The Problem With Jeremy Ethiers Protein Advice - Episode 459
Wed Oct 15 2025
This highlights a major issue with gathering information from YouTube influencers — there’s almost always a hidden agenda.In this case, the goal appears to be creating a problem (diet confusion) and selling the solution (a training app). Unfortunately, that’s a common strategy in online fitness marketing.After reading the meta-analysis he references (Nunes et al., J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle, 2022) and cross-checking the claims in the video, here are several key clarifications missing from his interpretation.1. The research doesn’t apply to trained athletes.The 74 studies in that meta-analysis mostly involved untrained or recreationally active adults, not athletes training 4–6 times a week like UMS clients.Most participants trained 2–3× per week for 8–12 weeks at ~60–75% of 1RM — beginner-level volume. None used progressive overload or periodized strength programs.So when the video claims “extra protein doesn’t help,” it’s true only for lightly active people. For serious lifters, research such as Morton et al. (2018) and Mazzulla et al. (2020) consistently supports 1.8–2.2 g/kg/day for optimal recovery and muscle protein synthesis.In short: these studies weren’t done on people training like you.2. Most people under-eat protein — not overeat it.In 22 years of coaching—from general population to elite athletes—the biggest issue we see is too little protein.The average adult consumes around 0.8 g/kg/day, just enough to prevent muscle loss, not build new tissue. As training volume increases, so do protein needs for repair and immune function.The influencer mocks “high-protein diets,” but he’s really criticizing extreme bodybuilder intakes (250–300 g/day), not the science-backed range most people fail to reach.3. He overlooks decades of research on muscle protein synthesis (MPS).Foundational work from Dr. Layne Norton, Dr. Louise Burke, Dr. Tony Boutagy, and Prof. Gary Slater shows that optimal MPS depends on:Age: Older adults experience anabolic resistance and need more protein per meal.Training load: Harder and more frequent training increases repair demands.Gut health: Poor gut integrity reduces amino acid absorption, raising needs further.Ignoring these variables grossly oversimplifies the science.4. The meta-analysis is misrepresented.The paper doesn’t conclude that “protein doesn’t matter.” It finds that increasing protein yields modest lean mass gains in untrained people on low-volume programs.It didn’t test athletes eating 1.8–2.2 g/kg/day or training intensely. Also, all 74 studies used animal-based proteins, making the influencer’s vegan example irrelevant.5. Cherry-picked “proof” and no sources.Many influencers mention “the research” but never cite it — a red flag.If you challenge accepted science, show your sources. Otherwise, it’s just opinion — especially when promoting an app at the end of the video.When I reviewed the actual study, my conclusion was the opposite of his: adequate protein intake remains a key driver of muscle growth when combined with resistance training.6. He ignores the metabolic and physiological roles of protein.Protein isn’t just about muscle. It’s essential for:Metabolic flexibility — switching between carbs and fats for fuel.Hormone regulation and detoxification.Building enzymes, neurotransmitters, and immune cells.To downplay it is like saying oxygen is overrated.7. His “case study” proves the opposite.The example of Alex Leonidas doesn’t show that low protein works — it shows that muscle loss is slow once built.Alex admits there’s been “no change since switching to low protein,” which means he built his physique before reducing intake. Two and a half years isn’t long enough to evaluate long-term performance or hormonal effects.8. Overeating protein can be unnecessary — but vilifying it is worse.We agree that extreme intakes (300 g+) are excessive. But demonizing protein or joking about digestion is misinformation.
More
This highlights a major issue with gathering information from YouTube influencers — there’s almost always a hidden agenda.In this case, the goal appears to be creating a problem (diet confusion) and selling the solution (a training app). Unfortunately, that’s a common strategy in online fitness marketing.After reading the meta-analysis he references (Nunes et al., J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle, 2022) and cross-checking the claims in the video, here are several key clarifications missing from his interpretation.1. The research doesn’t apply to trained athletes.The 74 studies in that meta-analysis mostly involved untrained or recreationally active adults, not athletes training 4–6 times a week like UMS clients.Most participants trained 2–3× per week for 8–12 weeks at ~60–75% of 1RM — beginner-level volume. None used progressive overload or periodized strength programs.So when the video claims “extra protein doesn’t help,” it’s true only for lightly active people. For serious lifters, research such as Morton et al. (2018) and Mazzulla et al. (2020) consistently supports 1.8–2.2 g/kg/day for optimal recovery and muscle protein synthesis.In short: these studies weren’t done on people training like you.2. Most people under-eat protein — not overeat it.In 22 years of coaching—from general population to elite athletes—the biggest issue we see is too little protein.The average adult consumes around 0.8 g/kg/day, just enough to prevent muscle loss, not build new tissue. As training volume increases, so do protein needs for repair and immune function.The influencer mocks “high-protein diets,” but he’s really criticizing extreme bodybuilder intakes (250–300 g/day), not the science-backed range most people fail to reach.3. He overlooks decades of research on muscle protein synthesis (MPS).Foundational work from Dr. Layne Norton, Dr. Louise Burke, Dr. Tony Boutagy, and Prof. Gary Slater shows that optimal MPS depends on:Age: Older adults experience anabolic resistance and need more protein per meal.Training load: Harder and more frequent training increases repair demands.Gut health: Poor gut integrity reduces amino acid absorption, raising needs further.Ignoring these variables grossly oversimplifies the science.4. The meta-analysis is misrepresented.The paper doesn’t conclude that “protein doesn’t matter.” It finds that increasing protein yields modest lean mass gains in untrained people on low-volume programs.It didn’t test athletes eating 1.8–2.2 g/kg/day or training intensely. Also, all 74 studies used animal-based proteins, making the influencer’s vegan example irrelevant.5. Cherry-picked “proof” and no sources.Many influencers mention “the research” but never cite it — a red flag.If you challenge accepted science, show your sources. Otherwise, it’s just opinion — especially when promoting an app at the end of the video.When I reviewed the actual study, my conclusion was the opposite of his: adequate protein intake remains a key driver of muscle growth when combined with resistance training.6. He ignores the metabolic and physiological roles of protein.Protein isn’t just about muscle. It’s essential for:Metabolic flexibility — switching between carbs and fats for fuel.Hormone regulation and detoxification.Building enzymes, neurotransmitters, and immune cells.To downplay it is like saying oxygen is overrated.7. His “case study” proves the opposite.The example of Alex Leonidas doesn’t show that low protein works — it shows that muscle loss is slow once built.Alex admits there’s been “no change since switching to low protein,” which means he built his physique before reducing intake. Two and a half years isn’t long enough to evaluate long-term performance or hormonal effects.8. Overeating protein can be unnecessary — but vilifying it is worse.We agree that extreme intakes (300 g+) are excessive. But demonizing protein or joking about digestion is misinformation.