Comment by FumblingBear
2 days ago
Moderately amused at the quote "We are ending the war on protein." In my experience, every single brand in recent years has been coalescing around the idea of making protein bars, drinks, prominently labeling the amount of grams of protein are in items, etc.
I'm not opposed, as protein seems to be a good target to prioritize, but claiming there's a war on protein just seems so out of touch to the point of absurdity. It's practically the only thing that people care about right now.
Yeah, (1) there is no "war on protein," (2) you do not need to eat very much protein unless you are trying to build muscle and you already work out a lot.
The normal recommended daily intake for protein is 0.8 g/kg. 1.2-1.6 is silly; that's a recommendation for athletes.¹
Starches have been a dietary staple in pretty much every society forever. Sugars have not. It's silly that they treat grains as a "sometimes" food.
There's also the weird boogeyman of "processed food." Almost all food is processed to some degree & always has been. We've been cooking, baking, juicing, fermenting, chopping, grinding, mashing, etc. long enough that it influenced the shape of our teeth. Certainly we haven't been making Pizza Pockets that long, but the issue there isn't processing, it's ingredients. And the reason people buy Pizza Pockets isn't that they think they're healthy—it's that Pizza Pockets only need to be microwaved, and cooking a real meal takes time that a lot of people just don't have.
[1]: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/athlete-protein-intake/
Starches are basically glucose. They have a massive insulin response -- often even worse than sugar (because you eat starches in a much higher volume since they don't usually taste sweet).
It's very hard to overeat protein naturally. It's very easy to overeat starches and other carbohydrates naturally.
With regard to "processed" food, it's not a great label. I would use this metric: could you conceivably produce this in an average kitchen with the raw materials? If you can, it's probably safe, if you can't, it's probably something you shouldn't eat. For instance, processing often means "partially hydrogenating" a fat, or milling grains into a fine dust and bleaching them. Sometimes chemically produced oils are deodorized, because they would otherwise smell very unpalatable. You generally should not want your food to be bleached or deodorized..
I don't think you do eat starches in a higher volume. The associated fibre and resistant starches lead to many starchy foods being quite satiating—potatoes, oatmeal, and whole grains in particular. Moreover, the relevance of insulin response is unclear; low GI diets have been found to do nothing for obesity.
To reiterate, starches have been a dietary staple in pretty much every society forever, whereas meat has been relatively expensive and rare. The obesity epidemic, which began in the 1970s, did not correspond with the invention of flour or rice.
> I would use this metric: could you conceivably produce this in an average kitchen with the raw materials?
This is completely arbitrary. Why is "milling grains into a fine dust" proscribed, when blending soup in an average kitchen's food processor is fine? We've had mills for millennia and food processors less than a century. Plenty of raw foods smell unpalatable; that doesn't mean the cooked version is secretly smelly or whatever. Besides, what is and isn't a "raw ingredient" is itself arbitrary. I can't make any type of vegetable oil at home, deodorized or otherwise—I don't have an oil press. I can make lard, but that doesn't mean it's better for me.
You're talking about the vibes given by various foods here, rather than their actual health effects.
'Processed' generally means 'chemically modified', a la hydrogenated vegetable oil.
Assuming that "chemical modification" is when you modify something by adding a chemical reagent to it, milk is chemically modified to create cheese curds, sugars are chemically modified to create vinegar and alcohol, and breads & cakes are chemically modified when they rise.
However, this definition of chemical modification doesn't really include hydrogenated vegetable oil. Industrial hydrogenation is done by raising oil to very high temperatures in the presence of a nickel catalyst & then adding hydrogen. We modify it on a chemical level, but primarily by heating it, not by adding reactive substances. And if that counts as chemical modification, then so does cooking!
Anyway, no—people generally used "processed" to describe a particular vibe they get from certain foodstuffs whose production seems too industrialized. There's no rigorous basis for determining what is and isn't "processed" because people use it to describe their feelings about food, not any underlying property of food.
