Paul Saladino· MD
i think the the initial inciting events of cancer are more complex than this and to to suggest limiting the protein that strictly i fear will lead to sarcopenia will lead to bone mineral loss will lead to problems
Loading…
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 think the the initial inciting events of cancer are more complex than this and to to suggest limiting the protein that strictly i fear will lead to sarcopenia will lead to bone mineral loss will lead to problems
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.
so anyone who says that animal protein is uniquely triggering mtor doesn't understand that insulin does it more and insulin does it for longer
And as much as people have a over the years there's been an ideology of villainizing protein as as a villain of aging because protein activates mTor and when mTor is too activated, it promotes aging. I find that view uh unfortunate because for reasons you and I've mentioned like muscle and bone mass, you have to have mTor turned on. You have to or you can't have any anabolic, no retention of lean mass, let alone building it. But when you vilify protein because of mTor, you ought to vilify insulin because insulin activates mTor much higher than even the most anabolic amino acids like leucine does. And it keeps it active. One dose of insulin can activate mTor for up to 24 hours. Whereas leucine, the most anabolic of the amino acids, will only activate mTor for about an hour or two.