Something on your mind? Something you want to see? Post it in the comments and we’ll discuss.

The new Red Scare: 'Are you now or have you ever been an eater of steaks in the United States?'

Now as far as red meat or meat in general causing health problems, there really is no evidence indicating that to be the case and plenty of evidence — and logical deduction — indicating that it should be healthy. There are lots of studies that came to that conclusion, but they are so poorly done as to be worse than worthless. The particular study currently being bandied about was based off of surveys that participants filled out to get data and determine patterns in various food consumption and behaviors. I pay a LOT of attention to what I eat, but I cannot tell you what I ate a week ago, or two weeks ago. Yet the participants in this study were asked to recall, over periods of YEARS, how much meat they had eaten. It’s an incredibly inaccurate way of getting information. Any conclusion based on data that poorly obtained is no conclusion at all.

That being said, there are associative issues with meat consumption that people miss. First, hamburgers. While ground beef is not necessarily problematic, most beef (65%) is sold via retail stores and of that, most of that (60%) is consumed in hamburger form^[1]. So you have people eating “meat”, yes, but it’s wrapped in two pieces of wheat, providing a shot of allergernic gluten and 45g of carbs. Then, of course, the patty is slathered in who-knows-what sauce, and consumed with a soda or a side of fries dipped in who-knows-what ketchup. Add in the further problems of most cows being fed corn (which is high in omega-6 fatty acids) and you have altered the natural fat content of beef from one high in omega-3 (anti-inflammatory) to one that is high in omega-6 (pro-inflammatory). And of course when people eat something that SHOULD be healthy, like a steak, you have the same problem: they eat it with a potato on the side, covered in who-knows-what, dip the steak in sugary steak sauce, and start the meal with a roll and end it with dessert.

All of these “problems” can be avoided by 1) not eating garbage alongside meat, 2) eating grass-fed and free range meat when possible, or 3) barring that, get lean cuts of meat so the diet of the animal doesn’t impact you so much.

And, finally, keep in mind that if red meat were unhealthy, you would not be here today and neither would the rest of us. The megafauna on the north american continent didn’t drop dead of their own accord; they were hunted and eaten into tasty, tasty extinction.

As for further reading on what foods you actually should avoid, check out Kurt Harris’ Paleo Diet 2.0, where he talks about the triple threat of 1) gluten, 2) excess omega-6 fatty acids, specifically lineoleic acid, and 3) excess fructose.

Anything by Robb Wolf, including his book, The Paleo Diet Solution is also a good choice. I’ll leave this here for now, but might very come back and add to it. Then again, the people promoting this nonsense aren’t putting up a very good fight. You think they would try harder. Perhaps lack of protein has made them weak.

It’s been a decade since religious fanatics murdered 3,000 Americans by attacking the world trade center towers and the pentagon with hijacked airplanes. Since that time, we’ve witnessed a rapid erosion of our freedoms, ostensibly in the name of fighting “terror”. While it’s obvious to most that you can neither declare war on — nor fight — a tactic, our government does not see it that way. And why should they? The government has infringed on our rights with new “anti-terror” policies at every opportunity by playing on public fears of another terrorist attack. They’ve presented the public with a false dichotomy of choosing between the tyrannical policy de jure or facing death at the hands of terrorists. In short: the government has used the public’s fear to further control our lives. I hear you asking “but isn’t that, like, Terrorism?” To quote SouthPark, that’s “not like terrorism — it is terrorism!”^[1]

So what freedoms have we given up in the name of fighting these enemies that want to destroy our… freedoms? The most visible loss of freedoms is apparent at the airport, where travelers are herded like cattle through security checkpoints and are then subjected to a humiliating, sexually suggestive search process. Travelers are treated like criminals merely because they wish to travel for business or see their families. At the airport, they must choose between being seen naked or sexually assaulted before boarding a plane. And, of course, the screening process is ineffective anyway. Stories of people getting on board with fake boarding passes, bags full of sharp knives, and even firearms appear on an almost monthly basis. Of the prohibited items, many of these were accidentally left in luggage by everyday travelers — imagine what a determined group of criminals could accomplish. Compounding the stupidity of this process, the security checkpoint creates a bottleneck in human traffic, forcing hundreds of people to congregate in one small area waiting to enter the security checkpoint. A terrorist doesn’t even have to go through the trouble of trying to bypass security to kill hundreds of people. He could just walk in the middle of this crowd with a couple of bombs in his luggage and kill at least as many as he could on a plane.

