The protein myth

Page 4 of 7 First ... 23456 ... Last
  1. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcountry08 View Post
    The idea that raw food veganisim is healthy is a dangerouse idea also. For example spinach in its raw form contains oxalic acid which is poisonous ! But when cooked the chemical in nutralized.
    you left out the fact that something more than 70% of all salmonella cases come from raw greens


  2. I love how people always point to the exceptions, lol. Generalizations are "generally" true and will usually never apply to 100% of a given group.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
    •   
       


  3. This thread has lost all its flair now that the op is banned, its no good to debate when there is nothing but one-sided pontification going on

  4. animal pro is bad....
    Nutraceutical Innovations
    AMINDS15 - 15% code
    nutra-innovations.com

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Dan View Post
    I agree Animal Pak is over priced.....say what?
    I like to pass Animal Paks out as Halloween candy.

    http://youtu.be/F8nSHzAE5CQ

    I normally turn to this guy for my protein advice. His IQ is much higher than the OP's
    Controlled Labs Board Rep
    [email protected]
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Sean1332 View Post
    I like to pass Animal Paks out as Halloween candy.

    Thus causing mothers of tots to have a connip on sean

  7. Bushel of bananas. Cadbury egg, quarter pint of franzia. Watch out ladies cuz I have anger issues and possibly hepatitis.

    You ought to watch his bro science vids. He's pretty funny.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by lamonster14 View Post
    Bushel of bananas. Cadbury egg, quarter pint of franzia. Watch out ladies cuz I have anger issues and possibly hepatitis.

    You ought to watch his bro science vids. He's pretty funny.
    does cadbury eggs still offer 6 grams of pro?
    Nutraceutical Innovations
    AMINDS15 - 15% code
    nutra-innovations.com

  9. 6.4355555 to be exact

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Ballesteri
    This thread has lost all its flair now that the op is banned, its no good to debate when there is nothing but one-sided pontification going on
    About time he got banned...

  11. Quote Originally Posted by lamonster14 View Post
    6.4355555 to be exact
    and an extra 100 calories give or take

  12. Quote Originally Posted by blaykeryan View Post
    About time he got banned...
    Well I did not get to see the post that did it so can't comment on that

  13. Hahaha and who said that he should of been banned from the beginning!!!! This guy!!! Lol

    But he will come out on t.v. trying to sell his book and a copy of this convo lol

  14. Quote Originally Posted by madds87
    Hahaha and who said that he should of been banned from the beginning!!!! This guy!!! Lol

    But he will come out on t.v. trying to sell his book and a copy of this convo lol
    I lol...I was the 2nd guy who said that...the book will be called the poison of America:cooked meat

  15. I quit most forms of animal protein (still eat seafood) and dairy about three months ago. I'm lactose intolerant and it seemed to be getting worse. I noticed a massive difference- a positive one. I train twice, sometime 3 times a day for my sport and was struggling with energy and recovery (constantly injured) and tired. Changed diet and I changed performance. I too was a sucker for the whole protein/strength. Made the change when I was injured and have been happy.

  16. Here's some info from an old post: The first study I found came from the US National Libary of Medicine. The Oxford Vegeterian Study was completed in the UK with subjects recruited between 1980-1984. Although this is a fairly dated study it is still worth looking at as it takes various lifestyle and dietary factors into consideration. They found that the health of vegeterans was better than meat eaters, but that vegans were at risk of iodine deficiency. The next study, a more recent one came from Harvard. Harvard's School of Public Health published research which observed 37,698 for 22 yrs and 83,644 women for up to 28 yrs. These subjects were free from cardiovascular disease and cancer at a base line. Their diets were assessed every four years. They discovered that "one daily serving of processed red meat (1 hot dog or 2 slices of bacon) was associated with a 20% increased [mortality] risk". Meanwhile, one daily serving (size of a deck of cards) of unprocessed red meat has a 13% increased risk. They also found benefits with replacing one serving of red meat with a healthier protein choice, like fish, poultry, nuts & legumes). And finally, in June 2012 a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia, claimed health benefits of a Vegeterian diet over a meeting eating one. This study again noted that vegan were at a risk of developing a b12 deficiency, but the key was being a well prepared. A well prepared plant based diet can meet the nutritional needs for both children and adults. In both the Harvard and Australian studies cancer, diabetes, obesity and rates where higher among the meat eating subjects. Hope this adds another thinking point to a very interesting topic.
  17. Re: The protein myth


