08/08/2025
Sometimes even the bigs get it wrong: new analysis reveals no association between protein and mortality
I won't fault the molecular-level data in the paper, but the analysis of the NHANES data - which garnered headlines "Protein as bad for you as Smoking," trumpeted by the US and UK tabloids - was really poorly done. In fact, the narrative that protein kills you up to age 65 and then protects you from death is still a popular podcast tagline! People measure their IGF-1 levels with the notion that it's predictive of cancer risk. The human data from that paper is still discussed in reverent tones as 'fact.' It's wrong! (Thanks to Dr. Layne Norton for preserving that letter). I hasten to add that there are a few good people in the field who added their names to that letter! Including Donald Layman, Arne Astrup, Heather Leidy, Peter Clifton, and the late Doug Paddon-Jones.
I won't fault the molecular-level data in the paper, but the analysis of the NHANES data - which garnered headlines "Protein as bad for you as Smoking," trumpeted the US and UK tabloids - was really poorly done. In fact, the narrative that protein kills you up to age 65 and then protects you from death is still a popular podcast tagline! People measure their IGF-1 levels with the notion that it's predictive of cancer risk. The human data from that paper is still discussed in reverent tones as 'fact.' It's wrong!
A huge thank you to Yanni Papanikolaou and Victor Fulgoni for their leadership and perseverance in the face of some 'vicious' peer review of our paper. Well, now it's out there! r in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism shows no association between total, animal, or plant protein intake and all-cause, cardiovascular, or cancer mortality. In fact, higher animal protein intake was modestly protective for cancer mortality https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1139/apnm-2023-0594
Science self-corrects—sometimes it just takes a decade (or more).
