Are proteins bad for your health ?

[Maciamo]

Two studies published this week in Cell Metabolism, Solon-Biet et al. 2014 and Levine et al. 2014, are telling us that having a diet rich in animal proteins could considerably reduce our lifespan.

Here is what Science magazine comments about the studies.

A new theory about the foods that can extend life is taking shape, and it’s sure to be a controversial one. Two studies out this week, one in mice and another primarily in people, suggest that eating relatively little protein and lots of carbohydrates—the opposite of what’s urged by many human diet plans, including the popular Atkins Diet—extends life and fortifies health.

The research challenges other common wisdom, too. The authors of both studies believe that calorie restriction, a drastic diet that helps mice and other species live much longer than normal, may work not because it slashes calorie intake, but mostly because it cuts down on protein. They also speculate that the low-protein/high-carbohydrate balance that appears to extend life in the two studies, published in Cell Metabolism, could clarify why slightly plump people live longer on average than skinny ones—something epidemiologists have been hard-pressed to explain.

“If these two studies are really correct, what people in general are trying to do” to get and stay thin “might be completely wrong in terms of maintaining health and even longevity,” says Shin-ichiro Imai, a molecular biologist at Washington University in St. Louis who studies aging.
...
The mice whose diets included 5% to 15% protein and 40% to 60% carbohydrates lived the longest, up to 150 weeks compared with 100 weeks for those on a diet of about 50% protein. By comparison, Americans on average take in about 16% of their calories from protein. The animals on the low-protein/high-carb plan also had lower blood pressure, better glucose tolerance, and healthier cholesterol. (Levels of fat in their diet didn’t seem to make much difference.)

One problem with the Solon-Biet et al. study is that they tested the diets exclusively on mice. As we all know mice and other rodents are largely herbivorous animals with a particular predisposition to consume high-carb aliments like cereals. Humans, on the other hand, have been carnivorous since Homo Erectus started hunting 2 million years ago, and high carbs diet have not become common until the Neolithic, a few thousands years ago.

Dietary recommendations cannot work across species, and especially not between two species with such different ancestral diets and mice and humans. It's pretty obvious that mice shouldn't eat a lot of proteins, being herbivorous, and that they should be in better health if they got their proteins from plant sources. It's highly unnatural for feed mice diets consisting of 50% of proteins. Mind you, it's even ridiculous for humans to have a diet made of 50% of proteins. Americans, who are among the world's biggest meat eaters, only get 16% of their energy from proteins in average. And proteins are also found in dairy products, beans, and so on. No wonder that mice with high-protein diets die younger. There is no need to spend time and money researching that. It's common sense. It would be like trying to put a cat on a vegetarian diet ! They would die quickly since most carnivorous animals they lack the gut bacteria to digest vegetables and cereals.

As for humans, we may be omnivorous, be we are not all equal in the way we metabolise food. People in region where agriculture was adopted early have lower genetic predisposition to develop gluten intolerance (Celiac disease) or diabetes from high-carb diets than societies that abandoned the hunter-gathering lifestyle recently. The fast evolution of genes for metabolism after the adoption of cereal agriculture is eloquently explained in The 10,000 Year Explosion. Therefore it is doubtful that there exists a universally ideal diet for all human beings. It ultimately depends on what genes one inherited.

The bottom line is: the Solon-Biet is pointless for nutritional recommendation on humans as it only studies mice. Additionally, any similar study even conducted on humans would meaningless because it fails to take into account interpersonal genetic variables in humans.


The second study, led by gerontology researcher Morgan Levine, focused on 6,381 people over 50 years old, who were interviewed once about their diet as part of NHANES, a national survey of health and nutrition. They concluded that people aged 50 to 65 on high-protein diets (over 20% of calories from protein) were at higher risks of developing cancer and diabetes or dying during 18 years of follow-up, compared to those who consumed less proteins. But the interesting part is that the trend was reversed for the risk of cancer and death after 65 years old ! In other words, eating more proteins increased lifespan and lowered chances of having cancer in people over 65.

The first question that springs to mind is: how about other age groups under 50 years old ? Well, unfortunately younger people weren't part of the study. So all we know from this limited data is that apparently eating more proteins is bad between the ages of 50 and 65, but good later. That doesn't make much sense either since all kinds of people age very differently, depending on their lifestyle, social class, physical activity, stress level, environment, and of course their genes. A sample of only 6,381 people is also much too small to draw conclusions about 7 billion of human beings. It's statistically irrelevant. Any sample size under 100,000 for dietary studies is too small to be meaningful, and can just be discarded.


