Denotating it is exactly what the Bluetooth name does. *Detonating* it, on the other hand...

You realize that's the point, right?

Serious question?

PS I'm neither a Bot nor AI

The history of protein guidelines is a story of institutional convenience overriding biological reality.

It started deeply flawed (1970sâ"1980s)

1. Global standards were built on short-term nitrogen balance studies. They assumed that if a subject stopped excreting nitrogen, their body was stable. In reality, at low protein intakes (0.57 g/kg), the human body enters a survival shutdown. It ceases skin cell renewal, down-regulates muscle synthesis, and wastes lean tissue to make do with insufficient protein.

Then they Ignored the warnings (1980sâ"2000s)

2. Dr. Nevin Scrimshaw ran long-term studies proving that men fed these "safe" baselines suffered progressive lean tissue loss and elevated liver enzymes. The committees knew this, but ignored the data. Acknowledging it meant admitting that their mathematical framework for the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) was fundamentally broken.

The sketchy committees (2003â"2005)

3. When updating these guidelines, committees settled on a median baseline of **0.66 g/kg**. They openly acknowledged in the fine print that this "apparent equilibrium" did not mean optimal health. However, raising the baseline would have triggered global chaos: international aid food supplies would instantly become legally inadequate, and national agricultural budgets would skyrocket. They applied a generic +25% buffer to reach the famous **0.8 g/kg** RDA to mask an insufficient baseline.

4. The truth comes out (2007â"Present)

4. In 2007, researchers using advanced isotopic tracers bypassed the old nitrogen math entirely. They proved that the true baseline requirement is **0.93 g/kg** and the actual safe intake is **1.2 g/kg**. The official guidelines remain an open secretâ"a bureaucratic fiction frozen in place to protect policy, not human health.

With 1.2 g/kg you see that most Americans are below the true requirement. With a mean of 0.98 g/kg it makes sense why so many Americans need to eat more meat.

There is a typo:

The average should have been
Average: 0.98 g / kg / day between both sexes.

1.07 g / kg / day for men.
0.89 g/kg / day for women.

Average: 0.98 g / kg / day

Otherwise the same arguments stand.

Phillips, Chevalier, & Leidy (2016): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... Fulgoni (2008): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... (Note: Abstract text overview is indexed under PMC5347101)

The average amount of protein eaten:

1.07 g / kg / day for men.
0.89 g/kg / day for women.

Average: 0.89 g / kg / day

The Scientific Case for a Higher RDA
The traditional protein Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of 0.8 g/kg/day is increasingly viewed by nutritional scientists as an outdated metric. The core evidence for raising this baseline includes:
Flawed Methodology: The 0.8 g/kg standard was built on nitrogen balance studies, which only measure the absolute minimum amount of protein required to prevent lean tissue wasting and clinical deficiency.
Modern Metabolic Tracing: Utilizing the Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation (IAAO) method—which tracks breath markers to find when the body's amino acid pathways are genuinely saturated—studies show that metabolic requirements for healthy, sedentary young adults plateau closer to 1.2 g/kg/day.
Functional Outcomes: Massive clinical reviews show that a range of 1.2 to 1.6 g/kg/day is required to optimize actual health outcomes, including triggering satiety hormones, managing weight, and preserving skeletal muscle mass.
Consumption Patterns vs. the Optimal Range
When evaluated against how people actually eat, the current 0.8 g/kg/day guideline creates a false sense of dietary adequacy.
[Deficiency Minimum] 0.8 g/kg/day (Current RDA)

[Actual Intake] 0.89 g/kg/day (Average American Consumption)

[Optimal Function] 1.2 – 1.6 g/kg/day (Modern Scientific Consensus)

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) shows that the average American adult consumes roughly 0.89 g/kg/day. Because this number clears the official 0.8 g/kg baseline, public health dashboards register the population as "adequate" in protein intake.
However, because 0.89 g/kg/day sits completely below the 1.2 to 1.6 g/kg/day optimal range, the typical consumption pattern leaves the majority of Americans in a functional deficit—meeting the bare survival minimum while missing the threshold needed for metabolic health and muscle preservation.

In addition men have more proportional muscle mass and higher metabolisms.

A back of the envelope calculation:

1. Variables (Percentage Beyond Average)
        Metabolism Advantage: +3.75% (Multiplier: 1.0375)
        Lean Mass Advantage: +8.75% (Multiplier: 1.0875)

2. Compounding the Advantages
      1.0375 × 1.0875 = 1.12828125 (+12.83% Total Scaling Factor)

3. Applying the Scaling Factor to Baselines
        At a Survival Baseline (0.8 g/kg average):
          0.80 g/kg × 1.1283 = 0.9026 g/kg (Minimum for Men)

        At an Optimal Baseline (1.3 g/kg average):
          1.30 g/kg × 1.1283 = 1.467 g/kg (Optimal for Men)

This supports the contention that broadly speaking we need more not less protein ergo meat. Especially men.

