Big news story: protein

cwsreddy

Boom! I've been saying it all along. I've always kept my protein down to about 1g/lb of lean body weight or under, even if I eat up to 4000 calories.

Not surprised. Any time broscience and conventional wisdom say "You can't get too much ________" (in this case protein), something's gotta give.

usmcmp

You know, the study said MAY and MIGHT. It didn't prove anything.

artcwolf

so over the years it's come ot the attention that we are unable to eat anything, drink anything, breath anything, or move at all without it causing us to die.

attention new study out by university of me. every breath you take you are one breath clsoer to death prove me wrong.

also every breath you take i'll be watching you.

cwsreddy

Many people have pointed out the obvious: correlational study etc, im going to point out the less-obvious:

First, the authors trawled through the data, finding nothing of interest for diabetes, then rerunning the models looking at protein and age, then finding no main results arbitrarily splitting into 50-65 year olds and 66+ which had significant differences.

Second, there is no mention in the paper anywhere of smoking, media outlets have simply compared hazard ratios for protein from this paper, with that against other papers to produce their god-awful irrelevant headlines.

Probably the most interesting thing, is that the head author of the paper has an equity stake in a company called L-Nutra who specialise in plant-based dietary supplements to prolong lifespan.

This paper substantially supports the business plan.

---

Doctoral Research in Exercise Metabolism

Which is exactly my beef (get it) with all the studies that support HFCS, fortified nutritients, conventionally raised beef/chicken, blah blah blah - everything the government and the FDA says is "good for you", because those studies are inextricably tied up with big food, big pharma etc etc.

Having noticed this I do think it calls the study into question to a degree, but no more than the MAJORITY of studies that are done about ANYTHING food related. They're all funded by someone who wants a certain result - otherwise you'd have never heard the study even happened.

cwsreddy

You know, the study said MAY and MIGHT. It didn't prove anything.

no study proves anything. they all say may and might. do you even science?

BrainyBurro

Hi everyone


Big news story 20 mins ago from University of California: lots of animal protein (protein greater than 10% of overall calories) in your diet during middle age increases your risk of cancer four times!!!!

I've had a lot of success over the last few weeks with eating protein (mainly tuna and chicken) at every meal. Very confused now.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113086883/cancer-risks-elevated-meat-cheese-diet-030414/

1) it's baloney

2) there is another thread on this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1217174-high-protein-diet-has-similar-cancer-risks-than-smoking

WhiteRabbit1313

Whenever a story reports on a study without actually linking to said study, it's generally crap.

Even the article on the University of California website didn't link to the "study." I was looking for the duration of the study. Why doesn't that seem like pertinent information to these journalists?

Lesa_Sass

But it was in the Huffington Post, so it has to be true, right?

Keto_T

I work in the science industry. One can make data say whatever they want it to, either intentionally or unintentionally. That's why peer reviewed is such a big deal.

BrainyBurro

Having noticed this I do think it calls the study into question to a degree, but no more than the MAJORITY of studies that are done about ANYTHING food related. They're all funded by someone who wants a certain result - otherwise you'd have never heard the study even happened.

it doesn't matter who funded a study, so long as it goes through rigorous and honest peer review. that process will find the biases and flaws and that's why no study is valid until such a process has been completed.

cwsreddy

Having noticed this I do think it calls the study into question to a degree, but no more than the MAJORITY of studies that are done about ANYTHING food related. They're all funded by someone who wants a certain result - otherwise you'd have never heard the study even happened.

it doesn't matter who funded a study, so long as it goes through rigorous and honest peer review. that process will find the biases and flaws and that's why no study is valid until such a process has been completed.

and this study has been peer reviewed, as mentioned in the other thread. we should really consolidate... lol

raw_meal

AHHHHHH.......oh... yeah I am in...

JoRocka

AHHHHHH.......oh... yeah I am in...

I want to be in- but I don't know which trainwreck I should be in.



god that sounds dirty and I love it.

