Can Consumption of Protein Lead to Early Death?

A published study suggests too much consumption of animal-based proteins by middle-aged humans can lead to greater risk of cancer and diabetes. Hunters might disagree.

The headline read, “Study: Animal-based proteins can lead to early death.” Sounded like a mouthful, so I read the story. It was in The Washington Post, and it suggested middle-aged folks who eat lots of meat and dairy products could be on the path to an early grave. That’s the take-away from a research project released March 4 in the journal Cell Metabolism. The study tracked thousands of adults across two decades. It determined that folks who consume a diet high in animal-based proteins are several times more likely to die of cancer or diabetes than contemporaries with low-animal-protein diets. That’s a risk factor comparable to smoking.

Naturally, it’s what’s behind the headline that demands our attention as hunters.

As I read on, I was struck by quotes from a study author, Valter Longo, a professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California. “The great majority of Americans could reduce their protein intake,” he said. “The best change would be to lower the daily intake of all proteins, but especially animal-derived proteins.” Okay, as director of USC’s Longevity Institute, professor Longo’s view certainly deserves attention. Still, I was struck by his reference to “animal-based” proteins.

Then I read the caveats. While the study suggests eating too much animal-based protein during middle age is detrimental to human health, eating more animal-based protein if you’re older than 65 actually could be beneficial. The problem is, exactly how much protein belongs in our diets is a topic of debate; has been for years. What’s more, how can folks older than 65 count on being able to eat more protein when they’ll probably be missing teeth and unable to chew it?

A nutrition expert quoted by The Post, Marion Nestle, a public-health professor at New York University, said the study raises as many questions as it answers. The study's authors do not present a compelling argument, she said. Choices made by us all beyond protein consumption play roles in our longevity. Lifestyle choices by participants in the study outside protein consumption, she said, could have played a role in the results. “I’m also puzzled by the idea that there is a significant difference between the effects of protein from animal and vegetable sources,” said Nestle. “Protein is not, and never has been, an issue in American diets, and the data presented in this study do not convince me to think otherwise.”

So there it is: The study singles out animal-based protein as bad, and suggests vegetable-based protein found in nuts and what not is good.

Regardless, let’s see how much protein we’re talking about here. The study defines a high-protein diet as one with at least 20 percent of a person’s daily intake coming from protein; a low-protein diet is defined as less than 10 percent. The Post reported that those of us in middle age are better off consuming only about 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, about par with advice from health agencies these days. The reporter then displayed some math, which was good for me because I don’t get the whole metric thing. “For a 150-pound person, that means about the equivalent of the protein in an 8- or 9-ounce piece of meat or several cups of dry beans.”

I don’t like the idea of eating dried beans for dinner, so I did my own math—no online metric calculator needed. I figured a 150-pound man could likely eat an 8-ounce steak for dinner, plus a potato and probably a salad. But in that steak, he’d account for his entire daily allotment of animal-based protein. That means no eggs for breakfast; no cereal, either, unless he wants to eat it dry with no milk. It also means no turkey-and-Swiss sandwich for lunch. Only the steak, as far as protein goes.

The study advice also doesn’t account for what hunters eat regularly: game meat. Remember, venison is lower in fat than beef; it contains three times less cholesterol than beef. And it’s lower in calories. (I’m not discounting beef, folks. I enjoy a good meal at a steakhouse as much as the next guy, but I eat far more venison and waterfowl and upland birds than I do beef. In fact I don’t even buy beef anymore. Why would I when I stock my freezer with moose, elk and deer meat?) Anyway, 4 ounces of porterhouse beef steak contains about 310 calories; the same 4 ounces of venison contains only 125 calories, and less fat, of course.

Valter Longo said too many humans eat twice or three times the amount of protein we need, and too much of it comes from animals rather than nuts, seeds and beans. Sounds like what he’s really saying is we need to lay off meat-eating. But if you’re like me, you like it. Plus, don’t forget to account for the sweat you spill hiking to and from your hunting spot. You earned that venison steak on the grill. Eat it. But remember, everything in moderation.

Share |

Comments

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours


Your Name


Your Email


Your Comment

6 Responses to Can Consumption of Protein Lead to Early Death?

Dr. Mark wrote:
April 01, 2014

When one eats commercially raised animals or fish for that matter they are at risk due to the high omega 6 fatty acid content secondary to the GMO corn feeding. Grass fed aka free range animals have omega 3 fatty acid content and also none of the antibiotics etc. This is heart protective. They are as you say throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. They should make that more clear when they state those things.

Salty wrote:
March 25, 2014

If vegetarians love animals so much why do they keep eating their food?

Terry Cooper wrote:
March 25, 2014

Reading the professors comments leads me to believe that he is pushing the vegetarian philosophy. Eat more nuts, seeds and grains. The first thing is moderation in all that you do. How much extra weight are we carrying, push back from the table and get some exercise and that will solve many of the problems that plague society today. Go ahead and eat the nuts, seeds, etc. leaves more red meat for the others.

LB wrote:
March 25, 2014

Correlation or cause and effect? This study is certainly not definitive. One correction. The information I have shows cholesterol amounts in game meats at the same or more than beef. Beef per 3.5 ounce serving is 69 mg. Buffalo is 62. Mule Deer is 107. Elk is 67. Moose is 71. Pronghorn is 112. Check out GunnersDen.com for Wild Game Nutritional Value.

Carl Nelson wrote:
March 24, 2014

The story immediately loses credibility when the words Professor and California were mentioned in the same article.

stan allen wrote:
March 24, 2014

To me this is just like any number of studies where one day red wine or caffeine is good for us and the next it is not. I would rather go on what my life on this planet has taught me, my grandparents hunted, or raised their own protein along with milked their own cows, (whole raw milk think you), my great grandparents both hit mid nineties, and the grandparents both hit mid eighties. It was only in the late 60's 70's and 80's when things got unnatural for shelf life or to look better, (red dye number 6 or whatever), when some of my relatives checked out of hotel earth early. Anyone who doesn't see that correlation clearly doesn't get it. Beef, venison, or anything else that runs on four legs is what's for dinner. Eat it and enjoy!