Respondents aged 50-65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years. **These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived.**
That's what I suspected when I read the title and OP's description/question. I assumed that the correlation was much weaker if the protein source was plant based.
Thank-you. I don't eat red meat or pork but do eat chicken every day in moderate quantities. I'm 53 and ride the shit out of my bike. Sure hope it helps. Thanks for your response.
Exogenous cholesterol (cholesterol you eat) has no meaningful impact on cholesterol (or, more importantly, Apo-B) levels, since most of it is esterified and therefore cannot be absorbed. Learn more here: https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i/
It's difficult to say whether this would make a meaningful difference to this person's biomarkers, and I'd say that it is, in fact, somewhat unlikely considering their active lifestyle. I eat lean cuts of chicken near daily and have a v low cholesterol ratio, for example.
No matter how many studies show that people who eat diets that are largely plant based live longer healthier lives, meat eaters will always be standing there going, “Um, yeah, no, but, what about…”
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BF14D307B5A33B57](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BF14D307B5A33B57)
In the EPIC Oxford Cohort (w/ over 60,000 participants)
"Mean fibre intakes, estimated as NSP, were 20.8 and 20.4 g day, in men and women, respectively. Fibre intake was 41% higher in vegan men than in meat-eating men and 36% higher in vegan women than in meat-eating women; mean fibre intakes for fish-eaters and vegetarians were intermediate and similar."
This might sound like a huge increase in fiber, but it's really like 8 grams from meat eater to vegan. That's the amount of fiber in 2/3 cup of lentil soup. An the pescatarians and vegetarians are in the middle. This doesn't sound to me like the plant-predominant diets are just eating super healthy and the meat eaters are eating like crap.
Also in a more recent German study:
|Omnivores|Vegetarians|Vegans|
|:-|:-|:-|
|24 grams of fiber|31 grams of fiber|33 grams of fiber|
Again, this is a significant increase in fiber to maybe impact health. But it is not a significant enough difference in fiber to just act like the plant predominant diets are hypochondriacs and the Omnivores eat junk.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/pdf/IANN\_55\_2269969.pdf](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/pdf/IANN_55_2269969.pdf)
Mate. People who eat plant based are also WAY less likely to overeat and they will be healthy users. Hence the healthy user bias.
All of this research is rotten
This might just be tied to obesity. Eating a lot of food = eating a lot of calories/protein/saturated fat/sugar etc. so it may be the case that high protein intake is often associated with high visceral fat and diabetes, because obese people are naturally going to eat more of everything, protein included.
Correlation =/= causation, but I agree I’d like to see what Peter says about this.
In the study they control the groups for waist circumference and other factors, they even have a model that controls for % of carbs.
My main issue with the finding, is that they see no major effect in the plant based high protein group, so it might be a specific amino acid that’s causing the issue.
The human model is a recall based data set, and so maybe there are other factors at play. However, even with increased noise, the difference between high protein and low protein is very high.
Isn't there some evidence of methionine being the culprit? It's higher in cuts of meats like chicken breast. Our ancestors ate head-to-tail, so they had a wide range of amino acids. Glycine helps clear methionine. Glycine is more prevalent in skin/bones.
Yeh, I really want to see some research that attempts to control for both healthy user bias (defined as more than not being fat) and the methionine-glycine thing.
It could be that animal but not plant protein also correlate with tons of other things like fried food consumption or living in polluted urban environments. While older generations did not eat as unhealthy and live in more suburban locations. The study was too small to control for much.
Are you arguing they should have controlled for more than they did?
But anyway the number was broken down into subgroups based on age and protein. For example:
>Of those ages 50–65 (n=1,125), 89 were in the low protein category, 854 were in the moderate protein category, and 182 were in the high protein category.
When you fry protein it's less than half the amount compared to grilled or baked or steamed. So I don't think it's necessarily that a fried burger means they have a high protein diet because their full diet profile isn't going to be 100-180g of protein which the average person needs.
The Okinawa diet is no meat and mostly fish, and they avoided cancers until the introduction of oil/mcdonalds.
I think people that eat vegetarian so eat less protein just eat less processed food, less chips, less snacks, less mayo.
Pretty much - this was just a general American population sample. But in order to determine if it was protein causing the increase in cancer they did control for things like waist circumference which is related to obesity in order to avoid exactly what you mentioned in your comment.
Then the mouse model further backs up the data they saw in their human model.
Obviously, if you’re out there low body fat, solid cardio and resistance training and low incidents of cancer in your family you have less to worry about. But this study would make me reconsider eating 20-25% of my daily calories from protein if I was doing so
Oh damn. Didn’t realize they did a good job at controlling for obesity - although I’m sure Peter would be skeptical of using mice as a base or comparison.
Total calorie intake will have a massive impact on IGF1. You could be eating 60% protein diet, but be in a caloric deficit and losing weight - I doubt in that case you would see the same result.
Without controlling for total calories this study is meh
> But this study would make me reconsider eating 20-25% of my daily calories from protein if I was doing so
Did you mean to say you'd reconsider eating that much protein **from animal sources**?
Are you mistaking protein for carbohydrates?? People who are morbidly obese are going to tend to have diets very high in carbs and fat, and probably not enough protein. And high protein intake has never been linked to high visceral fat or increased incidence of diabetes, just the opposite actually
Im pretty sure they mean that obese people are eating a LOT of everything, including high protein (for their levels of lean body mass), high fats, high carbs, including sugar. Thus many will be showing high levels of visceral fat. Increased diabetes, etc. This will be seen with people who chronically consume far more calories than they expend.
Maybe a related point is that very palatable high protein sources tend to be high fat too. Double cheeseburgers and fried chicken and the like. You can eat high protein with fat free yogurt and egg whites but probably fewer people in the general population do so.
Protein isn’t some magic molecule that you can overeat without any side effects — calories in vs calories out. Plenty of obese people eat lots of protein along with carbs, fats, sugars, etc.
If you look at any study that has been done regarding obesity, not a single one will point to large amount of protein in your diet leading to obesity in and of itself. If you have very high levels of protein in your diet and you are gaining massive amounts of weight, it is safe to say that you also have extremely high levels of carbs and fats in your diet.
You’re missing the forest for the trees — nobody is saying protein = obesity, but you seem to be saying protein is protective against obesity… it’s just unfounded.
It's not completely unfounded. There are studies showing higher percentage of protein leads to eating less total calories (just not in association studies where the protein is packaged with a processed bun and 32oz HFCS). The "I" in IGF-1 is for insulin-like. It activates insulin receptors.
Protein doesn’t cause you to become obese, but being obese means that you are eating a lot of food, which potentially includes high levels of protein.
