Sunday, April 11, 2021

Want to make coffee less acidic? Add cream to it

The table below is from a 2008 article by Ehlen and colleagues (), showing the amount of erosion caused by various types of beverages, when teeth were exposed to them for 25 h in vitro. Erosion depth is measured in microns. The third row shows the chance probabilities (i.e., P values) associated with the differences in erosion of enamel and root.


As you can see, even diet drinks may cause tooth erosion. That is not to say that if you drink a diet soda occasionally you will destroy your teeth, but regular drinking may be a problem. I discussed this study in a previous post (). After that post was published here some folks asked me about coffee, so I decided to do some research.

Unfortunately coffee by itself can also cause some erosion, primarily because of its acidity. Generally speaking, you want a liquid substance that you are interested in drinking to have a pH as close to 7 as possible, as this pH is neutral (). Tap and mineral water have a pH that is very close to 7. Black coffee seems to have a pH of about 4.8.

Also problematic are drinks containing fermentable carbohydrates, such as sucrose, fructose, glucose, and lactose. These are fermented by acid-producing bacteria. Interestingly, when fermentable carbohydrates are consumed as part of foods that require chewing, such as fruits, acidity is either neutralized or significantly reduced by large amounts of saliva being secreted as a result of the chewing process.

So what to do about coffee?

One possible solution is to add heavy cream to it. A small amount, such as a teaspoon, appears to bring the pH in a cup of coffee to a little over 6. Another advantage of heavy cream is that it has no fermentable carbohydrates; it has no carbohydrates, period. You will have to get over the habit of drinking sweet beverages, including sweet coffee, if you were unfortunate enough to develop that habit (like so many people living in cities today).

It is not easy to find reliable pH values for various foods. I guess dentistry researchers are more interested in ways of repairing damage already done, and there doesn't seem to be much funding available for preventive dentistry research. Some pH testing results from a University of Cincinnati college biology page were available at the time of this writing; they appeared to be reasonably reliable the last time I checked them ().

Thursday, March 11, 2021

The steep obesity increase in the USA in the 1980s: In a sense, it reflects a major success story

Obesity rates have increased in the USA over the years, but the steep increase starting around the 1980s is unusual. Wang and Beydoun do a good job at discussing this puzzling phenomenon (), and a blog post by Discover Magazine provides a graph (see below) that clear illustrates it ().



What is the reason for this?

You may be tempted to point at increases in calorie intake and/or changes in macronutrient composition, but neither can explain this sharp increase in obesity in the 1980s. The differences in calorie intake and macronutrient composition are simply not large enough to fully account for such a steep increase. And the data is actually full of oddities.

For example, an article by Austin and colleagues (which ironically blames calorie consumption for the obesity epidemic) suggests that obese men in a NHANES (2005–2006) sample consumed only 2.2 percent more calories per day on average than normal weight men in a NHANES I (1971–1975) sample ().

So, what could be the main reason for the steep increase in obesity prevalence since the 1980s?

The first clue comes from an interesting observation. If you age-adjust obesity trends (by controlling for age), you end up with a much less steep increase. The steep increase in the graph above is based on raw, unadjusted numbers. There is a higher prevalence of obesity among older people (no surprise here). And older people are people that have survived longer than younger people. (Don’t be too quick to say “duh” just yet.)

This age-obesity connection also reflects an interesting difference between humans living “in the wild” and those who do not, which becomes more striking when we compare hunter-gatherers with modern urbanites. Adult hunter-gatherers, unlike modern urbanites, do not gain weight as they age; they actually lose weight (, ).

Modern urbanites gain a significant amount of weight, usually as body fat, particularly after age 40. The table below, from an article by Flegal and colleagues, illustrates this pattern quite clearly (). Obesity prevalence tends to be highest between ages 40-59 in men; and this has been happening since the 1960s, with the exception of the most recent period listed (1999-2000).



