High-protein diet linked to heart failure in older women

Options
Need2Exerc1se
Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Interesting findings.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/health/high-protein-meat-diet-women-heart-failure/index.html

Women older than 50 who eat high-protein diets could have a greater risk of heart failure, especially if a lot of their protein comes from meat, according to a new study presented at the annual scientific conference of the American Heart Association.

Researchers found that postmenopausal women who follow a high-protein diet had a significantly higher rate of heart failure than those who ate less protein daily or ate more vegetable protein.
...
In fact, the risk was almost double.

Meanwhile, women whose proteins were sourced mainly from vegetables appeared to be at a lower risk of heart failure.

Replies

  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    Earlier today, I posted this in the debate forum because I really am interested in this.

    I am 50 and over the last 10 years or so I slowly eliminated meat from my diet with the exception of tuna occasionally. I do however eat eggs pretty much daily, so this could hit close to home. I'm not sure if I should be concerned or not? Maybe too late:).
  • cathipa
    cathipa Posts: 2,991 Member
    Options
    In relation to eggs

    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/eggs/
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    Options
    What does "high protein " mean? Is it more than the recommended .8-1lb?
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Is there a link somewhere to the actual study? The article itself says the study was based on self-reporting of diets, which is unreliable. They also said it seemed like there were differences in high plant-based protein compared to animal protein but didn't explain further. And it didn't define what they consider "high protein". So I wouldn't give up your eggs based on this :)

    Sounds like they confused correlation with causation.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,209 Member
    Options
    I also offer up myself to help clear all that excess, possibly dangerous, steak that may pile up as others consume less of it for their safety. :wink:
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    am i the only one hoping steak will get cheaper now?

    I am willing to eat all the steak to save others.
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    I also offer up myself to help clear all that excess, possibly dangerous, steak that may pile up as others consume less of it for their safety. :wink:

    I'm male, but highly sympathetic to women's causes - I'll gladly help out with some of that steak for you. It just wouldn't be right for me to stand by and let you pave your path to heart failure!

    quf7yxxher6o.gif
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,209 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    canadianlbs wrote: »
    am i the only one hoping steak will get cheaper now?

    I am willing to eat all the steak to save others.
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    I also offer up myself to help clear all that excess, possibly dangerous, steak that may pile up as others consume less of it for their safety. :wink:

    I'm male, but highly sympathetic to women's causes - I'll gladly help out with some of that steak for you. It just wouldn't be right for me to stand by and let you pave your path to heart failure!

    quf7yxxher6o.gif

    Try it and you'll get a fork in your hand. :smiley: I like steak more than some of my male friends. If a stranger had to guess male or female based on my fridge and cabinets, I'd bet money they'd guess guy, no hesitation. LOL
  • pamilajo
    pamilajo Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Is there a link somewhere to the actual study? The article itself says the study was based on self-reporting of diets, which is unreliable. They also said it seemed like there were differences in high plant-based protein compared to animal protein but didn't explain further. And it didn't define what they consider "high protein". So I wouldn't give up your eggs based on this :)


    There doesn't seem to be an academic article on this. They did present at the American Heart Association's conference. This is what I found. They also say specifically that people need to be careful how they interpret the results.
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    This is why I stick to the WHO protein recommendation of 0.83g/kg which they deem as sufficient for 97.5% of the population.
    http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/nutrientrequirements/WHO_TRS_935/en/
    I round off to 1g/kg which for me is 52g of protein and most from plant protein. I minimize animal protein.

    I used to shoot for the commonly touted 1g/lb but that required eating lots of meat and even resorting to protein shakes. That was so ridiculous and unnecessary.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Is there a link somewhere to the actual study? The article itself says the study was based on self-reporting of diets, which is unreliable. They also said it seemed like there were differences in high plant-based protein compared to animal protein but didn't explain further. And it didn't define what they consider "high protein". So I wouldn't give up your eggs based on this :)

    Sounds like they confused correlation with causation.

    How so? The article never says "cause", it says there is a link found and more study is needed.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Is there a link somewhere to the actual study? The article itself says the study was based on self-reporting of diets, which is unreliable. They also said it seemed like there were differences in high plant-based protein compared to animal protein but didn't explain further. And it didn't define what they consider "high protein". So I wouldn't give up your eggs based on this :)

    I'm not sure it's been published yet. It's preliminary study findings. Here is another article, if you are interested.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161114105808.htm
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Is there a link somewhere to the actual study? The article itself says the study was based on self-reporting of diets, which is unreliable. They also said it seemed like there were differences in high plant-based protein compared to animal protein but didn't explain further. And it didn't define what they consider "high protein". So I wouldn't give up your eggs based on this :)

    I'm not sure it's been published yet. It's preliminary study findings. Here is another article, if you are interested.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161114105808.htm

    It seems not published. Yet someone in another thread has already stated that the (unpublished) study is "poorly written"...

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    edited November 2016
    Options
    Gianfranco_R wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Is there a link somewhere to the actual study? The article itself says the study was based on self-reporting of diets, which is unreliable. They also said it seemed like there were differences in high plant-based protein compared to animal protein but didn't explain further. And it didn't define what they consider "high protein". So I wouldn't give up your eggs based on this :)

    I'm not sure it's been published yet. It's preliminary study findings. Here is another article, if you are interested.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161114105808.htm

    It seems not published. Yet someone in another thread has already stated that the (unpublished) study is "poorly written"...

    That's quite possible, and not even uncommon for a preliminary unpublished study. Many studies go through much editing before being published based on questions and comments from peers. That certainly doesn't mean the study was poorly done. Is this 'someone' on MFP a peer?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Gianfranco_R wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Is there a link somewhere to the actual study? The article itself says the study was based on self-reporting of diets, which is unreliable. They also said it seemed like there were differences in high plant-based protein compared to animal protein but didn't explain further. And it didn't define what they consider "high protein". So I wouldn't give up your eggs based on this :)

    I'm not sure it's been published yet. It's preliminary study findings. Here is another article, if you are interested.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161114105808.htm

    It seems not published. Yet someone in another thread has already stated that the (unpublished) study is "poorly written"...

    Oh really? Link to that comment?

    I reviewed the other thread I am aware of on the topic and found this post from jmbmilholland which you may be (inaccurately) referring to (my emphasis added in bold):
    I agree...this article is a vague, hot mess and there is nothing to dig into. Very poorly done, even for an overview.

    "While women who ate higher amounts of vegetable protein appeared to have less heart failure, the association was not significant when adjusted for body mass."

    What association is being referred to here? What becomes "less significant" when adjusted for...weight, I assume? Are they saying if people are fat, they're still going to have heart failure regardless of diet? What about people who are skinny who eat more meat? What are the % heart failure for each group, subdivided into normal, overweight, and obese BMIs? What is even going on here? The entire article elicits the same frustration from me.

    Maybe they don't want to let the cat out of the bag with the upcoming peer-reviewed article, but in the meantime this vague article is good for fearmongering and political axe grinding, unconstrained by actual reviewable evidence. On the one hand, I don't want to die...on the other hand, MUH GAINZ!!!

    Did you perhaps misread this comment in your rush to make a mocking reference to the discussion in the other thread? Or is there another comment to which you were referring? If so, I'd be curious to see it.
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    Options
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    I am willing to eat all the steak to save others.

    see, this is what i love about weightlifting. the community, the unselfishness, the sense of social responsibility . . . such altruist.

    I will eat all the steak.
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I'm male, but highly sympathetic to women's causes - I'll gladly help out with some of that steak for you.

    thanks, but it's girl-power time. us women can take care of this all by ourselves. we got it!
    i'm hungry

Categories