Are Meat and Dairy Really as Bad as Smoking?

A diet rich in meat, eggs, milk and cheese could be as harmful to health as smoking, according to a controversial study into the impact of protein consumption on longevity.

Research which tracked thousands of adults for nearly 20 years found that people who eat a diet rich in animal protein are four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low protein diet. The risk is nearly as high as the danger of developing cancer by smoking 20 cigarettes each day. Previous studies have shown a link between cancer and red meat, but it is the first time research has measured the risk of death caused by regularly eating too much protein.

The study’s findings
The US study -recently published in Journal Cell Metabolism- found that people with a high protein diet were 74% more likely to die of any cause within the study period than their low-protein counterparts. They were also several times more likely to die of diabetes. But this trend appeared to reverse for those aged over 65, researchers found.

High-protein food plans, such as the Atkins Diet, have become popular in recent years because of their dramatic weight-loss results. The new research from the University of Southern California suggests that such dieters may harm themselves in the long run.

“We provide convincing evidence that a high-protein diet – particularly if the proteins are derived from animals – is nearly as bad as smoking for your health,” said Dr Valter Longo, of the University.
The researchers define a “high-protein” diet as deriving at least 20% of daily calories from protein. They recommend consuming about 0.8g (0.03oz) of protein per kilogram of body weight every day in middle age. It means a person weighing nine stone should eat about 45-50g (1.6-1.7oz) of protein a day. A 300g (10.5oz) steak contains 77g (2.7oz) of protein.

As well as red meat, dairy products high in protein are also dangerous, the researchers said. A 200ml (7fl oz) glass of milk represents 12% of the recommended daily allowance, while a 40g (1.4oz) slice of cheese contains 20%. Chicken, fish, pulses, vegetables, nuts and grain are healthier sources of protein. However, a chicken breast or salmon fillet still accounts for about 40 per cent of recommended daily protein intake.

“The research shows that a low-protein diet in middle age is useful for preventing cancer and overall mortality,” said Dr Eileen Crimmins, a co-author of the study.
“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.”

The backlashSo how does this translate into eating meat and dairy products being as bad for you as smoking? While this wasn't specifically discussed in the full text of the study, Valter Longo, director of the University of Southern California's Longevity Institute, told the press “Cancer mortality was higher for high-protein [eaters] compared to current smokers.”

The stats do bear out—and these findings are pretty sobering—but it's important to keep in mind that there were some definite limitations to this study.

• For one thing, it's based on data compiled about one day's worth of eating for participants; although the survey respondents did answer questions about how typical these meals were for them, what they ate on that day can't possibly be a perfect reflection of how they ate over the next 18 years. 

• Furthermore, there was also no distinction between animal proteins — some people could have been eating skinless white chicken breast or steamed fish instead of bacon and sausages.

• The survey also didn't distinguish between farm-raised meat consumption and factory-farmed meat consumption. “We know that there's a lot of hormones injected in animals, but unfortunately, the data we have doesn't provide information on that,” says Morgan Levine Canon, a Ph.D. student in gerontology at the University of Southern California. “I think down the road that's another study that people can look at in more detail.”

Bottom line
There's another big factor worth considering here, too: this is one study saying that animal protein consumption may significantly increase your risk of cancer—and there's tons of research about how deadly smoking is. So while the results are certainly enough to make you think twice about how much chicken and yogurt you're consuming, that doesn't necessarily mean that eating these foods is just as bad as smoking. “The size of the effect we're finding was similar, however I think the association with smoking mortality is way more clear-cut,” says Canon. “There's been a lot more research, and there's a lot less potential for confounding factors. For nutrition, it's really hard to unravel what someone's diet is and really quantify that—whereas it's quite easy to say, 'Do you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day?'”

Canon emphasizes that this definitely isn't a reason to continue (or start) smoking. If anything, she hopes it will encourage more people to cut back on their animal-based protein intake. “This is an association we're finding right now, and we recognize more work needs to be done with this,” she says. “But there's a lot of evidence that probably eating plant-based is healthiest.”

Sources: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/, http://www.sciencedaily.com/, http://www.womenshealthmag.com/

Why Eating Less May Make You Live Longer

Australian scientists have claimed that eating sporadically, like animals in the wild, could make people healthier and live longer.

Scientists know an extreme diet does not appeal to many people but say their discovery could lead to ways of mimicking its effects and pave the way for an "anti-ageing pill".

Evolutionary biologist Dr Margo Adler, who led the research, said that cutting back on food leads to increased rates of "cellular recycling" and repair mechanisms in the body.

Dr Adler, of the University of New South Wales in Australia, believes this evolved to help animals continue to reproduce when food is scarce. Their bodies adapt by recycling and reusing nutrients stored in the cells.

She said: "This is the most intriguing aspect from a human health standpoint. Although extended lifespan may simply be a side effect of dietary restriction, a better understanding of these cellular recycling mechanisms that drive the effect may hold the promise of longer, healthier lives for humans."

