Health warning about diets high in animal proteins

[Jingthing]

FYI:

Suggest reading the entire article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/too-much-protein-could-lead-to-early-death-study-says/2014/03/04/0af0603e-a3b5-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

U.S. and Italian researchers tracked thousands of adults for nearly two decades and found that those who ate a diet high in animal proteins during middle age were four times more likely to die of cancer than contemporaries with low-protein diets -- a risk factor comparable to smoking. They also were several times more likely to die of diabetes, and nearly twice as likely to die in general.

...

Exactly how much protein belongs in the average diet has proven a topic of perpetual debate, one complicated by popular diets such as Atkins and Paleo, which rely heavily on animal-based proteins to help people shed weight. While such diets might succeed in that short-term goal, Longo said they could be leading to worse health down the road.

I know many here are proponents of no carb or radically low carb diet programs usually meaning very high intake of animal proteins.

Personally, I think both are too radical though moderately low carb makes sense to me.

[robertthebruce]

Thankfully i have been ''Vegetarian'' for over 30 years, so it should not affect me..

Always a great believer ''You are what you ''EAT''...

Thats my two cents worth..

[hanno]

Ah well, and another study will be along shortly claiming exactly the opposite. I believe in a balanced diet, physical activity, and not keeping up with the latest fad started by some 3rd-rate Hollywood starlet.

[Jingthing]

Ah well, and another study will be along shortly claiming exactly the opposite. I believe in a balanced diet, physical activity, and not keeping up with the latest fad started by some 3rd-rate Hollywood starlet.

I agree that following diet fads is silly. However, I think this study is credible. It is about an extreme, too much animal protein for certain age groups. Not about cutting out all animal proteins which presents benefits and downsides in itself and is a separate issue.

On the obesity thing, as most of us know once you've reached a certain higher level of overweight, there is no magic bullet and solutions are not easy or done with short term plans.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Jingthing

[hanno]

On the obesity thing, as most of us know once you've reached a certain higher level of overweight, there is no magic bullet and solutions are not easy or done with short term plans.

I have never been obese in my life. But it is getting harder to keep the weight off as I get older.

[Jingthing]

On the obesity thing, as most of us know once you've reached a certain higher level of overweight, there is no magic bullet and solutions are not easy or done with short term plans.

I have never been obese in my life. But it is getting harder to keep the weight off as I get older.

Good for you.

Yes metabolism tends to slow with age. Good luck.

[h90]

not worth the paper.....

these who eat a lot animal protein in middle age are most probably these who don't take care for their health.

Most probably are in the same group the most overweight, the most smoker and drinker.

In general most studies published in newspapers aren't worth the paper. Today we read that vegetarian are more healthy, tomorrow we read that they die 20 years earlier. Today we read that much meat is unnatural and we get a million different problems from it. Tomorrow we read that eating only meat is the most natural and it will cure almost every problem....

There is one famous study that clearly shows that large amounts of alcohol makes you live longer in compare to not drinking.

Reason was: it was made in an area where drinking daily is the culture and almost everyone does it, beside people who have some medical reasons. So in the alcohol group you had 99% healthy people and in the non alc group you had 50+ % ill people, who than of course live shorter...

[Jingthing]

Evaluate the info as you wish. In my view, there is a "true believer" aspect to people dedicated to the idea of no or super low carbs.

[rijb]

Maybe, maybe not... High-protein diets: Bad for the middle-aged, good for the elderly

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-high-protein-diets-age-20140304,0,7389424.story#axzz2v41fQhTE

[Taggart]

Anything I've read about longevity in various parts of the world over the years, the elders seem to be on a high carb, mostly plant based diet.

[Jingthing]

Carbs! Don't be scared.

"There is a huge myth that carbs are bad," says Jenny Giblin, a certified nutrition coach and psychotherapist in New York and Hawaii. "It’s not about restricting them altogether, but choosing the right ones."

http://www.livestrong.com/slideshow/1009717-12-health-trends-not-healthy/#slide=10

Too much protein? Could be!

http://www.livestrong.com/slideshow/1009717-12-health-trends-not-healthy/#slide=12

A high-protein diet has been linked with kidney disease, kidney stones, osteoporosis and forms of cancer, says the PCRM. Consumed in excess, protein can also cause weight gain and leave little room in your diet for other healthy foods, such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Jingthing

[JSixpack]

I wouldn't pay that much attn to the "study." Jingthing, you tend to accept any article you like uncritically. Recall the survey that included only those disciplined enough to adhere to the sweat-and-starve method. From that you concluded sweat-and-starve works and is best for long-term. Of course it can work for some. Any diet can find those who swear by it. Basically, as you've admitted, you don't like low carb, partly because you're still addicted to carbs, and you see what you want to see to justify your carbs, as so many do here. You also don't really understand low carb. It isn't necessarily a high protein diet.

