Americans are obsessed with protein. How much do you actually need?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Apple News Today

Episode: Americans are obsessed with protein. How much do you actually need?
Host: Sam Sanders (in for Shumita Basu)
Guests: Samantha King & Gavin Whedon, authors of "Protein: The Making of a Nutritional Superstar"
Date: March 28, 2026

---

Overview

This episode dives into America’s obsession with protein—how it evolved, how much we actually need, and why the protein craze persists. Host Sam Sanders speaks with Samantha King and Gavin Whedon, who unpack the cultural, historical, and economic forces that drove protein from an essential nutrient to a multi-billion-dollar industry and lifestyle marker. The focus: our collective anxiety over protein intake, the power of food marketing, the dubious origins and impacts of protein science, and the "nutritionism" lens shaping how we think about what we eat.

---

Key Themes & Insights

The Protein Boom & Obsession

• Protein as big business: The U.S. protein industry is worth over $100 billion and still growing (00:04).
• Ubiquity in food culture: Protein is being added to almost everything—beer, pasta, popcorn, lattes (00:32).
  • Memorable product: Buffalo Wild Wings Espresso proteini cocktail with 10g of protein (00:55, 24:54).
• Cultural fascination: Our fixation is less about nutritional need and more about market, cultural ideals, and personal optimization (01:02, 13:14).

How Much Protein Do We Actually Need?

• Protein deficiency is rare: Unless someone is suffering from severe hunger, deficiency is almost nonexistent in populations obsessed with intake (02:15).
  • Quote [02:15] - Samantha King:
    “The obsession with protein has little to do with what our bodies actually need. Protein deficiency is extremely rare in the absence of severe hunger.”
• Americans exceed recommended amounts: Despite new guidelines increasing recommended protein, most men and women are already consuming more than needed (02:56).
  • Quote [02:56] - Samantha King:
    “Most American men are eating more than twice what they need. And most women are also exceeding the guidelines.”

The Historical Roots of Protein Mythology

• Justus von Liebig’s flawed research: In the 1800s, Liebig advanced incorrect ideas about protein as the driver of muscle and vitality (04:14).
  • Conducted fox experiments, concluded (wrongly) that “proteinous compounds must be responsible for muscle action” (04:14).
• Birth of early supplements: Liebig invented “extract of meat”—the first protein supplement, later found not to actually contain protein (07:00).
  • Quote [07:35] - Samantha King:
    “It was discovered there was no protein in it.”
• The ‘Great Protein Fiasco’: Mid-1900s effort to fix a supposed ‘protein gap’ in the Global South turned out to be misguided; lack of food, not protein, was the real problem (08:09).

The Modern Market—Industry Forces & Dairy’s Role

• Whey as a byproduct problem: Industrial dairy production led to an excess of whey, environmentally problematic if dumped, so industry shifted to turning it into protein powder (10:11).
  • Quote [11:23] - Gavin Whedon:
    “It’s dense in nitrogen. In that raw form, it’s 175 times more toxic than human sewage.”
• Creation of the protein market: Rather than spontaneous demand, industry found a creative way to sell excess whey as protein supplement, spurring widespread marketing and product innovation (11:57).

The Modern Protein Boom—Lifestyle and Class

• Current protein products are marketed to affluent classes, no longer aimed at fighting deficiency but “optimization” and the trappings of a healthy, successful lifestyle (13:14).
  • Quote [13:14] - Samantha King:
    “This isn't about fixing malnutrition... It's about a lifestyle of optimization.”
• Protein as quick fix: Marketed for everything from energy to beauty, not always supported by science (02:56, 14:11).

Nutritionism—A Mindset Shift

• Reductionist view of food: The ideology of “nutritionism” reduces food to its biochemical components, prioritizing metrics (protein grams) over taste, tradition, and social experience (16:50).
  • Quote [16:50] - Gavin Whedon:
    “The value of food is reduced to its biochemical components and measured according to its Eurocentric scientized standards rather than taste and experience.”
• Tragic consequence: Obsession with hitting protein targets can diminish the enjoyment of food and communal experiences (19:05).
  • Quote [19:05] - Sam Sanders:
    “When I am chasing protein in my day, I am not eating as fully as I could and I'm just enjoying my food less.”

Whose Interests Are Served?

• Follow the money: Protein marketing benefits conglomerates, influencers, and aligns with policy goals—often more than it benefits the consumer (19:53).
  • Quote [19:53] - Gavin Whedon:
    “Protein offers food marketers and producers a way of upping prices and profits... without fundamentally changing its substance or consistency.”
• Policy and lobbying: Current U.S. dietary guidelines are shaped by industry lobbying and cultural politics, not just science (21:10, 22:13).
  • Quote [22:15] - Samantha King:
    “Food guidelines have always been the subject of intense lobbying... what's different about these guidelines is that they do more clearly run afoul of where the contemporary science lands on how much protein... we need.”

Protein Fixation Crosses Political Lines

• Universal anxiety: Both sides of the aisle—liberals and conservatives—are preoccupied with protein, even when their sources differ (22:57).
  • Quote [22:57] - Samantha King:
    “Liberals might prefer beans to beef... but they're not any less preoccupied with whether they're getting enough of the stuff.”
• Ideology hard to escape: Even experts struggle not to worry about protein (23:17).

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• On the bizarre extent of protein marketing (e.g., protein Doritos, Buffalo Wild Wings Espresso proteini cocktail):
  • [15:14] King's deadpan: “We end up with protein Doritos.”
  • [24:54] King: “Buffalo Wild Wings Espresso proteini cocktail... it's an espresso martini with a wild wing powder rub infused.”
• On the futility of the “how much protein” question:
  • [19:20] Whedon: “...the question we are most often asked is, this all sounds really interesting, but how much protein do you think I should eat?”
• On protein as an abiding cultural force:
  • [25:36] Sanders/Guests:
    • Sanders: "But perhaps the big note for this entire conversation is protein abides."
    • Sanders: "Just eat."
    • Co-sign by both guests.

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:04 — Setting up the protein obsession; $100B+ industry
• 02:15 — Why protein deficiency is rare; how much is “enough"
• 04:14 — Justus von Liebig & early protein science (and error)
• 07:35 — “First protein boom” and its flaws
• 08:09 — The “Great Protein Fiasco” in international development
• 10:11 — Role of the U.S. dairy industry, whey byproduct crisis
• 13:14 — Modern protein craze and social class
• 16:50 — “Nutritionism” and the reductionist mindset
• 19:53 — Who benefits from the protein boom
• 22:13 — Policy, lobbying, and political interests
• 24:54 — Protein cocktail anecdote—marketing’s absurdity
• 25:36 — Closing thoughts: “Protein abides. Just eat.”

---

Conclusion

The episode ultimately pushes back on the anxiety and over-analysis surrounding protein, urging listeners to focus on eating joyfully and in community, rather than obsessing over metrics. The enduring appeal of protein is a mix of historical accident, marketing ingenuity, and cultural anxiety. If you eat enough food, you’re getting enough protein—so enjoy your meal, don’t sweat the grams.

---

For further reading: Check out “Protein: The Making of a Nutritional Superstar” by Samantha King and Gavin Whedon.

Transcript

[A]

This is in conversation from Apple News. I'm Sam Sanders in for Shamita Basu. Today, why we're so obsessed with protein. We are in the middle of a protein boom. Protein food products are a $100 billion plus industry, and it's projected to grow even more in the next few years.

[B]

You see it?

[A]

Walk into any grocery store and you'll find unending lines of products with added protein. Everything from protein popcorn to protein pasta to protein beer. You can even add protein to the foam on top of your latte at Starbucks. If there's a combination of food and extra protein you can dream of, it probably already exists.

[C]

Like the Buffalo Wild Wings Espresso proteiny cocktail with 10 grams of protein, as health scholars say.

[A]

Samantha King. She's written a new book with sociologist Gavin Weeden. It's called the Making of a Nutritional Superstar. Protein is an essential nutrient for our bodies to build muscle and maintain other functions. It's also found naturally in lots of foods. And in their book, Sammy and Gavin argue that our obsession with protein consumption is driven a lot more by industry and marketing and cultural forces than by actual nutritional science.

[D]

I think it helps to mark out the distinction between the idea that protein is something we need, which is true, but it's in everything we eat, and the idea that it might be something that we want, that we affix certain kinds of desire to.

[A]

I sat down with Sammy and Gavin to talk about how protein became the most popular nutrient and how to think about it differently.

[B]

Can we just start with a question for me, as a real live human living in a protein world, how much protein do we actually need? Please answer this question for me, for our audience, once and for all.

[C]

I hate to disappoint you, Sam, but we're not.

[A]

Cause you smile.

[C]

Look, the obsession with protein has little to do with what our bodies actually need. Protein deficiency is extremely rare in the absence of severe hunger. So in other words, people generally only become protein deficient when they're struggling to get enough nutrients of any kind. This means that protein deficiency is practically non existent among the demographics that are most preoccupied with their intake.

[B]

So what you're saying is we don't need to sweat protein if we're eating and getting full? We're fine.

[C]

Yes, we're fine. Yes.

[B]

That feels freeing.

[C]

Yeah. Oh, totally. It's liberating. I mean, even under the new guidelines, guidelines announced by Health Secretary RFK Jr. In January, which of course increased the amount of protein we were being encouraged to consume, most American men are eating more than twice what they need. And most women are also exceeding the guidelines. But, yes, people are supplementing with protein not just to build muscle or to get stronger, but to develop glossier skin. People take it for energy, even though that's not the primary way that we gain energy that comes from carbohydrates. There are all kinds of ideals attached to it that are not borne out in the science of what it can actually do for us.

[B]

Yeah. I wonder if the best way to wrap our heads around what protein is right now, scientifically and culturally, Is to go back to the start. There's one guy who is owed a lot of credit for the way we think about protein now. His name is Justus von Liebig. He was doing stuff in the 1800s, and his story with protein includes a lot of foxes.

[C]

Yeah. So Liebig was a biochemist and entrepreneur who was trying to understand the stuff from which our bodies are made, how food turns into flesh, what are the mechanisms that shape our body size, shape, stamina, those kinds of things. And he was really interested in the potential of chemistry to build stronger, healthier society. It's a period of rapid industrialization. People are moving to cities. Men especially, are working in hard physical labor in factories, in mines, and so on. And Liebig is trying to think about the role of nutrition in fueling that workforce. He's also part of a growing number of people who have come to see meat as central to a strong Europe. So he saw nutrition as an important political project from the start. And one of the most important experiments was this 1847 study where he compared the muscles of foxes that were killed in the chase. So being hunted with foxes that he had been keeping in his laboratory and had fed on flesh for 200 days. So they'd had this, what he thought of as a good, healthy diet for 200 days. And he concluded that because the foxes that were killed in the chase had 10 times more creatine in their muscles than the foxes in the laboratory, that proteinous compounds, because creatine is a proteinous compound, must be responsible for muscle action. But what's really crucial about that experiment is that he relegates the role of carbohydrates and fat to breathing and heating the body. Now, all of this turned out to be incorrect, more or less.

[B]

I'm gonna stop you right there. The father of western protein as we know it was kinda wrong with the science.

[C]

Well, yes. And even he admitted himself a few years later that he wasn't even sure that any such thing as protein existed, that there Was this one nutrient that built our tissue and propelled our movement.

[A]

Before Liebig came to that conclusion, he kept experimenting with protein. He even created his own protein supplement. Liebig's extract of meat basically boiled down beef juice.

[C]

It's a thick black paste. If your listeners are familiar with Bovril, which is a popular product still in Britain, made from beef extract, it's like that. It's a pasty version of molasses. Very unappealing aesthetically.

[A]

Liebig eventually began producing his extract at scale using cheap cuts of meat from the cattle industry. It became a thriving commercial product. It was sold as a high protein supplement and it helped spark what Sammy and Gavin call the first protein boom. In the 1860s and 70s, there was only one problem.

[C]

It was discovered there was no protein in it.

[A]

Soliebic's science and his product were faulty. But the ideas about protein that he popularized took root and endured into the next big protein boom, which happened in the 1950s and 60s. This one was driven by international development efforts in places like South Asia and sub Saharan Africa. Public health officials had turned their attention to widespread child malnutrition following decades of colonization and upheaval. This effort became known as the Great protein fiasco.

[C]

This idea emerged that there was this deadly protein gap between the world's rich and poor. And it was known as a fiasco because all of this research was pretty dicey. But it nonetheless fueled this drive to get more protein into the bodies of of poor black residents of the global South. Massive amounts of resources and time and energy had been put into trying to fix this gap to the detriment of the very communities that the west was ostensibly trying to help.

[A]

Aid organizations pumped resources into creating protein enriched products that took the form of powders, sludges and bars. In particular, they relied on the booming US Dairy industry and shipped tons of powdered milk overseas. But by the mid-1970s, most experts came to agree that the real problem was not a global protein gap, it was a food gap. People just didn't have access to enough food, period. A food supply issue. And beyond that, Tammy says that these campaigns did lasting damage to those communities. Cultural relationships to food.

[C]

If you're encouraging people to rehydrate a sachet of milk or eat some kind of protein bar right in place of a meal that is made from food that you've grown yourself, that's cooked in a communal way that you sit down and enjoy as a family and or with your broader community as a relationship builder. I mean all the kinds of things that we associate with food when we don't reduce it to a biochemical formula.

[A]

So how do we go from this moment of pushing protein on undernourished people abroad to today where consumers in the US are clamoring to buy this stuff? Gavin says it all traces back to that same thriving dairy industry in the US

[D]

you have, after the Second World War in America, this rapid industrialization of agriculture, able to produce abundant quantities of milk and cheese. In the dairy industry, one of the unintended offshoots of that is the production of an abundance of excess whey, because whey is the excess of milk and cheese production. It's what gets left over. This wasn't an issue for thousands of years of farming, because when you're making not much milk or cheese, there's not much whey. You can redistribute it as fertilizer, you can feed it to other animals, you can use it in artisanal recipes, but when you produce it on industrial scales, it presents a problem. And did present a problem, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, and presented dairy farming at the time in the US with the question of what to do with it. And the initial response was to dump it. It was dumping in rivers and sewers and in streams. And this was environmentally devastating. You can imagine that's partly because of whey's consistency and its potency. It's dense in nitrogen. In that raw form, it's 175 times more toxic than human sewage.

[C]

Whoa.

[D]

And so when you start dumping it in rivers and streams. Oh. And it really smells. So it drew the attention and the ire of local communities whose rivers and streams were being dumped in. So this leads to a phase of activism, of investigative journalism, legislation, and ultimately the pressure on the dairy industry to do something else with this abundance. One option, of course, would be to produce less milk or cheese. But that's degrowth is seldom monopoly.

[B]

Try telling that to Americans.

[D]

Yeah, that's not what I'm saying. Don't me. But there's an awful lot of investment at this point in desiccation technologies to dry out whey, because it's in its liquid form, it's obviously wet and filtrate it and ultimately produce the dry granular powder that we all now know, or many people now know as the stuff in those big plastic tubs of protein powder or in the grocery store shelves. Because that's the key question, right? If people say, why are people so interested in protein powder? The obvious answer is, well, there's a lot of demand for protein. People really want protein and the market's giving them what they want. And one of the things we try and show with this story is, well, actually, the dairy industry needed to find a home to create a market for this stuff that they now had in abundance in a comparatively palatable form. Palatable compared to liquid whey waste, Maybe even palatable compared to Liebig's extract of beef.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. So then let's move into this current protein boom. You've already mentioned that it feels culturally different in some ways. Those previous booms were about the lower class and working class. This new protein boom seems to be the biggest obsession of people who are middle or upper class.

[C]

No, yes, you're right that there's a class dimension to every protein boom. One of the things that's different about the more recent one is that it is focused much more on the middle and upper classes. This isn't about fixing malnutrition necessarily, or maximizing a workforce, making a healthier population. It's about a lifestyle of optimization.

[D]

When we're talking about optimization and what has recently, or at least in terms of my contact with popular culture, seems to be recently, the language of maxing, that's when we're into the realms of abundance and actualization and at a real distance from lack or scarcity. So there's a lot more to say, I think, but it stands to reason that that would be the interest and preserve of those who have abundant resources.

