Are good proteins and bad proteins a myth?

>Are good proteins and bad proteins a myth?
That's an inaccurate way of putting it.

To phrase it correctly: There are good and bad protein SOURCES.

Both left and right in your pic have sources of high quality complete protein. The left however has more grams of fat than protein and as such should not be a regular part of your diet if you're serious about your health and Veeky Forumsness. Of course you can make your own burger using good extra-lean beef and a decent bun and all the other things that go into a burger and it's much better; fast-food burgers are SHIT and should be avoided, especially for how overpriced they are. The right is healthier and lower in fat but is rather boring. There's no reason to not eat something occasionally just because you like it, but seriously if it's a burger, do yourself a favor and make it yourself, don't get shitty fast-food burgers.

idk why there would be "bad" proteins, but there are more and less useful proteins. Ideally you want food that has a good or "optimal" (whatever that means, exactly -- I don't think there is a definitive answer to this) protein profile.

Chicken breast, eggs et al are generally considered to have an excellent protein profile.

Lol faggot don't even act like you wouldn't love to live on burgers and fries instead of some dry, tasteless chicken breast
>inb4 fatass

ur mom is a myth

In all seriousness, there's good foods and bad foods. The healthiest sources of protein are from dairy products. Second best is chicken.

Beef/red meet in general is the worst source of complete protein in terms of health.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15927927

Dairy
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26445771
Chicken:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25466215

Fish is also pretty good
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14623484

Protein bioavailability.

As a simple rule of thumb. If it came from an animal the protein has high bioavailability. Next fat slows down protein absorption so the more lean the more bioavailable.

All proteins are good. Some are just better for building muscles. You need a variety of Amino Acids/ Proteins to build muscles. Some are fast acting and some are slow acting.

checked

>Beef/red meet in general is the worst source of complete protein in terms of health.
That's completely wrong and total propaganda.

Thanks user. This will be very useful since my whore cook says that eating healthy is expensive, can't seem to understand simple instructions.

You're right. I should say that it would depend on the quality of the meat.

Bad quality red meat is the worst source of complete proteins. Good quality red meat is comparable to chicken breast

But honestly, I've never had a bad quality of chicken breast. Red meat that's poor in quality can be found anywhere.

Thank you for the clarification, but still:
>implying saturated fat is universally bad for you
It's necessary and useful, but like all things, moderation is the key, not going to extremes.

>are good protiens a myth
no, some forms are better than others for their nuanced differences

>are bad protiens a myth
hell yes, you arent gonna eat protien and be worse off for it, that's dumb

Quints have it, forever dirtybulk.

The food you get your protein from can come with other good things or some unhealthy things. One source can be better or worse than another from a health perspective.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196

>High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source.

It literally isn't
Fat and salt are scientifically proven to be where flavortown is at

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196

Correlation is not causation. Meaningless "studies" like this one are why nutritional science is such a clusterfuck.

Meanwhile,
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=208026
>Among survivors of early stage breast cancer, adoption of a diet that was very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat did not reduce additional breast cancer events or mortality during a 7.3-year follow-up period.

nice job not answering the question
only legit answers

Can I have your autograph senpai?

>intervention to increase fruit/vegetable/fiber intake
>barely scrape the minimum fiber RDI at one time point early on before going below the RDI again for the rest of the trial, only 3g more at the end than at the start
>fruit consumption same at the end of the trial as it was at the beginning
>fat intake same at the end of the trial as it was at the beginning
>body weight went up despite reporting eating fewer calories
>"very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat"

Like the authors suggest, they may have noticed more differences in results if the study was longer than 7 years, but the intervention was pretty weak anyway. Weak changes give weak results.

Is that what you tell yourself at night? It's literally subjective.

what do you mean nuanced differences?

>Weak changes give weak results
An experiment still trumps observation, though. Here is another, even bigger experiment with a similar result:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467232
>Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period.

It's not mentioned in the abstract, but mortality rates were basically the same, too.

Red meat and saturated fat are not bad, except in meaningless observational studies.

Idk user why don't you take exclusively one amino acid for your protein and you tell me

Reminder Soy Protein causes gyno and should be considered a BAD protein

>The left one tastes way better though

sugars and starches are addictive

I knew before I even clicked it that this was WHI. This was another failed trial where the intervention meant hardly any change in diet.