Now let's go back to the initial claim that the low-protein/high-carbohydrate diet appears to extend life and that slightly plump people live longer on average than skinny ones. This sounds ridiculous from the onset if we look at the countries with the highest life expectancy on the planet. It is undeniable that in countries with the longest lifespans, like Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Iceland, Italy, France and Switzerland people tend to have high-protein diets, be it by eating more meat (Australia, Canada, Europe), fish and seafood (Japan, Iceland, Australia, Italy, France), beans (Japan) and dairy products (Scandinavia, France, Italy, Switzerland), and therefore have higher than average intake of proteins as a percentage of the total calories consumed. Western countries where vegetarianism is more common, like Germany (9% of vegetarians), the Netherlands (4.5%), Britain (3-5%) or Brazil (5%), fare worse in terms of life expectancy than countries like France, Sweden or Australia, where 1-2% of the population is vegetarian. Italy is the only exception, with 10% of vegetarians (the highest percentage in Europe). But Italians are heavy consumers of cheese, eating twice more of it than British people, so that even vegetarians in Italy tend to have a protein-rich diet. Note that vegetarianism is almost unheard of in Japan or Hong Kong. Japan has been dubbed as one of the "Top 5 Countries for Carnivores", which I can attest, having lived there for 5 years.

It would be interesting to study life expectancy between religious groups in India and see if, once adjusted for socio-economic background, vegetarian Hindus and vegan Jains live longer than meat-eating Muslims and Christians or not. We could try to find out by comparing life expectancy by state with the percentage of religious affiliations by state and adjusting for the states' GDP per capita. The state of Kerala has by far the highest life expectancy in India, but also happens to have one of the highest percentages of Muslims (24%, against a national average of 13%) as well as the highest percentage of Christians (19%) nationwide (source). The second highest life expectancy in India is in Punjab, a state that is 60% Sikh (who are not vegetarian), and only 32% Hindu or Jain. In contrast, the state of Gujarat has over 92% of Hindus and Jains and is generally considered the most vegetarian state in India. It is also one of the richest, with a similar GDP per capita as Kerala. Yet the life expectancy in Gujarat is 7.4 years lower than in Kerala and 5.1 years lower than in Punjab. The Indian state with the lowest life expectancy is Madhya Pradesh, where 93% of the population is Hindu or Jainist. Based on that data it doesn't look like consuming less animal proteins increases lifespan at all. More the other way round.

Now if we look at the average body-mass index by country, we immediately see that Japan has one of the lowest percentage of obese (3%) and overweight people (23%) in the world - lower in fact that many African and other Asian countries. 69% of Japanese have a normal BMI. Only three countries (Laos, Ghana, Madagascar) have a higher percentage, and not by much. Switzerland, France, Italy and Scandinavian countries also rank among the thinnest countries within Europe, not only for lacking obese people but also slightly overweight ones. The conclusion that can be drawn from these nationwide statistics is that thinner people with a normal BMI live longer than obese and even slightly overweight people.

[FBS]

One sided studies, one sided diets are making us people sick. One size does not fit all! Everybody expects to have medicines that will fix everything and go on eating things that even get you mad (such gluten containing foods for eg). Everything should be taken in moderate quantities, even water can kill you if taken in excess. Main stream science has to have a quantum leap otherwise the studies seem more and more stupid everyday. Everybody dies one day, the quality of life is what matters. Eating natural food, whether it contains carbs, fats or proteins as long as they are not altered chemically they are OK as long as our genes are used to it. When we starve our bodies from fats we will loose the ability to absorb ADE vitamins and of course the dis balance will be created. Low fat milk, hydrogenated oils - a complete disaster.

[FBS]

Proteins are bad, carbs are bad, fats are bad, even oxygen is bad since it kills us slowly. So we should stop eating and breathing...

[Angela]

Any analysis like this is truly informative only if all the variables are controlled for other than the one being studied, which the scientists didn't do. For example, I don't see how just looking at longevity figures is very helpful at all; obviously, an industrialized country where people are not periodically subject to famine conditions, live and eat in sanitary conditions, are immunized against many infectious diseases, etc. etc., are going to live longer. So, the comparisons that might be more helpful would be ones that compared all the industrialized nations to one another.