In the 1999-2000 period obesity prevalence in men peaked in the 60-74 age range. Why? With progress in medicine, it is likely that more obese people in that age range survived (however miserably) in the 1999-2000 period. Obesity prevalence overall tends to be highest between ages 40-74 in women, which is a wider range than in men. Keep in mind that women tend to also live longer than men.

Because age seems to be associated with obesity prevalence among urbanites, it would be reasonable to look for a factor that significantly increased survival rates as one of the main reasons for the steep increase in the prevalence of obesity in the USA in the 1980s. If significantly more people were surviving beyond age 40 in the 1980s and beyond, this would help explain the steep increase in obesity prevalence. People don’t die immediately after they become obese; obesity is a “disease” that first and foremost impairs quality of life for many years before it kills.

Now look at the graph below, from an article by Armstrong and colleagues (). It shows a significant decrease in mortality from infectious diseases in the USA since 1900, reaching a minimum point between 1950 and 1960 (possibly 1955), and remaining low afterwards. (The spike in 1918 is due to the influenza pandemic.) At the same time, mortality from non-infectious diseases remains relatively stable over the same period, leading to a similar decrease in overall mortality.



When proper treatment options are not available, infectious diseases kill disproportionately at ages 15 and under (). Someone who was 15 years old in the USA in 1955 would have been 40 years old in 1980, if he or she survived. Had this person been obese, this would have been just in time to contribute to the steep increase in obesity trends in the USA. This increase would be cumulative; if this person were to live to the age of 70, he or she would be contributing to the obesity statistics up to 2010.

Americans are clearly eating more, particularly highly palatable industrialized foods whose calorie-to-nutrient ratio is high. Americans are also less physically active. But one of the fundamental reasons for the sharp increase in obesity rates in the USA since the early 1980s is that Americans have been surviving beyond age 40 in significantly greater numbers.

This is due to the success of modern medicine and public health initiatives in dealing with infectious diseases.

PS: It is important to point out that this post is not about the increase in American obesity in general over the years, but rather about the sharp increase in obesity since the early 1980s. A few alternative hypotheses have been proposed in the comments section, of which one seems to have been favored by various readers: a significant increase in consumption of linoleic acid (not to be confused with linolenic acid) since the early 1980s.

Sunday, February 21, 2021

The China Study II: Wheat flour, rice, and cardiovascular disease

In my last post on the China Study II, I analyzed the effect of total and HDL cholesterol on mortality from all cardiovascular diseases. The main conclusion was that total and HDL cholesterol were protective. Total and HDL cholesterol usually increase with intake of animal foods, and particularly of animal fat. The lowest mortality from all cardiovascular diseases was in the highest total cholesterol range, 172.5 to 180; and the highest mortality in the lowest total cholesterol range, 120 to 127.5. The difference was quite large; the mortality in the lowest range was approximately 3.3 times higher than in the highest.

This post focuses on the intake of two main plant foods, namely wheat flour and rice intake, and their relationships with mortality from all cardiovascular diseases. After many exploratory multivariate analyses, wheat flour and rice emerged as the plant foods with the strongest associations with mortality from all cardiovascular diseases. Moreover, wheat flour and rice have a strong and inverse relationship with each other, which suggests a “consumption divide”. Since the data is from China in the late 1980s, it is likely that consumption of wheat flour is even higher now. As you’ll see, this picture is alarming.

The main model and results

All of the results reported here are from analyses conducted using WarpPLS. Below is the model with the main results of the analyses. (Click on it to enlarge. Use the "CRTL" and "+" keys to zoom in, and CRTL" and "-" to zoom out.) The arrows explore associations between variables, which are shown within ovals. The meaning of each variable is the following: SexM1F2 = sex, with 1 assigned to males and 2 to females; MVASC = mortality from all cardiovascular diseases (ages 35-69); TKCAL = total calorie intake per day; WHTFLOUR = wheat flour intake (g/day); and RICE = and rice intake (g/day).