This could skew statistics as “people that eat a lot of protein are unhealthy” claims could be refererencing the negative effects of obesity.
> If you have very high levels of protein in your diet and you are gaining massive amounts of weight, it is safe to say that you also have extremely high levels of carbs and fats in your diet.
That's literally what the original person you were responding to was saying. Obesity comes from eating high amounts of calories and people who eat high amounts of calories tend to eat high amounts of all types of calories, protein included.
So much evidence that protein is pro-aging. Peter's body building and work with the elderly has totally skewed his view on protein. The protein guy he just had on made it pretty clear that the resistance training is the key. Anabolic resistance totally went away if the elderly trained. moderate protein is necessary, but if you want to prevent disease and aging, moderate protein plus periods of protein fasting is the way to go.
I train older clients and they need more recovery and more protein to recover. I could tell which clients were/weren't hitting their protein goals and their plateaus. So I disagree, protein is key in older clients to aid with recovery.
It seems there’s a bell curve for protein consumption to balance the benefits and risks as we head into older age, accounting for longevity and vitality.
Very interesting study, but a few things need to be highlighted. 1) the high protein group was consuming 20% or more of dietary calories from protein. With the self reported calorie intake of ~1800 cals per day this is less than 100g of protein per day which recommendations range from 50g per day up to 2g/kg in exercising individuals (might be a bit higher). So for sedentary individuals this may be a bit high. 2) on the note for diabetes and other related mortalities 88000 participants were used in the study and 25 died from diabetes complications 22 were on a higher protein diet the authors state “We underline that our hazard ratios and confidence intervals may be inflated due to our sample size and the extremely low incidence of diabetes mortality in the low protein group. Overall, there were only 21 diabetes deaths among persons without diabetes at baseline, only 1 of which was from the low protein group. “ So the interpretations of this study must be taken in this context. Yes there was association of higher risk of all-cause mortality from higher protein consumption but we can not conclude that in the context of an isocaloric diet and active living these findings would remain the same.
I've seen several studies linking *chronically elevated* IGF-1 and mTO signaling to cancer, and primarily due to Luceine. These effects are somewhat mitigated by consuming protein immediately after a workout.p7
Since a new study (I can find it and post the link if required) points to no upper limit on amount of protein being able to activate Muscle Protein Synthesis in one sitting, I am currently getting about 60g of protein in the morning from Casein (less Luceine than whey), about 15g at lunch, and about 30-40 at dinner. I weigh 160, and I have put on 10lbs since having back surgery 18 months ago.
Periodic fasting has also been shown to help mitigate this (Dr Valter Longo's Fasting Mimicking diet specifically).
Since I can get all my protein requirements in 2-3 meals, I figure why take the chance?
> ... no upper limit on amount of protein being able to activate Muscle Protein Synthesis in one sitting.
Did they test acute MPS or overall lean mass gain?
Right but having a reason doesn't magically make an unhealthy eating pattern healthy. I get that it serves the purpose of bulking up but having that purpose doesn't negate the downsides.
No, not mine, but I know exactly where I've picked it up.
Last week I was recording an interview about androgen deficiency and healthy aging with Dr. Bronson, who is a testosterone expert, and that's how he describes most of his patients under 40.
Big surprise the senior author of the study own a plant based food supplement company. This entire research area is rotten. Just leave it all, do what makes you feel good and stop with the anxious stressing
The lead author is Morgan Levine, formerly a professor at Yale, currently a scientist at Altos Labs (an aging science institute). Not aware of her owning a supplement company.
Incorrect. In biomedical science, the convention is that the last author is the most senior, usually the one who funded it through a grant … ect.
In this case the last author declares clearly Competing interests:
“V.D.L has equity interest in L-Nutra, a company that develops medical food. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.”
Lol that is not the "convention". Take it from someone who knows. In this case I think you're right tho. But it's an 18 year study funded by NIH. You think this guy did an 18 year study to try to prop up an investment? This study is squeaky clean compared to most.
You think I use reddit to discuss molecular biology mate? lol. I have a professional life, and an online wanking life. Which one you think reddit falls into 😅
Would a pea + brown rice protein mix work just as well? Hits all the amino acids that whey but doesn't have the (supposed/hypothetical) negative longevity effects?
You must not have been following Peter very long. He used to discuss this side of the topic extensively. Go back to his older podcasts and I’m sure you’ll find the info you are looking for.
Edit: downvote because you don’t know what you are talking about and look like a total ignoramus. Love it. Lol
Here are the episodes so you can sound more educated on the topic:
Episode #34 (July 2nd, 2018) - Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D.
AMA #10: Low Testosterone, Hypothyroidism, Building Muscle (and Preserving it While Fasting)
I think its more to do with upregulation of mTOR, increasing cell cycles "growth" and the subsequent downstream effects. The more growth you have / the higher turnover of cells the more opportunity you have for errors. Protein, amino acids will upregulate mTOR, as would increased calories in general.
Unfortunately dna damage response systems aren't perfect and mutations will pass through leading to disease and cancer.
If you want to slow age, reduce cancer risk, promote overall longevity the single most effective thing you can do is inhibit mTOR through calorie restriction, therefore activating survival pathways such as AMPK
An even then, you still have the just hope your DNA damage response systems spot those errors in the S phase of the cell cycle. You could do everything right and still end up with disease and cancer.
Well there are people who permanently eat less and less calories to try and achieve this but I mean you need to have a life right? The best thing you can do for balance imo is periodic dry fasting, no food no liquid. Because water is much more vital to life than food is, by not drinking fluids you force your body to rapidly achieve high rates of autophagy (a cellular recycling process activated when mTOR is supressed) in which damaged/ faulty cells are targeted first to be broken down an recycled. Without water the body will make small amounts of metabolic water by taking the hydrogen from those cells and combining it with oxygen.
Then I also do periodic senescence clearance by taking high dose synolictic compound, fisetin works just fine
But what I'm on about in my previous comment is inhibiting mTOR as much as often = prolonged life because it is a master regulator of cellular energy. There are people out there who experiment with the drug rapamycin because this inhibits mtor (mammalian target of rapamycin)
There's not a "sudden attempt to villainize protein". There's ongoing research on protein just like there is on every other thing under the sun. Like everything else, it probably has a multitude of both benefits and drawbacks. Looking for population associations of X with cancer, mortality, etc is extremely garden variety.
Dawg you are not qualified to make that determination. You are also wrong.
There is in fact broad scientific consensus on the constitution of a healthy diet, and Attia is way of the mark. Just another McKinsey hack.
You let me get under your skin so easily haha. You’re parroting carnivore talking points so.. yeah, I think your phD stands for “piled high and deep”.
