Protein

Lkkiser3
Lkkiser3 Posts: 52 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Is too much protein a bad thing? I've cut back on sugar and sodium and calories, only to go up on protein. But can it be harmful to have to much?

Replies

  • albertabeefy
    albertabeefy Posts: 1,169 Member
    ... Only if you have impaired kidney function ... If you're worried about it drop some protein and increase fat a little. Fat's also quite healthy - except for manufactured trans-fats and oils.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    If you're concerned because you're going over MFPs numbers you should know they're often very low and usually should be considered a minimum rather than a maximum.
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    Is too much protein a bad thing? I've cut back on sugar and sodium and calories, only to go up on protein. But can it be harmful to have to much?

    I say no....

    Nothing I have seen has pointed to any kind of damage due to to much protein.....
  • teagirlmedium
    teagirlmedium Posts: 679 Member
    I have read that taking in too much protein can increase the risk of kidney stones. However, it is not like a little bit of extra protein is going to cause that. It is supposed to be a lot of extra protein over a long period of time.
  • JossFit
    JossFit Posts: 588 Member
    How many grams are you eating per day?
  • CardiC333
    CardiC333 Posts: 68 Member
    No.. At least not gram per lb.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    If you are working out, don't cut back on sodium unless you are getting more than 5 G per day.
  • bpotts44
    bpotts44 Posts: 1,066 Member
    It can increase chances of certain cancers and high protein diets are linked inversely to longevity; however, in the short term they should have little effect if you are trying to use it for fat loss or muscle gain.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    It might turn you into a she hulk...













































    notsrs
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    It can increase chances of certain cancers and high protein diets are linked inversely to longevity; however, in the short term they should have little effect if you are trying to use it for fat loss or muscle gain.

    Would love to see the longevity and cancer stuff if you have links to the research. And also what you consider 'high' to be.
  • MityMax96
    MityMax96 Posts: 5,778 Member
    I have read that taking in too much protein can increase the risk of kidney stones. However, it is not like a little bit of extra protein is going to cause that. It is supposed to be a lot of extra protein over a long period of time.

    I assure you this does not happen....

    Both of my parents have had multiple kidney stones....
    And they are not gym rats, nor consume the amount of protein I do....
    My mother especially, she hardly eats as it is......
  • albertabeefy
    albertabeefy Posts: 1,169 Member
    It can increase chances of certain cancers and high protein diets are linked inversely to longevity; however, in the short term they should have little effect if you are trying to use it for fat loss or muscle gain.

    Would love to see the longevity and cancer stuff if you have links to the research. And also what you consider 'high' to be.
    There is no conclusive study that demonstrates this. Some very biased epidemiological researchers have "concluded" this based on bad science (Ben Goldacre is a hero, BTW) ... but no conclusive evidence has ever suggested this.

    In fact, a recent study - likely the one being referenced, titled "Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population" somehow was in the news with headlines:

    "Red Meat as bad for you as smoking!"

    (BTW, the study title only suggests low-protein intake is associated with reduction in cancer and mortality, not that high protein intake is associated with cancer/mortality... But some people like to jump on the "substance X will kill you!" bandwagon by perverting titles and/or data...)

    If you look at this study , it states "Using Cox Proportional Hazard models, we found that high and moderate protein consumption were positively associated with diabetes-related mortality, but not associated with all-cause, CVD [cardiovascular], or cancer mortality when subjects at all the ages above 50 were considered."

    So when you take a close look at the 6,381 over 50 year olds studied, there was not even an association with protein intake and all-cause mortality, or CVD mortality, or cancer mortality.

    A relationship with diabetes mortality and protein intake was suggested, but it was suggested based on one death from diabetes in one group.

    The headline could have read – “There is no association between protein intake and mortality” – but that doesn't get people to pay attention to media, does it?

    One nutritionist put it this way:

    "After finding no overall association, the researchers spotted a pattern with age and split the information into participants aged 50-65 and participants over 65. They then found (direct quotation again): “Among those ages 50–65, higher protein levels were linked to significantly increased risks of all-cause and cancer mortality. In this age range, subjects in the high protein group had a 74% increase in their relative risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.02–2.97) and were more than four times as likely to die of cancer (HR: 4.33; 95% CI: 1.96–9.56) when compared to those in the low protein group.”

    This means that there was an equal and opposite result for the over 65 group. If all the participants together showed no association and one section of the group are then separated out to show a positive association, the remaining section of the group must have a negative association. That’s the law of averages. Sure enough, the 3,342 people over the age of 65 were far less likely to die from any cause if they were in the moderate or high protein intake group. Cancer mortality for the low protein group was two and a half times the cancer mortality for the high protein group."

    The other issue with this study is they used relative risk instead of absolute risk. AND they didn't publish absolute risk data, even though they had those numbers. Relative risk is a poor measure when absolute risk can be reported instead.

    For those who don't understand relative vs. absolute risk, you can use the odds of winning the lottery as an example ... Let's look at RELATIVE vs. ABSOLUTE "chance" at winning the lottery.

    Say your odds of winning a lottery are one in 14 million. You can "double your chance" of winning the lottery by buying 2 tickets. Your relative chance is twice as high as it was before. But in harsh reality, your absolute chance was 1 in 14 million and is now a whopping 2 in 14 million. You’re still not going to win the lottery!

    Relative risk vs. absolute risk is also how pharmaceutical companies market their statin drugs ... saying they reduce risk of heart attack by far more than they really do. It's important people understand the difference.

Categories