Eating lots of protein as bad as smoking

Chancer3001

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10676877/High-protein-diet-as-bad-for-health-as-smoking.html

Well there ya have it. Time to stop eating protein, it's the devils food.

vitani

Back to the white bread for me, so.

Sangre

Research seems to be getting quite a bit of attention. Gives the lo-fat advocates something to rub in the lo-carb advactotes' faces. Anyone read the underlying study yet? First glance suggests if a case of the usual correlation and causation.

A_Sober_Paddy

Sangre wrote: »

Research seems to be getting quite a bit of attention. Gives the lo-fat advocates something to rub in the lo-carb advactotes' faces. Anyone read the underlying study yet? First glance suggests if a case of the usual correlation and causation.

Only read the article more of a skim thru it as I'm on the phone and on the shop floor, but the research was carried out in America who over the last number of have been putting all sorts of crap in their foods and additives which are banned the world over are used freely there too, like subway bread stateside as a chemical which is used in car tyre's and banned in Europe and oz.

Also isn't there a link between certain gene's and cancer too.

The way things are going with all this research we'll be living vitamin tablets and water to avoid cancer or other illness'

LuckyLloyd

Before I even open the article I intend to keep two things front and center:

- the media summation / headline of a medical study often misrepresents the content and conclusions of that study;
- media summations of medical studies are often a product of the massive vested interests that operate in the areas of food and general health. There are huge companies that make massive profits off offering products in keeping with the food pyramid. Those companies have lobby groups; pr consultants and fund actual research too of course;

runawaybishop

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/03/05/dietary-protein-health-and-mortality-experts-respond/

Prof Tom Sanders, Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London, said:

“The headline of the press release from the University of Southern California is running ahead of the evidence, and the comparison with smoking is really unwarranted in terms of the relative risks and the certainty of the adverse effects of smoking. The study shows a relationship with growth factor IGF-1 and cancer risk which is already known. However, the relationship between IGF-1 levels and protein intake is far more tenuous in humans. Cross-sectional data i.e. omnivores vs vegans suggest animal protein to be associated with increased IGF-1 levels but there is a lack of evidence from controlled feed studies to show that IGF-1 levels fall when animal protein intake is restricted. Much of the supporting work is based on studies in mice not humans. Dietary guidelines should not be based on animal experiments.

“Although the follow-up on the NHANES survey* shows that those with the highest reported protein intake were at greater risk of all-cause mortality, it fails to adjust for other confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, smoking, and obesity. The sample size is also modest at 6381, compared with over 448,568 in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer which only found a weak association (14% increase in risk of mortality with red meat consumption, which was more consistent for processed meat (11% increase in risk)). The European data suggest a much smaller effect than the 74% increased risk claimed in this paper.

“Also, the study does not control for the overall balance of the diet. People who eat large amounts of animal proteins often have other aspects of their diet which are imbalanced such as low intakes of fruit and vegetables. I think the next step would be to show that changing protein intake in the range of normal human intakes influences IGF-1 levels. IGF-1 levels may well be programmed in early development and dietary protein intake in adult life may well be less important in later life. This would be consistent with the observation that accelerated growth in childhood is associated with increased height and a high risk of cancer in later life.”

Chucky the tree

it fails to adjust for other confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, smoking, and obesity

Not adjusting for smoking or obesity makes this study completely flawed no?

Hanley

On protein being as deadly as smoking.

What a crock of **** this is.

I don't care about "opinions" and whether it disagrees with mine or not.

What I DO care about is how much mis-information is being spread by perceived experts (journalists).

The average person reads it in a paper, assumes it to be true, cos it couldn't be printed otherwise right?

And then goes off and eats their bodyweight in bread, gets fat, develops diabetes, has a heart attack and dies young.

This is another one of those times where my head is about to explode because the correlation/causation thing has been lost, people haven't looked at the actual study, or reviewed what any other experts have said.

So lets do that now.

