Jump to content

Talk:High-protein diet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Excess protein intake

I don't think telling people vague and quite frankly dangerous things about protein requirements is a great idea. From what the article says, you could have someone eating 500g of protein a day, ten times more than what they need. Excess protein intake can lead to calcium deficiency and kidney damage, and does not help build muscle faster, excess amino acids are excreted, not stored or used. You only need a comparatively small amount of additional protein to repair muscle damage from weight training. 5g extra over your normal 50g average is all it takes, unless you are somehow gaining several pounds of muscle mass per day, in which case you might want to see a doctor. The majority of the bulk of muscles is water, proteins are a very small proportion. 69.197.92.181 12:24, 4 Mar 2005

Nobody's advocating 500g intake. And the studies showing kidney problems found it only in people with previous kidney disease. Also, there is scientific evidence that higher protein intakes do improve anabolism, but there is a diminishing return over 1.5 g/lb/day. Blair P. Houghton 20:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the relevant phrase is "are commonly advised." The article itself does not take a position on the subject, but attempts to honestly report the recommendations given by other sources (as per the reference). Opinions vary widely, which is why the stated range is so broad. (I reverted one editor who wanted to change the minimum intake from 0.8 to 1.2 g/lb.) That said, there remain some who believe as 69.197.92.181 does, so this opinion should be briefly mentioned to maintain a NPOV. GeorgeStepanek\talk 21:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am the reverted 'one editor'. I included a reference this time (should've done last time, sorry!). Btw 500g a day: 120kg (not untypical for a large weight-trainer)x4.4g=538g/day Dan100 16:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you guys should really read over the biochem stuff here on the wikipedia, and get an understanding of what protein is and what we use it for. The US RDA for protein for a male age 25-50 is 63g. That means 97.5% of males 25-50 need 63g or less. This is aiming high to make sure the vast majority of people are covered. Recommending that people eat 2g of protein per pound is insane, the average requirement is .6g per KG, 4.4 per KG is simply dangerous, and of no benefit. Taking that 2g per pound recommendation, I would be eating 420g of protein per day. However I only actually use about 70g per day in my current training (based on urine tests). That extra protein would be creating alot of acid in my blood, which has to be neutralized with calcium, which can cause weakening of my bones. All the extra amino acids floating around can be broken down further into sugar and used as fuel, or if I already get enough calories from sugars and fats, my kidneys will just filter them out, and you can guess where they go after that. There is simply nobody out there who needs ~450g of protein per day. Think about it, that's a pound. Muscle is only a small percentage by weight protein, so if you needed a pound of protein, you would have to be gaining several pounds of muscle mass every day.
Having more protein will not make your muscles grow faster. Your muscle growth is based on how much you damage them, and how much your body repairs them. If your body is only repairing your damaged muscle tissue (from weight training) at a rate consuming 15g of additional protein per day, then another 400g of protein will not do anything for you, its only having less than the needed 15g that will hold you back. This is not a POV issue, it is a factual error, and one that could lead to serious health problems if people follow it. 69.197.92.181 17:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guess I should have looked at the article again before all posting this, somebody changed it to a much more sane 0.6g to 0.8g. Would it also be worth mentioning that if you are overweight, and say have 30 or 40 pounds of fat on you, that shouldn't really count towards your calculations for protein intake? 