Low nutrient diet restores cells

Researchers have indentified pathways that respond to nutrients, and particularly protein, by dialling up cell growth rate and reproduction, and turning down some important cellular recycling processes.

"One of them is called autophagy, which is literally means self-eating. What they do is they allow the animal to recycle nutrients that are stored within its own cells," Dr Adler said.
"And so an animal that's dietarily restricted might increase its rates of cellular recycling mechanisms so that it can get more of its own stored nutrients, so it needs fewer nutrients from the environment."

However, she says the diet may allow the body to reproduce more in the short-term.

"But the benefit is that these cellular recycling mechanisms actually kind of clean up the cells and they reduce rates of cancer and reduce rates of cellular deterioration and so animals live longer and they have lower rates of cancer when they have higher rates of cellular recycling processes," she said.

Bottom line
Dr Adler says while the development of the drugs for human use is still a fair way off, further study of cellular recycling mechanisms may help find interventions for humans.
"The best suggestion is have a fairly low-protein diet, do exercise and you're probably doing well," she said.

In 2012, a study found that a low calorie diet can slow down ageing and ward off diabetes, cancer and dementia. Other studies have pointed to the need to cut food intake by about 40% to live 20 to 30% longer.

Sources: http://www.abc.net.au/news/, https://au.news.yahoo.com/, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com, http://www.express.co.uk/

Forget five a day: You need SEVEN portions of fresh fruit and veg per day to live longer, says new research

Five portions of fruit and vegetables a day – a familiar mantra for those concerned about their own and their children's health – may not, after all, be enough, according to a new report by scientists, who suggest we should instead be aiming for seven a day, and mostly vegetables at that.

Good fruit, bad fruit
Examining the eating habits of 65,000 people in England between 2001 and 2013, the researchers from University College London (UCL) found that people who ate seven or more portions daily had a 42% reduced risk of death overall compared to those who managed just one. Boosting consumption was also associated with a 25% lower risk of cancer and 31% lower risk of heart disease or stroke.
Fresh vegetables were found to have the strongest protective effect, followed by salad and then fruit. Two to three daily portions of vegetables resulted in a 19% lower risk of death among those studied, compared with 10% for the equivalent amount of fruit. Overall, vegetables pack more of a protective punch than fruit, the authors said.

There was a surprise finding: people who ate canned or frozen fruit actually had a higher risk - 17% -  of heart disease, stroke and cancer.
The authors, Dr Oyinlola Oyebode and colleagues from the department of epidemiology and public health at UCL, said they were unsure how to interpret the findings on canned or frozen fruit. It could be that people eating canned fruit may not live in areas where there is fresh fruit in the shops, which could indicate a poorer diet.
Alternatively, they could be people who are already in ill-health or they could lead hectic lifestyles. There is also another possibility: frozen and tinned fruit were grouped together in the questions, but while frozen fruit is considered to be nutritionally the same as fresh, tinned fruit is stored in syrup containing extra sugar. More work needs to be done to see whether sweetened, tinned fruit is in fact the issue, the researchers say.

Why these findings are interesting
Oyebode and colleagues took into account the socio-economic background, smoking habits and other lifestyle factors that affect people's health. What they have found, they say, is a strong association between high levels of fruit and vegetable consumption and lower premature death rates – not a causal relationship.
But the strength of the study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, is in the big numbers and the fact that the data comes from the real world – not a collection of individuals who had a particular health condition or occupation, but a random selection.

Can policy changes encourage us to eat more fruit and veggies?
The study calls for the 5-a-day message based on World Health Organisation guidance to be revised upwards, and possibly exclude portions of dried and tinned fruit, smoothies and fruit juice which contain large amounts of sugar.
Other experts agreed that the study was sound and representative of the population, but cautioned that in a study of the habits of people in the real world, it is hard to take full account of complications, such as education, smoking habits and people failing to tell the exact truth about their diet.
They say it is too early to change the current 5-a-day message to seven or more a day on the basis of this study. Considering that most people do not achieve the 5-a-day target, experts believe moving the goalposts to 7-a-day will deter people from even trying to eat a healthier diet.

They say current efforts will therefore be better spent in getting the population intake to meet the guideline of eating at least 5-a-day, which offers a win-win for all.

Bottom line
"The clear message here is that the more fruit and vegetables you eat, the less likely you are to die at any age. Vegetables have a larger effect than fruit, but fruit still makes a real difference.
However, people shouldn't feel daunted by a big target like seven. Whatever your starting point, it is always worth eating more fruit and vegetables.
In our study even those eating one to three portions had a significantly lower risk than those eating less than one." concluded Dr Oyinlola Oyebode.

Sources: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/, http://www.newscientist.com/, http://www.theguardian.com/, http://www.independent.co.uk/, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/