It's hard to conceive of a terrorist plot more sinister than ensuring that every American man, woman, and child is sexually assaulted, humiliated, and treated like a criminal before getting on an airplane

In addition to the absurdities we deal with at an airport, we’ve also lost far more important freedoms in far more sinister ways. Certainly, the PATRIOT Act is the most well known of these abuses. The PATRIOT Act gives the government permission to violate the 4th amendment rights of American citizens in a number of ways: sneak-and-peak warrants, roving wiretaps, and access to business and banking records without a warrant. Even more alarming then the PATRIOT act was the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and accompanying legislation, court battles, and executive orders. The premise behind this power grab is that the government can designate someone an enemy combatant and then hold him indefinitely without a trial, without access to a lawyer, or without even informing him of the charges he faces. While this suspect is held at Guantanamo Bay or some secret overseas prison, he will likely be deprived of the most basic human rights, let alone his ability to petition for a writ of habeas corpus or have any recourse against a potentially illegal detainment. Given the US government’s track record of heavy-handed ineptitude^[3] , it’s hard to believe that terrorists present a greater threat to your life or liberty than governments and law enforcement agents.

Yeah, pretty much.

All these manifestations of eroded freedoms, of course, stem from sacrificing the very principles that define the United States. Key components of a free society are protection of private property rights and personal liberties, rule of law, and due process, among others. If our country is defined by a set of principles, and we abandon those principles in the name of defending our country, have we not abandoned our country? The United States is not the “greatest, freest country in the world” just because we say it is; it is great and free only so long as we value and live by the principles of a free society. The extent that we depart from those principles is the extent to which we have surrendered our country. What is the point of fighting to save a country if our methods of fighting destroy its philosophical foundation? By abandoning our ideals, we are doing far more damage to our country than violent criminals ever could.

To really make things worse, does anyone really believe we are safer now than we were prior to the attacks? We’ve not only continued, but furthered, many of the same policies given as reasons for the violence. We’ve put tens of thousands of our troops in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, losing 6,000 in the process — more than double the number of civilian lives lost in the attacks themselves. No doubt our enhanced presence in Arab states and the high civilian death toll as a result of our operations is raising a new generation of people that will seek to avenge what they perceive as injustice. Law enforcement abuses of powers granted in the name of fighting terrorism are commonplace, as are complaints against the TSA. By all accounts, you’re more likely to suffer abuse at the hands of terror-fighting law enforcement than you are to be a victim of terrorism. If the choice was between getting groped by the TSA or getting attacked by terrorists — and I assure you that it isn’t — I’ll take my chances with the terrorists.

My last post covered a paper I wrote on the economics of the American Revolution during my last semester at Tech. Continuing in the same vein this week, I also wanted to post my Senior Economics Thesis. My paper addresses the astronomical costs and long-term implications of our aggressive foreign policy.

Friends and readers will note that I argued my point from the Keynesian point of view despite the fact that I reject Keynesian economics entirely. I did this because I wanted to argue the point on their terms — and there is nothing more Keynesian than the myth that war is good for the economy. A third-grader can see the flaw in this myth, via the parable of the broken window, but most Keynesians are so deluded that they refuse to accept any argument that isn’t framed in the context of a “government multiplier”. So I argued on those terms and still believe I made my point.

Here’s a link to the paper, called The Costs of America’s War on Peace and I have embedded it below. Enjoy:

During my last semester in college, when I had to take 3 unexpected classes to graduate, I wrote a paper on the economic background of the American Revolutionary War and the Constitution. Most people consider the American Revolution to be a purely philosophical or political revolution, but economic considerations were significant. Perhaps even lesser known is the role post-war economics played in the drafting of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were not scrapped and replaced by the Constitution because the federal government didn’t have “enough power” in the sense of authoritarian control, but because of state-level economic issues that threatened the economic stability of the country.

