Just a heap of links

If anyone reads this I’ll be shocked.


















































































































































































Click to access interracial.pdf



Click to access S0960-9822(16)30123-3.pdf

Click to access cq%20rape%20stats%2012-11%20final.pdf

Click to access TT_ARN05.pdf

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A junk food diet in early years slightly decreases IQ

This has been all over the news this week.

Are dietary patterns in childhood associated with IQ at 8 years of age? A population-based cohort study

Background Little is known about the effects of overall diet in childhood and intelligence later in life.

Methods The current study, based on the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, uses data on children’s diet reported by parents in food-frequency questionnaires at 3, 4, 7 and 8.5 years of age. Dietary patterns were identified using principal-components analysis and scores computed at each age. IQ was assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children at 8.5 years. Data on a number of confounders were collected, and complete data were available for 3966 children.

Results After adjustment, the ‘processed’ (high fat and sugar content) pattern of diet at 3 years of age was negatively associated with IQ assessed at 8.5 years of age—a 1 SD increase in dietary pattern score was associated with a 1.67 point decrease in IQ (95% CI −2.34 to −1.00; p<0.0001). The ‘health-conscious’ (salad, rice, pasta, fish, fruit) pattern at 8.5 years was positively associated with IQ: a 1 SD increase in pattern score led to a 1.20 point increase in IQ (95% CI 0.52 to 1.88; p=0.001).

Conclusion There is evidence that a poor diet associated with high fat, sugar and processed food content in early childhood may be associated with small reductions in IQ in later childhood, while a healthy diet, associated with high intakes of nutrient rich foods described at about the time of IQ assessment may be associated with small increases in IQ.

I suspect the issue isn’t the fat, or even the sugar, but low levels of nutrients like omega three oils, vitamins and minerals. This whole study has a slight ‘duh’ quality to it, although I was surprised it made as little difference to the final IQ as it did. I’m glad now that I got my kids to eat all that homemeade fish pie.

Leave a comment

Filed under diet, IQ

Asian gangs sexually abusing young white girls… is unsurprising.

It’s not exactly a surprise. I lived in East London in a Pakistani heavy area for several years (now in a semi-rural suburb, thank god), and was treated on several occasions to young Pakistani men in the 17  to 25 year category having blazing arguments with their very young (mid teens normally) white girlfriends.

What did anyone expect? They can’t pursue girls from their own community for sex, if they tried the consequences for the girl could easily be fatal and the girl’s family might well see their way to giving the young man the beating of a lifetime. Add to this the unfortunately common belief that non-Muslim girls are moral trash… you don’t need to be Einstein to see there’s going to be a problem. Mainly, it’s just young Asian men with a white girlfriend. The only real issue is the level of organisation involved;  group offences speak to a common cultural attitude that something is ‘okay’. That’s the worrying part. European sex offenders tend to be solo, as they grasp how out of line from the social norm they are, and find it hard to find friend of a similar mindset. The prevalence of multiple offenders really speaks masses as to the Pakistani/UK Muslim underlying attitudes to women and sex; 53 out of the 56 offenders in the last 13 years were Asian; 50 were Pakistani. (Northern and Midlands police grooming convictions).

What did surprise me was the screeches of outrage from assorted politicians and community leaders.  The Muslim communities of Europe have a well documented history of sex offences, not just against the indigenous population but against females from their own groups who are westernising, or who don’t have male relatives to protect them (the tournade rapes in France are a prime example). Such is the effect of a backwards culture. Anyone wanting to understand this in-depth should study the Hudood ordnance, and the treatment of rape victims in Pakistan, which is where the young men involved in this trace their cultural roots to. It’s a backward traditionalist culture that treats their own women as little more than property. Why expect them to treat our daughters any better?

Leave a comment

Filed under race, Society, Uncategorized

Humans evolved to be meat eaters… fighting vegetarian/vegan disinformation.

Still arguing with the vegan idiot, who is insisting humans evolved to be vegetarian.. So, I dug out a few  papers that directly contradict him

The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic

OBJECTIVE: Field studies of twentieth century hunter-gathers (HG) showed them to be generally free of the signs and symptoms of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Consequently, the characterization of HG diets may have important implications in designing therapeutic diets that reduce the risk for CVD in Westernized societies. Based upon limited ethnographic data (n=58 HG societies) and a single quantitative dietary study, it has been commonly inferred that gathered plant foods provided the dominant energy source in HG diets.

METHOD AND RESULTS: In this review we have analyzed the 13 known quantitative dietary studies of HG and demonstrate that animal food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source, while gathered plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is consistent with a more recent, comprehensive review of the entire ethnographic data (n=229 HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic hominid collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity levels of certain enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a long history of meat-based diets in our species. Because increasing meat consumption in Western diets is frequently associated with increased risk for CVD mortality, it is seemingly paradoxical that HG societies, who consume the majority of their energy from animal food, have been shown to be relatively free of the signs and symptoms of CVD.

CONCLUSION: The high reliance upon animal-based foods would not have necessarily elicited unfavorable blood lipid profiles because of the hypolipidemic effects of high dietary protein (19-35% energy) and the relatively low level of dietary carbohydrate (22-40% energy). Although fat intake (28-58% energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and PUFA and a lower omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, would have served to inhibit the development of CVD. Other dietary characteristics including high intakes of antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along with a low salt intake may have operated synergistically with lifestyle characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to further deter the development of CVD.