    Quote Originally Posted by virago88 View Post
    Here's some info from an old post: The first study I found came from the US National Libary of Medicine. The Oxford Vegeterian Study was completed in the UK with subjects recruited between 1980-1984. Although this is a fairly dated study it is still worth looking at as it takes various lifestyle and dietary factors into consideration. They found that the health of vegeterans was better than meat eaters, but that vegans were at risk of iodine deficiency. The next study, a more recent one came from Harvard. Harvard's School of Public Health published research which observed 37,698 for 22 yrs and 83,644 women for up to 28 yrs. These subjects were free from cardiovascular disease and cancer at a base line. Their diets were assessed every four years. They discovered that "one daily serving of processed red meat (1 hot dog or 2 slices of bacon) was associated with a 20% increased [mortality] risk". Meanwhile, one daily serving (size of a deck of cards) of unprocessed red meat has a 13% increased risk. They also found benefits with replacing one serving of red meat with a healthier protein choice, like fish, poultry, nuts & legumes). And finally, in June 2012 a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia, claimed health benefits of a Vegeterian diet over a meeting eating one. This study again noted that vegan were at a risk of developing a b12 deficiency, but the key was being a well prepared. A well prepared plant based diet can meet the nutritional needs for both children and adults. In both the Harvard and Australian studies cancer, diabetes, obesity and rates where higher among the meat eating subjects. Hope this adds another thinking point to a very interesting topic.

    For the oxford study


    Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford.

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Three prospective studies have examined the mortality of vegetarians in Britain.



    OBJECTIVE: We describe these 3 studies and present preliminary results on mortality from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford).



    DESIGN: The Health Food Shoppers Study and the Oxford Vegetarian Study were established in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively; each included about 11 000 subjects and used a short questionnaire on diet and lifestyle. EPIC-Oxford was established in the 1990s and includes about 56 000 subjects who completed detailed food frequency questionnaires. Mortality in all 3 studies was followed though the National Health Service Central Register.



    RESULTS: Overall, the death rates of all the subjects in all 3 studies are much lower than average for the United Kingdom. Standardized mortality ratios (95% CIs) for all subjects were 59% (57%, 61%) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 52% (49%, 56%) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 39% (37%, 42%) in EPIC-Oxford. Comparing vegetarians with nonvegetarians within each cohort, the death rate ratios (DRRs), adjusted for age, sex and smoking, were 1.03 (0.95, 1.13) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 1.01 (0.89, 1.14) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 1.05 (0.86, 1.27) in EPIC-Oxford. DRRs for ischemic heart disease in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians were 0.85 (0.71, 1.01) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 0.86 (0.67, 1.12) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 0.75 (0.41, 1.37) in EPIC-Oxford.



    CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians.



    PMID: 12936946
    For the Harvard study


    Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.
    Source

    Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. [email protected]

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND:

    Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary.
    METHODS AND RESULTS:

    We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for relationships of red (unprocessed), processed, and total meat consumption with incident CHD, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults. Of 1598 identified abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective cohorts and 3 case-control studies. All data were abstracted independently in duplicate. Random-effects generalized least squares models for trend estimation were used to derive pooled dose-response estimates. The 20 studies included 1 218 380 individuals and 23 889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10 797 diabetes mellitus cases. Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P<0.001). Associations were intermediate for total meat intake. Consumption of red and processed meat were not associated with stroke, but only 3 studies evaluated these relationships.
    CONCLUSIONS:

    Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.
    And lastly the Australian one


    Meat consumption and cancer of the large bowel.

