Daily protein too high on MFP?

CoachReddy

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.

^This^ However, the study (The China Study) named animal protein the culprit. Watch the documentary Forks over Knives (You can find it on Netflix). It will open your eyes to the effects of animal protein on your body.

All of it is complete BS.

The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.

High protein diets do not cause cancer any more than low protein or plant based diets. There is no science supporting the low protein argument.

there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.

why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?

CoachReddy

All of it is complete BS.

The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.

also: source? (not from a blog, please)

trojanbb

Those who think 45g of protein is right might want to check thier "sources". There is a wealth of peer reviewed study that discusses the RDA study done in a LONG time ago and the benefits to increased protein. Current clinical studies are more meaningful than "they" and the "internet said".

there is also a wealth of peer-reviewed information that says we eat far too MUCH protein. In the 60s/70s in the Philippines, children were getting liver cancer at an alarming rate. They found that this was due to a chemical carcinogen called aflatoxin. They hypothesized that the amount of protein consumed would alter tumor growth by changing how aflatoxin is detoxified by the enzymes in the liver. The study was conducted - subject A getting 20% protein and subject B getting 5% protein.

Turns out, the subjects who were eating LESS protein had much lower enzyme activity, and thus prevented dangerous carcinogens from binding to the DNA. (Cancer happens when carcinogens bind to DNA and alter it. Then the cell replicates itself over and over and over with the new damaged DNA instead of normal DNA) Less binding, less cancer.

In fact, a low protein diet even reduced the size of the tumors. More than that, it even helped keep tumors from initiating in the first place.

I can keep going.

They continued the study by focusing on foci (see what I did there?) which are precursor clusters of cells that grow into tumors. Could protein intake change whether or not cancer was even developed in the first place? I'll give you two guesses.

Turns out, that regardless of how much aflatoxin was present (the carcinogen), the rats fed a 5% protein diet saw less foci growth than those fed a 20% protein diet. But even crazier, rats that were fed 20% protein and developed more foci were then switched to 5% and the foci growth slowed or even stopped. When returned to a 20% protein diet, the foci growth turned back on and began to grow again.

The conclusion? Protein had MORE impact on tumor growth than the carcinogen.

And when you think about it - it makes sense. The US eats the most protein-heavy diet of pretty much any country on earth, and we also have some of the worst cancer rates on earth.

The science is all there, but it's hidden by the meat, dairy and farming industries because our economy is so inextricably linked to people being in poor health.

^This^ However, the study (The China Study) named animal protein the culprit. Watch the documentary Forks over Knives (You can find it on Netflix). It will open your eyes to the effects of animal protein on your body.

All of it is complete BS.

The China study is flawed for numerous reasons. The methodology is atrocious. Subsequent studies by the same researchers contradicted many of their findings.

High protein diets do not cause cancer any more than low protein or plant based diets. There is no science supporting the low protein argument.

there is a MASSIVE amount of science supporting it.

why is Bill Clinton alive today? He's a vegan. Doncha think he might have access to the very best information out there? If the science supported higher levels of protein, the dozens and dozens of doctors and scientists who support the China Study wouldn't do so. Or am I wrong about that?

You have really sound argumentation and logic. Fascinating. That might be the most illogical post I've ever seen from you.

There have been plenty of sources shown to you in response to the hundreds of posts you've made on this exact same topic.

CoachReddy

source please.

CoachReddy

Fine, I'll list them.

The China Study is supported by:

American Institute for Cancer Research
Food and Nutrition Board, US National Academy of Sciences
Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine
Preventative Medicine Research Institute and founder Dean Ornish MD
Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention

and a massive number of MDs and PhDs, a Nobel Prize winner, and yes, even a former President who almost died of heart disease and subsequently adopted a plant-based diet. It would take me days to list all the sources and all the studies that go into this book. I'll bet those of you who rail against it have never even read the introduction.

When this much information is slapping you in the face and you still refuse to even look into it... well... what does that say about YOUR logic?

cmriverside

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

CoachReddy

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

this isn't a documentary.

