Conflicts of interest are almost always present with something as fiercely debated as nutrition. On the low-protein side, much of the research is performed or reported by biased organizations like Center for Science in the Public Interest. Even if a moral case can be made for not eating animals, it shouldn't be allowed to influence nutritional science.

Attacking conflicts of interest is an easy out (ad hominem); do you have some actual citations refuting the science in some of those references?

I propose the following - nutrition is only perceived to be "fiercely debated" because of research with conflict of interest.

Could you cite any examples of purportedly biased "low-protein" researched funded by that group you've mentioned? I'd like to take a look.

The high-protein diet fads are not new. You can find a lot of information discrediting their authors and methodology. Here is just one example,

> There are two kinds of high-protein diets popular today: Those that limit calorie intake by causing the body to develop a metabolic state known as ketosis; and those that make stringent rules which limit the dieter’s intake of food.

> The “ketogenic diets” cause the body to produce ketones by severe restriction of carbohydrate intake while allowing unlimited fat and protein intake. With insufficient intake of the body’s primary fuel, carbohydrate, the body turns to fats from foods and from body fat for fuel. Byproducts of this metabolism are acidic substances called ketones (acetacetic acid, B-hydroxybuteric acid, and acetone). The metabolic condition is known as ketosis. Ketosis is associated with loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, and hypotension (lower blood pressure). The result is a decrease in food (calorie) intake. Ketosis is the key to the diet’s success, by allowing the body to starve while reducing the suffering of severe hunger pangs.

> This same condition, ketosis, occurs naturally when people are literally starving to death or seriously ill. During starvation this metabolic state is a kindness of nature allowing the victim to suffer much reduced pains of hunger while dying. During illness the suppression of the appetite frees the person to rest and recuperate, rather then be forced by hunger to gather and prepare food. Because ketogenic diets simulate this metabolic state seen with serious illness, I refer to them as “the make yourself sick diets.” As we will see below, another reason low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets deserve this title is they contain significant amounts of the very foods — the meats — that the American Cancer Society and the Heart Association tell us contribute to our most common causes of death and disability.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/...

Interesting cite, because Dr. McDougall would be a perfect example of someone who lets his dogmatism influence his research. Even from Wikipedia:

"Reviewing McDougall's book, The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss, nutritionist Frederick J. Stare and epidemiologist Elizabeth Whelan criticized its restrictive regime and "poor advice", concluding that the diet's concepts were "extreme and out of keeping with nutritional reality".

The quotes you referenced were specifically talking about a ketogenic diet; not a high protein one per se. Ketogenic diets typically try to keep protein low-moderate, as protein is anti-ketogenic. Even still, or perhaps as a direct result of the protein, high protein keto diets still fare better: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/1/44.abstract

Only because no one wants to fund nutrition study, "respectable" organizations only fund studying disease.

You're sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Attack the data if you have a problem.

Is it really so ridiculous to think for-profit groups care not for interests of my health? The evidence was simply unconvincing to me - mostly cohort and case control studies with small sample sizes, done by researchers I have never heard of (one lead author's credential was a degree in exercise physiology, for example). Compounded by the fact these individuals were paid money to seek out certain results, I simply find the whole of "evidence" to be laughable. If high-protein diets are truly so magical, why is it the World Health Organization recommends just 10% or fewer calories be derived from protein, and the majority from carbohydrates (fruit, vegetables, etc.)? Is there any recognized nutritional authority or respectable medical group which supports these sponsored, high-protein diet findings?