This paper actually addresses the common vegetarian belief that hunter gatherers eat a mainly plant based diet, discussing how this came about from a misunderstanding of someones earlier work.

Lee’s (1968) analysis was widely misinterpreted over the next 32 y to mean that gathered plant foods typically provided the major food energy (65%) in worldwide huntergatherer diets, while hunted animal foods made up the balance (35%; Beckerman, 2000; Dahlberg, 1981; Eaton & Konner, 1985; Milton, 2000; Nestle, 1999; Zihlman, 1981). As we have previously pointed out (Cordain et al, 2000a, b), this general perception is incorrect because fished animal foods must be summed with hunted animal foods in the analysis of the ethnographic data to more correctly evaluate dietary plant to animal subsistence ratios (ie the percentage of energy contributed by plants vs animal foods). Our analysis (Figure 1) of the Ethnographic Atlas data (Gray, 1999) showed that the dominant foods in the majority of huntergatherer diets were derived from animal food sources. Most (73%) of the world’s hunter-gatherers obtained >50% of their subsistence from hunted and fished animal foods, whereas only 14% of worldwide hunter-gatherers obtained >50% of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. For all 229 hunter-gatherer societies, the median subsistence dependence upon animal foods was 66 – 75%.

The subsistence dependence upon hunted and fished animal foods was 66 –75% (median value), whereas the median value for gathered plant foods was 26 – 35%

I’d like to comment, after doing a survival course it became remarkably obvious that anything involving bulk carbs was extremely uncommon, and that vegetable protein sources just don’t usually exist in a non agricultural setting.

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective.

Contrary to views that humans evolved largely as a herbivorous animal in a ‘garden of Eden’ type of environment, historical evidence indicates a very different reality, at least in the last four to five million years of evolutionary adaptation. It was in this time frame that the ancestral hominid hominid emerged from the receding forests to become bipedal, open grassland dwellers. This was likely accompanied by dietary changes and subsequent physiological and metabolic adaptations. The evolutionary pressure for some primates to undergo this habitat and subsequent diet change involving open grassland, foraging/scavenging, related directly to massive changes in global climatic conditions, primarily drier conditions followed by worldwide expansion of the biomass of temperate climate (C4) grasses at the expense of wetland forests, (2) accompanied by a worldwide faunal change, (3) including the spread of large grazing animals. Thus, the foods available to human ancestors in an open grassland environment were very different from those of the jungle/forest habitats that were home for many millions of years

These results alone would indicate that even very early hominids consumed a considerable proportion of meat in their diet.
Another line of investigation which is useful in ascertaining the dietary preferences and suitability of a species to certain food types is to study the structural features of the gastrointestinal tract. Both pure herbivores (folivores and frugivores) and pure carnivores (such as felids have physiological and metabolic adaptations suited to their diet. (14,15) Humans fit neither category, but are truly omnivores, falling between the largely frugivorous fruit-eating  make-up of such anthropoid  relatives as the chimpanzee and the adaptations of the true carnivores. Carnivores tend to have a well-developed acid stomach and long small intestine small intestine The human gut with its simple stomach, relatively elongated slender.  small intestine and reduced caecum and colon, does not fit any one group but lies between the frugivore  and faunivore groups, suggestive of suggestive of reliance on a high-quality diet in which meat is a predominant component.
The increased contribution of carbohydrate from grains to the human diet following the agricultural revolution has effectively diluted the protein content of the human diet. Whether current protein intakes are below the ideal is a question now being asked, especially in regard to effects on satiety and rates of obesity.

Digging through anthropology papers turned up that there are butchered animal bones in  Africa dating back 3.4 million years, and seeing as chimps hunt and eat meat, it’s not unreasonable to assume some level flesh consumption prior to the human/chimp split about seven million years ago. So much for eating meat being unnatural and something humans aren’t evolved to do.

This also does beg the question, how can something we spent millions of years evolving to do (eating meat) cause CVD and osteoporosis, as is claimed? Well, being familiar with the studies for protein and osteoporosis, I can tell you that most studies show better bone density with increased animal protein, not a loss, and that once refined bulk carbs are cut out of the diet, saturated animal fats lose their association with high blood pressure and bad blood lipids, which suggests that it’s the wacky blood sugar that’s the base cause of CVD in the west (which is probably why the most vulnerable to CVD are diabetics and insulin resistant metabolisms).

Anyone who has studied the bones of ancient humans can tell you they were as solid as rock (thicker than modern peoples; they had to be as hunters take some heavy duty impacts). The idea that a high animal protein causes weak bones not only defies the bulk of studies done, but also evolutionary logic.

Leave a comment

Filed under anti-vegetarianism, diet

Genes account for 50% of classroom performance.

News of the day; your genes have a strong effect on how you perform at school. Not exactly shocking.

Added Value Measures in Education Show Genetic as Well as Environmental Influence

Does achievement independent of ability or previous attainment provide a purer measure of the added value of school? In a study of 4000 pairs of 12-year-old twins in the UK, we measured achievement with year-long teacher assessments as well as tests. Raw achievement shows moderate heritability (about 50%) and modest shared environmental influences (25%). Unexpectedly, we show that for indices of the added value of school, genetic influences remain moderate (around 50%), and the shared (school) environment is less important (about 12%). The pervasiveness of genetic influence in how and how much children learn is compatible with an active view of learning in which children create their own educational experiences in part on the basis of their genetic propensities.