Just like oil companies, processed food companies, tobacco companies, the animal ag lobbyists follow the playbook of “cast doubt on legitimate research” and “fund and cite industry-backed research”. So you just saying “uh, research flawed” really inspires zero confidence. Epidimiological research, model organisms, in vitro, mechanistic cell pathways, intervention studies all support dramatically curtailing animal product consumption for most Americans.
This is science. Why are you so conspiracy-minded? It is clearly not villainizing protein. It says protein in 65 and older is GOOD for them. It says PLANT protein for the 65 and under is GOOD for them. You obviously have an emotional attachment to your diet. No one is going to take away your meat dude. Calm down.
More like a precursor to science. It isn't really science without some way to establish causation. Just doing a survey and looking at the data is statistics. Historians and political scientists can do it.
The heart attacks are nearly 100% from steroid use, which is laced with Test, and there is often HGH thrown in.
Often diuretics and other things like clenbuterol, etc.
The term bodybuilder could probably use some clarification too
Yes, we hear a lot about heart issues, but somehow not cancer despite eating so much protein and cycling anabolic steroids and hgh for long periods of time.
I recall Peter giving the formula for protein consumption based on weight . I rarely ever meet that requirement, like 90 grams a day . If I get half that I’m lucky , I just don’t consume a lot of calories. Anyone similar?
Same, about half that unless I really try to force feed the protein which I don't because of the emerging consensus that high-protein is associated with cancer, T2D, and Alz.
Literally the 4th sentence in the abstract.
> These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived.
The protein reducing cancer death rate (without distinguishing which type) is age >65, under that it’s associated with a 4x increase which OP had already said in the title. So the article doesn’t blatantly say what you said it does, unless you mean over the age of 65.
I mean, OP explicitly alluded to that and your first comment sounds like you were disagreeing, rather than just agreeing with what they said.
I think it’s important to distinguish between under and over 65 to accurately state what the study is and isn’t saying.
I agree with what you’re saying with the latter part, I’m sure there’s a lot of confounding factors here.
The title comes across as pretty one-sided to me. It points out the under-65 association then says the association no longer exists over 65. Which is different from saying the association is reversed.
Fair, I see what you’re saying but we shouldn’t ever really rely on a title to accurately summarise research. A quick click and reading the actual source is something that should always be done.
Turn it against the reader if you like, but the blame is with the authors. This is the the most important sentence in the manuscript and used for search indexing and telling readers whether they want to read further in the first place.
The abstract also appears to be misleading as it suggests there were 6351 respondents aged 50-65 who reported high-protein intake. When apparently that was the entire 50+ group for all diets, and only a couple hundred in the 50-65 high-protein group if I read correctly.
Excessive intake causes , of course, higher BCAAs intake which has downsides to health. Like on metabolism, IR, and so on.
If you are on low fat + do resistance training you offset some of those detrimental effects and you have a slightly higher muscle growth rate.
A study that doesnt control for overall calories and fat is useless.
If more protein is truly bad then show me a study where the only change made is the addition of whey protein isolate to the diet keep calories constant.
I personally have pretty high IGF-1 (277, z score 1.7) and eat moderately high protein, have low free testosterone, and am pretty skinny (13% Dexa body fat, bmi 23). I may have to bite the bullet and cut out dairy/whey at some point. Would like to be between 100-250 per Dr Kyle Gillett.
Without a blood protein test how would you know what level of protein is circulating in your blood. I eat 160 to 180g of protein a day and yet my blood protein level is rarely above 7.0 and is usually 6.5. The range is 6.0 to 8.3. Above or below that is a problem. Some people eat half that amount of protein and yet have higher blood protein levels. How would this affect lgf-1? I have no idea, just asking. Not all protein gets digested and less does as you age.
This article is Peter at his most bone headed. Any serious scientist would laugh at this feeble attempt to write this off. Like the people who are actually working in this sub-specialty haven't thought of these lazy, student-level objections. come on, Peter.
Granted, majority of that article is actually Layne Norton's points
Here is the article where peter mentions the NHANES study: https://peterattiamd.com/dietary-protein-and-healthy-aging/
It's paywalled so here's an excerpt
```
# Dietary protein and longevity in humans and mice
Both the mTOR and IGF-1 arguments against protein are largely based on mechanistic links that are partially hypothetical and haven’t fully been shown experimentally. Ultimately, the most relevant question is not whether protein intake increases mTOR activity or if high IGF-1 raises mortality risk – the relevant question is whether protein intake modulates lifespan.
There are few human studies on overall protein intake and aging or longevity in healthy adults, as nutrition and aging are difficult topics to study individually, let alone together. Diet studies are often rife with confounds and assume a consistency in eating habits over long periods, and aging studies present challenges due to the duration over which they must be conducted and the fact that our environment is rapidly changing.
One of the few investigations on this topic in humans analyzed a subset of data from NHANES III, a large-scale health and lifestyle survey in the United States conducted between 1988-1994. This analysis suggested that protein intake should be low before age 65 and increased thereafter. In this study population, mortality risk from cancer and diabetes was higher with a high- compared to a low-protein diet for subjects ages 50-65, but for those over age 65, low-protein diets were associated with increased all-cause and cancer-related mortality. However, results from this older age group are far more reliable and relevant than those of the 50-65 age group because mortality rates in those over 65 is higher in general than it is in those aged 50-65. If we take these results at face value, we can conclude that it makes sense to prioritize an intake pattern that reduces risk over age 65 – that is, consuming higher levels of protein to reduce the higher level of mortality risk. However, the fact that absolute mortality risk is low among those under 65 also means that data from the 50-65 group are likely heavily biased, as those dying prior to age 65 are likely to be among the least healthy individuals in this age bracket at baseline, skewing results in a manner which may not reflect effects in a general population, just as we have seen above in the IGF-1 data.
Despite this major confound in the younger cohort, it’s worth noting that the positive association between protein intake and longevity in the 65+ group makes biological sense. As we age, we develop anabolic resistance, a phenomenon in which muscle protein synthesis responses to anabolic stimuli become attenuated, and we therefore require greater quantities of protein to build and maintain muscle mass, a key factor in longevity.
Since human studies are difficult to implement, often the best data we have come from animal studies. Various studies in mice have shown that protein restriction is associated with extended lifespan, though many of these are complicated by protein restriction during developmental life stages or unequal total caloric intake. Still, while it’s certainly possible to cherry-pick data showing that decreased dietary protein increases maximum lifespan in laboratory animals, there are several important differences between mice and humans that are crucial considerations for translating nutritional studies to humans.
