Article - 'High protein diet as bad as smoking'. A response.

Hi Guys,

I am assuming that by now that most of you will have read, seen on social media or heard about the article 'High protein diet as bad as smoking'.

Now judging by my Inbox, this has some people worried and most out raged by the claims of this article. Like many other in the diet and nutrition profession, I thought that I would publish my views on the article.

I'm going to say right off the bat that I think this article is inaccurate, irresponsible and just damn wrong. If you agree with the article, then this post probably isn't for you. I am not trying to change your mind, so please don't read this post then send me a long E mail stating how I am the devil. You will not change my mind either.

As much as I hate to give bad journalism traffic, if you haven't read the article you can do so HERE.

You can find the actual study HERE.

I'm going to recommend that you read the study as it quickly becomes apparent how certain things have been ignored or taken out of context by the journalists writing the articles (they basically just focus on the negative and scare monger).

The purpose of this post is not to form a critique of the actual study as I am not one of their peers and I am unqualified to do so. It is merely to highlight some points that are worth considering if you are an athlete or serious trainee.

I personally feel as though the following points were not either highlighted, nor addressed by the articles in the media,

• The first thing that jumped out at me is that the study assumes that people would eat the exact same amount of macro nutrients over a 18 year period based on a 24 hour monitoring. Over the last 18 years the diet of the average American has changed MASSIVELY.
• The lifestyle of an individual would change a great deal over the 18 years. This wasn't mentioned at all. No lifestyle factors that have a profound effect on health such as drinking and drug use, food sources (how nutritionally dense the food was) or micronutrient content and deficiencies, smoking habits, locations of mortalities, class, race, gender, stress levels, blood work. I could go on forever.
• All of the participants were middle aged. What kind of life did they have before the study started? Where they always healthy eaters? Where they active currently or in the past? This is especially relevant for the higher mortality groups.
• As the participants in the high protein group were middle aged, a higher calorific diet would lead to easier fat gain (especially with little to no exercise, however this wasn't clarified). A higher body fat percentage has been linked to higher risks of cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
• This would make sense that the lower protein groups had a lower calorific intake.
• Lean body mass, body fat percentage etc was not mentioned for the individuals denying us from seeing trends.
• Nearly all of the participants had an assumed diet that consisted of 51% carbohydrates. This could be linked to the results that they saw.
• The types of cancer that killed the participants was not mentioned. Was high protein diets causing lung or throat cancer? Probably not.
• Mortality rates were mentioned but not in specifics. how many participants were killed by being hit by a bus. Was the driver on a high protein diet? Is protein turning people into driving psychopaths (yes I'm kidding. A little...)

This is just a quick bullet point post, trying you get think about what you are reading and to come up with your own conclusions. You may come to the conclusion that I'm full of shit and you want to write a post about it. If so, go nuts and send me the link :)

Stay healthy,

Mike