PDA

View Full Version : High-Protein Diet Raises Cancer Risk As Much As Smoking



jeanL
03-05-2014, 05:29 PM
I highly doubt that the link is actual proteins, and not the trans-fat, cholesterol, saturated fats present in some animal proteins.

http://www.livescience.com/43839-too-much-protein-help-cancers-grow.html


The researchers looked at more than 6,000 people ages 50 and older, and followed them for 18 years. They found that people ages 50 to 65 who ate a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age were more than four times as likely to die of cancer during the study period than those who ate a low-protein diet, according to the study published today (March 4) in the journal Cell Metabolism.

"Popular diets in many cases have high proteins and low sugars. They may make you lose some weight, but that's not a good diet to increase life span," said study researcher Valter Longo, professor of biology at the University of Southern California (USC) and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

The risks of a high-protein diet are even comparable to smoking, the researchers said. People who smoke are four times more likely to die of cancer compared with nonsmokers, Longo said.

"Of course we cannot be sure of the reasons, but we have a pretty good idea, based on this study and also previous studies, as to why this is happening," Longo said.

The study also found that middle-age people who ate foods rich in animal proteins — including meat, milk and cheese — were 75 percent more likely to die of any cause than those who ate a low-protein diet within the study period.

The researchers defined a "high-protein" diet as deriving at least 20 percent of daily calories from protein, a "moderate" protein diet as deriving 10 to 19 percent of calories from protein, and a "low-protein" diet as less than 10 percent of calories from protein.

However, what's bad for people at one age may be healthy at another. In the study, people older than 65 were less likely to die of cancer or other causes if they consumed more protein.

"So, not all people benefit from low protein. Older people actually seem to benefit from moderate intake of protein," Longo said. Having enough protein in the diet may be important for older people to maintain a healthy weight and protect against frailty, the researchers said.

The link between high-protein intake and risk of cancer almost vanished when the researchers considered participants whose protein mainly came from plants, such as beans.

This may be because proteins in plants have a different composition, and don't stimulate growth hormones as efficiently as meat proteins, Longo said.

The study suggests that the Mediterranean diet, which is low in animal protein and high in carbohydrates, may be best for extending life span, Longo said.

The researchers said they recommend eating about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight every day in middle age. For example, a 130-pound person should eat about 45 to 50 grams of protein a day, with a preference for plant proteins, the researchers said.

To investigate why there may be a link between protein consumption and cancer, the researchers looked at mice that were injected with mouse skin cancer cells. They showed that a high amount of protein in the mouse diet promoted the tumor's survival and growth by increasing the levels of a growth hormone, called IGF-1.

The researchers also measured the levels of IGF-1 for 2,000 people, randomly selected among those in their study, and found that for every 10 nanograms per milliliter increase in IGF-1, those on a high-protein diet were 9 percent more likely to die of cancer than those on a low-protein diet.

"When you have a lot of protein, these growth factors go up, and we've shown that they help normal cells become cancer-like cells, and then they help the cells grow," Longo said.

Personally I'm highly skeptical, I doubt that lean proteins like Isolate Whey, Chicken breast, Fish, etc, will do anything but good to you. The fact that plant proteins did the opposite suggest that it is animal fats/other products the one that do the damage, if anything I doubt the extra amino acids that animal protein might carry relative to plants will make any difference. I looked through the studies and the researchers fail to be specific about what they mean by "meat" or "dairy", they is also no mention of chicken or fish, the average American doesn't eat Fish or Chicken Breast as meat, they eat cheeseburgers, hamburgers, steaks, etc. We evolved in a high protein, high fat diet until 10,000 years ago. Also the 0.8 grams thing only works for people who aren't active, how about the active middle age population, middle age athletes, bodybuilders, what are the effects of protein intake in such population. This study however is a good eye opener for those who like to mess around with IGF-1 supplements or HGH, specially in the bodybuilding community.