[C]

I guess the other part, Gavin, speaking to the cultural drivers of the present protein boom. And then there's also, I think, economic drivers related to the culture of overwork and burnout and pervading anxiety about many things, not just food and diet, but cost of living, global conflicts, et cetera. And protein rich foods are presented as offering, you know, vigor and vitality and a quick fix for energy and strength. And they can be marketed, and they are marketed in that way without any change in the scientific status. Right. Or the biochemical knowledge that we have about protein. People can only eat so much. And so supplementing foods with protein and making claims about the health benefits of that and being able to charge more for that is a way to get people to spend more on food than they otherwise would.

[B]

And then we end up with protein Doritos. We end up with protein Doritos. Tell me, how does it feel for you two as researchers to see protein end up in that capacity in that cultural context everywhere in these increasingly absurd ways?

[C]

I think at one level we anticipated it. Right. I mean, I think especially the contestations over the place of meat in our diets in the context of the climate crisis, protein has kind of provided an escape valve for that conversation. And I think it makes sense that it's growing in the way that it has. And it does, as we've already said, like the protein in the Doritos. It gives the Doritos a healthy edge.

[A]

They're Doritos. They're Doritos.

[B]

That's what's so crazy about it.

[D]

It also, it gives the impression of a variety where there isn't much as well. Right. Because we can list all these different products as if they're representing different kinds of protein.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Which, yeah, no, look at the ingredients. It's probably milk powder, it's probably whey. The last time we looked on the Walmart website for the number of protein affiliated products, it was over a thousand. But if you dug into the ingredients, you wouldn't find anything like that scale of variety. Nor if you look at the number of food conglomerates that were actually selling these things.

[B]

There is a portion of your book that really speaks to the culture behind our current protein moment. You use this word called nutritionism, and I want to spend some time talking about it because the word kind of blew my mind. You both define it as, quote, the ideological process through which the value of food is reduced to its biochemical components and measured according to its Eurocentric scientized standards rather than taste and experience. Is that really what this current protein moment is about? We've stopped looking at food as food and we are increasingly trying to break down every bit and part and piece of it to optimize it.

[D]

I think it's something that actually unifies the protein moments. And I'm not sure that we write that, but having this conversation brings that to light because, yeah, you do see that in different, you know, what was possible in science at different moments. You see that effort at nutrition being the way that we think about food, come to the fore in these different historical moments. And I think one thing we've tried to convey whenever we talk about this is that we think it's a real profound and tragic waste of energy and care to put so much of the love people have for food into this metricized understanding of how many grams of powder or flesh or whatever substance they should be consuming to meet or maximize these externally imposed directives, which will always be contested in any case. And when that, that love, that care and energy that people have for food, it could be for things that really matter. Right. Eating together. The trans historical Human experience of eating together, eating ethically wherever one can, and bigger structural changes around a food system that nobody asked for, nobody designed, and most people agree is broken. So I think that really does get to the heart of something that cuts across these protein booms and is something that we try and emphasize rather than contributing or risking contributing to the debate about differences.

[B]

And I gotta say, as a person who likes food and is also worried about protein, that's what makes me the most sad. When I am chasing protein in my day, I am not eating as fully as I could and I'm just enjoying my food less.

[D]

Which is why we also find it tragic that the question we are most often asked is, this all sounds really interesting, but how much protein do you think I should eat?

[B]

What question would you both rather hear? As experts on protein who have been studying this for years, what is the question you wish most people were asking you about protein?

[D]

The classic one would be, you know, if this isn't all it's cracked up to be, then whose interest is it serving?

[A]

Mmm.

[B]

Well, now you gotta answer that question for us. Whose interest is it serving?

[D]

That's a historical moment. Question two. I mean, at the moment, protein offers food marketers and producers a way of upping prices and profits on food. Stuff that in a way that makes it stand out as ostensibly healthy compared to the stuff that it's alongside without fundamentally changing its substance or consistency. I think the interests of those food conglomerates are front and center, but they're not the only ones that are peddling protein. Right. So you could also look at the interests of influencers en masse for whom dietary trends are themselves something that need to keep circulating and shifting in order for them to have purchase and for maybe their own investments in protein supplementations and different kinds of product sponsorships might start to really bear fruit if the question of how much is front and center and what kind and when, and all the other minor differences that you can easily dig down into if you get stuck on this question.