>meaningless observational studies.

RCTs are better than observational studies in theory, but not if you don't manage the RCT well enough to make sure it properly tests the hypothesis. When your diet intervention takes you from 15g of fiber per day to 18g, both well below the bare minimum RDA for fiber, it's not much of a diet intervention.

Of course we don't believe saturated fat is bad because of observational studies either. We know saturated fats raise cholesterol levels from hundreds of experiments investigating that.

bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long

And the strongest evidence for red meat being unhealthy comes from mechanistic evidence, rather than observational data. The link for cancer was much stronger when looking at experimental evidence than observational data.

iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf

>After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect.

>We know saturated fats raise cholesterol levels from hundreds of experiments investigating that.
Yeah, except cholesterol is not bad. It's great. It's used to make steroid hormones, which are essential for life. The only real evidence to suggest that saturated fat is bad is...

Observational studies.

Meanwhile, we have things like this:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23386268
or
bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
>In meta-analyses, these cholesterol lowering interventions showed no evidence of benefit on mortality from coronary heart disease (1.13, 0.83 to 1.54) or all cause mortality (1.07, 0.90 to 1.27).

Your body does not produce cholesterol for the purpose of killing you, nor does human breastmilk contain saturated fat and cholesterol for the purpose of killing our own children. Saturated fat and cholesterol are great.

No?
I don't talk to myself about food you faggot

>doesn't have chemicals
You fuckers are the worst

>Yeah, except cholesterol is not bad. It's great.

Cholesterol itself isn't bad. Cholesterol above the amount that your body needs leads to cardiovascular disease.

Your body doesn't produce cholesterol to kill you of course, but it does expect you to eat a diet that keeps cholesterol levels in balance like everything else in the blood.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23386268
>bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

Unfortunately with trials from the 60s, the use of polyunsaturated fats usually meant hydrogenated oils, aka trans fats. The men designing the studies wanted to make the two diets as similar as possible, which meant having to solidify the oils. At the time, trans fats were assumed to be identical to polyunsaturated fats.

>Products that proved particularly useful were filled milk and ice cream, a whole egg substitute, soft margarine, whipped topping, filled cheese, low fat ground beef with added vegetable oil, and filled sausage products.

The intervention swapped out ice cream, cheese, whipped cream, etc for even worse artificial versions of the same SAD foods.

Jesus. Fat fucks disgust me, please go eat yourself to death.

kek speaks in mysterious ways

(OP)
>Are good proteins and bad proteins a myth?
Yes
>press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>anabolicmen.com/fats-and-testosterone/
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is.html
>We know saturated fats raise cholesterol levels from hundreds of experiments investigating that.
Sat fats being the devil has been debunked.
>And the strongest evidence for red meat being unhealthy comes from mechanistic evidence, rather than observational data. The link for cancer was much stronger when looking at experimental evidence than observational data.
Meat being unhealthy and causing cancer is bullshit
>saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/
>rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
>deniseminger.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
>deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
>foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/
>deniseminger.com/the-china-study/

>Beef/red meet in general is the worst source of complete protein in terms of health

but that's wrong you fucking retard

>Sat fats being the devil has been debunked.

nel.gov/evidence.cfm?evidence_summary_id=250189

>Strong evidence indicates that dietary saturated fatty acids (SFA) are positively associated with intermediate markers and end-point health outcomes for two distinct metabolic pathways: 1) increased serum total cholesterol (TC) and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 2) increased markers of insulin resistance and increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Conversely, decreased SFA intake improves measures of both CVD and T2D risk. The evidence shows that a five percent energy decrease in SFA, replaced by monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) or polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), decreases risk of CVD and T2D in healthy adults and improves insulin responsiveness in insulin resistant and T2D subjects.
>Grade: Strong

heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Saturated-Fats_UCM_463756_Article.jsp#

>Scientifically sound research dating to the 1950s has proven the link between saturated fats and LDL-cholesterol, which increases heart disease risk. This body of evidence comes from the most rigorous kind of dietary studies that precisely measure what people eat.
>Significant science on the subject came out as recently in November. That’s when the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology issued new diet and lifestyle guidelines that recommended limiting saturated fat to 5-6 percent of total calories. The guidelines were developed by some of the nation’s top scientists, who for five years studied existing research to help healthcare professionals treat their patients.
>When you hear about the latest “diet of the day” or a new or odd-sounding theory about food, consider the source.