Link to study: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/retrieve/pii/S155041311400062X

DMXX
03-05-2014, 08:02 PM
Correlation does not equal causation. This is epidemiology 101. I'm surprised these researchers fell into such a basic trap, rendering their conclusion possible at best and plain pseudoscience at worst.

As you mentioned, a lot of people consume high saturated fat levels* in accompaniment with the high protein. The recommended minimum of protein for an adult male in the UK is 45g. Most people I know consume more than this, particularly if they're involved in weight training.

Plenty of work is needed before this sensationalist phrasing receives any merit. Such as, proposing a mechanism of pathology (how do animal proteins specifically increase malignancy risk).

* Saturated fat is a part of a sensible diet. It's the trans fats which serve no biological purpose and were AFAIK artificially created to extend the lives of certain products. They've been phased out of many/most Western food producers as a result.

newtoboard
03-05-2014, 08:06 PM
Probably the result of high red meat consumption being associated with elevated cancer risk. Which I think has been shown to be a legitimate risk factor.

AJL
03-06-2014, 04:40 AM
They really ought to do more work on kind of protein. x mg of steamed shrimp or salmon is not the same as x amount of Big Macs. Yes they are high in fat and cholesterol and sodium but there must be significant offsetting effects of their antioxidants/omega-3s. I can't imagine many people are getting cancer because they are having too much poached salmon and steamed shrimp with their broccoli.

thetick
03-06-2014, 05:44 AM
Correlation does not equal causation. This is epidemiology 101. I'm surprised these researchers fell into such a basic trap, rendering their conclusion possible at best and plain pseudoscience at worst.

I've posted this before , but it's great example of Correlation does not equal causation.
Vodka and ice will ruin your kidneys. Rum and ice will ruin your liver. Whiskey and ice will ruin your heart. Gin and ice will ruin your brain. Coke and ice will ruin your teeth. That damn ice is lethal.

thetick
03-06-2014, 05:46 AM
They really ought to do more work on kind of protein. x mg of steamed shrimp or salmon is not the same as x amount of Big Macs. Yes they are high in fat and cholesterol and sodium but there must be significant offsetting effects of their antioxidants/omega-3s. I can't imagine many people are getting cancer because they are having too much poached salmon and steamed shrimp with their broccoli.

Well at least they did not say eating food causes cancer but limited it to just protein. We would all starve if food was removed from our diet. :)

Azvarohi
03-06-2014, 09:04 PM
I'm really not suprised. It's not amazing that something that is anabolic for myocytes (muscle cells) to also be anabolic for cancer cells.

alan
03-06-2014, 10:56 PM
Its all so contradictory and confusing it hard to find a common thread in these studies. I think the main point was growth hormones in most farmed meat and dairy. Organic sounds great but its too expensive most of the time.

The best I can come up with is maybe a diet based on organic veg and fish with the carbs coming from things like lentals, pulses and just a modest amount of wholemeal versions of pasta, rice etc. Probably the only alcohol that gets some health praises is red wine. Not that I stick to that sort of diet myself (apart from the wine)!

I think though that a few thing have been consistent in the medical reports on diet like avoiding stuff with lots of refined sugar, salt and certain types of animal fat. That has been pretty consistent for a long time now. Shame that is the stuff that is easy to crave. I never find myself craving lettuce :0(

gravetti
03-07-2014, 09:33 AM
Health lobby ...

http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/health-lobby-hits-out-at-low-carb-diets-1-536491
"Low carbohydrate diets conflict with decades of solid scientific research that clearly encourages us to reduce saturated fat and boost fruit, vegetable and fibre intake," said Dr Barbara Moore, president of the group Shape Up America, which founded the coalition. "Restricting carbohydrates stresses vital organs and alters brain metabolism, while offering no advantages in terms of either fat loss or long-term weight control."
http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth7.htm
"People who are faced with the many distorted facts about diet, cholesterol and heart disease often ask me why so many scientists unquestioningly accept the diet-heart idea. Here is Professor Mann's comment: Fearing to lose their soft money funding, the academicians who should speak up and stop this wasteful anti science are strangely quiet. Their silence has delayed a solution for coronary heart disease by a generation."
http://www.carbohydratescankill.com/3016/73-dr-uffe-ravnskov

http://lowcarbbetterhealth.blogspot.se/2010/11/diet-argument-by-uffe-ravnskov-md-phd.html

Why is saturated fat still seen as a menace to health today? What is the evidence for this idea?

