4 ms·

> 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 longe

by 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 ago
It 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 ago
  So? 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.
  - wapnik 13y ago
    Try a protein free diet and see how long that lasts.
    - copergi 13y ago
      That is a very poor stramwan.
wapnik 13y ago
> why do you think this matters. their study studies the relation between protein and longevity. The article states: Teasing out the health effects of individual nutrients is notoriously difficult. The apparently harmful effects of a high-protein diet might be down to one or more other substances in meat, or driven by lifestyle factors that are more common in regular red meat eaters versus vegetarians. Other factors can skew results too: a person on the study who got ill might have gone off their food, and seen a proportional rise in the amount of calories they get from protein. In that case, it would be the illness driving the diet, not the other way round. A lot of people in the US who eat an animal protein rich diet get their protein from red meat instead of say white meat or seafood. There are huge differences between red meat and white meat, and even bigger differences between red/white meat and seafood. And a lot Americans who consume red meat prepare it in a way that are known to form heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known to cause cancer in animals. Maybe the type of animal protein doesn't matter but if you don't look specifically at these issues you're apt to reach conclusions that are way too broad (ie animal proteins are bad). I don't think it's sensible to sound the alarm about animal protein before you have a study that factors for which animal proteins are being consumed. One interesting thing to ponder in light of this study is the Okinawa region of Japan. It has a very high age expectancy (one of the highest in the world) and I believe a much higher than average protein intake, a lot of which comes from seafood. So I think it's folly to just look at protein intake without looking at the source of the protein and the overall composition of the diet. Things are usually more complex than we'd like them to be.
adventured 13y ago
All protein types are not created equal, for one thing. It's entirely possible that the negative association with protein has a lot more to do with the over-consumption of certain types of meat. If you live off of nothing but bacon as your source of protein, I'd argue the sodium and cholesterol in your average variety processed bacon are likely to be very dangerous for your health long term. Versus getting your protein from high quality whey or salmon. Did this study control for the source of the protein?
- insaneirish 13y ago
  > If you live off of nothing but bacon as your source of protein, I'd argue the sodium and cholesterol in your average variety processed bacon are likely to be very dangerous for your health long term. Pork fat is among the healthiest of all animal fats (and better than pretty much everything except avocado and olive oil). You can see its chemistry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lard The link between dietary cholesterol and blood serum cholesterol is not well established. And sodium is typically not bad for you unless you have complicating issues. Salmon is great for you, especially if it's wild and therefore not fed crap. The research (e.g. http://www.jle.com/e-docs/00/04/61/1C/article.phtml http://www.jle.com/e-docs/00/04/61/1C/article.phtml) is beginning to show that our omega-6 to omega-3 ratio has gotten out of whack. Simply put: we're eating too much crap with cheap, processed, plant oil derived omega-6 that blows away the amount of omega-3 we are eating. Eat more pork fat, eat more butter, eat more salmon, eat more tuna. For plants, eat more olive oil, coconut oil, and avocados. Stop eating stuff that comes in shrink wrap.

by andylei 13y ago

Kurtz79 13y ago

It 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 ago
So? 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.
- wapnik 13y ago
  Try a protein free diet and see how long that lasts.
  - copergi 13y ago
    That is a very poor stramwan.

wapnik 13y ago

> why do you think this matters. their study studies the relation between protein and longevity. The article states: Teasing out the health effects of individual nutrients is notoriously difficult. The apparently harmful effects of a high-protein diet might be down to one or more other substances in meat, or driven by lifestyle factors that are more common in regular red meat eaters versus vegetarians. Other factors can skew results too: a person on the study who got ill might have gone off their food, and seen a proportional rise in the amount of calories they get from protein. In that case, it would be the illness driving the diet, not the other way round. A lot of people in the US who eat an animal protein rich diet get their protein from red meat instead of say white meat or seafood. There are huge differences between red meat and white meat, and even bigger differences between red/white meat and seafood. And a lot Americans who consume red meat prepare it in a way that are known to form heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known to cause cancer in animals. Maybe the type of animal protein doesn't matter but if you don't look specifically at these issues you're apt to reach conclusions that are way too broad (ie animal proteins are bad). I don't think it's sensible to sound the alarm about animal protein before you have a study that factors for which animal proteins are being consumed. One interesting thing to ponder in light of this study is the Okinawa region of Japan. It has a very high age expectancy (one of the highest in the world) and I believe a much higher than average protein intake, a lot of which comes from seafood. So I think it's folly to just look at protein intake without looking at the source of the protein and the overall composition of the diet. Things are usually more complex than we'd like them to be.

adventured 13y ago

All protein types are not created equal, for one thing. It's entirely possible that the negative association with protein has a lot more to do with the over-consumption of certain types of meat. If you live off of nothing but bacon as your source of protein, I'd argue the sodium and cholesterol in your average variety processed bacon are likely to be very dangerous for your health long term. Versus getting your protein from high quality whey or salmon. Did this study control for the source of the protein?

insaneirish 13y ago
> If you live off of nothing but bacon as your source of protein, I'd argue the sodium and cholesterol in your average variety processed bacon are likely to be very dangerous for your health long term. Pork fat is among the healthiest of all animal fats (and better than pretty much everything except avocado and olive oil). You can see its chemistry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lard The link between dietary cholesterol and blood serum cholesterol is not well established. And sodium is typically not bad for you unless you have complicating issues. Salmon is great for you, especially if it's wild and therefore not fed crap. The research (e.g. http://www.jle.com/e-docs/00/04/61/1C/article.phtml http://www.jle.com/e-docs/00/04/61/1C/article.phtml) is beginning to show that our omega-6 to omega-3 ratio has gotten out of whack. Simply put: we're eating too much crap with cheap, processed, plant oil derived omega-6 that blows away the amount of omega-3 we are eating. Eat more pork fat, eat more butter, eat more salmon, eat more tuna. For plants, eat more olive oil, coconut oil, and avocados. Stop eating stuff that comes in shrink wrap.