Big news story: protein

toddis

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

Every study contradicts every other study. Just eat like a human and cut back on the processed crap.

Generally it's misreported studies that contradict one another.

Found the study

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00062-X

FoxyLifter

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:

tennisdude2004

The report was bought to today with the great taste of L-nutra (the diet for longevity).

Lol????

tennisdude2004

I've begin eating anywhere from 1-1.3g protein per pound body weight for the past 3 years. I feel fine.

CW: 142.8lb
Protein: 150g+

These studies are invalid.

Yes but how old are you.

And have you done a will yet?

Only joking - for peace of mind switch to L-nutra diet.

michael300891

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

SunofaBeach14

Ok, so reading though a few of the thoughtful comments just saved me wasting my time reading the article. Let me know when something worth reading arrives. Off to get some work done . . .

CrimsonWhite

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:

Well I don't know why they'd do that-air and sunlight have already been shown to cause cancer! (free radicals and UV-they be bad!).

What to do, what to do..... :frown:

Lea_8D

I've begin eating anywhere from 1-1.3g protein per pound body weight for the past 3 years. I feel fine.

CW: 142.8lb
Protein: 150g+

These studies are invalid.

The article I linked earlier gives some valid reasons why this study may not be valid, but your reasoning is not valid (maybe you are just kidding). For example, I know a guy who has smoked most of his life and he's fine. Therefore smoking doesn't increase your risk of health problems?

Redhead_23

we only need 10-20% of our calories to be from protein. Anything extra is just that, extra. If your trying to bulk up then sure, protein OD all day.

Lea_8D

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:

Well I don't know why they'd do that-air and sunlight have already been shown to cause cancer! (free radicals and UV-they be bad!).

What to do, what to do..... :frown:

Don't eat anything at all, I guess. Then very soon, all our troubles will be over! :frown:

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.