The truth is that there is none. The truth is that the warnings against saturated fat are based upon manipulated data.

gravetti
03-07-2014, 09:48 AM
http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth6.htm

A few years ago Drs. Thomas Newman and Stephen Hulley published the results from a meticulous review of what we know about cancer and lipid-lowering drugs. They found that clofibrate, gemfibrozil and all the statins stimulate cancer growth in rodents (89).

pyromatic
03-07-2014, 04:20 PM
As stated in a few posts above, this is an epidemiological study. Epidemiological studies do not establish anything but merely serve to generate hypotheses for future testing in more rigorous and controlled settings. Additionally, this study is itself deeply flawed, relying on data that were gathered from questionnaires which other studies failed to validate. There are also many, serious confounders which I don't believe the authors adequately account for. All in all, it's a crappy epidemiological study that for whatever reason the lay press picked up and wrote sensationalist headlines for.

DMXX
03-07-2014, 09:13 PM
There was a study done at some point in the past few years that found weight training was actually preventative of cancer in older populations (chance of dying from cancer dropped by up to 50% in patients who exercised regularly vs. others).

The mechanism of this was through muscle hypertrophy (increased cell size). If I remember the study correctly, they postulated that the great insulin sensitivity of muscle cells "sucked up" all the growth factors associated with insulin in the body. This left much less circulating around. Neoplastic cells therefore were "starved" of an endocrine source for development and were eventually swept up by the innate immune system or remained indefinitely dormant and harmless in the body. This too was an epidemiological study IIRC, but I believe the variables were tightly checked and accounted for.

So, with that inference in mind... Even if animal proteins were carcinogenic for whatever reason, one can argue that regular weight training would offset this damaging effect. Perhaps the asserted negative effect of animal proteins would ultimately mean nothing in the context of malignancy if the cancers that do develop are never allowed to grow properly with exercise?

And the door's been blown wide open...

alan
03-08-2014, 12:21 AM
I suppose there is the folksy common sense approach of eating a little of everything. That way whatever is bad for you wont be in big amounts and you are bound to eat some good stuff too. Seems reasonable to me while food facts are still disputed.

There are a few things that food scientists do seem agreed on. Its pretty clear that large amounts of salt and sugar is not a good idea and if you cut that back you soon adjust your tastes and dont need as much. I also think you may as well eat the wholemeal versions if you are eating stuff like pasta, rice, bread etc. Its higher fiber which is good for the bowels etc and means slow sugar release in the blood. More importantly its not a major sacrifice as the wholemeal versions are pretty nice.

rms2
03-08-2014, 01:52 AM
I pretty much eat and drink what I want but try to be somewhat moderate. Worrying about it all is a tremendous drag, so I don't.

I enjoy meat and potatoes done in various ways and washed down with beer. :beerchug:

thetick
03-28-2014, 01:14 AM
http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth6.htm

A few years ago Drs. Thomas Newman and Stephen Hulley published the results from a meticulous review of what we know about cancer and lipid-lowering drugs. They found that clofibrate, gemfibrozil and all the statins stimulate cancer growth in rodents (89).

Yes and carrots cause cancer in mice. What the researchers who came to the conclusion did not reveal except in a rebuttal a person would need a ton of carrots in one day have the same amount of carrots that were injected in mice. I would have to read the paper on statins.. but just about anything can be made into a cancer causing if given in ridiculous doses. Regardless I think statins are completely unnecessary but they are big money makers for the drug industry.

