“We’re in a protein craze, and it’s hard to ignore,” writes New York Times health reporter Alice Callahan. Social media feeds are inundated with claims about protein – encouraging protein-maxxing diets that contain many times the federal recommendations, and pushing supplements, artificial protein sources and lots of red meat. We’ll talk with Callahan and nutritionists about how to evaluate your own protein needs — and the risks of the online protein obsession.
Related link(s):
Guests:
Alice Callahan, nutrition reporter, The New York Times
Christopher Gardner, nutrition scientist and professor of medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center
Stuart Phillips, professor of kinesiology and nutrition researcher, McMaster University in Ontario, Canada
This partial transcript was computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Mina Kim: Welcome to Forum, I’m Mina Kim. “We’re in a protein craze, and it’s hard to ignore,” says New York Times nutrition and health reporter Alice Callahan. Social media feeds are inundated with claims about protein — with many influencers telling users they’re just not getting enough… Last year’s survey by the International Food Information Council finds more than 70% of American adults are trying to consume more protein. So this hour, we talk about how much protein you really need, if it’s possible to consume too much and take your questions.
Alice Callahan is joining me first. She’s with The Times and also a PhD in nutrition science from UC Davis. Alice, thanks so much for being with us.
Alice Callahan: Thank you so much for having me. It’s great to be here.
Mina Kim: So you’ve been addressing protein related questions through your reporting for some time now. What are you noticing about this moment that feels sort of different or new?
Alice Callahan: I think you mentioned in the intro that we’re seeing a ton of interest in protein. And so that survey said 71% of Americans, we’re trying to consume more protein. That’s up from 59% in 2022. So we’re seeing this big jump. And that’s also more than the number of people who are worried about how much sugar they’re eating or whether they’re getting enough fiber or too much sodium. So it’s a really big focus for people right now. And so that’s why we definitely wanted to make sure we were covering it. We were looking at some of the claims that are out there and trying to understand whether there’s evidence behind them, why we’re so focused on protein right now. I think it’s a great question. I’m not sure I have the answer, except that we do have a history in the US of getting hyper focused on one nutrient at a time. We’ve villainized fat, we’ve villainized carbs. And now protein is in the spotlight. I’m honestly not sure that the way that we think about nutrition has made us healthier. But right now we’re on protein. I do think we’re always looking for something new. That’s a human tendency. And it’s all getting amplified by social media.
Mina Kim: Yeah, we played that clip that our producer Caroline put together about how social media is amplifying interest in protein. Who are the biggest evangelists, the most popular protein people?
Alice Callahan: Oh, my gosh. I probably can’t name them all. But we have heard in that clip Gabrielle Lyon. Peter Attia, Stacy Sims is in the space of, like, fitness and nutrition for older women. And there are lots more. And many of these folks on social media are giving us some truth. And then sometimes we lose some nuance in the messaging, because that’s social media. It’s a land of soundbites and not nuance. And more extreme messages do tend to get more attention and get picked up by other people and amplified.
Mina Kim: Is that what you feel like? Is it contributing to the messaging being so alluring or convincing? I imagine just a simplification of it and the way that it gets discussed.
Alice Callahan: Yeah.
Mina Kim: I’m also curious about what you’ve noticed on grocery store shelves in response to this interest in protein. Or maybe it’s even helping to create it.
Alice Callahan: Well, oh, yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I think the food industry is paying attention to the same survey data that we talked about already of, you know, three quarters of Americans are trying to get more protein. They will give us what we want. And so that’s why we’re seeing, you know, protein Cheerios and protein waffles and high protein ice cream. They’re taking a lot of these processed foods and adding protein to them. Because they know that that’s what we’re looking for. So, yeah, there’s more of that around. And then that probably reinforces the message that, oh, if this product, all of these products are promoting more protein, maybe that’s a good thing and I should buy, you know, the high protein cereal above the one next to it, which maybe has more fiber or whatever. But yeah, that’s where our attention is right now. So that’s what’s being marketed to us.
Mina Kim: Well, we’ve got callers joining us. So let me start with Lynn in Riverside. Hi, Lynn. You’re on.
Caller: Well, hi. Thanks for taking my call. I studied nutrition only on a kind of low level, but at UC Davis, and I’ve been having this question for a long time. It’s like, we understand if you eat more protein, that you’ll keep your muscles. So this is good. And if you don’t get enough protein, you lose muscle mass. That might be bad. That’s my big question because there’s a point where if you eat so little protein, you end up with actual organ damage. And okay, that’s bad, I get it, but we’re in that gray zone. Does any individual know what they actually need?
