10 ms·

Animal protein intake is inversely associated with mortality in older adults

79 points by rsj_hn 5y ago

throwaway_2009 5y ago
The idea that a wholly vegetarian or vegan diet is healthier than sometimes eating meat is extremely questionable. It completely flies in the face of common sense and only really makes any headway at all due to the "everyone should do less" variety of environmentalism.
- mint2 5y ago
  The population used for this study doesn’t seem ideal for studying the impact of being vegetarian > A prospective cohort study including 1,139 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 75 years, 56% women) living in Tuscany, Italy, followed for 20 years
iammjm 5y ago
'inversely associated' means people who ate more of it lived longer or the opposite? I'm hella confused
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  Double negatives are hard to read but yeah more meat less chance of death.
  - x0rx0r 5y ago
    woohoooo more steak and burgers for me!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - edoceo 5y ago
    Isn't there like a 100% chance of death?
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      > Isn't there like a 100% chance of death? Not, just 99.99999%. Clonal cell lines are basically immortal. (And the chance of death at a given age is not 100% necessarily)
    - robobenjie 5y ago
      I mean only 93% of humans have died so who knows for certain.... https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/ https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- generalizations 5y ago
  "inverse association" is a standard way of saying that when X goes up or down, Y does the opposite.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I have never seen mortality used to mean lifespan. I assume it is a clickbait title technique intentionally misusing words to pique interest.
    - btmorex 5y ago
      It's not being used to mean lifespan. It's being used to mean death.
    - rp1 5y ago
      Mortality is often used when talking about the likelihood of dying.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
chillingeffect 5y ago
not surprising because eating properly plant-based can be challenging, especially in old age which is less forgiving. Eating animals is a decent hedge. But my money is where my mouth is that my proper plant-based diet will win out.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Except that's contradicted by this study. An example of witchcraft over science - believing what you want to believe, even when presented with its contradiction.
  - teach 5y ago
    There are dozens of studies that support plant-based diets as reducing all-cause mortality. THIS study is the outlier, and thus demands a pretty high burden of proof.
    - jjcon 5y ago
      Is it really much of an outlier? I eat a plant-based diet but most of what I have seen has been quite mixed
      - cracell 5y ago
        Food studies are always all over the place. The only real consistency is that eating loads of processed food (think chips/soda) is strongly correlated with health issues.
        podgaj 5y ago
        Food studies are all over the place because they never account for genetics. Look up Nutrigenomics to understand more, But a great example is changes in the FADS genes and how they impact the intake of long and short chain Omega 3s https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/6/758 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/6/758 Unless they are testing people with the same genetics, a meat versus plant diet will continue to result in different outcomes.
mikenew 5y ago
FTA: plant protein is also associated with lower mortality. So... more protein is just better? I wonder if strength is part of the explanation. We know that there's a strong association between strength and mortality, so maybe a higher protein diet just helps maintain more strength as people age. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18595904/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18595904/
- RayVR 5y ago
  Maybe you misread the article. Plant protein is inversely correlated with mortality in middle-aged adults. They focused entirely on patients with a mean age of 75 years. regarding the group they studied "Plant protein intake showed no association with any of the mortality outcomes"
- quitit 5y ago
  Malnutrition with seniors is a gateway to many other medical issues. Current guidelines teach seniors to eat the protein and high calorie foods first (even dessert first) before hitting the vegetables. This result is consistent with the current body of knowledge.
  - a9h74j 5y ago
    From what I recall from seeing mortality curves vs BMI, away from the expected minimum the curve rises much faster for low BMI than high BMI. Makes one think. In a high-self-control-valuing society, "heavy" is perhaps seen as lacking virtue, but in many societies "skinny" is perhaps seen as lacking utility.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  They also tested plant protein (read further down): > Plant protein intake showed no association with any of the mortality outcomes So, for whatever reason, it was only animal protein in this study. Previous studies in younger populations have shown benefits of plant protein, though.
- wsc981 5y ago
  One interesting remark in one of Joe Rogan's interviews with a former vegetarian, was somewhat like the following ... He stated most animals can be eaten by humans, but most plants cannot. Because plants cannot move, plants need to have some innate defences to prevent being killed before being able to reproduce and as such many plants are poisonous. Humans apparently have evolved to be able to disregards some poisons in some plants. Also, in this interview the former vegetarian stated that if humans were to eat pretty much all of the meat of the animal (including liver, heart) they would get most of the vitamins required to stay in good health. Now I don't know exactly which person Joe interviewed. Might have been Paul Saladino.
