https://www.naturalnews.com/2026-01-31-new-rules-protein-rethinking-nutrition-for-lifelong-strength.html
Proverbs 27:17 — "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
AI GENERATED
Summary:
The article argues that the old protein RDA of 0.8 g/kg is merely a deficiency minimum and insufficient for aging adults. It claims that due to "anabolic resistance," older adults should consume 1.2–1.6 g/kg daily to preserve muscle and prevent sarcopenia. It emphasizes that protein must be paired with resistance training 2–3 times per week, and that even distribution across meals (20–30g every 3–4 hours) is more effective than skewed intake. It downplays the "anabolic window," supports pre-sleep protein, and says supplements are practical but not superior to whole foods. Diagnosis of sarcopenia should focus on strength and function, not just muscle mass. The overall message: higher protein + resistance training is essential for healthy aging.
Critique:
The core scientific claims are broadly aligned with current geriatric and sports nutrition research. Many peer-reviewed studies and professional bodies (e.g., ESPEN, PROT-AGE Study Group) support higher protein intake for older adults in the 1.0–1.5+ g/kg range, especially when combined with resistance training. The concept of anabolic resistance is well established in aging physiology. The emphasis on function (grip strength, gait speed) over mass alone is also consistent with modern sarcopenia definitions.
That said, a few observations:
1. Tone & Framing:
The article frames this as a dramatic "paradigm shift." In reality, this has been building for over a decade in clinical nutrition circles. It's not new science, but broader public awareness catching up.
2. Kidney Concerns:
The commenter warning about kidney damage reflects a common fear. In healthy individuals with normal kidney function, protein intakes in the 1.2–1.6 g/kg range have not been shown to cause kidney damage. However, people with preexisting kidney disease do require medical supervision. The article doesn't emphasize that nuance, but it also doesn't promote extreme intakes.
3. Supplements vs Whole Foods:
The article appropriately states supplements aren't inherently superior. That's important, especially given marketing pressures in the fitness industry. The evidence does not show that whey powders outperform equivalent protein from whole foods when total intake is matched.
4. What's Missing:
It could have addressed:
Total calorie adequacy (undereating overall impairs muscle retention regardless of protein).
The role of leucine threshold in older adults.
The importance of progressive overload in resistance training.
Individual variability (frailty vs active older adults).
5. Metabolic Claims:
The statement that muscle acts as a glucose "sink" is accurate. More lean mass improves insulin sensitivity, which has strong metabolic health implications.
Bottom Line:
The article is directionally accurate and mostly evidence-based, though somewhat dramatized. The protein range cited (1.2–1.6 g/kg for older adults engaged in resistance training) is supported by much of the current literature. It is not a radical or dangerous recommendation for healthy individuals.
.