69.197.92.181 17:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your added reference, Dan100. Yes, 0.6 g/kg/day is recommended by some authors, so I have amended the range to show this. I have also adjusted the figures to better reflect the reference that I supplied, which discusses protein intake up to 1.4 or 1.5 g/kg/day. But gentlemen, please do not include original research. No matter what your arguments are, whether they are justified or not, the article should reflect only that which is supported by the provided references. There is no factual error in saying that "weight trainers are commonly advised to consume 0.6–1.5g of protein per pound of bodyweight per day." The supplied references show that this is true. GeorgeStepanek\talk 19:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but if you are doing to say weight trainers are commonly advised to do X, you should also mention they are commonly advised not to as well. There's dozens of rediculous myths about weight training, that doesn't mean we should put them all in the article with the presumption that they are true, even though we can certainly find websites that claim they are. Its definately a POV problem if you try to hide behind "some people recommend" without also mentioning that "some people recommend otherwise". I haven't done anything to the article yet, I just came here to discuss it and see what everyone thinks. Should I add in references for the "don't eat too much protein" side to balance it out? Are we going to have the same problem with every other thing that some people feel helps, and other people feel doesn't? Do you feel its going too far to point out that the people recommended over-consumption of protein tend to have little to no qualifications (some guy with muscles), and the people recommending not to tend to be doctors and nutritional scientists? 69.197.92.181 20:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a description of the opposing POV would be very helpful here. I have made a stab at this, but feel free to make it more accurate and to add a suitable reference. (But please don't make it too wordy!) Note that one might also say that doctors and nutritional scientists rarely have much practical experience of weight training, whereas the bodybuilding community has a wealth of experience! But seriously, there are a variety of scientific studies that show benefits from quite a wide range of levels of protein intake. It would be misleading to only show one side of this debate. I tried to address this by giving a very wide range of values, but I think that some pro and anti comments would be helpful also. GeorgeStepanek\talk 20:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I am only discussing right now, and not changing stuff, is that this section could get very long for something that's only marginally related to the main topic if we put in all sorts of pro and con stuff for the various issues. Like if I were to change things right now, I would add a bit about taking a calcium suppliment if you are dramatically increasing your protein intake, since more protein means more wasted calcium neutralizing acids in your blood, and less calicium being available for your bones. I would have to point out that the studies showing "no kidney damage" are seriously flawed, as its obvious that kidney damage results from working your kidneys harder, but that it takes years to cause problems. You could pretend alcoholism doesn't cause kidney damage too if you only do a short term study and ignore life-long effects. Then I'd have to throw in the studies that show massive protein intake does cause kidney damage, and then someone else would have to point out how those studies are also flawed because they assume animals and humans will have the same results. And I'd probably change the wording so it doesn't sound like the inflated protein recommendations are "adequate protein", and clarify that the recommendations are in fact to consume significantly more than what is "adequate". This makes for a pretty long section, which is chock full of POV, and low on facts. Is that worth having in the article? Leaving a long winded back and forth about protein in there also leaves the article wide open for long winded back and forth exchanges about all kinds of rituals, superstitions and such that various people who lift weights use or believe in. Do we need a big discussion about wether or not raw eggs give you magical muscle building powers too? How about tying your left shoe with a double knot? At what point do we draw the line? 69.197.92.181 22:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thoughtful and considerate attitute. Yes, this section could be greatly expanded—far beyond what is required for this article. But it is an extremely important issue. I have therefore created a new high protein diet article for an in-depth discussion of the issues around protein intake. At the moment it's just a copy of the relevant paragraph, but we could certainly merge all of your (very valid) points.

