Today’s grocery aisles are overflowing with an array of protein-enhanced products, ranging from cereals and pasta to chips, pretzels, coffee, and even protein-infused Pop-Tarts. The trend is unmistakable.

When a sugary breakfast pastry is touted as a protein source, it becomes glaringly evident that food companies are keen on tapping into consumers’ burgeoning fascination with protein intake.

Despite the robust scientific backing fueling much of the current protein craze, many individuals are already consuming sufficient amounts in their regular diets.

Thus, it is crucial to differentiate the marketing hype aimed at adding protein to nearly everything from what is genuinely essential for maintaining health.

What are proteins?

Along with carbohydrates and fats, protein is one of the three macronutrients you need to eat in adequate amounts for your body to function.

Carbohydrates and fats are your major sources of energy. While protein can also be used for energy, its main purpose is building and repairing the body.

Protein is necessary to build and sustain muscles. This includes skeletal muscles, the muscles that allow your heart to beat, the muscles that squeeze food through your stomach and intestines, and the muscles that open up your airways to breathe.

But muscle is not the only body part that needs protein. Protein is also important for the functioning of your nervous system, immune system, skin, hormones and other essential components.

So protein is not just ‘muscle food.’ It is needed throughout your body, even though the marketing of protein-rich foods focuses on muscle.

What are amino acids? 

Proteins are made of amino acids, of which there are 20 types. It’s the combination and number of amino acids, as well as the shapes of the proteins they create, that give proteins different roles in the body.

Your body obtains amino acids by digesting the proteins you eat and breaking them down into these individual building blocks.

How well your body absorbs amino acids and makes them available for use is affected by many factors, including the protein source and cooking.

Animal proteins are generally more digestible than plant proteins, and cooking generally enhances protein digestibility.

Of the 20 different amino acids in proteins, nine are considered essential because the human body cannot make them directly and must obtain them from food. Most protein-containing foods have the majority of these essential amino acids, but some foods are low in one or more of them.

Animal-based proteins, such as eggs, dairy, fish, poultry and lean meats, are good sources of the essential amino acids. Most protein-rich plant foods, such as most beans, nuts and rice, are low in one or more essential amino acids. Soybeans are an exception, providing a complete composition of essential amino acids.

Medical professionals recommend eating a variety of protein sources, including some that are complete, to ensure you’re getting all of the essential amino acids. Eating a mixture of protein-rich plant foods can overcome deficiencies in one particular plant food.

Protein powders, often used as supplements, vary in essential amino acid content and composition. Compared to animal-based powders, plant-based powders tend to have lower levels of one or more essential amino acids and lower protein levels in total.

How much protein do you need? 

There is little scientific debate that dietary protein is critical to good health. A harder calculation is how much protein you need.

A commonly cited standard is the federal recommended dietary allowance, or RDA. In January 2026, the US government raised the adult RDA of dietary protein from 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight to 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram.

For a 150-pound person, this almost doubles the recommendation from 54 grams to between 80 to 110 grams a day. Some experts have interpreted this update as focusing on optimizing health as opposed to ensuring adequate protein intake to avoid deficiency.

RELATED: Clooney’s Lake Como Date: A Romantic Night with Amal

The new federal guidelines are not without controversy, however. How much protein a given person needs is a complex question that depends on individual health goals, age, sex, activity level, medical history and other factors. Consulting with a medical provider or licensed nutritionist can help individualize dietary protein targets.

Many experts agree that the average, healthy US adult already consumes enough protein. While most healthy adults can tolerate moderately high protein intake, overloading on protein could create health problems, such as kidney damage and digestive issues.

Companies market high-protein diets to encourage weight loss because consuming more protein tends to increase feelings of fullness. A 2026 study identified a link between the amino acid leucine and appetite suppression through a connection between the gut and the brain.

That said, while suppressing appetite may help with weight loss, it may also reduce a person’s consumption of calories from fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains that provide fiber, vitamins and other important nutrients.

What about protein powders and supplements? 

Protein powders are a $20 billion industry, and their popularity reflects both the idea that dietary proteins can support muscle growth and reduce muscle loss as well as how lucrative protein supplements can be.