>Don’t fret over such nonsense. Recent research has shown multiple times that the correlation between dietary fat intake and cardiovascular disease risk is pretty much non-existent.
>During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.
>A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

Why does it say only white/red/sweet potatoes? Why are others (ie. yellow or russet) bad?

>heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Saturated-Fats_UCM_463756_Article.jsp#
>>A recent study said saturated fat and heart disease may not be so closely related. Is this study wrong?
>that report has been heavily criticized by experts in the scientific community and the authors have issued several corrections and explanations.
>Technically, the report compared 20 previously published studies and concluded that evidence does not support guidelines that encourage low intake of saturated fatty acids. Critics of the report also say the authors misinterpreted the conclusions of several studies.
>The American Heart Association isn’t the only leading health organization to find a definitive link between saturated fats and heart disease. Eleven authoritative bodies – including the World Health Organization; the Institute of Medicine; the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom; and the European Union – independently reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded yet again that saturated fat is associated with heart disease.

hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/butter-is-not-back-limiting-saturated-fat-still-best-for-heart-health/

>hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/butter-is-not-back-limiting-saturated-fat-still-best-for-heart-health/
>People who replace saturated fat (mainly found in meats and dairy foods) in their diets with refined carbohydrates do not lower their risk of heart disease, according to a new study led by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. On the other hand, those who replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats (found in vegetable oils and nuts) or whole grains lower their heart disease risk.
>“Our research does not exonerate saturated fat,” said Hu. “In terms of heart disease risk, saturated fat and refined carbohydrates appear to be similarly unhealthful.”

youtube.com/watch?v=a-Tx9dCbv-g

Fuck this board has to be the most low IQ board on the site.
Seriously? Good proteins and bad proteins? What the fuck does that even mean?

there are complete and incomplete proteins.
for theoretical purposes incomplete proteins could be bad if they were someone's exclusive protein/amino acid source.
for general purposes, while some proteins are inferior, I would hesitate to call them good or bad and with a well balanced diet you will be getting all the amino acids you need.

>ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/850.full
>>well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-study-rediscovered-challenges-advice-on-saturated-fat/?_r=0
>coachmikeblogs.com/but-what-about-the-china-study/
>In the China Study, the 5 regions with the best heart health ate more saturated fat, animal protein, and dietary cholesterol than the 5 worst.
And read 4 and 5 on the formal response in my post Animal fats and protein don't cause cancer and have have an inverse relation to cholestorol and heart disease

It's probably the bro science way of talking about how complete the amino acid profile of a protein source is

Good proteins (whey, eggs)are high in leucine bad proteins are low in leucine (wheat).

Leucine is the amino acid which is responsible for the anabolic response of proteins. Layne Norton have done a bunch of research on this.

>>ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/850.full

Harvard has since changed its tune. In fact this study was co-authored by Willett and Hu.

>>well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-study-rediscovered-challenges-advice-on-saturated-fat/?_r=0

Already covered >China study stuff

I don't particularly care about the china study but its conclusions did come from a large collaboration of highly skilled, highly educated scientists from Cornell and Oxford University, working with the Chinese government. They were kind enough to make the raw data available for any fellow scientist to analyze for themself, which is the data you have before a statistician applies his models, which needs to be done to avoid the most obvious matching errors, like comparing cancer incidence in 10 year olds vs 70 year old smokers. These internet bloggers take the raw data, interpret it incorrectly because they have no training and no idea what they're doing, and try to claim it says whatever they want to tell their audience.

It's easy enough to google "[food I like] is healthy" and find a bunch of internet blogs pandering to you, but take the time to investigate things honestly. More often than not in nutrition, what you want to be true probably isn't.

The only way you're going to encounter bad proteins is if you're injecting fragments.

Even vegetable sources with less desirable amino content and ratios is still fucking good enough to fuel your body.

nope, protein is certainly not protein. There are tons of different types of proteins, and they act and are used by our body differently. Some are even hormones, imagine that.

> are there bad proteins
what are Prions?

>et al

kys

/pol/ pls go

No, there's only fast digesting and slow digesting. Protein is protein. Same goes for carbs.
There are good and bad calories and fats however.