Here’s a link to the paper, called The Economic American Revolution: Economic motivators and conditions in Revolutionary America and I have embedded it below. Enjoy:

Schoolchildren typically learn about the feudal system in history class, when covering the medieval period in Europe. It is typically presented as an ancient, obsolete form of government, practiced by ignorant people of the past who didn’t know any better. People familiar with democracy, upon learning about the feudal system, tend to view it as an abhorrent system of government. Feudalism inherently concentrates power in the hands of an elite class, whose membership was largely determined by birth and marriage . Personal choice, economic freedom, and the democratic process were not components of the feudal system, and someone born a serf would more than likely stay that way. All of these things are typically thought of as morally offensive at some level or another by anyone who has lived in a democratic society. Despite this, many democracies have incorporated elements of socialism — particularly taxation on income — to the point that once-democratic governments bear resemblance to feudal governments.

While the “feudal system” is a term broadly given to many forms of governments in the medieval era, different areas and time periods had their own flavors of feudalism. One thing in common, however, was Manorialism, wherein land (a manor) was owned by a lord and worked by a variety of peasantry roughly termed “serfs”. Serfdom is an unusual condition, because serfs were not slaves in the sense we typically think of slaves. While slavery certainly existed under feudal systems of government, the serfs themselves were generally free in the sense that they were not the property of the lord and, in many cases, were free to live their lives away from direct oversight of the lord. But the lord of the manor had a far more insidious claim to their lives: he had claim to their income. He had claim to the product of their labor.

A serf's obligation to his lord

While the serfs toiled in the fields, the lords, of course, spent much of their time throwing lavish parties, waging wars to gain status and territory, and generally wasting the product of the serf’s labor. The priorities of the serf and lord did not align at all when it came to allocating the resources produced by the serf. Certainly, the serf gained some benefits from this arrangement. He was typically protected to some degree — at least when the lord’s war-waging habits didn’t incite retalitory violence or when the lord himself didn’t post a threat. The serf had a place to live, land that he was responsible for, and he had “freedom” in some sense of the word. At least, it could be argued, he was not a slave.

Jello wrestling in Antarctica -- Your tax dollars hard at work

An old joke involves George Bernard Shaw (or sometimes Winston Churchill) approaching a woman at a party, with the following dialogue:

Shaw: “Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?”.
Woman: “Well, I suppose so.”
Shaw: “Would you sleep with me for ten shillings?”.
Woman: “Of course not! What kind of woman do you take me for? A prostitute?”
Shaw: “We’ve already established what you are, madam. Now we are just haggling over the price.”

Once you accept that a person or government may lay claim to your income — in any amount — you have conceded to them lordship over your hard work, your wealth, and, ultimately, your life. You have established yourself as a serf, to be used for ends that are not your own. Any discussion about how much of your wealth should be confiscated is simply discussing the terms of your bondage; haggling over the price of your prostitution. Despite support from so-called “progressives”, income taxes represent a huge step backward in economic and political freedom, which are two sides of the same coin. More than any other government policy, income taxation burdens supposedly free people with a yoke of servitude that their ancestors worked hard to remove. It is time to relegate all vestiges of serfdom to the historical wastebasket — including the income tax. After all, “is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?”

Some of you may have noticed last week that the government unveiled a “revolutionary” change in the dietary advice they’ve been giving us for years. Instead of the old food pyramid model, they have now given us a “plate” to show what their ideal diet looks like.

Image courtesy of the USDA -- though we all paid for it.

You’ll notice that this new format looks like it’s better than the old food pyramid. Many health blogs — even those who disagree with the recommendations exactly as stated — have still commended the USDA for increasing the vegetable recommendations and generally leading people towards better health. But are they? Or is this the same old garbage just repackaged in a different format?

I’m a bit of a math nerd and the first thought I had when I first saw the new Plate-style recommendation was that it was no different at all from the grain-based pyramid, but was only a different visual representation. Some further investigation reveals that this is not too far off from what’s going on. Let’s examine:

The old food pyramid (ignoring the sliced vertical pyramid which everyone ignored for 3 years) had the following breakdown:

• 6-11 servings bread/grains
• 2-4 servings fruit
• 3-5 servings veg
• 2-3 servings dairy
• 2-3 servings meat

If you break all this out, you’ll see that grains equate to 40% of the recommended diet, dairy works out to 14%, meat at 13%, veg at 20%, and fruit at 13%. Now, keep in mind that this is “servings.” So what constitutes a serving?

