5 ms·
Animal protein-rich diets could be as harmful to health as smoking
- briantakita 13y agoAnimal protein-rich diets are also bad for land, water, and energy conservation.
- mark_l_watson 13y ago+1 - this is a point a lot of people don't get: it can take roughly 10 times the water and 10 times the energy to produce meat rather than vegetables and grains.
- jasonpeacock 13y agoSources? Otherwise you're no better than the article...
- adamnemecek 13y agoIt's a pretty widely accepted fact google around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_pr...
- seiferteric 13y agoBIO 101: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency
- bryanlarsen 13y agoThat's because it's a ridiculous statement. Sure, cattle convert grain calories into meat calories fairly inefficiently. But cattle evolved to eat grass, not grain. Grazing cattle on the prairies is far more environmentally friendly than ripping up that prairie to replace it with a wheat monoculture. Animals that evolved to eat grains, such as chickens, convert calories much more efficiently.
- DavidAdams 13y agoIt's true that grass-fed animals don't have the same environmental impact as grain-fed ones. But the problem is that there's no way to produce enough beef to meet worldwide demand other than concentrated feedlots. And certainly no way to produce it at the low cost that the market demands. Unless the cost of beef can be adjusted to include all the negative externalities that its production entails (topsoil loss, water and air pollution from fertilizers, pesticides, manure, and diesel fuel, antibiotic resistant super-bugs, public health threats from unsanitary slaughterhouse practices, etc) then meat producers and consumers will benefit from cheaper prices while the environment suffers.
- briantakita 13y ago"That's because it's a ridiculous statement" Only if you consider the truth ridiculous. It's simple biological physics. There are inefficiencies in energy transfer. Btw, 60% of the Amazon deforestation is caused by cattle ranching.
- cgh 13y agoThe solution is to live in a place of relative ecological abundance where you can buy locally-raised animal products with minimal environmental impact. Hunting your own meat (in my case, deer) is also a good option. I recommend Canada.
- wmboy 13y agoCanada? Try New Zealand, we have the optimum climate for year-round grazing. No grain feeding necessary.
- cgh 13y agoYes, NZ is a great choice too. How's the hunting there?
- wmboy 13y agoI don't hunt, but the fishing's always good (plenty of options, both fresh water and ocean. Though on the hunting angle, deer would probably be the largest animal you can hunt, then there'd be goats, wild pigs and of course rabbits and possums which you can eat (our possums are different from North American ones). Edit: also just thought I'd throw in I've got nothing against Canada, you guys and the US, are to us, like we are to Australia (if that makes sense)
- krautcanman 13y agoTerrible for the planet... until you watch this Ted talk. Then you may reconsider your position. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world...
- shittyanalogy 13y agoCOULD BE, MAY, MIGHT, TEND TO, THROWS DOUBT. Where's the research?
- andylei 13y agoprobably this: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00062-X http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)0..., and http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00065-5 http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)0...
- thedrbrian 13y agoApparently everything you do is wrong somehow. When it comes to eating everything is bad and gives you Moar cancer. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading the dailymail. I wonder what the effect of flip flopping from one diet to the next every 12 weeks is.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rickdale 13y agoThis article is ridiculous. It never mentions anything about the quality of the animal protein, yet points out that people that follow paleo are probably eating a high protein diet. People that are actually eating paleo aren't just eating any animal protein. And that makes a big difference.
- andylei 13y ago> It never mentions anything about the quality of the animal protein why do you think this matters. their study studies the relation between protein and longevity. > People that are actually eating paleo aren't just eating any animal protein. And that makes a big difference. the article indicates that the causal link is related to IGF-1 levels. what does protein "quality" have to do with this, or longevity in general?
- Kurtz79 13y agoIt matters because you don't eat "protein" you eat food that contains, among other things, protein. A beef steak and a salmon steak are not the same.
- copergi 13y agoSo? How does that in any way invalidate or even call into question their findings? More protein = more likely to die. Nothing in that requires salmon and beef to be identical.
