Currently browsing posts about: Protein

Most people who eat enough calories get more than enough of the protein they need, so the current protein craze—putting pea, whey, and tofu into everything—doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

It does sell products though.

It’s hard to choose from among the most entertaining protein-supplemented products.

• Coffee?
• Protein water?
• Pop-Tarts?

But this remains my current favorite.

We can—and should—ask: How Sound Is Broad Advice to Simply “Eat More Protein?”

Protein has become the centerpiece of popular nutrition advice. Grocery store shelves are lined with protein-enhanced everything. Social media influencers urge us to squeeze more protein into every meal. And now the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is offering broad advice: simply eat more protein.

And look at the effects of this trend:

America’s Protein Boom Is Outgrowing Its Supply: Demand for whey is soaring as more Americans seek out high-protein foods and GLP-1 medications reshape eating habits. Why can’t manufacturers simply make more?

And the USDA says Animal protein continues to be plentiful for U.S. consumers.

They don’t include dairy on this chart and I have not seen a similar one for plant proteins, but plenty of those are available too.

I wish everyone would stop worrying about protein.  It’s not a nutritional issue; it’s a marketing issue.

___________________

Arriving Sept 8. For a 30% discount, pre-order here using code UCPSAVE30.

Last week, MAHA proudly announced that the FDA Panel appointed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr had approved 6 of 7 Peptides over the objections of FDA scientists.

The vote is a win for HHS Secretary Kennedy and MAHA, opening a path for compounding pharmacies to prepare BPC-157, TB-500 and four other popular peptides by prescription.”

The vote was close: RFK Jr’s personal appointees outnumbered FDA scientists concerned that the peptides have not been shown to be safe or effective.

RFK Jr believes in peptides and loaded the panel with his appointees; six of his eight appointees sell peptides.

The FDA raised concerns about conflicts of interest, but to no avail.

This panel is strictly advisory.  The FDA does not have to accept its recommendations.

The big question: Will the FDA accept this recommendation or reject it?

• If the acting head of FDA, Kyle Diamantas, accepts the panel’s recommendation, it will be a political, not scientific, decision.
• If he rejects the panel’s recommendation, he risks losing his job.

At stake: the FDA’s role as a science-based regulatory agency.

Principles anyone?

What this is about

Peptides are small proteins (50 or fewer amino acids), some of which have regulatory actions in the body.  The best examples are GLP-1 drugs.

They have to be injected; if swallowed as pills, they would be destroyed by digestive enzymes.

For what this is about, see the excellent account in the New Yorker: Why Are People Injecting Themselves with Peptides?

The ones just approved by the FDA committee are claimed (without much in the way of evidence) to do fabulous things for health.

Peptide sellers have pushed hard for the FDA to approve them.

Comment

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for the benefits of injected peptides, but no real science.

Peptides are in a regulatory limbo.  Supplements are virtually unregulated as a result of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. Consequently, you have no way of knowing if you are getting what the label says you are getting.

But peptides are injected, and not regulated under DSHEA.  That’s what this committee is trying to fix.

Caveat emptor!

I can’t wait to see what Diamantas does on this and what happens to him if he does the right thing and rejects the panel’s recommendations.

____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

I learned about this one from a National Pork Board story in SciTechDaily: Animal vs. Plant Protein: Scientists Found a Surprising Nutritional Difference.

A 2023 Purdue University study found that two ounce equivalents (oz-eq) of animal-based protein foods supplied more bioavailable essential amino acids (EAA) than the same two oz-eq amount of plant-based protein foods. Essential amino acids are especially important because the body cannot make them on its own. They must come from food, and they help support muscle and whole-body protein building.

It wasn’t much work to figure out who paid for the study.

Advice to get most of your protein from plant sources does not go over well with animal food trade associations like the National Pork Board (which is sponsored by USDA, by the way).

The study: Connolly G, Hudson JL, Bergia RE, Davis EM, Hartman AS, Zhu W, Carroll CC, Campbell WW. Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2023; 15(13):2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132870

Conclusions: The same “oz-eq” portions of animal- and plant-based protein foods do not provide equivalent EAA content and postprandial bioavailability for protein anabolism in young and older adults.

Funding: This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.

_____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

I am not a litigious person, so I rarely pay attention to lawsuits, but this notice caught my eye:

Chobani sued by Danone over high-protein yogurt claims:  The Oikos maker said its rival is engaging in “unfair competition and consumer deception” to make its product more appealing to shoppers.

Danone says Chobani is inflating the amount of protein in its yogurt.

