Big news story: protein

cwsreddy

Eat what works for your body to get and keep it healthy and those things that help you to get to your ideal weight. Every body is not the same. Only you know what works for you. Whatever you eat, know that it has been tampered with by man in the name of science in some way so BLESS IT FIRST. After doing that, that is all you can do. God be with us all.

:noway:

stevencloser

And yet no one is talking about the risks of dihydrogen monoxide! 100% of the people that consume it die! 100% of cancer patients have consumed it! It can even kill people if you don't drink it!

http://www.dhmo.org

Don't forget the addictive properties of it!
Using it even once will make you addicted for life, making you need multiple doses every day. Going cold turkey on it has a mortality rate of 100%.

suremeansyes

First they came for the fats, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not on a Mediterranean Diet.

Then they came for the eggs, and I did not speak out-- Because I don't care about things that came from a chicken's butt.

Then they came for the carbs, and I did not speak out-- Because my mouth was full of bread.

Then they came for meat--and there was no one left to speak for meat. Except the body builders.

QuilterInVA

Another load of hogwash. Not even supported by concrete facts. If you eat too little protein you will die. If you eat too little carbs you will live because the body has no requirement for carbs.

RllyGudTweetr

This just in: The Surgeon General has determined that scientists cause cancer in laboratory rats.

paprad

This report here has a more measured coverage of that study
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx

The human data used was not specifically collected for the purpose of the current study. This meant that the researchers had to rely on the completeness of, for example, national data on deaths and causes of death. This may mean that deaths of some participants may have been missed.
Information on food intake was only collected for one 24-hour period, and this may not be representative of what people ate over time. Most people (93%) reported that it was typical of their diet at the time, but this may have changed over the 18 years of follow up.
The researchers took into account some factors that could affect results, but not others, such as physical activity.
Although the study was reasonably large, numbers in some comparisons were relatively low, for example, there were not many diabetes-related deaths and only 437 people overall ate a low protein diet. The broad confidence intervals for some of the results reflect this.
Many news sources have suggested that a high protein diet is “as bad for you” as smoking. This is not a comparison that is made in the research paper, therefore its basis is unclear. While we do need some protein in our diets, we don’t need to smoke, so this is not a helpful comparison.
While the authors suggested that people eat a low protein diet in middle age and switch to a high protein diet once they get older, it is not possible to say from the study whether this is what the older participants actually did, as their diets were only assessed once.

paprad

As I read it, the study assumes that the single-point data collected can be extrapolated for decades - that the participants in the survey continued to eat high protein or low protein, as they had reported.

First of all, that is a not a tenable assumption. But assuming that is true, then how does the recommendation of eating low protein till 65 and then high protein after that - how does that make sense? After all, the people they studied, who were over 65, had all been having the same high protein diet for decades before - so did they have a high risk of death/cancer when they were younger, and then suddenly the risk fell? I find this bit of the report, the age stratification, quite puzzling.

tennisdude2004

This report here has a more measured coverage of that study
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx

The human data used was not specifically collected for the purpose of the current study. This meant that the researchers had to rely on the completeness of, for example, national data on deaths and causes of death. This may mean that deaths of some participants may have been missed.
Information on food intake was only collected for one 24-hour period, and this may not be representative of what people ate over time. Most people (93%) reported that it was typical of their diet at the time, but this may have changed over the 18 years of follow up.
The researchers took into account some factors that could affect results, but not others, such as physical activity.
Although the study was reasonably large, numbers in some comparisons were relatively low, for example, there were not many diabetes-related deaths and only 437 people overall ate a low protein diet. The broad confidence intervals for some of the results reflect this.
Many news sources have suggested that a high protein diet is “as bad for you” as smoking. This is not a comparison that is made in the research paper, therefore its basis is unclear. While we do need some protein in our diets, we don’t need to smoke, so this is not a helpful comparison.
While the authors suggested that people eat a low protein diet in middle age and switch to a high protein diet once they get older, it is not possible to say from the study whether this is what the older participants actually did, as their diets were only assessed once.

Thank god for that - I was just about to eat tofu!!!!!!

Wetcoaster

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/everybody-chill-out-eating-meat-isnt-going-kill-you-180949979/?utm_source=twitter.com&no-ist



Everybody Chill Out, Eating Meat Isn’t Going to Kill You




There's a study going around in the news right now that seems to say something rather scary: eating meat may be just as bad for you as smoking. Or, in other words, a diet high in meat proteins could drastically increase your risk of cancer and diabetes.



The study, conducted by a team of international researchers, was published in the journal Cell Metabolism. The researchers used survey data to link people's diets to how they fared healthwise and paired that with a laboratory study using mice to claim that it was meat proteins that were causing the problems. The scare factor was really stoked, though, by the University of Southern California. They sent out a press release that went like this:


That chicken wing you're eating could be as deadly as a cigarette. In a new study that tracked a large sample of adults for nearly two decades, researchers have found that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet -- a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking.

Yikes.

Here's the problem, though, according to reporters who dug a little deeper into the study: the research the scientists did doesn't actually let them make the kinds of claims they tried to make.

Writing for New Scientist, Catherine de Lange says that the scientists overstepped their bounds when trying to say that research in mice is directly applicable to people—a misstep that is unfortunately made all the time. And some big assumptions were made with the dietary survey that may not be reasonable: the researchers asked people what they ate on one day, and then assumed that's how they ate for the past 18 years.

Brady Dennis for the Washington Post raises the point that other factors, like lifestyle choices, may have had more to do with people's health than the amount of meat in their diet, an element that wasn't accounted for.

None of this is to say that scarfing down three double Big Macs in one sitting is a good idea. Rather, you shouldn't go rejigging your diet or bother getting too worried about your mortality, based on this study.

It's also a lesson to scientists and their institutions, says the Guardian, to stop unnecessarily freaking people out:


Gunter Kuhnle, a food nutrition scientist at Reading University, said it was wrong "and potentially even dangerous" to compare the effects of smoking with the effect of meat and cheese as the study does.

"Sending out [press] statements such as this can damage the effectiveness of important public health messages. They can help to prevent sound health advice from getting through to the general public. The smoker thinks: 'why bother quitting smoking if my cheese and ham sandwich is just as bad for me?'"