This is a massive study, involving  8,000 children  both MZ and DZ twins. An interesting snippet from it…

Previous twin studies on school performance have indicated moderate heritability around 40–60% [10], [11], [12], [13]. Studies specifically focusing on reading abilities show a similar pattern of results with moderate to high heritability and modest shared environmental influences [14], [15]. More recently, studies have also included mathematical abilities, which typically show high heritabilities around 60–70% [16], [17]. A striking finding is that genetic influences appear to have largely generalist effects across diverse cognitive and academic abilities [18], [19]. For example, the average genetic correlation (an index of the degree to which genetic influences on one trait also influence another trait) between diverse cognitive and academic domains was 0.70 in a recent review.

I’d like to say from personal observation.. the parents of the better performing kids at my own children’s school are almost uniformly from a higher than average SES group; the ‘nice’ parents, while the those struggling mainly seem to be the children of the underclass. My own little darlings are (I risk being snobbish) both a couple of years ahead of the norm, which matches very well with both my partner and I being in the tiny ‘top’ group at our school, and both being able to read at a pre school age. Really, it would be surprising if there wasn’t a genetic component to classroom performance, as IQ is substantially inherited, as are behavioural conditions like ADHD.

Leave a comment

Filed under IQ

The truth about dairy… what vegans don’t want you to read.

After a long  argument with the same fundamentalist vegan, I dug up a couple of  summaries for the entirety of the studies on bone density and dairy. There are about 100 plus studies, so I’m restraining myself and simply posting the papers that provide a statistical overview… This one has the clearest summary.

Dairy and Bone Health
About half of the volume of bone material is protein. Bone remodeling involves the synthesis of new protein matrix and requires an ongoing supply of fresh dietary protein if bone removed during resorption is to be replaced. Dietary protein has been shown in some studies to increase urinary calcium excretion; however this may be problematic only in those with low calcium intakes [30]. Most studies indicate that dietary calcium and protein interact constructively on bone so long as the intake of each is at least adequate [31–33]. Studies have reported a positive relationship between protein intake and BMD [34], reduced incidence of fracture [35–38], and reduced rate of bone loss [35,39]. Dietary protein stimulates insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) production, which is important in bone growth [31,32]. Elderly patients with hip fractures were shown to have low serum protein levels, with improvements in outcomes seen with protein supplementation [40,41]. A study by Dawson-Hughes and Harris in 342 healthy men and women aged 65 and older found that, in participants supplemented with calcium and vitamin D over three years, those with higher protein intakes had improved total body and femoral neck BMD compared to unsupplemented subjects [30]. The interaction of protein and calcium has been discussed in greater detail elsewhere [42], and the role of protein itself has been recently reviewed by Conigrave et al. [33

Heaney also reported that of 86 observational studies, 64 reported relationships in favor of increased calcium intakes, with reduced fracture risk, bone loss or improved bone mass. Additionally, of those studies specifically evaluating dairy sources of calcium, approximately 75% supported the conclusion that increased calcium from dairy foods is protective of the skeleton. After submission, but before publication, 13 additional studies were published, all 13 reported positive effects of calcium on bone health [13]. Since then, more than 100 additional studies have been published, with the proportions of positive and null studies remaining at about 75–80% and 20–25%, respectively.

And that, is basically it. 80% of studies find dairy strengthens bones. The raving vegans can screech all they like about calcium loss in urine, but it doesn’t seem to have any meaningful effect on bone density. And to prove this is not a fluke publication.

Dairy foods and bone health: examination of the evidence
It is unclear whether dairy foods promote bone health in all populations and whether all dairy foods are equally beneficial. The objective of this review was to determine whether scientific evidence supports the recommendation that dairy foods be consumed daily for improved bone health in the general US population. Studies were reviewed that examined the relation of dairy foods to bone health in all age, sex, and race groups. Outcomes were classified according to the strength of the evidence by using a priori guidelines and were categorized as favorable, unfavorable, or not statistically significant. Of 57 outcomes of the effects of dairy foods on bone health, 53% were not significant, 42% were favorable, and 5% were unfavorable. Of 21 stronger-evidence studies, 57% were not significant, 29% were favorable, and 14% were unfavorable. The overall ratio of favorable to unfavorable effects in the stronger studies was 2.0 (4.0 in <30-y-olds, 1.0 in 30–50-y-olds, and 1.0 in >50-y-olds). Males and ethnic minorities were severely underrepresented. Dairy foods varied widely in their content of nutrients known to affect calcium excretion and skeletal mass. Foods such as milk and yogurt are likely to be beneficial; others, such as cottage cheese, may adversely affect bone health. Of the few stronger-evidence studies of dairy foods and bone health, most had outcomes that were not significant. However, white women <30 y old are most likely to benefit. There are too few studies in males and minority ethnic groups to determine whether dairy foods promote bone health in most of the US population.

This one has a different data set, hence the different numbers. So the next time someone waves a ‘dairy causes osteoporosis’ study at you, ask them ‘where the masses of other studies are that show the opposite?‘. I’ve found that many vegans are effectively ‘fundamentalist’ in mindset, anything that doesn’t agree with them doesn’t exist. Which in this case is the majority of dairy/BMD studies.

Leave a comment

Filed under anti-vegetarianism, diet

The truth about bone density and animal protein- fighting vegan/vegetarian disinformation..