ShrigmaMale 5y ago
Yet another reason why I will fight when Biden and the UN and other politicians comes to take away my meat. Edit: link below mentions that it is indeed a step that "might have to be taken" which sounds like an awful good way to start boiling the frog and normalizing the idea of forcing Americans to eat soyburgers and bugs instead.
- pstuart 5y ago
  C'mon now... https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-biden-false-meat-story-20210428-eurrx7fqabet3kztw4mypn52ei-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-biden-... Edit: you're still politicizing this in an inappropriate way. Meat production has serious environmental impacts and it's worth looking at ways to address that. Using false political/tribal memes makes your point unworthy of serious consideration.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    I'm still trying to understand what is so undesirable about bugs and soyburgers. These are delicious when cooked well.
    - ShrigmaMale 5y ago
      Soy makes guys grow bitch tits (gyno). I know everybody says "oh studies don't show that" but I've talked to guys who ate pretty large amounts trying to go vegetarian and hit high (120+ grams/day) protein intake at reasonable calories and who it happened to. It also tastes awful and the burgers made from it are super processed and unhealthy. A ton of beef may not be super healthy either but a ground beef patty is way healthier than some estrogen laced junk. Looks like cricket protein per calorie is like half chicken breast and also worse than most protein powders so not sure why I'd want it. If there's a bug that's higher protein per calorie and cheaper I'd be open to replacing my powder but I don't want the feds telling me what to eat.
      - tomrod 5y ago
robwwilliams 5y ago
Interesting, but as the authors state: “Further studies are needed to provide recommendations on dietary protein intake for older adults.” That is an understatement. There is no causality here; just correlation and many potential confounders—environmental, social, genetic. To resolve the role of macro- or micro-nutrients in health and lifespan requires either controlled studies of highly diverse but replicable rodent cohorts (e.g. Roy S. et al 2021; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/776559v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/776559v3) or much more expensive long term randomized clinical trials if large human cohorts (e.g., the NIH Women’s Health Initiative and some of the Framingham studies). Studies like this one are intriguing and fun, but shallow in the sense that they cannot provide core insight into causality.
- mrjangles 5y ago
  I can't extract anything meaningful from this comment. It seems you are repeating a lot of "go to" sayings about how science should be done in a hand wavy way without understanding the why, then using that to dismiss the results. For example you say >There is no causality here; just correlation and many potential cofounders... what does this specifically mean? When A and B are correlated to statistical significance, either A causes B, B causes A, or something else is causing both A and B. So, how could the future act of living longer be causing people to eat more protein? Or, what possible things could be causing people to eat more animal protein and live longer at the same time? I can't think of anything plausible. It is fair to say that this study is very good evidence, as good as anything can be, that animal protein is important for longevity.
  - rockitect 5y ago
    Another comment in this thread points out that a huge confounder could be income. Indeed, as @robwwilliams points out, there could be many potential confounders, including genetics and environment. All that means is that, if drilled into, researchers might find that X (where X is whatever confounder you can think of) might be a better predictor of mortality than protein intake. It seems to me that the parent comment doesn't aim to "hand wave away" this paper, but instead to suggest that it is a singular datum whose findings should be tested by larger, more in-depth, research (which could test for a whole set of confounding variables that might come to mind). The authors of the original study state the same thing right in their abstract! I'm not sure why you think that point is not meaningful. IMO, that is exactly how science should be done ---interesting correlations should be stress-tested. If the findings hold up, then we can be especially confident in whatever choices we make. If the findings don't hold up, we then have new avenues to research.
jp0d 5y ago
This is just anecdotal but my grandfather is nearly 90 years old. He has been eating goat meat, chicken, fish and prawns at least 4 days a week his entire life. Although he raised his own goats and fish as a farmer. And he has eaten "organic" food most of his life. He is quite healthy. Whereas many vegetarian members of my family and close family have lots of health issues. Granted many of them are living in the cities and are dependant on processed foods, refined oils and fresh produce laden with chemicals. I know that there are a lot more variables affecting the outcome not just eating animal protein. But I don't doubt this study, although that's confirmation bias for me!
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Survivorship bias may also be a factor
  - jjcon 5y ago
    Does that really apply here? Seems to just be anecdotal as they suggested