These weren't low carb dieters by any means.

What were the basic results?

On average, the participants consumed 1,823 calories over the day:

51% from carbohydrates
33% from fat
16% from protein (11% from animal protein).

What kind of fat? How about the other factors? Looks like "people eating high carb diets and also eating a lot of meat might have higher risk in some cases."

Go read these carefully to get another perspective:

http://jasoncholewa.com/2014/03/05/high-protein-diets-cause-cancer-study-says/
http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/03/06/my-take-on-the-recent-high-protein-diet-as-bad-a-smoking-study/
https://www.dietdoctor.com/dangerous-eat-meat-age-65

I think there'll be more replies; it's early yet.

robblok will tell you not to pay too much attn to surveys anyway. Correlation isn't causation, quite true.

Edited March 8, 2014 by JSixpack

[Jingthing]

I have no idea what "sweat and starve" study you are talking about. Did you just make that up?

Also, please back off with the personal insults and assumptions about what I am or am not "addicted" to.

It's really funny how people on certain kinds of "diet" plans act psychologically like religious fundamentalist true believers. Any challenge to their belief system and they turn hostile.

Also keep in mind, this is not only about weight control but also, and arguably much more important: HEALTH.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[JSixpack]

I have no idea what "sweat and starve" study you are talking about. Did you just make that up?

What a short memory. Here you go, pal: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/696288-major-evidence-that-low-carb-diets-not-needed-for-long-term-weight-lossmaintenance-success/

Hell, it was your own topic. You might read through my responses there to find it ripped apart. Again.

Also, please back off with the personal insults and assumptions about what I am or am not "addicted" to.

It's really funny how people on certain kinds of "diet" plans act psychologically like religious fundamentalist true believers. Any challenge to their belief system and they turn hostile.

Also keep in mind, this is not only about weight control but also, and arguably much more important: HEALTH.

Me, I'm quite open-minded; I do consider all sides; and I freely admitted all diet plans have their success stories, as above. Nor am I in the least hostile. I read your study but then I read other studies questioning it--unlike yourself, who immediately took it as gospel. Why would you fall into the misinterpretation that the study necessarily had anything to do with low carb diets?

If your study was a really good study, I'd be happy to concede that, no problem. So I'm hardly a religionist. But I'd say most all of the sweat-and-starve diet advocates here do tend to be religionists as they won't read anything contrary; and if they do, it won't have the slightest effect; they just keep repeating the same old outdated dogma. I speak as one who once followed exactly that diet, successfully; I'm quite familiar with it and glad I was able to move on, after serious research.

Trouble is, sweat-and-starve (exercise while restricting all calories) is too difficult for most people, as it is for you I guess; hence widely knowing about it hasn't brought down obesity rates (hence improved health). What I like about low carb is that it's relatively easy, it's fastest, and it does have the best long-term results as measured objectively among a sample that included it among other diets. While it's doing its thing, the bloodwork also improves markedly to safe levels. It's been working for me nicely and a few others here I've been able to influence. This is not to ignore that all metabolisms are different.

I'm quite aware it's about health ultimately. Given that concern, before I worried about my protein intake, I'd be worried about my carb intake and reducing it to help lose weight and so improve my health with concomitant better numbers across the board. I'd first get all the numbers into comfortably safe levels. For the average person, following the standard diet (See Death By Food Pyramid), protein amounts are the least of their worries.

So try to keep things in proper perspective. In this case you can start by reading over the references I so generously provided for you.

Edited March 8, 2014 by JSixpack

[Jingthing]

I think people who manage to lose weight and hope to keep it off must be VIGILANT for life because such people are not the same biologically as people naturally lower weight. That does mean fewer calories and some regular at least moderate exercise. There is no way around that. Even surgical methods basically are done to accomplish similar effects -- reduced calorie intake compared to naturally lower weight people.

Sweat and starve? You are tripping.

I have posted many many times that I DO NOT believe in radically calories reduced starvation/crash diets!

Eat too few calories and your body thinks you are starving, making further progress after an initial spurt almost impossible without LITERALLY starving.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[JSixpack]

Sweat and starve? You are tripping.

Why I gotta spoonfeed you? Here's what YOU quoted so approvingly and entirely uncritically from the study of a sweat-and-starve group only:

There was much more similarity in the strategies used

for weight-loss maintenance. We found four strategies that

were common to a large proportion of NWCR participants.