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/03/05/dietary-protein-health-and-mortality-experts-respond/

Prof Tom Sanders, Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London, said:

“The headline of the press release from the University of Southern California is running ahead of the evidence, and the comparison with smoking is really unwarranted in terms of the relative risks and the certainty of the adverse effects of smoking. The study shows a relationship with growth factor IGF-1 and cancer risk which is already known.

However, the relationship between IGF-1 levels and protein intake is far more tenuous in humans. Cross-sectional data i.e. omnivores vs vegans suggest animal protein to be associated with increased IGF-1 levels but there is a lack of evidence from controlled feed studies to show that IGF-1 levels fall when animal protein intake is restricted. Much of the supporting work is based on studies in mice not humans. Dietary guidelines should not be based on animal experiments."

So… this particular study is based on humans, but most of the support off of mice. Hardly the most relevant?

…and when you broaden the sample size to include a decent amount of humans, things change. A lot.

He continues to say;

“Although the follow-up on the NHANES survey* shows that those with the highest reported protein intake were at greater risk of all-cause mortality, it fails to adjust for other confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, smoking, and obesity."

…are you ****ing ****ting me? It doesn't adjust for smoking, living in poor conditions, smoking or being obese??! COME. ON.

"The sample size is also modest at 6381, compared with over 448,568 in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer which only found a weak association (14% increase in risk of mortality with red meat consumption, which was more consistent for processed meat (11% increase in risk)). The European data suggest a much smaller effect than the 74% increased risk claimed in this paper."

So a study with a sample 80x greater suggests a 81% lesser risk.

But the one with the sensationalized headline gets the press. No ****ing surprise.

“Also, the study does not control for the overall balance of the diet. People who eat large amounts of animal proteins often have other aspects of their diet which are imbalanced such as low intakes of fruit and vegetables. I think the next step would be to show that changing protein intake in the range of normal human intakes influences IGF-1 levels. IGF-1 levels may well be programmed in early development and dietary protein intake in adult life may well be less important in later life. This would be consistent with the observation that accelerated growth in childhood is associated with increased height and a high risk of cancer in later life.”

Again. Lack of control. An absolute crap shoot from an analysis standpoint.

Dr Gunter Kuhnle, a food nutrition scientist at the University of Reading, said:
“ It is also wrong, and potentially even dangerous, to compare the effects of smoking with the effect of meat and cheese in such a way.

Sending out statements such as this can damage the effectiveness of important public health messages. They can help to prevent sound health advice from getting through to the general public. The smoker thinks: ‘why bother quitting smoking if my cheese and ham sandwich is just as bad for me?’

THIS. THIS. THIS.

Seriously. Why bother trying to be healthy at all right?

I am by no means a university trained scientist but I'm smart enough to know that there's other factors at play here.

So lets cast the science and analysis aside, and think about something much more sinister.

The media have a MASSIVELY vested interest in reporting this sort of stuff.

Firstly, it's a sensationalist piece with a catchy headline - sale€€€€€s


Secondly, there are incomprehensively large companies with vested interests who makes BILLIONS off the foods these scientists are now suggesting "safer".

Grains, the food pyramid blah blah blah.

They've PR companies, lobby groups and fund the bloody research.

One study with a small sample is a RIDICULOUS reason to take a position on something, especially when the body of evidence suggests otherwise.

Remember, we're ALL going to die of something eventually. And almost everything will have an impact somewhere else.

On the balance of things I'm going to keep eating meat, enjoying my training and getting stronger and leaner.

If anyone wants to eat plants, struggle to stay in shape and look like crap, they can be my guest.

But this is my personal choice based off an assessment of the facts I know and understand and I'm ok with any "risk" involved.

Hanley

And I'll hold my hands up and say maybe I'm not interpreting everything correctly, but I'm confident that if you put a group of people who eat real food, sleep enough and exercise against a sample of the "general" population, there's only one group dying early on average there.

COH

Havent read the whole thing but these articles always read the same for me...