    - tuatoru 5y ago
      We don't know. What do the grandchildren of the grandfather's siblings say about their grandparents?
- Maursault 5y ago
  How much does he eat? There is an inverse relationship between caloric intake and mortality; the less you eat, the longer you live. Also, keep in mind that animal protein is not necessarily meat, meat would be a subset of animal protein, which means this study does not remotely conclude that meat intake is inversely proportional to mortality. Though some will claim otherwise and I envy them, it is not easy to eat vegetarian, so your anecdotal insinuation that vegetarianism is less healthy could be due to the fact that readily available options, if they exist, are vanishingly slim. For one, there seems to be meat or meat byproduct in everything. No major restaurant chain caters to vegetarian diets, unless you count Subway with all the exposed deli meat and preps touching meat, it can kill appetites, and I wouldn't call Taco Bell's bean burrito catering to the vegetarian diet. Vegetarian restaurants are incredibly rare, and I don't understand why. Most restaurants will have a single dish that is vegetarian on a menu that is 4-5 oversized pages long. And if you're in the sticks, forget it everything has meat, and often it is causing trouble to ask the meat be left out. And when you do find a vegetarian restaurant, the entrees are often exotic and bizarre (even if delicious, they just don't need to be that complicated or expensive). I don't get why there isn't a restaurant that prepares and serves everything Americana except the gratuitously included meat in every single entree. If I had any startup money, I'd open a chain of vegetarian fast food restaurants that serves all vegetarian entrees, with plenty of calories and nailing all the nutrition metrics, but made only with familiar food resulting in familiar, non-intimidating dishes with prices compatible with those of any fast food place.
codemac 5y ago
20 years of checkins on what people eat, has anyone gotten the PDF and seen how they actually do this follow up? Most food diaries are basically bullshit, so I'm curious what they had to do with their data to make it actually useful.
- tmm84 5y ago
  When I saw that the method involved questionnaires I took this with a kilo of salt. Considering that people forget what they had or generalize pretty badly this kind of method is only as good as the individuals and what they report accurately.
wins32767 5y ago
I don't have access to the study itself to check, but it seems like a huge confounder is income. Meat is more expensive on a per calorie basis than plants and poverty is associated increased mortality for many reasons.
- tsol 5y ago
  This goes backwards to that. Higher meat intake is associated with higher mortality
  - ericb 5y ago
    I think you have it backwards. It says meat intake is inversely correlated to all-cause mortality.
    - tsol 5y ago
      No yeah you're correct, double negative slipped me up haha
xwdv 5y ago
It’s very complicated to eat plant based proteins properly. There’s so many “gotchas”, if you don’t get it right and keep eating that way for a long time you’ll do serious damage. Better to just eat good animals.
- zebraflask 5y ago
  Not really? People across the planet have had predominantly or exclusively vegetarian (not necessarily vegan) diets since forever and have been perfectly healthy. I think there are - might be misrembering - more credible studies that you can live on a diet of exclusively potatoes without ill effects aside from, well, that kind of diet itself. I looked over the article and was expecting to see something on it like "Funded by [Tuscany's version of the Beef Producers Council]."
  - podgaj 5y ago
    Another people, like the Inuit, exclusively carnivorous diet and and been perfectly healthy. There is no diet for everyone. All diets are fundamentally dictated by our genetics.
pmdulaney 5y ago
Sleeper (1973): "No deep fat, or steak, or cream pies?"
fmajid 5y ago
Big surprise, meat consumption and generally better nutrition correlates with longer life expectancy over the centuries. It's only in very recent times that overconsumption has become a problem.
- Maursault 5y ago
  In order for meat to be considered healthy, it could only be consumed in relatively strict moderation, though you'd have to eat a heck of a lot of fruit for it to kill you (I expect the lethal dose is an estimation). Even two servings of meat a week measurably increases risk of mortality and increases risk of heart disease and stroke. Eat what you like, but don't kid yourself. What the meat lobby says is generally a lie.
friedman23 5y ago
As people age they tend to eat less, so intuitively it makes sense to me that people that eat more meat live longer due to meat having pretty good nutrient profile.
- Maursault 5y ago
  Everyone seems to be making this assumption, but animal protein is not necessarily meat, thus, the study is not concluding meat intake is inveresly proportional to mortality. Also, those that eat the least of anything live the longest. And regardless if meat has a good nutrition profile (granted, there's protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12), eating meat increases risk of premature death. Consuming two servings or more a week of red or processed meats is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and mortality. IOW even consuming something nutritious can be very unhealthy. To be clear, the scientific consensus is actually that eating meat is relatively unhealthy. [1] I'm not sure what to say about your intuition, but this study doesn't say what you think makes sense, and some of your premises are in error. [1] https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20200203/meat-still-isnt-healthy-study-confirms#1 https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20200203/meat-still-isnt-hea...