If you search a simple question like "is bread processed," you get a bunch of articles saying "well, since there's no agreed-upon definition for processing and the definitions we do have aren't particularly clear, there's really no answer to the question. But don't worry, because (given the overwhelming vagueness of the category), it's also impossible to say whether processed foods as a category have any health implications, so you shouldn't worry about it."
Generally the definition for ultra-processed foods includes a lot more than that. Some definitions even include "wrapping in plastic".
The irony is everyone already seems obsessed with protein these days, which I guess plays nicely with meat lovers / producers. The last thing Americans need is more encouragement on the protein front IMO. Suddenly everyone thinks they're a body builder when it comes to food.
The few friends I've known were attempting ketogenic diets over the years kept focusing on the protein side when the actual diet is supposed to be dominated by fat. They've all experienced kidney problems of one sort or another, surprise surprise!
I mean protein does fill you up faster and better with fewer calories which is good for weight loss or management.
> protein does fill you up faster
You are being pretty fast and loose with your language here so I will alight what I think you are trying to say.
"Fill you up" I must assume means that you are implying the state of feeling "full" or satiated.
There is really only one study in the field of broad food source satiety: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7498104/
Potatoes are the most satiating food at 323% that of white bread.
The second is Ling fish which is a source of protein, but another one of my assumptions is that when you say 'protein' I am doubtful you mean 'ling fish'. So assuming you mean a 2026 American definition of 'protein' you're probably referring to cow flesh (beef) which is only 176% of white bread, almost half of potatoes.
So, in the future I would suggest spreading the word and correcting your comment by saying "I mean potatoes do fill you up faster"
> I mean protein does fill you up faster and better with fewer calories which is good for weight loss or management.
Thank you for exemplifying the problem so clearly - conflating protein with fat when we're really talking about a simple carbohydrates issue of high energy density with negative satiety.
Excess protein is excreted renally, it's easy to overdo and can cause serious problems.
2 replies →
Not than fat. Fat fills you up fastest, per calorie.
1 reply →
> protein bars, drinks, prominently labeling the amount of grams of protein
Most of which are loaded with crazy amounts of sugar to make them taste good.
Have you ever looked at the label on a cup of non-plain "Greek" yogurt? (Which is 90% of the yogurt aisle.)
Not to mention, that refined proteins don't have well balanced amino acid profiles and the lack of well balanced essential fatty acids to go with them is also a serious issue IMO.
Your comment applies almost exclusively to plant-based protein (as opposed to milk, egg or other animal protein)
2 replies →
They're mostly loaded with non-nutritive sweeteners, not sugar.
Disagree...collegen bars are pretty low on sugar, and they taste awesome. There is no "war on protein".
UK supermarkets these days have a high protein version of just about every single product on the shelves. It's bizarre, and I'm guessing something to do with more protein being the advice when you're on GLP-1 drugs. The one that makes me laugh the most is "high protein" peanut butter.
Whey used to be a waste product of the dairy industry, now you sprinkle 20gr of it on anything and you can sell the product with a 50% markup as "high protein XYZ"
It's genius really.
Definitely related to GLP-1 drugs. I've seen people on the Mounjaro sub Reddit advising 1g per POUND of weight. Wtaf
The establishment guidelines on protein intake for decades (since the 80s) have been very minimalist, only looking to balance nitrogen -- leading to guidelines in the 0.8g/kg range. This is what they're referring to. Yes, it's still hyperbolic. But they're not talking about a relatively recent popularity/marketing swing. The new guidance of 1.2-1.6g/kg is 50-100% higher.
They always need to make up a war on something. Its pretty standard template in American discourse e.g war on Christmas
the current protein hype was litterally in the news today https://www.axios.com/2026/01/07/restaurant-menu-high-protei...
The market has clearly moved on, as you've identified, primarily due to bro science. Meanwhile, the medical establishment still thinks protein is going to kill you.
[flagged]
> On the flip side, I firmly believe a lot of the issues that we are having societally with regards to hormone imbalance, mental health and fertility issues really comes down to insufficient intake of essential fatty acids which include some saturated fats.
Why werent those issues in the late 19th century? We certainly ate very, very little meat and didn't have any fertility issues.
