Paul Saladino· MD
there certainly is a low end of protein for people at which they will suffer sarcopenia lawson's mean muscle mass etcetera
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
there certainly is a low end of protein for people at which they will suffer sarcopenia lawson's mean muscle mass etcetera
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.
in their model the uh the the relative risk um crossed somewhere you know in the 60s right in other words you know your your total mortality benefit uh was lower eating a high protein diet i think it was starting somewhere in the 60s
we have clinical data yeah that suggests that when when when people over the age of 65 are protein deficient versus protein significant there's a there's a there's a huge difference in muscle mass which we know is going to be associated with frailty right right pour out yeah
the take-home message was that low protein is beneficial up to about 65 years of age and then once you get above 65 years of age it kind of flips and people who ate a higher protein diet have lower all-cause mortality
The benefits of higher protein were stronger for adults older than 75.
So once you got to a certain age like above...I don't remember exactly, 55 or something like that, the opposite was true. So protein became more important. Protein intake was inversely correlated with mortality. So the higher the protein intake, the lower the all-cause mortality. And I think that has a lot to do with frailty.