Also, in computing these longevity figures, the researchers are, of course, including cancer deaths...but so many cancer deaths can be attributable to smoking and those rates vary by country, so perhaps that variable should be controlled for as well.

The most obvious failing, to me, is the fact that they didn't consider that different types of protein might have a different effect. The proteins consumed in northern Europe, and eastern Europe, in particular, are animal proteins which are normally very high in fat. The Japanese consume mostly plant and fish protein. There may be other differences between these various types of protein than just fat levels, as well, differences and effects that we don't yet understand. What would be interesting would be a comparison of longevity and the consumption of various *types* or proteins, or longevity in terms of animal fat consumption.

I agree that *in general*,it seems that thinner people with a normal BMI live longer than obese or even slightly overweight people. Why the people in certain countries are more obese than others surely does depend on diet, although there are, once again, other variables, such as level of physical activity (how much walking do people do, for example), alcohol consumption, and just simple self-respect, to be unkind.

Genetic factors also impact these levels, I think. Just generally, I think that throughout human history people have been on the verge of extinction for lack of food. People who stored fat for the lean times would be more likely to leave offspring. That's no longer an adaptive trait. Diets also developed in certain parts of the world that were once adaptive, but no long are...it may be necessary, when trying to farm in cold countries, to eat a lot of high fat foods, but when people live and work in centrally heated spaces, and the most exercise they get is going to the refrigerator to get a snack, the diet is no longer optimal for health.

Ethnic influences have a part to play as well. Look at the North American Indians, who have terrible problems with Type II diabetes from eating a European diet...or the Polynesians. I do not, however, think that because we spent so much of our history as humans as hunter-gatherers, and some Europeans, for example, might have twenty-thirty percent more of this ancestry, that this means that a high animal fat diet is healthy for anyone. For one thing, much of the recent research into the diet of the hunter-gatherers shows that they had a much more varied diet than the stereotype might indicate...studies on the high proportion of total calories from nuts, fruits, honey, etc. depending on the area. Second, a very large percentage of their protein intake came from fish and the fats from fish are very different from the fats from meat. Third, much of the game, although not all, that they hunted was very lean indeed. It bore no comparison to the grain fed beef, for example, so popular today in certain parts of the world. (And deservedly so...I can think of few things more delicious than a well marbled Porterhouse Steak!)

However, looking at the data per country within the subset of the industrialized nations for percentage of the population with "normal" BMI's, I didn't see the correlation between obesity and animal fat intake that I expected to see, at least not perfectly. Longevity, the prevalence of certain diseases etc., might be a different matter.

Great Britain 33
Croatia 35.4
U.S. 35.7
New Zealand 36.1
Ireland 42.4
Portugal 44.0
Spain 44.9
Poland 45.6
Slovakia 48.6
Lithuania 48.6

Norway 51
Sweden 52
Italy 52.6
Finland 52.7
France 53.5
Romania 55.2
Denmark 55.3
Austria 56

China 58.9
Japan 68.9

Also, although I know people who are on it, and who lose weight on it, I've never heard that the Atkins diet is recommended by nutritionists or physicians. Quite the contrary in fact. They usually seem to recommend something like weight watchers, which, from what I can see, is just a well rounded diet with a calorie ceiling. Or, as my Dad used to say...just push yourself back from the table!

[LeBrok]

Terrible study to say the least. They could have as well tested health effect of milk on adults in China. Study would conclude that milk is unhealthy for all the adult people, because of toxicity of lactose.

[Aberdeen]

I think it's interesting that some people are saying "meat makes you fat, eat grains" when grains are much higher in calories per ounce (unless you're talking about very fatty meat). And people in developed countries are actually eating, on average, less meat and a LOT more grain and sugar. So, why is obesity a problem? Maybe the problem is being caused by grains (and sugar) rather than meat. Although activity levels are probably at least as important as diet, IMO.

However, I think Angela is correct in saying that hunger/gatherer types got their protein more from plants and fish than meat. I haven't read the research on that, but I do know that when I was poor and living out in the country as a young man, I used to hunt for food and it's difficult enough with a modern rifle. It must have been far more difficult with a bow and arrow, so I doubt that stone age hunter gatherer types ate much meat.

[Maciamo]

I think it's interesting that some people are saying "meat makes you fat, eat grains" when grains are much higher in calories per ounce (unless you're talking about very fatty meat). And people in developed countries are actually eating, on average, less meat and a LOT more grain and sugar. So, why is obesity a problem? Maybe the problem is being caused by grains (and sugar) rather than meat. Although activity levels are probably at least as important as diet, IMO.