The variables to the left of MVASC are the main predictors of interest in the model. The one to the right is a control variable – SexM1F2. The path coefficients (indicated as beta coefficients) reflect the strength of the relationships. A negative beta means that the relationship is negative; i.e., an increase in a variable is associated with a decrease in the variable that it points to. The P values indicate the statistical significance of the relationship; a P lower than 0.05 generally means a significant relationship (95 percent or higher likelihood that the relationship is “real”).

In summary, the model above seems to be telling us that:

- As rice intake increases, wheat flour intake decreases significantly (beta=-0.84; P<0.01). This relationship would be the same if the arrow pointed in the opposite direction. It suggests that there is a sharp divide between rice-consuming and wheat flour-consuming regions.

- As wheat flour intake increases, mortality from all cardiovascular diseases increases significantly (beta=0.32; P<0.01). This is after controlling for the effects of rice and total calorie intake. That is, wheat flour seems to have some inherent properties that make it bad for one’s health, even if one doesn’t consume that many calories.

- As rice intake increases, mortality from all cardiovascular diseases decreases significantly (beta=-0.24; P<0.01). This is after controlling for the effects of wheat flour and total calorie intake. That is, this effect is not entirely due to rice being consumed in place of wheat flour. Still, as you’ll see later in this post, this relationship is nonlinear. Excessive rice intake does not seem to be very good for one’s health either.

- Increases in wheat flour and rice intake are significantly associated with increases in total calorie intake (betas=0.25, 0.33; P<0.01). This may be due to wheat flour and rice intake: (a) being themselves, in terms of their own caloric content, main contributors to the total calorie intake; or (b) causing an increase in calorie intake from other sources. The former is more likely, given the effect below.

- The effect of total calorie intake on mortality from all cardiovascular diseases is insignificant when we control for the effects of rice and wheat flour intakes (beta=0.08; P=0.35). This suggests that neither wheat flour nor rice exerts an effect on mortality from all cardiovascular diseases by increasing total calorie intake from other food sources.

- Being female is significantly associated with a reduction in mortality from all cardiovascular diseases (beta=-0.24; P=0.01). This is to be expected. In other words, men are women with a few design flaws, so to speak. (This situation reverses itself a bit after menopause.)

Wheat flour displaces rice

The graph below shows the shape of the association between wheat flour intake (WHTFLOUR) and rice intake (RICE). The values are provided in standardized format; e.g., 0 is the mean (a.k.a. average), 1 is one standard deviation above the mean, and so on. The curve is the best-fitting U curve obtained by the software. It actually has the shape of an exponential decay curve, which can be seen as a section of a U curve. This suggests that wheat flour consumption has strongly displaced rice consumption in several regions in China, and also that wherever rice consumption is high wheat flour consumption tends to be low.


As wheat flour intake goes up, so does cardiovascular disease mortality

The graphs below show the shapes of the association between wheat flour intake (WHTFLOUR) and mortality from all cardiovascular diseases (MVASC). In the first graph, the values are provided in standardized format; e.g., 0 is the mean (or average), 1 is one standard deviation above the mean, and so on. In the second graph, the values are provided in unstandardized format and organized in terciles (each of three equal intervals).



The curve in the first graph is the best-fitting U curve obtained by the software. It is a quasi-linear relationship. The higher the consumption of wheat flour in a county, the higher seems to be the mortality from all cardiovascular diseases. The second graph suggests that mortality in the third tercile, which represents a consumption of wheat flour of 501 to 751 g/day (a lot!), is 69 percent higher than mortality in the first tercile (0 to 251 g/day).

Rice seems to be protective, as long as intake is not too high

The graphs below show the shapes of the association between rice intake (RICE) and mortality from all cardiovascular diseases (MVASC). In the first graph, the values are provided in standardized format. In the second graph, the values are provided in unstandardized format and organized in terciles.



Here the relationship is more complex. The lowest mortality is clearly in the second tercile (206 to 412 g/day). There is a lot of variation in the first tercile, as suggested by the first graph with the U curve. (Remember, as rice intake goes down, wheat flour intake tends to go up.) The U curve here looks similar to the exponential decay curve shown earlier in the post, for the relationship between rice and wheat flour intake.

