Newsletter Subject

Sunday With Sisson | Mark's Daily Apple

From

marksdailyapple.com

Email Address

mark@marksdailyapple.com

Sent On

Sun, Mar 12, 2023 01:03 PM

Email Preheader Text

Does eating more protein actually increase your risk of sarcopenia?͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏

Does eating more protein actually increase your risk of sarcopenia?͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ ͏ ‌ [BLOG |]( [PRIMAL KITCHEN |]( [PRIMAL BLUEPRINT]( [Mark Sisson with Coffee Cup](   Some of you have asked me about the [sarcopenia study]( making the rounds. It comes to a startling conclusion: that the more protein you eat, the greater your risk of sarcopenia, or muscle wasting. First of all, if you don't want to read any more, rest assured that this is absolute nonsense. The conclusion isn't justified by the study in question and the conclusion is also contradicted by actual controlled trials looking at this exact question. What was the study? Out of 3,302 older adults (twins) living in rest homes, they found the ones who had sarcopenia—129 people—and looked at their protein intakes. 45 of the sarcopenia people had high protein intakes. 19 of the sarcopenia people had low protein intakes. By "looked at their protein intakes," they consulted food frequency questionnaires they'd filled out across the last few decades. By the way, the time points of these measurements are very unclear. The twin data collection is described [here](. Twins were enrolled in 1992-2004. Follow-up data was collected in 2004-07, then 2007-12, then 2012-18. But we don't know when in this time range the FFQs or the dexa scans (to determine sarcopenia) were administered to the people in this study. There is also significant missing data (supp table 5 in the main paper here says 21% missing protein data). Some twins in the database also have multiple FFQs, but we don't know how any of these were handled. So right there, it's all very unreliable. Second, this was an observational study that cannot establish cause and effect. It could even be reverse causality—the people with sarcopenia were more likely to eat high protein because they were trying to overcome the sarcopenia. Maybe their doctors were even prescribing high-protein diets. We simply don't know. Third, the bias of the authors is evident in the discussion section, where they target "animal protein" and focus on how "red meat" must also "be considered" in the context of "the global climate crisis." This is not just about the facts of the study. It's about "red meat as a scourge, a blight on us all." Fourth, we have controlled trials that look at this question and answer it. If you have sarcopenia, eating more protein can overcome this. Especially if you lift weights while eating more protein. Let's look at a few: - In [older cancer patients]( adding whey protein isolate (scary animal protein) improves body composition, increases muscle mass and strength, and improves resistance to chemotherapy toxicity. - In [older women]( resistance training with whey protein isolate increases strength, muscle size, and functional capacity. - In [older adults with sarcopenia]( adding protein via whey improves muscle retention and reduces the progression of muscle wasting. - In [another group of adults with sarcopenia]( adding protein via leucine-enhanced whey (so a higher protein protein supplement) improved lower body muscle mass and functional capacity. The simple fact is that protein protects against sarcopenia and can actually counteract it once established. This study is garbage. Disregard it. What do you think about this? Have you ever known someone to have their sarcopenia worsen from eating more protein? Let me know in the comment section of [New and Noteworthy](.     [Facebook]( [Instagram]( [Custom]( [Custom]( [Pinterest]( #listentothesisson No longer want to receive these emails? [Unsubscribe](. Mark's Daily Apple 1101 Maulhardt Ave. Oxnard, CA 93033

Marketing emails from marksdailyapple.com

View More
Sent On

25/06/2023

Sent On

22/06/2023

Sent On

20/06/2023

Sent On

15/06/2023

Sent On

12/06/2023

Sent On

11/06/2023

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2024 SimilarMail.