  - podgaj 5y ago
    Do you consider seafood meat?
    - Maursault 5y ago
      Meat generally means red meat, as opposed to pork, poultry or fish. Seafood was probably once very healthy, but now the oceans are continuously poisoned, mercury content is an issue. If you eat a lot of fish, choose farmed fish. I used to love shellfish until I was poisoned by broiled lobster, then again a year later with another broiled lobster. Also, there were incidents with both a piece of fish from Applebees (bad judgement), and a fried catfish prepared by a girlfriend's mother. There's no sick like that. In all four instances, I don't think I could keep anything down for two weeks afterwards. If you caught a fish today, I'd probably eat it, but I won't touch a fish more than a half-hour's drive from the ocean.
RayVR 5y ago
I do not have access to the article so difficult to say but they do specify "community-dwelling" which I believe means they were in something like assisted living facilities. This would make data collection on food intake much easier since the specific meals would be prepared by the facility and they must have records of which resident had which meal. While these are super interesting headlines, I think the chances of some hidden driver affecting animal protein intake is very likely. E.g., it is not uncommon for geriatric individuals to be unable to consume specific foods or have doctors specifically restrict their diets due to heart disease, blood pressure, cholesterol or any number of other factors. Without detailed analysis of confounding health factors, I would not read this as prescriptive. In fact, animal protein intake may be even be a trailing indicator.
Cupertino95014 5y ago
All-cause mortality is so multivariate, and so easily confounded, that an uncontrolled study of only 1,139 people in one region is meaningless. As others have pointed out, food diaries are BS. Did all 1,139 people weigh their meat before they ate it? They mention "food frequency questionnaires" ("let's see, that's 157 grams of chicken today").
errcorrectcode 5y ago
Big meat lobby fighting against chik'n. ;) There are laws in 6 US states where there are penalties for criticizing meat agriculture, so-called "ag gag" laws, as Oprah found out in the 90's.
- ShrigmaMale 5y ago
  If you are worried about big meat than surely you acknowledge there is at least as big an agenda of shoving soy and bugs down people's throats. Democrats, UN, WEF, lots of NGOs all have thrown their weight hard behind it. What makes you think "science" against meat is any less pressured?
  - ss108 5y ago
    Yes, industry people who want to protect their income no matter the moral cost are interchangeable with non-profit entities.
  - cercatrova 5y ago
    What's wrong with soy and bugs? Well, I just saw your username and if it's any indication of other people I know who are "sigma males" then I'm not sure what to tell you.
standardUser 5y ago
Those eating more animal protein must have also been eating more animals fat. Is there a particular reason protein gets the credit in this study?
mint2 5y ago
> A prospective cohort study including 1,139 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 75 years, 56% women) living in Tuscany, Italy, followed for 20 years Doesn’t seem like the type in d population that would have a usual vegetarian
culopatin 5y ago
My girlfriend is studying aging in her masters and I read some papers with her that said that more protein help your body grow muscle mass, but not repair damage in cells, and lower protein intake allows your cells to fagocite, destroying damaged cells, leading to better health overall and more longevity. This is completely opposite from what this paper is saying.
- drekk 5y ago
  Maybe I can help clear something up for once in these comments! My focus is on substance abuse and not aging, but I've been following the literature and what has been gaining prominence is the "cold wet hungry" hypothesis. That is to say, our ancestors were often cold, wet, and hungry, and our body evolved defenses to deal with those endemic conditions. Though we live past infancy in much larger numbers, our resilience to aging is decreased by sedentary lifestyles and high carbohydrate, high protein, and high fat diets. If you're meeting your protein requirements, things like intermittent fasting can help your body better regulate inflammation and thus aging (which can better be thought of as disregulated inflammation)
coder4life 5y ago
A lot of other studies with better research say the opposite. My take: The amino acid profile in animal vs. plant proteins is the reason, with excess Methionine being the culprit. It's needed in greater quantities during your growth phase of life, not as much as you get older Methionine increase homocysteine levels, leading to greater heart disease, and it's been implicated in cancer too (esp tumor growth) Something called "recombinant Methioninase" is making the rounds in cancer research actually -- it lowers Methionine levels. For the curious, my medline saved search https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22l+methionine+gamma+lyase%22%5BSupplementary+Concept%5D+OR+%22l+methionine+gamma+lyase%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+OR+%22methioninase%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+OR+%22Methionine+Restriction%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+OR+%22Methionine+Restricted%22%5BAll+Fields%5D&ac=no&sort=date&size=200 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22l+methionine+gamma+...

