Interesting article on protein consumption . . .

closetlibrarian

. . . pegging "meat" as being a contributor to obesity, but not addressing insulin resistance. Even though excessive protein is eventually converted to glucose, the process happens slowly enough to mitigate insulin production for most people. This study also does not address the idea of how meat would contribute to obesity on a low carb diet. This article links to two published papers. Thoughts, those of you more scientifically inclined? http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/658308/

MelissaHaseley

I looked over the article, and came to the conclusion that the study was more intended to focus on the population of obese individuals, high calorie diets, as well as the meat that is most commonly eaten. A large percentage of the meat that the population consumes tends to be pre-packaged and heavily processed (fast food and restaurant chains included with the mass distribution of pre-prepared foods). Eating leaner meats, fatty fish and/or monitoring the amount of high fat meats consumed is a way to combat adverse effects and possible health issues.

Meat proteins by themselves consumed at a reasonable level per the body recommended caloric intake will not be unused, converted, and stored; it will be broken down to provide the energy needed. Getting some form of exercise and eating within healthy guidelines, even on a higher protein diet, would not cause the type of conversion and health issues the article refers to. Going to the butcher and/or deli for fresh cuts of meat will minimize a lot of the risks. Keto, Atkins, Paleo, and many other LCDs work well as long as you stick to a limit and don't overeat.

Dragonwolf

Because meat protein is digested later than fats and carbohydrates, this makes the energy we receive from protein a surplus, which is then converted and stored as fat in the human body.

While logic would say that, biology and math say otherwise. Even if all protein were converted to stored fuel, it would only do so at half of the amount consumed (ie - of 10 calories of protein consumed, only 5 would make it to storage), due to losses in the conversion, itself. However, fuel is not the primary role of protein. Building and maintaining tissue is. As a result, less than about 1/3 of the protein consumed will/can become stored fuel.

Given that meat, particularly farmed meat, is a "wealthy person's" food (farmed animals have been used as a measure of wealth for as long as we've domesticated food animals), and wealthy people tend to be more sedentary and take in more food in general, it comes as not surprise to me that more meat available = more obesity.

What's really interesting is looking at the paper, itself. To note, it's a multinational observational study (a la 7 Countries Study). What I find especially interesting is the change in prevalence of things like fiber between the different correlations and linear regression models.

In the Pearson correlation in Table 2, "fibers" ranks right up there with "meat" and "sugar," as does GDP. Those numbers suddenly drop off (or are ignored entirely?) in the "partial correlation" and subsequent linear regression tables.

Given what appears to be an obvious focus only on "meat" intake suggests he set out to find this kind of thing. Given also his field being ecology (and I assume him doing this study as part of an ecological thing), I wouldn't be surprised if I found out he's one of those low-protein, militant (or border militant) eco-vegans.

One of the astute folks over at Reddit Science also pointed out that the correlations are on availability, not actual consumption, which again points to the whole "wealthy area = more food = fat people" correlation.

Another interesting point -- Mr. You lays emphasis on protein (via meat consumption) in the study, while the headlines for the articles (including his own), only say meat. Oh, and yet, again, "meat" means everything from Oscar Meyer hot dogs and pink slime fast food chicken nuggets to free range ribeye and eggs.