I have said for as long as I can remember that obesity is caused by soft drinks. There is a strong correlation between the quantity of soft drinks consumed per capita and obesity. Here are some stats for developed countries.




Belgium and Norway are exceptions, since the obesity rate is actually low. I am surprised that Belgium has a higher soda consumption per capita than Australia. I have lived in both countries, and while Australians do drink a lot of soft drinks, most of the Belgians I know hardly ever do. I can't remember seeing someone ordering a soft drink in a restaurant (other than fast food) in Belgium. Belgium also has one of the lowest density of fast-food restaurants per capita in the developed world (along with France). It looks like the stats are based on this data for the consumption per capita of drinks sold by Coca-Cola. But in Belgium's case that includes a lot of bottled water and juices like Minute Maid. For actual soft drink consumption, I think that Belgium is very similar to France and Italy. I also don't understand why Norway should have a so much higher consumption than other Nordic countries.

However, I think Angela is correct in saying that hunger/gatherer types got their protein more from plants and fish than meat. I haven't read the research on that, but I do know that when I was poor and living out in the country as a young man, I used to hunt for food and it's difficult enough with a modern rifle. It must have been far more difficult with a bow and arrow, so I doubt that stone age hunter gatherer types ate much meat.

We shouldn't lump all hunter-gatherers together. There were probably bigger differences in diets between the various prehistoric populations of hunter-gatherers around the world than between farming societies. For example, the Jomon people of Japan had a diet extremely rich in seafood due to the natural abundance along the coasts of Japan. They almost didn't need to hunt game. There are parts of Africa where people could easily survive on a vegetarian diet of fruits, nuts and seeds. Some would also eat insects, which isn't properly "hunting" and cannot be equated with a meat-based diet either. In contrast, if you lived in Ice Age Siberia you could forget about plants and seafood. To survive, hunting big game was the only way to go. When people evolve for tens of thousands of years in such strikingly different environments, it is only natural that their genetic adaptation to their respective diet should also vary enormously. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ancient North Asian mammoth hunters (Y-haplogroup R) had developed a metabolism adapted to their high-fat, high-protein diet and that modern people who inherited those genes would therefore be at lower risk of developing diseases from eating a lot of meat. Of course genes from various tribes of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers are now completely mixed, so the only way to know what kind of diet is suitable for each person is to check their DNA. But before being able to issue any recommendation, we have to analyse as many genomes as possible and try to determine exactly which genetic variant corresponds to which dietary risk. That is probably going to be harder than for clear-cut diseases.

[Aberdeen]

A few years ago, there was a bit of a fad about eating according to one's blood type. I'm not sure that's effective because, as you say, most people of mixed genetic background because of all the ancient migrations. However, it was an attempt to take into account a person's genetic past in deciding what foods would suit them.

I'd like to see a chart of obesity and wheat consumption, if it was possible to control for soft drink consumption, which I agree is a huge source of calories or, in the case of diet soft drinks, a huge source of chemicals that mimic the effect of sugar in terms of how the body reacts (according to some scientists). Wheat has been modified for commercial purposes to the point where it's high in calories that are easily converted to sugar in the body. I think wheat consumption is a major issue for obesity. But yes, I think soft drinks are a very important part of the problem.

[FBS]

I myself have stopped drinking soft drinks long time ago since the amount of sugar (and the type of sugar) was simply making me sick. It took me some time to realize it. Lately I have seen that pasta makes me crazy as well, thank god for proteins otherwise I do not know what I would be eating . Regarding wheat problem I like this explanation about what happened to it:

Old-fashioned wheat that Great-Grandma used in cakes and pies was called Triticum monococcum(Einkorn). It had a chromosome count of 14. But scientists during the 1970's were charged with increasing yield and improving disease resistance of wheat crops. The answer to this problem came in the form of hybridisation. Distinct from genetic modification (where the DNA is mixed with that of another, completely unrelated plant species, animal or bacteria, or altered by other laboratory means), hybridization typically occurs through breeding selection of desirable characteristics.The modern wheat grain is called Triticum aestivum and has a chromosome count three times that of Einkorn. Disease resistance improved, and yields were increased. There was a massive and rapid roll out of this new crop so that it soon became a dietary staple. But no real studies were done to see if there were any human health implications of eating this modified wheat.
And now, just 40 odd years later, many nutritionists and researchers have suggested that the rapid and wide scale introduction of hybridised wheat has led to the many health issues wheat has now been implicated in: autoimmune diseases, gluten intolerances, diabetes, obesity and Coeliac disease. And we eat more of it than ever before. http://www.baobag.com.au/item/read/w...d_to_our_wheat