    Truswell AS.
    Source

    Human Nutrition, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. [email protected]

    Abstract

    Since the major reviews on diet and cancer by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and by the British Department of Health's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) in 1997 and 1998, additional epidemiological studies relating (red) meat consumption and colorectal cancer have been published or found by search. These are collected here. Thirty adequate case-control studies have been published up to 1999 (from 16 different countries). Twenty of them found no significant association of (red) meat with colorectal cancer. Of the remaining 10 studies reporting an association, some obtained statistical significance only in rectal or colon cancers, another only in men, not women, or found a stronger association with pasta and rice, or used an inadequate food list in the food frequency questionnaire. Fifteen cohort studies have now been published. Only in three were significant associations of (red) meat found with colorectal cancer. Two of these positive studies were from the same group in the USA (relative risk 1.7). The results of the third positive study appear to conflict with data from part of the vegetarians follow up mortality study. Here, five groups of vegetarians (in three different countries) with socially matched controls were followed up (total 76 000 people). Mortality from colorectal cancer was not distinguishable between vegetarians and controls. While it is still possible that certain processed meats or sausages (with a variety of added ingredients) or meats cooked at very high temperature carry some risk, the relationship between meats in general and colorectal cancer now looks weaker than the 'probable' status it was judged to have by the WCRF in 1997.

    PMID: 11965518
    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  18. Re: The protein myth


    Also some food for thought

    Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets.

    Abstract

    Vegetarian diets do not contain meat, poultry or fish; vegan diets further exclude dairy products and eggs. Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary widely, but the empirical evidence largely relates to the nutritional content and health effects of the average diet of well-educated vegetarians living in Western countries, together with some information on vegetarians in non-Western countries. In general, vegetarian diets provide relatively large amounts of cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits and vegetables. In terms of nutrients, vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low in protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids, retinol, vitamin B(12) and Zn; vegans may have particularly low intakes of vitamin B(12) and low intakes of Ca. Cross-sectional studies of vegetarians and vegans have shown that on average they have a relatively low BMI and a low plasma cholesterol concentration; recent studies have also shown higher plasma homocysteine concentrations than in non-vegetarians. Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians.

    PMID:16441942
    The importance of distinguishing between processed and unprocessed meat when examing meat intake

    May 18, 2010 (Boston, Massachusetts) — The first study to systematically separate out the effects of red unprocessed meat from processed-meat products has shown that eating the former is not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease or diabetes.

    But eating 50 g of processed meat per day--the equivalent of one typical hot dog in the US, or two slices of deli meat--was associated with a 42% higher risk of CHD and a 19% increased risk of diabetes, say Dr Renata Micha (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA) and colleagues in their paper published online May 17, 2010 in Circulation.

    Micha explained that US dietary guidelines recommend eating less red and processed meat, but that these are largely based on the expected effects of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol in the meats. However, previous studies, which have generally evaluated red meats together with processed meats, have shown mixed results in terms of the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, she says.

    "We found red meats and processed meats had similar amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol, but processed meats had about four times the amount of sodium and 50% more preservatives, such as nitrates, than the unprocessed red meat," she told heartwire . "We suggest that salt and other preservatives might explain this higher risk we found for processed meats."

    However, Micha emphasized that people "shouldn't use these findings as license to eat as much unprocessed red meat as they like," because although there was no increased risk for heart disease and diabetes, "it is important to stress that there was no reduced risk either." Also, she noted, processed and unprocessed meats have been associated with a higher risk of some cancers, especially colorectal, "and it will be important to evaluate unprocessed meat separately from processed meat for cancer outcomes too," she said.

    "People should definitely give more emphasis to increasing consumption of foods that have been shown to be protective, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and nuts," she stressed.

    "This paper represents very important work," says Dr Nathan Wong (University of California, Irvine), president of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, who was not involved with this study.

    "The substantial increase in risk of both heart disease and diabetes associated with processed meats, while not surprising, should reinforce the message that these foods, which are particularly high in sodium, other additives, and fat, are potentially harmful and should be minimized or avoided," he told heartwire .

    Processed and Unprocessed Meats Should Be Studied Separately

    Micha and colleagues reviewed and combined all prior published studies around the world that examined the relationship between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. They identified 20 relevant studies, including around one million adults in 10 countries, across four continents.

    Micha explained that they contacted the authors of each study and requested that they separate out unprocessed from processed meats. After multivariate adjustment, red-meat intake of 100 g per day--defined as unprocessed beef, pork, or lamb--was not associated with CHD (four studies) or diabetes mellitus (five studies).

    In contrast, consumption of processed meat--any meat preserved by smoking, curing, or salting, such as sausages, bacon, and salami--was associated with increased risk of CHD (five studies: relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; p=0.04) and diabetes (seven studies: relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.19; p<0.001). Consumption of red and processed meat was not associated with stroke, but only three studies evaluated these relationships, the researchers note.

