The New York Times has done it again, reporting on a summary of studies on the associations of various dietary and clinical risk factors with heart disease in a way that creates, in my opinion, more confusion than clarity.
There are three macronutrients in food: carbohydrates, fat and protein, ‘macro’ in the sense that they comprise almost all of the weight and calories of food. Vitamins and minerals are the micronutrients.
There are few if any health topics that are more contentious and personally sensitive than the question of the health benefits and risks of cow's milk and its products.
How do we know that the results from the China Project apply to people in the West. Aren't the Chinese much more physically active than Americans? Could this influence disease outcomes?
It's my guess that there's hardly another myth in nutrition so insidious yet so intractable as that which encourages us to believe that consuming lots of high-quality protein - basically the stuff of animal-based foods -
Some writers claim that protein is protein, be it animal or plant, except for the way that animals are treated. How do you respond to this? We have information that the primary difference between animal and plant proteins is their amino acid profiles and it is those profiles that direct the rates at which the absorbed amino acids are put to use within the body.