- 13y ago
- FD3SA 13y agoI wonder what this means for those of us who are casual weightlifters. Our protein intake is much higher than 0.7g per kg, and in fact most come in around double that value. The benefits of being at one's peak strength are innumerable, but a fourfold increase in cancer risk is startling. I assume a healthy balance would be to obtain a greater percentage of our intake from vegetable sources. But most of us are wired by evolution to enjoy the taste of animal protein much more than other sources. Perhaps a foray into endurance sports is in order.
- bdcravens 13y agoI'd venture to say that there's a different cancer profile for those actively working out than a random sampling.
- keyhole_downs 13y agoTwo Words: Grilled Veggies. Get a George Foreman grill. Eat mor seafood. Shrimp and veggies go great together. Also, veggies are just an excuse to eat garlic. Put garlic in your meat. Put garlic in your ice cream. Take garlic pills. And eat blueberries and broccoli if you're worried about cancer. Garlic is nature's formaldehyde.
- tieTYT 13y agoShrimp is high in protein and cholesterol.
- keyhole_downs 13y agoDamn right it is. My doctor has always told me a daily serving of meat is about the size of a deck of playing cards. Shrimp help's me maximize the flavor and fat in that serving. That's about how much shrimp I mix into my giant bowl full of veggies and it fills me up and tastes delicious.
- insaneirish 13y agoAnd let's be clear, that the link between dietary cholesterol and blood serum cholesterol is not established. The idea of low cholesterol foods is therefore dubious, at best.
- bdcravens 13y agoHyperbolic title doesn't entirely match up with article: But whereas middle-aged people who consumed a lot of animal protein tended to die younger from cancer, diabetes and other diseases, the same diet seemed to protect people's health in old age.
- wizo 13y agoThere is a big difference between processed meat products from feedlot animals and non-processed meat from 'naturally' raised animals.
- tzamora 13y agoIts incredible how the media pushes us to be as unhealthy as possible. Eat more natural, thats the only real thing. It doesnt matter if its meat or fats or vegetables or whatever. If its processed its made with the only purpose to taste good so it would be easy to sell.
- nlh 13y agoEven if this article were 100% true (which I doubt), I wouldn't follow the advice. Switching from a low-protein to high-protein diet has had the most dramatic positive effect on my health and fitness I've seen in my short 35 years on this earth. For most of my life I basically got no real protein in my diet -- cereal for breakfast, pasta for dinner, etc. I was always just a bit out of shape, and no matter how much time I spent at the gym I saw minimal improvements. A few years ago I was inspired by a weightloss thread on reddit and "rebooted" my eating and fitness. Started running, dumped my carb-heavy diet and moved to a high-protein diet -- Greek yogurt, lots of chicken, cheese, etc. I've lost 30 lbs and am seriously in better shape than I've ever been. My exercise level went up, sure, but the dramatic change came from my diet reboot. So frankly, even if this were true, I'd rather live the life I've got now than go back to the low-protein lethargy of my 20s.
- earbitscom 13y agoYou're talking about the difference in how you feel in the short term, in an uncontrolled "experiment", where you started exercising at the same time, versus an increase in long term disease. Of course you're going to feel better if you lose 30 pounds and start exercising. What's to say you wouldn't feel even better than that if you dropped all of those carbs and started eating far more vegetables and other vitamin rich non-proteins instead of all that yogurt? No offense, but do a line of cocaine and you'll feel better for a short period of time, too. It doesn't mean you're healthier or increasing your life expectancy.
- tzamora 13y agoYou are right. There are researches that show that fats like bacon are kind of nootropics. http://www.naturalmedicineconsultations.com/45-your-brain-needs-good-fats http://www.naturalmedicineconsultations.com/45-your-brain-ne... The fats are so important and good to your body and brain, that when you eat a lots of healthy fats (and I mean lots) your body and your brain are "high", feeling well, thinking better and increasing your physical performance. Eating lots of fats and vegetables, medium to high in proteins, and low on carbs (or zero if possible) its the best and healthiest way to live.
- 13y ago
- tzamora 13y agohttp://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1zk81g/low_protein_intake_is_associated_with_a_major/[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1zk81g/low_protein_... Comments here do a good job pointing out the shortcomings of the study.
- zenbowman 13y agoObservational study with not even an attempt to control other variables = confirmed useless
- andylei 13y agowell, there's also this http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00065-5 http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)0...