These were: 1) eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet [STARVE];

4) engaging in high levels of physical activity. [SWEAT]

Now go look at the numbers in the study and you'll see that the average fatso is just NOT going to be able to do it. YES, that's going be considered starving (almost always unsustainable) and unquestionably is sweating (ditto).

Me, I don't count calories and I engage in only modest levels of physical activity. Yes, I'd get fat if I didn't follow a diet of some kind. Most people will. Low carb takes me very little effort--unlike low calorie diets. I don't need to be vigilant; it's just automatic, since I no longer crave carbs. I get all of those I need from veggies.

Stop wasting my time and think for yourself.

Edited March 8, 2014 by JSixpack

[Jingthing]

Again, I didn't say sweat and starve.

That's your game.

Reduced calorie intake (compared to what naturally lower weight people can handle without weight gain) is NOT the same thing as starving.

Sweating ... yes ... is often involved in exercise. Duh! Yes, of course people hoping to maintain weight loss DO need to exercise. That can even mean just walking. That won't involve much sweating unless it is very HOT. Your choice.

As far as success rates and sustainability, actually there is no magic formula that provides reasonably statistically high success rates (short of surgery) to address obesity.

But some tactics have better odds than others.

Waste your time? Then don't reply to me, that would be great, but if you are going to keep hurling personal insults at me based on gross distortions of my opinions, I rebut them.

Another point, for people with very minor overweight, like 10 pounds in an adult, I personally doubt they have the same biological differences from naturally "normal" weight people do that obese people do, especially long term obesity.

My focus posting on this forum has been about people with major, long term issues, not people with minor cosmetic issues with more vanity than health concerns.

Cheers.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Jingthing

[robertthebruce]

For 90 percent of my life, i was stick thin, then when i started to get older, i noticed it was harder to loose weight, and am now, watching most stuff that i eat, and also drinks.. Coca Cola was my big thing, and now i cut it out, unless i am out on the ''Razz''.. , thats the only time i drink it with my other stuff.

So it looks as though i will be like this for the rest of my life, but thats fine my choice, as i do try to keep healthy and i do find exercise is a great way of keeping in shape...

all the best folks...

Cheers

[robertthebruce]

For 90 percent of my life, i was stick thin, then when i started to get older, i noticed it was harder to loose weight, and am now, watching most stuff that i eat, and also drinks.. Coca Cola was my big thing, and now i cut it out, unless i am out on the ''Razz''.. , thats the only time i drink it with my other stuff.

So it looks as though i will be like this for the rest of my life, but thats fine my choice, as i do try to keep healthy and i do find exercise is a great way of keeping in shape...

all the best folks...

Cheers

[I Like Thai]

Thankfully i have been ''Vegetarian'' for over 30 years, so it should not affect me..

Always a great believer ''You are what you ''EAT''...

Thats my two cents worth..

Are you a vegetable ?

[robblok]

Thankfully i have been ''Vegetarian'' for over 30 years, so it should not affect me..

Always a great believer ''You are what you ''EAT''...

Thats my two cents worth..

Are you a vegetable ?

I think i should start to consume lion meat though I heard predator meat is not tasty

[JSixpack]

Again, I didn't say sweat and starve.

And I didn't say that you said that.

But that's essentially what the article says that you earlier quoted approvingly and uncritically with a "Hold the presses."

My post had two points, both of which you're ignoring, namely that the article itself isn't compelling and that you accept articles, such as this one, uncritically that you just happen to like and then use them to mount a spurious attack on low carb because you don't like low carb. The studies themselves didn't address low carb diets.

My points don't concern themselves w/ whatever myriad opinions you may have made at various times in your other 49,000 posts. I don't follow them.

Reduced calorie intake (compared to what naturally lower weight people can handle without weight gain) is NOT the same thing as starving.

But those who attempt to follow the calorie-restriction method will tell you that it feels that way, because they're always hungry. Hence the low success rate. And it's authoritatively referred to using the starvation concept anyway. So, there's ample justification for using that term whether you like it or not.

Until the 1970s, low-calorie diets were referred to in medical literature as "semi-starvation" diets. After all, what's expected on these diets is that we eat half or even less of what we'd typically prefer to eat. But we can't be expected to semi-starve ourselves for more than a few months, let alone indefinitely, which is what such diets implicitly require if we are to maintain whatever weight loss we may initially experience. Very low-calorie diets are known as "fasts" because they allow barely any food at all. Again, it's hard to imagine fasting for more than a few weeks, maybe a month or two at best, and certainly we cannot keep it up forever once our excess fat is lost.

. . .