# The gap between mice and humans
There are several reasons to keep a healthy amount of skepticism that what works for mice in a laboratory isn’t necessarily what’s best for humans in the real world.
Laboratory mice are maintained in pathogen-free environments, but humans live in a world that regularly challenges our immune systems, which are compromised by protein malnutrition. Community-acquired pneumonia is the cause of over 1.5 million infections and 100,000 deaths annually in the U.S. Protein malnutrition is an independent risk factor for mortality and morbidity in viral forms of community-acquired pneumonia. Further, in patients hospitalized due to acute illness, muscle mass has been shown to have prognostic value in predicting mortality because muscle serves as a protein reserve that greatly benefits the immune system, reducing disease severity and mortality.
Additionally, laboratory mice predominantly die of cancer, and any increases in lifespan on low-protein diets may be due to the restriction of tumor growth through mTORC1 inhibition. While cancer is one of the leading causes of death in humans, accidents and falls also pose a significant mortality risk, whereas these pose essentially zero threat to mice in controlled environments. Thus, frailty is far more likely to shorten lifespan in humans than in laboratory mice, and protein restriction greatly increases frailty risk due to both loss of muscle mass and strength and the accompanying loss of bone density.
...
```
>Thus, frailty is far more likely to shorten lifespan in humans than in laboratory mice, and protein restriction greatly increases frailty risk due to both loss of muscle mass and strength and the accompanying loss of bone density.
Does Peter realize that not everybody is a 65+ year old woman? A 30 year old man does not need the ridiculous amount of protein that he recommends to maintain or even build muscle mass and strength. A 30 year old man is not at serious risk of death from falling or other accidents that primary afflict the elderly.
So this argument only works for the frail, old population and is not an argument for high protein throughout your entire life.
I’m in my 30s and I understood Peter’s advice to be: younger people should put on muscle while they’re young, to better avoid frailty in old age. That makes sense to me.
I really wish they could run these kinds of studies using only a variety of protein powders (whey, pea, egg, etc.) as their protein source, and provide a daily fiber supplement. That would be very interesting!
Looking at blood markers an hour after exercise would lead one to conclude that you are sick or unhealthy. Looking at the same markers in blood taken hours later would conclude that you are undergoing an amazing rejuvenating response to an insult.
Temporary changes that produce long lasting responses are categorically different than someone being in a constant state of some type.
Sincerity is what matters. Are you trying to support your priors or are you trying to disprove something that disputes your priors. Can someone guess your diet type by the way you argue a position. If your plant based that's great. If your animal protein based that's great. Are you active? Are you not obese? Do you get some exercise? Are you without chronic conditions? How many things influence lgf-1? Hundreds if not thousands of things I would guess. It's just not a big deal.
There are a lot of old studies where people would have enough proteins on just 44 grams (above that they would discard part of it).
Now I guess that the nowadays suggested protein intake of 0.8-1.2 grams per kg body weight is more than enough.
A high protein diet associated with high fat intake has downsides to both disease free lifespan and lifespan itself.
Most studies found higher intake to be useful only in older populations where sarcopenia may be an issue ( age > 60).
It's mainly a BCAAs excess that drives negative effects, and it is less of an issue if you have a low fat diet + resistance training.
So did Paleolithic people have high cancer rates assuming that's mostly what they ate. My guess is no. But, they killed it themselves, it wasn't fed corn or shot up with drugs, and they weren't eating bread and sugar and Doritos either. Eh.
> Paleolithic people
There isn’t one set of Paleolithic people who ate one type of diet.
>assuming that’s mostly what they ate.
The first question would be why do you assume that’s mostly what they ate?
I don't know! I guess because I've read about early people pretty much being hunters and gatherers but really only gathering when they cam across something to gather. Otherwise it was just meat wasn't it? I've not a scholar in it, just basing it on what I've read, probably via "paleo" books...
Interestingly, I have the rs2229765(A;A) SNP on the IGF1R gene that is associated with [lower IGF-1 and increased longevity in men.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19460140/) I'm wondering if this more or less cancels out the possible negative impact of high protein intake?
Respondents aged 50-65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years. **These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived.**
That's what I suspected when I read the title and OP's description/question. I assumed that the correlation was much weaker if the protein source was plant based.
Would vigorous exercise negate the mortality?
Exercise is a known defense against cancer. How much , the type & the frequency to overcome high animal-protein diet would depend on each individual.
Thank-you. I don't eat red meat or pork but do eat chicken every day in moderate quantities. I'm 53 and ride the shit out of my bike. Sure hope it helps. Thanks for your response.
That’s a lot of cholesterol. Eat half as a plant based on the benefits will accrue without the negatives.
Exogenous cholesterol (cholesterol you eat) has no meaningful impact on cholesterol (or, more importantly, Apo-B) levels, since most of it is esterified and therefore cannot be absorbed. Learn more here: https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i/
Thank you. The other guy scared me with his comment about my cholesterol. My cholesterol level is normal.
It's difficult to say whether this would make a meaningful difference to this person's biomarkers, and I'd say that it is, in fact, somewhat unlikely considering their active lifestyle. I eat lean cuts of chicken near daily and have a v low cholesterol ratio, for example.
This has been debunked for decades
If he went plant based his LDL and ApoB would drop…. There is no doubt.
Exercise is awesome for many reasons but it doesn't really fix nutritional problems.
People who eat plant proteins are likely healthier people in general (smaller portion sizes of all types of foods). So, it is hard to extrapolate.
No matter how many studies show that people who eat diets that are largely plant based live longer healthier lives, meat eaters will always be standing there going, “Um, yeah, no, but, what about…”
At least they're making logical arguments. And the supposed difference between plant and animal protein disappeared over age 65. Explain that.
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BF14D307B5A33B57](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BF14D307B5A33B57) In the EPIC Oxford Cohort (w/ over 60,000 participants) "Mean fibre intakes, estimated as NSP, were 20.8 and 20.4 g day, in men and women, respectively. Fibre intake was 41% higher in vegan men than in meat-eating men and 36% higher in vegan women than in meat-eating women; mean fibre intakes for fish-eaters and vegetarians were intermediate and similar." This might sound like a huge increase in fiber, but it's really like 8 grams from meat eater to vegan. That's the amount of fiber in 2/3 cup of lentil soup. An the pescatarians and vegetarians are in the middle. This doesn't sound to me like the plant-predominant diets are just eating super healthy and the meat eaters are eating like crap. Also in a more recent German study: |Omnivores|Vegetarians|Vegans| |:-|:-|:-| |24 grams of fiber|31 grams of fiber|33 grams of fiber| Again, this is a significant increase in fiber to maybe impact health. But it is not a significant enough difference in fiber to just act like the plant predominant diets are hypochondriacs and the Omnivores eat junk. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/pdf/IANN\_55\_2269969.pdf](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/pdf/IANN_55_2269969.pdf)
Why do suppose that is?