79 points by rsj_hn 5y ago

throwaway_2009 5y ago

The idea that a wholly vegetarian or vegan diet is healthier than sometimes eating meat is extremely questionable. It completely flies in the face of common sense and only really makes any headway at all due to the "everyone should do less" variety of environmentalism.

mint2 5y ago
The population used for this study doesn’t seem ideal for studying the impact of being vegetarian > A prospective cohort study including 1,139 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 75 years, 56% women) living in Tuscany, Italy, followed for 20 years

iammjm 5y ago

'inversely associated' means people who ate more of it lived longer or the opposite? I'm hella confused

tick_tock_tick 5y ago
Double negatives are hard to read but yeah more meat less chance of death.
- x0rx0r 5y ago
  woohoooo more steak and burgers for me!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- edoceo 5y ago
  Isn't there like a 100% chance of death?
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    > Isn't there like a 100% chance of death? Not, just 99.99999%. Clonal cell lines are basically immortal. (And the chance of death at a given age is not 100% necessarily)
  - robobenjie 5y ago
    I mean only 93% of humans have died so who knows for certain.... https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/ https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
generalizations 5y ago
"inverse association" is a standard way of saying that when X goes up or down, Y does the opposite.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I have never seen mortality used to mean lifespan. I assume it is a clickbait title technique intentionally misusing words to pique interest.
  - btmorex 5y ago
    It's not being used to mean lifespan. It's being used to mean death.
  - rp1 5y ago
    Mortality is often used when talking about the likelihood of dying.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

chillingeffect 5y ago

not surprising because eating properly plant-based can be challenging, especially in old age which is less forgiving. Eating animals is a decent hedge. But my money is where my mouth is that my proper plant-based diet will win out.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Except that's contradicted by this study. An example of witchcraft over science - believing what you want to believe, even when presented with its contradiction.
- teach 5y ago
  There are dozens of studies that support plant-based diets as reducing all-cause mortality. THIS study is the outlier, and thus demands a pretty high burden of proof.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    Is it really much of an outlier? I eat a plant-based diet but most of what I have seen has been quite mixed
    - cracell 5y ago
      Food studies are always all over the place. The only real consistency is that eating loads of processed food (think chips/soda) is strongly correlated with health issues.
      - podgaj 5y ago
        Food studies are all over the place because they never account for genetics. Look up Nutrigenomics to understand more, But a great example is changes in the FADS genes and how they impact the intake of long and short chain Omega 3s https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/6/758 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/6/758 Unless they are testing people with the same genetics, a meat versus plant diet will continue to result in different outcomes.

mikenew 5y ago

FTA: plant protein is also associated with lower mortality. So... more protein is just better? I wonder if strength is part of the explanation. We know that there's a strong association between strength and mortality, so maybe a higher protein diet just helps maintain more strength as people age. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18595904/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18595904/

RayVR 5y ago
Maybe you misread the article. Plant protein is inversely correlated with mortality in middle-aged adults. They focused entirely on patients with a mean age of 75 years. regarding the group they studied "Plant protein intake showed no association with any of the mortality outcomes"
quitit 5y ago
Malnutrition with seniors is a gateway to many other medical issues. Current guidelines teach seniors to eat the protein and high calorie foods first (even dessert first) before hitting the vegetables. This result is consistent with the current body of knowledge.
- a9h74j 5y ago
  From what I recall from seeing mortality curves vs BMI, away from the expected minimum the curve rises much faster for low BMI than high BMI. Makes one think. In a high-self-control-valuing society, "heavy" is perhaps seen as lacking virtue, but in many societies "skinny" is perhaps seen as lacking utility.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
They also tested plant protein (read further down): > Plant protein intake showed no association with any of the mortality outcomes So, for whatever reason, it was only animal protein in this study. Previous studies in younger populations have shown benefits of plant protein, though.
wsc981 5y ago
One interesting remark in one of Joe Rogan's interviews with a former vegetarian, was somewhat like the following ... He stated most animals can be eaten by humans, but most plants cannot. Because plants cannot move, plants need to have some innate defences to prevent being killed before being able to reproduce and as such many plants are poisonous. Humans apparently have evolved to be able to disregards some poisons in some plants. Also, in this interview the former vegetarian stated that if humans were to eat pretty much all of the meat of the animal (including liver, heart) they would get most of the vitamins required to stay in good health. Now I don't know exactly which person Joe interviewed. Might have been Paul Saladino.

