
High protein diet not as bad for you as smoking - adventured
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx
======
kybernetyk
Were there really people thinking that inhaling a mix of highly carcinogenic
compounds would be less harmful than eating protein?

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Smoking is not as simple as many assume. Smoking actually changes the disease
risk profile a lot, lowering risk for many diseases. It's probably an open
question if light smoking is even bad for you. Super centenarians have
disproportionately been light smokers.

~~~
aestra
I hate when people claim things as fact in comments which are entirely
unsourced.

EDIT:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity)

Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[11] where people
commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that
longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating
a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in
regular physical activity. In another well-designed cohort study, the
combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular
physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to
10 years in life expectancy.[12]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians)

Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a
lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England
Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease
despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies
to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a
history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible
that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of
carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells
divide.[15]

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-
of...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of-the-
supercentenarians-scientists-seek-to-unlock-key-to-longer-lives-a-719208.html)

The results are sobering: "There is no pattern," says Barzilai, 54. "The usual
recommendations for a healthy life -- not smoking, not drinking, plenty of
exercise, a well-balanced diet, keeping your weight down -- they apply to us
average people," says the researcher, "but not to them. Centenarians are in a
class of their own." He pulls spreadsheets out of a drawer, adjusts his
glasses and reads out loud: "At the age of 70, a total of 37 percent of our
subjects were, according to their own statements, overweight, and 8 percent
were obese; 37 percent were smokers, on average for 31 years; 44 percent said
that they only moderately exercised; 20 percent never exercised."

But Barzilai is quick to point out that people shouldn't start questioning the
importance of a healthy lifestyle: "Today's changes in lifestyle do in fact
contribute to whether someone dies at the age of 85 or already at age 75." But
in order to reach the age of 100, says the researcher, you need a special
genetic make-up. "These people age differently. Slower. They end up dying of
the same diseases that we do -- but 30 years later and usually quicker,
without languishing for long periods."

 _37 percent_ isn't disproportionate. It is about average.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumpti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption)

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Citation needed.

~~~
aestra
Yes, citation needed, for you. When you make claims you need to back them up.
How hard of a concept is that?

You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis.

EDIT:

Congratulations, you have just been hellbanned for your comments to me. But
since you asked for a citation, here you go:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence)

~~~
pessimizer
How is making an (possibly incorrect) assertion without providing evidence an
argument from ignorance?

I can't for the life of me figure out what was so offensive or trolly about
a8da6b0c91d's comments.

>You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis.

Really?

------
duncanawoods
The NHS makes me very proud here. A well written next-day response to widely
published bad science journalism of the worst sort.

That headline was plastered across the front-pages of all the newspapers I
read with no caveats. Both scare-mongering of unproven dangers and diminishing
of more certain dangers like smoking & dietary excess. IMHO media outlets
should be heavily fined for bad science journalism. Its a grave form of libel
but poor injured science isn't able to sue them for it.

~~~
cjg
I agree - I'm impressed with the NHS on their detailed and rapid response. I
was pleasantly surprised.

------
Evgeny
Don't forget that it is not easy to remove confounding with smoking, drinking,
low physical activity etc. as, incidentally, those who eat most meat happen to
also score worse with those factors. Of course, there are statistical methods,
but there are reasons to believe that not all confounding may be properly
removed.

For those interested in statistics behind studies like this, I think this (not
very long) video is a good explanation why it is not so easy to remove all
residual confounding:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hnWaNThBFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hnWaNThBFw)

The lector actually discusses a very similar or even the same study -
mortality as a function of meat consumption. Not too complicated for a
technical person even without a background in statistics, I believe.

~~~
Dewie
> Don't forget that it is not easy to remove confounding with smoking,
> drinking, low physical activity etc. as, incidentally, those who eat most
> meat happen to also score worse with those factors.

And those who aim to be healthy will probably try to be at least moderate
w.r.t their meat intake because they have heard that meat is unhealthy, which
further "proves" that meat is unhealthy, while in reality it might be because
of other habits that they might have, like exercising.

Things like paleo might make things a little less one-sided.

------
jrockway
I recommend a balanced diet containing equal parts high fructose corn syrup
and monosodium glutamate.

Note: this post was sponsored by High Fructose Corn Syrup and Monosodium
Glutamate Industries, Inc.

------
pistle
Smoke your meat, my friends.

A cross-sectional study of this type of data will yield crappy, linkbait-
friendly results.

For confounders, they didn't look at: income, geography, genetics (self-
reported ethnicity is not a good proxy), etc. etc. etc.

The time and sample scale for powerful epidemiological research often seems
higher than publish! publish! publish! researchers are given time and money to
do.

Any morsel of truth to animal protein having a negative effect is lost in the
structure of the study and data available.

------
apierre
Hold on - are you sure this article wasn't XSS injected by meat eaters?

