Tag Archive for: protein

Your Perfect Diet

/in /by

Continuing what I learned from the podcast, I hope you had the chance to listen to it as well. I checked out Dr. Daniel Lieberman’s research, and he is a leading expert in his field. There are three facts that stood out to me.

Three Facts

The first thing I learned is that hippopotami have less body fat than the typical human being! It seems incredible that animals who are that round can have so little body fat. Assessing body fat was my job when I was in grad school, and whether that’s absolutely accurate or off by a bit, I’m not going to try to assess body fat in a hippo any time soon.

Second, as time proceeded, our digestive systems changed: our small intestine became longer and our large intestine became shorter. Our digestive system has adapted to cooked foods; that means our microbiome has shifted over the millennia, and less time is needed for fermentation in the gut to extract nutrients.

Third, the typical protein intake never really exceeded 30% of total dietary intake. We can survive on any type of diet as long as we get enough of the raw materials to take in or to make the nutrients we need such as hormones and vitamins.

The Bottom Line

There’s no perfect diet for everyone—we are too genetically different, raised in different environments, and process foods differently. The key is to find the perfect diet for you that gets you to a normal body weight and allows you to stay there. These recommendations never change: eat less. Eat better. Move more. For life.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Zoe. August 6, 2026. The Evolutionary Science Behind Why You Can’t Lose Weight.

Everything Old Is New Again

/in /by

In Tuesday’s Memo, I said I’ve heard this song before. Actually, I’ve heard it twice before. Due to the nature of this trip around the world of high protein, the song “Everything Old is New Again” seems completely appropriate.

The first time I heard the high-protein song was in the early 1990s. When the first Dietary Guidelines were published after the 1977 McGovern Report on American Diet recommendations, every manufacturer tried everything they could to get fat out of their products; that led to products high in sugar and food additives to give the sensation of fat on the tongue. Remember the Snackwell cookies? It also led to other low-fat and low-sodium foods such as Healthy Choice brands. If you could pick one time that jumpstarted the countless ultra-processed foods we have today, I would pick that time.

The second time was the low-carb craze that began with the second generation of the Atkins Diet craze in the early 2000s. I can remember low-carb stores opening just about everywhere. They closed just about as fast; that wave didn’t last long. Evidently, people aren’t interested in foods without carbs that don’t taste very good. Who knew?

This time around, after the ketogenic diet has gained a foothold in society, the movement has been aided by the recent 2025 USDA Dietary Guidelines that focus on higher protein but combining it with lower fat intake. I’ve seen products come to market without gluten and just a few carbohydrates. That’s why a beef-based breakfast food you add milk to, preferably full-fat milk, doesn’t really surprise me. Whether this is a healthy trend or not is to be decided.

I’ll say it again because it isn’t complicated: Eat less. Eat better, and by that I mean foods as close to natural as possible. And then move more. That’s the path to health—no gimmicks required.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Hamburger Cereal?

/in /by

Paula mentioned in passing that she had read about a hamburger cereal. I just shook my head, and then it really hit me: a hamburger cereal? I had to check it out. Turns out there is a “cereal” out there that contains 20 grams of protein from dehydrated ground beef per ½ cup serving.

The dried beef makes a crunchy texture. There are two flavors: Chocolate Peanut Butter and Maple Cinnamon. All natural ingredients with no preservatives or colors—just pour on the milk, preferably full-fat milk.

Except for one thing: this processed food is not a cereal. By definition, a cereal must be plant-based. We don’t need to argue the semantics of cereal, but here’s the most important thing: the product contains no fiber. You may get more protein, but why this way? I’ve heard this song before, and I’ll talk about it on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

What Changed? 2015 vs. 2025 Dietary Guidelines

/in /by

If you read any of the commentary about the latest dietary guidelines, you would have thought there were radical changes. “Eat or drink full-fat dairy! Use beef tallow! Ultra-processed food should be eliminated!”

If you took the time to read the synopses, there are very few differences between the recommendations. They still use the same base of 2,000 calories per day. The recommended percentage of fat intake is the same. The same number of fruits and vegetables are recommended—still way too low at two and three respectively. Sodium intake—the same. Eat whole grains, not refined carbohydrates. So where did all the discussion come from? Let’s take a look.