I'm saying that, but even nowadays, the countries with the highest fertility are those where people eat the less meat.
People also seem to forget the impact of lead on society just a couple decades back, and how we are probably going through a similar event now with microplastics. Not to mention many artificial sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, preservatives, etc. as well as widespread use of industrial chemicals.
Plus, it's amazing how collective stress can warp a society over time.
Some issues take effect or only become seriously problematic over multiple generations. It's also a matter of proportions... at what point does a lack of testosterone become an issue in men? Do you necessarily notice?
There's also the confounding factor of birth control and other measures reducing the noticeability of decreased fertility.
1 reply →
There are an incredible amount of contaminants and disruptions in today's society. There are far too many possible causes for us to be sure, without process of elimination, that lack of fat of all things is the central cause of the problems you have listed.
Also, I'm not sure if a vegan hurt you or something, but yes in fact there are many of us who believe today's meat farming industry is nothing short of barbaric and extremely damaging to the environment. But believe it or not, most vegans understand protein better than the average person, and make sure to get fats and complete proteins from a variety of sources which don't require industrial-scale torture of helpless animals.
> industrial-scale torture of helpless animals.
industrial-scale torture of helpless tasty animals.
I did this in jest, but I think this is maybe the main barrier to pulling back on meat consumption. It tastes too damn good.
I am well educated, and would perhaps like to reduce my meat consumption. Until I realize that nearly 100% of my favorite dishes contain meat. And if we expand to milk or eggs, that list expands to 100%.
Food is weird because it sits in an intersection of physiological need, pleasure, craft, and culture.
1 reply →
I am allergic to legumes... as are a lot of other people... so when vegans talk about outlawing meat, you're literally talking about killing me.
I'm fine if YOU or anyone else wants to live without meat... I'm even fine with improving quality of life for farmed animals... but I draw a hard, firm line at outlawing meat.
3 replies →
Americans eat more meat and especially more red meat than most other people on the planet. Why aren't we killing it on hormone balance, mental health, and fertility?
If you consume a few grams of lead and then a carrot, are you suddenly healthy?
2 replies →
There is A LOT of evidence that diets high in saturated fats cause heart disease and the whole plethora of metabolic diseases that go with it. It's basically undeniable that red meat is just, like, bad for you.
Not to mention processed red meats are in the same classification of carcinogen as alcohol and Tabacoo. And regular red meat is still higher up than aspartame, aka diet coke.
Meat can be good for you. But it shouldn't take a genius to deduce that a diet of steaks, cheeseburgers, milkshakes, and bacon probably is not.
I don't think that's true. Most of that evidence includes bacon and processed red meats in their studies. We're much less confident that unprocessed red meat is unhealthy.
3 replies →
The most significant physical experiment on the issue seems to suggest otherwise. Beyond this, "Kaplan Meier graphs showed no mortality benefit for the intervention group in the full randomized cohort or for any prespecified subgroup."
Reducing saturated fat can reduce serum cholesterol... that doesn't mean improved all cause mortality or coronary events.
https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
2 replies →
if veganism was a real problem we'd have it made, that's the least of our worries... americans aren't dying at an alarming rate from heart disease because they've been lead astray from vegans
there's been little change in overall meat consumption in the US for decades... and it's actually higher than most places in the world
I don't think veganism is a societal problem.. but I do think it's a personal problem. The vegans I've known that have done it for a long period have had all sorts of weird health issues that could be attributed to malnutrition (if they actually had labs done, which they generally don't). To be a healthy vegan you generally have to take a lot of vitamins or eat an impractically high volume, which to me suggests it's a bad diet (health wise. Ethically, great!).
1 reply →
But, if Americans ate more meat then the people who grow and sell that meat would make more money, and they would spend more of that money to lobby congresspeople to convince the populace to eat more meat so they would make more money so they would have more money to spend lobbying the congresspeople to convince the populace to eat more meat so they would make more money
8 replies →
> I think that veganism and the Seventh Day Adventist church has done a lot of harm to health and nutrition over the years
This is your bubble, get off twitter.
This is your bias... I'm not referring to Twitter.