~~~
cstavish
Or worse, you "self-XSS" injected it while in a fugue state.

~~~
apierre
You should read HN more often, you'd know what I was referring it to ;-)

~~~
Cless
I remember hearing something about self-XSS in another story earlier today:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7350818](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7350818)

------
mrfusion
Any thoughts on why the study finds one results for those 50-65, and a
different result for 65 and older?

Also isn't it possible teenagers and young adults could need way more protein
than the middle aged?

~~~
dkrich
I once took a class in business school on medical pricing and the instructor
said that if you look at a graph of life expectancy that a large percentage of
the population dies in the 50-60 age range, but statistically people who live
past the age of 60 or 65 (I can't remember the exact figure) will be likely to
live to be over 75. In other words, once you make it past a certain age you
are sort of screened out as somebody who is high-risk to die of certain
ailments like heart disease or cancer.

So if we take that to be generally accurate, then these findings make sense
because I would wager that if you studied any diet or habit thought to be
unhealthy, more people would die off between 50-65 than after 65.

This also explains why averages don't make sense with regard to any
conversation about life expectancy since the averages really need to be
observed in bands.

~~~
mikeash
That has the dank stench of an urban legend. According to the CDC, death rates
increase monotonically with age once you pass early childhood, and begin to
increase dramatically at about age 65:

[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23r....](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23r.pdf)

Here's another breakdown from the Social Security Administration that shows
each year individually:

[http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html](http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html)

The latest age where the death rate decreases is 27, and the decrease is
extremely small.

~~~
dkrich
I dunno the instructor was a surgeon and faculty member at the University of
Michigan medical school. Not saying that makes him correct but I wouldn't be
too quick to dispute him either.

Besides, death rates increasing monotonically is not at odds with what I am
saying. Once a person reaches age 65, their odds of reaching age 85 are higher
than the average person at the age of 50. Many serious medical problems onset
between the ages of 50-65. With each passing year, people who are susceptible
to hereditary illnesses, for example, will die. This leaves people less likely
to succumb to those illnesses. Yes, within the smaller group mortality rates
will be higher than the previous overall group because more medical
complications occur as you age.

In short what I am saying is that even though overall death rates increase,
the odds of each person in those groups of living to the age of 85, goes up
after the age of 65.

~~~
mikeash
You seem to be changing what you're saying. You previously said:

> more people would die off between 50-65 than after 65

And that is clearly untrue.

Yes, someone who's 65 is more likely to live to 85 than someone who's 50.
That's extremely obvious once you know that 1) people occasionally die and 2)
people don't come back to life after they die. The closer you are to an age,
the more likely you are to reach that age.

I'm getting confused as to what sort of point you're trying to make. You
originally seemed to be saying that there's a spike in mortality around ages
50-60. Now you seem to be saying... well, I can't figure it out.

~~~
dkrich
_Yes, someone who 's 65 is more likely to live to 85 than someone who's 50.
That's extremely obvious once you know that 1) people occasionally die and 2)
people don't come back to life after they die. The closer you are to an age,
the more likely you are to reach that age._

What you're doing here is grossly oversimplifying the statistical significance
of that fact. You seem to think that all people, regardless of race, genetic
profile, income, etc. have equal chance of dying the older they get. This is
simply untrue.

For example, people between the ages of 50-65 have a higher likelihood of
dying from cancer before the age of 85 than somebody who is age 66. This isn't
simply because the 66 year old has already made it to 66 so is 1/3 of the way
ahead of a 55 year old, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

The fact is that certain diseases, statistically, have a higher incidence in
that 50-65 age band and once you are out of it, your odds of succumbing to
those diseases are lower. Sure, the 66 year old could get a clean bill of
health and then walk in front of a bus, but the odds are they aren't going to
die of cancer. That isn't insignificant. Obviously the longer you live the
greater the odds something will happen that will end your life, but looking at
life expectancy in a black box and ignoring the causes of death is
misinformed.

~~~
mikeash
As far as I can tell, it's simply not true that cancer incidence decreases at
65, or indeed at any age. Here's a graph from the UK:

[http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-
info/cancerstats/mort...](http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-
info/cancerstats/mortality/age/uk-cancer-mortality-statistics-by-age#cancer)

You can get the equivalent statistics for the US here, although I couldn't
find a way to link to specific results:

[http://wonder.cdc.gov/cancermort-v2010.HTML](http://wonder.cdc.gov/cancermort-v2010.HTML)

The rate of death from cancer goes up with age. There's no age where it
decreases.