After a long argument with a vegan, I decided to track down all the studies on bone density and protein I could, to find out just what the evidence was for vegetarian claims that animal protein causes problems with bone mass. Out of all these studies, the last four agree with  the veggie point of view (in red), all the others show no effect or positive effects from animal protein. (blue).  There were three overviews, of which two were actual meta studies, which I placed at the end as they are pretty much definitive (and are slightly pro protein).  Pro animal  protein totals 17, neutral 2, anti 4. Which makes 19 v 4. Pro animal  protein wins, I guess. Although one was anvague  overview,  and one was of a pretty restrictive diet, which takes it to 18 v 3. Funny how it’s only the handful that show a loss that make it onto the veggie sites.

In  all things, a sense of proportion is crucial.

The Effects of Dietary Protein on Bone Mineral Mass in Young Adults May Be Modulated by Adolescent Calcium Intake1,2

The effect of dietary protein on bone mass measures at different life stages is controversial. We investigated the influence of protein intake on bone mass measures in young adults, considering the influence of calcium intake through adolescence. Subjects were 133 young adults (59 males, 74 females) who were participating in the Saskatchewan Pediatric Bone Mineral Accrual Study (1991–1997, 2003–2006). At adulthood, their mean age was 23 y. We assessed dietary intake via serial 24-h recalls carried out at least once yearly. Total body (TB) bone mineral content (BMC) and TB bone mineral density (BMD) were assessed annually using Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. We determined TB-BMC net gain from the age of peak height velocity (PHV) to early adulthood. We analyzed data from all subjects and subsets based on sex and calcium intake using multiple regression. TB-BMC significantly increased from age at PHV to early adulthood by 41% in males and 37% in females. Height, weight, physical activity, and sex were significant predictors of TB-BMC, TB-BMC net gain, and TB-BMD among all subjects. Protein intake predicted TB-BMC net gain in all subjects (ß = 0.11; P = 0.015). In females at peri-adolescence or early adulthood with adequate calcium intake (>1000 mg/d), protein intake positively predicted TB-BMC, TB-BMC net gain, and TB-BMD (P < 0.05). Our results indicate that when calcium intake is adequate, protein intake has a beneficial effect on the bone mass of young adult females. Protein, in the absence of sufficient calcium, does not confer as much benefit to bone.

Dietary protein intakes and bone growth

Peak bone mass is a significant determinant of fracture risk later in life. Nutritional intakes, particularly proteins, are able to modulate the genetic potential, with effects starting as early as in utero. There is a positive correlation between yearly lumbar and femoral bone mass gain, and protein intake. Dairy products consumption positively influences bone mineral density at the spine, hip and forearm in adolescents, leading thereby to a higher peak bone mass. Nutritional intakes, particularly proteins, are associated to bone growth, hence to bone strength and resistance to fracture later in life. The growth hormone IGF-I-target organ axis is likely to be implicated in this process. Variations in the protein intake within the “normal” range can have a significant effect on skeletal growth and thereby modulate the genetic potential in peak bone mass attainment.

Dietary Protein: An Essential Nutrient For Bone Health

Nutrition plays a major role in the development and maintenance of bone structures resistant to usual mechanical loadings. In addition to calcium in the presence of an adequate vitamin D supply, proteins represent a key nutrient for bone health, and thereby in the prevention of osteoporosis. In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health by inducing chronic metabolic acidosis which in turn would be responsible for increased calciuria and accelerated mineral dissolution. This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures. The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological “cascade” that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, many experimental and clinical published data concur to indicate that low protein intake negatively affects bone health. Thus, selective deficiency in dietary proteins causes marked deterioration in bone mass, micro architecture and strength, the hallmark of osteoporosis. In the elderly, low protein intakes are often observed in patients with hip fracture. In these patients intervention study after orthopedic management demonstrates that protein supplementation as given in the form of casein, attenuates post-fracture bone loss, increases muscles strength, reduces medical complications and hospital stay. In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures. As to the increased calciuria that can be observed in response to an augmentation in either animal or vegetal proteins it can be explained by a stimulation of the intestinal calcium absorption. Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation. Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures.

Elderly Women Need Dietary Protein to Maintain Bone Mass

Excess dietary protein is considered a risk factor for osteoporosis owing to the potential for renal acid load. Researchers who conducted a recent prospective study of older adults reported that animal protein had a protective role for bone, especially in elderly women, whereas plant protein was negatively associated with bone mineral density. An interaction between protein and calcium suggested protein alone was not the important factor. Other studies confirm the beneficial effect of increasing dietary protein intake in older women to reduce bone mineral density loss and risk of fracture, suggesting that emphasis should be placed on promoting adequate protein intake in elderly women.

Animal protein and bone growth – Scientific substantiation of a health claim related to animal protein and bone growth pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006[1] – Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies

The evidence provided by consensus opinions/reports from authoritative bodies and reviews shows that there is good consensus on the role of protein in growth and development of bone. It is well established that a source of protein is essential for allowing both growth and maintenance.

Interaction of Dietary Calcium and Protein in Bone Health in Humans1,2

Protein has both positive and negative effects on calcium balance, and the net effect of dietary protein on bone mass and fracture risk may be dependent on the dietary calcium intake. In addition to providing substrate for bone matrix, dietary protein stimulates the production of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), a factor that promotes osteoblast-mediated bone formation. Protein also increases urinary calcium losses, by several proposed mechanisms. Increasing calcium intake may offset the negative impact of dietary protein on urinary calcium losses, allowing the favorable effect of protein on the IGF-1 axis to dominate. Several, although not all, studies are either compatible with or support this hypothesis. Protein supplements significantly reduced bone loss in elderly hip-fracture patients in a study in which both the protein and control groups received supplemental calcium. In an observational study, total protein intake was positively associated with favorable 3-y changes in femoral neck and total body bone mineral density in volunteers who received supplemental calcium citrate malate and vitamin D, but not in volunteers taking placebos. In conclusion, an adequate calcium intake may help promote a favorable effect of dietary protein on the skeleton in older individuals.