By the way, it would be nice if you created a login: an IP address doesn't really convey much in the way of personality or identity. Especially as we seem to be entering a bit of a conversation now. I really would like to work with you to create a good, balanced article on the pros and cons of a high protein diet. GeorgeStepanek\talk 22:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In reality, most bodybuilders do, in fact, consume close to 2 grams per pound of bodyweight in protein over long periods of time with little or no adverse effects, and have done so for decades now. That's better evidence than any of the so-called scientific studies we see today. I know that's not what they recommend, but they also routinely recommend slow and controlled movements. All you have to do is watch Pumping Iron or head over to YouTube to see that this is not what they actually do. It's just what they tell the idiots who buy M&F magazines. If they told you the truth, they wouldn't be able to sell you all of those BS supplements, much less anymore magazines. Now would they? The fact is that protein is the most metabolically expensive nutrient. It is very difficult to overeat protein foods and protein is not as readily converted to fat stores as are carbohydrates or fats. So in terms of creating a calorie deficit while eating enough to feel satisfied and getting enough protein to spare muscle (or even to build muscle while losing fat stores), protein is the answer. And that's not even touching on the thermogenic and hormonal benefits of high protein diets. John4.153.251.211 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WPFood assessment

Assessed as a low importance start.

This article needs attention in regards to:

  • NPOV - only one side is presented in the article.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resources relevant to this page

II | (t - c) 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quantifying "high-protein foods"

Just looking at the label of one box of tofu and one bottle of milk suggests that tofu has 8.8g protein per 100g; milk has 3.2g protein per 100mL, while parmesan cheese has 35g protein per 100g. (The proportional protein content of tofu and dairy products presumably depend heavily on water content.) According to the table at Meat#Nutritional_benefits_and_concerns and some arithmetic, red meat has about 27g protein per 100g, chicken breast 25g/100g, while fish has 18–22g protein per 100g. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjrm (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is bunkus

There are two "sources" that "cite" that protein doesn't necessarily enhance muscle growth. The one is some random website that does not even say that. The other page no longer exists. It needs to be changed.

Protein = muscle growth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.106.34 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because there are no robust vegetarian sources of protein (Re: section labeled "High Protein Foods")

First of all, having a list of high protein foods is a bit like permitting the oft-deleted wikipedia list of historical figures who wore shirts. There are countless historical figures that wore shirts and countless foods that fit the high protein bill.

Second, why on earth is there not a single vegetarian source of protein on the list? Ever heard of quinoa? Legumes? Soy beans? Sprouted grains? You are significantly less likely to encounter health problems garnering your protein from these options than from animal sources. 

67.188.109.209 (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete List

So how about eggs, lean pork, lamb, canned Salmon and other fish ?? --MichaelGG (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the four links in the References section should be removed.

  • health.pharmacy-bg.com appears to be a kind of traffic farm. A spot check of their content reveals content taken from other sites without attribution. The first link takes a couple paragraphs from this article, unattributed.
  • howmuchprotein.us is not NPOV
  • etoolsage.com seems to be a link farm and the content is from USDA. Would be better to link to the USDA database.

Pnm (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Food citations

Added some citations to the list of foods. Is there a better way to link to the USDA database in the citations?

I noticed some requests for vegetarian foods and I'll come back and add some tomorrow. Pnm (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading article

its more or less proven that a high protein intake accelerates muscle growth and recovery. While its also proven that low protein diets are not conductive to building muscle (especially if calories are in deficit)

more importantly , protein gets deamnated for glucose or ketones, and not excreted. This means that any excess protein converts to energy in a way that is metabolically desirable.

deamination by the liver and kidneys isn't proven to be harmful at those levels , especially over time , infact under advanced catabolic stages of many popular fad diet women often practice , the liver is under a much larger load , This is all detected visually in urine independent of water intake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.202.29 (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Effect of Dietary Protein Content on Weight Gain, Energy Expenditure, and Body Composition During Overeating

This study shows that additional protein is tied to lean body mass.

I'm not familiar with wikipedia's editing standards so perhaps someone else can extrapolate and correct this article.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/1/47.full

75.92.6.0 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


Added.--JDowning (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Protein and weight training

In addition to the other issues with this article above (which I wholeheartedly agree with), the section "Protein and weight training" conflates "bodybuilding" with "weight training", which are not the same thing. There is a very big difference between strength training, weightlifting, powerlifting, and bodybuilding, although all of these sports would require a diet with adequate amounts of protein in order to achieve muscle growth. Lonelily (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Article does not define its subject

This article begins with a description of a high protein diet. It should start by defining the term, "high protein diet" and address the controversy related to the definition.

gb

While I understand what you are trying to get across by defining a high protein diet, I believe it is not necessary as it is self-explanatory enough to not require defining. However, I do agree with you in addressing the controversy of a high protein diet, as it has become a very controversial topic today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilso124 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of More High-Protein Foods