Perhaps there are certain diseases that have a higher incidence in the 50-65
group than in the 65+ group. Cancer, at least taken as a whole, is not it
though.

If you're going to continue this, _please_ give me some numbers before calling
me "misinformed" because I'm actually checking your claims.

------
JoeAltmaier
"Among those aged 50-65, those who ate a high protein diet were 74% more
likely to die during follow up than those who ate a low protein diet (hazard
ratio (HR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.97). People in this
age group who ate a high protein diet were more than four times as likely to
die from cancer during follow up than those who ate a low protein diet (HR
4.33, 95% CI 1.96 to 9.56).

The results were similar once the researchers took into account the proportion
of calories consumed from fat and carbohydrates. Further analyses suggested
that animal protein was responsible for a considerable part of this
relationship, particularly for death from any cause.

However, the opposite effect of high protein intake was seen among those aged
over 65."

------
RyanMcGreal
Kind of a low bar to hurdle, don't you think?

------
himangshuj
was getting sick and tired of social media posts by militant vegeterians. NHS
restores sanity to my life

~~~
andyjohnson0
Vegetarians eat protein too.

~~~
andylei
this study was specifically about animal protein

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Vegetarians eat animal protein too.

------
tjaerv
[http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-...](http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-
studies-2/)

"Researchers doing observational studies have much the same problem. They try
to think of all the differences between two large populations of subjects so
that they can statistically negate them so that only the observation in
question – the vitamin C level in the example above – is different between the
groups. Problem is they can never possibly think of all the differences
between the groups. As a consequence, they never have a perfect study with
exactly the same number, sex, age, lifestyle, etc. on both sides with the only
difference being the study parameter. And so they don’t really ever prove
anything. In fact, we would all probably be a lot better off if all the
researchers doing observational studies had followed my lead and fallen asleep
mid study."

~~~
retrogradeorbit
The China–Cornell–Oxford Project ruled out population differences by using a
very large monoculture, rural China.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20090223222003/http://www.nutriti...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090223222003/http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/)

And even though it was epidemiological (statistically based), it's findings
were strong and it confirmed prior laboratory results and hypotheses.

~~~
tjaerv
The China study's results are a massive dataset of statistical correlations,
useful as input for hypothesis generation.

On the other hand, "The China Study", Dr. Campbell's best-selling popular book
wherein he attempts to interpret the data causatively, has been absolutely
demolished and debunked as egregiously bad science for some time now. Evgeny
already linked to Denise Minger's notorious initial critique that got the ball
rolling. Dr. Eades (of the grandparent post) wrote his own critique at:

[http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-
vs...](http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-
study/)

"The web has been alive with commentary the past few weeks since Denise Minger
lobbed her first cannonball of a critique across the bow of The China Study,
the vessel T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. rode to fame and bestsellerdom. Seems like
everyone is now jumping into the fray and gunning for poor Dr. Campbell, who
early on in the fracas made a few halfhearted attempts to fight back but has
now fled the scene. I've been laying low watching it all play out, and so now
figured it's about time I add my two cents worth to the debate."

------
shittyanalogy
_" Information on food intake was only collected for one 24-hour period...
...this may have changed over the 18 years of follow up"_

I wonder if the researchers' and USC's ploy to use sensationalist(though
outright false) PR is going to end in them getting more funding. I hope not,
but they do say no publicity is bad publicity.

------
Harj
This is another good analysis of why this study was flawed:
[http://examine.com/blog/high-protein-diets-linked-to-
cancer-...](http://examine.com/blog/high-protein-diets-linked-to-cancer-
should-you-be-concerned/)

------
aaxe
Even more in-depth, very interesting: [http://examine.com/blog/high-protein-
diets-linked-to-cancer-...](http://examine.com/blog/high-protein-diets-linked-
to-cancer-should-you-be-concerned/)

------
mberning
I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of
knowledge. Never mind the fact that there is an intense amount of bias in
nutritional research. Never mind the fact that the results of many studies
cannot be accurately reproduced. Never mind the fact that observational
studies generally suck and cannot 'prove' anything. Nah, this new study, which
happens to conform to my preconceived notions, this new study changes
EVERYTHING.

~~~
crusso
Read down toward the bottom: the study was based upon one self-reported day of
each individual's diet extrapolated over 18 years.

This study is even less meaningful than most. I'd go so far as to say that
it's utterly devoid of useful information and quite probably is
misinformation.

I wonder how much was spent on performing the study?