• Grains: Slice of bread, 1oz cereal, or 1/2 cup cooked rice/pasta
• Fruit: 1 medium apple/banana/orange
• Vegetable: 1 cup of raw, leafy veg or 1/2 cup of cooked vegetables (e.g. broccoli)
• Dairy: 1 cup of milk/yogurt or 2 oz cheese

Due to the relative nutrient (and physical) density of these things, though, portion size does NOT equate to calorie content or the government’s endorsed portion size — and I think this is what people are missing. The old pyramid equated 2 servings of rice to about the size of a tennis ball, and gave roughly the same size to ONE serving of broccoli. Thus, in terms of volume, one serving of vegetables is equivalent to two servings of grains. This about.com page discusses the government-approved portion estimations.

You’ll note that there really isn’t an example where 2 servings of grains are not equal, in terms of portion size, to 1 serving of vegetables or fruit. A serving of fruit or veg is roughly the size of a fist, whereas the same volume of grains is roughly 2 servings as per the government. Taking all that into account, the OLD usda food pyramid was calling for a plate that looked like this:

The "Old" USDA recommendations -- same as the new ones.

Look familiar? The notably absent “dairy” group would go right next to this as a cup of milk or yogurt with each meal. In other words, the new recommendations are almost identical to the old pyramid. It was wrong then, and it’s still wrong now. Any perceived changes in these new recommendations are in presentation or imagination — but certainly not in fact.

I’m not exactly thrilled my tax dollars are going to fund this type of nonsense.

I’m currently reading “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, which is quite timely considering the current media attention being given to yet another doomsday prophet predicting the end of the world based on supposed biblical evidence. In this case, Harold Camping believes he’s found evidence that the world is ending within the bible, particularly the book of revelation. While most mainstream Christians are tripping over themselves to distance their beliefs from Camping’s obvious insanity, this is a particularly good illustration of my biggest issue with Strobel’s book.

First, the book proclaims itself to be a journey from atheism to spirituality, and yet Strobel’s supposed atheism didn’t stem from any particular philosophical ideal or logical issue with faith; he was just sort of indifferent towards religion. He had a few qualms with the historical accuracy of the bible, but he clearly had no issues with accepting things on faith or believing in the supernatural. Strobel actually strikes me as someone who most certainly held theistic beliefs (i.e believed in a supernatural “god” of some kind) and just did not practice a religion. That is quite different from actually committing oneself to rationality and rejecting fanciful tales for which you’ve seen no evidence except the tales themselves.

"Is there a God? If not, what are all these churches for?"

I should add here that I have no desire (or philosophical obligation) to “disprove” the existence of a man named Jesus or any of his followers. By most accounts, they probably did exist and written accounts were probably “based on a true story” in terms of historical occurrences and such. But that’s not relevant. Someone is not a Christian because they believed Jesus merely existed. A Christian believes that Jesus, born of a virgin, died for their sins and then was resurrected by his all-powerful father, who created the universe. What does this have to do with Harold Camping and his apocalyptic predictions? I’m getting there. Let’s give Strobel (and every Christian) the benefit of the doubt and say that there absolutely was a man named Jesus, with a bunch of followers, whose life was chronicled by four guys who impeccably wrote down their eyewitness accounts of his life,which were then flawlessly translated through 3 languages and transcribed without error. Let’s say all of that is true. So what? That proves nothing related to “God”, Christianity, or anything supernatural. Strobel spends so much time fussing about whether or not the eyewitness accounts of the gospel writers were accurately transcribed that he never stops to consider that they may have been wrong. That they didn’t see what they think they did. That they were members of a primitive, superstitious society that saw the influence of the supernatural lurking behind every shadow. That they — like Harold Camping — were either mistaken or deliberately misleading their audience.

Every few months, someone like Harold Camping shows up in the news, claiming evidence of something “from beyond”. Maybe they are claiming to have seen Jesus, a dead relative, or Aliens. Remember the Virgin Mary that appeared at my beloved Coogee Beach in Australia? For the record: I’ve been there many times and it’s just a fence post — though the view of Coogee Bay from that area is spectacular. How about every person claiming to have a religious vision? How about every person who’s ever done LSD, peyote, or DMT and seen the same things? The fact is that if you believe in the supernatural and have a subconscious desire — or “chemical assistance” — you can see whatever you want to see. Incidentally, this is actually an evolutionary adaptation for quick pattern-recognition known as Pareidolia, where we perceive insignificant stimuli as significant when they fit within pre-existing cognition, giving an obvious evolutionary advantage to those who could discern predators or food quickly in the wild.