“Higher Protein Intake”

The recommendation is warranted given that we don’t get enough protein, based on the most recent research. If you want more details, purchase my latest webinar Taking Back Your Muscle, Part 2: Protein, and I’ll explain it in detail. Maybe there’s slightly more emphasis on animal protein, but all plant-based sources of protein are given just like they always have been.

Because both sets of guidelines talk about adjusting nutrient intake based on stages of life, there’s an increase of protein recommended at different life stages.

“Full-Fat Dairy and Tallow for Cooking”

Although the focus on these two stirred a lot of online commotion, these are not meaningful changes in the recommendation for consuming dairy products or deep-fat frying in oils. While the commentary reached a high-pitched crescendo, you probably figured out why it was meaningless. If you read the recommendations, in 2015 and 2025 the guidelines say not to exceed 10% of daily calories from saturated fat. One cup of milk would contain five grams of saturated fat, about 25% of the recommended daily intake for the average person. Fry something in beef tallow and depending on the food, that could use up the rest of the day’s fat recommendation. This is not different from the 2015 recommendations in any substantive way.

“Fewer Ultra-Processed Foods”

One more time, there’s no difference in the recommendations for avoiding ultra-processed foods. The 2015 guideline didn’t call them ultra-processed foods, but the pictures definitely show foods high in processed carbohydrates, sugars, and fats.

The Bottom Line

The real problems with the 2015 guidelines are two-fold and will probably happen again for 2025 guidelines:

  • Most Americans will never read the synopsis.
  • Even if they did, they wouldn’t change their eating habits to a more nutritious diet that’s based on vegetables, fruits, quality protein from all sources, whole grains, and a reasonable intake of fat.

I’ll throw in my two cents and make it even simpler: Eat less. Eat better. Move more. That’s the way to better health.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Should You Increase Your Protein Supplement?

/in /by

The research paper we’re reviewing demonstrated that there seemed to be a dose-like response to protein intake after intense exercise; that is, the more protein, the more muscle synthesis. And it lasted at least 12 hours instead of the prior four to six hours for a lower dose. Also, the excess protein intake wasn’t used to make energy to any great degree as previously thought; that means less strain on the kidneys, because when protein is broken into individual amino acids, the nitrogen group won’t have to be eliminated via the kidneys.

As always, there are more questions to be answered before this study becomes the new normal.

To Be Determined

The obvious issue is that the subjects were all young men from 18 to 40. Would the same results happen in women? And would the same result happen in older subjects, such as those in their 50s or 60s?

Next question: would the extra protein be absorbed and used the same way without the intense exercise session? The subjects did four different exercises using the legs and chest with four sets of ten reps, pushing the subjects to failure on the final three sets. Pushing yourself that hard can be challenging and even dangerous without help. Could someone with known cardiovascular disease push themselves as hard without causing a cardiovascular event? Would metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes impact how protein was utilized?

I could go on, but you get the point. One study with fewer than 40 young subjects, using testing procedures that will not be easy to duplicate, isn’t a basis for changing protein intake after exercise for everyone.

What Does It Mean?

The obvious answer is that it provides a new area of research. I would be most interested in how the use of essential amino acids could impact the protein synthesis in addition to additional protein intake. But let’s stick to what it means beyond future results.

On the days that you lift weights, even though perhaps not as intensely as the subjects in this study, add an additional 10 or 25 grams of protein to your post-workout shake. Milk protein was used as the source in this study, but other sources of protein powders would probably obtain the same result. The composition of protein powders doesn’t vary much, so choose whatever appeals to you.

The men began drinking their shake after they completed the exercise session. I recommend drinking extra water for a couple of hours after the shake. Do that for a specific number of weeks and see what happens. Track whether you’re able to increase weight or add muscle.

If you don’t do resistance exercise, you can see how you respond to the additional protein after a long walk or a yoga session. You might feel better with the additional protein.

The Bottom Line

Nutrition is a constantly changing field. Some basic assumptions that developed can now be reconsidered with better technology to test benefits or pitfalls. While it may take years or even decades before we have answers, what’s really important is how you respond. Adding some additional protein such as 10 or 25 grams to your morning or post-workout shake is not unreasonable to see how it benefits you. All the research in the world still comes down to how it affects you and your unique body; for example, certain antihistamines put some people to sleep and keep other people awake. As long as you’re reasonably healthy, you are your own subject.

