Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Animal protein not linked to higher mortality risk, study finds
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Animal protein not linked to higher mortality risk, study finds
https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articl...tudy-finds

PRESS RELEASE: The study, published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, analyzed data from nearly 16,000 adults aged 19 and older using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHAMES III).

Researchers examined how much animal and plant protein people typically consume and whether those patterns were associated with their risk of dying from heart disease, cancer or any cause. They found no increased risk of death associated with higher intake of animal protein. In fact, the data showed a modest but significant reduction in cancer-related mortality among those who ate more animal protein.

“There’s a lot of confusion around protein – how much to eat, what kind and what it means for long-term health. This study adds clarity, which is important for anyone trying to make informed, evidence-based decisions about what they eat,” explains Stuart Phillips, Professor and Chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University, who supervised the research.

To ensure reliable results, the team employed advanced statistical methods, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI) method and multivariate Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modelling, to estimate long-term dietary intake and minimize measurement error.

“It was imperative that our analysis used the most rigorous, gold standard methods to assess usual intake and mortality risk. These methods allowed us to account for fluctuations in daily protein intake and provide a more accurate picture of long-term eating habits,” says Phillips.

The researchers found no associations between total protein, animal protein or plant protein and risk of death from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer. When both plant and animal protein were included in the analysis, the results remained consistent, suggesting that plant protein has a minimal impact on cancer mortality, while animal protein may offer a small protective effect.

Observational studies like this one cannot prove cause and effect; however, they are valuable for identifying patterns and associations in large populations. Combined with decades of clinical trial evidence, the findings support the inclusion of animal proteins as part of a healthy dietary pattern.

“When both observational data like this and clinical research are considered, it’s clear both animal and plant protein foods promote health and longevity,” says lead researcher Yanni Papanikolaou, MPH, president, Nutritional Strategies.

This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. NCBA was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.
Slightly conflicting with the research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) ( a contractor to the Beef Checkoff)..

From cancer research uk
Quote:The less processed and red meat you eat, the lower your risk of bowel cancer - and there’s lots of ways you can cut down
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-c...use-cancer

Personally I think this says more about the quality and integrity of research then it does about beef.
(Aug 25, 2025 11:55 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Slightly conflicting with the research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) ( a contractor to the Beef Checkoff)..

From cancer research uk
Quote:The less processed and red meat you eat, the lower your risk of bowel cancer - and there’s lots of ways you can cut down
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-c...use-cancer

Personally I think this says more about the quality and integrity of research then it does about beef.

Yeah, I initially had the following comment, but removed it because it seemed like: "Oh look, the sky is blue!" or "Why do people scowl when they step in a cow patty?"

And like most studies in the social and biomedical sciences, the results are open to skepticism because of the pre-existing motivated reasoning and self-interests of the funding sources (or alternatively, the ideological biases of an institution's administration), as well general compromised standards in this era of runaway invalid science.