MarioLozano16

Everything apparently causes cancer nowadays so don't worry about

redheaddee

Whenever a story reports on a study without actually linking to said study, it's generally crap.

This. Was the study reliable? Valid? So many questions. Because give me any study, and I can write the results from the raw data 3 different ways. They taught me how to do so in grad school prob & stats.

Next.

BrainyBurro

Having noticed this I do think it calls the study into question to a degree, but no more than the MAJORITY of studies that are done about ANYTHING food related. They're all funded by someone who wants a certain result - otherwise you'd have never heard the study even happened.

it doesn't matter who funded a study, so long as it goes through rigorous and honest peer review. that process will find the biases and flaws and that's why no study is valid until such a process has been completed.

and this study has been peer reviewed, as mentioned in the other thread. we should really consolidate... lol

the key is honesty and transparency in the peer review process. that means ANYBODY in the world who wants to examine the data and details before publication and try to replicate the results should be allowed to. any paper that is only peer-reviewed by like-minded others potentially fails this test.

jkohnmobile

Boom! I've been saying it all along. I've always kept my protein down to about 1g/lb of lean body weight or under, even if I eat up to 4000 calories.

Not surprised. Any time broscience and conventional wisdom say "You can't get too much ________" (in this case protein), something's gotta give.

You're eating about twice as much protein as the studies authors recommend (they recommend 1g per kg bodyweight).


My bet is that most of those middle-aged folks who at lots of protein and had health issues also ate lots of everything else, while sitting on their *kitten* living a sedentary lifestyle.

cwsreddy

AHHHHHH.......oh... yeah I am in...

I want to be in- but I don't know which trainwreck I should be in.



god that sounds dirty and I love it.

I know. I've committed to giving it hard to both of them, but at the end of the day - and if i'm being honest - i'll be much more effective and have much more endurance if I can just take one at a time.

kung_fu_red

This is still dumb.

wsuduce

It's gone full circle. At first, fats were the enemy, then carbs. Now protein? I bet scientists are going to start recommending that Air and Sunlight only diet. :noway:

Just out... a new study shows that being in the sunshine while breathing air may contribute to death.

JoRocka

AHHHHHH.......oh... yeah I am in...

I want to be in- but I don't know which trainwreck I should be in.



god that sounds dirty and I love it.

I know. I've committed to giving it hard to both of them, but at the end of the day - and if i'm being honest - i'll be much more effective and have much more endurance if I can just take one at a time.

spreading it out just doesn't give it the intensity sometimes you need.

focus is good.

Just out... a new study shows that being in the sunshine while breathing air may contribute to death.

wsuduce- don't care if tha'ts your picture in your avatar- but you should post more.

for realz.

ndj1979

geez, this is like the fourth thread about this ...

the study was an observational one and was not based on an actual study with control groups, non control groups etc..

if eating high protein is bad then I am screwed..

My advice, ignore this...

stephdmash

I didn't mean to comment haha it won't let me delete!

lambchristie

Hi everyone


Big news story 20 mins ago from University of California: lots of animal protein (protein greater than 10% of overall calories) in your diet during middle age increases your risk of cancer four times!!!!

I've had a lot of success over the last few weeks with eating protein (mainly tuna and chicken) at every meal. Very confused now.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113086883/cancer-risks-elevated-meat-cheese-diet-030414/

Not 10% of overall calories, 20%. And yet it is NOT the case for those over 65; its actually beneficial, according to the article here:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/health-wellness/aging/high-protein-diets-in-middle-age-might-shorten-life-span-1

"In the study, the researchers looked at data on more than 6,800 middle-aged and older adults in the United States. They found that 50-year-olds who got more than 20 percent of their calories from animal protein -- mainly meat or dairy products -- had a fourfold increased risk of death from cancer or diabetes. And they had a nearly twofold increased risk of death from any cause over the next 18 years, compared to people on more low-protein regimens."

tennisdude2004

geez, this is like the fourth thread about this ...

the study was an observational one and was not based on an actual study with control groups, non control groups etc..

if eating high protein is bad then I am screwed..