ShrigmaMale 5y ago

Yet another reason why I will fight when Biden and the UN and other politicians comes to take away my meat. Edit: link below mentions that it is indeed a step that "might have to be taken" which sounds like an awful good way to start boiling the frog and normalizing the idea of forcing Americans to eat soyburgers and bugs instead.

pstuart 5y ago
C'mon now... https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-biden-false-meat-story-20210428-eurrx7fqabet3kztw4mypn52ei-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-biden-... Edit: you're still politicizing this in an inappropriate way. Meat production has serious environmental impacts and it's worth looking at ways to address that. Using false political/tribal memes makes your point unworthy of serious consideration.
- tomrod 5y ago
  I'm still trying to understand what is so undesirable about bugs and soyburgers. These are delicious when cooked well.
  - ShrigmaMale 5y ago
    Soy makes guys grow bitch tits (gyno). I know everybody says "oh studies don't show that" but I've talked to guys who ate pretty large amounts trying to go vegetarian and hit high (120+ grams/day) protein intake at reasonable calories and who it happened to. It also tastes awful and the burgers made from it are super processed and unhealthy. A ton of beef may not be super healthy either but a ground beef patty is way healthier than some estrogen laced junk. Looks like cricket protein per calorie is like half chicken breast and also worse than most protein powders so not sure why I'd want it. If there's a bug that's higher protein per calorie and cheaper I'd be open to replacing my powder but I don't want the feds telling me what to eat.
    - tomrod 5y ago

robwwilliams 5y ago

Interesting, but as the authors state: “Further studies are needed to provide recommendations on dietary protein intake for older adults.” That is an understatement. There is no causality here; just correlation and many potential confounders—environmental, social, genetic. To resolve the role of macro- or micro-nutrients in health and lifespan requires either controlled studies of highly diverse but replicable rodent cohorts (e.g. Roy S. et al 2021; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/776559v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/776559v3) or much more expensive long term randomized clinical trials if large human cohorts (e.g., the NIH Women’s Health Initiative and some of the Framingham studies). Studies like this one are intriguing and fun, but shallow in the sense that they cannot provide core insight into causality.

mrjangles 5y ago
I can't extract anything meaningful from this comment. It seems you are repeating a lot of "go to" sayings about how science should be done in a hand wavy way without understanding the why, then using that to dismiss the results. For example you say >There is no causality here; just correlation and many potential cofounders... what does this specifically mean? When A and B are correlated to statistical significance, either A causes B, B causes A, or something else is causing both A and B. So, how could the future act of living longer be causing people to eat more protein? Or, what possible things could be causing people to eat more animal protein and live longer at the same time? I can't think of anything plausible. It is fair to say that this study is very good evidence, as good as anything can be, that animal protein is important for longevity.
- rockitect 5y ago
  Another comment in this thread points out that a huge confounder could be income. Indeed, as @robwwilliams points out, there could be many potential confounders, including genetics and environment. All that means is that, if drilled into, researchers might find that X (where X is whatever confounder you can think of) might be a better predictor of mortality than protein intake. It seems to me that the parent comment doesn't aim to "hand wave away" this paper, but instead to suggest that it is a singular datum whose findings should be tested by larger, more in-depth, research (which could test for a whole set of confounding variables that might come to mind). The authors of the original study state the same thing right in their abstract! I'm not sure why you think that point is not meaningful. IMO, that is exactly how science should be done ---interesting correlations should be stress-tested. If the findings hold up, then we can be especially confident in whatever choices we make. If the findings don't hold up, we then have new avenues to research.

jp0d 5y ago

This is just anecdotal but my grandfather is nearly 90 years old. He has been eating goat meat, chicken, fish and prawns at least 4 days a week his entire life. Although he raised his own goats and fish as a farmer. And he has eaten "organic" food most of his life. He is quite healthy. Whereas many vegetarian members of my family and close family have lots of health issues. Granted many of them are living in the cities and are dependant on processed foods, refined oils and fresh produce laden with chemicals. I know that there are a lot more variables affecting the outcome not just eating animal protein. But I don't doubt this study, although that's confirmation bias for me!