Milk basic protein increases bone mineral density and improves bone metabolism in healthy young women.

Effect of milk basic protein on bone metabolism in healthy young women.

INTRODUCTION: Milk has more beneficial effects on bone health than other food sources. Recent in vitro and in vivo studies have shown that milk whey protein, especially its basic protein fraction (milk basic protein, MBP), contains several components capable of promoting bone formation and inhibiting bone resorption. The object of this study was to examine the effect of MBP on the bone mineral density and bone metabolism of healthy young women.METHODS: Thirty-five healthy young women were randomly assigned to treatment with either placebo or MBP (40 mg per day) for 6 months. The bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar vertebrae L2-L4 of each subject was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at 0 and 6 months of treatment. Serum and urine indexes of bone metabolism were measured at 0, 3 and 6 months. All subjects completed the study in accordance with the protocol.RESULTS: The mean rate of gain of lumbar BMD in the MBP group (1.57%) was significantly higher than in the placebo group (0.13%, P=0.042). When compared with the placebo group, urinary cross-linked N-telopeptides of type-I collagen (NTx) were significantly decreased, and serum osteocalcin was significantly increased in the MBP group at 6 months.CONCLUSION: These results suggested that MBP supplementation was effective in increasing BMD in young women and that this increase in BMD may be primarily mediated through the promotion of bone formation and inhibition of bone resorption by MBP supplementation.

Dietary Protein: An Essential Nutrient For Bone Health

Nutrition plays a major role in the development and maintenance of bone structures resistant to usual mechanical loadings. In addition to calcium in the presence of an adequate vitamin D supply, proteins represent a key nutrient for bone health, and thereby in the prevention of osteoporosis. In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health by inducing chronic metabolic acidosis which in turn would be responsible for increased calciuria and accelerated mineral dissolution. This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures. The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological “cascade” that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, many experimental and clinical published data concur to indicate that low protein intake negatively affects bone health. Thus, selective deficiency in dietary proteins causes marked deterioration in bone mass, micro architecture and strength, the hallmark of osteoporosis. In the elderly, low protein intakes are often observed in patients with hip fracture. In these patients intervention study after orthopedic management demonstrates that protein supplementation as given in the form of casein, attenuates post-fracture bone loss, increases muscles strength, reduces medical complications and hospital stay. In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures. As to the increased calciuria that can be observed in response to an augmentation in either animal or vegetal proteins it can be explained by a stimulation of the intestinal calcium absorption. Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation. Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures.

Dietary whey protein concentrate partially alleviates the decrease in bone density observed with high protein diet

Protein intake: effects on bone mineral density and the rate of bone loss in elderly women1,2,3,4

Results: In the cross-sectional study, a higher intake of protein was associated with higher BMD. BMD was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the spine (7%), midradius (6%), and total body (5%) in subjects in the highest quartile of protein intake than in those in the lower 2 quartiles. This positive association was seen in women with calcium intakes > 408 mg/d. There was no significant effect of protein intake on hip BMD. In the longitudinal study of the placebo group, there was no association between protein intake and the rate of bone loss.

Conclusions: The highest quartile of protein intake (: 72 g/d) was associated with higher BMD in elderly women at baseline only when the calcium intake exceeded 408 mg/d. In the longitudinal study, no association was seen between protein intake and the rate of bone loss, perhaps because the sample size was too small or the follow-up period of 3 y was not long enough to detect change

A positive association of lumbar spine bone mineral density with dietary protein is suppressed by a negative association with protein sulfur.

Dietary protein is theorized to hold both anabolic effects on bone and demineralizing effects mediated by the diet acid load of sulfate derived from methionine and cysteine. The relative importance of these effects is unknown but relevant to osteoporosis prevention. Postmenopausal women (n=161, 67.9±6.0 y) were assessed for areal bone mineral density (aBMD) of lumbar spine (LS) and total hip (TH) using dual X-ray absorptiometry, and dietary intakes of protein, sulfur-containing amino acids, and minerals using a USDA multiple-pass 24-h recall. The acidifying influence of the diet was estimated using the ratio of protein:potassium intake, the potential renal acid load (PRAL), and intake of sulfate equivalents from protein. aBMD was regressed onto protein intake then protein was controlled for estimated dietary acid load. A step-down procedure assessed potential confounding influences (weight, age, physical activity, and calcium and vitamin D intakes). Protein alone did not predict LS aBMD (P=0.81); however, after accounting for a negative effect of sulfate (β=-0.28; P<0.01), the direct effect of protein intake was positive (β=0.22; P=0.04). At the TH, protein intake predicted aBMD (β=0.18; P=0.03), but R2 did not improve with adjustment for sulfate (P=0.83). PRAL and the protein:potassium ratio were not significant predictors of aBMD. Results suggest that protein intake is positively associated with aBMD, but benefit at the LS is offset by a negative impact of the protein sulfur acid load. If validated experimentally, these findings harmonize conflicting theories on the role of dietary protein in bone health.