Research papers from any industry tend to have drastically varying degrees of credibility.

DMXX
03-28-2014, 01:01 PM
I think statins are completely unnecessary but they are big money makers for the drug industry.


Statins are probably the best means we have right now of handling the massive health risk that's associated with hypercholesterolaemia (heart attacks/MIs, strokes) in the current social climate in the West. They are generally well-tolerated with myalgia (muscle pain) and transient slight cognitive decline being the most common side-effects. Practically every medical textbook I own attests to their efficacy.

There's risks to practically all drugs, but where we are now, things like statins are favourable. As a final year medical student, advocating statins as unnecessary doesn't take into account the sheer weight of evidence in favour of their use. If individuals don't want to take them, so be it, but citing the financial gain by big pharmaceuticals as a primary reason why they're used in modern practice doesn't take into account the very obvious benefits that come from their use physiologically.

A lot of money is made from them because Western men especially just aren't making the necessary modifications to their lifestyle (quit smoking, <70g fat/day, regular exercise).

MikeWhalen
03-28-2014, 02:34 PM
I had done some research and then prepared a very sophisticated response to the OP, but then my BBQ flared up and there was too much fire on my nice thick Porterhouse steak! Bloody Hell!!
I mean I like a nice char on my 2" thick steak as much as the next guy, but you really do need to do that in moderation.
Getting a rare-ish 'medium rare' can be tricky enough as it is without flare up problems

Then, just as I got the fire beat down, the heat was too high for my onions that I was caramelizing, and some started to blacken a bit...by the time I fixed that culinary emergency, I had forgotten the whole damn point I wuz going to make in this thread

sigh

but the steak and onions were magnificent!

Mike

rms2
03-30-2014, 01:33 AM
I had done some research and then prepared a very sophisticated response to the OP, but then my BBQ flared up and there was too much fire on my nice thick Porterhouse steak! Bloody Hell!!
I mean I like a nice char on my 2" thick steak as much as the next guy, but you really do need to do that in moderation.
Getting a rare-ish 'medium rare' can be tricky enough as it is without flare up problems

Then, just as I got the fire beat down, the heat was too high for my onions that I was caramelizing, and some started to blacken a bit...by the time I fixed that culinary emergency, I had forgotten the whole damn point I wuz going to make in this thread

sigh

but the steak and onions were magnificent!

Mike

Best post in the whole thread! (I have to spread some Reputation around before giving you any more, so I thought I would post my opinion of what you wrote above.) :beerchug:

jeanL
03-30-2014, 02:26 AM
Statins are probably the best means we have right now of handling the massive health risk that's associated with hypercholesterolaemia (heart attacks/MIs, strokes) in the current social climate in the West. They are generally well-tolerated with myalgia (muscle pain) and transient slight cognitive decline being the most common side-effects. Practically every medical textbook I own attests to their efficacy.

There's risks to practically all drugs, but where we are now, things like statins are favourable. As a final year medical student, advocating statins as unnecessary doesn't take into account the sheer weight of evidence in favour of their use. If individuals don't want to take them, so be it, but citing the financial gain by big pharmaceuticals as a primary reason why they're used in modern practice doesn't take into account the very obvious benefits that come from their use physiologically.

A lot of money is made from them because Western men especially just aren't making the necessary modifications to their lifestyle (quit smoking, <70g fat/day, regular exercise).

