Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Does Eating Less Protein Produce Healthier Aging and Metabolism? (abcnews.com) 59

"A major scientific review is challenging the idea that more protein is always better," reports ABC News: The review, led by pathologist and biomedical researcher Dudley Lamming and published in the journal Cell Press Blue, examined more than 350 studies involving humans, mice, insects, yeast, and other organisms. The review found that eating less protein, or less of certain amino acids that make up protein, may turn on body processes linked to healthier aging, as well as metabolism, the process by which the body turns food and drinks into energy...

For adults who already get enough, eating more protein may offer little benefit, while some research suggests that eating less protein could support healthier aging... Lamming reviewed the effect of reducing protein in many body processes. One of the processes involves a hormone called FGF21. "There's an increase in a hormone called FGF21 that promotes energy expenditure [when protein intake is reduced]," Lamming said. "It essentially increases thermogenesis in your adipose tissue, so you don't just store fat, but actually burn it as fuel." This may help explain why some studies connect lower-protein diets with less body fat, better blood sugar control and a healthier metabolism. Eating less protein may also affect signals that tell cells when to grow, repair damage or recycle old cell parts. These jobs may play a role in aging.

However, protein restriction is not the same as protein deficiency. The goal is not to deprive the body of an essential nutrient. Instead, the research raises the possibility that avoiding unnecessary excess could benefit some people who already consume enough... Before reaching for another high-protein product, a better question may be: How much protein does my body actually need?

Does Eating Less Protein Produce Healthier Aging and Metabolism?

Comments Filter:
  • Protein intake increases thermogenesis. This FGF21 is probably being released when protein is low because more body heat is needed when digestion and absorption aren't producing it, but we know protein-rich diets result in more total thermogenesis.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Yes. Some masochistic "anything that helps has to hurt" pathology is definitely going on in food "sciences". They really need to fix their act and start producing reliable results. Of course that also means no "flashy" and "revolutionary" results, but that is how Science you can depend on works.

  • "May".

    Six times in the summary it says that eating protein "may" do this, or that, or may not do this or that.

    They leave out: "or may not."

    • That's how scientists talk. You don't see news stories about well understood research because that's boring and it's not headline Worthy. You see news stories about early stage research that has some findings. Those kind of things get a lot of attention from your eyeballs and a lot of clicks and engagement which is what you want if you're running a website that depends on advertising which is most websites.

      The issue here is that you haven't been taught these things. All the little tricks that go into ma
    • "This new drug we came up with may cure everything... don't take it is you're allergic to it (like 99.99999999999999999% of humans are, side effects can include drastic weight loss similar to bulimia, random sudden cancerous tumors, serious explosive diarrhea, sudden disappearance of your pets, spontaneous human combustion... and a few dozen thing we don't have words for... talk to your doctor who gets massive payouts about our new drug!"

      Bet that tainted lettuce sounds really good now!

    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      nutrition is a staggeringly difficult subject, the very basics are simple and there is a (reasonably) ample margin for what works or is needed to sustain life, we have millions of years experience there, but optimizing beyond that is far too complex for our current ability to tackle with any rigor due to the sheer amount of variables in everything involved: in the diet (composition, quality, processing), in the subject (genetics, conditon, behavior) and in the environment. something that works in isolation

  • Meta-Analysis (Score:4, Interesting)

    by crunchy_one ( 1047426 ) on Sunday August 02, 2026 @01:27PM (#66269094)
    Meta-analysis of "more than 350 studies" can lead to misleading results. Or, with a bit of tweaking, just about any results you wish to find.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      That's kind of the point. This is a headline grabbing piece of bullshit for you to engage with as content. It is not the final word or even a serious word on the topic. It is meant to be a useful piece of information for somebody who might do more research on the topic that is all.

      One of the major problems we have is that we don't have good science communication because everything depends on eyeballs and clicks so that you can get attention and put advertisements in front of people. So a study like this
      • It is meant to be a useful piece of information for somebody who might do more research on the topic that is all.

        I'm not convinced at all at human nutrition and yeast nutrition are actually the same subject that would be studied together by the same people. This may just be publishing slop.

    • What?! THey included studies on mice, worms, bugs, and yeast, so it's gotta be pretty complete and sciencerific!

      My favorite part was the circular, "For people who already get enough, eating more... might offer little benefit."

      They accidentally said those people are eating at least a little bit less than enough, which would imply the recommended amounts should be increased. Of course, from the context I would infer that they actually meant, "For people who get enough, they got enough!" So if the recommendati

      • If you don't get enough protein, you will get sick. Your body cannot synthesize essential proteins.

        The trick is knowing how much is enough.
        • by Rei ( 128717 )

          The issue is that this is only relevant to sustenance farmers, people with certain diseases, and alcoholics.