The food giant said on Monday that Chobani is manipulating the serving size on its 32-ounce containers of Chobani 20G Protein to inflate the protein content. Danone alleges that in order to claim 20 grams of protein per serving, Chobani sets its serving size at 6.7 ounces instead of the industry standard of 5.3 ounces…If Chobani followed the FDA’s serving-size rules for its 32-ounce containers, the lawsuit said, it would be able to claim only 18 grams of protein per serving — below the key 20-gram threshold for high-protein yogurts.

This may seem absurd, but wait!  This may be the fourth lawsuit between these companies.

What I find particular silly about all this is that it is about protein, a nutrient that has never been a problem in American diets and still is not.  Most people get way more than they need.

But protein is what sells food products these days, so companies care about it a lot.

The context for all this is that our food supply provides roughly twice the calories needed by our population, thereby making the food industry hugely competitive, especially at a time when GLP-1 drugs, inflation, and concerns about ultra-processed foods are cutting into food sales.

Danone must think that protecting its market share is worth the legal challenge and expenditure.

Nutritionists like me cannot understand why people think they need more protein, so much so that the food industry is putting protein into everything.

Most Americans consume close to twice the amount of protein needed, and practically anyone who consumes enough calories gets plenty.  Protein is in lots of foods and it’s really hard not to get enough unless you aren’t eating much.

I’m endlessly entertained by protein in everything, and am tracking its effect on the food industry.

Guess what.  There’s a shortage.

Protein powder shortage threatens America’s biggest food craze: Companies are now grappling with whether to raise prices at a time when consumers are already reeling from a prolonged period of inflation.

The food industry views the protein craze as a growth opportunity.

How protein is shaping active nutrition in 2026:  Sustained demand for protein continues to define the active and performance nutrition space. But where are the growth niches?… Read more

And it’s not just food.  Look what’s happening with drinks.

From coffee to soda: How protein is making waves in beverage innovation:  Drinks are a new frontier for protein innovation… Read more

And just because a product contains protein, doesn’t necessarily mean its healthy.

The new paradox: Protein vs processing:  Protein is the snack industry’s hottest claim but if the foods delivering it are still ultra-processed, the sector may be building its next health halo on shaky ground… Read more

Unusual sources of protein are not doing so well these days.

Insect protein’s reality check: High costs, failed ventures and slower-than-expected market growth temper early optimism.

But peptides—smaller chains of amino acids—are another craze, despite lack of evidence for their benefits.

Peptides Move From Fringe Biohacks to Functional Food Frontier:  As demand surges for targeted health solutions, Nuritas’ Nora Khaldi discusses how AI is transforming peptide discovery, and why food and beverage may be the industry’s next big play… Listen now

As always, I’m for getting protein from foods, largely plant sources.  Yes plant proteins sometimes are low in essential amino acids but the low ones differ among plant sources, so variety takes care of gaps: rice, wheat, and corn with beans, peanut butter sandwiches.  Easy.

This week, I’m going to be writing about lawsuits against food companies, starting with the class action lawsuit filed against David Protein, which states that the company misrepresented the calorie and fat content of its bars.

Here is a Nutrition Facts panel from the company’s website.

The FDA allows several methods for counting calories in food products, one of which is to apply Atwater values, 4 calories per gram for protein and carbohydrate, and 9 calories per gram for fat (this is why fat is fattening).

Doing that here gives:

Fat: 2.5 x 9     =    23 (rounded off)

Carbs: 12 x 4  =    48

Protein: 26 x 4 = 104

Total calories  =   175

This is higher than what’s on the label.  But calories are difficult to measure accurately, so the FDA allows a 20% margin of error.

But the difference must have gotten the attention of the plaintiffs.

They took the product and burned it in a bomb calorimeter, a device that measures the heat produced when foods are burned to completion.  This heat is equivalent to calories, when corrected for the nitrogen in protein.

Here is what the plaintiffs got when they did this.

Wow.  That’s quite a difference.

But David’s has a rebuttal.

…bomb calorimetry is not the right testing method for determining calories in foods containing certain ingredients, such as dietary fiber, certain sweeteners, and, critically for us, fat substitutes like esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG)…If you burn ingredients like complex carbohydrates, fiber or EPG in a calorimeter, these ingredients would appear to deliver far more calories than the body actually metabolizes.

