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!
|
-
03-28-2015, 02:11 PM #1
New study says high protein diets can cause cancer
-
03-28-2015, 02:12 PM #2
-
03-28-2015, 02:19 PM #3
-
03-28-2015, 02:22 PM #4
-
-
03-28-2015, 02:25 PM #5
-
03-28-2015, 02:26 PM #6
- Join Date: May 2014
- Location: Stuttgart, Baden-Wurtenburg, Germany
- Posts: 2,483
- Rep Power: 4078
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%.
Current Maxes 6/10/2015 and End of year Goals
Bench 260/300 *RTS CREW*
Squat 345/405 *Bombed First Meet Crew*
Dead 440/500
-
03-28-2015, 03:14 PM #7
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.Last edited by ironwill2008; 08-25-2023 at 10:29 AM.
No brain, no gain.
"The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
03-28-2015, 03:50 PM #8
-
-
03-28-2015, 04:08 PM #9
-
03-28-2015, 04:19 PM #10No brain, no gain.
"The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
03-28-2015, 05:11 PM #11
-
03-28-2015, 05:36 PM #12anonymousGuest
-
-
03-28-2015, 05:38 PM #13
-
03-28-2015, 06:37 PM #14
-
03-28-2015, 06:42 PM #15
-
03-28-2015, 07:00 PM #16
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
-
-
03-28-2015, 07:01 PM #17
-
03-28-2015, 07:14 PM #18No brain, no gain.
"The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
03-28-2015, 07:24 PM #19
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.Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!
The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.
They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
-
03-28-2015, 08:27 PM #20
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.
-
-
03-28-2015, 08:31 PM #21
-
03-29-2015, 04:58 AM #22
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.Last edited by DuracellBunny; 03-29-2015 at 05:14 AM.
Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!
The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.
They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
-
03-29-2015, 08:05 AM #23
-
03-29-2015, 08:06 AM #24
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!
-
-
03-29-2015, 08:11 AM #25
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.
-
03-29-2015, 11:23 AM #26
- Join Date: Sep 2005
- Location: Coeur D Alene, Idaho, United States
- Age: 51
- Posts: 4,342
- Rep Power: 38671
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."I'm not a Ninja, but I played one on TV." -cmoore, American Ninja Warrior (ANW 7,8)
"Of all the things I lost during my cut, I miss my mind the most." -cmoore
-
03-29-2015, 01:19 PM #27
Thought Dr. Eades had a nice write up on this.
"Animal protein worse than smoking?!?!"
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/c...worse-smoking/
-
03-29-2015, 02:30 PM #28
-
-
03-29-2015, 04:48 PM #29
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."Motivation is simple, you eliminate everyone who isn't motivated." - Lou Holtz
-
03-29-2015, 05:45 PM #30
Similar Threads
-
The antioxidant myth: a medical fairy tale - New scientist
By Nutz in forum SupplementsReplies: 28Last Post: 01-23-2016, 08:52 AM -
MSN article linking high protein diet to higher risks of cancer
By feardafronfz3 in forum Teen BodybuildingReplies: 19Last Post: 06-24-2013, 05:33 PM -
Protein Propaganda: Apparently we only need 25 grams per day
By Trigger543 in forum NutritionReplies: 8Last Post: 05-23-2012, 04:58 PM -
High Protien make you fatter?
By StevenV in forum NutritionReplies: 14Last Post: 03-14-2010, 11:03 PM -
dextrose alternatives
By 516 in forum NutritionReplies: 44Last Post: 02-18-2006, 11:00 PM
Bookmarks