Is it possible to get cancer by taking protein each day?

  • wesv

    Posts: 907

    Feb 04, 2015 5:31 AM GMT
    Are there any studies that show this? Is there anything in protein powder that can be harmful? I just want to know because I take protein almost everyday.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2015 6:31 AM GMT
    wesv saidAre there any studies that show this? Is there anything in protein powder that can be harmful? I just want to know because I take protein almost everyday.


    I doubt that it's worse than the couple of chicken breasts I just downed to get the after work out protein I need, but it seems over time it's proven that so much of the food supplements either turn out to be useless or worse.

    When I do protein, creatine or any other supplements, I cycle on and off every month or so.

    Most of the time this is simply from forgetting to restock and it ends up a month before I get around to getting more.

    Lord knows, I don't need any more size, I just need my tits not to turn into geezer tits
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2015 6:32 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidSome of the cheaper products are known to have higher levels of arsenic. But there is no way to determine which brands are better than others. If I'm not mistaken I think Muscle Milk products did get accused of having higher than normal levels of arsenic.

    But the same can be said for rice. Recent information now says that rice, for some reason absorbs more arsenic from the ground than any other plant based crop. Consumer Reports did a short article on this. I've also heard this over the past few years so now I pretty much only have rice once in a blue moon. Like when I make paella for holiday gatherings.


    "Muscle Milk products did get accused of having higher than normal levels of arsenic"

    yes
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2015 6:34 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidI doubt that it's worse than the couple of chicken breasts I just downed to get the after work out protein I need, but it seems over time it's proven that so much of the food supplements either turn out to be useless or worse.

    Plus you're having to choke down that nasty tasting protein powder drink; a waste of money and you're making your taste buds suffer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2015 6:37 AM GMT
    Try stopping the protein supplements and keep careful track of your weight. Eat more lean meat. See if you lose weight or have any other problems because you're not taking the protein.
  • wesv

    Posts: 907

    Feb 04, 2015 7:16 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidSome of the cheaper products are known to have higher levels of arsenic. But there is no way to determine which brands are better than others. If I'm not mistaken I think Muscle Milk products did get accused of having higher than normal levels of arsenic.

    But the same can be said for rice. Recent information now says that rice, for some reason absorbs more arsenic from the ground than any other plant based crop. Consumer Reports did a short article on this. I've also heard this over the past few years so now I pretty much only have rice once in a blue moon. Like when I make paella for holiday gatherings.


    I didn't know about that. That's interesing to hear. But the rice I eat is usually brown rice. I wonder if brown rice has a different arsenic content?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 04, 2015 7:58 AM GMT
    (1). Brown rice is worse than white rice w/ respect to arsenic.

    (2). Toxicity is a scary term but only to the uninformed. Toxicity has to do with two interrelated components: amount vis-a-vis time period. For example, you could likely smoke 1 cigarette a day and have zero appreciable effect, and over a lifetime smoke 20,000K cigarettes. BUT, if you smoke that same amount of cigarettes in just one year, you might have a toxicity problem.

    (3). The levels of "arsenic" are not alarming, and are hardly appreciable. The more or less arbitrary level set by the EPA is just that, arbitrary. It's a nice relative measure, but says nothing about whether you're, for practical purposes, "ingesting arsenic." You aren't in that colloquial sense. Eating rice will not kill you. Don't freak out. There's a medical term for people who dwell obsessively about the nutrition content of their food. I forget the term, but I get the distinct impression an overwhelming amount of people have or are developing this because of the rise of "Aunt Flor's Blog spots" all over the internet. As the saying goes, it doesn't matter the amount of good science out there, a contrary fact/page gets the same air time.

    The study:
    (please ignore the alarmist blog and scroll down 4 or 5 paragraphs to the link that says "PDF with complete test results" and look at the actual data yourself....the blog makes it's money off of page clicks, and has already pigeon holed itself as uber-alarmist, hence the thinly veiled alarmist narrative).
    http://chriskresser.com/arsenic-in-rice-how-concerned-should-you-be
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2015 4:38 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said... For example, you could likely smoke 1 cigarette a day and have zero appreciable effect, and over a lifetime smoke 20,000K cigarettes. BUT, if you smoke that same amount of cigarettes in just one year, you might have a toxicity problem....


    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/02/aje.kwt038.full
    ...There was no evidence of lower mortality in all reducers compared with maintainers...There was clear evidence of lower mortality among quitters...These inconclusive results support the view that reducing cigarette consumption should not be promoted as a means of reducing mortality...

    ...continued smoking, even at low levels, clearly carries substantially increased health risks...
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 04, 2015 6:19 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Svnw688 said... For example, you could likely smoke 1 cigarette a day and have zero appreciable effect, and over a lifetime smoke 20,000K cigarettes. BUT, if you smoke that same amount of cigarettes in just one year, you might have a toxicity problem....


    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/02/aje.kwt038.full
    ...There was no evidence of lower mortality in all reducers compared with maintainers...There was clear evidence of lower mortality among quitters...These inconclusive results support the view that reducing cigarette consumption should not be promoted as a means of reducing mortality...

