Animal protein-rich diets COULD be as harmful to health as smoking

Yeah



"Back" in my "day", the only "studies" we had to be concerned with was how to ball into a fetus position if a atomic bomb exploded. Geez, "as if" hiding under a desk will keep us from being "vaporized"

But, as for these studies, it goes against the common train of thought; "everything in moderation"

 

You have a point here. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that regularly being exposed to 'fast news' is harmful to my happiness/wellbeing; maybe I can run my own experiment (n=1 ) of not watching/listening to the regular news ever again...
If there's anything important, then other people will tell me about it, right? "Harry, have you not heard about xyz?" and at that point I investigate. Feasible?

 

Young man, I'm insulted you seem to insinuate I'd do anything other than wipe my behind with the daily fail!

I got it from the Facebook feed from the Independent

Could we count coca cola?

 

Daily Heil: LSD might be good for you.

Independent: LSD may not be bad for you.

Does this mean they're scrapping the decimal system?

(If you get that joke, just do yourself a favour and crawl into a coffin now )

 

For once I can honestly say I didn't get that joke and feel a very small amount of pride



Or at least I would if my level of ignorance wasn't so obvious :cry:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/£sd

 

Haha! That was actually a pretty good joke now I get the reference

:hat:

 

Timothy Bradley (Welterweight boxing champ in case anyone's not up on it) eats only a vegan diet during training. He claims he feels much better and more energized. I myself never have tried it so I can't say one way or the other.

The question I ask isn't what does cause cancer ... it's what doesn't cause cancer these days? I think about smoking and some of my mother's friends who used to... keep in mind my mother's friends were all older than her and not that she's 72 years old a lot of them have passed away. One friend of hers however is 85 I believe and she smoked from the time that she was 13 she had told me. She did have throat cancer, which she got through and now has finally quit... but only just a few years ago. Of course smoking back then didn't have all of the additives it does now. That's not much different from meats and such IMO. Protein itself is not the reason for this cancer they claim is growing from animal proteins, but the hormones being injected into them.

Thinking about it now however, a lot of people are just injecting themselves with the stuff lol, so you don't really need the animal protein to give you cancer at all!

 

I'm not vegetarian, but I only eat meat about once or twice a week on average.

I definitely feel a bit more sluggish if I eat too much meat. Too much sugar makes me feel just nasty and dirty inside, too much wheat isn't much better, but weirdly I can eat tons of fat without feeling bad (I think it's the corn syrup that makes junk food particularly grotty).

 

I can't exactly address your points easily if you're going to quote all Please Reality style on me. I'm not copying and pasting all that with my laptop and it's one monitor again if you choose to multiquote my future posts that way.

Haha, you think that because people invest their entire lives in a discipline it makes them well-informed experts? The people who are doing the research are sometimes experts if they're on the right path, most everyone else is just trying to keep up. We don't even know the ideal amount of vitamins and nutrients for humans to consume in dietary science, we just have a vague idea on the upper and lower limits. Even our blood testing for nutrient and vitamin deficiencies and food intolerances is very inaccurate and poorly understood by many dietary specialists.

Most human pH is measured by urine or blood pH. And yes, of course your pH is different in different regions of your body Zaad. I think everyone in their first years of science knows that. But you can slide the scale of your overall pH threshold short-term by changing your diet and medicine intake. And a lower pH is linked to higher rates of several diseases.

I've been looking for the cluster of studies that support the low protein human diet but I'm afraid I'm sick presently and unless I pester a very busy friend and ask her to help me locate all those sources, I'm not optimistic I'll find them quickly. That stupid red meat study is all over Google and keeps giving me false positives. I'll give you what I've got so far but I don't have the time to verify the authenticity of their bibliographies so if that's the kinda thing that gets you excited you go for it Mr. Zaad.

For additional reading material on the topic, I recommend reading up on caloric restrictive (CR) dieting and survival genetics. A CR diet is a vegetarian-based, nutrient rich diet consuming only 70% of the recommended daily calories and in every species studied it has increased median lifespan by about 30%. The mechanisms involved have become a cornerstone of modern longevity research and lead to the discovery of the SIRT1 gene, the so-called "longevity gene." (I know this because I modeled my research in college on it.) Also read up on the Dean Ornish MD diet studies. Dean Ornish so convincingly proved that an organic vegetarian-only diet and exercise/meditation plan was more effective at reversing cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease than the recommended surgery and pharmaceutical protocols that his methods became the first Medicare-approved lifestyle change in the history of the program.

Do I have a meta-analysis on what? Global Warming?

Specifically it was a private conversation I had with Dr. Charles Herr, cell biologist who I believe is famous for his mitochondrial research.