Just remember: keep track of what you do and find a way to assess the outcome. After that, it comes down to one question: 

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Cell Reports Medicine https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101324

Reconsidering Protein Supplement Amounts

/in /by

One of the basic tenets in sports nutrition is that we shouldn’t consume more than 25 grams of protein in a drink product. The reasoning has been that more won’t help you to add more muscle after a workout. This has trickled down to the point that it applies to anyone who drinks a protein shake. Based on a recent study, that may not necessarily be true.

First, let’s review why you want to build muscle. Obviously, more muscle helps you do more with your body: lift heavier objects or move your body more easily. Muscle is more dense than fat, so it takes up less space; when you are more muscular you look slimmer as well as more fit. Maybe most important, more muscle burns more calories; you can use that fact to lose weight or to eat more food.

Researchers wanted to test how long muscle synthesis would continue after an hour-long intense weight training session. The study was simple in design: take 36 young men who were physically active, test their initial exercise capacity, and then subject them to an hour-long weight training session in a laboratory setting. Afterward, in a randomized way, 12 of them got 100 grams of a protein drink, another 12 got 25 grams of the same protein drink, and the final 12 got a placebo that had no protein.

That’s where the simplicity stopped. The protein had specific quantities of carbon-labelled amino acids including leucine, the amino acid responsible for initiating protein building in muscle. The objective was to monitor whether protein synthesis lasted more than four to six hours, the previous conventional thinking. The other question is whether the excess protein would be used for making energy.

The short answer is that protein synthesis lasts at least 12 hours (and perhaps longer) at the highest intake, 100 grams. There is more to it than that, and I’ll cover it on Saturday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Cell Reports Medicine https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101324

Protein in the 21st Century

/in /by

The results of the study seemed to be definitive: animal sources of protein yield more absorption of essential amino acids (EAAs). The reason the researchers undertook the study was that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 (DGA) uses the term “ounce equivalencies” when describing protein sources. From the DGA: one ounce equivalent equals one ounce of meat, one whole egg, a quarter cup of beans, or a half ounce of nuts. The researchers question whether those sources are actually nutritionally about the same. As you can probably guess, they’re not.

Defining Equivalency

The researchers demonstrated that on an equal weight basis, those categories of foods are not equivalent on the net absorption of EAAs. When looking at the EAA breakdown of each food on the USDA Food Central Database, they are not equivalent at the same weight in EAAs or in any category. The calories are not the same per serving, the fat content is all over the place, and animal sources of food contain no fiber.

I think that both the USDA and the research group would be better served by using the word standardized, but that’s not really enough, either: it must be standardized to a specific nutrient or category. If one were to standardize to EAAs, then pork, beef, chicken, lamb, and every other animal would make the list, but plant-based products would not unless the serving size were different. Both beans and almonds have EAAs, but the portion sizes would be different and so would the calories and other nutrients.

A Better Idea

We don’t live at the turn of the last century or the 1930s; we have the technology today to use protein powders and EAAs in powder form as an addition to the foods we eat. There’s no reason we can’t add more protein as our protein needs change with our age without adding the fat and cholesterol that come with animal protein. Whether you prefer animal-based protein such as whey or plant-based protein such as soy, rice, hemp, or pea protein, you can increase the amount you get every day based on your needs. The amounts you need may vary, but 25 grams of protein is a good place to begin.

To avoid any discrepancy in the EAA content between plant and animal sources, use a product that specifically contains EAAs. They’re individual amino acids that do not have to be broken down as proteins do, and they’re absorbed faster. In this case, an additional 10 grams per day is a good place to begin.

The Bottom Line

I think the focus on protein is good at any age because we’re still a carb-centric society. If everyone would just follow the DGA instead of the modern adaptation we’ve concocted over the years, everyone would end up healthier. But we do love our Cheetos and chocolate truffles, so the teaching continues. Just remember: Make every bite count!

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

References:
1. Nutrients, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132870
2. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/

Best Protein Sources: Animals or Plants?

