New study says high protein diets can cause cancer

[allno]

I've been researching diet lately due to the fact that I had an abnormal mamogram and happened across this study. Here is the serach term: Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Unfortunately I can't link it because I don't have enough posts. I've had much success with a high protein low carb diet before and was wanting to start again as I've gain a lot of weight. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Thanks!

[BrandG]

No, it doesn't

[cmoore]

so does drinking tap water. Suck it up butter cup. You'll get cancer or you won't. Protein is the least of your worries.

[Karn235]

Who cares, I'll eat what I want to eat, everything can kill you these days lmao. I wouldn't stop eating icecream if it knocked of a couple decades of my life (150% srs)

[Cass40]

Who cares, I'll eat what I want to eat, everything can kill you these days lmao. I wouldn't stop eating icecream if it knocked of a couple decades of my life (150% srs)

Now I want ice cream

[21infantry]

ITT, OP is concerned about one of the building blocks of Muscle, causing cancer. Until next week when a new study suggest high protein diets while smoking crack, diminishes cancer risk by 60%.

[ironwill2008]

I've been researching diet lately due to the fact that I had an abnormal mamogram and happened across this study. Here is the serach term: Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Unfortunately I can't link it because I don't have enough posts. I've had much success with a high protein low carb diet before and was wanting to start again as I've gain a lot of weight.




Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Thanks!

Noticed a couple of things right off the bat:

*Study based on rodent subjects as well as human subjects.

*Human subjects' food intake was self-reported. IOW, there was no clinical control of what the human subjects ate during the duration of the study.

*No mention made of lifestyle of human subjects such as smokers/alcohol consumption/exercise history/etc.







As a counterpoint, here's a 'study' that shows that as global average temperature increases, so does the number of ****lian pirates:




By correlation, it can then be deduced that if we send a sh*tload of air conditioners to ****lia, the pirate problem will be solved.















Seriously though, statistical studies are just that---studies of numbers. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

[DuracellBunny]

I'm going to be lazy and quote myself.

I hereby publish a new study.

With a sample size of 1,000,000, BB.com members were found to have a much higher than average chance of arguing over inconsequential stuff as if their life depended on it.

From this data, researcher 1 concludes that being a member of BB.com turns you in to this kind of person.
Researcher 2 concludes that this is the kind of person who joins BB.com.

With the same data, 2 different researchers drew completely different conclusions, neither of which can be shown to have a causal relationship, but both of which will be argued by the researchers to be the only logical conclusion and that anybody who doesn't agree with them is an idiot.

When researchers examined the data on ketchup users, they found the more ketchup a person consumed the more likely they were to be obese. This has nothing to do with all of the fries that the people ate with the ketchup or their general lifestyle, but is purely down to the ketchup. So be warned, ketchup makes you fat.

I think that adequately conveys my views on the subject.

[turningthecorne]

Off topic but where is Wonderpug these days....Causation/Correlation posts remind me of him.

[ironwill2008]

Off topic but where is Wonderpug these days....Causation/Correlation posts remind me of him.

You'll usually find him in the 'nutrition' forum.

[noworneverbby]

I've been researching diet lately due to the fact that I had an abnormal mamogram and happened across this study. Here is the serach term: Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Unfortunately I can't link it because I don't have enough posts. I've had much success with a high protein low carb diet before and was wanting to start again as I've gain a lot of weight. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Thanks!

Can you try to post the link in a modified form? (like abc dot com or abc .com (note the space)). It's hard for people to respond without know the context or credibility of the source you're talking about.

[anonymous]

I've been researching diet lately due to the fact that I had an abnormal mamogram and happened across this study. Here is the serach term: Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Unfortunately I can't link it because I don't have enough posts. I've had much success with a high protein low carb diet before and was wanting to start again as I've gain a lot of weight. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Thanks!

before spreading anymore broscience please Google "igf 1 deficiency symptoms" and let us know if that sounds like something you'd be into.

negged for this stupidity

[Lightsout13]

Anything can cause cancer, that "study" is largely unfounded.

[drudixon]

Cancer is a bunch of cells. Muscle is a bunch of cells. So is bone, skin, etc.



Shocking conclusion....