Here are your requested sources.

1. Houston DK et al. “Low Dietary Protein Intakes and Associated Functional Limitations in an Aging Population.”
   Cross-sectional analysis linking lower protein intake in older adults with more functional limitations and poorer strength.
2. Hess JM et al. “Low Protein Intakes and Poor Diet Quality Associate with Functional Limitations among US Adults.”
   US adults with lower protein intake had poorer diet quality and more self-reported functional limitations.
3. Phillips SM et al. “Protein Requirements and Recommendations for Older People: A Review.”
   Review arguing that older adults likely need more protein than the standard RDA to preserve muscle and function.
4. Low protein intake, physical activity, and physical function in European and North American community-dwelling older adults: a pooled analysis of four longitudinal aging cohorts
   Higher protein intake was associated with slower physical function decline and lower likelihood of mobility limitation in older adults.
5. Low Protein Intake Is Associated with Frailty in Older Adults
   Meta-analysis finding that higher protein intake was inversely associated with frailty in older adults.
6. Low Protein Intake Is Associated with the Risk of Functional Impairment in Older Adults in an Age- and Gender-Specific Manner: A SHARE-Based Study
   Large observational study reporting age- and sex-specific links between low protein intake and later functional impairment.
7. Low protein intake, physical activity, and physical function in European and North American community-dwelling older adults: a pooled analysis of four longitudinal aging cohorts
   Pooled longitudinal cohorts showing higher protein intake was associated with slower physical function decline in older adults.
8. Poor Dietary Protein Intake in Elderly Population with Sarcopenia ...
   Study describing low protein intake as common in older adults with sarcopenia and related muscle-health concerns.
9. Impact of increased protein intake in older adults: a 12-week double ...
   Intervention study examining whether increasing protein intake improves outcomes in older adults over a short follow-up period.

Not only is mental health ignored but meat per se is good for you. Most people lack enough protein. It's processed carbs that are the problem.

Replacing meat with carbs often drops total LDL weight, which bureaucrats count as a wim. However, excess carbohydrates force the liver to produce triglycerides, transforming your cholesterol into an army of **small, dense LDL particles**. This lowers your test score but increases actual arterial plaque risk, making your cardiovascular environment far more dangerous.

**The Institutional Hypocrisy**
"People lack discipline for veggies, so cut meat" $\rightarrow$ Expect people to resist cheap carbs $\rightarrow$ People binge on Pringles $\rightarrow$ Obesity explodes. Officials mandate a restriction based on behavioral failure, then build their entire alternative policy on the delusion of behavioral perfection. It is a deadly contradiction.

---

**The Institutional Hypocrisy**
"People lack discipline for veggies, so cut meat" -> Expect people to resist cheap carbs -> People binge on Pringles -> Obesity explodes. Officials mandate a restriction based on behavioral failure, then build their entire alternative policy on the delusion of behavioral perfection. It is a deadly contradiction.

**The Real-World Solution**
Accept that people lack self-control -> Encourage burgers and fries over pure starches -> Heavy protein and fat trigger actual fullness -> Eating stops sooner. Leveraging the heavy satiety of fast-food meat creates a caloric ceiling, forcing a lower overall weight and preventing the worst metabolic disaster.

**The Ideal Scenario**
Eat unprocessed, lean animal proteins alongside high volumes of fresh fruits and vegetables to maximize nutrient density and perfectly maintain a healthy BMI.

I seem to have had a very similar progression. I still tend to think in "/." replacement operators, but it's been perhaps 15 years since I've really used Wolfram Language.

Do you really say "lol"?

Fewer FFS!

"Opt out of all FOG DATA SCIENCE data sets"

What -- exactly -- does that do, how quickly, and what are some of the side-effects?\

Underneath, it says "You will be removed from all our data sets." And yet I doubt that very much. Surely there will be an entry in a database somewhere saying "Device identifier ________-____-_____-_____-_____ requested removed date-and-time _____ from IP address _____", etc.
And does that only retroactively remove data? Suppose they snarf up another dataset, bought from someone else or collected by themselves. Is that data also removed from their datasets, or does another removal request have to be made?

"Science is about a specific process: you make a hypothesis, you set up a test of your hypothesis, you test it, find it true or not and based on that your hypothesis becomes a scientific theory or a rejected hypothesis."

That's the junior-high version of science. The one done poorly on cardboard. It's sad that people still trot out the whole "it's a process" trope.

And yet that one sentence makes more sense than the rest of the post.

Betterbird doesn't solve all of Thunderbird's problems, but it *does* act a little more sanely in many respects, and the search works a bit better on my machines.

Why would you presume *that* from what was written?