For people with low appetites or those who have difficulty meeting dietary protein recommendations, protein-enriched foods can be a useful way to increase protein intake.

This might include those taking GLP-1 weight loss medications, which can reduce appetite and make it harder to eat enough protein and other nutrients.

But while a protein shake can deliver essential amino acids, it does not provide the broader nutritional value of protein-rich foods, such as fish, beans, nuts, yogurt and soy products.

Moreover, protein-fortified packaged foods may come with increased sugar, salt or saturated fats. A protein bar may be closer to a candy bar with better branding.

For these reasons, medical organizations recommend consuming well-planned combinations of protein sources from non-packaged foods.

Building muscle takes more than just protein

Beyond bodybuilding, science has elevated society’s appreciation for the importance of dietary protein in combating muscle loss due to aging, weight loss or injury.

Some experts don’t think doubling protein intake is as important to building muscle as resistance training, a type of exercise that creates force and strain on muscles to signal the body to repair and grow more muscle.

This is different from endurance training that improves aerobic capacity.

A 2021 clinical trial found that only when dietary protein was combined with heavy resistance training did older adults see improved muscle size, strength and function.

Eating more protein alone will not build muscle because the critical molecular pathways for muscle growth and strength require repeatedly placing heavy forces on the muscle.

Challenging your muscles with repeated training and progressively heavier weights stimulates muscles to adapt by becoming larger and better able to produce force. The nervous system adapts too, becoming better able to activate and coordinate muscle movement.

Resistance training is also key to preventing the muscle loss that accompanies weight loss from GLP-1 medications, aging and recovering from injury. The key takeaway is that dietary protein and resistance training work together to promote muscle growth and maintain strength.

Protein in everything: Science vs. sales pitch 

So, is the protein craze based on real science, or is it a fad?

It’s both. The science is clear – dietary protein supports muscle maintenance, growth, injury repair and recovery, fullness and weight regulation, and healthy aging. The fad is the idea that any food with added protein is automatically better – and that you can always benefit from more protein.

Protein deserves attention. But the marketing of protein-fortified food products is not a shortcut to a quality diet that provides a complete source of amino acids from nutritious foods.

This article is adapted from The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to sharing the knowledge of experts. It was written by Linda M Boland, a professor of biology at the University of Richmond. It was edited by Alexa Lardieri, the US health editor at the Daily Mail. 

In an unsettling revelation that still haunts the public decades later, the sinister legacy of Herb Baumeister continues to linger. Nearly three decades have passed since the macabre discovery of thousands of human bones and fragments at Fox Hollow Farm, yet the chilling mystery of what transpired on that estate remains unsolved, and new, probing questions are surfacing.

The ongoing investigation has reached a critical juncture as Hamilton County’s chief coroner suggests that a pivotal individual in the case might not be telling everything they know, potentially hindering the quest for truth.

“I’ve engaged in a few discussions with Mark Goodyear,” Hamilton County Coroner Jeff Jellison shared with News Media, underscoring the complexities that have come to define this case.

“The initial question I’d present to him is, ‘Are you now ready to be truthful with me?’ Throughout our dialogues, honesty has been elusive. I posed several inquiries, aware of the answers, only to witness his failure to respond truthfully. To engage in a meaningful conversation with Mark Goodyear, he must choose to embrace honesty. Engaging with someone entrenched in deceit is a futile endeavor, one that I cannot afford,” Jellison stated, marking a critical stance in the ongoing investigation.

Jellison appears in the ABC News Studios true crime documentary “Return to Fox Hollow: New Victims, Darker Secrets,” which explores new theories about potential accomplices, overlooked evidence and witness accounts in the case of Baumeister, a suspected serial killer believed to have murdered numerous men in Indiana. It’s a follow-up to the 2025 docuseries “The Fox Hollow Murders: Playground of a Serial Killer.”

Jellison said he wants to determine whether Goodyear knows something that could help investigators identify the remaining victims and determine how they died.

Goodyear has never been charged with any crime related to the case and has repeatedly denied any involvement in the disappearances.

