Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking

“Crucially, the researchers found that plant-based proteins, such as those from beans, did not seem to have the same mortality effects as animal proteins. Rates of cancer and death also did not seem to be affected by controlling for carbohydrate or fat consumption, suggesting that animal protein is the main culprit.”

 

140304125639-large

That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette. In a new study that tracked a large sample of adults for nearly two decades, researchers have found that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet — a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking.

“There’s a misconception that because we all eat, understanding nutrition is simple. But the question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well for three days, but can it help you survive to be 100?” said corresponding author Valter Longo, the Edna M. Jones Professor of Biogerontology at the USC Davis School of Gerontology and director of the USC Longevity Institute.

Not only is excessive protein consumption linked to a dramatic rise in cancer mortality, but middle-aged people who eat lots of proteins from animal sources — including meat, milk and cheese — are also more susceptible to early death in general, reveals the study to be published March 4 in Cell Metabolism. Protein-lovers were 74 percent more likely to die of any cause within the study period than their more low-protein counterparts. They were also several times more likely to die of DIABETES.

But how much protein we should eat has long been a controversial topic — muddled by the popularity of protein-heavy DIETS such as Paleo and Atkins. Before this study, researchers had never shown a definitive correlation between high protein consumption and mortality risk.

Rather than look at adulthood as one monolithic phase of life, as other researchers have done, the latest study considers how biology changes as we age, and how decisions in middle life may play out across the human lifespan.

In other words, what’s good for you at one age may be damaging at another. Protein controls the growth hormone IGF-I, which helps our bodies grow but has been linked to cancer susceptibility. Levels of IGF-I drop off dramatically after age 65, leading to potential frailty and muscle loss. The study shows that while high protein intake during middle age is very harmful, it is protective for older adults: those over 65 who ate a moderate- or HIGH-PROTEIN diet were less susceptible to disease.

The latest paper draws from Longo’s past research on IGF-I, including on an Ecuadorian cohort that seemed to have little cancer or DIABETES susceptibility because of a genetic mutation that lowered levels of IGF-I; the members of the cohort were all less than five-feet tall.

“The research shows that a low-protein diet in middle age is useful for preventing cancer and overall mortality, through a process that involves regulating IGF-I and possibly insulin levels,” said co-author Eileen Crimmins, the AARP Chair in Gerontology at USC. “However, we also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid a low-protein diet to allow the maintenance of healthy weight and protection from frailty.”

Crucially, the researchers found that plant-based proteins, such as those from beans, did not seem to have the same mortality effects as animal proteins. Rates of cancer and death also did not seem to be affected by controlling for carbohydrate or fat consumption, suggesting that animal protein is the main culprit.

“The majority of Americans are eating about twice as much proteins as they should, and it seems that the best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins but especially animal-derived proteins,” Longo said. “But don’t get extreme in cutting out protein; you can go from protected to malnourished very quickly.”

Longo’s findings support recommendations from several leading health agencies to consume 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 45-50 grams of protein a day, with preference for those derived from plants such as legumes, Longo explains.

The researchers define a “HIGH-PROTEIN” diet as deriving at least 20 percent of CALORIES from protein, including both plant-based and animal-based protein. A “moderate” protein diet includes 10-19 percent of calories from protein, and a “low-protein” diet includes less than 10 percent protein.

Even moderate amounts of protein had detrimental effects during middle age, the researchers found. Across all 6,318 adults over the age of 50 in the study, average protein intake was about 16 percent of total daily calories with about two-thirds from animal protein — corresponding to data about national protein consumption. The study sample was representative across ethnicity, education and health background.

People who ate a moderate amount of protein were still three times more likely to die of cancer than those who ate a low-protein DIET in middle age, the study shows. Overall, even the small change of decreasing protein intake from moderate levels to low levels reduced likelihood of early death by 21 percent.

For a randomly selected smaller portion of the sample – 2,253 people – levels of the growth hormone IGF-I were recorded directly. The results show that for every 10 ng/ml increase in IGF-I, those on a HIGH-PROTEIN diet were 9 percent more likely to die from cancer than those on a low-protein diet, in line with past research associating IGF-I levels to cancer risk.

The researchers also extended their findings about HIGH-PROTEIN diets and mortality risk, looking at causality in mice and cellular models. In a study of tumor rates and progression among mice, the researchers show lower cancer incidence and 45 percent smaller average tumor size among mice on a low-protein diet than those on a high-protein diet by the end of the two-month experiment.

“Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancer cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?” Longo said. “Turns out one of the major factors in determining if it does is is protein intake.”

 

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140304125639.htm

Advertisements

80 Percent of ‘Sustainable’ Meat Labels are Misleading?!

The so called ‘sustainable’ meat production is on the rise, due to the increase in public awareness of ethical and environmental issues surrounding the animal agriculture industry. In an attempt to jump on board with this consumer trend, an increasing amount of companies are now selling meat labelled as ‘sustainable,’ but what does this actually mean? How can we trust the label? And does this really make the process any more ethical?

The Animal Welfare Institute conducted research on the issue and discovered that the government was unable to verify whether the feel-good labels on meat and dairy products had any resemblance to the actual conditions in which the animals lived in. This deliberate deception is not only misleading consumers who believe they are making more ethical food choices, but also contributing to the widespread myth about where meat comes from.

What the AWI Uncovered

A three-year investigation by the Animal Welfare Institute looked into companies who boasted sustainable meat production on their labels and tried to find out what assurances were in place to back up these claims. Of the 25 companies investigated, the USDA was only able to provide adequate documentation to support the claims of five companies.

This means that there were no official documents proving that 80 percent of them were even doing what they claimed to be doing. The companies under investigation used labels such as “sustainably farmed” and “humanely raised and handled,” but it appears that the government has not been verifying these claims, meaning it is based on trust and not facts. The Animal Welfare Institute is not claiming that any of the companies investigated were guilty of wrongdoing – just that the system was open to abuse.

Many companies opt for third party certification in order to give their claims of sustainably raised meat more credibility, including: American Humane certified, Animal Welfare Approved, Certified Humane, and Food Alliance, among others.

While each of these organizations has a set of guidelines to determine the labeling, other companies are labeling their foods with terms such as ‘sustainable’ or ‘humanely raised’ for which there are no recognized industry standards.

All Meat and Dairy Labeling is Deceptive

The AWI investigation shows the labeling system is open to abuse from companies wishing to prey on consumers who are looking to eat ‘more sustainable’ meat products, but there is a much bigger issue to consider here.

The industrialized raising of animals for meat and dairy is inhumane by its very nature, and almost all food companies are guilty of using misleading advertising slogans, messages, images, and packaging. The image of ‘happy hens,’ ‘grass fed cows,’ and ‘humanely raised pigs’ are overhyped and almost certainly do not give a true reflection of the lifecycle of those animals, and companies not concerned with ‘sustainable’ farming practices opt to avoid showing images of the animals all together.

If people were to see the reality of life for the animals who end up on their plates; to see, smell, and hear what the animals have to experience, most would be put off for life.

Why else would the agricultural industry be fighting so hard to make it illegal for people to take actual footage of the inside of their operations? True transparency in meat and dairy labeling is never going to be a reality as the reality would scare customers away.

 

Source: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/80-percent-of-sustainable-meat-labels-are-misleading/