Oxidative stress damage is rust Zaad. In produce it's rot. I believe Dr. Herr's point was that the free radical influence in disease development models tend to be overstated and genetic influences like telomere length understated. You're welcome to write him and ask him directly though.

Yes, everyone knows what a carcinogen is Zaad. And no, I never said animal protein was one. Though after looking it up just now it turns out there may be good evidence to make that argument.

That "stuff" that they regulate wrong is called a breakdown in apoptosis and is science I'm familiar with. Some carcinogens have always existed, many are new cocktails of chemicals we have only recently created, or are concentrations of elements not found in nature that only become carcinogenic in labs. Yes, there has always been cancer and carcinogens, but if you believe the quantity and expression of those events is the same now as it always has been then you need to study your science more carefully in the future.

 

John R.

I am curious of your thoughts on actual farm raised animals and people who only eat their own... not organic advertised, but raise their own chickens, eat their eggs, their chickens, cows, etc. Do you feel that the cancer rates (if indeed it is linked to animal protein) is much lower than hormone injected animals we see in every supermarket out there now?

 

I have no idea what the rate differences are, but I'm confident they're at least a bit higher in animals raised in inhumane conditions and heavily sedated with pharmaceuticals. All the disease remission dieting regiments I've read recommend eating very little (as in a single serving or half-serving a week) to no animal protein, and what you do eat to consume organic fish or poultry only.

 

What exactly is your background? If you are going to dismiss an entire profession, you better make sure that you a little more than a lay-person.

IMO this falls into the "meh" category of importance, since most people generally avoid deficiencies or overdoses of either. The body is quite nifty at sorting itself out. These thresholds are most likely very wide and defining them would lead to data of debatable relevance. Of course I'm merely speculating.

Are you saying animal protein consumption is what is swaying that pH threshold? I would love to read your sources.

And we're only looking at animal protein, and not life style choices that would result in altered pH levels, or pre-existing hormonal disorders.

I find this very difficult to believe. And low protein human diet linked to what exactly? Cancer risk, or overall health (significantly more difficult to demonstrate)?

You do realize that we are bags of animal proteins ourselves? I hate to have a semantics battle, but it's genuinely relevant here.
In most cases preparation or added preservatives are what increases carcinogenic risk, however only it a negligible amount. Still hotly debated in this area of research.

The "breakdown of apoptosis". I think you'll find that this is only 1 of 12 (the number keeps increasing). Evasion of apoptosis is indeed important since that's how the body protects again aberrant cell numbers. However the cells can become in-recognizable by the immune system, and therefore the the apoptosis inducing NK and CTL cells, thus preventing apoptosis without actually altering the cancer cell's endogenous apoptosis pathways. Also if the ratio of cell proliferation exceeds that of the rate of apoptosis, you'll still see tumour growth. I can name many other routes to cancer, apoptosis is really just one of many players.

Really if you're going to talk about know-unknowns such as "recently created carcinogens" then you're going to need to back up your claims.

 

I was on my phone and that style of posting was most convinient.

I think that makes them better informed than you or I and since you cannot provide legitimate sources for your claims that "people should only consume 20-40% of what American doctors and dieticians recommend for protein intake"
I wonder how this protein intake would fit with special populations like athletes or even how it would work considering people having differing levels to which they can metabolise macronutrients.

Most the science i've read on this says that pH testing urine makes little practical sense and isnt really a "window into the body".
Here's a link to some of the reasoning: http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/your-urine-is-not-a-window-to-your-body-ph-balancing-a-failed-hypothesis/

Also you know - there's this magic thing called homeostasis to prevent that bad joo joo

Yeah i did actually read the pages from the blogs you posted and the low protein fly diet is preliminary at best and hard to physiologically relate to humans.

Thanks, i read up on dean ornish.
But it seems that he advocated larger lifestyle changes than just diet alone.
I found the references here:
http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html#ref
And he for diet changes it applied to those with coronary heart disease to the extent of requiring surgery - what are the bets that they were fat, ate too much fatty food, didnt exercise enough and were stressed.
so the lifestyle changes he recommended were stress management, physical activity and
I wonder if any type of calorie and macro-nutrient controlled diet, even a animal protein inclusive one, would have worked with the stress management and other lifestyle changes.
It's actually not at all proving your point about high or animal protein diets being bad.

Out of interest what was your SIRT-1 research on?
Most of what i've read on SIRT-1 has been exercise induced/related but i know it has loads of uses

On low protein diets and vegetarian diets - you admitted for looking for a small cluster of studies (which is basically acknowledged cherry picking) so a meta-analysis would provide a broader perspective (i realise meta-analysis can be down in such a way to be weighted and slightly bias but its very hard to do, ive tried it myself)

Assuming everyone else reading is a layman then no - oxidative stress in the body is not solely oxidation of iron or iron compounds.

