@qBx123Yk
Regarding your point… I had a dexa 1/25 and had planned to get another in 1/26 so in order to keep track of my muscles growth (prayer hands). If they vary so much, which I believe, does that mean it’s a waste of time to do one annually?
@Beth , I think annually is good, and I would consider measurements twice a year to be fine too. But measurement frequency also depends on where you are in your muscle building or fat loss phase. If you’re just starting, chances are that you’ll see meaningful changes in lean/fat mass pretty soon after. It’s relatively easier to achieve a >5% body fat loss at that point, which means that any changes you see in dexa will be over the error rate.
It gets harder to get over this 5% threshold if you’re a highly trained individual (assuming you’re not on AAS), or close to ideal weight (5-15 pounds left). This is where waiting 3-9 or more months between measurements might more sense. So that’s what I would do.
Here is an article explaining dexa that I enjoyed: The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”, Part 6: Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) – Weightology . It’s part of a much longer series about the different ways to estimate body fat in general: The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”: Part 1 – Weightology .
2 Likes
I agree with this without a complete understanding of the mechanism. Aside from variability in exercise/ muscle building stimulus, what other reason would cause a variability in protein “need”? I understand that the body gets more efficient in protein usage when protein intake is not excessive, so that would cause the high side to appear less excessive. Can you (or anyone else here) name or speculate on other variables? I hate the “everybody is different” throwaway argument. If that is the answer then why is everyone different? My approach is to eat less and less until I find I am shrinking in the wrong way despite sufficient stimulus (muscle building exercise). Thanks.
3 Likes
Thanks for posting this video. I’m it I just learned an answer to a question I just posed: what causes so much variability in protein “requirements” (nitrogen balance)? Muscle building stimulus is the big answer but a new bit I just learned here was that resistance training causes a retention of nitrogen (protein) so the amount of protein needed by resistance training people is less than what appears logical. In this video the statement was older people resistance training were already nitrogen positive at 0.8g/kg. Increasing to 1.6 increased the level but was unnecessary. Only the sedentary people needed more protein intake to get out of negative nitrogen balance.
7 Likes
What comes to my mind are the following variables: amminoacid profile of food ingested ; matrix of food ingested; mechanical disintegration of food (chewing); gastric digestion; ileal digestion; metabolism/ utilization in various tissues (not to the same degree everywhere and for each individual); degree of recycle. There are surely others. DIASS is an index of aminoacid completeness and absorbability. It is different for each food and mixture of foods. Throw all these variables into the equation and the result is a large variability in the requirement. If we restrict the analysis to specific subgroups the variability should decrease significantly. The requirement will never be a deterministic value though (a single number) rather a group of numbers (a random variable) result of all the different combinations of the parameters involved. the requirement may also be subject to variability with time, even within the same individual.
1 Like
Thanks. I think the big news is that older people don’t need more protein if they are resistance training. I guess I had bought into the idea that I was using up my proteins by exercising, but that’s wrong. I had previously revised my target protein to 150 grams / day on average (200 lbs target body weight), but now I’m targeting 100 grams, with the reduction a shrinkage in calories (ie, not replaced by carbs or fat). I’ll see how it goes. I’m not going for leaner but healthier.
2 Likes
I missed your earlier post @mccoy and only learned about DIAAS this week from a Layne Norton Video.
Now that you brought this up, I asked perplexity for the list of top plant options compared to Whey.
It reminds me that potato isolate is also considered to be one of the best options, just as whey is, but alas, I still can’t find it in the US. It is available in some other countries, none of which ship to the US (from my searching).
When looking up potato protein, I noticed they recommend first heating it, so I asked about the preservation of protein in all these isolates if they are baked. It seems as long as you are not frying, most are fine, and in fact, plant proteins might even be better digested which would potentially make up for a small loss of protein.
Now my goal is to find great recipes to use these in baking.
“ Baking Stability
Baking in recipes like cakes (160-190°C for 20-40 minutes) counts as mild to moderate heat, preserving DIAAS quality across these proteins without essential amino acid losses. Protein denaturation occurs but enhances digestibility by unfolding structures for better enzyme access, though whey may aggregate and lose solubility at prolonged high heat. Plant isolates like potato, soy, and pea show stable or improved ileal digestibility post-heating”
DIAAS Rankings
DIAAS measures protein quality based on digestible essential amino acids against human needs, with scores ≥1.00 indicating excellent quality.
| Protein Source | Average DIAAS | Limiting Amino Acid(s) | Quality Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whey Isolate | 1.09-1.30 | None | Excellent |
| Potato Isolate | 1.00-1.15 | None | Excellent |
| Soy Isolate | 0.90-0.91 | Methionine | High |
| Pea Isolate | 0.82-1.00 | Methionine/Cysteine | High/None |
My search
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/please-show-the-diaas-rankings-BMs7A_XfSBSAE_peonDDUg#0
Plant isolates can be a good idea in case of little hunger, as a safeguard against a possible suboptimal aminoacid intake. Otherwise, soy products are a good natural choice, or mixtures of other foods, which unfortunately have the disadvantage of requiring average or more than average hunger to add up to a safe amino acid intake.
Presently, I chose a diet of only natural food, no isolates, but with dairy protein and very few eggs. But I’m losing some weight. I think I’m going to start a thread for the subgroup of light eaters.
