Until not so long ago, protein was a technical term, linked to clinical nutrition and sports. Today it has become a cultural symbol. Under what some have called the era of Protein Chicprotein is no longer just a nutrient, but a promise: for health, body control and active aging. Eating well has come to mean, almost automatically, eating “with protein.”
The market pushes. This change has consolidated an idea that is as simple as it is deceptive: that if protein is good, the more it is, the better. However, while the market push this logic Without nuances, the human body continues to function with very specific limits. And there arises the question that rarely accompanies packaging and slogans: how much protein do we really need to age well, and at what point does it stop adding up?
What does science really say? This is where the noise of marketing collides with the evidence. In an extensive report published by The Washington PostProfessor Stuart Phillips, leading researcher in protein metabolism, muscle health and aging at McMaster University (Canada), issues a clear warning: “Consuming more and more protein is not necessarily better. There are no infinite benefits associated with higher intake.”
Phillips is not a marginal voice in this debate. He has been studying for decades how nutrition and exercise interact to slow age-related loss of muscle mass —sarcopenia—and he is one of the scientists most cited in this field. His message dismantles much of the dominant narrative.
So, let’s get to the data. The classic recommendation of 0.8 grams of protein per kilo of body weight —the well-known recommended daily intake (RDA)— is usually interpreted as an objective to achieve. In reality, it is designed as a minimum to avoid malnutrition. According to Stuart Phillipswhen the focus is on aging healthily and preserving muscle mass, the evidence points to somewhat higher ranges, always combined with strength training.
This approach fits with what was published by harvard and Mayo Clinicpoint out that exceeding intakes close to 2 grams per kilo of body weight rarely provides clear advantages to the general population. Instead, they insist on the need to adapt the amount of protein to age, physical activity and health status.
Protein: necessary, but not miraculous. It is worth remembering something basic that is often lost in public conversation: the body does not store protein. Once the needs are met, the excess is used as energy or transformed into fat. Eating more protein, by itself, does not build muscle. As they remember from Mayo Clinic: “Muscle is built by strength training, not by shaking.”
From 40 or 50 years old, the equation changes slightly. The progressive loss of muscle mass begins and here protein takes on a strategic role, but always in combination with resistance exercise. Spreading the protein throughout the day (between 15 and 30 grams per meal) and not concentrating it only at dinner seems more effective in stimulating muscle synthesis, a point that also underlines the McMaster University researcher.
The word of the year: protein. At least in the nutritional field, because – for those who want to know – the word of the year has been “tariff”, and no wonder. But getting back to the topic at hand, protein has sneaked in on social networks, in cafes and in viral morning routines. And going further, the new ritual of well-being involves coffees protein, clear protein, functional supplements and smoothies that promise sculpted bodies.
This obsession coexists with other contemporary phenomena: the fear of aging, the cult of the “perfect” body and the popularization of weight loss drugs like Ozempic. In this context, protein is sold almost as a talisman: it satisfies, slims, tones and protects against aging. Nutritionists, however, are more cautious. Many agree that we are paying a premium for ultra-processed products that do not provide more benefits than the real food that we already have at home: eggs, legumes, fish or natural yogurt.
The origin of the protein. Another important turn in this debate. We come to a meta-analysis that shows that following patterns like the Planetary Health Dietrich in plant proteins, is associated with both lower mortality and a lower climate footprint. It is not about eliminating animal protein, but about moving it from the center of the plate and prioritizing legumes, nuts and whole grains.
The experts introduce a key concept here, widely cited by Harvard: he protein package. It’s not just the protein that matters, but what comes with it. It is not the same to obtain it from an ultra-processed “high in protein” food than from a dish of lentils with fiber, minerals and antioxidants. The nutritional context matters as much as the isolated macronutrient.
So who really needs more protein? Protein deficiencies are not common in the general population. They appear especially in older people, patients with illnesses, very restrictive diets or chewing problems. In these cases, supplements can be a useful tool, never a universal shortcut.
Alma Palau, dietician-nutritionist and manager of the General Council of Official Colleges of Dietitians-Nutritionists, warned in an interview in CuídatePlus that excess protein is not harmless. “Proteins that the body does not need are metabolized and eliminated, but this process involves making organs such as the kidney or liver work unnecessarily,” he explained. Palau insists that consuming more protein than necessary does not translate into more muscle or more health if it is not accompanied by sufficient carbohydrates, a varied diet and physical activity. In other words: without context, the protein loses its meaning.
Along the same lines, Carlos Andrés Zapata, nutritionist interviewed by La Vanguardiawarns that protein has been overstated in current discourse and remembers that it is not more important than other macronutrients such as carbohydrates or fats, nor does it replace a balanced diet or strength training.
Less obsession, more balance. Protein matters, a lot. It is essential to maintain muscle, autonomy and quality of life with age. But science does not support the idea that it is infinite or magical. Stuart Phillips himself insists that the error It has not been about eating protein, but about turning it into an end in itself.
Aging well does not mean accumulating grams or turning each meal into a functional experiment, but rather something much simpler—and less profitable for marketing—: eating enough, prioritizing real foods, strength training, sleeping well, and maintaining an active life. In the age of infinite protein, the scientific message is surprisingly moderate. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to listen to it.
Image | freepik
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings