Vanity Fair claims America's ‘obsession' with protein is tied to MAGA movement
Is the desire to eat a high-protein diet and the MAGA movement correlated? According to a report from Vanity Fair, it is.
The May 1 article titled 'Why Are Americans So Obsessed With Protein? 'Blame MAGA,' attempts to compare Americans eating a diet aimed at promoting muscle growth and longevity to MAGA, and the so-called 'manosphere.'
Advertisement
The piece claims that American 'protein mania' has been building over the last few decades. Right off the bat, this is considered to be a part of the 'manosphere,' an umbrella term for sites and influencers that promote masculinity and anti-feminism.
The article begins with the claim of more men being interested in increasing protein in their diets.
'I don't have a good sense on what's driving that right now, other than if it's just the usual manosphere—or manomania, here in the United States,' Pieter Cohen, an internist at Cambridge Health Alliance and associate professor, mentioned in the piece. Cohen made this claim because he said he had more male patients bring up the interest of increasing protein than women patients.
5 A Vanity Fair article claimed that a high-protein diet correlates with supporting the MAGA movement.
niloo – stock.adobe.com
Advertisement
5 Trump supporters at a campaign rally on Oct. 27, 2024 at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan.
Stephen Yang
He went on to claim that 'everyone's letting their testosterone out these days.'
The article describes this interest in high-protein diets as a 'lust for protein,' and claims that men view certain food choices that have more protein as more masculine, citing a 2023 study. Additionally, the claim is made that men have used eating meat as a part of their 'identity' in addition to feeling more masculine.
From there, the article attempts to explain how MAGA is related to this interest in protein. The article states that President Donald Trump is at the 'helm' of the manosphere, and notes his love of burgers and locker room talk.
Advertisement
5 The article states that President Donald Trump is at the 'helm' of the manosphere.
REUTERS
5 Trump pumps his fist as he steps off Air Force One upon arrival at Newark Liberty International Airport on April 26.
AFP via Getty Images
Additionally, in the piece, podcasters Theo Von and Joe Rogan were described as 'playing a major part' in the election of Trump, who was a guest on their shows during the campaign. Rogan was mentioned for his support of eating red meat, during a conversation about the carnivore diet.
The article mentions a study that makes the drastic claim that young men's appeal to protein powders and other supplements could lead to or be a 'pipeline' to the use of anabolic steroids.
Advertisement
Neuroscientist, professor and podcast host Dr. Andrew Huberman is also mentioned in the article for his support of consuming a high-protein diet. Huberman has encouraged his listeners to approach protein and diet goals with a 'balanced and comprehensive' approach to nutrition and obtain quality sources of protein.
5 Dr. Andrew Huberman suggests approaching protein and diet goals in a 'balanced and comprehensive' manner to get nutrition and obtain quality sources of protein in the article.
Syda Productions – stock.adobe.com
Fox News contributor Mary Katharine Ham reacted to this article on 'The Will Cain Show' Tuesday.
'If wanting a steak and prominent delts (deltoid muscles) is wrong, I don't want to be right.'
Ham said the left is 'giving over' many things to the right, such as eating high-protein and lifting weights. Ham said the article 'misses the story' and said eating protein is very good for you and argues that women are shifting their views to embrace the desire to eat more protein and lift weights to maintain muscle mass and support bone density.
'It is not gendered, it is just good for you,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
33 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
New paper sheds light on experience of Black prisoners in infamous Stateville prison malaria experiments
Much has been said and written over the years about controversial malaria research conducted on inmates at Illinois' Stateville Penitentiary starting in the 1940s. But at least one part of that story has been largely ignored until now: the role of Black prisoners in that research, which helped lead to the modern practice of using genetic testing to understand how individual patients will react to certain medications, according to the authors of a newly published paper out of the University of Utah. 'We want to highlight the stories of Black prisoners that participated in this prison research in the 1950s onward and give them their due,' said Hannah Allen, a medical ethicist and assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and first author of the paper, which was published as an opinion piece Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 'They haven't been properly acknowledged in the past, and their participation in these studies was really foundational in launching the field of pharmacogenetics and, later on, precision medicine,' said Allen, who recently completed her doctorate at the University of Utah. Starting in the 1940s, researchers infected inmates at the Joliet-area prison with malaria to test the effectiveness of drugs to treat the illness as part of a U.S. military-funded effort to protect American troops overseas, according to the paper. A University of Chicago doctor was the principal investigator. The inmates consented to being part of the studies and were paid for their participation. At first, the research was greeted with enthusiasm. In 1945, Life magazine ran a spread about it, featuring a photo of a Stateville inmate with cups containing malaria-carrying mosquitoes pressed against his bare chest. The first line of the story reads, 'In three U.S. penitentiaries men who have been imprisoned as enemies of society are now helping science fight another enemy of society.' But as the years passed, attitudes began to shift. Questions arose about whether inmates could truly, freely consent to participate in medical experiments or whether they felt coerced into them because of their often dire circumstances. At the Nuremberg trials, defense attorneys for Nazi doctors introduced text and images from the Life article about Stateville prison, though an Illinois physician argued at the trials that the prisoners in Stateville consented to being part of medical research whereas Nazi prisoners did not, according to the JAMA paper. In the mid-1970s, news broke about a study at Tuskegee, in which Black men with syphilis went untreated for years — news that raised awareness of ethical problems in medical research. News outlets also began publishing more stories about prison research, according to the JAMA article. The Chicago Tribune published an article in 1973, in which an inmate participating in the Stateville malaria research said: 'I've been coerced into the project — for the money. Being here has nothing to do with 'doing good for mankind' … I didn't want to keep taking money from my family.' The experiments at Stateville came to a halt in the 1970s. A number of protections and regulations are now in place when it comes to research involving prisoners. Since the 1970s, the Stateville research has often been discussed and analyzed but little attention has been paid to its Black participants, said James Tabery, a medical ethicist and philosophy professor at the University of Utah who led the new research, which was funded by the federal National Institutes of Health. For a time, Black prisoners were excluded from the studies because of a myth that Black people were immune to malaria, Tabery said. Later on, once scientists had pinpointed the drug primaquine as an effective medication for malaria, they turned their attention to the question of why 5% to 10% of Black men experienced a violent reaction to the drug, according to the paper. Ultimately, the scientists were successful, finding that the adverse reaction was related to a specific genetic deficiency. 'There are people all over Chicago today that are getting tested, that clinicians are recommending they get a genetic test before they get prescribed a drug because they want to make sure that their patient isn't going to have an adverse reaction to the drug,' Tabery said. 'It's really sort of powerful and interesting that you can trace that approach to doing good clinical medicine right back to this particular moment and place and population.' But Tabery and Allen also found that the Black prisoners were not treated the same as the white prisoners who participated in research at Stateville. For one, they weren't paid as much as the white prisoners, the rationale being that the white prisoners were infected with malaria, whereas the Black prisoners were given the drug but not infected with the disease — though some of the Black prisoners got very ill after taking the medication, according to the paper. Also, researchers didn't protect the Black participants' privacy as well as they did for other participants. They published certain identifying information about the Black participants, such as initials, ages, heights and weights, whereas participants in the previous research were represented with case numbers, according to the paper. Researchers also recruited the Black prisoners' family members for the study, which they didn't do with earlier participants, according to the paper. 'You see them just doing things with the Black prisoners that they're not doing with the white prisoners,' Tabery said. Also, though scientists made an important discovery through the research on Black prisoners, the episode also highlights the difficulty that can occur in translating discoveries into real life help for patients. Though the World Health Organization now recommends genetic testing to protect people who are sensitive to antimalarials, many of the people who would benefit most from such testing still don't receive it because of financial barriers, supply chain issues and a lack of training, according to the paper. 'What we found is when you sort of shift to what was happening to the Black prisoners, these other lessons you hadn't thought of as being derivable from Stateville suddenly do become apparent,' Tabery said.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
History Shows the Danger of Trump's Health Policies
U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images On May 11, 2023, President Joseph Biden ended the COVID-19 public health emergency, calling an finish to the pandemic. By the end of 2023, COVID-19 claimed the lives of over 20 million people around the world. But through international cooperation and evidence-based science, vaccines were developed and the world moved on. Indeed, perhaps the biggest success of the period was the quick production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The research behind the mRNA vaccine had been ongoing since the 1970s, but the emergency of the pandemic and international sharing of knowledge helped bring the vaccine to fruition. Today, the COVID-19 vaccine has been credited with saving 2.4 million lives around the world. But now, the U.S. is choosing competition over cooperation. With President Donald Trump's day one executive order to leave the World Health Organization (WHO)—blaming their COVID-19 response—and the shuttering of USAID, the country is taking steps towards further dividing health efforts across the globe. Here in the U.S., a sudden end to $11.4 billion of covid-related grants is stifling national pandemic preparedness efforts on the local and state levels. And most recently, Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. purged experts from the CDC Advisory Committee, putting lives at risk. Historical lessons demonstrate the need for global health infrastructure that works together, shares knowledge, and remembers that pathogens do not stop at borders. White House's Pandemic Office, Busy With Bird Flu, May Shrink Under Trump One of the greatest global health achievements of all time—smallpox eradication—provides a perfect example of what can be done with independent scientific research and international cooperation. During the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR, decades of tension brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, incredibly, the nations managed to find common ground to support the efforts of smallpox eradication. Indeed, they understood the strategic benefits that came from letting public health practitioners and scientists work outside of political divides. The WHO was founded after World War II in 1948. Its formation marked a move from international health, that focused on nations, to global health, that would serve humanity first. The WHO's first eradication effort was the failed, U.S.-backed, Malaria Eradication Program from 1955 to 1969. The Smallpox Eradication Program, with intensive efforts beginning in 1967, provided a chance for redemption for the U.S. and WHO. For the United States, investing in disease eradication and poverty helped to mitigate growing backlash against the Vietnam War. In June of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, 'I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man's knowledge serve man's welfare.' He called for 1965—the same year he ordered ground troops to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism —to be a year of international cooperation that could bypass the politics of the Cold War. Previously, the USSR did not participate in the U.S. and WHO's first, failed global eradication plan for malaria. But upon rejoining the WHO in 1956, it was the Soviets who made the first call and investment into global eradication of smallpox in 1958. The WHO functioning as a mediator was crucial to allowing the USSR and the U.S. to work together. It allowed both nations to avoid giving credit to each other; rather success went to science itself. President Johnson called this 'a turning point' away from 'man against man' towards 'man against nature.' The limited role of politicians in the program proved to be key to its success. Scientists made decisions and worked together—no matter what country they came from—by focusing on disease and vaccination, not international tensions. The Soviet-initiated program was lead by Donald A. Henderson, a U.S. epidemiologist, who worked alongside the Russians until the last case of smallpox occurred in Somalia on October 26, 1977. During the 20th century, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated by the WHO in October 1980, and is today still the only human disease to achieve this distinction. Less than a year after the declaration of smallpox eradication, the emergence of another pandemic, the HIV/AIDS crisis, reinforced the importance of science-first cooperation over politically-driven decision making. In June 1981, the first cases of a new unknown disease were reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In short order, gay men were stigmatized and blamed in what would become one of the biggest public health disasters of all time. It took years of grassroots science-based activism to move beyond HIV/AIDS victim-blaming and find medical solutions. The Poster Child for AIDS Obscured as Much About the Crisis as He Revealed Too often, governments across the globe placed blame on the gay community for their 'sins' and did not provide needed support, leaving the sick to suffer and die. The pharmaceutical companies profited from the limited medications they had available and did not pursue sufficient development. The FDA process for new drugs was scheduled to take nine years, at a time when life expectancy after receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was one year. These issues sparked activism, spawning the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) in 1987. ACT UP organizers took science into their own hands and began educating themselves. Members began reading scientific journals religiously, learning the chemistry and epidemiology of drug manufacturing and clinical trials. Members learned how to translate these dense scientific messages to educate the community members on what was—and what was not—being done to help. Because of this work, the FDA changed policies to allow for new treatments to be tested at accelerated rates in times of emergency. ACT UP was able to shift the cultural blame showing that the issue was a result of politics getting in the way of scientific advancements. By 1990, ACT UP influenced the largest federal HIV program to pass Congress, the Ryan White CARE Act. This program was a vital precursor to the 2003 PEPFAR (The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) global initiative. Both of these histories offer a powerful lesson: global health is national health, and national health is local health. With the recent funding cuts from the U.S. government, the future of global health is going in an unknown direction. And yet, the occurrence of pandemics is expected to increase in frequency due to climate change, mass migration, urbanization, and ecosystem destruction. It has been estimated that there is about a 25% chance we will have another COVID-sized pandemic within the next 10 years. No matter how secure the world makes borders, history shows that it can not protect us from disease if we do not have a strong, interconnected public health infrastructure. Luke Jorgensen is a Master of Public Health student at Purdue University where his epidemiology research examines human migration and infectious disease. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
Unpacking RFK's lengthy social media post after firing vaccine committee members
Unpacking RFK's lengthy social media post after firing vaccine committee members Show Caption Hide Caption RFK Jr. expels entire CDC vaccine advisory committee Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. removed a 17-member panel at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that issues recommendations on vaccines. unbranded - Newsworthy A day after abruptly firing the entire committee that advises the federal government on vaccine safety, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would reconstitute it with 'highly credentialed physicians and scientists' amid backlash from his detractors about the terminations. In a long post on X on June 10, Kennedy criticized the process by which the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices recommends new vaccines, implying that "adequate safety trials" were not being conducted before recommending new vaccines to children, a notion that was strongly disputed by vaccine experts. Kennedy, who has a long record of promoting anti-vaccine views, also said the new Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices will have no 'ideological anti-vaxxers' but that the committee will apply 'evidence-based decision-making with objectivity and common sense.' 'The most outrageous example of ACIP's malevolent malpractice has been its stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children,' he wrote. Kennedy said a compliant American child receives more shots now from conception to 18 years of age compared to 1986, none of which required placebo-controlled trials. That was the year when the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was set up, protecting vaccine makers from liability and establishing a federal program to compensate individuals injured by certain vaccines. 'This means that no one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing,' he wrote. A placebo-controlled study is a type of clinical trial where one group of participants receives an active treatment, while another group receives an inactive substance, helping researchers to determine whether the active treatment is truly effective. But conducting placebo-controlled studies on vaccines that are improvements on existing vaccines presents ethical and practical challenges, say vaccine experts. 'If a vaccine for a serious disease (e.g., measles, polio) already exists and is proven effective, giving participants a placebo instead of the vaccine could expose them to preventable harm or death,' wrote Dr. Jerome Adams, the former U.S. Surgeon General under President Trump's first term, in a June 9 post on X. How do vaccines work? Medical experts explain. New vaccines always undergo a placebo-controlled study, said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the Food and Drug Administration Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. But Kennedy's definition of placebo is different from FDA's, said Offit. Kennedy has sought to narrowly define placebos as salt water, said Offit, while the FDA defines it as an 'inactive substance.' 'A placebo may contain sodium sulfate or potassium sulfate or may contain sucrose, or it may contain an emulsifier – those are all generally regarded as safe,' said Offit. 'He doesn't regard them as safe.' HHS did not respond to USA TODAY seeking a comment on how Kennedy's definition differs from that of the FDA. Offit said Kennedy is a lawyer who has spent years suing pharmaceutical companies, and 'his job is to scare people about vaccines ultimately, so he can bring them back to court and sue companies,' he said. Meanwhile, in his announcement of the removal of the 17 members of the ACIP committee Kennedy said the purpose was to insulate the committee from 'conflicts of interest.'