My biggest issue with the pharma industry is that natural alternatives for hypercholesterolaemia(sic) such as Taurine/Inositol are not explored because there isn't a profit to be made of natural substances. However a quick search reveals that Taurine:

[1] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15221507)
[2] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17153607)
[3] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531704001095)
[4] (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00726-009-0247-6#page-1)

Is very effective in changing serum lipid profile, along with improving cardiac function[1] (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.4960080507/abstract)[2] (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00726-013-1507-z#page-1), and lowering blood pressure[1] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295278900436). At the same time there are very few if any side effects "See Taurine tolerance" (http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out22_en.html) from consuming taurine, yet very few people know of Taurine as an alternative to statins. Or Inositol, which even though it is not as widely explored as Taurine has show in small clinical trials of women with PCOS to lower blood lipid levels, see here:

[1] (http://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2011&issue=01000&article=00020&type=abstract)

Yet again with very few side effects, nothing to the significance level we see with statins, see here a study where participants took up to 18 g of it a day, reporting no side effects:

[2] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11386498)

Again I have nothing against the Pharma industry, but as I said before, why are safer alternatives that thus far have proven effective not being explored more profoundly?

DMXX
03-30-2014, 11:42 AM
Again I have nothing against the Pharma industry, but as I said before, why are safer alternatives that thus far have proven effective not being explored more profoundly?

Great point, and thank you for providing such a comprehensive list of citations. Definitely something to mull over. As I'm not involved in medical research (yet) and have received training specifically for the delivery of healthcare, I don't have any sort of official answer for that.

Looking at the studies, it appears the use of taurine as an antihypertensive and antiatherogenic is recent (all these papers were produced in the 2000's). The mechanism of action for many of its' observed effects aren't known. Statins, on the other hand, were first researched in 1971 and have decades of research to support them.

In addition, I have just looked at current clinical trials it and it appears Taurine is actively being tested for hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=taurine&Search=Search). Therefore, we're just waiting for the chemical to get through the trials process before it hits our shelves. I was fairly confident taurine is being considered as an alternative by one of the big pharmaceuticals* and we're just waiting for it to clear clinical trials before I searched for it anyway.

So, in conclusion, alternatives to statins are being explored in the most clinically relevant sense (trials) and we should see some developments with it in the coming years.

Thank you again for sharing this. I very much appreciate having advanced knowledge of things which may affect future medical practice. Now when a patient comes in with taurine listed in their drug history I'll stun my unsuspecting colleagues by knowing what the heck it's probably used for!

* I disagree with the view these companies intentionally create a "need" for a given drug, the same way it is espoused fast food outlets market their products. In my current view, pharmaceutical companies need to constantly innovate to outdo the competition and provide healthcare professionals with a viable alternative once an established drug becomes ineffective. Or, if a more effective one is discovered. The issue regarding antiretrovirals in Africa is different.

Joe B
03-30-2014, 05:04 PM
My biggest issue with the pharma industry is that natural alternatives for hypercholesterolaemia(sic) such as Taurine/Inositol are not explored because there isn't a profit to be made of natural substances. However a quick search reveals that Taurine:

Again I have nothing against the Pharma industry, but as I said before, why are safer alternatives that thus far have proven effective not being explored more profoundly?


So, in conclusion, alternatives to statins are being explored in the most clinically relevant sense (trials) and we should see some developments with it in the coming years.

Thank you again for sharing this. I very much appreciate having advanced knowledge of things which may affect future medical practice. Now when a patient comes in with taurine listed in their drug history I'll stun my unsuspecting colleagues by knowing what the heck it's probably used for!

* I disagree with the view these companies intentionally create a "need" for a given drug, the same way it is espoused fast food outlets market their products. In my current view, pharmaceutical companies need to constantly innovate to outdo the competition and provide healthcare professionals with a viable alternative once an established drug becomes ineffective. Or, if a more effective one is discovered. The issue regarding antiretrovirals in Africa is different.
Thanks Jean for the great information about Taurine. That's good stuff. Looks like the massive use of taurine in energy drinks has caused researchers to take another look at other potential uses. Even GlaxoSmithKline, #20 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899703?term=taurine&rank=20) from DMXX's link. One problem a physician should consider if prescibing taurine is dosing versus cosumption of taurine from food. That's not a problem with the statins because they are so well understood and not part of a normal diet. Looks like Glaxo is trying to better understand taurine by looking at the pharmacokinetics in that study.
I'm not so sure that the taurine that is out there right now all natural. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurine#Chemical_synthesis_and_commercial_producti on
Sometimes a natural substance in it's natural state is very unhealthy. Take for instance the venom from the South American Pit Viper, generally very unhealthy for you when administered by a snake. That venom led to the development of captopril and other angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. ACE inhibitors are a very important tool for the treatment of hypertension and CHF. The fact that you can take a pill and avoid the snake helps with patient compliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACE_inhibitors_drug_design

