Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140304125639.htm

at and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking
Date:
March 4, 2014
Source:
University of Southern California
Summary:
A high-protein diet during middle age makes you nearly twice as likely to die and four times more likely to die of cancer, but moderate protein intake is good for you after 65. But how much protein we should eat has long been a controversial topic -- muddled by the popularity of protein-heavy diets such as Paleo and Atkins. Before this study, researchers had never shown a definitive correlation between high protein consumption and mortality risk.

yeah i saw this study blow up on reddit. what's the deal with this? high protein diet apparently is "as bad as smoking cigarettes" and it's only animal protein that does this, plant protein did not have the same effect.

i saw some news story where this vegetarian lady who was married to this dude, she looked about 20 years younger than him and she never touched animal protein or anything like that. i'm wondering how good it is to get protein only from plant sources though, it seems to be a bad decision around here from what i've read from anthony and CS.

have you guys seen this study, any thoughts on it or why it came out like this? maybe a lack of carbs and too much protein could cause the negative effects?

I don't like this study for a few reasons.

Number one, they are making a classic mistake of overextending the results. The study correlates all-cause and cancer related deaths with IGF-1 concentrations, and because increasing concentrations of IGF-1 were correlated to increased protein intake, they're making it a case of (A) > (B) > (C) so (A) > (C).

The problem here is that protein is not the only dietary factor involved in the insulin/IGF-1 system. So the main issue becomes (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see where this was accounted for) that this study did not also account for the other contributors to the participant's diet.

The animal proteins are more insulinotropic (and thus raise IGF-1) primarily because they are higher in levels of the amino acids arginine, leucine, and phenylalanine. But other foods have a contribution to insulin, and the contributions are complicated when considering varied diets containing varying degrees of the different food types. The study considered middle age to be 50-65 (if I'm not mistaken) and the statistics clearly show a trend for weight gain all the way through this age group. Thus an already insulin resistant state (or relatively moreso) could be expected to begin with.

High glycemic carbohydrate of all types increase insulin/IGF-1. These high-glycemic carbs also increase the free fraction (unbound) IGF-1 concentration. Wheat gluten is very insulin stimulating, which increases IGF-1. Certain fats are also IGF-1 stimulatory.

Lastly, it also doesn't account for the differential exposure to recombinant growth hormones through commercially grown animals. rBST is present in a high percentage of most commercially available animal meats and the levels of IGF-1 in these meats is higher.

Soy protein has been associated with increased IGF-1 levels in humans. The major difference here being that the isoflavones are tumor suppressing.

So the problems with this study can be summarized:

• Does not account for the IGF-1 effects of other dietary factors, particularly the carbohydrate consumption, and wheat contribution to the diet, both of which are significant for understanding total IGF-1 levels.
  
• Totally ignores the cultural food grouping trends that might cause animal meats to be paired with other insulinotropic foods, and the proportions aren't considered.
  
• Does not account for the insulin status of the participants individually or as a mean for the age group, and how this contributes to the food effects of IGF-1.
  
• Does not account for the recombinant bovine somatropin in commercial meats, and it follows it doesn't separate individuals based on whether they are selectively eating organically raised, grass-fed animal meats.
  
• Ignores the fact that an increase in animal meat in the diet might displace plant food from the diet, such that an increase in cancer risk may be real but could be considered equally as a "lack of plant food" in the same diets rather than demonizing meat as a mono-food. In other words, its not accounting for behavior here in which a balanced diet probably better offsets the individual tumor promoting/inhibiting activities of each food therein.
  
• No account for total macronutrient make up of meals or averages for trends.
  

Overall I think its mistaken to selectively demonize animal meats as if we eat inside of a vacuum. Its ignoring that other macronutrients like carbohydrate, in plant form can cause an increase in IGF-1 also. Animal and plant foods alike have cancer promoting properties when taken individually. Its the result of a balanced diet that the factors intermingle for the best effect, which is probably why plant proteins and the host of antioxidant compounds that come packaged with them attenuates the insulin response. Its ignoring basic concepts of food chains. Of course we wouldn't expect the insulin-protective chemicals found in plants to come from animal meats. But that's why we don't eat all animal meats all the time. This says nothing about the superior quality of animal proteins versus plants in the human diet. 

So instead of choosing to call out protein and give it a bad reputation in a show of poor science, this could have easily been better represented as a case in which an unbalanced diet is troublesome. It should also acknowledge that these interrelationships can't even be considered without acknowledging the envrionment. These people were in their fifties for the most part. Their insulin sensitivity, weight, fitness habits, eating habits all contribute heavily to how the insulin effects of protein would alter mortality. When we consider how a food is effecting mortality, we can't ignore an individuals' predisposition toward handling that food. Its like saying any food with sugar contributes to all-cause mortality in diabetic patients!

"Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between intake of calories from protein on subsequent all-cause, CVD, cancer, and diabetes mortality, with the latter three run using competing-risks structures. Next we tested the interaction between age and protein consumption on the association with mortality. Based on these results, we categorized subjects into two age groups (50–65 years and 66+ years), which were used in the remainder of the analyses."

The study authors did receive data on carbohydrate and fat consumption.

They just didn't include that data in their models. And that's where this study fails. Just consider the implications of only using levels of protein in the diet, and how this could ignore displacement of other nutrients which have profound effects on tumor promotion and mortality. Its actually kind of ridiculous.

If this study is worrying anyone, seriously throw it out. Toss it. Human beings are well adapted to consumption of animal protein, and the body has all of the mechanisms for handling cancerous cells. You are forming them regularly. The key is the environment has to be healthy. Sure if you are an overweight, insulin resistant 55-year-old eating 20% protein in a diet otherwise consisting of wheat-filled processed bullshit, yes you might have a problem. But protein won't be the only one, and probably the least significant. That's why focusing on protein was ridiculous. Isolating one nutrient out of a complex set of interactions that effect the variable in question is the definition of myopia and "headline" science.

Take from this study just this: we don't eat any food in isolation. A balance of animal and plant foods is probably ideal for optimal health and cancer avoidance. Also that insulin is only as bad as the cell's ability to "hear" its signal.

And to your story Sanderson, plant foods do confer a lot of benefits if the goal is to look/feel young. The problem is this study is essentially "marketed" to be divisive in the animal-plant battle. Getting the benefits from plant foods doesn't mean negating the equal benefits of animal foods. That's my two cents.

When it comes to studies on the effects of individual foods on variables as multi-factorial as mortality or cancer development, you've got to have incredibly high standards for the data that is collected, how its collected, and the models. Unfortunately most studies of this kind don't meet those standards and are pretty useless. But dammit if they aren't great for marketing blog posts and diet books. I've spent a bunch of time ranting and blowing hot air, when its really sufficient to have just said: they aren't accounting for the numerous confounding variables.

paleo is actually not supposed to be high protein but high in vegetables and fruit.

I'm slammed with school work so I really didn't have time to indulge in any of the material but those are some sweeping claims really and pretty vague and broad parameters. Also, if indeed true it probably means I won't be around for long because not only do I load up on cheese and meat I smoke as well.   

Plant based is obvious

but you need good fats & protein

and need to know what the cow eats.

M

thanks for the replies all, some really good information posted that takes a lot of wind away from this "new study"

Do not listen to any junk studies about what food is good & bad for you.

You know what is good for you? That what makes you feel good. In a few weeks there will be another study with basically the opposite conclusions. I don't even pay attention to these bullshit publications anymore, they aren't worth the paper they are printed on (or bits on the internet).

Get about 80-120 grams of quality animal protein (I like raw dairy and grass-fed meat) and stop worrying about the rest.