In fact, the shape of the association between rice intake and mortality from all cardiovascular diseases looks a bit like an “echo” of the shape of the relationship between rice and wheat flour intake. Here is what is creepy. This echo looks somewhat like the first curve (between rice and wheat flour intake), but with wheat flour intake replaced by “death” (i.e., mortality from all cardiovascular diseases).

What does this all mean?

- Wheat flour displacing rice does not look like a good thing. Wheat flour intake seems to have strongly displaced rice intake in the counties where it is heavily consumed. Generally speaking, that does not seem to have been a good thing. It looks like this is generally associated with increased mortality from all cardiovascular diseases.

- High glycemic index food consumption does not seem to be the problem here. Wheat flour and rice have very similar glycemic indices (but generally not glycemic loads; see below). Both lead to blood glucose and insulin spikes. Yet, rice consumption seems protective when it is not excessive. This is true in part (but not entirely) because it largely displaces wheat flour. Moreover, neither rice nor wheat flour consumption seems to be significantly associated with cardiovascular disease via an increase in total calorie consumption. This is a bit of a blow to the theory that high glycemic carbohydrates necessarily cause obesity, diabetes, and eventually cardiovascular disease.

- The problem with wheat flour is … hard to pinpoint, based on the results summarized here. Maybe it is the fact that it is an ultra-refined carbohydrate-rich food; less refined forms of wheat could be healthier. In fact, the glycemic loads of less refined carbohydrate-rich foods tend to be much lower than those of more refined ones. (Also, boiled brown rice has a glycemic load that is about three times lower than that of whole wheat bread; whereas the glycemic indices are about the same.) Maybe the problem is wheat flour's  gluten content. Maybe it is a combination of various factors, including these.

Reference

Kock, N. (2010). WarpPLS 1.0 User Manual. Laredo, Texas: ScriptWarp Systems.

Acknowledgment and notes

- Many thanks are due to Dr. Campbell and his collaborators for collecting and compiling the data used in this analysis. The data is from this site, created by those researchers to disseminate their work in connection with a study often referred to as the “China Study II”. It has already been analyzed by other bloggers. Notable analyses have been conducted by Ricardo at Canibais e Reis, Stan at Heretic, and Denise at Raw Food SOS.

- The path coefficients (indicated as beta coefficients) reflect the strength of the relationships; they are a bit like standard univariate (or Pearson) correlation coefficients, except that they take into consideration multivariate relationships (they control for competing effects on each variable). Whenever nonlinear relationships were modeled, the path coefficients were automatically corrected by the software to account for nonlinearity.

- The software used here identifies non-cyclical and mono-cyclical relationships such as logarithmic, exponential, and hyperbolic decay relationships. Once a relationship is identified, data values are corrected and coefficients calculated. This is not the same as log-transforming data prior to analysis, which is widely used but only works if the underlying relationship is logarithmic. Otherwise, log-transforming data may distort the relationship even more than assuming that it is linear, which is what is done by most statistical software tools.

- The R-squared values reflect the percentage of explained variance for certain variables; the higher they are, the better the model fit with the data. In complex and multi-factorial phenomena such as health-related phenomena, many would consider an R-squared of 0.20 as acceptable. Still, such an R-squared would mean that 80 percent of the variance for a particularly variable is unexplained by the data.

- The P values have been calculated using a nonparametric technique, a form of resampling called jackknifing, which does not require the assumption that the data is normally distributed to be met. This and other related techniques also tend to yield more reliable results for small samples, and samples with outliers (as long as the outliers are “good” data, and are not the result of measurement error).

- Only two data points per county were used (for males and females). This increased the sample size of the dataset without artificially reducing variance, which is desirable since the dataset is relatively small. This also allowed for the test of commonsense assumptions (e.g., the protective effects of being female), which is always a good idea in a complex analysis because violation of commonsense assumptions may suggest data collection or analysis error. On the other hand, it required the inclusion of a sex variable as a control variable in the analysis, which is no big deal.