Mina Kim: Yeah, it’s a hard thing to navigate. And I’m so glad you are bringing that gray zone up. Well first of all, Alice, one of the things that we know is that there are federal recommendations for how much protein to consume. What are the recommendations?
Alice Callahan: Yeah. So the federal recommendation is 0.8g of protein per kilogram of body weight. And so and that’s sort of set as like, this is like a basic need that should provide enough for most people in the population. I’m sure that some of our other panelists will be happy to weigh in on this value, but, you know, one of the things that I ran into when I was reporting on this is that this recommendation has not been updated in about 20 years. And it does give us one value, and it’s sort of presented as like, this is the amount that everyone should follow. And there are lots of different interpretations of that: Like is it a minimum amount? Is it an optimal amount? But it’s confusing from the outset, being given this one value, and the fact that it hasn’t been updated for a couple decades makes it really easy to criticize as potentially being out of date. And so, you know, that’s where we have social media influencers coming in and saying, “the government is lying to you about nutrition. Their science is way out of date.” And so I really wanted to ask lots of researchers, is it out of date? Is it too low? And I talked to probably 20 different researchers. I got a lot of different answers to that question. And I also just found that we don’t have a ton of really definitive evidence to answer that question with. And so we are in this space where, you know, like your caller, there’s not a lot of authoritative guidance. And that definitely leaves a vacuum for influencers and just people with different opinions and different interpretations of the data to come in and recommend different things. And I think that leaves us all very confused. And I was totally overwhelmed in my reporting. Yeah, on this topic for that reason.
Mina Kim: Yeah, it’s pretty incredible. Well, let’s try to set the record straight with two guests that I want to bring in now. Christopher Gardner is a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford’s Prevention Research Center. Dr. Gardner, thanks so much for being with us.
Christopher Gardner: Well, this will be fun. Thanks, Mina.
Mina Kim: Stuart Phillips is also here, a muscle physiologist and professor of kinesiology and a nutrition researcher at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. Dr. Phillips, really glad to have you too.
Stuart Phillips: My pleasure. Thanks for having me on.
Mina Kim: So, Christopher, I want to start with you. You think the federal guidelines are about right?
Christopher Gardner: If I understand correctly, that could be about right, but sort of moot because most people, according to all the studies that I run, exceed them. I will point out the way that they were designed is partly misunderstood. So this is true for protein and all nutrients. You know, that you try to figure out what the average requirement is of someone. And in human physiology, somebody needs more and somebody needs less. So there’s a distribution of that. And the way that the federal guidelines are set up is you’re supposed to take the average requirement. It’s called the estimated average requirement. And add two standard deviations to it. Add a buffer. And so the amount that actually ends up in those guidelines was designed to meet or exceed the needs of 97.5% of the population. So when you see that RDA level of 0.8, it’s actually 0.66 for the estimated average requirement. And for those who don’t like kilograms, you can also do that in pounds. So it’s 0.36g of protein for every pound of body weight. Or the estimated average requirement is 0.30. Can I translate that into grams? It’s like 40 or 50 or 60g a day, 40 or 50 or 60g a day.
Mina Kim: Oh! Well, that’s a decent amount of protein.
Christopher Gardner: So when we’re collecting data for our studies, Mina and Alice, oh, most of our participants are getting 80 or 90 or 100g of protein.
Mina Kim: Okay. Well, Stuart, do you think – based on what Christopher is saying – that the recommended amount could stand to be up to little?
Stuart Phillips: Yeah. I mean, I think that the methodology is really one where we’re talking about, something that’s a little bit out of date. We’ve got better methods now that would give you an estimate of not just what is needed, which is what the original estimates. And I think Alice was spot on. 22 years ago, if I’m remembering the meta analysis on which things are based, that would suggest the protein optimum needs are higher, if not even minimal needs. So, yeah, the methodology is old. There’s lots of shortcomings with the methodologies used and, you know, those could stand to be updated. But it’s a difficult question, I think. Christopher pointed out a lot of, I think valid points that most people don’t understand. I’d probably agree that – you know, I’m Canadian, so I have to say sorry before I say this – that we, our lab, has maybe unwittingly contributed to some of the hype around protein. But I’m a physiologist, who operates a department of kinesiology, so we always talk about this against a background of exercise. And in that situation, and I say this and underscore the word “only,” only when you’re going to use protein to make new muscles. Or when you’re a kid growing. Once you’re an adult, eating more protein actually really doesn’t help a whole lot with muscle. Exercise has got to be there.