 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006Does too much protein in the diet increase cancer risk?
This study looks at cancer risk by amount of protein consumed and the total calories and exercise. Amount of protein relates to amount of a growth factor related to risk of cancer which is reflected in the 3 groups studied. This raises questions about ratios of the 3 macro nutrients and the sources and forms consumed of them. http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8388.html?emailID=12304 > This study looks at cancer risk by amount of protein consumed and the > total calories and exercise. Amount of protein relates to amount of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8388.html?emailID=12304 Actually it looks at small samples of people who are given very rough dietary guidelines to follow and then measures levels of plasma growth factors and certain hormones that *may* (or may not) indicate some risk of cancers. That is about as small a study looking at as indirect markers as I've seen in a long time. Hardly definitive. Very poor science at best. The authors are: Fontana L, Klein S, Holloszy JO. Long-term low-protein, low-calorie diet and endurance exercise modulat metabolic factors associated with cancer risk. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 84; pp. 1456-1462, December 2006. Samuel Klein, M.D., Washington University School of Medicine. Participated in a 9/96 meeting of gastroenterologists sponsored by Procter & Gamble that resulted in a paper, Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 26:210-218 (1997). Research support from ILSI (1988-89; $30,000); Ross Laboratories (1991-94; $86,000); Sandias (1992-93; $12,000); Alimentarics, Inc. (1996-97; $100,000) (from 1997 resum?) *** Any involvement to ILSI makes this researcher very suspect as far as being a real scientist and not just another salesman/marketer. http://cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/international_life_sciences_institute.html INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCES INSTITUTE Founded "in 1978 to work toward a safer, healthier world. ILSI is a worldwide foundation that is making a difference in public health by advancing the understanding of scientific issues related to nutrition, food safety, toxicology, and the environment. ILSI is governed by an Assembly of Members, which includes one representative from each of its more than 400 member companies, and an elected Board of Trustees of renowned scientists from academia and industry, all of whom volunteer their time and expertise. ILSI members represent the world's leading manufacturers of food and food ingredients, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other consumer products." (http://www.ilsi.org/about/; September 22, 2000) ILSI has branches in about a dozen other countries/regions. In 2006, the World Health Organization excluded ILSI from WHO committees that set global standards for food and water supplies because of links between ILSI membership and funding from the commercial sector. (Clapp, Stephen. "ILSI excluded from WHO standard-setting activities," Food Chemical News, 2/13/06). ILSI has received funding from the alcoholic beverage industry. (Addiction. 2001;96:197-202) ILSI's fall, 1996, N.Y. Academy of Science conference on fat substitutes was funded in part by Procter & Gamble (Mother Jones, May/June, 1997, p.14). Members of ILSI North America: 3M Microbiology Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc. Archer Daniels Midland Company BASF Corporation Campbell Soup Company Cargill, Incorporated CNS, Inc. The Coca-Cola Company Colgate-Palmolive Company ConAgra Foods CTI Foods Danisco USA, Inc. DSM Nutritional Products Inc. DuPont Haskell Laboratory General Mills, Inc. Gerber Products Company GlaxoSmithKline Research H.J. Heinz Company Hershey Foods Corporation International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. Johnson & Johnson Kellogg Company Kraft Foods, Inc. Masterfoods USA McCormick & Company, Inc. McNeil Nutritionals Mead Johnson Nutritionals Monsanto Company National Starch and Chemical Company Nestl? USA, Inc. Novozymes North America, Inc. The NutraSweet Company Nutrinova, Inc. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. The Pepsi-Cola Company Pfizer, Inc. The Proctor & Gamble Company Red Bull North America Renessen LLC Roche Vitamins, Inc. Ross Products Division/Abbott Laboratories Sethness Products Company Tate & Lyle North America Unilever Bestfoods North America Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (http://www.ilsi.org/misc/NAassem.pdf; accessed 4/11/06) ******* TC "Actually it looks at small samples of people who are given very rough dietary guidelines to follow and then measures levels of plasma growth factors and certain hormones that *may* (or may not) indicate some risk of cancers. That is about as small a study looking at as indirect markers as I've seen in a long time. Hardly definitive. Very poor science at best." What, as experts in statistics say, would be the threshold for such research? Actually they were not given food guidelines, people who met guidelines were found based on the food choices, exercise and calorie intakes they were following for their own reasons. As per usual you don't pay attention to content except for headlines and not much more. Note, "hypothesis-generating paper" was the main author's view of the