- Since all the data was collected around the same time (late 1980s), this analysis assumes a somewhat static pattern of consumption of rice and wheat flour. In other words, let us assume that variations in consumption of a particular food do lead to variations in mortality. Still, that effect will typically take years to manifest itself. This is a major limitation of this dataset and any related analyses.

- Mortality from schistosomiasis infection (MSCHIST) does not confound the results presented here. Only counties where no deaths from schistosomiasis infection were reported have been included in this analysis. Mortality from all cardiovascular diseases (MVASC) was measured using the variable M059 ALLVASCc (ages 35-69). See this post for other notes that apply here as well.

Sunday, January 17, 2021

Has COVID led to an increase in all-cause mortality? A look at US data from 2015 to 2020


Has COVID led to an increase in all-cause mortality? The figure below shows mortality data in the US for the 2015-2020 period. At the top chart are the absolute numbers of deaths per 1000 people. At the bottom are the annual change percentages, how much the absolute numbers have been changing from the previous years.



As you can see at the top chart the absolute numbers of deaths per 1000 people have been going up steadily, since 2015, at a rate of around 10 percent per year. This is due primarily to population ageing, which has been increasing in a very similar fashion. Since life expectancy has been generally stable in the US for the 2015-2020 period (), an increase in the number of deaths is to be expected due to population ageing.

What I mean by population ageing is an increase in the average age of the population due to an increase in the proportion of older individuals (e.g., aged 65 or more) in the population. In any population where there are no immortals, this population ageing phenomenon is normally expected to cause a higher number of deaths per 1000 people.

Now look at the bottom chart in the figure. It shows no increase in the rate of change from 2019 to 2020. This is not what you would expect if COVID had led to an increase in all-cause mortality in 2020. In fact, based on media reports, one would expect to see a visible spike in the rate of change for 2020. If these numbers are correct, we have to conclude that COVID has NOT led to an increase in all-cause mortality.

Thursday, December 24, 2020

Do COVID cases spike in cold weather? A look at effective reproduction rates from October to December 2020


Do COVID cases spike in cold weather? In a previous post () I argued that COVID cases may in fact go down in cold weather, due to compensatory adaptation (). The figure below shows the effective COVID reproduction numbers () in various states in the USA from the middle of October to the middle of December 2020. As you can see, as the weather patterns have become colder from October to December, COVID transmission rates have been generally improving.



While the risk of COVID transmission may go up with cold weather, which tends to lead to an increase in indoor activities and potentially higher transmission, people react in a compensatory way. This feedback loop may lead to results that are unexpected and surprising, as we can see here.

Friday, November 13, 2020

The China Study again: A multivariate analysis suggesting that schistosomiasis rules!

In the comments section of Denise Minger’s post on July 16, 2010, which discusses some of the data from the China Study (as a follow up to a previous post on the same topic), Denise herself posted the data she used in her analysis. This data is from the China Study. So I decided to take a look at that data and do a couple of multivariate analyzes with it using WarpPLS (warppls.com).

First I built a model that explores relationships with the goal of testing the assumption that the consumption of animal protein causes colorectal cancer, via an intermediate effect on total cholesterol. I built the model with various hypothesized associations to explore several relationships simultaneously, including some commonsense ones. Including commonsense relationships is usually a good idea in exploratory multivariate analyses.

The model is shown on the graph below, with the results. (Click on it to enlarge. Use the "CRTL" and "+" keys to zoom in, and CRTL" and "-" to zoom out.) The arrows explore causative associations between variables. The variables are shown within ovals. The meaning of each variable is the following: aprotein = animal protein consumption; pprotein = plant protein consumption; cholest = total cholesterol; crcancer = colorectal cancer.


The path coefficients (indicated as beta coefficients) reflect the strength of the relationships; they are a bit like standard univariate (or Pearson) correlation coefficients, except that they take into consideration multivariate relationships (they control for competing effects on each variable). A negative beta means that the relationship is negative; i.e., an increase in a variable is associated with a decrease in the variable that it points to.

