Emerging research clearly refutes this:

  > "The anabolic response to protein ingestion during recovery from exercise has no upper limit in magnitude and duration in vivo in humans"

Did anyone else find it wrong that trends like fat-free, lots-of-fat, keto, proteins, sugar-free, low-carb are put in the same category as trends like GMO-free, organic, natural, clean? Lack of differentiation in this regard unmasks the article as opinionated and over-generalizing in a way that I have to ignore it, I think.

Sure, some market dynamics may be similar, and all are probably luxury topics, but the underlying intent and motivation of customers is completely different. The article's main point is to criticise blindly following bogus and unscientific health trends. But this is not really justified for decisions to avoid dirt, food additives, and optimised and exploitive farming methods.

I assumed the focus on protein in advertising was because china is souring on soybeans so we have to train Americans to get excited about processed bean protein addditives. As it stands 99% of Americans get enough protein, 1% of us get enough fiber.