    ...continued smoking, even at low levels, clearly carries substantially increased health risks...


    No. Your study references "light" smokers as those who smoke HALF a pack a day (1-10). Many studies show that smoking less than 4 cigarettes a day has SUBSTANTIAL health benefits. Here's one study, for example, http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315.short

    My hypothetical contemplated smoking 1 cigarette per day, not 10 (which is the study you used as a proposition to attack smoking 1 cig a day). That's not a fair comparison. Smoking 1 and smoking half a pack a day are different ballparks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2015 9:10 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    theantijock said
    Svnw688 said... For example, you could likely smoke 1 cigarette a day and have zero appreciable effect, and over a lifetime smoke 20,000K cigarettes. BUT, if you smoke that same amount of cigarettes in just one year, you might have a toxicity problem....


    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/02/aje.kwt038.full
    ...There was no evidence of lower mortality in all reducers compared with maintainers...There was clear evidence of lower mortality among quitters...These inconclusive results support the view that reducing cigarette consumption should not be promoted as a means of reducing mortality...

    ...continued smoking, even at low levels, clearly carries substantially increased health risks...


    No. Your study references "light" smokers as those who smoke HALF a pack a day (1-10). Many studies show that smoking less than 4 cigarettes a day has SUBSTANTIAL health benefits. Here's one study, for example, http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315.short

    My hypothetical contemplated smoking 1 cigarette per day, not 10 (which is the study you used as a proposition to attack smoking 1 cig a day). That's not a fair comparison. Smoking 1 and smoking half a pack a day are different ballparks.


    I don't know why you took that as an attack when all I did was to show results of a recent study. The study suggests that reducing smoking is a nice way towards cessation of smoking but not really a healthy ends in itself, you know, without the cessation aspect.

    But just so you know an attack when you see one. Here, this is an attack:

    Did you just say that "smoking less than 4 cigarettes a day has SUBSTANTIAL health benefits". Smoking is beneficial, huh? Thus the attack.

    The very link you yourself provided concludes:

    Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying


    So one must ask the question: Benefit to whom? Their heirs?

    Seriously man, I get the point you were making. I just think you picked a real bad example. There's no way you can win this argument.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 4:31 PM GMT
    OK...I can't resist....

    "Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying"

    as referred to in the post above....is meaningless.

    dying *younger* yes....

    dying? I'd say that's a 100% risk for *everyone*

    icon_razz.gif

    Doctor9
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 05, 2015 4:35 PM GMT
    @Hiddenmember

    Light smoker has the antecedent of a regular/heavy smoker. You're retarded.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 05, 2015 4:37 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidOK...I can't resist....

    "Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying"

    as referred to in the post above....is meaningless.

    dying *younger* yes....

    dying? I'd say that's a 100% risk for *everyone*

    icon_razz.gif

    Doctor9


    Err, apparently you don't understand antecedents either icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 5:18 PM GMT
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway.

    If you've heard anything about protein and cancer it's probably because of this one idiotic study. So they fed mice a diet of either 5% protein or 20% protein and then they gave them aflatoxin which is known to induce liver cancer. The 20% protein mice got hella cancer while the 5% didn't. When you dig into it you do find out that the aflatoxin straight-up killed the 5% mice. It's a potent toxin and in the liver it is metabolised to a potent carcinogen. The 5% protein mice just didn't have well functioning livers. And the protein used was the casein fraction from milk so from that the researchers concluded that animal protein caused cancer.

    It doesn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2015 5:22 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidOK...I can't resist....

    "Conclusions: In both sexes, smoking 1–4 cigarettes per day was associated with a significantly higher risk of dying"

    as referred to in the post above....is meaningless.

    dying *younger* yes....

    dying? I'd say that's a 100% risk for *everyone*

    icon_razz.gif

    Doctor9


    Obviously the implied rest of that sentence imbuing it with meaning is that the deaths are caused by the smoking, duh.

    Svnw688 said@Hiddenmember

    Light smoker has the antecedent of a regular/heavy smoker. You're retarded.


    says the guy who's trying to argue that smoking cigarettes has health benefits. Retarded, huh. Go fuck yourself.

    Further from the conclusion of the link you provided to a study you proffered as supposed proof of the "health benefits" of smoking only some cigarettes:

    Smoking control policymakers and health educators should emphasise more strongly that light smokers also endanger their health.


    Argue with yourself all you want. I'm not even going to revisit this. This is stupid as shit.
  • blueandgold

    Posts: 396

    Feb 06, 2015 6:56 PM GMT
    While you're hiding from the cancer man, be sure to only go outside at night to reduce sun exposure and to trade in your cell phone for a land line.

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 06, 2015 11:29 PM GMT
    @HiddenMember:

    The health benefits of light (1 to 3 cigarettes) smoking AS OPPOSED to heavy smoking.

    Nobody ever said any cigarette was beneficial. You're, literally, remedial.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2015 1:37 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@HiddenMember:

    The health benefits of light (1 to 3 cigarettes) smoking AS OPPOSED to heavy smoking.