The P values indicate the statistical significance of the relationship; a P lower than 0.05 means a significant relationship (95 percent or higher likelihood that the relationship is real). The R-squared values reflect the percentage of explained variance for certain variables; the higher they are, the better the model fit with the data. Ignore the “(R)1i” below the variable names; it simply means that each of the variables is measured through a single indicator (or a single measure; that is, the variables are not latent variables).

I should note that the P values have been calculated using a nonparametric technique, a form of resampling called jackknifing, which does not require the assumption that the data is normally distributed to be met. This is good, because I checked the data, and it does not look like it is normally distributed. So what does the model above tell us? It tells us that:

- As animal protein consumption increases, colorectal cancer decreases, but not in a statistically significant way (beta=-0.13; P=0.11).

- As animal protein consumption increases, plant protein consumption decreases significantly (beta=-0.19; P<0.01). This is to be expected.

- As plant protein consumption increases, colorectal cancer increases significantly (beta=0.30; P=0.03). This is statistically significant because the P is lower than 0.05.

- As animal protein consumption increases, total cholesterol increases significantly (beta=0.20; P<0.01). No surprise here. And, by the way, the total cholesterol levels in this study are quite low; an overall increase in them would probably be healthy.

- As plant protein consumption increases, total cholesterol decreases significantly (beta=-0.23; P=0.02). No surprise here either, because plant protein consumption is negatively associated with animal protein consumption; and the latter tends to increase total cholesterol.

- As total cholesterol increases, colorectal cancer increases significantly (beta=0.45; P<0.01). Big surprise here!

Why the big surprise with the apparently strong relationship between total cholesterol and colorectal cancer? The reason is that it does not make sense, because animal protein consumption seems to increase total cholesterol (which we know it usually does), and yet animal protein consumption seems to decrease colorectal cancer.

When something like this happens in a multivariate analysis, it usually is due to the model not incorporating a variable that has important relationships with the other variables. In other words, the model is incomplete, hence the nonsensical results. As I said before in a previous post, relationships among variables that are implied by coefficients of association must also make sense.

Now, Denise pointed out that the missing variable here possibly is schistosomiasis infection. The dataset that she provided included that variable, even though there were some missing values (about 28 percent of the data for that variable was missing), so I added it to the model in a way that seems to make sense. The new model is shown on the graph below. In the model, schisto = schistosomiasis infection.


So what does this new, and more complete, model tell us? It tells us some of the things that the previous model told us, but a few new things, which make a lot more sense. Note that this model fits the data much better than the previous one, particularly regarding the overall effect on colorectal cancer, which is indicated by the high R-squared value for that variable (R-squared=0.73). Most notably, this new model tells us that:

- As schistosomiasis infection increases, colorectal cancer increases significantly (beta=0.83; P<0.01). This is a MUCH STRONGER relationship than the previous one between total cholesterol and colorectal cancer; even though some data on schistosomiasis infection for a few counties is missing (the relationship might have been even stronger with a complete dataset). And this strong relationship makes sense, because schistosomiasis infection is indeed associated with increased cancer rates. More information on schistosomiasis infections can be found here.

- Schistosomiasis infection has no significant relationship with these variables: animal protein consumption, plant protein consumption, or total cholesterol. This makes sense, as the infection is caused by a worm that is not normally present in plant or animal food, and the infection itself is not specifically associated with abnormalities that would lead one to expect major increases in total cholesterol.

- Animal protein consumption has no significant relationship with colorectal cancer. The beta here is very low, and negative (beta=-0.03).

- Plant protein consumption has no significant relationship with colorectal cancer. The beta for this association is positive and nontrivial (beta=0.15), but the P value is too high (P=0.20) for us to discard chance within the context of this dataset. A more targeted dataset, with data on specific plant foods (e.g., wheat-based foods), could yield different results – maybe more significant associations, maybe less significant.

