I’ve been researching this for a few years now, Brady, with a plan to write a piece — specifically for my audience of women 50+.
Also in my mix: biogerontologist Victor Luongo — director of the USC Longevity Institute, who takes a hard line stance, in the opposite corner to Attia, going as far as to suggest we’re in a protein epidemic with long-term implications for our longevity.
It’s a complicated topic, as you say, and this piece captures where I too was landing.
I could only have hoped to have broken it all down so eloquently.
What I tend to prescribe for my readers (with an eye on Joyspan) is largely based on bypassing sarcopenia and osteoporosis.
I tend to suggest building meals around protein, with a target of 100g a day with guides to help them think in protein blocks (offering simple touchstones such as using the palm of your hand to measure what a personalised 25-30g lean meat portion might look like, for instance).
I’ve recently launched the Joyspan Diet which translates the principles of the Mediterranean diet to a formula for what’s on your plate, with an emphasis on fish and plant protein rather than other animal meat sources.
I feel you’ve done my heavy lifting and I’m enormously grateful for that!
Now I can simply share far and wide with credit to your hard and thoughtful work.
I did wonder, in case you have a view for women 50+
* any unique considerations ?
* protein and strength training: how hand in hand could they/should they be?
Thanks and congratulations again on a fabulous piece, Brady!
Has anyone looked at sarcopenia or muscle growth in persons on a low protein diet for kidney disease? It seems like they would be a natural population for comparison as my understanding is that avoiding protein is standard for damaged kidneys.
I’ve been mostly following the McDougall low fat, low protein vegan diet most of my adult life, with lapses of indulging in higher fat plant foods leading to weight gain. The weight gain may be why my running has become so slow and my stamina is waning; or maybe I’m not getting enough protein. Getting older isn’t helping.
Anyway, appreciate your trying to suss out our true protein needs
The last 2 paragraphs are the most powerful paragraphs in this whole piece. I am surrounded by people who perform a lot of sports and who care about performance, longevity etc. and none of them track their protein in much depth. Heck, I myself an a long distance runner who exercises between 10 and 20 hours a week, and I can say that I don't have the mental capacity to calculate my protein intake in great details. Of course when I am training, especially at higher levels, I make sure to replenish well and eat a mix of crabs, protein and fat, but I don't obsess over a specific number.
From a 10 second calculation, I think that I always hit a minimum of 1g/kg a day, but often times I go beyond 2g/kg, which is probably fine.
I think the guidance for people here should be to make sure they fuel correctly. Entirely excluding, or really trying to reduce, a particular macronutrient is probably wrong. Excluding a food group entirely is also probably bad. You need to eat your pastas, your meat, your fruits and veg, legumes, potatoes, sea food, dairy, grains and even some sugar and fats. When in training, make sure you do not under-fuel because that WILL impact performance.
Mind you, I am not saying that scientists should not investigate the detail, but overemphesizing a particular limit (1.6g/kg vs 2g/kg) I think is sending the wrong message, which can lead to an unhealthy relationship with food (which is definitely NOT what the goal should be).
Interested to see what everyone else things though, and whether I am totally off the mark here.
1. Peter Attia is an investor in David protein bars.
2. Topol's writing also covers a study that showed no conclusive benefits in over 50s performing resistance training w/ vs w/o protein"
"In the 50+ group, as reviewed by ten Haaf and colleagues, the randomized trials show no benefit of high protein on top of resistance training compared with resistance training alone (the control group) for improved lean body mass and there is no heterogeneity."
1. Valid but I don’t see that as a legit reason to critique his stance on protein.
2. Yes, and I’m not completely up to speed, but I bet we could find studies showing a benefit of protein versus none. In any case RT matters much more!
I’ve been researching this for a few years now, Brady, with a plan to write a piece — specifically for my audience of women 50+.
