OK, so technically this is weight loss news, but I think we are the most ....protein.
passionate about protein here on this forum.
Read in the April Self magazine today, that according to a study done at Washington University/St. Louis, that excess protein can lead to breast and colon cancer. Rephrasing here:
"Eating too much protein may increase your risk for breast and colon cancer, a study from Washington University in St. Louis shows. An overabundance of protein is associated with higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone linked to both types of cancer. The right amount seems to be 0.8 grams of protein per 2.2 pounds of body weight. A 130-pound woman should aim for around 47 grams per day - the amount in about 5 ounces of cooked, skinless chicken breast."
So, can we discuss? Beyond all of the, "it was just one study" common sense, what do you guys think? This would be a big change for me, and if duplicated in other studies, could take me from exceeding 100g daily to down to about 78. Has anyone else seen confirming information? I know I've read that too much protein (excess) can strain kidneys and liver, but I think that's part of a hi-hi-protein meal at the expense of other nutrients.
There are so many factors you have to look at when considering protein intake and that would be your current state what your goal is what your caloric intake will be. The reason why i saw that is lets say for example you are on a very restrictive meal plan ( I avoid the word diet) then what happens is you are more than likly going to have a lower amount of CHO (carbs) which acts as a protein sparer. For this reason a higher amount of protein is needed. That is one aspect I see that the article you are talking about doesn't address.
This is a nice way to actually show you what I mean, if we look at the specific goal of an indiviual along with their training protocol we can see that there actually is a huge difference in the amount of protein that needs to be taken in. Another issue I would like to address is that taking in to much protein can actually cause organ problems which is something i would be a little more concerned with as it would more likely occur before the formation of cancer from protein at least that is my opinion. But we are talking about huge servings of protein in terms of excess of what most bodybuilders take. This is really common in individuals who were following a specific diet in which carbs were a no no and protein was the best food source. We all know why that isn't a good idea so i'll skip that. Also a nice part of exercise is that food that you eat speeds through your system at a faster rate then those who do not exercise. If you look at the percentage of people who have colon cancer you can see that those who exercise have lower colon caner rates then those who do not exercise. The matter does not have a long enough time to sit in the system. I hope that sheds some light on the matter if you have any more questions please feel free to ask.
Thanks Josh, and welcome! I hope you'll impart alot of your training with us LWL!! We are always bouncing ideas and theories back and forth about how to maximize our efforts. There's a few guys around here too, so you're not alone!
So it makes you wonder if the study focused on sedentary, overweight males, who really only needed .8g a day, but were eating plate-size steaks, burgers, and the like to excess. You wonder if there were any training weight lifters who were part of the study that were the excess. So in other words, if it's the sedentary, it could be due to alot more than their protein intake that's the cause - lack of exercise, possibly other bad consumption habits like alcohol, tobacco. Or are we to assume that all those outlying factors have been eliminated in a study like this? Or were there even ANY healthy athletic lifters who were the people taking in "excess" amounts of protein who had gotten cancer this way. Hmmm.......more details are needed I think. I'll have to see what i can round up.
Thank infomation was published in a Peer Review journal. By defult it has to be reviewed by leading experts in the field. Right now I'm hoping to get something published in a peer review journal but not on the nutrition aspect.
Also could you claify what your question was in the above post.
Sorry, question was, could other factors have led to the outcome. So, did the people who consumed excess protein do so thru eating huge steaks, burgers and other unhealthy things, as well as have some other unhealthy habits. Or, were there actually some healthy living athletes included who got their excess protein thru healthier sources.
In other words, did the cancer people have other contributory lifestyles that caused their cancer, and not just excess protein. Or were they healthy in other ways, except for their high protein intake.
hrbabe -- If I read this right, you're asking a lot of questions about the kind of research study it is AND who the participants are, right?
If the research is correlational, then it's very difficult to tease out the causal factors that may lead to a particular outcome. It's not that correlational research is bad, it's just that it's nearly impossible to determine causality from it.
And then there's the sample issue... who are the people in the study and does the research apply (generalize) to other samples as well?
I don't have any answers for you, unfortunately, but if I read you right, those are great questions!
Aww good question, with steaks there is an issue of how much protein is actually given. Remember in most academic research has to be controlled. Protein, Cr, caffeine, etc is given in a pill form and also placebo.
I'm wondering if the reason for the colon cancer/protein link is because the more protein you are eating, the less fiber you are eating. If someone ate good quality food while ensuring they had a good mix of fiber, protein and other nutrients, would they get the same results?
Yeah, exactly. Like there were fewer healthy carbs. But why the breast cancer? YOu could say hormones from all the meat, but Josh says it was probably given by pill form anyway, and not thru the diet. So that would count out artificial hormones in the meat or dairy products.
And Wyellen, exactly what I meant!
So, what do we do now? Consider lowering our protein goals if they were on the high end of things? I understand how different bodies have different needs for protein as Josh stated, but the study seems to draw a clear line at an amount at which bad outcomes were seen. So they weren't saying, sedentary people who consumed in excess of "Y", they were saying it for all people. Hmmm..........
Remember in most academic research has to be controlled.
I think you meant to say that in experiments variables need to be controlled. But in many (most? all?) disciplines non-experimental research is perfectly valid.
Experiments and correlational studies have different pros and cons. Correlational studies cannot determine causation, for example. Experimental research often lacks generalizability to the real world.
In many cases, experiments cannot be performed (because of their limitations) and correlational research is the best option we have. We just have to be careful to interpret the research appropriately.
hrbabe -- Without knowing the details of the study, we have more questions than answers. Heck, even when we DO know the details, there are questions!
As a researcher myself, one of my biggest beefs is with how the media portrays research to the public -- the reporters don't always do a good job of understanding or explaining the details or implications.
Of course, sometimes the researchers themselves make mistakes when discussing their own research!
I think you meant to say that in experiments variables need to be controlled. But in many (most? all?) disciplines non-experimental research is perfectly valid.
Experiments and correlational studies have different pros and cons. Correlational studies cannot determine causation, for example. Experimental research often lacks generalizability to the real world.
In many cases, experiments cannot be performed (because of their limitations) and correlational research is the best option we have. We just have to be careful to interpret the research appropriately.
you sound like a statician. I wish it came that easy for me.
Well, I don't have your expertise in kinesiology, in which you can talk circles around me.
I'm not a statistician, but have taken a number of stat classes for my Ph.D. in psychology.
ha, the phd alone makes you a staistician. Quick question for you what is the difference between a Ph.D. in psychology and a psycD I think thats what its called.
OK, so technically this is weight loss news, but I think we are the most ....protein.