This doctor also gives some food for thought regarding wheat: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/modern-w...n-doctor-says/

[Angela]

I myself have stopped drinking soft drinks long time ago since the amount of sugar (and the type of sugar) was simply making me sick. It took me some time to realize it. Lately I have seen that pasta makes me crazy as well, thank god for proteins otherwise I do not know what I would be eating . Regarding wheat problem I like this explanation about what happened to it:

Old-fashioned wheat that Great-Grandma used in cakes and pies was called Triticum monococcum(Einkorn). It had a chromosome count of 14. But scientists during the 1970's were charged with increasing yield and improving disease resistance of wheat crops. The answer to this problem came in the form of hybridisation. Distinct from genetic modification (where the DNA is mixed with that of another, completely unrelated plant species, animal or bacteria, or altered by other laboratory means), hybridization typically occurs through breeding selection of desirable characteristics.The modern wheat grain is called Triticum aestivum and has a chromosome count three times that of Einkorn. Disease resistance improved, and yields were increased. There was a massive and rapid roll out of this new crop so that it soon became a dietary staple. But no real studies were done to see if there were any human health implications of eating this modified wheat.
And now, just 40 odd years later, many nutritionists and researchers have suggested that the rapid and wide scale introduction of hybridised wheat has led to the many health issues wheat has now been implicated in: autoimmune diseases, gluten intolerances, diabetes, obesity and Coeliac disease. And we eat more of it than ever before. http://www.baobag.com.au/item/read/w...d_to_our_wheat

This doctor also gives some food for thought regarding wheat: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/modern-w...n-doctor-says/

I thought that Triticum aestivum was thousands of years old...and the name just meant spring wheat of the bread wheat variety. (as distinct from durum wheat, which is the pasta wheat, and the type of wheat used for pastries etc.) Within that category, there are, of course, many different cultivars.
http://www.kew.org/plants-fungi/Triticum-aestivum.htm

The further hybridization of it in the 60's and 70's for use with chemical fertilizers and mechanical harvesters is indeed a problem, in my opinion. This article describes the changes made to the wheat at that time, which have increased its gluten level, which is the plant protein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_wheat

There has been some controversy in Italy about the wheat for both bread flour and pasta flour. Since Italy imports over half of the grain it uses for human consumption (from Canada and the eastern bloc, especially the Ukraine), the Made in Italy logo is deceptive.

For my family and I, getting olive oil, wine, and flour from local coops provides a solution, as does patronizing local artisanal producers of meat, cheese, and breads and pastas. Our local restaurants are also often part of the Zero Kilometre movement, or the commitment to use locally sourced products whenever possible. Of course, this isn't a solution for everyone. Here in the States I use imported artisanal pastas whenever possible. The bread is obviously made with the flour from the altered wheat.

Spelt, which we call farro, is a different thing altogether. It first appeared in Europe as a cross between the bread wheat that originally came from the Near East and a local emmer wheat. However, it disappeared except for a few isolated areas, one of which was in the Garfagnana area of northwest Tuscany and the the Lunigiana north of La Spezia, where it has been continuously consumed. Now, seeds from the area are used all over the world, as it has undergone a sort of resurgence.

Ed.Spelt is often eaten with ceci beans and cannellini beans in a dish we call Mesciua, which can be eaten soupy, or more like a bean casserole I guess. Right before serving you put a filo of fresh extra-virgin olive oil on it. It's also often eaten with rusks of bread, which are said to be easier to digest than fresh bread.

[Angela]

After reading the paper itself, and not just discussions of it, and a post from a blogger I trust, I think that there may be something to the findings of this study.

This is the blog post to which I am referring; it's called " Why I'm Not Dismissing the Latest "Animal Protein is Bad" Study (But Not Losing Sleep Over It Either)"

It can be found here:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2014/03/09/new...protein-study/

This young woman is smart, logical, objective, and thorough in her analyses. (and funny, which always helps) I think she's very credible despite her well known point of view. (She describes herself as a "recovered vegan", LOL)

This is her take on the sometimes conflicting studies on the association of certain foods with cardiovascular disease.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the...-got-it-wrong/

As to this particular study, I think it's important to be very precise. Proteins can come from animals, fish, and legumes. Fats likewise can come from animals or plants. I don't think it's helpful to confound all of them as if they were all the same, or to say that the authors made claims that they didn't actually make.

