WHAT? Too much protein in middle age 'as bad as smoking'

I'm curious about protein's role in longevity (or the reverse) as well. The studies using intermittent fasting in rats and primates mention protein. See the BBC special Eat Fast and Live Longer.

Edit to add what I put in another post on this topic: A cynical part of me just laughs and says hey, I wouldn't tell a victim of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings that all their woes will be cured by eating less protein. With all the crap in our air, food, and water, why the heck would I be fool enough to think I'll live so much as a day longer by eating less protein? Or less carbs? Or more? Or a specific carb/protein/fat ratio? Or by eating fortified pond scum? Or the sparkle trailings of my little ponies? Part of me can't help but think all this is utter fiction, and that we'd do far better to get together and do whatever we have to do in order to clean up our environment instead of grasping at some magical food ratios for longevity.

Just saw this published in Medical News today. Following this study's recommendation will have you switch to plant protein and reduce its intake significantly.

Would that even work well anymore for all the lifting many of us do?

Any counter thoughts or studies?


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/273533.php#.U6M63nqucgg.facebook

Assuming this is the study I think it is, they showed an increased mortality rate from high protein intakes for ages 50 to 65 but a decreased mortality rate for high protein intakes for people older than 65. That would strike me as damn suspicious.

Additionally, dietary recall can be quite problematic in some regards with respect to accuracy.

They really don't know. It's all a big guessing game. First it was fat, then cholesterol, then sugar. Now pesticides, GMO's, food additives, overeating carbs. Why not blame protein for a while?

Just saw this published in Medical News today. Following this study's recommendation will have you switch to plant protein and reduce its intake significantly.

Would that even work well anymore for all the lifting many of us do?

Any counter thoughts or studies?


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/273533.php#.U6M63nqucgg.facebook

Well the first study in that article mentions Valter Longo -- who has studied fasting for longevity and how it "flips a regenerative switch."
http://www.newser.com/story/188321/to-regenerate-immune-system-fast-for-3-days.html ---- he is studying people
The other guy, Stephen Simpson, is showing that counting calories might be less important than watching protein --http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00065-5 --- His work is done with rats

Neither scientist is making recommendations. They are merely doing studies.
Journalists are like television guys -- trying to get us excited so that we pay attention to them.

Re lifting:
"Longevity and health were optimized when protein was replaced with carbohydrate to limit compensatory feeding for protein and suppress protein intake. "
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00065-5

But again, these are scientists talking to each other and not making recommendations yet.

This study was definitely not perfect (are they ever?) but here's my med student two cents:

for the vast majority of people, higher protein intake = eating much more meat, and likely those who eat the most meat also eat the most red meat, which study after study has linked to heart disease & mortality. It's not in the news anymore because it's old news that nobody wants to hear, especially with Paleo being so popular right now. Yes, there is speculation these days that the associations between saturated fat and heart disease MAY not be as strong as we once thought, but it drives me crazy when people take that to mean that red meat isn't bad for you anymore. By all means eat your steak, but maybe once a week - in moderation, like so many delicious things.

Also, those who eat more meat in a typical American diet are probably likely to eat fewer veggies & healthy fats. That wasn't addressed. Yes, the patient base for this study was sedentary, but so are the vast, vast majority of middle-aged Americans. If you're looking to apply this to bodybuilding, I can see the issue with that comparison feeling like a bit of a stretch. However we do know for sure that very high protein intake for decades is very taxing on the kidneys, though designing a study to look at that is quite difficult. It's been widely disseminated that the American diet contains way more protein than we need. The current body of nutrition research, while far from perfect obviously, all points to the fact that people need to start thinking critically about any diet that skews your macros too much (like Paleo/Atkins/keto). But all of us at MFP knew that already, right?