Pharmaceutical companies absolutely create a need for a drug. That is what a pharmaceutical sales force is for and it is not evil all the time. Fast food outlets have fed many medical residents over the years, courtesy of drug companies. At least they used too in the U.S.

When amoxicillin/clavulanic acid was launched for the treatment of otitis media, all of the sudden Branhamella catarrhalis was the pathogen to talk about instead of Haemophilus influenzae. In fact B. cat was a new name for Neisseria catarrhalis and Augmentin had the only approved indication for the treatment of B. cat in ottis media. An indication that ampicillin, amoxicillin or cephalexin did not have yet. That kept Augmentin from being held back for treatment only when the first-line antibiotics didn't work.

Bottom line is natural does not mean it is naturally good, but might be. Pharmaceutical companies are both good and evil.

thetick
07-02-2014, 04:24 AM
Bottom line is natural does not mean it is naturally good, but might be. Pharmaceutical companies are both good and evil.

Yep arsenic is natural, but one of the most deadly substances for organic life.

Stellaritic
07-02-2014, 05:13 AM
A high protein diet was the norm for hundreds of thousands of years,why would it be unhealthy ?

thetick
07-03-2014, 02:10 AM
A high protein diet was the norm for hundreds of thousands of years,why would it be unhealthy ?

Because people for thousands of years (excepyt the last hundred) only lived to thirty years old! The bodily effects of a high protein diet don't occur at such a young age, but after many decades far more than three decades.

Also people tended to get much more exercise. You had to hunt most of the day if you wanted to survive..now it's 3 minute walk to the refrigerator.

Táltos
07-03-2014, 03:36 AM
Because people for thousands of years (excepyt the last hundred) only lived to thirty years old! The bodily effects of a high protein diet don't occur at such a young age, but after many decades far more than three decades.

Also people tended to get much more exercise. You had to hunt most of the day if you wanted to survive..now it's 3 minute walk to the refrigerator.
You also don't have to get up to change the TV anymore. Yes I might be part of the last generation that remembers "roughing it" to get up and change the dial. And I really don't know which part of that statement is scarier!

thetick
07-03-2014, 03:43 AM
You also don't have to get up to change the TV anymore. Yes I might be part of the last generation that remembers "roughing it" to get up and change the dial. And I really don't know which part of that statement is scarier!

Yea I remember we had cable with channels 2-13. 12 channels was alot of channels back then. I remember my grandfather saying what good is 12 channels? You can only watch one at a time. He also had a subscription to TV Guide and never complained about getting up to change the channel.

Táltos
07-03-2014, 03:48 AM
Yea I remember we had cable with channels 2-13. 12 channels was alot of channels back then. I remember my grandfather saying what good is 12 channels? You can only watch one at a time. He also had a subscription to TV Guide and never complained about getting up to change the channel.
Yes I remember channels 2-13 being a "big step" up from the three local ones. And TV Guide, that is a blast from the past, I had forgotten all about that one!

Stellaritic
07-03-2014, 04:29 AM
Because people for thousands of years (excepyt the last hundred) only lived to thirty years old! The bodily effects of a high protein diet don't occur at such a young age, but after many decades far more than three decades.

