Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. People who eat just a relatively high amount of animal protein in their normal diets can see a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality after they reach the age of 50-65 compared to people with low protein intakes.
You and I have gone over this before. The science doesn't support the claims you are making (at best, you have very weak correlation evidence but absolutely none that is causation).
I know you're immune to listening, but for anyone else who is actually interested, here is the actual, verifiable science.
You and I have gone over this before. The science doesn't support the claims you are making (at best, you have very weak correlation evidence but absolutely none that is causation).
I know you're immune to listening, but for anyone else who is actually interested, here is the actual, verifiable science.
The one thing that all of the articles agree on is that the more veggies and fruits in the diet, the better it is for health and, if you are going to eat animal products, it is even more important to have a high percentage of veggies and fruits
What's funny is how people will believe anything they read even if it's from an entity like the WHO. Oh yes they are very trustworthy... NOT
Oh yes, the WHO, The United Nations public health arm. I have a lot of trust in anything the United Nations does. They get so much accomplished and solve so many of our problems, again... NOT
I can post an article for every one you post. Which one do you believe?
I personally believe governments and politicians have no business giving us advice on anything health related. Leave it to the scientists please without any government oversight. And when I say scientist I mean an independent scientist.
What's funny is how people will believe anything they read even if it's from an entity like the WHO. Oh yes they are very trustworthy... NOT
Oh yes, the WHO, The United Nations public health arm. I have a lot of trust in anything the United Nations does. They get so much accomplished and solve so many of our problems, again... NOT
I can post an article for every one you post. Which one do you believe?
That article brings up another point. T. Colin Campbell, Phd, one of the most eminent scientists (speaking of scientists) on the study of diet and disease for over 60 years, says the excessive protein that comes with the fat may be one of the major culprits in the development of heart disease and cancer.
Last edited by Just A Guy; 09-22-2016 at 01:36 PM..
There is really no such thing as too much protein.
Even going by the logic of the article you posted, if you crowd out the other important nutrients by eating too much protein, you will have health problems.
"Diets high in meat are often low in fruits and vegetables..."
"Ensuring sufficient intake of basic foods (fruits and vegetables) to balance out the acid produced from a high protein intake..."
The one thing that all of the articles agree on is that the more veggies and fruits in the diet, the better it is for health and, if you are going to eat animal products, it is even more important to have a high percentage of veggies and fruits
Well first off, you'd be well served to use a more credible source rather than one of the most militant vegetarian organizations out there.
This is another one I've shown you before, but even with red meat, any link between consumption and cancer is exceedingly weak.
Quote:
On a population wide basis, red meat is definitely associated with cancer. The association has been shown numerous times, but is fairly weak in relevance. The most well-controlled study noted an 0.2-fold increase.
Please note association; this has not yet been shown through interventions nor is the cause known. If we are to answer 'does red meat cause cancer', the answer is 'we do not know'
Quote:
As there have been no interventions, it cannot be concluded that red meat causes cancer or mortality. It is associated, but causation has not yet been established.
Casein may be very likely the most relevant chemical carcinogen ever identified.
So which IARC carcinogen group is it listed under then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Guy
That article brings up another point. T. Colin Campbell, Phd, one of the most eminent scientists (speaking of scientists) on the study of diet and disease for over 60 years, says the excessive protein that comes with the fat may be one of the major culprits in the development of heart disease and cancer.
For those who don't know, T. Colin Campbell wrote The China Study, which while popular with pop-science types, was highly criticized by actual scientists because the data didn't support his claims.
Even going by the logic of the article you posted, if you crowd out the other important nutrients by eating too much protein, you will have health problems.
I consume around 200-300 grams of protein on any given day, depending on where I am in my cutting or bulking cycles. That's only 800-1200 calories a day coming from protein alone, with plenty of room to spare for fruits and vegetables.
So which IARC carcinogen group is it listed under then?
For those who don't know, T. Colin Campbell wrote The China Study, which while popular with pop-science types, was highly criticized by actual scientists because the data didn't support his claims.
I consume around 200-300 grams of protein on any given day, depending on where I am in my cutting or bulking cycles. That's only 800-1200 calories a day coming from protein alone, with plenty of room to spare for fruits and vegetables.
Your sources are hardly non biased. They are from websites promoting either a book or a certain way of eating. Can you post some peer reviewed, non biased data from a reputable source? Nothing from say, Lyle McDonald, anyone else pushing a certain agenda? You see, I can post just as many if not more sources that rebuts the, 'no such thing as too much protein'.
They are from websites promoting either a book or a certain way of eating. Can you post some peer reviewed, non biased data from a reputable source? Nothing from say, Lyle McDonald, anyone else pushing a certain agenda?
The link I gave from Lyle's website had almost 20 links to peer reviewed studies. What more do you want?
Quote:
You see, I can post just as many if not more sources that rebuts the, 'no such thing as too much protein'.
But they wouldn't be credible and/or they'd be distorting the science, as Lyle pointed out in his article.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