~~~
AJ007
A big red flag is this -- "On average, the participants consumed 1,823
calories over the day"

That is the average amount of calories consumed in certain sub-Saharan African
countries along with very poor places such as Haiti.

Alternatively, in the US the average daily consumption is somewhere around
3,770 calories and the UK around 3,440.

Scroll all the way to the bottom of this list to see countries which match the
average reported in this study:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake)

Under reporting or just lower historical consumption combined with the age
groups, it just does not match up to typical Western behavior today.

~~~
ry0ohki
>Alternatively, in the US the average daily consumption is somewhere around
3,770 calories

Good lord, I eat pretty normally, and when I count calories it's usually
closer to 2,200.

~~~
kirubakaran
[insert bro-science disclaimer here] The volume of food you eat may be
"normal" but the calorie density might be lower. The trick to increasing or
decreasing calorie intake without feeling like you are stuffing yourself or
starving is to keep the volume pretty much the same and tweak the calorie
density.

~~~
mikeash
Do you happen to have any links to descriptions of the densities of various
foods? I've been aware that this is a good strategy for a while, but haven't
been able to find anything that systematically discusses various food types
and how they rank (as opposed to individual tidbits such as, hey, carrots have
very few calories but are pretty bulky, so munch away).

~~~
kirubakaran
I don't have a list, but I've developed a feel by tracking calories on
MyFitnessPal. Over time you notice what food helps you hit your calorie goals
while also being good (which is extremely subjective).

------
circlefavshape
If The Telegraph reported this as the NHS describes then this strikes me as
profoundly irresponsible journalism. I'm no fan of The Telegraph, but I'm
actually a little bit shocked

------
jokoon
There was an article once with the title "sitting is as bad as smoking".

I don't know why the bad health reference is smoking really.

------
tuan5
who should I listen?

~~~
antidaily
Check out Wilco. Great band.

------
a8da6b0c91d
Looking at "animal protein" as a broad category is dumb. The interesting
health questions are specifically about muscle meat. Eating a lot of muscle
meat, to the exclusion of organ meat and collagen and dairy protein, probably
provides too much iron and too much tryptophan in the amino acid profile.

Furthermore, you can't just talk about "meat". The distinction between fish,
pork, chicken, and ruminants matters. The question of quality matters
enormously. Are we talking about really cheap meat fed on moldy corn slop and
handled improperly after slaughter (aged, dyed, pumped up with water and
chemicals), or totally fresh grass fed beef?

~~~
bryanlarsen
There's also a significant different between unprocessed and processed meat,
which these studies don't differentiate. Processed meat also varies widely in
the kind of chemicals used in the processing.

~~~
rottyguy
Is there a good definition of processed food anywhere? All the ones I've seen
have been made by examples (eg. Processed foods like hotdogs, bologne, etc.).
Is it any food that have anything added to them for preservation or
enhancements (eg is oj enriched with vitamin D considered a processed food).
Many articles are confusing and seem to make processed food to be wholey bad
w/o really defining what makes it bad...

~~~
Dirlewanger
A good rule-of-thumb: If it's packaged in cardboard it's almost always 99.99%
processed. If it's shrinkwrapped (how meat should be) it's almost always
99.99% unprocessed, or minimally at the most.

~~~
aestra
> If it's shrinkwrapped (how meat should be) it's almost always 99.99%
> unprocessed, or minimally at the most.

Complete and total nonsense. Hotdogs, peperoni, sausage, bacon, and lunch meat
all come shrink wrapped. Even Slimjims and jerky.

[http://blog.womenshealthmag.com/scoop/what-is-processed-
meat...](http://blog.womenshealthmag.com/scoop/what-is-processed-meat-
exactly/)

>Typically, it means anything more manipulated than cut or ground,” says
dietician Lisa Cashman, RD. “This includes most lunchmeats found in deli
counters, anything with a casing or in sausage form, and, of course, anything
smoked or cured like bacon.”

And the American Meat Institute (that's a thing?) defines processing as
"processed meats are fresh products that have been changed from their original
state. Some have added ingredients like spices. Some are cooked and some are
cured."

[http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/94559](http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/94559)

Right so even cooking is a form of processing. This should be pretty obvious.
Eating "unprocessed" means eating basically food that is in its natural state,
like eating a peach. Processing changes it, like cooking that peach.

~~~
Dirlewanger
Sorry, forgot about that type of shrinkwrap. When I said shrinkwrapped I had
this in my mind:
[http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001669275/910390199_1_packa...](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001669275/910390199_1_packaged_meat_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg)

Not sure if there's a generic term for it.

