Hello Reader,

Protein doesn’t mean what it used to

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a macronutrient with real benefits. It’s got the highest satiety per calorie, which keeps you fuller for longer. It’s necessary for muscle growth and maintenance. It’s a great macro

But I wonder if we’ve hyped it up partly based on what it used to mean. Traditional protein sources are generally valuable - meat, dairy, seafood, nuts. They also tend to be foods that are good on their own or with minimal preparation, which has health benefits in itself: steak, yoghurt, chickpeas, handfuls of nuts.

Contrast that with what you’ll find bragging about protein when you walk through a supermarket. Protein bars. Fortified yoghurts. Protein powders that call themselves “high protein” but literally just have a bigger scoop so they have more protein per (bigger) serve

These are taking foods that may or may not have intrinsic nutritional value, and adding the cheapest possible protein powder, just so they can sell it at a premium for having higher (if only marginally) macros That’s before you even consider the fact that many products that claim added protein use cheaper forms of protein which aren’t actually bio-available - ingredients like “beef protein isolate” measure as protein on the nutritional panel, but it’s actually collagen and isn’t broadly available for our muscles to use as protein.

So, it’s clearly not as good for us as what we traditionally think about when we think about protein. The label is more valuable than the meaning.

And this is a familiar pattern in marketing, systems, and life. It reminds me of Goodhart’s law which says that “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” We figured out that protein was good, figured out that customers would pay more for it, and then we optimised for maximum protein at minimal cost which completely polluted the original meaning.

It’s also an example of the sign no longer being connected to what’s being signified (shoutout to my media and comms lecturers from 13 years ago). Sure, it’s still a valuable macro. But the side values of protein, like whole food and valuable sources, were probably valuable too. In that way it’s similar to how salmon and shrimp have retained their prestige while being fundamentally different products than they were 40 years ago.

Protein is great. But it doesn’t mean what it used to.

What I've been reading

I've been down with a chest infection this week (honestly, with toddlers in the house I've been catching everything the last 6 weeks or so) so haven't read much. This article looks like a good read on the McDonalds loyalty programme though and I've added it to my Kobo to read this week.

I'm intrigued at the concept of doing privacy data requests to orgs that hold our data. I'd love to request my shopping history from Pak'nsave for the last 6 years, since that's when they started disclosing that they tied together payment methods from Club Card with transactions made at PNS. I suspect the data would be annoying for them to pull out and supply, but I believe I'd have a legal right to the info. Would be both a fascinating dataset and potentially a fascinating journey to get there.

What I've been watching

Unsurprisingly, I'm thinking a lot about milk these days after the Milk Flavoured Milk story. This dairy farm in Australia have set up their own processing line and are selling glass bottles of milk into independent grocery. Love the video, and love the vertical integration as well.

That's all from me this week. Hit me back with what you're thinking about or seeing in grocery and consumer goods.

Reuben