[drudixon]

Off topic but where is Wonderpug these days....Causation/Correlation posts remind me of him.

He hasn't bothered to post here in a thoughtful way in ages that I've seen.

[Gabbar99]

so does drinking tap water.

Says who?

There may be something to the protein study. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we should totally dismiss it. Doesn't mean you're going to drop dead if you eat high protein, but the idea that we should dismiss all science because of uncertainty is silly. We should be smart enough to look at the evidence and make decisions. Dismissing everything we don't like is no better than fearful overreacting.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/...ddle-aged.aspx

[drudixon]

Says who?

There may be something to the protein study. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we should totally dismiss it. Doesn't mean you're going to drop dead if you eat high protein, but the idea that we should dismiss all science because of uncertainty is silly. We should be smart enough to look at the evidence and make decisions. Dismissing everything we don't like is no better than fearful overreacting.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/...ddle-aged.aspx

You're a fool.

[ironwill2008]

.... the idea that we should dismiss all science because of uncertainty is silly.

Who said anything about dismissing "all science?" This thread concerns one specific study.


Try to stay on-topic.

[DuracellBunny]

but the idea that we should dismiss all science because of uncertainty is silly

This study should not be equated with science in any way. Taking a bunch of data and deciding to take some factors in to account and not others isn't science, its statistical masturbation.

As a scientist that has been published 40+ times, I wouldn't wipe my arse with this study.

[Gabbar99]

This study should not be equated with science in any way. Taking a bunch of data and deciding to take some factors in to account and not others isn't science, its statistical masturbation.

As a scientist that has been published 40+ times, I wouldn't wipe my arse with this study.

As a mediocre scientist who has been published 50+ times and edits a journal, I think it's an okay study. I'm not going to stop eating protein. It's interesting information, not real conclusive, misused by vegetarian zealots and clueless media, but adds to the body of knowledge. No reason to crap all over it just because it doesn't convince us to stop eating protein.

[Gabbar99]

Who said anything about dismissing "all science?" This thread concerns one specific study.
Try to stay on-topic.

Actually, very few of the responses in this thread were about this specific study.

[DuracellBunny]

As a mediocre scientist who has been published 50+ times and edits a journal, I think it's an okay study. I'm not going to stop eating protein. It's interesting information, not real conclusive, misused by vegetarian zealots and clueless media, but adds to the body of knowledge. No reason to crap all over it just because it doesn't convince us to stop eating protein.

They took self reported intake for 1 24 hour period and projected that to be the standard intake for 18 years. That's not a study. They have one set of data points, that's it. The data wasn't even compiled for them, they appropriated it. If they had really wanted to study this, they would have made people keep long term diet journals, they would have had far more equal sample groups (medium protein had over 10x the number of people that low protein did)etc

I could go on and on, but if a freshman turned in this study they would get a C for it. The fact that the study was published following peer review casts serious credibility issues on the publishing journal.

If any of my employees produced a study like this I would fire them for incompetence.

[Fishman15]

Noticed a couple of things right off the bat:

*Study based on rodent subjects as well as human subjects.

*Human subjects' food intake was self-reported. IOW, there was no clinical control of what the human subjects ate during the duration of the study.

*No mention made of lifestyle of human subjects such as smokers/alcohol consumption/exercise history/etc.








As a counterpoint, here's a 'study' that shows that as global average temperature increases, so does the number of ****lian pirates:




By correlation, it can then be deduced that if we send a ****load of air conditioners to ****lia, the pirate problem will be solved.















Seriously though, statistical studies are just that---studies of numbers. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

OK, I just about fell out of my chair reading your correlation of ****li pirates, global warming, and air conditioners. That was gold...

[x-trainer ben]

I've been researching diet lately due to the fact that I had an abnormal mamogram and happened across this study. Here is the serach term: Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Unfortunately I can't link it because I don't have enough posts. I've had much success with a high protein low carb diet before and was wanting to start again as I've gain a lot of weight. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Thanks!

So i have this relative that works for Cancer treatment centers of America and i asked her to educate me on some basics; that combined with my own research on heart disease led me to some conclusions.