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Survivorship bias may also be a factor
- jjcon 5y ago
  Does that really apply here? Seems to just be anecdotal as they suggested
  - tuatoru 5y ago
    We don't know. What do the grandchildren of the grandfather's siblings say about their grandparents?
Maursault 5y ago
How much does he eat? There is an inverse relationship between caloric intake and mortality; the less you eat, the longer you live. Also, keep in mind that animal protein is not necessarily meat, meat would be a subset of animal protein, which means this study does not remotely conclude that meat intake is inversely proportional to mortality. Though some will claim otherwise and I envy them, it is not easy to eat vegetarian, so your anecdotal insinuation that vegetarianism is less healthy could be due to the fact that readily available options, if they exist, are vanishingly slim. For one, there seems to be meat or meat byproduct in everything. No major restaurant chain caters to vegetarian diets, unless you count Subway with all the exposed deli meat and preps touching meat, it can kill appetites, and I wouldn't call Taco Bell's bean burrito catering to the vegetarian diet. Vegetarian restaurants are incredibly rare, and I don't understand why. Most restaurants will have a single dish that is vegetarian on a menu that is 4-5 oversized pages long. And if you're in the sticks, forget it everything has meat, and often it is causing trouble to ask the meat be left out. And when you do find a vegetarian restaurant, the entrees are often exotic and bizarre (even if delicious, they just don't need to be that complicated or expensive). I don't get why there isn't a restaurant that prepares and serves everything Americana except the gratuitously included meat in every single entree. If I had any startup money, I'd open a chain of vegetarian fast food restaurants that serves all vegetarian entrees, with plenty of calories and nailing all the nutrition metrics, but made only with familiar food resulting in familiar, non-intimidating dishes with prices compatible with those of any fast food place.

codemac 5y ago

20 years of checkins on what people eat, has anyone gotten the PDF and seen how they actually do this follow up? Most food diaries are basically bullshit, so I'm curious what they had to do with their data to make it actually useful.

tmm84 5y ago
When I saw that the method involved questionnaires I took this with a kilo of salt. Considering that people forget what they had or generalize pretty badly this kind of method is only as good as the individuals and what they report accurately.

wins32767 5y ago

I don't have access to the study itself to check, but it seems like a huge confounder is income. Meat is more expensive on a per calorie basis than plants and poverty is associated increased mortality for many reasons.

tsol 5y ago
This goes backwards to that. Higher meat intake is associated with higher mortality
- ericb 5y ago
  I think you have it backwards. It says meat intake is inversely correlated to all-cause mortality.
  - tsol 5y ago
    No yeah you're correct, double negative slipped me up haha

xwdv 5y ago

It’s very complicated to eat plant based proteins properly. There’s so many “gotchas”, if you don’t get it right and keep eating that way for a long time you’ll do serious damage. Better to just eat good animals.

zebraflask 5y ago
Not really? People across the planet have had predominantly or exclusively vegetarian (not necessarily vegan) diets since forever and have been perfectly healthy. I think there are - might be misrembering - more credible studies that you can live on a diet of exclusively potatoes without ill effects aside from, well, that kind of diet itself. I looked over the article and was expecting to see something on it like "Funded by [Tuscany's version of the Beef Producers Council]."
- podgaj 5y ago
  Another people, like the Inuit, exclusively carnivorous diet and and been perfectly healthy. There is no diet for everyone. All diets are fundamentally dictated by our genetics.

pmdulaney 5y ago

Sleeper (1973): "No deep fat, or steak, or cream pies?"

fmajid 5y ago

Big surprise, meat consumption and generally better nutrition correlates with longer life expectancy over the centuries. It's only in very recent times that overconsumption has become a problem.

Maursault 5y ago
In order for meat to be considered healthy, it could only be consumed in relatively strict moderation, though you'd have to eat a heck of a lot of fruit for it to kill you (I expect the lethal dose is an estimation). Even two servings of meat a week measurably increases risk of mortality and increases risk of heart disease and stroke. Eat what you like, but don't kid yourself. What the meat lobby says is generally a lie.

friedman23 5y ago

As people age they tend to eat less, so intuitively it makes sense to me that people that eat more meat live longer due to meat having pretty good nutrient profile.

Maursault 5y ago
Everyone seems to be making this assumption, but animal protein is not necessarily meat, thus, the study is not concluding meat intake is inveresly proportional to mortality. Also, those that eat the least of anything live the longest. And regardless if meat has a good nutrition profile (granted, there's protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12), eating meat increases risk of premature death. Consuming two servings or more a week of red or processed meats is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and mortality. IOW even consuming something nutritious can be very unhealthy. To be clear, the scientific consensus is actually that eating meat is relatively unhealthy. [1] I'm not sure what to say about your intuition, but this study doesn't say what you think makes sense, and some of your premises are in error. [1] https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20200203/meat-still-isnt-healthy-study-confirms#1 https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20200203/meat-still-isnt-hea...
- podgaj 5y ago
  Do you consider seafood meat?
  - Maursault 5y ago
    Meat generally means red meat, as opposed to pork, poultry or fish. Seafood was probably once very healthy, but now the oceans are continuously poisoned, mercury content is an issue. If you eat a lot of fish, choose farmed fish. I used to love shellfish until I was poisoned by broiled lobster, then again a year later with another broiled lobster. Also, there were incidents with both a piece of fish from Applebees (bad judgement), and a fried catfish prepared by a girlfriend's mother. There's no sick like that. In all four instances, I don't think I could keep anything down for two weeks afterwards. If you caught a fish today, I'd probably eat it, but I won't touch a fish more than a half-hour's drive from the ocean.

