/Q4 PR budgets

friend_and_foe• 3 years ago

Well if you haven't figured it out already, all nutritional advice in the US and most other countries is not about nutrition. In the US particularly, it's about special interest and national security by way of food security.

All of these studies, changes to the food pyramid (and the food pyramid itself) and the like are designed to entrench existing food production industries at the expense of foreign dominated industries to ensure food security, particularly in the event of conflict or other fast changing global circumstance. It's viewed as a win-win by the policy setters: our buddies make money, they break us off a little, and nobody starves, even if they're not ideally healthy. A little corruption goes a long way! All it takes is a little herding of the sheep so to speak and everyone is better off than yesterday. There's conflicts of interest, there's perverse incentive, but until very recently it worked alright, developed countries virtually eliminated foodbourne illness and life threatening vitamin deficiency. Only recently has there been an issue involving pharma, healthcare in general and food production that created this very profitable obesity quagmire we find ourselves in today. But not so long ago, the approach worked out pretty well.

You're never going to get good nutritional advice from the government, or from industry insiders. You might get better than the status quo, and you might get facts, but at best you're getting carefully selected honesty and lying by omission. And unfortunately the "other side" of this is so chock full of crystal healing quacks that you're basically on your own.

My current model on this is: carbohydrates from fruits and starches, focus more on fat, then protein, in that order, and particularly animal fat and animal protein. This should cover trace minerals and fat soluble vitamins so that I don't have to think much about them and focus on macros.

steego2• 3 years ago

I hate these types of articles that spend a bulk of your attention telling you nothing new before they spend less than a paragraph glossing over the conclusion of the study, right before they tell you to eat more protein.

I’m sorry, but nitrogen balance and protein metabolism is one small facet of overall nutrition.

Nutrition is complicated, most of us are ignorant and puff pieces like this do nothing to improve people’s understanding of nutrition.

slotrans2• 3 years ago

Every serious weightlifter has known this for decades, if not centuries.

balloonthief• 3 years ago

The vast majority of people aren't serious weightlifters and consequently don't need to eat like they are.

sn92• 3 years ago

Given the benefits of strength training as they relate specifically to the top diseases of developed nations, they probably should eat and train.

A competitive level isn't necessary, but reaching a non-trivial level of fitness has tremendous benefits to one's health and well-being.

Like if a pill could deliver them, it would be the most profitable medication ever developed.

aantix• 3 years ago

Dr Brad Stanfield just covered the low protein diet as detrimental to longevity. Maintaining muscle mass is critical.

Also included - Resveratrol and Metformin.

https://youtu.be/vLATzbt9Io8?si=Y2ryN-ZlOwMdUHCC&t=12

0daystock3• 3 years ago

A study by a pill manufacturer whose business is sickness, promoting a sick diet for more obedient consumer customers.

Adult humans require surprisingly little protein. So little, in fact, it's virtually impossible to be protein deficient eating an adequate isocaloric diet with even a modicum of variety. This is a very well cited page which explains most misconceptions and falsehoods about protein in diet https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm

Kirby6411• 3 years ago

McDougall promotes a vegan fad diet. Not sure why I would trust his literature when there's plenty of contrary scientific evidence today. Also, it's been 16 years since that article was written. Scientific consensus has advanced considerably.

Just because humans survive on very little protein doesn't mean there are not negative implications, notably on muscle mass and development.

0daystock3• 3 years ago

Fad diet? Until recent history, and coincidentally before the prevalence of vast diet-related disease, most of the world lived on a mostly vegan diet. You are welcome to cite some of this advanced scientific evidence refuting McDougall or suggesting protein deficiency is a concern anywhere in the Western world.

DrThunder3• 3 years ago

You're confusing requirements vs thriving. Yeah humans can essentially starve themselves for months and survive, that doesn't mean it's optimal.

0daystock3• 3 years ago

You miss the point: reducing protein intake to the small required amount is what is optimal for health.

Synaesthesia2• 3 years ago

I think 0.8g per kg is just fine. The big issue with American diet is too much sugar, not enough fiber, from eating highly processed foods.

Kirby6411• 3 years ago

What does fiber have to do with protein intake? They're essentially unrelated, besides fiber and protein both being high satiety (fiber being essentially infinite satiety to calories).

bratwurst30008• 3 years ago

Better retention of protein so also a better resorption.