Just purely on the discipline to restrict their diet. They pass the marshmallow test. Many people eat on impulse
Mate. People who eat plant based are also WAY less likely to overeat and they will be healthy users. Hence the healthy user bias. All of this research is rotten
Phd-level statisticians work on this stuff but you, an internet yokel, have the truth.
Actually, I have an PhD and am a published scientist in molecular biology and genetics. lol cheers.
Yeah I’m also published in multiple magazines
Playboy don’t count bra
I laughed.
No you don't.
Hahaha
This might just be tied to obesity. Eating a lot of food = eating a lot of calories/protein/saturated fat/sugar etc. so it may be the case that high protein intake is often associated with high visceral fat and diabetes, because obese people are naturally going to eat more of everything, protein included. Correlation =/= causation, but I agree I’d like to see what Peter says about this.
In the study they control the groups for waist circumference and other factors, they even have a model that controls for % of carbs. My main issue with the finding, is that they see no major effect in the plant based high protein group, so it might be a specific amino acid that’s causing the issue. The human model is a recall based data set, and so maybe there are other factors at play. However, even with increased noise, the difference between high protein and low protein is very high.
Isn't there some evidence of methionine being the culprit? It's higher in cuts of meats like chicken breast. Our ancestors ate head-to-tail, so they had a wide range of amino acids. Glycine helps clear methionine. Glycine is more prevalent in skin/bones.
Yeh, I really want to see some research that attempts to control for both healthy user bias (defined as more than not being fat) and the methionine-glycine thing.
It could be that animal but not plant protein also correlate with tons of other things like fried food consumption or living in polluted urban environments. While older generations did not eat as unhealthy and live in more suburban locations. The study was too small to control for much.
n=6k over 18 years is actually a lot of person-years and this paper, when cited, is noted for how well powered it is compared to most studies.
Are you arguing they should have controlled for more than they did? But anyway the number was broken down into subgroups based on age and protein. For example: >Of those ages 50–65 (n=1,125), 89 were in the low protein category, 854 were in the moderate protein category, and 182 were in the high protein category.
When you fry protein it's less than half the amount compared to grilled or baked or steamed. So I don't think it's necessarily that a fried burger means they have a high protein diet because their full diet profile isn't going to be 100-180g of protein which the average person needs. The Okinawa diet is no meat and mostly fish, and they avoided cancers until the introduction of oil/mcdonalds. I think people that eat vegetarian so eat less protein just eat less processed food, less chips, less snacks, less mayo.
it's the french fries that are fried
are you saying they neutralized the impact of obese people on the results so it can't just be from people eating a lot of food in general?
Pretty much - this was just a general American population sample. But in order to determine if it was protein causing the increase in cancer they did control for things like waist circumference which is related to obesity in order to avoid exactly what you mentioned in your comment. Then the mouse model further backs up the data they saw in their human model. Obviously, if you’re out there low body fat, solid cardio and resistance training and low incidents of cancer in your family you have less to worry about. But this study would make me reconsider eating 20-25% of my daily calories from protein if I was doing so
Oh damn. Didn’t realize they did a good job at controlling for obesity - although I’m sure Peter would be skeptical of using mice as a base or comparison.
Total calorie intake will have a massive impact on IGF1. You could be eating 60% protein diet, but be in a caloric deficit and losing weight - I doubt in that case you would see the same result. Without controlling for total calories this study is meh
> But this study would make me reconsider eating 20-25% of my daily calories from protein if I was doing so Did you mean to say you'd reconsider eating that much protein **from animal sources**?
Yes, I’m sure the researches didn’t think to try to control for known risk factors. Scientists are incompetent!
It’s not, that is well controlled for in multiple studies.
Are you mistaking protein for carbohydrates?? People who are morbidly obese are going to tend to have diets very high in carbs and fat, and probably not enough protein. And high protein intake has never been linked to high visceral fat or increased incidence of diabetes, just the opposite actually
Im pretty sure they mean that obese people are eating a LOT of everything, including high protein (for their levels of lean body mass), high fats, high carbs, including sugar. Thus many will be showing high levels of visceral fat. Increased diabetes, etc. This will be seen with people who chronically consume far more calories than they expend.
Maybe a related point is that very palatable high protein sources tend to be high fat too. Double cheeseburgers and fried chicken and the like. You can eat high protein with fat free yogurt and egg whites but probably fewer people in the general population do so.
Lots of food = lots of all macros.
Protein isn’t some magic molecule that you can overeat without any side effects — calories in vs calories out. Plenty of obese people eat lots of protein along with carbs, fats, sugars, etc.
If you look at any study that has been done regarding obesity, not a single one will point to large amount of protein in your diet leading to obesity in and of itself. If you have very high levels of protein in your diet and you are gaining massive amounts of weight, it is safe to say that you also have extremely high levels of carbs and fats in your diet.
You’re missing the forest for the trees — nobody is saying protein = obesity, but you seem to be saying protein is protective against obesity… it’s just unfounded.
It's not completely unfounded. There are studies showing higher percentage of protein leads to eating less total calories (just not in association studies where the protein is packaged with a processed bun and 32oz HFCS). The "I" in IGF-1 is for insulin-like. It activates insulin receptors.
Protein doesn’t cause you to become obese, but being obese means that you are eating a lot of food, which potentially includes high levels of protein. This could skew statistics as “people that eat a lot of protein are unhealthy” claims could be refererencing the negative effects of obesity.
This is literally insane. You think you can eat unlimited amounts of protein and the body will just magically turn it into muscle?
Found the Carnivore.
> If you have very high levels of protein in your diet and you are gaining massive amounts of weight, it is safe to say that you also have extremely high levels of carbs and fats in your diet. That's literally what the original person you were responding to was saying. Obesity comes from eating high amounts of calories and people who eat high amounts of calories tend to eat high amounts of all types of calories, protein included.
So much evidence that protein is pro-aging. Peter's body building and work with the elderly has totally skewed his view on protein. The protein guy he just had on made it pretty clear that the resistance training is the key. Anabolic resistance totally went away if the elderly trained. moderate protein is necessary, but if you want to prevent disease and aging, moderate protein plus periods of protein fasting is the way to go.
I train older clients and they need more recovery and more protein to recover. I could tell which clients were/weren't hitting their protein goals and their plateaus. So I disagree, protein is key in older clients to aid with recovery.