Also people tended to get much more exercise. You had to hunt most of the day if you wanted to survive..now it's 3 minute walk to the refrigerator.
I agree with you to some extent,but the American lifestyle shouldn't be considered as the norm .
Most people who live in highly industrialized countries like the U.S have been exposed to chemical agents at an early age,especially the elderly.
Radium-based cosmetic products were available on the market in the 20s !

My great-grandfather who had led a nomadic lifestyle for most of his life passed away at 97.
His diet mainly consisted of dairy products and red meat(high protein diet).

He didn't have any cardiovascular diseases even though he was over-weighted, he died of Alzheimer's !

leonardo
07-03-2014, 10:40 AM
Too much protein is not good for you. Too many carbs aren't either. Of course sugar is very bad. It seems that what nature has provided from the start: fruits, nuts, vegetables, fish, etc. is what we should be eating. I guess our ancestors did know best.

Erik
07-11-2014, 11:47 PM
I really hope that this is a correlation, not causation situation. Proteins are great food.

jayphilip
04-13-2015, 07:58 AM
I am amazed these scientists dropped into such a primary trap, making their summary possible at best and simply pseudoscience at most severe.

gravetti
04-13-2015, 08:58 AM
The Inuit Paradox – High Protein & Fat, No Fruits/Vegetables and yet Lower Heart Disease and Cancer

http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/

Dewailly says the traditional Inuit diet is high in selenium, common to whale skin, and likely explains why prostate cancer is almost unheard of in the north, as are most other cancers. Cardiovascular disease is also rare, likely because the Inuit diet remains rich in wild game. “The traditional Inuit diet is fats and proteins, no sugar at all,” says Dewailly. “It is probably one of the healthiest diets you can have. The human body is built for that.”

gravetti
04-13-2015, 09:07 AM
The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease

A highly qualified doctor and scientist analyzes the studies used to justify the cholesterol hypothesis and demonstrates that the idea that animal fats and cholesterol cause heart disease is based on flimsy, even fraudulent evidence and wishful thinking. Includes a discussion on the dangers of vegetable oils and cholesterol-lowering drugs.

http://www.thincs.org/links.htm

Most medical journals use the so-called peer-review system. This implies that for being published all manuscripts are scrutinized by one or two external specialists (referees) in the issue. Here are the comments from five referees, who were asked to review a manuscript by Uffe Ravnskov, sent to and rejected by three different medical journals before it was accepted for publication in Quarterly Journal of Medicine without any changes. Dr. Ravnskov's comments were also sent to the editors of the journals that rejected the article.

CDC Admits Long-Standing Error in Medical Science - There Is No Benefit In Reducing Salt Intake And It May Even Be Dangerous

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/062113_CDC-Admits-Long-Standing-Error-in-Medical-Science-There-Is-No-Benefit-In-Reducing-Salt-Intake-May-Even-Be-Dangerous.shtml

What the CDC study reported explicitly is that there is no benefit, and may be a danger, from reducing our salt intake below 1 tsp per day.

http://www.gu.se/english/about_the_university/news-calendar/News_detail//new-study-challenges-recommended-daily-sodium-intake-.cid1229809

New Study Challenges Recommended Daily Sodium Intake

A new research study casts doubts on the current recommendations for how much salt you should consume. The study is one of the largest of its kind and indicates that today’s recommended maximum daily intake may be far too low and even harmful. Over 100 000 individuals from 18 countries participated in the study. Four thousand were from west Sweden.

sweuro
04-13-2015, 01:26 PM
They don't mention the sources of the proteins consumed in this study. It was probably mostly red-meat, also american meat is of worse quality than European meat, because of the higher health standards demanded by the EU (hormones that are banned in the EU are still used in America or anti-biotics fed to animals).

tamilgangster
05-11-2015, 10:53 AM
This study seems to fail to realize that alot of what is associated with high protein is also high cholesterol, and saturated fat, which are the ones increasing cancer risk

brendavaldez
03-21-2016, 12:35 PM
Hey,

What is it all about ?