(and can you really find a documentary that contradicts the china study?)

cmriverside

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

this isn't a documentary.

(and can you really find a documentary that contradicts the china study?)

I just happened to have my post in behind yours. I wasn't talking about the China Study... I was talking about the huge number of Netflix docu-dramas with hysterical premises and sensationalist styles.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I could not care less about the China study, so I'm not even talking to you.

.

CoachReddy

I can find a documentary to support anything I postulate. Just means they knew someone who would fund their ideas. All documentaries are slanted to present a distinct point of view.


.

this isn't a documentary.

(and can you really find a documentary that contradicts the china study?)

I just happened to have my post in behind yours. I wasn't talking about the China Study... I was talking about the huge number of Netflix docu-dramas with hysterical premises and sensationalist styles.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I could not care less about the China study, so I'm not even talking to you.

.

fair enough.

xLyric

Okay guys, I didn't mean for this to turn into a giant debate. As far as getting my sources from "they" and the internet, the FDA says at least 50 grams. And Mayo Clinic say 10-35%.

When I started this question I hadn't seen the 10-35% information, just one source that said 46, which is why MFP's recommendation of 120 seemed so high. Now I know that I should get between 40 and 120 grams.

Pinkylee77

I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors

geekyjock76

The point is there isn't an actual number you should be hitting. You could simply determine protein intake from a minimal point of view just as with dietary fat intake. Afterwards, you can adjust your macros to meet your own needs. At the end of the day, what matters most in terms of priority is that you are meeting your total energy needs after factoring in exercise. Speaking of, it's highly recommended that you include some form of strength-training to preserve as much lean body mass as possible. The goal should be fat loss, not just weight loss.

CoachReddy

I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors

can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.

joylyon

I'd barely survive if I subsisted on only 46g of protein a day because of my strength training three times a week. My minimum goal is 100g a day (my current weight is 105 lbs). I reached 165g yesterday, and every single gram of that was from food sources.

What foods did you eat to get that high number? Plus do you know how to get high calcium from food?

DontStopB_Leakin

I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors

can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.

The idea that the world was flat had thousands of years worth of "peer reviewed studies" behind it.

It still turned out to be wrong.

Next.

ashleab37

Women are recommended to get ~46 grams of protein a day, or 10-35% of their caloric intake (according to the internet...). So why does MFP want me to get 120 grams? I thought I needed to get a protein shake mix since I keep netting about 38g under, but that's still 82g, way more than women are supposed to need.

Am I misunderstanding something? Does MFP use a different way measure? (I'm going to feel dumb if it's just that MFP doesn't show it in grams, haha.)

According to where on the internet? I've never heard a number as low as 10% before....

1ConcreteGirl

I GET IT NOW!

A lot of fast food is protein (ie burgers)....

So if I don't eat fast food (protein), I can be elite!

xLyric

Women are recommended to get ~46 grams of protein a day, or 10-35% of their caloric intake (according to the internet...). So why does MFP want me to get 120 grams? I thought I needed to get a protein shake mix since I keep netting about 38g under, but that's still 82g, way more than women are supposed to need.

Am I misunderstanding something? Does MFP use a different way measure? (I'm going to feel dumb if it's just that MFP doesn't show it in grams, haha.)

According to where on the internet? I've never heard a number as low as 10% before....

Mayo Clinic recommends 10-35%. FDA recommends no lower than 50g.

EvgeniZyntx

I work in the cancer field actually we tell our patient's on Chemo to eat more protein not less. Your information is not accurate. Also lean protein will not increase the risk of cancer. But nitrates and charred meat may increase the risk and that tends to be gastric cancer along with other risk factors

can you give me proof that my information is not accurate? it has 30 years worth or peer-reviewed studies behind it.

I already did, in a previous thread on this subject, I gave you the work already done to discredit this.

But I suggest you go and read Campbell's original research - look in particular at what happened to his low protein rats. They didn't develop cancer because they died of acute flavotoxin poisoning. And the flavotoxin levels were astronomical in that study.

Flawed study is flawed.

perfectingpatti

Bill Clinton is still alive, Lea! What don't you understand here?!