The protein in wheat doesnt have the same anablic response as protein from animal sources.

It's an incomplete protein, yes, but that doesn't make it a 'bad' protein...here, this'll sum it up better than I could.
youtube.com/watch?v=XpKaq8TLkyw

jn.nutrition.org/content/136/2/533S.full
>Carbohydrates, nonessential amino acids, and other essential amino acids do not have stimulatory effects on protein synthesis when compared with leucine (18,39,40). However, in most cases, the combination of amino acid supplements with carbohydrates produces additive effects on the stimulation of the PI3-kinase and mTOR pathways, producing the maximum rates of protein synthesis during recovery.

He also did a study comparing proteins low in leucin with other mice who got proteins with high leucine content. They both did exercise, and the one with high leucine content got bigger muscle gains.

I agree it wouldnt be "bad" but it does matter.
All though only vegans are heavily affected by this.

>Are good proteins and bad proteins a myth?

Definitely not.

I wouldn't use the word "bad" to describe a protein source but rather inferior.

Plant protein digests or ad efficiently and doesn't contain the full Essential Amino Acid complex, which your body needs and can't produce on it's own.

Also soy has been linked to low testosterone and estrogen creation.

So if u were op I'd stick to beef and lean chicken.

and i forgot to add the part where they did the same with mice, except now the leucine content was equal, and they both gained the same amount of muscle.

There's more nutritional misinformation out there than almost any another subject, and it's made worse by the fact that many people were taught it in school, not just exposed to faulty science.
People like vegans constantly spouting bollocks on the subject to promote their own agenda don't help, either.

It's perfectly understandable for someone to be ignorant on the matter.

you're right, it is fucking subjective
once i got rid of fast food i started craving healthy food instead of crap

This has gotten even more confusing for me.

You mean to say that the protein from different foods might actually differ from each other?

In the grand scheme of things, what effect does this entail? Will I gain the same amount of muscle from both wheat and meat, or will my muscle be 'incomplete' if my diet solely consisted of the former?

there are like a trillion different proteins. They are probably the most diverse and complex group of molecules that play a role in human nutrition. Different proteins do different things and are used by our body for different things. Some of the hormones in our body are proteins. Some proteins are eaten, some are produced withhin our body. Proteins can even be viruses, of sorts (prions.)

When it comes to nutrition for size, there is a certain "profile" of proteins your muscles need to grow optimally. We don't know/agree necessarily exactly on what the perfect profile is, but there are various studies that show that e.g. leucine is very important, etc.

Most people generally think that proteins obtained from egg and chicken (and also many other meats) have a great/close-to-optimal profile.

Your muscles won't be "incomplete" or anything if you get an imbalanced/bad protein profile, it just means that one of the types of proteins that your body needs to build muscle ends up being the bottleneck, and hence you won't build muscle quite as fast as you could.

Alright. That helped a lot.

>doesn't have chemicals
lmao please kill yourself

Is it true that you can't mix proteins in order to fully obtain their benefits?

Not something you need to worry about unless you know you're going to get your protein from incomplete sources (e.g. you've vegan)

Oh i'm actually cutting and on a low-carb diet (around 1000 kcal daily - i realise it is recommended to have maintenance-500 calories for cut, but it is the specific diet plan i have) and was ordered to eat a different high-protein source for each meal but at the same time one kind for every meal, among other things.

Even then it wouldn't even be an issue unless you're eating only 1 food a day, and then only if that one type of food was a particularly low-lysine food like wheat or millet

>Beef/red meet in general is the worst source of complete protein in terms of health.

Vegan lies.

I recommended chicken breast instead of beef.

I'm not even vegan brah

>vegans run all the world's medical associations

>authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
>authoritynutrition.com/modern-nutrition-policy-lies-bad-science/
>Even then it wouldn't even be an issue unless you're eating only 1 food a day
There are still issues if you eschew meat because your body uses it for a variety of things aside from commonly cited protein.
>authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/
>breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health

...

Are you just going to keep finding denialist blogs to post? Take the message from all the other failed attempts.