study, he, Fontana, was the principle author not the person you did the "are you still beating your wife" hachet job on. Here as all good journals do these days is the funding information: "Funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Center for Research Resources of the National Institutes of Health supported this research." As for your view about "good science" is, I fear even to mention it gives far far more credence then this and past performance supports on your part. > "Actually it looks at small samples of people who are given very rough > dietary guidelines to follow and then measures levels of plasma growth [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > intakes they were following for their own reasons. As per usual you > don't pay attention to content except for headlines and not much more. More than a couple of dozen. > Note, "hypothesis-generating paper" was the main author's view of the > study, he, Fontana, was the principle author not the person you did the > "are you still beating your wife" hachet job on. Here as all good > journals do these days is the funding information: Let's see, a "hypothesis-generating paper" with tiny numbers of subjects using inferences from other "hypothesis-generated" data on two hypothesized possible markers for cancer risk. Sound like smoke based on mirrors. Or mirrors based on smoke. Either way it is smoke and mirrors. > "Funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and > Kidney Diseases and the National Center for Research Resources of the > National Institutes of Health supported this research." Yep, the NIH's have a sparkling reputation for scientific independence. Wait, no that is the FDA. No wait that is universities. No wait, hang on there, they are all industry funded and industry inspired organisations. Oh well. Nice try. > As for your view about "good science" is, I fear even to mention it > gives far far more credence then this and past performance supports on > your part. You can be well assured that when I present scientific studies here, I will have vetted the authors and their organisations for industry connections. Which is infinitely more than we can gather from your cherry picking. TC "More than a couple of dozen." So the basis for your quip about study size and your knowledge about what size is required as a threshold is this? More off the cuff blather. "Let's see, a "hypothesis-generating paper" with tiny numbers of subjects using inferences from other "hypothesis-generated" data on two hypothesized possible markers for cancer risk. Sound like smoke based on mirrors. Or mirrors based on smoke. Either way it is smoke and mirrors." No, we have already qualified you for how "expert" you are for "tiny" study size, nada. The rest sounds like the normal process of science grinding out patterns from a broad spectrum of information. But then how would we expect you to know that? "You can be well assured that when I present scientific studies here, I will have vetted the authors and their organisations for industry connections. Which is infinitely more than we can gather from your cherry picking." I doubt it. Were all the price "studies" you like to hawk so vetted to see who bankrolled them, I don't think so? Imitation is quite flattering, you now try to turn "cherry picking" back; as was first made known to you as you parrot unvetted the price articles which are the poster child for cherry picking information. But such we can be quite assured is the theology of the lifestyle food cults of all stripes. And that theology is in contrast to the suggestive results of the study at hand and is *THE* reason for your reaction quite apart from any science at all. > "More than a couple of dozen." > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > suggestive results of the study at hand and is *THE* reason for your > reaction quite apart from any science at all. Here is your chance to explain what a "lifestyle food cult" is. TC > "More than a couple of dozen." > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > suggestive results of the study at hand and is *THE* reason for your > reaction quite apart from any science at all. Here is your chance to explain what a "lifestyle food cult" is. Chicken. Moron. Idiot. Industry lapdog. TC " Yep, the NIH's have a sparkling reputation for scientific independence. Wait, no that is the FDA. No wait that is universities. No wait, hang on there, they are all industry funded and industry inspired organisations. Oh well. Nice try. " ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You got that right! It helps explain modern medicine's track record too. Just another MIC to worry about. (M.edical I.ndustrial C.omplex) > " Yep, the NIH's have a sparkling reputation for scientific > independence. Wait, no that is the FDA. No wait that is universities. No [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Just another MIC to worry about. > (M.edical I.ndustrial C.omplex) That is an interesting and very appropriate term to coin. MIC. Notice that Coonie is always accusing me me being part of a lifestyle food cult, yet he refuses to explain what he means by that. I don't think he knows what it means, he just finds it convenient to use terminology that implies some kind of illogical religious motivation to those of us who are showing how poor the medical mainstreams science is. TC |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.