- ovechtrick 13y agoRobb Wolf's response to this ridiculous article is on his blog. http://robbwolf.com/2014/03/04/meat-bad-cigarettes/ http://robbwolf.com/2014/03/04/meat-bad-cigarettes/
- Kurtz79 13y agoThe study says that under 65 a protein-rich diet will basically kill you, while over 65 it's actually beneficial ? Is explained in any way why it should be so ? And I assume that this study is serious and other factors are accounted for, since it's likely that people with a lower animal protein intake have a more balanced diet overall, with an higher intake of fruits and vegetables and a lower intake of saturated fats...
- earbitscom 13y agoIt says that early on and for extended periods these things cause heart disease and cancer, which would be bad for somebody over the course of 65 years, and the amount of protein is unnecessary. But when you get older and your body starts to break down, the increased protein is better for you. And, although it doesn't say it, by the time you're 65 and if you have been eating healthy all of that time, developing cancer from a proten-rich diet is mitigated by the fact that you only maintain that diet for your remaining 15-25 years, not for the 65 leading up to then.
- kyllo 13y agoInterestingly enough, IGF-1 (Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1) is the active ingredient in that deer antler velvet spray that Ray Lewis (NFL player) uses for performance enhancement.
- nazgulnarsil 13y agoAny study on meat that does not control carefully for processed meat is garbage and should be ignored.
- npsimons 13y agoThe key thing a lot of low carb, high protein diets tend to ignore is that it's hard on the kidneys: http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030317/high-protein-diets-can-hurt-kidneys http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030317/high-protein-diets-c... So you lost weight and feel better on a low carb high protein diet? Good for you! Some of us inherit high cholesterol, diabetes and kidney disease, along with other reasons to keep to a diet high in fiber and low in animal protein, especially beef.
- lingben 13y agoThis study has absolutely ZERO merit (observational... ppssh!). And it is beyond irresponsible and bombastic to say protein is worse or as bad as smoking! This study from Europe in contrast is the real deal: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/03/eat-burger-wont-kill-you http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/03/eat-burger-wo... "In fact, the study shows that not eating red meat is a risk factor for an early demise." Grass fed red meat is very healthy for humans. This is just pure scientific fact. There's also this: http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/06/25/jennifer-sygo-we-all-need-more-protein-but-be-careful-where-and-when-you-get-it/ http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/06/25/jennifer-sygo-we-all...
- gnoway 13y agoAt this point it's difficult for me to take seriously any study or article attempting to equate animal products with adverse health effects. There's a religious element to food selection now and it's hard to tell what's legitimate vs. lobbying or proselytization.
- jasallen 13y agoThis is grossly irresponsible. I am pleased to see most of the comments here realize that. -Muscle tone requires more protein. -Protein consumption is one of the very best ways to sate hunger, thereby reducing consumption of fat and carbohydrates. -It takes more work for the body to convert amino acids to glucose and ATP, so the by the time it finishes your 'net calorie' is less than actually consumed. -Unused protein is often excreted rather than stored in adipose cells (fat). In short, protein is good for you. Both animal and plant protein. And while your minimum functions don't require all that much, you should probably be eating more. Poor conducted correlation studies don't change that.
- vixen99 13y agoNo mention of what extras we get in meat courtesy of the feedstock for the animals. "Most U. S. beef cattle are implanted with synthetic hormones in feedlots prior to slaughter. On January 1, 1989 the European Economic Community (EEC) placed a ban on hormone-treated U. S. meat, preventing U. S. meat products from being sold in any European nations. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has challenged the ban and accused the EEC of unfair trade practices, but the action of European governments raises some important questions about American meat."
- etiam 13y agoAs usual nothing about what kind of animal protein... A bit like claiming 'intake of plant minerals presents severe and acute dangers to human health' after including in the study a variety of species rich in, respectively, calcium, potassium, magnesium, and arsenic. Milk protein has known detrimental health effects, and probably dominates the effects described here. (But since they don't even make the distinction, how would we know?) I have yet to see convincing evidence that protein from e.g. muscle is problematic for cancer risk or cardiovascular health at reasonable levels of intake, and I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to show up.