Have you heard? As soon as you turn age 50, protein is bad for you… until your 65,
then it’s good for you again.
This is what a study, published two days ago, implies. Interestingly, this study was
published in the very well respected journal, Cell Metabolism.
then it’s good for you again.
This is what a study, published two days ago, implies. Interestingly, this study was
published in the very well respected journal, Cell Metabolism.
Unfortunately, the media has taken this recent study and has run with it
(example). Large newspapers like the National Post are now filling non-nutrition
experts’ head’s with this garbage. I knew the spread of this mis-information had
gotten out of hand when my mom told me she heard protein is bad for you on the radio.
I usually don’t blog until Tuesdays, but I think someone needs to restore some order here.
The study, published March 4th 2014, entitled 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, is suspect to numerous flaws in it’s methods and statistics.
Here are just a few:
As an observational study, they try to show control for variables via
mathematics. The problem with this is they are not actually controlling
variables with an experimental method. This study produces no causational
results. Also of note, the author admitted that their “hazard ratios and
confidence intervals may be inflated” due to their sample size.
They fail to explain a mechanism for their “link” between high-protein intake
and cancer. They touch on an association between GHR/IGF-1 (Growth
Hormone Receptor/Insulin-like Growth Factor) deficiencies and mortality,
and then broadly state that protein intake is associated with GHR/IGF-1
deficiencies. Again, protein may be loosely associated with GHR/IGF-1
deficiencies, but then again so is age. Since age is also a variable in this study,
this is quite confounding. In reality, there are too many factors here; Their
model of increased protein intake decreased GHR/IGF-1 deficiencies
increased mortality is too simplistic to draw concrete conclusions.
The study found a correlation (again I stress, not causation), between low
protein intake and decreased mortality at age 50. This association seemed to
reverse by age 65, where a high protein diet became associated with
decreased mortality. You can spin this two ways, as you age you need more
protein, or, leading up to 65 you don’t need as much protein. The authors of
this study chose the latter of the two. I would personally choose the initial outlook.
So how do you explain the detrimental health markers associated with higher
protein intake at age 50? Well I know that lot of 50 year olds sit in office
chairs all day, drink beer, smoke cigars, gamble, etc. etc. This gets back to the
lack of experimental control exhibited in this study. Besides, the difference
in future longevity between the high protein and low protein group was only
around 3 years (28 to 31 years). The amount of cortisol you produce from
stressing over eating too much protein will probably kill you faster (that’s a nutrition joke).
And finally, one of the senior authors of this study, Valtner D. Longo, is the
founder of the company L-Nutra. L-Nutra produces a line of products (teas,
etc.) that aid in fasting or skipping meals. I’ll make the connection for you, it
is financially beneficial for Valtner D. Longo to make the public want to eat
less protein/food. I’m not saying he outright fudged the results or anything,
but he probably made sure he found what he was looking for.
(example). Large newspapers like the National Post are now filling non-nutrition
experts’ head’s with this garbage. I knew the spread of this mis-information had
gotten out of hand when my mom told me she heard protein is bad for you on the radio.
I usually don’t blog until Tuesdays, but I think someone needs to restore some order here.
The study, published March 4th 2014, entitled 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, is suspect to numerous flaws in it’s methods and statistics.
Here are just a few:
As an observational study, they try to show control for variables via
mathematics. The problem with this is they are not actually controlling
variables with an experimental method. This study produces no causational
results. Also of note, the author admitted that their “hazard ratios and
confidence intervals may be inflated” due to their sample size.
They fail to explain a mechanism for their “link” between high-protein intake
and cancer. They touch on an association between GHR/IGF-1 (Growth
Hormone Receptor/Insulin-like Growth Factor) deficiencies and mortality,
and then broadly state that protein intake is associated with GHR/IGF-1
deficiencies. Again, protein may be loosely associated with GHR/IGF-1
deficiencies, but then again so is age. Since age is also a variable in this study,
this is quite confounding. In reality, there are too many factors here; Their
model of increased protein intake decreased GHR/IGF-1 deficiencies
increased mortality is too simplistic to draw concrete conclusions.
The study found a correlation (again I stress, not causation), between low
protein intake and decreased mortality at age 50. This association seemed to
reverse by age 65, where a high protein diet became associated with
decreased mortality. You can spin this two ways, as you age you need more
protein, or, leading up to 65 you don’t need as much protein. The authors of
this study chose the latter of the two. I would personally choose the initial outlook.
So how do you explain the detrimental health markers associated with higher
protein intake at age 50? Well I know that lot of 50 year olds sit in office
chairs all day, drink beer, smoke cigars, gamble, etc. etc. This gets back to the
lack of experimental control exhibited in this study. Besides, the difference
in future longevity between the high protein and low protein group was only
around 3 years (28 to 31 years). The amount of cortisol you produce from
stressing over eating too much protein will probably kill you faster (that’s a nutrition joke).
And finally, one of the senior authors of this study, Valtner D. Longo, is the
founder of the company L-Nutra. L-Nutra produces a line of products (teas,
etc.) that aid in fasting or skipping meals. I’ll make the connection for you, it
is financially beneficial for Valtner D. Longo to make the public want to eat
less protein/food. I’m not saying he outright fudged the results or anything,
but he probably made sure he found what he was looking for.