/in /by

Protein quality is integral to our health at any age and even more as the years go by. We think of protein as it relates to muscle, but there are many other uses for protein in our body: bones, skin, hair, and the hemoglobin in your blood—virtually every body part or tissue. Then there is the proteome; we make at least 10,000 different proteins to help the body do what it does. Insulin is just one example of such a protein. Your ability to make proteins is dependent on making sure you have enough protein intake on a regular basis.

Today there is more emphasis on obtaining nutrients such as protein from plant-based sources. The question is this: do we get the same amount of essential amino acids (EAA) from both animal and plant-based sources of protein? Researchers decided to compare the absorption of essential amino acids from four sources of protein, two animal and two plant-based.

Researchers recruited subjects from two different age groups: 22–39 and 55–75. The subjects ate the same exact caloric and macronutrient meal on four different occasions with one of the following added: two ounces of cooked pork, scrambled eggs, canned black beans (rinsed), or raw almonds. Then the EAA content of their blood was tested for the next five hours.

The EAA absorption in descending order was pork, eggs, black beans, and almonds; the subjects’ bodies absorbed at least twice as much EAA from animal sources than plant-based sources. There was no difference in EAA absorption between age groups. A few questions remain, and I’ll answer those on Saturday.

Tomorrow night’s Insider conference call will include more about EAAs and a self-experiment on ultra-processed foods. You can also get your questions answered if you become an Insider before 8 p.m. Eastern tomorrow night. I hope to see you then.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Nutrients, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132870

Protein Intake: Perspective Required

/in /by

The research paper that concluded that higher protein intake was associated with muscle loss and sarcopenia seems to offer more questions than answers. That’s actually a good thing, because future research can examine those questions. But there are questions that the researchers didn’t mention.

Researcher Observations

This is an observational study. Simply put, the subjects who completed all the tests were followed for several years, depending on when they joined the study. Therefore, no cause and effect can be inferred because the researchers were watching, not intervening.

The original number of subjects with sarcopenia was low at just 4.3%. With so many subjects over 72, the number should have been closer to 10%. The researchers acknowledged as much. If the study’s subjects had less sarcopenia than the general population, it’s hard to draw conclusions that are helpful to everyone.

My Observations

The single characteristic most closely associated with loss of muscle mass and sarcopenia was age. Protein intake was a covariate for sarcopenia but it was actually in the middle of the pack as a risk; a covariate is a separate attribute that can be measured alongside the primary variable being investigated.

The study included limited data on diet and exercise. I would expect that not very many subjects were exercising at levels high enough to sustain or increase muscle mass. That conflicts with the research data from clinical trials that show that increasing protein intake in older subjects on a weight training program increases strength and muscle mass.

What stood out more than anything was the limited amount of testing for sarcopenia and the mixed bag of testing procedures. If it’s such a problem, which every researcher in aging admits is the case, why aren’t there better diagnostic tools available to diagnose the condition? How can physicians treat a disease they aren’t diagnosing?

The Bottom Line

There is no reason to worry about protein intake as we get older based on this observational study. What we need to do is begin to retain muscle mass or reclaim our muscle through resistance training, better protein intake, and the strategic use of supplements. If you’re interested in a program to do just that, the Taking Back Your Muscle is still available on my website.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/2/afad018/7036280

Is High Protein Intake Associated with Sarcopenia?

/in /by

If there’s one thing I’ve learned studying health, fitness, and nutrition for 35 years, it’s this: what we thought we knew yesterday may change based on what we learn today. Given that, I was still surprised to see an article in my news feed with a title “High Protein Intake Associated With Sarcopenia.” The Taking Back Your Muscle webinar uses strategies that research has shown help increase muscle strength, including eating more protein. What gives with this latest research?

Researchers selected as their subjects from the TwinsUK cohort. Subjects must be over 60 years old and have completed specific tests since 2010. Just over 3,300 men and women were selected to be included in the data analysis. Researchers examined a variety of variables including education, income, other diseases and conditions, strength, and muscle mass. Protein intake was measured. Researchers did find the opposite of what they expected: higher protein intake was associated with sarcopenia.

Did I get it wrong? I’ll talk about the rest of the study on Saturday. I wouldn’t change your protein intake just yet because there seems to be a larger problem that looms over us as we age. The article is open access, and you can read it at this link.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference:https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/52/2/afad018/7036280