As hypothesized, this research showed that there was no significant difference between protein-seeking resistance trainers and non-protein seeking resistance trainers in relation to site-specific BMD. This research also displayed that site-specific BMD can produce different results than seen with the whole body BMD.

Low Protein Intake: The Impact on Calcium and Bone Homeostasis in Humans1,2

There is agreement that diets moderate in protein (in the approximate range of 1.0 to 1.5 g protein/kg) are associated with normal calcium metabolism and presumably do not alter skeletal homeostasis. Approximately 30–50% of adults in the United States consume dietary protein that could be considered moderate. At low protein intakes, intestinal calcium absorption is reduced, resulting in increases in serum PTH and calcitriol that persist for at least 2–4 wk. The long-term implications of these findings are unknown; however, recent epidemiological data suggest increased rates of bone loss in individuals consuming such diets. Individuals consuming high protein intakes, particularly from omnivorous sources, develop hypercalciuria that is attributable for the most part to an increase in intestinal calcium absorption. Whether high protein diets result in an increase in bone resorption and higher fracture rates remains uncertain.

Does dietary protein reduce hip fracture risk in elders? The Framingham Osteoporosis Study.

RESULTS: Among 946 participants (mean age 75 years), mean protein intake was found to be 68 gm/d. Increased protein intake was associated with a decreased risk of hip fracture compared to those in the lowest quartile of protein intake (Q2 HR = 0.70, Q3 HR = 0.56, and Q4 HR = 0.63; all p values ≥ 0.044), p for trend was 0.07. When a threshold effect was considered (Q2-4 vs Q1), intakes in the higher quartiles combined were associated with a significantly lower risk for hip fracture (HR = 0.63; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION: Our results are consistent with reduced risk of hip fracture with higher dietary protein intake. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm and extend this finding in elderly men and women.

Prospective study of dietary protein intake and risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women1,2,3

Results: Forty-four cases of incident hip fractures were included in the analyses of 104338 person-years (the number of subjects studied times the number of years of follow-up) of follow-up data. The risk of hip fracture was not related to intake of calcium or vitamin D, but was negatively associated with total protein intake. Animal rather than vegetable sources of protein appeared to account for this association. In a multivariate model with inclusion of age, body size, parity, smoking, alcohol intake, estrogen use, and physical activity, the relative risks of hip fracture decreased across increasing quartiles of intake of animal protein as follows: 1.00 (reference), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.34), 0.63 (0.28, 1.42), and 0.31 (0.10, 0.93); P for trend = 0.037. Conclusion: Intake of dietary protein, especially from animal sources, may be associated with a reduced incidence of hip fractures in postmenopausal women

Dietary Protein Intake and Risk of Osteoporotic Hip Fracture in Elderly Residents of Utah†

The role of protein intake in osteoporosis is unclear. In a case-control study in Utah (n = 2501), increasing level of protein intake was associated with a decreased risk of hip fracture in men and women 50–69 years of age but not in those 70–89 years of age. Protein intake may be important for optimal bone health.

Results: In logistic regression analyses that controlled for gender, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol use, calcium, vitamin D, potassium, physical activity, and estrogen use in women, the odds ratios (OR) of hip fracture decreased across increasing quartiles of total protein intake for participants 50–69 years of age (OR: 1.0 [reference]; 0.51 [95% CI: 0.30–0.87]; 0.53 [0.31–0.89]; 0.35 [0.21–0.59]; p < 0.001). No similar associations were observed among participants 70–89 years of age. Results from analyses stratified by low and high calcium and potassium intake did not differ appreciably from the results presented above.

Conclusion: Higher total protein intake was associated with a reduced risk of hip fracture in men and women 50–69 years of age but not in men and women 70–89 years of age. The association between dietary protein intake and risk of hip fracture may be modified by age. Our study supports the hypothesis that adequate dietary protein is important for optimal bone health in the elderly 50–69 years of age

And against…

Protein Consumption and Bone Fractures in Women

Dietary protein increases urinary calcium losses and has been associated with higher rates of hip fracture in cross-cultural studies. However, the relation between protein and risk of osteoporotic bone fractures among individuals has not been examined in detail. In this prospective study, usual dietary intake was measured in 1980 in a cohort of 85,900 women, aged 35–59 years, who were participants in the Nurses’ Health Study. A mailed food frequency questionnaire was used and incident hip (n = 234) and distal forearm (n = 1,628) fractures were identified by self-report during the following 12 years. Information on other factors related to osteoporosis, including obesity, use of postmenopausal estrogen, smoking, and physical activity, was collected on biennial questionnaires. Dietary measures were updated in 1984 and 1986. Protein was associated with an increased risk of forearm fracture (relative risk (RR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 1.04–1.43, p for trend = 0.01) for women who consumed more than 95 g per day compared with those who consumed less than 68 g per day. A similar increase in risk was observed for animal protein, but no association was found for consumption of vegetable protein. Women who consumed five or more servings of red meat per week also had a significantly increased risk of forearm fracture (RR = 1.23, 95% Cl 1.01–1.50) compared with women who ate red meat less than once per week. Recall of teenage diet did not reveal any increased risk of forearm fracture for women with higher consumption of animal protein or red meat during this earlier period of life. No association was observed between adult protein intake and the incidence of hip fractures, though power to assess this association was low.

The association between dietary protein intake and bone mass accretion in pubertal girls with low calcium intakes.