2 Likes
I didn’t watch the video. What actual NEW evidence did they present to support their recommendations ? Did they address the legitime concern of increased cancer and decreased longevity due to excessive m-tor activation due to higher protein intake (double the RDA recommendations) ? What about amino acid composition - leucine vs glycine etc. It sounds to me like another regurgitated Attia video without any new actual information added. Just more opinions, aka authority bias. This will take decades of studies to fully resolve IMO.
2 Likes
I have a memory like a sieve, but if I recall, there was no new evidence regarding the numbers involved in his protein recommendations. Stu has shared he changed his mind on plant protein… that if you are getting enough protein, and not just skirting the bare minimum, that source doesn’t matter… so that is newer, but not new. I think this was the closest they came to discussing amino acid composition.
For me, the new information was addressing the cancer connection you asked about, and the email Stu was kind enough to send me that his recommendations are on total weight and not on lean mass by dexa (I was disappointed on this one!).
This was the first time I heard that Stu and Lyman and some other researchers sent a letter to the editor about the paper on the protein/cancer connection years ago (Valter Longo was one of the researchers). He said the NHANES analysis was wrong and they have used updated research tools to reanalyze it and now a new paper is out showing this (he actually said it was coming out soon, but I found it, so I just think they recorded this podcast previously).
Stu mentioned something about if that study were in any other journal it never would have been published.
Note the link at the bottom of my paste from Stu’s linked-in page. @Dr.Bart, I’d love to hear your thoughts after you take a look because I don’t really have the ability to analyze research papers/charts. Trust me, nothing would make me happier than to hear I should consume less protein!
The link, but I pasted the main part below Revisiting protein and mortality: new analysis contradicts previous findings | Stuart Phillips posted on the topic | LinkedIn
Sometimes even the bigs get it wrong: new analysis reveals no association between protein and mortality In 2014, a high-profile Cell Metabolism paper by Levine et al. https://lnkd.in/gdvf3RRf reported that adults aged 50–65 with high protein intakes had an astonishing 75% increase in overall mortality and an incredible four-fold higher cancer mortality risk (four-fold!). Our team of protein metabolism researchers saw serious flaws in the NHANES analysis and drafted a letter to the editor in response. It was never published, but you can still read it here: https://lnkd.in/gzxgWDig (Thanks to Dr. Layne Norton for keeping that letter alive). I hasten to add that there are a few good people in the field who added their names to that letter! Including Donald Layman, Arne Astrup, Heather Leidy, Peter Clifton, and the late Doug Paddon-Jones. I won’t fault the molecular-level data in the paper, but the analysis of the NHANES data - which garnered headlines “Protein as bad for you as Smoking,” trumpeted the US and UK tabloids - was really poorly done. In fact, the narrative that protein kills you up to age 65 and then protects you from death is still a popular podcast tagline! People measure their IGF-1 levels with the notion that it’s predictive of cancer risk. The human data from that paper is still discussed in reverent tones as ‘fact.’ It’s wrong! Fast-forward to 2025: using the exact same NHANES III dataset, but applying improved “usual intake” statistical methods and a more rigorous analytical approach, our new paper in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism shows no association between total, animal, or plant protein intake and all-cause, cardiovascular, or cancer mortality. In fact, higher animal protein intake was modestly protective for cancer mortality https://lnkd.in/g7FczdAu
2 Likes
Plant protein powder questions!
I’ve been using pea protein or Kachava.
It’s time to place new orders, so I thought I’d check to see if there are any better options.
Layne Norton says potato protein is the best, but the only potato isolates I find for sale would need to be shipped to the US (i have no problem with that) , but because they are marketed for cooking, I don’t know if it’s all the same stuff
I know Erewhon uses (or did) Mikuna Chocho protein. Is chocho superior to pea?
I love the flavor of Kachava, but it also contains so many vitamins that it makes it more challenging to balance those with what is already in my stack. It’s really the only reason I’m looking for alternatives… just to fine tune things a little better
Excellent find and thank you. I was very excited to order, but I then read milk is in the ingredient list. I don’t get the point of not using whey if still using milk but ?
Why would you not use whey? It’s pure β-Lactoglobulin, which might be superior for muscle building compared to normal whey. β-Lactoglobulin - Wikipedia
Since it’s real whey protein it’s reacted by milk allergy, hence milk is listed on the label.
Good question.
I have heard whey is superior. I’m an ethical vegan, so if I can find good enough alternatives, I just prefer doing so.
So, are you saying there are no animal products in there?
Depends on what you mean by “animal product”, derived from an animal, no. It’s from precision fermentation: Key Partners Using ProFerm™ Premium Whey Protein - Perfect Day
1 Like
I use Now Sports pea protein. Low cal and lowish sodium for significant protein grams. Unflavored - I mix 3:2 with Orgain plant based superfoods. Not too sweet, limited calories, both have tested well for accurate content and low metals. I also mix 8 oz coconut water for potassium for lowering blood pressure.
1 Like
Thanks for the share. Good to know Orgain has been tested… I”ll check it out. I like the idea of combining.
1 Like
I am not a meat only… more like 70% of my meal.
And the argument in defense of more animal protein continues. Lol
Really, if it works… you will know and your bio-markers will reflect your health.
Meat-only diet followers claim disease reversal as expert says Americans are ‘the sickest’
Someone quoted in the article thinks baked potatoes have a low glycemic index.
And is there a negative impact factor for a publication?
It is interesting what gets published - makes you think AI would do a better job.
3 Likes