Protein and bone mass in older women

[JaneV2.0]

From http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Higher-protein-better-for-elderly-bone-mass

Results of a year-long study showed that women consuming less than 66 grams a day of protein had measurably lower bone density than those consuming 87 grams or more--putting lie to the old myth that protein is bad for your bones, as well as the one that says we all get more protein than our bodies need no matter what we eat.

ETA: Here's a companion article on animal protein and bone growth:
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Animal-protein-protects-bones

[pinkytoe]

Interesting. The confusing thing to me is you can always find research to support your diet choices whether paleo or vegan.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Stuff yourself with steaks until you puke them out - it's for your bones :).

(which is my way of saying I don't find it easy or natural to reach super high percentages of the diet from protein and I'm omnivorous, and yea pinkytoe really)

[JaneV2.0]

As you get older and your digestion becomes less efficient, it makes sense to me that you need to make sure your diet is especially nourishing. If I had a tendency toward osteoporosis, I'd eat more (animal) protein, bone-supporting mineral broth, and take up weight training. What I wouldn't do is take any of the current drugs that are supposed to build bone, given their inadequacy and side effects (including untimely death).

It's true there's all kind of conflicting information abroad. I consider the source, read a variety of materials, and consult my own experience and wisdom to arrive at conclusions that work for me.

[catherine]

Interesting. The confusing thing to me is you can always find research to support your diet choices whether paleo or vegan.

Exactly. Jane, I have utmost respect for you, but those articles are two articles that are far from definitive on the subject. There are even conflicting studies in the "More on this topic" box underneath your article.

Here's another study that conflicts with yours: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/04/20/Vegan-non-vegetarian-bone-density-same/UPI-22281240231864/

Until you can show me large populations of women in vegetarian cultures like Southern Indians or Jehovah Witnesses that have high incidence of kyphosis and hip fractures compared with meat-eating cultures, the jury is still out in my mind.

I have osteopenia in a couple of places--have had it since my meat-eating days (I've always been "small-boned"), and over the past several years my bone density has remained stable, in spite of eating less meat.

[JaneV2.0]

I'm hopeful more studies will be done on this, because I think the results will be borne out.

Protein is protective of bone, immune health, and healing in general--critically important in old people. Without adequate protein (which, as you suggest, may be variable among individuals), cell turnover and rebuilding may slow. As your energy needs decline, it's even more important to choose nutrient-dense foods that support health.

I doubt any group outside body builders in this culture eats anything resembling a high-protein diet--and they aren't exactly frail.

[catherine]

I guess my "bone" (excuse the pun) with this is really how protein, animal based protein, calcium and acidity actually play into the question. For sure it is not crystal clear. I agree that protein is important! It's funny but when I stopped the animal protein, nuts and beans became delicious to me. I'm quite certain I'm getting enough protein.

But there certainly are conflicting studies about how dietary factors combine that play into bone health.

Here's another interesting study on diet and osteoporosis which quotes Lancet and Mayo Clinic:

"The second thing to know about protein is that plant protein is equally nutritious as animal protein, and in many ways, it is far superior to animal protein. Though it is true that foods such as eggs and human milk have a high "biological value" in terms of amino acid composition, this does not in any way imply that they are good foods for adult human consumption. Plant foods contain a broad range of essential amino acids. An editorial in the medical journal Lancet reports, "Formerly, vegetable proteins were classified as second class, and regarded as inferior to first-class proteins of animal origin, but this distinction has now been generally discarded."[2]

https://www.msu.edu/~corcora5/food/vegan/calcium+protein.html

The writer of this article does seem to have a vested interest in the superiority of plant-based protein, but even so, the Lancet and the Mayo Clinic are fairly reputable sources. I tried to get the original Lancet article, but I would have had to pay.

[JaneV2.0]

Yes, it appears she's a vegetarian activist, and this is an editorial. One reason it's so hard to tease out the truth about nutrition and health is that there are political agendas woven into the mix--veganism and PETA, grain producers and government subsidies being particularly powerful forces. They would say it's ranchers and dairy farmers who are buying influence.

It's interesting to me that Isac uses Robert Heaney as a resource when he specifically refutes one of her points here:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/73/1/5.full.pdf ...Pointing out that subjects with the highest protein intake demonstrated higher bone density.

Neanderthals--obligate meat eaters for much of the year--had incredibly strong, dense bones.

One day, no doubt, we'll each be issued a personalized print out showing the diet optimal for our particular genetic makeup. In the meantime, we'll just have to wing it--with a little help from the Internet.