High protein diet may raise heart failure risk...

Women over the age of 50 who follow a high-protein diet could be at higher risk for heart failure, especially if much of their protein comes from meat, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2016.




Researchers evaluated the self-reported daily diets of 103,878 women between the ages of 50 and 79 years, from 1993 to 1998. A total of 1,711 women developed heart failure over the study period. The rate of heart failure for women with higher total dietary protein intake was significantly higher compared to the women who ate less protein daily or got more of their protein from vegetables.

This stands out to me because I would think the source of protein is important. Diets high in meat are typically also high in sodium (which is not mentioned in this article), but does greatly influence heart failure risk. It doesn't mention the source of meat (beef, pork, chicken, fish) which again could influence the outcome.

They don't mention correcting for saturated and trans fats which are likely lower in the higher veg diet, nor for antioxidants and other micronutrients known to benefit the cardiovascular system that would likely be higher in the higher veg diet.

Although they do mention looking at some of the traditional markers for coronary artery disease, they don't mention if they measured vascular flexibility. Decreased vascular flexibility is known to make both acute and chronic cardiovascular events more severe and has been correlated to higher consumption of trans fats and lower consumption of certain antioxidants and micronutrients.

I'm not sure how any conclusion can be made regarding protein specifically since there are known confounding variables that don't appear to be addressed.

This article is very inconclusive to me.. there is a lot of gray matter and this just lacks substance.

There quite a lot of variables between women years 50 - 79...

RoxieDawn wrote: »

This article is very inconclusive to me.. there is a lot of gray matter and this just lacks substance.

There quite a lot of variables between women years 50 - 79...

I agree...this article is a vague, hot mess and there is nothing to dig into. Very poorly done, even for an overview.

"While women who ate higher amounts of vegetable protein appeared to have less heart failure, the association was not significant when adjusted for body mass."

What association is being referred to here? What becomes "less significant" when adjusted for...weight, I assume? Are they saying if people are fat, they're still going to have heart failure regardless of diet? What about people who are skinny who eat more meat? What are the % heart failure for each group, subdivided into normal, overweight, and obese BMIs? What is even going on here? The entire article elicits the same frustration from me.

Maybe they don't want to let the cat out of the bag with the upcoming peer-reviewed article, but in the meantime this vague article is good for fearmongering and political axe grinding, unconstrained by actual reviewable evidence. On the one hand, I don't want to die...on the other hand, MUH GAINZ!!!

I found this statement in an article referencing this.. it states

"explaining that animal proteins can turn to toxic molecules, which can in turn affect the function of the heart's left ventricle and lead to heart failure. They can also increase the body mass index, a known risk factor for heart failure."...

Where is the link to the study that says animal proteins can turn to toxic molecules? Dr Google is not brining up anything.. I guess I keep digging..

Perhaps I can find more on this "Dr. Mohamad Barbour, an internist at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island"

I would think men and women would all be at risk and surely controlled studies would be readily available.

Thankfully I'm not a "high" protein eater anyway. Personally I don't think I need anymore protein than the daily recommended amount for a woman who doesn't do weight lifting.

lkpducky wrote: »

Found the abstract presented at the conference

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/134/Suppl_1/A11363

"An inverse association was found between higher intakes of energy adjusted vegetable protein and HF although this association wasn’t statically significant if the association was adjusted to BMI and diet quality."

What do they mean by diet quality? I wish the full poster were also available.

I would like to know this too, but I think that the most likely answer is that high protein diets eaten by overweight older women are probably correlated more with low-vegetable diets more than intentionally high protein diets.

My understanding is a low quality diet is one where there are more calories and fewer other nutrients, or where there is little variety. A "balanced" diet with vitamins, fiber, vegetables and fruits of different colors, good fats, proteins from various sources would be considered a high quality diet.

Also if it was about protein in general, then a good study would use the same food source. Well say one group eating low protein mostly plant based, one group eating high protein mostly plant based, one group low protein meat based, one group high protein meat based. Each group eating the same amount of calories, doing the same amount of exercise and all being in the same BMI range. Also living the same lifestyle e.g. no smoking, drugs etc. Having hormones all around the same level like cortisol.. anyone having anything abnormal being excluded. Then the four groups could be compared to see if there is a significant risk of heart disease in any of the groups compared to any other. But of course this study would be hard to do. But the other one is too far away from this, it seems like their participants are all random, but I cant see the information about them. So I dont think it's good research anyway no.

yeah sure, in the example I gave that uses 4 groups, if there was a lower risk associated with vegetables then the group eating low amounts of protein from plant based sources and the group eating high amounts of protein from plant based sources would both be shown to have lower risk, and the other two groups low protein from meat and high protein from meat would be shown to have higher risk. If it was a risk due to protein then the high protein from plants and high protein from meats would be shown to have higher risk..

What these studies seem to say to me is that there is no evidence to what they claimed
"the association was not significant when adjusted for body mass."
"this association wasn’t statically significant if the association was adjusted to BMI and diet quality."

But they dont want to control these variables so that they can keep on getting paid to produce studies which suggest that animal protein is the problem. That's what it seems to look like to me.

Not only does the "study" leave so many variables in play that it renders it useless (any conclusions made on the results are 100% conjecture) but the following quote from the article completely contradicts the conclusion that a diet high in meat protein is the culprit:

While women who ate higher amounts of vegetable protein appeared to have less heart failure, the association was not significant when adjusted for body mass.

ETA: In other words, "when veggie eaters are just as fat as meat eaters, they're just as likely to suffer heart failure." So, as is oft repeated, the problem is obesity, not individual dietary factors.

brentfostwood904 wrote: »

yeah sure, in the example I gave that uses 4 groups, if there was a lower risk associated with vegetables then the group eating low amounts of protein from plant based sources and the group eating high amounts of protein from plant based sources would both be shown to have lower risk, and the other two groups low protein from meat and high protein from meat would be shown to have higher risk. If it was a risk due to protein then the high protein from plants and high protein from meats would be shown to have higher risk..

What these studies seem to say to me is that there is no evidence to what they claimed
"the association was not significant when adjusted for body mass."
"this association wasn’t statically significant if the association was adjusted to BMI and diet quality."

But they dont want to control these variables so that they can keep on getting paid to produce studies which suggest that animal protein is the problem. That's what it seems to look like to me.

The bolded--exactly. How many blogs have picked this up and are diligently hammering away that meat eaters are going to be found sprawled dead next to their beds at a tragic age due to their horrible, horrible, evil habits. I call shenanigans.