1. we are all born with cancer cells
2. there are thousands of types of C
3. Inflammation in the body is responsible for lots of problems
4. what happens to one relative may not happen to you.
5. lifestyle is key
6. observe how you respond to things before you draw conclusions

Op if you want to trim down doing Adkins or whatever, fine, but inflammation over time sucks ass!
Good luck!

[Greginto]

As a mediocre scientist who has been published 50+ times and edits a journal, I think it's an okay study. I'm not going to stop eating protein. It's interesting information, not real conclusive, misused by vegetarian zealots and clueless media, but adds to the body of knowledge. No reason to crap all over it just because it doesn't convince us to stop eating protein.

It's not really a great study. Self reporting is problematic at best. People often have a hard time estimating their intake. Further, if they are eating sources from highly contaminated areas (re: Pollution) you may get skewed results, further to that if the population targetted (Americans) were eating "american sized portions" from factory farmed animals...well surprise you are going to get sick. The reality is this was not a controlled study, this was a red herring of a topic to get people talking. The real issue is not protein intake, it is Level of activity, smoking, level of consumption of improperly handled/raised protein sources, but it was not the protein intake. The protein intake is a by-product of what this study could and should have been examining. You have a population of people targetted (40's) who were raised in a much unhealthier world (pollution increases over the past 4 decades, not to mention wars, exposure to chemicals, etc) are also at their highest. Animals are also exposed to those same factors, so yes, you're going to see increases when you are consuming things who have also been exposed to those same factors.

At the end of the day, eat clean/healthy, source your food if you are worried about it, and don't huff the muffler of your car.

[cmoore]

Says who?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3480378

Data from a population-based case-control interview study of incident bladder cancer in 10 areas of the United States were used to estimate relative risks among white men (2,116 cases, 3,892 controls) and women (689 cases, 1,366 controls) according to beverage intake level and type of water source. Individual year-by-year profiles of water source and treatment were developed by linking lifetime residential information with historical water utility data from an ancillary survey. Risk of bladder cancer increased with intake level of beverages made with tap water. The odds ratio (OR) for the highest vs. lowest quintile of tap water consumption was 1.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.23, 1.67; chi 2 for trend = 26.3, P less than .001]. The risk gradient with intake was restricted to persons with at least a 40-year exposure to chlorinated surface water and was not found among long-term users of nonchlorinated ground water. The ORs for the highest vs. lowest quintiles of tap water intake were 1.7 and 2.0, respectively, among subjects with 40-59 and greater than or equal to 60 years' exposure. Duration of exposure to chlorinated surface water was associated with bladder cancer risk among women and nonsmokers of both sexes. Among non-smoking respondents with tap water consumption above the population median, the OR increased with exposure duration to a level of 3.1 (CI = 1.3, 7.3; chi 2 for trend = 6.3, P = .01) for greater than or equal to 60 years of residence at places served by chlorinated surface water (vs. non-chlorinated ground water users). These results extend findings of earlier epidemiologic studies and are consistent with environmental chemistry and toxicologic data demonstrating the presence of genotoxic by-products of chlorine disinfection in treated surface waters.

this is common knowledge...no?

[ParsleyTea]

Thought Dr. Eades had a nice write up on this.

"Animal protein worse than smoking?!?!"

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/c...worse-smoking/

[drudixon]

Good read. Like how it broke down the flaws of the study, some I caught, some I didn't.

[DontMusclWantng]

It's not really a great study. Self reporting is problematic at best. People often have a hard time estimating their intake. .

I think there is some circular logic in all self-reported studies. For example it said "people" not young men specifically. Men who eat a lot more meat than an averaged person likely do more cancer risky things like smoking and drinking.

Using that logic I assume a study would report that people with gym memberships over 5 years have more back injuries than the American average.

[jamest2k]

I've been researching diet lately due to the fact that I had an abnormal mamogram and happened across this study. Here is the serach term: Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF-1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population

Unfortunately I can't link it because I don't have enough posts. I've had much success with a high protein low carb diet before and was wanting to start again as I've gain a lot of weight. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Thanks!

There's a big difference between someone who gets their protein from lean chicken breast/tuna and another from processed/fatty meats. Until studies take this into consideration - amongst many other things, they're not worth ****.