Daily protein too high on MFP?

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?

MFP is actually way too low. We should be getting about .8 to 1 gram per pound of lean body mass.

But I think "lean body mass" means muscle -- not including the weight of your bones or being 72% water. I read a study a couple years ago (can't remember the university) and they said women might only need 30-35 grams of protein a day. Your body repairs and replaces tissue/muscle constantly and uses the amino acids to build new tissue/muscle.

I aim for about 70 grams a day which is 1 chicken breast, 1 can of tuna and 1-2 eggs. I also like protein shakes and have a few good recipes that are EASY.

Why is anyone bothering responding to this guy? I've never seen him make one post where he makes sense and yet people keep letting him bait them.

I've never really been 100% sure he is a troll until I saw his - Bill Clinton is alive therefore protein is bad - comment.

We can see from his profile pic what the effects of low protein are :ohwell: - that is enough argument for me to keep on with 1-1.5g/lb LBM.

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?

Vegan =/= low protein diet

I'm vegan but I still get about 30% of my calories from protein.

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.

This. Glad you saved me the bother.
Someone needs to go back and do more intense research rather than just reading a single book and proclaiming it as law.

regardless of what you think of it, the book still stands as the most comprehensive study of nutrition that's ever been done. yes, it's one book, but one book with almost a thousand citations and sources.

no other study has ever been done that comes close to matching it in terms of scope.

you don't have to believe it, and you don't have to live it, that's totally cool. it's your choice. but it has as much validity and credibility as any nutrition study that's been done to date. what does that mean? it means it's not proof, it's not a certainty, and nothing in the china study proves causation. but that's because it's impossible to prove causation in nutritional studies - but it is possible to show a very, very strong correlation, and that the china study does in spades.

Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.

Wrong. Again.
Even on the most basic level of hype.

It's nice that you can quote the book cover but the most comprehensive study it is not. Framingham, 4S, 7 Countries, Women's Health initiative are all more impactful and mostly longer term.

So your first point is incorrect - there are several studies that both match and exceed the scope. But it doesn't matter - its still a massive work and highly impressive.

But Framingham alone has led to more publications the the China Cornell Oxford.

But hey, continue with the cherry picking. I've responded to your requests for references, it's nice to see you ignore those posts.

But let's assume for a second that the hypothesis that animal protein results in cancer is correct. Let's call this H0, our test hypothesis. Clearly if a population exists that has a higher animal protein consumption than average then the cancer rates should show up as increasing. Please point me to the epidemiological study of ... say, body builders vs vegan body builders that shows that. Or just body builders versus general pop. H0 is unsupported .

Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.

I don't think that the declining health of the American population is due to excess protein consumption. I don't think the average American is eating 200+ grams of protein. When I think of the Standard American Diet, I think of a diet that consists largely of starches, oils, and sugars (pasta, pizza, deep-fried anything, chips, sodas, candy, etc). To blame the health of the American population on excess protein consumption is a leap that just doesn't even make sense to me.

the average american is eating 500% more meat than they did 100 years ago. but yes, absolutely processed foods have also played a massive role. I'm not saying it's one thing specifically or the other, but dairy, meat, wheat, processed junk, they've all contributed.

Source please.

Why have there been no 30 year studies about the affect of high protein diets on cancer/disease? Oh... wait... there have been... it's called the declining health of the American population. It's simply common sense.

I don't think that the declining health of the American population is due to excess protein consumption. I don't think the average American is eating 200+ grams of protein. When I think of the Standard American Diet, I think of a diet that consists largely of starches, oils, and sugars (pasta, pizza, deep-fried anything, chips, sodas, candy, etc). To blame the health of the American population on excess protein consumption is a leap that just doesn't even make sense to me.

the average american is eating 500% more meat than they did 100 years ago. but yes, absolutely processed foods have also played a massive role. I'm not saying it's one thing specifically or the other, but dairy, meat, wheat, processed junk, they've all contributed.

Source please.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx#26705

http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Availabily_Per_Capita_Data_System/Food_Availability/mtpcc.xls

do your sources ever talk about the actual issue you want them to cover? or do you just bank on the fact that no one actually clicks them?

we're not talking about food availability, we're talking about consumption.