To assess the association between protein intakes and bone mass accrual in girls, data were analysed for 757 pre-pubertal girls (mean age 10.1 years) in urban Beijing, China, who participated in a 5-year study including 2 years of milk supplementation (intervention groups only) and 3 years of follow-up study. At 0, 12, 24, 48 and 60 months from the baseline, bone mass of the proximal or distal forearm (PF or DF) and total body (TB) was measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; dietary intakes were assessed by a 3-d food record (including two weekdays and one weekend day). Linear mixed models were used and continuous variables were logarithm transformed. The mean longitudinal Ca intake (432-675 mg/d on average) positively influenced bone mineral content (BMC) at TB, PF and DF after controlling for baseline bone mass and other possible confounders. However, negative associations were observed between protein intake (55.9-61.0 g/d on average) and BMC accrual at TB, PF or DF (beta = – 1.92, – 10.2 or – 4.82, respectively, P < 0.01) after adjustment. When protein intake was considered according to animal or plant food sources, protein from animal foods, particularly meat, had significant negative effects on BMC accrual at DF or PF after adjustment. It was concluded that higher protein intake, especially from animal foods, appeared to have a negative effect on bone mass accrual in Chinese pubertal girls with low Ca intakes.

A high ratio of dietary animal to vegetable protein increases the rate of bone loss and the risk of fracture in postmenopausal women. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group.

RESULTS: Bone mineral density was not significantly associated with the ratio of animal to vegetable protein intake. Women with a high ratio had a higher rate of bone loss at the femoral neck than did those with a low ratio (P = 0.02) and a greater risk of hip fracture (relative risk = 3.7, P = 0.04). These associations were unaffected by adjustment for age, weight, estrogen use, tobacco use, exercise, total calcium intake, and total protein intake.  CONCLUSIONS: Elderly women with a high dietary ratio of animal to vegetable protein intake have more rapid femoral neck bone loss and a greater risk of hip fracture than do those with a low ratio. This suggests that an increase in vegetable protein intake and a decrease in animal protein intake may decrease bone loss and the risk of hip fracture. This possibility should be confirmed in other prospective studies and tested in a randomized trial.

Protein Intake, Weight Loss, and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women

Background. Higher protein diets are promoted for effective weight loss. Striated tissues in omnivorous diets contain high-quality protein, but limited data exist regarding their effects on bone. Methods. To examine the effects of energy restriction–induced weight loss with higher protein omnivorous diets versus lower protein vegetarian diets on bone mineral density in overweight postmenopausal women, two randomized controlled feeding studies were conducted. In Study 1, 28 women consumed 750 kcal/day energy deficit diets with 18% energy from protein via lacto-ovo vegetarian sources (normal protein, n = 15) or 30% energy from protein with 40% of protein from lean pork (higher protein, n = 13, omnivorous) for 12 weeks. In Study 2, 54 women consumed their habitual diet (control, n = 11) or 1,250 kcal/day diets with 16% energy from nonmeat protein sources (n = 14) or 26% energy from protein, including chicken (n = 15) or beef (n = 14) for 9 weeks.Results. Study 1: With weight loss (normal protein −11.2%, higher protein −10.1%), bone mineral density was not significantly changed in normal protein (−0.003 ± 0.003 g/cm2, −0.3%) but decreased in higher protein (−0.0167 ± 0.004 g/cm2, −1. 4%, group-by-time p < .05). Study 2: The control, nonmeat, chicken, and beef groups lost 1.5%, 7.7%, 10.4%, and 8.1% weight and 0.0%, 0.4%, 1.1%, and 1.4% bone mineral density, respectively. The change of bone mineral density was significant for chicken and beef compared with the control (group-by-time, p < .05). Markers of calcium metabolism and bone homeostasis in blood and urine were not changed over time or differentially affected by diet.

It has to be observed that the last one is studying the efects of pretty low calorie diets, and is therefore not extractable to a  normal lifestyle. Weight loss is associated with losing bone mass in other studies 1, and it’s fair top assume that on a intake that low other dietary factors necessary for bone strength might have been lacking. I’d also like to comment that the 95g of animal protein needed to negatively  bone mass in one of the others is more than the American national average of 91g, 2, and seems to mostly limited to heavy consumers of red meat. So, also not a damning indictment of the average level of animal proteins in the western diet. I’d also like to add that the Chinese are largely lactose intolerant and don’t have a history of dairy consumption, and a negative effect of dairy on the lactose intolerant’s bone mass has been observed in at least one other study, so, again, other factors may be affecting the outcome of the Chinese study.

I’m noticing a trend for fish to be excluded from the studies that cause bone loss as a cause, with some evidence that fish, particluarly the omega three oils, are beneficial to bone mass.

And to finish all of this, the meta studies (overviews and combination of all other available studies)…

Dietary protein and bone health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been a resurgence of interest in the controversial relation between dietary protein and bone health. OBJECTIVE: This article reports on the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the relation between protein and bone health in healthy human adults. DESIGN: The MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2007) and EMBASE (1974 to July 2008) databases were electronically searched for all relevant studies of healthy adults; studies of calcium excretion or calcium balance were excluded. RESULTS: In cross-sectional surveys, all pooled r values for the relation between protein intake and bone mineral density (BMD) or bone mineral content at the main clinically relevant sites were significant and positive; protein intake explained 1-2% of BMD. A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials indicated a significant positive influence of all protein supplementation on lumbar spine BMD but showed no association with relative risk of hip fractures. No significant effects were identified for soy protein or milk basic protein on lumbar spine BMD.   CONCLUSIONS: A small positive effect of protein supplementation on lumbar spine BMD in randomized placebo-controlled trials supports the positive association between protein intake and bone health found in cross-sectional surveys. However, these results were not supported by cohort study findings for hip fracture risk. Any effects found were small and had 95% CIs that were close to zero. Therefore, there is a small benefit of protein on bone health, but the benefit may not necessarily translate into reduced fracture risk in the long term.