Here are the rates for cancer by country for mixed, and men, women separately.
http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistic..._frequency.php

Something is skewing the rates for certain countries.

As to these kinds of studies in general, I think they should be looking at the incidence of specific diseases, not longevity or BMI. You can't really use longevity figures for an analysis of the benefits or detriments of certain foods. The high overall levels of food available, the sanitation, the health care and on and on in the industrialized countries are going to trump any negative effects of the actual types of food consumed there.

There are also confounding factors when you talk about BMI, like total calorie consumption, alcohol consumption, individual differences in metabolic rate and fat storage, and just how important aesthetic considerations are to the people of certain countries.

And even in looking at specific diseases, I would think caution would have to be exercized. For example, if you were trying to see if there is a link between certain foods and cancer, as these researchers were trying to do, you would have to deal with the fact that lung cancer rates due to smoking could be a huge confounding factor. The rates by country very a lot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...king-map-2.jpg

Obesity is, I think, a somewhat different issue...and I agree that soft drink consumption is a huge factor. Obesity on a simple level is a function of calories in being higher than calories out. If people are going to consume a lot of high calorie beverages instead of water that's going to send the calorie intake soaring. (I saw a recent study that the high obesity rates even among children could be partly attributable to the high consumption of apple juice. Trust me....mothers are handing out those little cartons all day. When they're infants you can give them apple sauce, a little older, some apple pieces, which have the added factor that they are a good source of fiber...this habit of giving young children hundreds of calories a day in apple juice makes them too fat, and rots their teeth. )

The custom of eating a lot of sweets or desserts is also a factor...I was amazed upon moving here to find that many people used to eat dessert after most meals instead of some fruit...not that fruit doesn't contain sugars, but not as many, and of a different type. The "American" diet (although it's not just American) has fostered a taste for highly sweet foods, so much so that many prepared foods have added sugar. (I personally, on the few occasions when I make desserts, cut the sugar in the recipes by about a third.) And then there's the whole issue of portion control. The amount of food that appears on a plate in most restaurants is appalling, in my opinion.

This all relates to why the "low fat" fad in food is so counter-productive. Fat is a great concentrator of flavor...that's why you add a pat of butter to sauces at the very end. When you cut fat, the food is tasteless, so you have to vastly up the sugar and salt content to make it palatable.

As to the pre-Neolithic human diet, obviously it differed by locale, as I said. It also, however, differed by time. The bison hunter period is far removed in time from the thousands of years of the mesolithic in Europe and west Eurasia in general. I'll see if I can find the last couple of papers that discussed it. They hunted animals like the ibex and deer, and rabbit, and birds, and ate a lot of fish...seal in the north as with those Swedish Neolithic hunter-gatherers, and fresh water fish as well. I'm sure that over those thousands of years, the Mesolithic Europeans adapted genetically to this kind of diet. Aside from the fact that ibex is pretty fatty, and so is duck, these are all prey that are very low in animal fat.

I also think that we have to consider the fact that the diseases which kill us nowadays are, to a large extent, diseases of aging, and that includes the two biggest killers, heart disease and cancer. If the diet of pre-Neolithic man increased the probability of developing these kinds of diseases, it would hardly have mattered, as they were dead of other causes long before that would have become an issue.

[Theodorik]

Most people eat too much protein, which increases the risk of kidney disease and often leads to obesity, heart disease, and cancer. Vegans live longer. One can easily meet protein requirements with a vegan diet. It is necessary to consume all the essential amino acids. This can be done easily if the diet includes both grains and legumes. Many studies have shown that nuts increase longevity, partly because they contain healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

[Garrick]

The study is interesting, but there are many mutually contradictory studies. I think that proteins are necessary in the human nutrition.

[Aberdeen]

I actually question whether these two studies produced meaningful results. They talk about protein versus carbohydrates, but many foods, such as grains and beans, contain both proteins and carbohydrates. In any case, I think it's no longer meaningful to compare "carbohydrates" to anything. When Atkins originally wrote his diet book, the term "carbohydrate" basically meant starches and sugars. In or about the year 2000, the definition was amended to include fiber, even though fiber acts completely differently in the human body than starches and sugars do. So now a lot of vegetables are considered to contain carbohydrates, because of their fiber content, which means that a reference to carbohydrates in the diet, without further explanation, is meaningless.

