You state....... "There isn't any evidence as far as I know that proves you need any more or less protein. (Except for maybe the studies that Brad sites? I'd have to look at it.) ".....well then go look at it! You obviously shouldn't be done and ready to wrap things up unless you've had a look should you?
" If we can't gather anything meaningful out of countless studies, what does that tell you?".... tells me you still haven't taken the time to read the countless studies.
Anecdotally I lose significant amounts of muscle BEFORE my strength struggles at all. This happened when I was eating a vegetarian diet several years back. Strength is a persistent adaptation! Rippetoe says so . And he is correct. Even with loss of some lean mass you can retain most of your strength with neuromuscular adaptations, so supposing that your lifts didn't suffer isn't the same as you maintaining muscle. Just saying.
So yeah, I still think you are undervaluing proteins role in muscle, metabolism, strength, and health.
Last edited by Neckhammer; 11-15-2013 at 03:14 PM.
If we simplify things and take for granted that fruits, vegetables, and dead animals, are all real food, and if we stick to that only, I'm pretty sure protein will never be an issue, even if it is as important as you seem to believe.
Why? Think about it. We surely don't need as much protein as bodybuilders say, they had strong men before protein supplements were invented. And if you ate like Grok and just ate what ever you wanted on that list (without knowing what protein, carbs, fat, insulin, cortisol, etc., was), even if protein was important, there's no way you'd not get enough of it.
That's what I have to conclude. Because Grok didn't have to break his mind over all that stuff. He was too busy trying to figure out where he could get his next meal from. Let that be fruit, a wild boar, fish, or what ever was available.
Even if protein wasn't important, you could still get energy from the meat because of the fat. If it works then it must be real food, so that better be good enough for me. Life is too short to break your brains over this stuff. I was reading just for fun, but apparently if you read the wrong stuff it can dive you nuts.
Is that what this is all about? Is that what all those books are for? To fit their wacky agenda? 20 years ago my aunt used to tell me you don't need a lot of protein and she used to read about all that stuff. My grandmother had a masters degree in nutrition, and she used to seem to believe mostly in meat, fruit, and vegetables, never made a big deal out of protein.
I don't see any reason to believe either way. Do I need less and less protein like what the liberal vegans say? Or do I need more and more and more like the steroid insulin GH thyroid hormone bodybuilders say? Umm, I think I'm just going to do it my grandmother's way.
Growing older you'll probably need more and more protein related to your bodyweight...
One of many things I never got about fruitarian diets: they recommend VAST amounts of cardio and drinking HUGE amounts of water. This is to help them burn through the sheer amount of carbs and flush out the by-products of fructose metabolism. Yet what frugivore naturally exercises like that and that much? What frugivore drinks that much water after consuming several litres worth out of juicy fruit?
A meat-eater needs to be able to sprint, jump, tackle, lift weights, persistence run... If humans were still 'tropical animals', why would we need to perform these activities? Why not be lazy all day with the odd burst of activity, like other tropical herbivores? Why not walk a lot and do very little explosive activity? Why do LOTS of explosive and persistence activity? What evolutionary pressure would have caused a human to require such a huge amount of activity, when we supposedly need no animal produce?
There are more issues like this, such as the water one: if humans need so much water to flush out the by-products of fructose metabolism, then why are we so ideally adapted to fruit? Most frugivores get most of their water from juicy fruits, yet most fruitarians require large amounts of water on top of their fruit.
Or the sleep one: fruitarians insist that their diet gives them loads of energy and leaves them feeling refreshed, but also say they need to sleep around 12h/day. No shit they feel refreshed.
Or the binge one (more DR and FL on this one): carnivores are binge-eaters. They fast for ages and then stuff themselves. Their stomachs are adapted. Herbivores are grazers, slowly accumulating food throughout the day, never having an insanely swollen stomach like a carnivore. Reason is twofold: carnivores fast and binge, needing to consume a week or so worth of kcals in a few meals; most herbivores need to be light and active or focused and quick of mind to avoid predators, having a heavy, bloated stomach would hinder escape. (Yes, there are exceptions to both, but we're looking at mammals and typical binge-patterns. So lions and wolves vs hippos and gorillas.)
I've also wondered what they think an ancient human's day would look like.
6h eating (3 large meals that, due to our small stomachs, are spaced over 1-2h to consume, plus snacks and fluid breaks; or continual eating and drinking for 6h, or spaced out; you simply need that time to eat that volume of food).
2h urinating/defecating (fruit and 2-4l of water does that to you).
Leaving 4h for their aimless cardio, gathering the food, warding off predators and entertaining themselves.
My idea of a typical human's day:
Leaves 14.5h for hunting (once or twice weekly), gathering (daily), moving camps, napping if needed, warding off predators, entertaining themselves and uninterrupted socializing. The hunting, gathering and moving camps accounts for the weightlifting and walking and sprints, so no need for aimless activity.
So, that out of the way, my response.
1. When the fats are good and consumed intuitively, the amount doesn't matter. I am consuming more fat now than when I was obese. It's the quality and origin of the fat that has changed. So, no such thing as a random point where it becomes 'too much'.
2. There is no set amount for how many plants the human body needs apart from "some", "preferably over 10% of kcals" and "when your body asks you to eat them". Look up native plants from the Baltic, Scottish and Siberian regions. My ancestors wouldn't have got that much plant matter today, let alone 1M or 20k years ago. But that doesn't mean I need to eat none, or just a few berries in Autumn. You can pick any random point in human history to set an arbitrary plant to animal ratio that you decide is 'ideal'. The whole picture and individual cases combined are more relevant.
3. You can only get enough protein from fruit if you eat hideous amounts of it, to the exclusion of almost all else. Which is not natural (refer to the above).
4. Yet calories are also necessary. I'm currently burning through 2500+/day without doing much apart from walking, calisthenics and the odd lifting day. If I only ate vitamin and mineral dense foods, I'd fill my stomach on volumes of nutritious foods and starve for macronutrients.
5. Nope, they don't get enough exercise.
Last edited by Kochin; 11-15-2013 at 06:09 PM.
Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.
I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
I'd apologize, but...