When calorie-restricted diets fail, as they typically do (and the same can be said of exercise programs), the reason is that they restrict something other than the foods that make us fat. They restrict fat and protein, which have no long-term effect on insulin and fat deposition but are required for energy and for the rebuilding of cells and tissues. They starve the entire body of nutrients and energy, or semi-starve it, rather than targeting the fat tissue specifically. Any weight that might be lost can be maintained only as long as the dieter can withstand the semi-starvation, and even then the fat cells will be working to recoup the fat they're losing, just as the muscle cells are trying to obtain protein to rebuild and maintain their function, and the total amount of energy the dieter expends will be reduced to compensate.

. . .

If insulin remains elevated, the fat isn't available. Nor is protein, which our cells can also use for fuel if necessary: insulin also works to keep the protein stored away in the muscles. We can't use the carbohydrates we've stored in the liver and muscle tissue, either, because the insulin keeps that supply locked up as well.

As a result, the cells find themselves starved for fuel, and we quite literally feel their hunger. Either we eat sooner than we otherwise would have or we eat more when we do eat, or both. As I said earlier, anything that makes us fatter will make us overeat in the process. That's what insulin does.

--Gary Taubes, Why We Get Fat

Sweating ... yes ... is often involved in exercise. Duh! Yes, of course people hoping to maintain weight loss DO need to exercise.

They don't, really. It's somewhat helpful but very desirable for many other reasons that do help reduce mortality rates. That's why I myself go to the effort of staying in shape. Glad you've come around to admit the sweat, and I don't see why you shouldn't just go ahead start using starve-and-sweat.

The dieters in the article you loved didn't exercise moderately; no long slow walks: no, they were doing high levels of physical activity. That's what's demanded by the ol' calories in/calories out--because it's hard to burn many calories at all without high levels of physical activity.

And this particular study doesn't talk about the exercise, which is one of its flaws. People in the study weren't necessarily dieting or exercising at all. Low carb diet advocates do always recommend exercise, however. And lots of veggies.

Edited March 8, 2014 by JSixpack

[Jingthing]

I am against radical diets. Low carb with lots of veggies is close to how I am eating. People eating mostly beef mayo and eggs I think are hurting themselves.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[h90]

Thankfully i have been ''Vegetarian'' for over 30 years, so it should not affect me..

Always a great believer ''You are what you ''EAT''...

Thats my two cents worth..

Are you a vegetable ?

I think i should start to consume lion meat though I heard predator meat is not tasty

Well I am sure I won't come somewhere close to your kitchen.....As well I read human meat doesn't taste well, as well I worked a lot in labs so eating me might not be healthy...

[hanno]

I am against radical diets. Low carb with lots of veggies is close to how I am eating. People eating mostly beef mayo and eggs I think are hurting themselves.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And I eat high carbs (veggies are high in carbs, actually). I have to, I run anywhere from 40 to 60 miles a week; couldn't do it without lots of carbs. What I have done is cut back a lot on meat and beer (as I sit here sipping a brew. It's the Nash Hash so no diet this weekend).

[kurnell]

I eat a balanced diet also and choose something from the four major food groups, hamburgers, french fries, coffee and doughnuts.

[hanno]

I eat a balanced diet also and choose something from the four major food groups, hamburgers, french fries, coffee and doughnuts.

You forgot the cigarettes

[h90]

I eat a balanced diet also and choose something from the four major food groups, hamburgers, french fries, coffee and doughnuts.

Actually nothing wrong with coffee....as long as it is black coffee without sugar you can drink as much as you want (from the point of loosing weight, actually caffeine helps, don't know if there are any bad side effects if you drink unusual large amounts)

[Jingthing]

I eat a balanced diet also and choose something from the four major food groups, hamburgers, french fries, coffee and doughnuts.

Actually nothing wrong with coffee....as long as it is black coffee without sugar you can drink as much as you want (from the point of loosing weight, actually caffeine helps, don't know if there are any bad side effects if you drink unusual large amounts)

Hold on there.

Definitely black coffee is wonderful.

But too much?

Perhaps not.

Experts warned that drinking five or more cups a day increased the amount of fat stored in the abdomen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10085206/Regular-coffee-drinkers-at-increased-risk-of-weight-gain.html

[h90]

I eat a balanced diet also and choose something from the four major food groups, hamburgers, french fries, coffee and doughnuts.

Actually nothing wrong with coffee....as long as it is black coffee without sugar you can drink as much as you want (from the point of loosing weight, actually caffeine helps, don't know if there are any bad side effects if you drink unusual large amounts)

Hold on there.

Definitely black coffee is wonderful.

But too much?

Perhaps not.

Experts warned that drinking five or more cups a day increased the amount of fat stored in the abdomen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10085206/Regular-coffee-drinkers-at-increased-risk-of-weight-gain.html

Interesting!

I only thought for the caffeine, but not for the other things in the coffee....