Sure it does. However, “seems logical” is not the same as “supported by legitimate clinical evidence”, which was Ripsaw’s question.
There is also, like I said, a fair amount of evidence linking high percentage animal protein diets with cancer markers, so it also seems logical that a low protein diet is the way to go.
The only thing that consistently seems to reduce the incidence of illness and prolong life afaik is systematic under eating and periodic fasting. If that’s true, I expect most of us are SOL regardless.
[/quote]
I actually have a theory about that. I have the idea (this is completely un-scientific) that going into a catabolic state serves to “thin the herd” of cells. When you go catabolic your body goes after the weak cells first. Thus preventing weak/defective cells from growing and splitting. This would strengthen the remainder and serve to help get rid of cells that might be cancerous or whatever. Being catabolic is like pruning your body’s cells. The problem is, because of eating frequency and amount, nobody goes catabolic anymore and defective cells are allowed to go unchecked. [/quote]
[quote]batman730 wrote:
… a fair amount of evidence linking high percentage animal protein diets with cancer markers, so it also seems logical that a low protein diet is the way to go.
[/quote]
Perhaps, but one must consider the animal source. Processed meats, and animals raised in “factory farm” settings (full of steroids, antibiotics and sub-par feed) would be red flags for disease.
I would bet the studies were not performed with natural, grass-fed, humane farm livestock as the protein sources.
[/quote]
That’s not really my point. It is possible that meat from different sources may produce different health outcomes, naturally. I’m not really advocating one way or the other. That said, using the kind of meats your suggesting as the primary protein source in a meat based diet is highly cost prohibitive for the overwhelming majority of people, even among the minority who can afford a meat based diet to begin with.
As I recall one of the more commonly cited mouse studies used increased casein concentrations in the feed to increase total protein intake to greater than 10% of total calories. This showed a direct increase in liver cancer markers vs. the control group. When the protein intake was lowered, cancer markers fell in correlation. I’m sure neither group was fed organic, artisan, humanely sourced rat chow.
Conversely you can find another mouse study that shows that a diet with 60-70% protein (also presumably not organic artisan protein) slows tumour growth in mice who are deliberately given cancer.
In other words, whatever conclusion you begin from, you can find clinical evidence to support it. Protein causes cancer, protein cures cancer, cancer is primarily genetic, cancer is primary metabolic etc, etc…
I don’t have a dog in this race. My point is that whatever you choose to do you take your chances. The majority of people I know personally who got cancer got it “just because”, in the absence of any notable genetic, environmental or lifestyle factors. There’s no real sense to it at all that makes it predictable or preventable an individual level.
Perhaps, but one must consider the animal source. Processed meats, and animals raised in “factory farm” settings (full of steroids, antibiotics and sub-par feed) would be red flags for disease.
[/quote]
Problem is there’s no conclusive evidence for this. The steroids injected in live beef both as calves and feedlot animals don’t survive the trip to the human gut and if they did they’d never make it through the human liver so as to cause all of this purported mayhem.
Though gittin’ all worked up about it certainly is entertaining for many.[/quote]
That’s only one narrow view of the steroid issue, and not the one I’m addressing.
I’m talking more about the effects a speed-growth regimen has on an organism in sup-par living conditions. Pump a steer up with hormones, its increased appetite and subsequent consumption of corn-based feed (not a natural part of their diet), coupled with the stresses of close-quarter factory farm living which requires antibiotics for staving off chronic infection, and the end result is an animal whose fat stores are loaded with fatty acids that are unhealthy for human consumption long-term. Add this to the processed meat issue (nitrates and nitrtites), and now we have a documented health concern.
Let’s not count out the fact that genetics play a role and if those defective CA causing genes get switched on by any number of factors then you’re basically fucked and it doesn’t matter.
Sure it does. However, “seems logical” is not the same as “supported by legitimate clinical evidence”, which was Ripsaw’s question.
There is also, like I said, a fair amount of evidence linking high percentage animal protein diets with cancer markers, so it also seems logical that a low protein diet is the way to go.
The only thing that consistently seems to reduce the incidence of illness and prolong life afaik is systematic under eating and periodic fasting. If that’s true, I expect most of us are SOL regardless.
[/quote]
I actually have a theory about that. I have the idea (this is completely un-scientific) that going into a catabolic state serves to “thin the herd” of cells. When you go catabolic your body goes after the weak cells first. Thus preventing weak/defective cells from growing and splitting. This would strengthen the remainder and serve to help get rid of cells that might be cancerous or whatever. Being catabolic is like pruning your body’s cells. The problem is, because of eating frequency and amount, nobody goes catabolic anymore and defective cells are allowed to go unchecked. [/quote]