Synaesthesia2• 3 years ago

Nothing, but there is no RDA for fiber, and the FDA also doesn't say that people shouldn't have too much sugar/refined starch, which they really should.

laweijfmvo• 3 years ago

I have noticed a lot of inconsistency on (US) "nutrition facts" labels. I've seen anywhere from 5g being 3% of the daily recommended amount (~150g per day) to 15g being 33% of the daily amount (~50g per day).

sourcecodeplz• 3 years ago

Usually recommended protein intake per day is 1 gram per kilogram of body weight, for sedentary people. For more active, its 1.5-2.2 grams per kg.

boatsie2• 3 years ago

The USDA doesn’t have a recommendation for protein (yet does for added sugar is if some is “needed”), that’s a big part of the problem.

DrThunder3• 3 years ago

Anyone who works out at all knows this. Good luck growing muscle and recovering without proper protein intake.

Imo anti-meat stances have contributed to this. People really need to be eating quality meat to hit that protein mark. You'll never eat enough broccoli in a day to get enough protein, and good luck being bloated as hell if you try.

guntherhermann2• 3 years ago

Vegetarians don't eat broccoli for protein.

They eat legumes. Chickpeas, lentils, beans, etc.

Meat is still superior, but not as extreme as your initial dichotomy.

PaulHoule2• 3 years ago

Yeah, you're going to have trouble getting enough calories for hard work from eating broccoli for that matter. Wheat contains a lot of protein for a grain although it is terribly imbalanced and is best when complemented. Note protein requirements are higher when calorie input is low

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein%E2%80%93energy_malnutr...

DrThunder3• 3 years ago

Same problem, different source. Bloating nightmare.

Also, they do eat broccoli, maybe you don't but it's always touted as an alternative protein when veganism and vegetarianism is brought up.

InSteady2• 3 years ago

Weird seeing this blatant industry funded talking point about broccoli spread. It's pure strawman. No one suggests you get your protein from broccoli. There are vegetarian and vegan weightlifters, MMA fighters, and all manner of elite athletes.

Do you really believe they are trying to get all their protein from broccoli? How can you possible believe this if you stop and think for more than a few seconds? Have you never heard of all manner of soy products, other beans, certain grains that are rich in protein, rice protein extracts, pea protein extracts, and of course dairy and eggs for vegetarians?

lm2846910• 3 years ago

People really need to be eating quality meat to hit that protein mark. You'll never eat enough broccoli in a day to get enough protein, and good luck being bloated as hell if you try.

Mixed veg proteins are virtually identical to whey, which is more of less the best you can get in term of amino acids.

If you're not vegan eggs will do the job very very well, better than most meat actually.

You _really_ don't need meat, at all

Of course if you try to bulk on broccoli and salad you're doomed, but you're the only one making that argument

sulam3• 3 years ago

This is an interesting result, even though it seems to have arrived at the (edit: not!) same place sports nutritionists have been at for decades when it comes to the general population edit: 1g per kg. The things it says that I mostly hadn’t thought about or didn’t know:

1) older people are less efficient converting dietary protein into muscle, so they need 1.25g/kg

2) pregnant and lactating women obviously have higher needs, so they should eat up to 2g/kg!

3) children are doing a lot of growing, so they need 1.55g/kg

Americans get a lot of protein already in their diet (edit: for a sedentary lifestyle).

For the non-sedentary, I can say from experience (160lb, 5’10”, somewhat lean male) that eating 160g of protein spaced out in 4 meals (sports nutritionists also recommend spacing your protein intake out so that it’s consistently available) is actually pretty hard. You end up needing to eat a lot of chicken and eggs, unless you’re willing to go full-on body builder and start eating supplement shakes. Of course that’s while trying to keep a small calorie surplus — a lot of Americans are very overweight, and likely do eat more protein than they need because they eat more than they need of all the macronutrients.

mym19903• 3 years ago

Its per kilogram, not per pound, which would be a LOT of protein.

sulam3• 3 years ago

Hmm, you’re right! And yet, all the sports nutrition that I’ve been reading is 1g per pound, not per kilogram. Sedentary lifestyle vs not, I suppose.

simonbarker87• 3 years ago

In the fitness world it it’s thought of as g/lb so if a 170lb person wants to gain muscle (or preserve it on a diet) they should aim for roughly 170g of protein a day minimum. There is more nuance to it than this (should be g/lb of lean muscle mass for example) but as a rule of thumb it’s pretty good and proven to be effective at building/maintaining muscle.

It sounds a lot but it’s not too hard to hit even without whey supplementation. Anyone who has focussed on nutrition and build muscle/strength will have been at this level (or higher) for weeks and months on end.

boatsie2• 3 years ago

I have a pet theory that one reason people overeat is because they are unconsciously trying to get more protein. So eating tons of donuts or chips etc doesn’t satiate and they eat until they hit the requisite protein and end up consuming way more carbs and fat in the process.