1 - Eating has been linked with cancer
2 - 100% of people who eat die
3 - QED

*Author recently wrote the 'no food diet'

Alf Veedersane

Well, there goes my business idea of replacing the tobacco in cigarettes with dried tuna flakes.

Tom.D.BJJ

COH wrote: »

Havent read the whole thing but these articles always read the same for me...

1 - Eating has been linked with cancer
2 - 100% of people who eat die
3 - QED

*Author recently wrote the 'no food diet'

..but if you don't eat, you die too.

Maybe we're Sisyphus pushing that ****ing stone up the hill. It's killing us, but we keep doing it. We'll never get there, but we keep going.

rubadub

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Not adjusting for smoking or obesity makes this study completely flawed no?

Yep, I posted elsewhere-


Well at least they did say this

The apparently harmful effects of a high-protein diet might be down to one or more other substances in meat, or driven by lifestyle factors that are more common in regular red meat eaters versus vegetarians.

Its mad the way some of these studies presume the people are identical in every other way other than the one difference they look into.

They bring up smoking, I would presume a smaller % of vegetarians would smoke, as on average I would expect they are more discerning about what goes into their body. A quick search finds this
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261382.php

Vegetarian groups were inclined to be older, more highly educated, and more likely to be married. They also tended to drink less alcohol, smoke less, exercise more and be thinner.

Alf Veedersane

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

Maybe we're Sisyphus pushing that ****ing stone up the hill. It's killing us, but we keep doing it. We'll never get there, but we keep going.

That was down to his ego.

Should've picked one of the smaller Atlas stones.

Tom.D.BJJ

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

That was down to his ego.

Should've picked one of the smaller Atlas stones.

Sisyphus doesnt lift ladyweights

Alf Veedersane

There are more caveats in the published paper than you can shake a stick at.

Tefral

This is worth throwing your eye over OP ha ha ha

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/03/05/every-****ing-thing-may-pose-cancer-risk-finds-study/

Dr. Furlong confirmed that everything from picking your nose with your pinky finger to reading results from a cancer study in a newspaper can contribute to the disease.

Alf Veedersane

Of course, most of teh articles won't mention that the 'danger zone' is the population aged 50-65. Over that age and it's bad for you to stay low-protein.

The paper also mentioned that the small sample size would have inflated confidence intervals and hazard ratios.

Also "the use of a single 24 hr dietary recall followed by up to 18 years of mortality assessment has the potential of misclassifying dietary practice if the 24 hr period was not representative of a participant's normal day".

"An alternative explanation for the elevated diabetes mortality in the higher protein group is that, following a diabetes diagnosis, some individuals may switch to a diet comprised of higher protein, lower fat, and low carbohydrates".



But it sorta holds up if you're yeast or a mouse.

cletus van damme

vitani wrote: »

Back to the white bread for me, so.

not so fast solider , it's a good source of protein.

Alf Veedersane

cletus van damme wrote: »

not so fast solider , it's a good source of protein.

It's 'good' if you have any faith in the study above...

conzy

Study also doesn't consider that typically people with a high protein diet will tend to be active individuals who are training hard and will have a very healthy level of bodyfat and lower resting heart rate compared to the masses...

cletus van damme

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's 'good' if you have any faith in the study above...

old mr brennan doesn't lie.
people on the internet.....well....:pac:

Dave!

conzy wrote: »

Study also doesn't consider that typically people with a high protein diet will tend to be active individuals who are training hard and will have a very healthy level of bodyfat and lower resting heart rate compared to the masses...

How does that jive with the reported elevated cancer risk though?

Alf Veedersane

cletus van damme wrote: »

old mr brennan doesn't lie.
people on the internet.....well....:pac:

I meant it's a good source of protein because it's low protein :pac:

papu

Dave! wrote: »

How does that jive with the reported elevated cancer risk though?

Because you can find a study to back anything up.