Below is the plot showing the relationship between schistosomiasis infection and colorectal cancer. The values are standardized, which means that the zero on the horizontal axis is the mean of the schistosomiasis infection numbers in the dataset. The shape of the plot is the same as the one with the unstandardized data. As you can see, the data points are very close to a line, which suggests a very strong linear association.


So, in summary, this multivariate analysis vindicates pretty much everything that Denise said in her July 16, 2010 post. It even supports Denise’s warning about jumping to conclusions too early regarding the possible relationship between wheat consumption and colorectal cancer (previously highlighted by a univariate analysis). Not that those conclusions are wrong; they may well be correct.

This multivariate analysis also supports Dr. Campbell’s assertion about the quality of the China Study data. The data that I analyzed was already grouped by county, so the sample size (65 cases) was not so high as to cast doubt on P values. (Having said that, small samples create problems of their own, such as low statistical power and an increase in the likelihood of error-induced bias.) The results summarized in this post also make sense in light of past empirical research.

It is very good data; data that needs to be properly analyzed!

Sunday, October 11, 2020

Does protein leach calcium from the bones? Yes, but only if it is plant protein

The idea that protein leaches calcium from the bones has been around for a while. It is related to the notion that protein, especially from animal foods, increases blood acidity. The body then uses its main reservoir of calcium, the bones, to reduce blood acidity. This post generally supports the opposite view, and adds a twist to it, related to plant protein consumption.

The “eat-meat-lose-bone” idea has apparently become popular due to the position taken by Loren Cordain on the topic. Dr. Cordain has also made several important and invaluable contributions to our understanding of the diets of our Paleolithic ancestors. He has argued in his book, The Paleo Diet, and elsewhere that to counter the acid load of protein one should eat fruits and vegetables. The latter are believed to have an alkaline load.

If the idea that protein leaches calcium from the bones is correct, one would expect to see a negative association between protein consumption and bone mineral density (BMD). This negative association should be particularly strong in people aged 50 and older, who are more vulnerable to BMD losses.

As it turns out, this idea appears to be correct only for plant protein. Animal protein seems to be associated with an increase in BMD, at least according to a widely cited study by Promislow et al. (2002). The study shows that there is a positive multivariate association between animal protein consumption and BMD; an association that becomes negative when plant protein consumption is considered.

The study focused on 572 women and 388 men aged 55–92 years living in Rancho Bernardo, California. Food frequency questionnaires were administered in the 1988–1992 period, and BMD was measured 4 years later. The bar chart below shows the approximate increases in BMD (in g/cm^2) for each 15 g/d increment in protein intake.


The authors reported increments in BMD for different increments of protein (15 and 5 g/d), so the results above are adjusted somewhat from the original values reported in the article. Keeping that in mind, the increment in BMD for men due to animal protein was not statistically significant (P=0.20). That is the smallest bar on the left.

Does protein leach calcium from the bones? Based on this study, the reasonable answers to this question are yes for plant protein, and no for animal protein. For animal protein, it seems to be quite the opposite.

Even more interesting, calcium intake did not seem to be much of a factor. BMD gains due to animal protein seemed to converge to similar values whether calcium intake was high, medium or low. The convergence occurred as animal protein intake increased, and the point of convergence was between 85-90 g/d of animal protein intake.

And high calcium intakes did not seem to protect those whose plant protein consumption was high.

The authors do not discuss specific foods, but one can guess the main plant protein that those folks likely consumed. It was likely gluten from wheat products.

Are the associations above due to: (a) the folks eating animal protein consuming more fruits and vegetables than the folks eating plant protein; or (b) something inherent to animal foods that stimulates an increase in the absorption of dietary calcium, even in small amounts?

This question cannot be answered based on this study; it should have controlled for fruit and vegetable consumption for that.

But if I were to bet, I would bet on (b).

Reference

Promislow, J.H.E., Goodman-Gruen, D., Slymen, D.J., & Barrett-Connor, E. (2002). Protein consumption and bone mineral density in the elderly. American Journal of Epidemiology, 155(7), 636–644.