>Are you just going to keep finding denialist blogs to post?
>denialist
Nice projection. Are you going to keep shilling the bullshit that meat's bad for you.
>Take the message from all the other failed attempts.
Take your pseudoscience about meat up with the mountains of evidence that repeatedly say it's good for you
> There is no evidence that saturated fat increases the risk of heart disease, or that diets low in saturated fat reduce the risk.
>Consumption of saturated fat is associated with a lower risk of stroke in many studies. Stroke is the second most common cause of death worldwide.

Honest question: Do you care whether you're right or not, and if you had evidence in front of you that contradicted your beliefs, would you be willing to accept it?

...

It's fucking weird. Some days I /crave/ unflavored lean beef with rice and vegetables, little bit of pepper. Others I want a 4x4 from in n out.

I don't understand how taste can fluctuate that wildly.

I've also noticed that I tend to want to plain foods after a day of physical work. Sometimes I go over and help my granddad with labor intensive farm work and after a day of that pain I'd kill myself if someone asked me to eat fast food.

How big of a deal is not eating cheese/yogurt? I find almost all dairy (except milk) to be fucking disgusting, unless it's on a bagel or in a burger or something. I'd fucking gag if I someone asked me to eat a spoonful of cottage cheese.

>Do you care whether you're right or not
Obviously seeing as I actually bother to know what I'm talking
>and if you had evidence in front of you that contradicted your beliefs, would you be willing to accept it?
If was enough to,and actually did, sure. But there isn't any, especially for the bullshit line of argumentaion that meats bad for you, whether it be bullshit claims about cancer, etc. No matter how much you or anyone else wants to believe it's bad for you and does things it doesn't. It never will be.

Take your tampon out user

>Obviously seeing as I actually bother to know what I'm talking

But you only seem to read things that agree with what you already believe, and you accept it with no skepticism. All the things you've posted in this thread have had rational responses, and each time you ignored them just to post something else without taking in the information and altering your point of view.

>If was enough to,and actually did, sure. But there isn't any

There's enough evidence to convince every major medical authority in the world. They've seen all the data you're posting here and much more, and they still strongly disagree with what you believe. I've tried to help you see directly why they don't believe what you believe. That study that concluded "there is no significant evidence for concluding that saturated fat is linked to CVD." Don't you care how they reached that conclusion? The youtube video at the end of this post breaks that study down so you can see why the methodology mistakenly led to that conclusion. Did you watch it?

>It never will be

And there's my answer. You just admitted that you're not open to the idea that you could be wrong.

Yes good proteins are L isomer and bad proteins are D isomer

Try greek yogurt. I don't honestly know how anyone can not like greek yogurt.

But yeah, milk is pretty good for you.

>But you only seem to read things that agree with what you already believe, and you accept it with no skepticism.
Because anything else is proven psuedoscientific bullshit.
>All the things you've posted in this thread have had rational responses,
Yeah, he rational response backed up by science is that meat's good for you and doesn't have the negative effects you so desperately wish it did.
>and each time you ignored them just to post something else without taking in the information and altering your point of view.
I would if that infomation wasn't consistently blown out by by scientific consensus that repeating proving meat's beneficial health effects
>There's enough evidence to convince every major medical authority in the world.
Then why the scientific and medical community continually back up meat being heaqlthy for you. And Harvard most definitely is not every major medical authority
>They've seen all the data you're posting here and much more
Yes and actual science has concluded meat's fine.
>and they still strongly disagree with what you believe.
And if you believe that and are going to contue down this line of argumentation, your retarded.
>I've tried to help you see directly why they don't believe what you believe. That study that concluded "there is no significant evidence for concluding that saturated fat is linked to CVD." >Don't you care how they reached that conclusion? The youtube video at the end of this post breaks that study down so you can see why the methodology mistakenly led to that conclusion. Did you watch it?
That conclusion was reached and continuously backed up by research that wasn't pseudoscience. And no i don't care all that much because the one shilling memes and that needs to back up his bullshit claims isn't me.
>And there's my answer.
Yep, and now that you've gotten it for the nth time, fuck off with your pseudoscience
>(cont.)

>(cont.)
>You just admitted that you're not open to the idea that you could be wrong.
Because not only can i confidently and factually say that I'm right. I'm not the one spouting bullshit about science, biology and nutrition

Nigger you're retarded

>live on burgers and fries instead of some dry, tasteless chicken breast
If you arent a fatass then why do you act like there are no tasty alternatives to dry chicken?