95%?!?! Holy shit dude
1 Like
Our government appointed “experts” care more about lining their pockets than helping me get jacked. Sad!
3 Likes
Thats a dubious claim though that can look bad but actually be quite mundane.
Heres why- I used to work at a manufacturing co. building inland river barges. This company was owned by a much larger conglomerate.
As part of our benefits package company wide, from me (welder) all the way up to CEO, our 401k’s and other comps package was based on a transportation industry portfolio.
My understanding is that this is not unusual at all. Its a new twist on the old company store model that mining companies used to keep money they paid out coming back around.
So it could be said that I have a “vested interest in…” when really its just a middling, low risk/low yield portfolio.
I wouldnt be surprised at all if the same applied to the food industry, pharmaceuticals, energy production, etc.
Also noteworthy- my neice used to work for the FDA after getting her (i think) bachelors in chemistry, until going back for her masters in like biochem/biotech something out of my realm. Now, she works for a medical company that is way beyond me.
One thing I do know though is that the nexus between food and drugs is chemistry. And if you have a degree in that, there is a very good chance you will be working somewhere in the food or drug industries, as they are major employers.
Only reason I address that is because I’ve seen this claim a good bit- that the food industry is working with the drug industry to keep America sick, yadda yadda yadda. When realistically there is just an overlap in the educational requirements to work at the higher levels of both, and some intermingling of the people. Once someone has advanced enough academically, the places they’re likely to be employed narrows considerably.
Even as a kid I never paid any mind to RDAs, so to me it’s not a huge issue. Although it is interesting that there is some financial incentive involved with them, which can’t be totally ignored.
There really isn’t any hard science on the best way to exercise, best way to eat… and it really is so individual and there are so many paths you can take to reach your goals. All these years of training and eating and people are still arguing carbs vs protein and intensity vs volume.
1 Like
Heck, I cant get it “right” under a single roof, let alone across a whole continent.
1 Like
There’s no science because the industry doesn’t want science. We they found the best way to eat, train etc then these people wouldn’t be able to make their money selling the latest HIT nonsense or cave man diet fad etc.
If they really wanted to put their minds to it I’m sure they could but the industry thrives on the next shiny thing.
And, of course, that’s because the industry thrives on what the customer wants.
If there was a demand for success, success would be delivered.
Success requires hard work, commitment, and suffering.
No one wants that, so no one sells it.
6 Likes
For a bunch of people who pretend to be up on the science, you guys sure seem to be asleep at the wheel. Dietary saturated fat intake and CVD is now considered causal. That this upsets you or that you don’t want to believe it, or some moron blogger says they scientists are all doing science wrong, is irrelevant. It is a fact. It’s been reproduced across experiments and studies for decades now.
Saturated fat - Wikipedia
The effect of saturated fat on heart disease has been extensively studied.[23] There are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and cardiovascular disease.[8] The relationships are accepted as causal.[8][24][25]
A diet of steak, eggs and cream WILL develop CVD. There is simply no way around this, unless you are one of those individuals with a favorable mutation.
Apparently they also publish in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Check one of their blogs from 2020 article re-evaluating saturated fats in the diet:
Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review; August 2020
Abstract
“The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke. Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL particles, which are much less strongly related to CVD risk. It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group without considering the overall macronutrient distribution. Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.”
See above. If I fall into that category, so be it. I’m in good company.
1 Like
Are you really engaging with someone who quotes Wikipedia as a scientific source and whose avatar name is “cretin”?
3 Likes
Fair comment. Sometimes I naively entertain the idea that someone may stop think about it. Otherwise, it does serve to keep the thread going so it’s not all bad. 
1 Like
Citing Wikipedia… I’m convinced
I’ve been anywhere from 70 to 140 grams of protein a day. What seems to matter more is calorie intake. When I get leaner, I tend to carry less muscle. If I carry a bit more bodyfat, I carry more muscle.
Agreed, to an extent.
I don’t want to be the one to break it to you, but there’s a good chance this isn’t muscle.
- One possible explanation is that Glycogen levels deplete when dieting, which can make muscles look more flat. Conversely, when not in a deficit - those muscles look more inflated due to healthier glycogen stores (which can give the appearance of more muscle without more muscle).
- Another explanation is that you may actually be losing more muscle than needed due to a low protein intake when cutting. While there is evidence on both sides of the protein intake argument (high or moderate intake), nearly all the anecdotal evidence points towards higher protein intake preserving muscle mass when in a deficit.