In the table for listed high-protein foods, I believe there should be more "foods" added instead of listing Soy protein isolate and they whey proteins as those are considered to be more supplements than food. For example, eggs, Greek yogurt, and cottage could be used to replace the supplements. Wilso124 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing Debate

It is stated at the beginning of the article that "there is ongoing debate regarding the use and necessity of high-protein diets in anaerobic exercise, in particular for weight training and bodybuilding," yet there is no ongoing debate directly stated in the article, so I think an addition of that would be beneficial, as there is, indeed, much debate with high-protein diets in regards of anaerobic exercise. --Wilso124 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High-protein diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

2001 paper

This paper was written for the American Heart Association Nutrition Committee - St. Jeor ST, Howard BV, Prewitt E, et al. (2001). Dietary protein and weight reduction. Circulation 104: 1869-1974.

"High-protein diets are not recommended because they restrict healthful foods that provide essential nutrients and do not provide the variety of foods needed to adequately meet nutritional needs. Individuals who follow these diets are therefore at risk for compromised vitamin and mineral intake, as well as potential cardiac, renal, bone, and liver abnormalities overall." [1] Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

So, if I read this correctly, High Protein diets inhibit the ability of people to take supplements somehow?Litch (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the authors assumed people might not take supplements. For example this fellow [2] doesn't take any supplements, and the creator of that meat-and-water diet has 22000 YouTube subscribers and hundreds of thousands of views on her diet-plan channel. I think that kind of thing scares the American Heart Association committee.JDowning (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is one sided and appears to be very biased

This article is a hit list of cherry picked references that are against it. Besides it generalizes fad diets like Atkins and Protein Power as being the same as high protein diet in general.

There's barely any mention of potential uses and benefits and no mention of less extremist diets other than those fad diets. Dqeswn (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. As of now, this article treats dietary proteins almost as if they were poisonous, and probably doesn't represent the current view of scientific community on high protein diets. I wouldn't try stop you if you wanted to put this view in writing. Although, it could easily go the other way and display such a diet as some kind of cure-it-all. Listing a bunch of inconclusive meta-reviews probably isn't helpful to the reader either, which is also something that has happened in some Wikipedia articles. 5-HT2AR (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I also agree. I've added the POV tag. TheLoneCoder (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
5-HT2AR, are you saying the scientific community actually supports a high-protein diet? There doesn't appear to be any evidence for this in the literature. If you look at the overall scientific consensus from nutritionists they support a balanced diet (see healthy diet). Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I am willing to agree the article is not very good but adding unsourced content and removing any mention of fad dieting is not the way to go. The article appears to be mostly about high-protein fad diets. I thought about redirecting this article but I don't think that that can be done. Unfortunately the article has suffered from sock-puppets in the past. TheLoneCoder are you associated with Dqeswn? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
No I'm not associated with any "sock-puppet" account, whatever that is. It was very rude of you to revert all of my valuable changes. This wiki page should read something like this article that has 42 references that disagree with your one sided vegan opinions. TheLoneCoder (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The Healthline article you suggest is not a reliable source for nutrition or medical content on Wikipedia. Review WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Did you not see the 42 links to pubmed on the healthline article? Those look like reliable sources to me. TheLoneCoder (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The public media would likely relate a high-protein diet to fad diets for weight loss, athletic enhancement or body-building, as examples, but there is medical research literature on its potential use in addressing obesity, type II diabetes, mechanisms of kidney or liver disease, among others shown in this Pubmed listing. The article would be improved by sections supported by WP:MEDRS sources. As it stands now, the article sources are mostly out of date, and the content leans mainly toward the fad diet uses. It needs to be overhauled, or could be incorporated (redirected after trimming) into the fad diet article, as an alternative. Zefr (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I've readded the POV template, as it was removed without sufficient changes or discussion to justify its removal. Maddtroller (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the POV template, many of the references you added to the article are unreliable, please read WP:MEDRS, we do not cite primary material. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not a reliable medical source [3], it was also published in MDPI's Nutrients. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
A user just sent me an odd email on 18 November telling me they are restoring all the edits on this article I removed, odd considering I haven't edited this article in a long time. I am guessing this was Maddtroller as they were the only recent editor to make mass changes and remove any mention of fad diets. It looks to me like there is some possible socking from the three red accounts Dqeswn/TheLoneCoder/Maddtroller but as they are hardly active on here, it would be a waste of time to file an SPI. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Meatfluencers