RayVR 5y ago

I do not have access to the article so difficult to say but they do specify "community-dwelling" which I believe means they were in something like assisted living facilities. This would make data collection on food intake much easier since the specific meals would be prepared by the facility and they must have records of which resident had which meal. While these are super interesting headlines, I think the chances of some hidden driver affecting animal protein intake is very likely. E.g., it is not uncommon for geriatric individuals to be unable to consume specific foods or have doctors specifically restrict their diets due to heart disease, blood pressure, cholesterol or any number of other factors. Without detailed analysis of confounding health factors, I would not read this as prescriptive. In fact, animal protein intake may be even be a trailing indicator.

Cupertino95014 5y ago

All-cause mortality is so multivariate, and so easily confounded, that an uncontrolled study of only 1,139 people in one region is meaningless. As others have pointed out, food diaries are BS. Did all 1,139 people weigh their meat before they ate it? They mention "food frequency questionnaires" ("let's see, that's 157 grams of chicken today").

errcorrectcode 5y ago

Big meat lobby fighting against chik'n. ;) There are laws in 6 US states where there are penalties for criticizing meat agriculture, so-called "ag gag" laws, as Oprah found out in the 90's.

ShrigmaMale 5y ago
If you are worried about big meat than surely you acknowledge there is at least as big an agenda of shoving soy and bugs down people's throats. Democrats, UN, WEF, lots of NGOs all have thrown their weight hard behind it. What makes you think "science" against meat is any less pressured?
- ss108 5y ago
  Yes, industry people who want to protect their income no matter the moral cost are interchangeable with non-profit entities.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  What's wrong with soy and bugs? Well, I just saw your username and if it's any indication of other people I know who are "sigma males" then I'm not sure what to tell you.

standardUser 5y ago

Those eating more animal protein must have also been eating more animals fat. Is there a particular reason protein gets the credit in this study?

mint2 5y ago

> A prospective cohort study including 1,139 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 75 years, 56% women) living in Tuscany, Italy, followed for 20 years Doesn’t seem like the type in d population that would have a usual vegetarian

culopatin 5y ago

My girlfriend is studying aging in her masters and I read some papers with her that said that more protein help your body grow muscle mass, but not repair damage in cells, and lower protein intake allows your cells to fagocite, destroying damaged cells, leading to better health overall and more longevity. This is completely opposite from what this paper is saying.

drekk 5y ago
Maybe I can help clear something up for once in these comments! My focus is on substance abuse and not aging, but I've been following the literature and what has been gaining prominence is the "cold wet hungry" hypothesis. That is to say, our ancestors were often cold, wet, and hungry, and our body evolved defenses to deal with those endemic conditions. Though we live past infancy in much larger numbers, our resilience to aging is decreased by sedentary lifestyles and high carbohydrate, high protein, and high fat diets. If you're meeting your protein requirements, things like intermittent fasting can help your body better regulate inflammation and thus aging (which can better be thought of as disregulated inflammation)

coder4life 5y ago

A lot of other studies with better research say the opposite. My take: The amino acid profile in animal vs. plant proteins is the reason, with excess Methionine being the culprit. It's needed in greater quantities during your growth phase of life, not as much as you get older Methionine increase homocysteine levels, leading to greater heart disease, and it's been implicated in cancer too (esp tumor growth) Something called "recombinant Methioninase" is making the rounds in cancer research actually -- it lowers Methionine levels. For the curious, my medline saved search https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22l+methionine+gamma+lyase%22%5BSupplementary+Concept%5D+OR+%22l+methionine+gamma+lyase%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+OR+%22methioninase%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+OR+%22Methionine+Restriction%22%5BAll+Fields%5D+OR+%22Methionine+Restricted%22%5BAll+Fields%5D&ac=no&sort=date&size=200 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22l+methionine+gamma+...