Originally Posted by bruteforce
My point of view on 50g of protein max is that it severely limits the type of food you can take in. There's protein in grains and legumes, so if we have a meal of a decent burrito with beans, rice, and some ground beef, we're already pushing the limit of the amount of protein allowed. Then, in order to get the amount of calories you need, you would need to consume food of a lower nutrient density in order to meet your caloric needs, increase fat beyond the suggested levels, etc.
I wish I could recall the author, but the article was called something along the lines of "The Murders in Eden" in which archaeologists or paleontologists or some similar discipline looked at the bones of our ancestors and found that when the switch to agriculture happened, two profound changes took place.
1. Children multiplied
2. People were shorter
The surplus of calories allowed more children to be born, but the shortage of protein kept them shorter. Today, many cultures still eat bizarre things to get ahold of protein. I think the gov't guidelines might be better served giving a range for protein consumption, with 50g being the bottom, and advising the populace to adjust their overall caloric intake accordingly. I can't say what the maximum would be, but for the average sedentary individual, surely there can be no harm in hitting 100g of protein a day and reducing high impact carbs to spare their pancreas and metabolic pathways.
I thought the USDA guidelines were
just giving 50g as a minimum RDA from your previous post.
Regarding the paleological arguments - I find them interesting, but I think there's a real need for caution with them. Quite often, they tend to find an arrow in a tree and paint the target around it. In other words, they advance the theory, then retro-fit available data.
I don't know if that's the case in Martin Harris, but that would be my general complaint.
I agree that if we limited ourselves to 50g protein, it would be hard to get a decent day's food.