[C]

Yeah, and I think it serves the agenda of the present government in the United States too. Right. There's an alignment of federal policy with agribusiness interests in catapulting red meat to the top of the new upside down food pyramid.

[B]

I'm glad you mentioned that. RFK Jr. Current HHS Secretary, he has recently declared an end to the war on protein. He's refigured the American food pyramid and suggested that we all should be eating some kind of protein with every meal. How does that make you feel?

[C]

Well, there is no war on protein. Okay, we can start there.

[A]

Okay, that's clear.

[C]

Our favorite macronutrient is more popular than ever. U.S. meat and egg consumption has risen steadily over the past decade, and protein powder sales are surging. So there is no war on protein. But, of course, that declaration served as an entry point for RFK Jr. To announce the new guidelines up the protein amounts which industry had been advocating for and kind of solidify this muscular Trumpian masculinity.

[B]

So there was lobbying behind this?

[C]

Oh, yes, and there always is. I mean, just keeping with the historical theme, food guidelines have always been the subject of intense lobbying. So in that sense, it's not new. I think what's different about these guidelines is that they do more clearly run afoul of where the contemporary science lands on how much protein and what kinds of protein we need to be ingesting.

[B]

This is so interesting. I'm very curious. You two have spent years now studying the science and culture of protein. What is the biggest way in which you've had your minds changed about something in this universe?

[C]

The most surprising thing to me was the way in which the obsession with protein actually crosses partisan lines. It's the one thing we can all agree on that we need more protein. Right. So liberals might prefer beans to beef, they might be pushing and promoting alternative proteins and worrying about the harmful effects of meat consumption on the planet, but they're not any less preoccupied with whether they're getting enough of the stuff. And I do just want to say that I actually really resent the protein fixation because I'm a diet skeptic by trade. Right. This is what I do for a living, and it's impossible to escape. So even now, when I'm making my dinner, if I feel like having a bowl of pasta with cheese, there's this little voice in my head asking me where the protein is. So as much as I try to resist it, it's impossible. And that's the reality of how powerful the ideology is.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

When you are faced with a cornucopia of protein options, when you're being offered the protein foam on your latte, when you see the Kardashian protein popcorn in the store, when you're about to start worrying about your protein intake for the day, what do you two do?

[D]

Well, I take a photo and I send it to Sammy. And I know if I need bringing down to Earth, she'll be there for me, and I hope that I'm there for you. This happens, Sammy, because we both get sent this stuff all the time, even if we weren't encountering it in our own lives. So it's been normalized for me, and if I need to get a steady hand on it, then I'll send it over to my friend Sammy.

[C]

Well, and the most recent example I sent to Gavin was just this morning, the Buffalo Wild Wings Espresso proteini cocktail with 10 grams of protein.

[A]

Wait, wa. Stop, stop.

[B]

Say that again.

[C]

Buffalo Wild Wings Espresso proteini cocktail. Oh, my gosh. It's an espresso martini with a wild wing powder rub infused.

[D]

Ah.

[C]

Yeah. So don't say they're taking the joy out of eating like this is their attempt. Put it right back.

[B]

Okay, so now I'm gonna have to send you both a picture of me enjoying that.

[C]

Okay, we would love that. We would love that.

[B]

But perhaps the big note for this entire conversation is protein abides.

[A]

Just eat.

[B]

Yes, it's a lovely place to land. Sammy, Gavin, thank you so much. You have helped me think a lot better about this stuff. I appreciate you.

[D]

Absolutely. Thank you so much, Sam.

[C]

Thank you so much.

[A]

We'll include a link to Samantha Kane and Gavin Whedon's book on our show note page. It's called Protein the Making of a Nutritional Superstar. And every weekend, you can find new episodes of Apple News and conversation in the Apple News app. Just tap on the audio tab, those little headphones at the bottom, to find.