          It's almost impossible to end up with an essential amino acid deficiency eating any "normal" modern diet. Even a vegan eating junk food is going to get sufficient quantities (they're going to suck at bodybuilding, but they're not going to get deficiency symptoms). There's too many staples that go into modern food. Nobody eats "only corn", "only wheat", "only potatoes", "only soy", or whatnot; it's

  • They have now flip-flopped so often on everything that beyond a few very basic facts (essentially, too much sodium and too much energy intake is bad) nothing they find can be trusted. They really need to fix their act and find reliable basic insights. Research like this one here that comes with a flashy title and a mountain of caveats is not helpful at all.

    • They have now flip-flopped so often on everything that beyond a few very basic facts (essentially, too much sodium and too much energy intake is bad) nothing they find can be trusted. They really need to fix their act and find reliable basic insights. Research like this one here that comes with a flashy title and a mountain of caveats is not helpful at all.

      Agreed. Scientists have a decent record at treating late stage disease, but a PISS POOR record at prevention and longevity. Now, I don't blame the scientists. Data is data. It's just ABC news is turning this into a story prematurely. I have a similar struggle in that I have spent my adult life trying to be in good health and I've seen over 25 different doctors and nearly all are useless.

      They're basically simple computers. If you can get a perfect diagnosis code, then they can robotically administer

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        Do be careful with that. Do remember that inflammation isn't inherently bad. Inflammation is the activity of the innate immune system, doing things like fighting/preventing disease and cancer surveillance/attack. Just shutting down inflammatory reactions (for example, long-term taking prednisone or an equivalent steroid treatment) can certainly make you feel great, but can significantly shorten your expected lifespan.

        Don't get me wrong, if you have a chronic inflammatory disease, it absolutely needs trea

    • by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Sunday August 02, 2026 @03:42PM (#66269236)

      You're confusing mainstream nutrition advice with fad diets. The Mediterranean diet [wikipedia.org] was proposed in 1975, and by the 1980s it was already widely embraced by mainstream nutritionists as the recommended way to eat. In the 40 years since then, that has never changed. The evidence for it has only gotten stronger with time.

      Meanwhile, countless fad diets have come along, each based on some fringe theory and unsupported by solid evidence. And every time that happens, the mainstream nutritionists say, "Please ignore them. Eat a Mediterranean diet." And people like you say, "What's wrong with these scientists? Why do they keep recommending new diets that are different from the old ones?"

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      They really haven't. Nutrition science has been a process of refinement as we've learned more over time. E.g.:

      "Fat is bad"
      "Saturated fat is bad, non is good"
      "Saturated fat is bad, monounsaturated is good, polyunsaturated is bad. Oh, and trans fat is really bad."
      "Well, among the polys, omega 3s are good, others are bad"
      Many refinements later: "Concerning this specific fat molecule, the health impacts are X, except there's evidence that people with Y genetics have Z impact..."

      The earlier statements weren't

  • Another win for Betteridge's law of headlines.

    If the question were answered, the headline wouldn't have been in the form of a question.

    • That "law" supposes the question is answered, and furthermore supposes what that answer is, and all regardless of the initial question.

      Maybe that's why nobody respects that "law".

  • "A major scientific review is challenging the idea that more protein is always better,
    And who exactly came to that idea?
    And more important: who is so stupid to believe that?

  • "There's an increase in a hormone called FGF21 that promotes energy expenditure [when protein intake is reduced]," Lamming said. "It essentially increases thermogenesis in your adipose tissue, so you don't just store fat, but actually burn it as fuel."

    Generally,  after eating,  humans burn  sugar for 12 hours, then fat for 6 hours  and finally  screwed-up polypeptides ... perhaps new protein consumption interrupts  self-cleaning.
    • So where do the calories go?

      All these metabolic weight studies crash down when somebody does a study designed to test falsification.

      • Your skepticism is well-founded. Before going on a strict diet I read-up. The popular science that gets out I found very confusing and often contradictory. My comment on timing comes from a well-referenced source and comes close to my own experience. Those folks practicing temporary fasts to hit the 18-hr limit are not crazys. Weight loss ... eat less I guess you probably lose weight .. I lost 55 pounds by eating every-other day while snacking one protein bar.
    • Cool hypothesis, it has explanatory power. You might have figured it out.
  • This is the true part:

    For adults who already get enough, eating more protein may offer little benefit,

    Your body NEEDS protein. Once it has enough, any extra is evacuated through urine. The trick is figuring out how much you need.

    • Err this isn't practically true.

      Yes, you can excrete protein in urine, but it's usually not in healthy people. And it's not how you want to get rid of excessive protein.

      More often it's turned to body fat, it's very easy for your body to covert protein to fat.

      Try adding six scoops of protein powder to your diet every day. Guarantee you'll put on heaps of body fat. You won't be peeing it out, unless there's something terribly wrong with you.

  • The westernized diet contains too much meat. I've noticed that the fats from pork and red meats, the flavour westernized cultures crave, is detrimental to health: From clogged arteries, cholesterol to oily skin to triggering our own fat storage process.

    Every diet fad declares some food group to be the cause of ill health: While 3/4 of diets contradict basic nutritional facts, it's difficult to contradict the rest when the westernized diet concentrates on sugar, milk, wheat and red meat. Our bodies are

The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem. -- Peer

Working...