This being said, everyone is different 
It’s kind of a long story, but I got really lean for several years. Skin calipers had me around 7% BF, abs fairly visible, etc. Taking tape measurements in combination with scale, calipers, etc. if was apparent I lost some muscle (and strength) while my protein intake went up.
Then a couple of summers ago, I gained almost 20 pounds increasing calorie intake. I am around 13-14% BF with the same calipers. A little more that half appeared to be muscle and the rest fat based on various measurements. Strength went noticeably higher up…even without trying much.
I still weigh about 20 pounds less than I did when I was younger carrying even more fat and muscle. So it becomes like a ladder for me. With more weight, I carry more fat and muscle. When I was younger, even though I was eating a lot more calories, my protein intake was relatively low.
But the protein intake varied and tended to be a higher when I was leaner…as a percentage of calories. Carbs are what I reduced when I got leaner.
I am also 100% natural and always have been. Throwing drugs into the mix can change things or make it appear as otherwise.
1 Like
The wikipedia article is just shorthand. The citations they are using were readily printed including highly convenient hyperlinks (just click, dummy) if you cared to read, which you don’t.
and here we begin with the cherry picking, one review takes a very different conclusion and view of the evidence to just about every other. The totality of evidence points towards SFA having a causal role in CVD, this relationship has been consistently shown for decades. It’s also been induced in experiments across a large range of mammals.
So why does Astrup et al. do a 180 compared to the vast majority of researchers? Hmm…
Dr. Astrup has received research funding from Danish Dairy Foundation , Arla Foods Amba, and the European Milk Foundation ; has received speaker honoraria for the Expert Symposium on the Dairy Matrix 2016 sponsored by the European Milk Foundation; and has served on the advisory board and as a consultant for McCain Foods Limited and Weight Watchers. Dr. Bier has served as a consultant and/or received lecture fees and/or reimbursements for travel, hotel and other expenses from the International Life Sciences Institute, the International Council on Amino Acid Science, Nutrition and Growth Solutions, Ajinomoto, the Lorenzini Foundation, the CrossFit Foundation, the International Glutamate Technical Committee, Nestlé S.A., Ferrero SpA, Indiana University, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, the Infant Nutrition Council of America, and the Israel Institute. Dr. Brenna has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association/North Dakota Beef Council ; has received panel participation honorarium from Dairy Management (2017); and is a shareholder in Retrotope. Dr. Hill has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; has served as a member of the scientific advisory committee of the Milk Producers Education Program (Milk PEP) and the health and wellness advisory board for General Mills; and is a trustee of the International Life Science Institute. Drs. Mente and Yusuf have received research funding from the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the National Dairy Council to analyze data on dairy consumption and health outcomes in the PURE study, which is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and more than 70 other sources (government and pharmaceutical). Dr. Ordovas has received research funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on personalized nutrition, and Archer Daniels Midland on probiotics; and has served on the scientific advisory board or as a consultant for Nutrigenomix, the Predict Study, GNC, and Weight Watchers. Dr. Volek has received research funding from the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation, Metagenics, National Dairy Council/Dutch Dairy Organization , Malaysian Palm Board, and Pruvit Ventures; has received royalties for books on ketogenic diets ; has served on the scientific advisory board for Virta Health, UCAN, Advancing Ketogenic Therapies, Cook Keto, Axcess Global, and Atkins Nutritionals; owns equity in PangeaKeto and Virta Health; and is founder of and chief science officer for Virta Health. Dr. Krauss has received research funding from Dairy Management ; has served on the scientific advisory board for Virta Health and Day Two; and has a licensed patent for a method of lipoprotein particle measurement. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
Now, none of this means their conclusions aren’t valid, but if 20 studies say x and then the next one says y, and the researchers in that disparate one all happen to be in bed with groups that benefit from that conclusion, well…
Ever hear of the Sugar Industry, Harvard University researchers, and $150,000.00?
You do realise this is a review of other meta-analysis that has already reviewed this subject? Have you ever looked at some of the randomised controlled trial data that was available when dietary fat guidelines were drawn up in 1977 and then 1983? Maybe you should and then come back with a proper argument.
A cretin citing Wikipedia calls me a dummy. Hilarious!! Not too bright are you son?