There’s a great reason why people in Hindu cultures are likely to have visions of Hindu deities and not those of the Christian faith, or why the Romans, Egyptians, and Greeks, “saw” their gods of choice from time to time. Since the dawn of time, people have seen gods, ghosts, spirits, and the like. Why would the claims of gospel writers to see a ghost (zombie?) Jesus be any more credible than the claim of anyone else claiming to see a ghost, an alien, or some supernatural apparition? The historical veracity of those claiming such visions is irrelevant if they are wrong in the first place. We have perfectly good “historical” coverage of Harold Camping, the lady who saw the Virgin Mary in her grilled cheese sandwich, and, of course, there is the show “GhostHunters” with video footage of people supposedly witnessing the supernatural. Does any of that mean that those people are right? Of course it doesn’t. A perfect copy of a mistake is still a mistake.

I’ve written before about the importance of protein. Whether you are looking to build strength, or just lazily keep yourself in decent shape, protein is absolutely crucial for building and maintaining muscle mass. Muscle mass, by the way, is that stuff that comprises the real you. Fat, after a certain point, is pretty worthless. Lean mass is the “real, metabolically active you”, as DeVany would say. Protein is important, but it is woefully lacking in many people’s diets. Carbs and bad fats form the basis of most people’s diets and so trying to get enough protein from whole meals can be daunting. This is particularly true if you’re eating out or traveling frequently, as restaurants cater to the average joe and think that 20g of protein in a chicken breast constitutes a meal. Fun fact: even a CHICKEN needs about 24g of protein a day. As the dominant species, you have a moral responsibility to eat more protein than the animals upon which you are feeding.

That being the case, we still have the problem of trying to get enough protein is a society where protein is an afterthought. Enter: protein powder. There are many kinds — and brands — of protein powder and most of them are garbage. To cover the major types of protein:

Whey Protein

The classic protein, derived from milk, is popular due to its rapid absorption, low allergenic potential, and high bio-availability. Whey is the most popular protein and most of the protein you’ll find will be whey protein. This is the stuff you want to consume pre and post-workout.

Casein Protein

Also derived from milk, casein is the more complete, slower absorbing protein. Casein is whey’s bigger, stronger, older brother. It turns into a gel in the stomach and slowly provides amino acids over a longer time. Many studies also show greater muscle mass gain and retention when supplementing with casein instead of whey or in addition to whey. Particularly, micellar casein is the kind to get. Casein is very thick and you will need about twice the liquid you would use for whey. Some people don’t like the thickness or texture, but I think it grows on you.

Egg Protein

Can’t handle milk-derived proteins? Get some egg protein. You can actually just buy huge tubs of powdered egg whites, which are great for mixing in to meal-replacement smoothies. Egg protein doesn’t mix well without a blender, so keep that in mind. It’s bioavailability is very high (your body can use all of it) so this is definitely something you want around if you stock a few different proteins.

Soy Protein

This stuff is garbage. Don’t even think about it.

Things to Avoid

Some pitfalls for the protein buyer are the excess of crappy, celebrity proteins and cheap blends using dairy-process byproducts and heat-deformed proteins packed with filler and unnecessary ingredients. A disturbing number of proteins contain soy protein, wheat protein (gluten), wheat starch, vegetable oils, and even trans fats! Like many other things, you are better off with fewer ingredients.

Recommended Proteins

Taking the above into consideration, I have a few recommendations for protein. My favorite brand is Optimum Nutrition. They have done a good job keeping excess ingredients out of their proteins and even offer natural varieties with Stevia instead of Splenda (sucralose). The best source for protein (And any supplement) is bodybuilding.com. Their selection is huge, their service is phenomenal, and I’m pretty sure they ship their stuff by launching products out of a huge cannon, because my orders arrive within 48 hours. Optimum has excellent flavors of whey and casein, and I recommend getting at least one of each so that you have a more complete blend of proteins and have some flavors to mix and match.

