We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
I'm still waiting for somebody to demonstrate for me that if there is an increase in the risk of cancer associated with higher protein intake in humans I'd like to see that Quantified but I would like to see somebody demonstrate that if there is an increase in risk that quantifiable increase in Risk is greater then the offset of sarcopenia
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I harp on that because it isn't exactly that population that I am most concerned with sarcopenia so If the message is somehow getting transmitted to somebody listening to this who's 65 or older that I shouldn't be eating protein and they might not even know that it's through igf but somehow high protein is going to give me cancer and you know that's because someone who telling them that is telling that through the lens of igf the answer is first of all no it's not and secondly the greatest risk you face again is going to be the res the results of low muscle mass and low strength