Hi everyone! I added a "meatfluencers" section to this High Protein Diet page and would appreciate some feedback. I look forward to collaborating! Lvogel1 (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

None of those sources were medical reviews. Please take a look at WP:Fringe and WP:MEDRS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Psychologist Guy, that is true, but this trend is an interesting event in the history of the diet, for which there are some notable sources. (Is there policy that articles about diet must strictly be about their medical standing?) I think a history section, with this content, could be useful. (Disclosure: I am @Lvogel1's teacher.) Reagle (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The sourcing was unreliable. This is Boston's NPR News Station [4]. This was a cooking website called Bon Appétit [5]. The text added to the Wikipedia article quoted "producer Ben Brock Johnson", he is not a dietitian or physician. Why would we quote a producer? This is an opinion paper written by a well known carnivore diet advocate [6], this paper has been cited many times on Wikipedia by carnivore advocates, it fails WP:MEDRS and is always removed. The other source (source 14) was not linked to, I am guessing it was this source from The Telegraph [7]. There is also the issue of WP:OR, only one of those sources claimed the carnivore diet is a high-protein diet. The others did not use that terminology. The article in The Telegraph can be used but it doesn't specifically say the carnivore is a type of high-protein diet, you can read the full article here [8]. As stated this runs into the issue of WP:OR. In conclusion there are too many issues here. If we are not going to be citing medical reviews, we should at least be citing medical experts or qualified dietitians. We already have an article on the carnivore diet which does not describe it as a high-protein diet. If The Telegraph is to be added it might be better there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Psychologist Guy, thank you for these suggestions and your findings. I will look into collaborating with others to see if this is a better fit for the carnivore diet. Thanks again! Lvogel1 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote a section in my Sandbox on mental/cognitive health and a high protein diet. I am wondering if anyone would be willing to give feedback so eventually I can contribute to the main space? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lvogel1/High-protein_diet#Efficacy Thank you! Lvogel1 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe you mean well but most of the sources you are using in your sandbox are not reliable. If you read WP:MEDRS we do not use primary sources for biomedical content, so try looking for clinical guidelines, official statements from medical organizations or systematic reviews. We wouldn't cite a single case study or trial, a good review of studies is needed. Sources 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 are not reliable and cannot be used on Wikipedia. You have cited one systematic review on dairy from 2016. The problem with this review is that it was heavily funded by the dairy industry. We are not going to cite biased reviews funded by the food industry. We have an article on dairy products that has a section on the health effects of dairy. There is a lot of good evidence dairy is beneficial in the diet but it seems off-topic here and as stated we wouldn't cite an industry funded review that like.
In conclusion, most of the content you are citing is very unlikely to find it's way onto a Wikipedia article because it is not reliable. If you want another opinion, I recommend asking at WikiProject Medicine where experienced medical editors can offer their view on such content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Online Communities

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 17 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lvogel1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lvogel1 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Lila! This looks like a great article so far. You have a lot of sources and do a good job backing up your claims. There was just one ("There is dispute among researchers about the efficacy and safety of various high-protein diets.") that could maybe use a citation after to avoid making vague claims like "some people say", etc. I also just made some minor grammatical edits. Other than that my only suggestion would be to elaborate a little bit in your Efficacy section. But good job so far! :) -Lmeyler02 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-protein_diet/Archive_1&oldid=1230404964"