Natural Whey (no artificial sweeteners): http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/opt/natwhey.html
ON Whey: http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/opt/whey.html

Natural Casein (no artificial sweeteners): http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/opt/naturalcas.html
ON Casein: http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/opt/cas.html

The non-natural versions contain splenda (sucralose) so don’t get those if you are trying to avoid that. Also, the “cookies and creme” flavor, while delicious, contains actual cookies (and therefore wheat), so avoid that one as well. You won’t be disappointed with any of the flavors. The natural vanilla — for whey or casein — is excellent, as is the chocolate and strawberry whey. I’d recommend getting a vanilla, a chocolate, and maybe a banana creme casein so you have plenty to mix and match. Make sure you get a whey and a casein for a more complete protein. I tend to have a scoop of each prior to a workout, and if I make meal-replacement smoothies I’ll have about 3 scoops of casein and 1 of whey. I frequently put a scoop of casein on top of some berries and cream/coconut milk for dessert. You can also mix it in with yogurt, Kefir, or cottage cheese for some added protein and flavor. Martin Berkhan at Leangains has a recipe for “protein fluff” on his site, so that may be worth checking out too. Whatever you decide, adding some protein will help you feel full and give some much needed nutrition if your diet is lacking or if you are engaged in heavy weightlifting.

For those of you who aren’t in engaged in heavy lifting, protein supplementation can still benefit you if you replace inferior/junk calories with protein. Some will argue that excess calories from protein will merely make you fat if they are not burned. While true, won’t the excess calories from ice cream, a candy bar, or chips make you fat too? The difference is that ice cream, candy bars, and chips don’t fill you up and will make you hungrier, whereas protein will make you less hungry. Protein Powder mixed with coconut milk or heavy cream and poured over some berries makes a great ice-cream like snack, and of course I’ve provided a recipe for protein ice-cream before. Finally, protein’s true caloric value is likely much less than 4 calories per gram due to a higher Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). Conventional wisdom equates protein and carb calories at 4 calories per gram, but new studies are blowing this notion away, suggesting that protein may only be 3.2 calories per gram. Fewer calories? Less blood sugar spike? More appetite suppression? What’s not to love?

Over the past couple years, I’ve played around with tons of high-protein, low-carb substitutes for common recipes with great success. The biggest things I’ve figured out? 1) Most people don’t notice if things normally full of sugar have a little less total sweetness and 2) You can almost perfectly substitute sugar with some protein powder and honey/maple syrup/coconut nectar or other sweetener of your choice. The texture remains the same, the sweetness is a little less (see point #1), and it holds together roughly the same.

In the case of ice cream, however, you’re really just going for taste and a creamy texture with a little bit of granularity (normally from sugar). That makes things easier, and I’ve found that almost anything you can blend into a smoothie can be turned into a frozen treat with just a little bit of love and an ice cream maker. One of my favorites lately has been almond butter/banana ice cream. I make this smoothie all the time, but lately I’ve been freezing it up a few nights a week and just eating it like ice cream. It’s fantastic.

You’ll need:

1 scoop Banana Casein
1 scoop Chocolate Casein (or chocolate cake batter — I use natural chocolate)
1 scoop Vanilla casein (I use the natural kind)
1 scoop vanilla (or chocolate) whey — (again, the natural kind).
1 Banana
1 Spoonful of Almond butter (2 15mL tablespoons if you measure it exactly — kitchen spoons are not “tablespoons”)
1 Spoonful of flax seed (option)
2 TBSP Coconut milk or cream (half and half would probably work too)

Stick all that in a blender with the least amount of ice and water you can possibly use to fully blend the protein and everything together. Put it in your ice cream maker for about 20-30 minutes or until it resembles…ice cream. Eat it. It’s delicious. And for that, you’re getting:

105g protein
50g Carbs (10g from fiber)
30g fat
900 total calories

AKA — awesome! This recipe will either feed one hungry caveman or provide dessert for about 4 normal people. I’d say that this is probably “4 servings” for most people, keeping in mind that protein makes you full very fast. Compared to the nutrition profile of Ben & Jerry’s Peanut Butter Cup Ice cream, each serving has 20g more protein, 11g less fat, 10g less carbs (and added fiber), 12g less sugar, and 45 fewer calories. It stores pretty well, so feel free to eat it over a few days or halve the amounts if you don’t want to save some.

You can probably get by with fewer flavors of protein if you don’t keep a huge stock like I do. Two scoops of chocolate whey and two of banana casein OR two scoops of chocolate casein and two of banana whey would probably work just fine if you only want to buy two tubs of protein. Keep in mind that some of the protein powders I linked to do have Splenda (sucralose) in them, which I find to be disturbingly sweet in large quantities. I prefer to use the natural protein (with some stevia only) as much as possible to reduce that. If you don’t mind a little extra sweetness and artificial sweetner, you could definitely just use two scoops chocolate and two scoops banana.