If these studies consisted of comparing a diet that included a lot of vegetables to a diet high in animal fats, the vegetable diet would probably seem healthier in the short run. In the long run, without sufficient protein, a person will begin to suffer health problems, but you won't show that by feeding different diets to rodents for a few weeks. A study that compared a grain based diet to a meat based diet, with both diets including sufficient vegetables, would give us a much better idea as to whether eating meat is a good idea.

[LeBrok]

If these studies consisted of comparing a diet that included a lot of vegetables to a diet high in animal fats, the vegetable diet would probably seem healthier in the short run. In the long run, without sufficient protein, a person will begin to suffer health problems, but you won't show that by feeding different diets to rodents for a few weeks. A study that compared a grain based diet to a meat based diet, with both diets including sufficient vegetables, would give us a much better idea as to whether eating meat is a good idea.

Most important is balanced diet. They should have tested in what proportions we eat too much or too little meat, fats and carbs, to be healthy. Likewise they should test diets in regard to populations. Perfect Inuit diet will consist of different proportions of these 3 main groups than Chinese from rice growing regions.

[Yetos]

I think we enter our shelves in Global economy, we enter our shelves in Global 'civilization' we enter our shleves in global thinking, we enter our shelves in global entertainment, should we enter our shelves in global diet?

for answer i will remind you Inuit vs Europeans in Greenland Alaska and North pole.

the lack of Vitamin C in North, Hunters Inuit took from fat and liver of raw fish, But Europeans ate cooked food so no vitamin C (Scurvy)
Also in East Asia the beriberi disease which took its max when population started to eat hasked rice as better food.

from ancient times we see an exception in diet in ancient Greek rituals, for example Cretans and islanders were allowed to eat meat in fasting but not Central Greeks,
why? don't know simply I know that was a reason that was observed that time,


besides food quantities should compined also with the work we do, you can not ask a hard labour worker that needs muscle to eat all day vegies, that will kill him,
but a person that sits all day in chair and press α cachet or seal does really need quantities of meat?

I think we should eat according our demands and according our geographical position,
local products and fruits than mutated transported, consume in balance according our daily way of life and work, and avoid fried food and 'hidden' ingredients

[jojoooo]

As I would see it, the thought that protein is hurtful to people is one of the more preposterous myths out there.


Our species advanced as meat eaters, also the way that we're truly made of meat.


How could something we're made of be terrible for us? It simply doesn't bode well.


At the end of the day, there is no proof that a high protein admission reasons damage and a lot of confirmation appearing. On the off chance that you have sound kidneys, then its most likely best to fail as an afterthought of a higher protein consumption, as opposed to lower.


For the dominant part of individuals, there is no motivation to be worried about the careful number of grams of protein in the eating regimen.
If that you eat healthy, natural creature sustenances consistently, then your protein admission ought to consequently arrive in a protected and sound reach.

[LeBrok]

As I would see it, the thought that protein is hurtful to people is one of the more preposterous myths out there.


Our species advanced as meat eaters, also the way that we're truly made of meat.


How could something we're made of be terrible for us? It simply doesn't bode well.


At the end of the day, there is no proof that a high protein admission reasons damage and a lot of confirmation appearing. On the off chance that you have sound kidneys, then its most likely best to fail as an afterthought of a higher protein consumption, as opposed to lower.


For the dominant part of individuals, there is no motivation to be worried about the careful number of grams of protein in the eating regimen.
If that you eat healthy, natural creature sustenances consistently, then your protein admission ought to consequently arrive in a protected and sound reach.

Excellent points, welcome to Eupedia jojoooo.

[mihaitzateo]

Red meat is staying a lot in your stomach and is wasting a lot of the body strength to absorb it.
Best is to not eat meat,but only milk,cheese,fermented cheese and lots of vegetables.
This will bring you a very nice body mass,since milk/cheese combined with proteins from vegetables makes almost 100% assimilation of proteins and your body can process this kind of food much faster.
Sure you will have some fat also,but that is no problems.
For example eat potatoes with fermented cheese or milk and cereals but not whole cereals.
As for iron,you can obtain that from spinach of germinated beans and so on.
Red meat proteins have not so high assimilation in your body.
Eggs are also very good for your health.