Also in my mix: biogerontologist Victor Luongo — director of the USC Longevity Institute, who takes a hard line stance, in the opposite corner to Attia, going as far as to suggest we’re in a protein epidemic with long-term implications for our longevity.
It’s a complicated topic, as you say, and this piece captures where I too was landing.
I could only have hoped to have broken it all down so eloquently.
What I tend to prescribe for my readers (with an eye on Joyspan) is largely based on bypassing sarcopenia and osteoporosis.
I tend to suggest building meals around protein, with a target of 100g a day with guides to help them think in protein blocks (offering simple touchstones such as using the palm of your hand to measure what a personalised 25-30g lean meat portion might look like, for instance).
I’ve recently launched the Joyspan Diet which translates the principles of the Mediterranean diet to a formula for what’s on your plate, with an emphasis on fish and plant protein rather than other animal meat sources.
I feel you’ve done my heavy lifting and I’m enormously grateful for that!
Now I can simply share far and wide with credit to your hard and thoughtful work.
I did wonder, in case you have a view for women 50+
* any unique considerations ?
* protein and strength training: how hand in hand could they/should they be?
Thanks and congratulations again on a fabulous piece, Brady!
Has anyone looked at sarcopenia or muscle growth in persons on a low protein diet for kidney disease? It seems like they would be a natural population for comparison as my understanding is that avoiding protein is standard for damaged kidneys.
I’ve been mostly following the McDougall low fat, low protein vegan diet most of my adult life, with lapses of indulging in higher fat plant foods leading to weight gain. The weight gain may be why my running has become so slow and my stamina is waning; or maybe I’m not getting enough protein. Getting older isn’t helping.
Anyway, appreciate your trying to suss out our true protein needs
I have great (scientific) respect for both Attia and Topol, but I couldn’t agree more with this point:
“One unifying perspective is that no matter one’s stance, protein matters. But how much matters most depends on the story of the body it’s fueling.”
We are already in the era of personalized medicine — something both Attia and Topol strongly advocate.
This quote captures it perfectly: there can never be a single, definite answer, because every human body tells its own story.
Very, very well said.
The last 2 paragraphs are the most powerful paragraphs in this whole piece. I am surrounded by people who perform a lot of sports and who care about performance, longevity etc. and none of them track their protein in much depth. Heck, I myself an a long distance runner who exercises between 10 and 20 hours a week, and I can say that I don't have the mental capacity to calculate my protein intake in great details. Of course when I am training, especially at higher levels, I make sure to replenish well and eat a mix of crabs, protein and fat, but I don't obsess over a specific number.
From a 10 second calculation, I think that I always hit a minimum of 1g/kg a day, but often times I go beyond 2g/kg, which is probably fine.
I think the guidance for people here should be to make sure they fuel correctly. Entirely excluding, or really trying to reduce, a particular macronutrient is probably wrong. Excluding a food group entirely is also probably bad. You need to eat your pastas, your meat, your fruits and veg, legumes, potatoes, sea food, dairy, grains and even some sugar and fats. When in training, make sure you do not under-fuel because that WILL impact performance.
Mind you, I am not saying that scientists should not investigate the detail, but overemphesizing a particular limit (1.6g/kg vs 2g/kg) I think is sending the wrong message, which can lead to an unhealthy relationship with food (which is definitely NOT what the goal should be).
Interested to see what everyone else things though, and whether I am totally off the mark here.
Side notes:
1. Peter Attia is an investor in David protein bars.
2. Topol's writing also covers a study that showed no conclusive benefits in over 50s performing resistance training w/ vs w/o protein"
"In the 50+ group, as reviewed by ten Haaf and colleagues, the randomized trials show no benefit of high protein on top of resistance training compared with resistance training alone (the control group) for improved lean body mass and there is no heterogeneity."
1. Valid but I don’t see that as a legit reason to critique his stance on protein.
2. Yes, and I’m not completely up to speed, but I bet we could find studies showing a benefit of protein versus none. In any case RT matters much more!