So Herr admits to there being a free radical causation but in thinking that the model factors it in too much... so he agrees with me and doesn't think its a "bogus" cause...

Also anyone who understands systems biology, systems disease or complex system interaction understands that cancering is a many cause disease stemming from many Environment - Genetic interactions.
The number of cancer subtypes are proof of the idea that a muck up in one part of a system somewhere can cause one cancer subtype ompared to a muck up in another part of that system..
Studies on ionising radiation and cancer prove that free radical influence is one cause (I can provide references if you cant find it on google).
Have you seen the Danny Hill vid i posted, its really good

go for it. expand my knowledge base.

If you believe one can compare the levels of carcinogen exposure in daily life from not to previous centuries then go ahead.
But im willing to bet recent health and safety regulations and better knowledge has lowered our exposure - we know now that sunlight in excess is carcinogenic, we know asbestos is carcinogenic, we know mining in victoria times was probably also carcinogenic.

 

I'm not going to play the science sources game with you Zaad. There were several academic article sourced in those "blogs" as you called them that you seem to have overlooked and not read. I said I didn't verify their sources yet, not that I was unable to do so. If you're so eager to read about the subject, go read about it. I've noticed you have a tendency to skim scientific journals, pick out study limitations admitted within those articles, and then ignore any data gained from the study while often missing the point of the research. It takes a lot longer to find legitimate sources than it does to fail to read them.

I didn't say it was diet alone. In fact I specifically addressed the exercise and meditation regiment in my post. And no, a protein-based diet likely wouldn't have produced the same results. I only included the Dean Ornish diet as an example of studies done surrounding diet and disease remission to prove there has been a body of research supporting this notion of vegetarianism reversing diseases. I didn't post CR and Ornish dieting to "prove my point about high or animal protein diets being bad."

Uh, a small cluster of data available on a topic = cherry picking? You didn't even read the sources I posted before being critical of them.

 

Amazing. Amazing that you cant even try to reply to posts properly and instead we get a spread of mis-information from someone who supposedly has a background in sciences.

At first i thought you had a point that was going to blow my mind with a load of studies supporting your view but clearly not.

The issue is different strokes for different folks - most folks on here are training enough that higher protein intakes are required, some here would be considered athletes and would not compete or get aout their day jobs well on tiny protein intakes (the 10-20 mentioned earlier):
http://www.uscupstate.edu/uploadedFiles/Student_Affairs/Health_Promotion_and_Education/Protein%20IV.pdf

lol try harder mate.
I read through all those blogs (yeah they are blogs):
- the huff post article is a mess of links going to other newspapers and the dailymail.
- the anti atkins was a study
- the nutritional oncology had no references to low protein intake, i checked the references - they were unrelated to its claim of 10-20g of protein
- the vegetarian guide had a couple references that werent WHO, USDA and FDA recommendations and regulations. of those, very few gave any interesting evidence toward low protein intake. In fact many of the studies on resistance training (applicable to this site) supportive toward a normal protein intake like that recommended by the WHO and other organisations which are commonly referenced by doctors anyway.
But the link i posted earlier critically evaluates this idea.

Posting blogs and newspapers that have a mess load of links connecting to other newspapers and no sources is just bad manners.

then why did you post it?
and why wouldnt have it produced the same results? any evidence to back this up that isnt a blog.

i did. and they were rubbish, few actual sources. if you cant be bothered to post up some actual studies, i cant be bothered to trawl through blogs with a web of links i have to click through to 10 other sites to reach

Again - yet to see anything say animal protein in its basic state is bad.
Bad living conditions for livestock and bad vet practices - agreed that its probably bad to eat animal from these facilities
but a wild boar - give it here!

 

By not at all being an expert on cancer I will say that IMO cancer is hereditary and most people won't disagree with this. It's the very reason why when you go to a doctor they want to know family histories. Just because your Father had something doesn't mean you will have it, but it does up your chances. Both sides of my family have had serious anxiety and depression issues and I am (surprise) no exception, nor is my sister.

My point simply being that of course certain things are more prone to causing one disease, disorder, whatever, but environment as well as a whole lot of other things have to align themselves to make it come to fruition.

 

Part of the problems associated with treating cancers is that they are not all the same.

Some may have hereditary components, but not all.

 

this bears reading: http://toomuchnick.com/post/798911868/phd-comics-there-will-never-be-a-cure-for-cancer

 

^this!

this is what the danny hills presentation of cancer as a complex disease is all about.
for some people maybe decreasing protein intake or becoming vegetarian will help prevent further development of a cancer subtype, for others the exact opposite may be true.
for some radio therapy does and does not work

cancer is a systems disease and because cells are such complex systems, there are millions of possibilities of what causes cancering and how to treat it.

even within the same tumour there may be different cancer subtypes.