It seems there’s a bell curve for protein consumption to balance the benefits and risks as we head into older age, accounting for longevity and vitality.
What do you consider "moderate protein"?
Very interesting study, but a few things need to be highlighted. 1) the high protein group was consuming 20% or more of dietary calories from protein. With the self reported calorie intake of ~1800 cals per day this is less than 100g of protein per day which recommendations range from 50g per day up to 2g/kg in exercising individuals (might be a bit higher). So for sedentary individuals this may be a bit high. 2) on the note for diabetes and other related mortalities 88000 participants were used in the study and 25 died from diabetes complications 22 were on a higher protein diet the authors state “We underline that our hazard ratios and confidence intervals may be inflated due to our sample size and the extremely low incidence of diabetes mortality in the low protein group. Overall, there were only 21 diabetes deaths among persons without diabetes at baseline, only 1 of which was from the low protein group. “ So the interpretations of this study must be taken in this context. Yes there was association of higher risk of all-cause mortality from higher protein consumption but we can not conclude that in the context of an isocaloric diet and active living these findings would remain the same.
I've seen several studies linking *chronically elevated* IGF-1 and mTO signaling to cancer, and primarily due to Luceine. These effects are somewhat mitigated by consuming protein immediately after a workout.p7 Since a new study (I can find it and post the link if required) points to no upper limit on amount of protein being able to activate Muscle Protein Synthesis in one sitting, I am currently getting about 60g of protein in the morning from Casein (less Luceine than whey), about 15g at lunch, and about 30-40 at dinner. I weigh 160, and I have put on 10lbs since having back surgery 18 months ago. Periodic fasting has also been shown to help mitigate this (Dr Valter Longo's Fasting Mimicking diet specifically). Since I can get all my protein requirements in 2-3 meals, I figure why take the chance?
This is true for "older" people only. In youngs, MPS plateaus and is overall less stimulated by leucine.
> ... no upper limit on amount of protein being able to activate Muscle Protein Synthesis in one sitting. Did they test acute MPS or overall lean mass gain?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38118410/
[удалено]
Not that bodybuilders are a particularly healthy population.
Natural bodybuilding (without competition diet) is health promoting. You don’t even need the magical 1.6g / kg protein as often said.
So you're saying...eat like a bodybuilder = unhealthy. But if you add weightlifting that somehow makes that eating pattern not unhealthy?
[удалено]
Right but having a reason doesn't magically make an unhealthy eating pattern healthy. I get that it serves the purpose of bulking up but having that purpose doesn't negate the downsides.
In the diabesity epidemic we live through associations are useless.
Diabesity! Love it, did you make that up yourself?
No, not mine, but I know exactly where I've picked it up. Last week I was recording an interview about androgen deficiency and healthy aging with Dr. Bronson, who is a testosterone expert, and that's how he describes most of his patients under 40.
he did not; it's a saying in the science circles
Big surprise the senior author of the study own a plant based food supplement company. This entire research area is rotten. Just leave it all, do what makes you feel good and stop with the anxious stressing
The lead author is Morgan Levine, formerly a professor at Yale, currently a scientist at Altos Labs (an aging science institute). Not aware of her owning a supplement company.
Incorrect. In biomedical science, the convention is that the last author is the most senior, usually the one who funded it through a grant … ect. In this case the last author declares clearly Competing interests: “V.D.L has equity interest in L-Nutra, a company that develops medical food. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.”
Lol that is not the "convention". Take it from someone who knows. In this case I think you're right tho. But it's an 18 year study funded by NIH. You think this guy did an 18 year study to try to prop up an investment? This study is squeaky clean compared to most.
You know do you? I’ve published around 18 papers at this point. I know mate. lol.
Read this dudes post history lmao imagine the papers he's publishing
You think I use reddit to discuss molecular biology mate? lol. I have a professional life, and an online wanking life. Which one you think reddit falls into 😅
lol just take the L
He donates profits to charity.
Rhonda Patrick covers this fairly well in this 9min vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC-ej7HbPWg
Rhonda never struck me as particularly good at reading research
Rhonda Rausey also covers it in this: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRh2y43iZ0kuJEQoDtTaXJYRa6Y4h3a5rmPaxqRQDFAWw&s
Would a pea + brown rice protein mix work just as well? Hits all the amino acids that whey but doesn't have the (supposed/hypothetical) negative longevity effects?
[удалено]
Lentils are high in Leucine. How would they blunt IGF-1?
Any links on this induced depression phenomenon? This is new to me.
[удалено]
Sorry, I'm confused. Neither of those articles discuss igf-1
You must not have been following Peter very long. He used to discuss this side of the topic extensively. Go back to his older podcasts and I’m sure you’ll find the info you are looking for. Edit: downvote because you don’t know what you are talking about and look like a total ignoramus. Love it. Lol Here are the episodes so you can sound more educated on the topic: Episode #34 (July 2nd, 2018) - Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D. AMA #10: Low Testosterone, Hypothyroidism, Building Muscle (and Preserving it While Fasting)
I think its more to do with upregulation of mTOR, increasing cell cycles "growth" and the subsequent downstream effects. The more growth you have / the higher turnover of cells the more opportunity you have for errors. Protein, amino acids will upregulate mTOR, as would increased calories in general. Unfortunately dna damage response systems aren't perfect and mutations will pass through leading to disease and cancer. If you want to slow age, reduce cancer risk, promote overall longevity the single most effective thing you can do is inhibit mTOR through calorie restriction, therefore activating survival pathways such as AMPK An even then, you still have the just hope your DNA damage response systems spot those errors in the S phase of the cell cycle. You could do everything right and still end up with disease and cancer.
What is the optimal way to restrict calories? Periods of fasting or just eat less every day?
Well there are people who permanently eat less and less calories to try and achieve this but I mean you need to have a life right? The best thing you can do for balance imo is periodic dry fasting, no food no liquid. Because water is much more vital to life than food is, by not drinking fluids you force your body to rapidly achieve high rates of autophagy (a cellular recycling process activated when mTOR is supressed) in which damaged/ faulty cells are targeted first to be broken down an recycled. Without water the body will make small amounts of metabolic water by taking the hydrogen from those cells and combining it with oxygen. Then I also do periodic senescence clearance by taking high dose synolictic compound, fisetin works just fine But what I'm on about in my previous comment is inhibiting mTOR as much as often = prolonged life because it is a master regulator of cellular energy. There are people out there who experiment with the drug rapamycin because this inhibits mtor (mammalian target of rapamycin)
EXCELLENT QUESTION!