    "When you tease [the data on] these meats out, you see different associations for disease risk between processed and unprocessed meats," Micha told heartwire . These findings suggest that these types of meats should be studied separately in future research for health effects, she noted.

    And although she says cause and effect cannot be proven by these types of long-term observational studies, she explains there is "biological plausibility" for the salt and preservatives in processed meat contributing to the risks observed.

    "We know that dietary sodium increases blood pressure, and in animal experiments, nitrate preservatives have been shown to promote atherosclerosis and reduce glucose tolerance. People should definitely avoid eating too much processed meat," she concluded.

    Wong agrees: "With a 42% higher risk associated with each 50-g (<2-oz) intake of processed meat, this translates to nearly a doubling of risk for a daily intake of only a quarter of a pound [113.4 g], which many Americans do not think twice about consuming in a single meal," he told heartwire
    And last but not least, quite possibly the sexiest and smartest lady on the inter webs - http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the...act-or-fallac/

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  19. Protein's aren't 'dead' or 'alive'. They're molecules that perform a given function in the right conditions. This post demonstrates a severe lack of even basic biological understanding.

    Every protein you've ever eaten from a vegetable is just as 'dead' as the protein in the meat. Now, if you want to talk about secondary structure and denaturation during digestion, that's another subject, but still doesn't make anything OP said valid.
    Bulk Performance Solutions
    --No Proprietary Blends, All Performance--

    ***NOW @ NP***

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Resolve View Post
    Protein's aren't 'dead' or 'alive'. They're molecules that perform a given function in the right conditions. This post demonstrates a severe lack of even basic biological understanding.

    Every protein you've ever eaten from a vegetable is just as 'dead' as the protein in the meat. Now, if you want to talk about secondary structure and denaturation during digestion, that's another subject, but still doesn't make anything OP said valid.
    Agreed ^^^
    Independent Review

  21. I see a lot more old drunks than vegans...just an observation. Lol
    Always open light. Itís not what you open with, itís what you finish with. Louie Simmons

  22. Meats FTW!

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Sean1332 View Post
    breast milk and I also articulated from it that I should eat live animals
    Thats what I was thinking too! Eat live animals so I can grow bigger and catch E. Coli at the same time.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Resolve View Post
    Protein's aren't 'dead' or 'alive'. They're molecules that perform a given function in the right conditions. This post demonstrates a severe lack of even basic biological understanding.

    Every protein you've ever eaten from a vegetable is just as 'dead' as the protein in the meat. Now, if you want to talk about secondary structure and denaturation during digestion, that's another subject, but still doesn't make anything OP said valid.
    I was wondering the same thing myself. A calorie is a calorie, lol.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Stephen100 View Post

    And those who consume more animal proteins have more sickness and disease. Eating a dead, cooked animal is not as good as eating raw protein provided by nature.
    I eat 350 g protein from animal sources daily. Odd I have only been sick once in the last 4 years

  26. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    I was wondering the same thing myself. A calorie is a calorie, lol.
    To a point. Different energy substrates can have very different metabolic impacts physiologically.
    Bulk Performance Solutions
    --No Proprietary Blends, All Performance--

    ***NOW @ NP***

  27. oh yes, I completely agree! I was making reference to a "dead" protein calorie vs a "live" protein calorie.
  28. Re: The protein myth


    Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    I was wondering the same thing myself. A calorie is a calorie, lol.
    Not exactly.

    Yes a calorie is a calorie according to a calorimeter but humans are not calorie measuring devices. We eat food not calories. Food has metabolic consequences so a calorie of sugar has different metabolic consequences than ingesting a calorie of fat or protein.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  29. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    Not exactly.

    Yes a calorie is a calorie according to a calorimeter but humans are not calorie measuring devices. We eat food not calories. Food has metabolic consequences so a calorie of sugar has different metabolic consequences than ingesting a calorie of fat or protein.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    Read my previous post. Was not referring to metabolic pathway.
  30. Talking


    I'm pretty sure this guy swallows his own semen for natural protein
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-15-2007, 07:52 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2005, 06:42 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2005, 06:41 PM
  4. Seems the Old Myth is Actually True
    By YellowJacket in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-18-2005, 10:25 PM
Log in
Log in