This took me right to the ingredient list (see above)

PROTEIN SYSTEM: MILK PROTEIN ISOLATE, COLLAGEN, WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, EGG WHITE. | BINDING SYSTEM: MALTITOL, GLYCERIN, ALLULOSE, TAPIOCA STARCH, SOY LECITHIN. | FAT SYSTEM: MODIFIED PLANT FAT (EPG), COCONUT OIL. | FLAVOR SYSTEM: UNSWEETENED CHOCOLATE, PEANUT FLOUR, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, PEANUT EXTRACT, SALT, DUTCH PROCESS COCOA POWDER, SUCRALOSE, ACESULFAME POTASSIUM.

My first question: Why would anyone want to eat a collection of concocted ingredients like this with hardly any of them recognizable as food?  These bars are quintessential ultra-processed products.

Whatever.  EPG is esterified propoxylated glycerol, a fat substitute. It provides less than one calorie per gram.

Here’s my quote from the New York Times

Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition and food studies at N.Y.U., told DealBook that the plaintiffs’ claims were based on counting calories from a “concocted ingredient that’s not absorbed” by the body. The lawsuit was likely to be dismissed, she added.

Not that Nestle was weighing in on the healthfulness of David bars: “Whether anyone should be eating non-absorbable fat is another discussion,” she said.

Precisely.

Alert to readers: Amazon.com displays listings for several more workbooks, study guides, and cookbooks purportedly based on my book, What to Eat Now (see previous post on this).  I did not write any of them.  Caveat emptor!

___________________________

Protein is the #1 food marketing trend for 2026 and is expected to be a big issue in the forthcoming 2025-2030 dietary guidelines.

The main drivers of the trend:

• Aging 
• Weight management
• Fitness.
• GLP-1 drugs
• Marketing!!!

I put exclamation points after marketing because average protein intake among anyone who eats enough calories is already way above minimum requirements  (also see this).  Adding more is unlikely to do any good.  And current evidence is insufficient to change existing recommendations for protein intakes. 

That’s why the protein trend is really about marketing.

And that’s why protein is now added to everything.

One other point: although protein is in most foods (exceptions: sugar and fats), people commonly understand protein as a euphemism for meat (plant-based sources of protein seem healthier).

If advice to eat more protein gets translated to eat more meat, this will not be good for the health of people or the planet.

• IFT’s Food Technology Hunger for Protein Fuels Meat Mania: Consumer meat/poultry consumption has increased as shoppers seek out protein and fewer say they are avoiding meat.  Read More

Here are a few items from industry publications about taking advantage of the protein trend.

• How protein turned from trend to necessity:  Protein fortification continues to dominate the food and beverage space – but how is ingredient innovation evolving to meet the need for more protein?… Read more
•  Why is there a whey shortage?  High demand and limited supply, in part due to its use with GLP-1 prescriptions, are leading to shortages of the protein… Read more
• Why collagen is set to dominate 2026: Collagen is transforming food, drink and confectionery. Discover why this powerhouse ingredient is set to dominate innovation in 2026… Read more
• How protein powers CPG majors’ expansion plans:  Protein remains a cornerstone of innovation for food and beverage brands. Here’s how Danone, PepsiCo and General Mills are exploring the global megatrend… Read more

I’m indebted to Consumer Lab for its testing and discussion of Protein, Energy, and Nut Bars.  

Full disclosure: I don’t like these products much.  I don’t like their soft texture or off flavors.  The Environmental Working Group doesn’t much like them either, mainly because they are ultra-processed, contain artificial sweeteners, and are highly caloric.

Consumer Lab’s tests found some of these bars to contain more fat, carbs, and/or sugar alcohols than listed on their labels.  The test results are in CL’s Nutrition Bars Review of bars from Aloha, Barebells, Clif Bar, David, GoMacro, IQ Bar, Kind, Kirkland, Larabar, Perfect Bar, Pure Protein, RxBar, and Quest.

CL is particularly concerned about the sugar alcohols commonly used in high-protein bars.

The distributor of one of the David bars deemed by CL as not approved (nearly five times as much fat as on the label and, therefore, more calories) argued that CL had used the wrong testing method.

At issue is the number of calories provided by the ingredient, esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG), a poorly digested fat substitute.  CL thought it should be labeled and its calories counted.  The distributor disagreed.

CL says “EPG is a way to add fat to a protein bar (making it less dry), while hiding most of this fat and possible calories from the label.  But we think this is dishonest to consumers….”  It then goes on to discuss the potential binding of EPG to fat-soluble vitamins and causing oily urine and stools.  It wants amounts of EPG disclosed on labels.

Comment: The FDA says EPG is GRAS.  While the arguments about its calories continue, my bottom line is simple.  EPG is a marker of ultra-processing.  I would just as soon avoid it.