"The researchers then plotted the resting heart rates taken at the outset of the study and found a striking connection between baseline resting heart rate and cancer mortality risk (as well as cardiovascular disease mortality risk and all-cause mortality risk)"

Gummy Panda

Hanley wrote: »

On protein being as deadly as smoking.

What a crock of **** this is....

[hanley rant]

Calm down! You will give yourself skin failure

Hanley

Statistical fact;

Almost everyone has more than the average number of feet.

the groutch

for anyone who thinks meat is bad for you

Chancer3001

That's all genes man, imagine just how good nigella would look if she age less meat.

And how much worserer Gillian would look if she wasn't so goddamn healthy.

Hanley

Danny put up a great article on it today... http://www.metabolicperfection.com/proteincancerstudy/

oscar_mike

This study is a perfect example of information bias. No doubt this research has links and or funding from the agri- industry. Did you know that mortality rate among water drinkers is 100% . Better avoid water too.

meijin

the groutch wrote: »

for anyone who thinks meat is bad for you

so... cocaine must be good then? :rolleyes:

The Caveman

So, if i were to smoke my protein powder, I will get the bet of both worlds....

cc87

Extreme points of view like this should always be disregarded I think.
What most people don't realise about studies that look at diet do not differentiate between sources of protein, so a mcdonalds burger would be considered the same as a grass fed homemade beef burger , a lamb curry takeaway made from mystery meat is considered protein. Take into account that the one study which involves humans was based in america where "meat" products could contain anything, chances are the high protein diets were just sh!te diets.

davyjose

COH wrote: »

Havent read the whole thing but these articles always read the same for me...

1 - Eating has been linked with cancer
2 - 100% of people who eat die
3 - QED

*Author recently wrote the 'no food diet'

100% of people who get Cancer have eaten. That's the real worry.

Transform

Hanley wrote: »

Danny put up a great article on it today... http://www.metabolicperfection.com/proteincancerstudy/

this ^^^^^^^^^^

Boskowski

Anything where you leave a balanced diet - as in a bit of everything - behind and focus on one thing and nothing else can't be good. We are designed to eat all sorts, our teeth, our digestive system, everything. If we were supposed to eat nothing but meat we'd have friggin fangs.

Now sure there is a bit of leeway and one can look after oneself and all that. But the fundamental premise is the above.

doccy

In case anyone is interested, I believe this is the study in question:
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00062-X#Summary.

No particular axe to grind, but it is noticeable on this tread that most posters simply dismiss the study.

LuckyLloyd

doccy wrote: »

No particular axe to grind, but it is noticeable on this tread that most posters simply dismiss the study.

Because the sample size, basic framework and ultimate conclusions of the study are all unconvincing - and a lot will have bothered to open it.

Most people in the general population will accept the study findings as represented by media because it fits with ideas they are fed regularly by the media (food pyramid good; red meat / eggs = heart disease; low fat good) - and very few will have bothered to open it.

Alf Veedersane

doccy wrote: »

In case anyone is interested, I believe this is the study in question:
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00062-X#Summary.

No particular axe to grind, but it is noticeable on this tread that most posters simply dismiss the study.

The quality of the data used to come to the 'findings' outlined in the study is poor. The authors have even flagged its limitations.

Chancer3001

To be considered eating a ;"high protein diet" in this study, it was if over 20% of your calories came from protein...

I would have thought most people would get 20% from protein??

conzy

Chancer3001 wrote: »

To be considered eating a ;"high protein diet" in this study, it was if over 20% of your calories came from protein...

I would have thought most people would get 20% from protein??

Not a hope...

I'd say the average person's protein intake looks something like this:

150ml milk on cereal in the morning
1-2 slices of ham in a sandwich at lunch
A 125g yoghurt at lunch
1 chicken fillet or 150g of mince etc at dinner time

Thats ~50g of protein so 200 calories.. And lets say they are eating 2500 calories thats 8% of their diet.

Now they will get some more protein from secondary sources like grains / legumes etc but it will be minimal