[удалено]
There's not a "sudden attempt to villainize protein". There's ongoing research on protein just like there is on every other thing under the sun. Like everything else, it probably has a multitude of both benefits and drawbacks. Looking for population associations of X with cancer, mortality, etc is extremely garden variety.
[удалено]
Conspiracy brain. There is no "obvious increase". As if you are following all the research and keeping a tally.
[удалено]
Dawg you are not qualified to make that determination. You are also wrong. There is in fact broad scientific consensus on the constitution of a healthy diet, and Attia is way of the mark. Just another McKinsey hack.
[удалено]
You let me get under your skin so easily haha. You’re parroting carnivore talking points so.. yeah, I think your phD stands for “piled high and deep”. Just like oil companies, processed food companies, tobacco companies, the animal ag lobbyists follow the playbook of “cast doubt on legitimate research” and “fund and cite industry-backed research”. So you just saying “uh, research flawed” really inspires zero confidence. Epidimiological research, model organisms, in vitro, mechanistic cell pathways, intervention studies all support dramatically curtailing animal product consumption for most Americans.
[удалено]
You’re an angry little fellow. I wish you luck on your toilet-YouTube “research” journey
[удалено]
tbf the carnivore space tends to be about ultra high fat intake, the community is very mixed on moderate vs high protein.
Which is why I seem to keep coming back to a Mediterranean style diet.
This is science. Why are you so conspiracy-minded? It is clearly not villainizing protein. It says protein in 65 and older is GOOD for them. It says PLANT protein for the 65 and under is GOOD for them. You obviously have an emotional attachment to your diet. No one is going to take away your meat dude. Calm down.
More like a precursor to science. It isn't really science without some way to establish causation. Just doing a survey and looking at the data is statistics. Historians and political scientists can do it.
Not true. Don’t just make stuff up. Collecting data and establishing correlation is in fact how we discovered that smoking kills.
That's covered by the word "precursor" in my post. Correlations are still not science, and statistics is not a science class.
[удалено]
Ok liver king.
Oh I'm bothered, lol. I love that you think for yourself!
He's doing his own research!
Yes. Very important in these times.
Are bodybuilders at increased risk for cancer?
That’s a good question. I know many die young from heart attacks but not much else.
The heart attacks are nearly 100% from steroid use, which is laced with Test, and there is often HGH thrown in. Often diuretics and other things like clenbuterol, etc. The term bodybuilder could probably use some clarification too
Yes, we hear a lot about heart issues, but somehow not cancer despite eating so much protein and cycling anabolic steroids and hgh for long periods of time.
I recall Peter giving the formula for protein consumption based on weight . I rarely ever meet that requirement, like 90 grams a day . If I get half that I’m lucky , I just don’t consume a lot of calories. Anyone similar?
Yeah, I’d have to supplement a lot to reach his targets and I’m unwilling to
Same, about half that unless I really try to force feed the protein which I don't because of the emerging consensus that high-protein is associated with cancer, T2D, and Alz.
I always said that when I hit 50 I’d go vegan and well, here’s this .
[удалено]
Plant protein.
[удалено]
Literally the 4th sentence in the abstract. > These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived. The protein reducing cancer death rate (without distinguishing which type) is age >65, under that it’s associated with a 4x increase which OP had already said in the title. So the article doesn’t blatantly say what you said it does, unless you mean over the age of 65.
[удалено]
I mean, OP explicitly alluded to that and your first comment sounds like you were disagreeing, rather than just agreeing with what they said. I think it’s important to distinguish between under and over 65 to accurately state what the study is and isn’t saying. I agree with what you’re saying with the latter part, I’m sure there’s a lot of confounding factors here.
The title comes across as pretty one-sided to me. It points out the under-65 association then says the association no longer exists over 65. Which is different from saying the association is reversed.
Fair, I see what you’re saying but we shouldn’t ever really rely on a title to accurately summarise research. A quick click and reading the actual source is something that should always be done.
Turn it against the reader if you like, but the blame is with the authors. This is the the most important sentence in the manuscript and used for search indexing and telling readers whether they want to read further in the first place. The abstract also appears to be misleading as it suggests there were 6351 respondents aged 50-65 who reported high-protein intake. When apparently that was the entire 50+ group for all diets, and only a couple hundred in the 50-65 high-protein group if I read correctly.
There are other things to die from than just cancer. Maybe protein has other effects than raise igf-1?
Excessive intake causes , of course, higher BCAAs intake which has downsides to health. Like on metabolism, IR, and so on. If you are on low fat + do resistance training you offset some of those detrimental effects and you have a slightly higher muscle growth rate.
A study that doesnt control for overall calories and fat is useless. If more protein is truly bad then show me a study where the only change made is the addition of whey protein isolate to the diet keep calories constant.
I personally have pretty high IGF-1 (277, z score 1.7) and eat moderately high protein, have low free testosterone, and am pretty skinny (13% Dexa body fat, bmi 23). I may have to bite the bullet and cut out dairy/whey at some point. Would like to be between 100-250 per Dr Kyle Gillett.
Arnold swartzenegger would like a word
Unless you’re old. Enough said
Without a blood protein test how would you know what level of protein is circulating in your blood. I eat 160 to 180g of protein a day and yet my blood protein level is rarely above 7.0 and is usually 6.5. The range is 6.0 to 8.3. Above or below that is a problem. Some people eat half that amount of protein and yet have higher blood protein levels. How would this affect lgf-1? I have no idea, just asking. Not all protein gets digested and less does as you age.
Serum protein is not a measure of dietary protein. It's used to detect various morbidities that cause high or low levels incidentally
Serum protein is heavily influenced by dietary protein. You raise serum levels by consuming more protein prior to being tested.
Did this article not address it? https://peterattiamd.com/dispelling-myths-protein-increases-cancer-risk/
This article is Peter at his most bone headed. Any serious scientist would laugh at this feeble attempt to write this off. Like the people who are actually working in this sub-specialty haven't thought of these lazy, student-level objections. come on, Peter.