“If we move forward in that conversation, certainly I want to know any information I can gather to help identify these remains,” said Jellison. “Were you familiar with anybody? Things that would focus more around identification and how these people died.”

“Mark Goodyear knows a lot about this case,” Jellison said.

Jellison also shared that Goodyear knew many people through gay nightclubs and could help investigators identify some of the remains.

Goodyear, who participated in the first docuseries, has described himself as Baumeister’s only known survivor. The film detailed how investigators believed Baumeister may have filmed his victims with a secret camera hidden in an air vent in his basement. Goodyear said he was forced to watch some of the tapes in 1994. He said the video was so “bad” it made him scream.

“It was like having a camera right up against something,” Goodyear said. “You’re not going to be able to tell what’s going on, but the minute you got a flash of what was going on, it made you scream.”

The previous documentary examined how Goodyear’s account of his relationship and encounters with Baumeister has changed over the years. At the time, Jellison told News Media it was unlikely those tapes, if they exist, would ever be recovered.

News Media reached out to Goodyear for comment but did not receive a response.

Goodyear initially agreed to another interview for the follow-up documentary but did not appear for the scheduled interview, according to the film.

About 10,000 burned and broken human bones and bone fragments were recovered from the 18-acre estate that once belonged to Baumeister. Before investigators could arrest him in 1996, Baumeister was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in Ontario, Canada. He was 49.

Investigators believe Baumeister frequented gay bars in Indianapolis, lured men to his home while his family was away, killed them there and disposed of their remains on the property.

Baumeister’s son discovered a human skull in the woods at Fox Hollow Farm in 1994, but, according to reports, investigators did not search the property until June 1996.

Goodyear said he first encountered Baumeister at an Indianapolis gay bar in 1994, where Baumeister introduced himself as “Brian.” Goodyear later told investigators that he went home with Baumeister and described what he said was a disturbing sexual encounter.

Goodyear’s account eventually helped advance the investigation. After encountering Baumeister again the following year, Goodyear helped investigators obtain information that led them to identify Baumeister.

While Jellison has questioned Goodyear’s account, he also made clear in the documentary that Goodyear was not a suspect.

GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE 

“There are very strong indications there is another suspect, and it wasn’t Mark Goodyear,” Jellison said in the film.

Jellison said there are still more than 9,000 bones and bone fragments yet to be examined. Investigators believe at least 25 people fell victim to Baumeister, according to WRTV.

The scope and placement of the remains have also raised another question for Jellison: whether Baumeister could have carried out the crimes alone.

“I was always convinced that there was more than one,” Jellison said. “There were a lot of people that lost their lives in this incident, and just the placement of the evidence alone. How does one man pull this crime off? And how does one man get … deceased individuals from his residence to potentially 200 yards through very dense woods? I think it would’ve been a very difficult task.”

Jellison is determined to put names to the unidentified victims. He believes some families may still be unaware that a loved one vanished or that the person’s remains may have ended up at Fox Hollow Farm.

Jellison compared the scale of the investigation to the recovery effort at the World Trade Center.

“Some of these folks did not have close family connections, and they were somewhat marginalized,” he explained. “So there may be families out there not even knowing that their loved one went missing, much less consider that person was a victim at Fox Hollow.”

“Thirty years have passed since these remains have been recovered,” he reflected. “So potentially, mom and dad could be deceased, and maybe they had no brother or sister. So we’re reaching out further down the lineage to cousins. And a cousin may not even know that they had a family member that even went missing.”

Jellison said identifying the Fox Hollow victims presents a unique challenge.

He contrasted the case with the World Trade Center investigation, where records and missing-person reports gave investigators a clearer idea of who they were looking for. At Fox Hollow, investigators started with remains but few clues about their identities.

“I really believe that this investigation is more complicated in some ways than the World Trade Center,” he said. “With Fox Hollow, we’ve recovered these remains, but we have no idea who it is that we’re looking for.”

Jellison is urging anyone who believes a missing loved one could be connected to the case to contact his office. After the original documentary aired, his office received approximately 500 emails, phone calls, text messages and social media messages, Jellison said.

“Come forward,” he said. “If you don’t know what to do or you don’t know who to call, call me. I’ll get you going in the right direction.”