SeanAnderson2• 3 years ago

A while back I spent a decent amount of time trawling through literature in an attempt to figure out the ground truth for protein intake.

My takeaways were:

- People often conflate "body mass" with "lean body mass". If you have a ton of extra fat on you that does not imply you need to eat more protein to retain/grow muscle mass. Lean muscle mass is the right calculation. For an average individual, this is ~15-20% reduction from body mass.

- Oddly, I saw people often conflating "kg" and "lb". 1kg = 2.2lb.

- There are numerous studies which reference ~1.5g per 1kg as a floor and north of ~2.0g protein as still providing benefit without concern for energy. A quick Google yields:

  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5852756/ (270 citations)
  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680710/ (87 citations)
  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/ (148 citations)
  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5477153/ (919 citations)

- When you crunch the numbers, it's really not that challenging to achieve. I'm a 195lb male, average/good fitness level, assume 18% body fat. So, lean mass of ~160lb / ~72.5kg resulting in 145g protein as an upper threshold.

Here's what I ate yesterday: https://i.imgur.com/fVgtvnl.png

I could reduce the amount of chicken I eat by over half, and skip adding chocolate whey to my yogurt, and still be above the maximum suggested guidelines. I could eliminate eating chicken and whey and still be above the minimum suggested guidelines.

Conversely, if I just ate chicken and whey with Greek yogurt, I would still be above the minimum suggested guidelines without eating a single bit of protein in any of my other foods.

Also, it's possible to swap out the chicken with Tofu/Tempeh if you're vegetarian. Firm Tofu is 17g/protein per 100g, Tempeh is 19g, chicken breast is 31g.

jjtheblunt3• 3 years ago

One thing glossed over regularly is that grams of protein is misleading, since a human has essential amino acids requirements that may be absent in some protein sources. I think the slang term for getting all the required amino acids is a "complete protein", which might be a blend of more than one "protein" source, with lentils and certain grains a famous example.

Point is that your chart is very cool, but has a single column tracking grams of protein, and that's too low resolution of information to know if those grams themselves are adequate in represented amino acids.

you could go over recommended grams of protein and be missing types of protein constituents in so doing.

SeanAnderson2• 3 years ago

Yeah, true enough! The screenshot is from MyFitnessPal - I think there's more complete tools out there.

Fortunately, poultry eggs and dairy are all complete proteins and those comprise essentially all the proteins in the screenshot :)

Certainly something to be mindful of if you're trying to cram beans to get your numbers, though.

sn92• 3 years ago

You'd be hard-pressed to find a food that's completely missing a particular amino acid.

Most "incomplete sources of protein" still will get you what you need if you eat enough of it (in practical amounts, not impractical technically true amounts).

That said, if you're eating a sufficiently diverse diet, this shouldn't be a problem. And if you're going out of your way to get sufficient protein, tracking what you eat, etc., this is unlikely to be a problem.

Particularly if you're eating more than enough protein by any measure, lacking particular amino acids is a non-issue.

edanm• 3 years ago

- When you crunch the numbers, it's really not that challenging to achieve.

I slightly disagree. It is kind of hard to achieve, especially if you're trying to control calories as well (and especially if you're trying to cut).

You're effectively swapping out a lot of otherwise-standard, tasty foods (usually carbs) for lots of food that is more expensive, often harder to come by, and often harder to make taste good on its own. It is much easier (and cheaper!) to eat a "normal" diet.

Eumenes• 3 years ago

This is hardly surprising given America's addiction to sugary and carb heavy food products which generally have low protein.

fullshark• 3 years ago

When I was growing up the recommendation was to eat a lot of grains/carbs and avoid red meat. Beyond incompetence I think partly this was because cheap calories were needed historically to feed a manual labor force. Now that much of our labor is knowledge work, and people live sedentary lifestyles unless they exercise, the dietary recommendations should be altered. Whole foods and animal proteins, lower calories required, two meals a day.

J_Shelby_J• 3 years ago

Beyond incompetence

And economics. Expensive food (protein) has lower margins. Cheap food is profitable. The high margin pasta dishes and alcohol keep restaurants alive (steak houses famously have almost 0 margin on steak), and it's the same for the entire food industry.

The USDA represents American agricultural industry - not consumers. Eight servings of carbs a day on the food pyramid was essentially a license to Americans to buy as much carbs as they wanted.

bratwurst30008• 3 years ago

Could you give me more information about the low margin of meat? This is interesting. Would have assumed that meat would be a win for fast food industry.

Study: U.S. dietary recommendations for protein intake are too low

Related Stories