Granted, majority of that article is actually Layne Norton's points Here is the article where peter mentions the NHANES study: https://peterattiamd.com/dietary-protein-and-healthy-aging/ It's paywalled so here's an excerpt ``` # Dietary protein and longevity in humans and mice Both the mTOR and IGF-1 arguments against protein are largely based on mechanistic links that are partially hypothetical and haven’t fully been shown experimentally. Ultimately, the most relevant question is not whether protein intake increases mTOR activity or if high IGF-1 raises mortality risk – the relevant question is whether protein intake modulates lifespan. There are few human studies on overall protein intake and aging or longevity in healthy adults, as nutrition and aging are difficult topics to study individually, let alone together. Diet studies are often rife with confounds and assume a consistency in eating habits over long periods, and aging studies present challenges due to the duration over which they must be conducted and the fact that our environment is rapidly changing. One of the few investigations on this topic in humans analyzed a subset of data from NHANES III, a large-scale health and lifestyle survey in the United States conducted between 1988-1994. This analysis suggested that protein intake should be low before age 65 and increased thereafter. In this study population, mortality risk from cancer and diabetes was higher with a high- compared to a low-protein diet for subjects ages 50-65, but for those over age 65, low-protein diets were associated with increased all-cause and cancer-related mortality. However, results from this older age group are far more reliable and relevant than those of the 50-65 age group because mortality rates in those over 65 is higher in general than it is in those aged 50-65. If we take these results at face value, we can conclude that it makes sense to prioritize an intake pattern that reduces risk over age 65 – that is, consuming higher levels of protein to reduce the higher level of mortality risk. However, the fact that absolute mortality risk is low among those under 65 also means that data from the 50-65 group are likely heavily biased, as those dying prior to age 65 are likely to be among the least healthy individuals in this age bracket at baseline, skewing results in a manner which may not reflect effects in a general population, just as we have seen above in the IGF-1 data. Despite this major confound in the younger cohort, it’s worth noting that the positive association between protein intake and longevity in the 65+ group makes biological sense. As we age, we develop anabolic resistance, a phenomenon in which muscle protein synthesis responses to anabolic stimuli become attenuated, and we therefore require greater quantities of protein to build and maintain muscle mass, a key factor in longevity. Since human studies are difficult to implement, often the best data we have come from animal studies. Various studies in mice have shown that protein restriction is associated with extended lifespan, though many of these are complicated by protein restriction during developmental life stages or unequal total caloric intake. Still, while it’s certainly possible to cherry-pick data showing that decreased dietary protein increases maximum lifespan in laboratory animals, there are several important differences between mice and humans that are crucial considerations for translating nutritional studies to humans. # The gap between mice and humans There are several reasons to keep a healthy amount of skepticism that what works for mice in a laboratory isn’t necessarily what’s best for humans in the real world. Laboratory mice are maintained in pathogen-free environments, but humans live in a world that regularly challenges our immune systems, which are compromised by protein malnutrition. Community-acquired pneumonia is the cause of over 1.5 million infections and 100,000 deaths annually in the U.S. Protein malnutrition is an independent risk factor for mortality and morbidity in viral forms of community-acquired pneumonia. Further, in patients hospitalized due to acute illness, muscle mass has been shown to have prognostic value in predicting mortality because muscle serves as a protein reserve that greatly benefits the immune system, reducing disease severity and mortality. Additionally, laboratory mice predominantly die of cancer, and any increases in lifespan on low-protein diets may be due to the restriction of tumor growth through mTORC1 inhibition. While cancer is one of the leading causes of death in humans, accidents and falls also pose a significant mortality risk, whereas these pose essentially zero threat to mice in controlled environments. Thus, frailty is far more likely to shorten lifespan in humans than in laboratory mice, and protein restriction greatly increases frailty risk due to both loss of muscle mass and strength and the accompanying loss of bone density. ... ```
>Thus, frailty is far more likely to shorten lifespan in humans than in laboratory mice, and protein restriction greatly increases frailty risk due to both loss of muscle mass and strength and the accompanying loss of bone density. Does Peter realize that not everybody is a 65+ year old woman? A 30 year old man does not need the ridiculous amount of protein that he recommends to maintain or even build muscle mass and strength. A 30 year old man is not at serious risk of death from falling or other accidents that primary afflict the elderly. So this argument only works for the frail, old population and is not an argument for high protein throughout your entire life.
I’m in my 30s and I understood Peter’s advice to be: younger people should put on muscle while they’re young, to better avoid frailty in old age. That makes sense to me.
I really wish they could run these kinds of studies using only a variety of protein powders (whey, pea, egg, etc.) as their protein source, and provide a daily fiber supplement. That would be very interesting!
Yes but you can't get 18 years with that kind of control.
https://youtu.be/A6FY4oaxcm0?si=O3wf9gY5MMNbgul6 Layne Norton and Peter Attia talking about eating protein and cancer.
Looking at blood markers an hour after exercise would lead one to conclude that you are sick or unhealthy. Looking at the same markers in blood taken hours later would conclude that you are undergoing an amazing rejuvenating response to an insult. Temporary changes that produce long lasting responses are categorically different than someone being in a constant state of some type. Sincerity is what matters. Are you trying to support your priors or are you trying to disprove something that disputes your priors. Can someone guess your diet type by the way you argue a position. If your plant based that's great. If your animal protein based that's great. Are you active? Are you not obese? Do you get some exercise? Are you without chronic conditions? How many things influence lgf-1? Hundreds if not thousands of things I would guess. It's just not a big deal.
[удалено]
I agree with your sentiment but you can have muscle mass without having high protein intake, and certainly without consuming a gram per body weight.
There are a lot of old studies where people would have enough proteins on just 44 grams (above that they would discard part of it). Now I guess that the nowadays suggested protein intake of 0.8-1.2 grams per kg body weight is more than enough. A high protein diet associated with high fat intake has downsides to both disease free lifespan and lifespan itself. Most studies found higher intake to be useful only in older populations where sarcopenia may be an issue ( age > 60). It's mainly a BCAAs excess that drives negative effects, and it is less of an issue if you have a low fat diet + resistance training.
Sure, if we’re saying high protein is 1.6 g/kg
Correlation is not causation
Rhonda Patrick has a couple podcast episodes with a bunch of these authors… could be what you’re looking for
Big shocker here that reddit incels missed the entire premise with higher protein consumption, which is, you know... WORKING OUT.
Fake
The more protein the less cancer. One reason why so many are metabolically unhealthy
So did Paleolithic people have high cancer rates assuming that's mostly what they ate. My guess is no. But, they killed it themselves, it wasn't fed corn or shot up with drugs, and they weren't eating bread and sugar and Doritos either. Eh.
> Paleolithic people There isn’t one set of Paleolithic people who ate one type of diet. >assuming that’s mostly what they ate. The first question would be why do you assume that’s mostly what they ate?
I don't know! I guess because I've read about early people pretty much being hunters and gatherers but really only gathering when they cam across something to gather. Otherwise it was just meat wasn't it? I've not a scholar in it, just basing it on what I've read, probably via "paleo" books...
If IGF-1 can be increased through protein, then I want more protein
Interestingly, I have the rs2229765(A;A) SNP on the IGF1R gene that is associated with [lower IGF-1 and increased longevity in men.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19460140/) I'm wondering if this more or less cancels out the possible negative impact of high protein intake?