    Nobody ever said any cigarette was beneficial. You're, literally, remedial.


    Oh look you tried to sneak one in there. And a half-assed insult ta'boot.

    Remedial is providing remedy, yes? So you describing me as providing remedy in your insulting tone is sort of a fail on your part, isn't it? See, now if I wanted to insult someone, I wouldn't reach to misuse a $12 word from grade school (I'm gonna guess you'd been placed in remedial reading as the word seems so dear to you). Instead, I'd just call them a word I know how to use, like scumbag. See, now calling you a scumbag would be an insult, to scumbags.

    My point precisely is that there is zero benefit to light smoking as that is what the research shows. For you to characterize light smoking as at all beneficial in any sense is both irresponsible and wrong. For you to have the brains you claim, you ought to know better.

    http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.long
    Contemporary Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine
    Health Effects of Light and Intermittent Smoking

    1. Rebecca E. Schane, MD;
    2. Pamela M. Ling, MD, MPH;
    3. Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

    Results
    Cardiovascular Disease
    Light and intermittent smoking carry nearly the same risk for cardiovascular disease as daily smoking. The dose-response relationship between tobacco exposure and cardiovascular mortality is highly nonlinear. An analysis of the dose-response relationship based on combined data of passive smoking, particulate matter from air pollution, and active light and heavy smoking indicates that low levels of tobacco exposure as seen in light smoking (4 to 7 cigarettes per day) has ≈70% of the effect of heavy smoking (≥23 cigarettes per day)…

    Among men aged 47 to 55 years who smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day…risk of death from aortic aneurysm is nearly 3 times greater in light smokers than in nonsmoking men and women

    Lung and Other Cancers

    The risks for light smokers, although lower, are still substantial. Women between the ages of 35 and 49 years who smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day have 5 times the risk of developing lung cancer

    Other Diseases
    Light smoking is associated with lower respiratory tract infections, including a prolonged duration of respiratory symptoms (particularly cough), cataracts, compromised reproductive health, an increased risk for ectopic pregnancy as well as placenta previa, and poor bone mineral density, leading to frequent ankle fractures in older women

    Light smokers report lower health-related quality of life than nonsmokers on all 8 dimensions of the SF-36 health status questionnaire (physical functioning, physical roles, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional roles, and mental health).

    All-Cause Mortality
    The risk of all-cause mortality in intermittent male smokers is significantly increased (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.1) compared with nonsmoking men.31 Among women, light smoking resulted in a 4- to 6-year median loss of life compared with nonsmoking women.49 Consistent with these results, a recent study of low-rate daily smokers (1 to 4 cigarettes per day) found a relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.3 to 1.9) in men...

    Discussion

    The available literature primarily consists of prospective studies (Table), which are the strongest form of evidence to support a causal association between disease and exposure. The data from these studies indicate that there are substantial risks associated with these patterns of tobacco use that warrant immediate clinical attention.
    a study of very light (1 to 3 cigarettes per day) adolescent smokers found no active signs of nicotine withdrawal, as measured by changes in heart rate and neuropsychological testing, after 24 hours of abstinence.53 The authors of another study examining the effect of intermittent, low-dose exposure to nicotine on the brain suggest that this type of tobacco use may trigger upregulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, resulting in a heightened physiological response to an occasional cigarette.54 The authors argue that intermittent smokers are just as vulnerable to nicotine dependence as daily smokers.

    Conclusions

    There is a widespread belief, based in part on truth (ie, the dose-response relationship between smoking intensity and some diseases, including cancer) and in part on successful tobacco industry marketing to “health-conscious smokers,”11,55,56 that light and intermittent smoking are safer than heavier smoking. The fact remains, however, that even stable light smoking carries substantial health risks.


    Further conclusion

    Remedial huh? Go fuck yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2015 8:55 AM GMT
    I personaly think that if you eat healthy, you do not need extra protein - Milk, eggs, meat, cheese, etc.. plenty of protein around - balanced with diversified food, its your best bet to keep an healthy way of life... I always think its better to avoid product (food, easthetic cares, etc...) if you dont know exactly what its made with. Especially in the US where a lot of products are still in used even if it's banned in most of the other countries in the world .. and dont let me start on GMO.

    Deiversified sources of protein in a well balanced diet is the key for me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2015 2:11 PM GMT
    Anyone have a road map, maybe some bread crumbs? icon_wink.gif

    How the f--k did the thread go from getting cancer from eating protein to arsenic in supplements and then to smoking??icon_eek.gif


  • Rhi_Bran

    Posts: 904

    Feb 16, 2015 2:21 AM GMT
    I agree with HFM. It is always preferable to get nutrients from food rather than from supplements. Peanut butter, greek yogurt and beans are your friends. I'm no bodybuilder but I have no problem getting 75-100g / day through my diet alone.

    But if you must take protein supplements, I'm not really sure cancer is what you have to worry about. Too much protein in the diet over long periods of time can easily lead to gout. Generally not a worry if you drink enough water and actually USE all the protein, though.