In 2019, Dr. David Katz and colleagues, including one of my favorite researchers, David Jenkins, published a public health case for modernizing the definition of protein quality.

The prevailing definition seems to have more to do with biochemistry than the net effects on

human health. The popular concept that protein is good and the more the better, coupled

with a protein quality definition that favors animal protein, fosters the impression that

eating more meat, eggs, and dairy is desirable,

preferable.

But this is directly opposed to nutrition guidelines that are instead trying to push more

plants.

Although protein malnutrition is still prevalent in many areas of the world, it is exceedingly

rare in the industrialized world, where the most formidable public health threat is not something

like Quash York or protein calorie malnutrition, but from chronic diseases.

In 2016, a landmark study was published out of Harvard involving more than 100,000 people

that found that replacing animal protein with plant protein was associated with lower risk of dying prematurely.

The worst seemed to be processed meat like bacon, as well as egg protein, the egg whites,

but swapping in even just 3% plant protein for any of the animal proteins, processed meat,

unprocessed meat, chicken, fish, eggs, or dairy, was associated with a significantly lower risk

of, arguably the most important end point of all, death.

Yeah, but how do we know it's the protein?

The researchers suggested for factors such as saturate fat intake, which suggested it wasn't

just the animal fat.

Okay, but how does your body even know the difference between protein from a plant and

protein from an animal? Isn't protein protein protein? No. Unlike animal protein, plant proteins

...