My advice, ignore this...

Hey I think we're in this one for the sh*ts and giggles!!!


Plus it's about the only topic everyone agrees with (veggies not included).

ndj1979

next at 6:30....swimming can lead to drowning...therefore, stop swimming.

whovian67

If your 50 and got a good amount of protein your life span is shorter..if you eat more protein as your older your life span is longer.... study sponsored by AARP?

Give it another 6 months and they'll swing the other way on their opinion..

Keep up what works for you We could all get hit by a truck today and none of that would matter anyway. Have a blessed day

whovian67

That's what I'm saying... Watch out for the truck

mccindy72

Mice are highly susceptible to cancer, which is why they use them in brain cancer studies all the time. Unfortunately, the things that usually prove successful in treating the cancer in them don't usually work in humans with the same cancer, so the odds are that what gave them the cancer in the first place probably aren't translatable either.

jaygreen55

Not true the news story is based on recent studies. Here are the details:

(HealthDay News) -- Millions of middle-aged Americans chow down each day on steaks, cheeseburgers and other protein-rich fare.

Now two studies find that diets high in meat and cheese, when eaten in middle age, might shorten people's life spans.

However, in a surprise twist, the same research team found that eating lots of animal-based protein in old age might actually do the opposite.

"The research shows that a low-protein diet in middle age is useful for preventing cancer and overall mortality [death]," study co-author Eileen Crimmins, the AARP Chair in Gerontology at the University of Southern California, said in a university news release. "However, we also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid a low-protein diet to allow the maintenance of healthy weight and protection from frailty."

The findings were published March 4 in the journal Cell Metabolism

In the study, the researchers looked at data on more than 6,800 middle-aged and older adults in the United States. They found that 50-year-olds who got more than 20 percent of their calories from animal protein -- mainly meat or dairy products -- had a fourfold increased risk of death from cancer or diabetes. And they had a nearly twofold increased risk of death from any cause over the next 18 years, compared to people on more low-protein regimens.

Even middle-aged people who consumed only "moderate" levels of animal protein had a threefold increased risk of death from cancer, the researchers reported.

This increased risk of death was much lower or non-existent in 50-year-olds who ate a diet high in protein sourced mainly from plants, the researchers added.

However, the study also found that people older than 65 who consumed high amounts of animal protein had a 60 percent lower risk of dying from cancer and a 28 percent lower risk of death from any cause, compared to people who shied away from meat and dairy at this age. Similar benefits were seen in seniors who had moderate levels of protein intake.

"The majority of Americans are eating about twice as much protein as they should, and it seems that the best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins but especially animal-derived proteins," at least in middle age, study senior author Dr. Valter Longo, of the University of Southern California, said in the university news release. "But don't get extreme in cutting out protein; you can go from protected to malnourished very quickly."

A second study, this time conducted in mice, found that a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet shortened the rodents' lifespan.

Overall, the findings provide "convincing evidence that a high-protein diet -- particularly if the proteins are derived from animals -- is nearly as bad as smoking for your health," Longo said in a journal news release. He was the senior author of the study conducted in humans.

The effects of protein consumption on a person's risk of an early death may be partly due to the activation of natural growth hormone and a cellular growth factor called IGF-1, the researchers explained.

"Notably, the activity of these factors, but also body weight, declines naturally with aging, which may explain why older people not only did not benefit but appeared to do worse if they ate a low-protein diet," Longo said.

The researchers believe the studies will boost understanding about links between diet and health.

"We have shown explicitly why it is that calories aren't all the same -- we need to look at where the calories come from and how they interact," Steve Simpson, senior author of the mouse study, said in the journal news release.

"This research has enormous implications for how much food we eat, our body fat, our heart and metabolic health, and ultimately the duration of our lives," said Simpson, a researcher at the University of Sydney in Australia.