So, no evidence of bone loss from protein here…

Protein intake and bone health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

These effects suggest that dietary protein may have a beneficial effect on BMD.

And no loss of bone mass here either. Essentially, when considering all the studies, there is no evidence of loss, but some of slight gain.

Other, relevant info…

Supplementing rats diets with fish peptides improved their bone density

Fish oil improves BMD in mice

Fish improves bone density in Astronauts,

Dietary protein supplementation increases peak bone mass acquisition in energy-restricted growing rats.

Ratio of potassium to protein affects bone loss

Potassium, magnesium, and fruit and vegetable intakes are associated with greater bone mineral density in elderly men and women

Potassium Citrate Boosts Bone Density in the Elderly

The effects of high potassium consumption on bone mineral density in a prospective cohort study of elderly postmenopausal women.

Magnesium improves bone density.

So, from spending a couple of days searching through the studies, I can tell you that animal protein in the diet has most likely a slight positive effect, there’s nothing that suggests fish has anything but a positive effect, and that if any animal protein has a poor effect it is going to be red meat, and only if you eat a lot of it. I also tracked down three meta studies of dairy consumption (combined studies of all the previous studies) and the overwhelming conclusion was that diary has a slight to zero improvement on bone mass, not at all a loss, as is so often claimed.

Anyone concerned about their bone mass should… eat a healthy variety and amount of protein ( flesh, dairy or otherwise, but some fish in there is probably healthiest) and plenty of fruit and veg and nuts (for the potassium, calcium and magnesium). They should also get plenty of load bearing exercise,  but avoid alcohol, smoking and phosphoric acid laden soda drinks and salt (which are all associted with mineral loss). The overall healthier diets and lifestyle of vegetarians is the reason they have better health (excepting pescatarians), not the lack of flesh.

I’d like to add, the human diet for most of out evolutuionary existance has been over 2/3 animal flesh calories; paleolithic bones and the bones of contemporary hunter gatherers who eat mainly a flesh based diet are robust as hell. They need to be as hunters have to survive extremely violent impacts quite frequently when subduing their prey. The whole concept that the diet we evolved to eat makes us frail boned is against all logic.

Leave a comment

Filed under anti-vegetarianism, diet, Uncategorized

Violent Crime ‘Race Gap’ Narrows, but Persists in US

The U.S. ‘race gap’ in the commission of violent crime has narrowed substantially, yet persists — with murder arrest rates for African Americans still out-distancing those for whites — concludes a new 80-city study by the University of Maryland, Florida State University and the University of Oregon…. LINK.

The most informative bit…

Based on FBI Uniform Crime Report arrest data from 1960 to 2000 in 80 of the largest U.S. cities (listed below), the researchers found:

  • 1960-1979: The gap between black and white homicide arrests dropped 55 percent, on average.
  • 1980-1999: The gap re-widened — on average more than 20 percent — with the explosive growth of the crack cocaine epidemic in major U.S. cities.
  • By the end of the century, nearly 30 percent of the largest U.S. cities had black homicide arrests rates that were more than 10 times higher than white rates.

Leave a comment

Filed under race, Society

The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America

The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America

Major Findings

  •  There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.
  •  Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
    blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
  • Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to whites than the reverse.
  •  Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.
  • Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,
    and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.
  • Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
    Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.
  • Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white
    offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.
  • Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
    dangerous than women.

A fairly old publication from 1999, which is based on the FBI crime statistics, and which is technically accurate. It was written in response to earlier use of the information that glossed over the black on white crime rate and focused almost exclusively on the black on black crime rate- amazing how the same set of information can be used to push different agendas. I’ve snipped out a few of the more memorable quotes- remember the numbers are completely correct and verifiable from the FBI crime stats.

Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial violent crimes involving blacks and whites reported every year, blacks commit 90 percent and whites commit only ten percent. Blacks are therefore more than 50 times more likely than whites to commit interracial crimes of violence. The differences are even greater for multiple-offender interracial crimes, with blacks 100 to 250 times more likely to be involved in gang attacks on whites than the reverse. Some people may argue that blacks attack whites because they expect them to be carrying cash or valuables. However, fewer than 20 percent of black attacks on whites are robberies; rape and assault do not usually have economic motives.

For virtually all crimes, there are consistent and pronounced differences in arrest rates for violent crime by race and ethnicity. Blacks are five to ten times more likely to be arrested than whites, Hispanics are approximately three times more likely, American Indians are about twice as likely, and Asians are only one half to two-thirds as likely to be arrested for violent crimes as whites. The very high rates for blacks means that the single best independent predictor of crime rates for an area is the percentage of the population that is black.

I’m not going to post the whole document, but it roughly matches the trends in the UK race crime stats that I posted earlier. It doesn’t really go into much detail about interracial sex crimes, which are almost entirely white on black, with some years the FBI having less than ten white on black rapes reported. But that’s for another post.

This is also very similar to the Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tables (Page 30, chart 42), where the sex offence pattern is near identical but based on surveys rather than reported crimes. No longer available on-line, unfortunately.

Leave a comment

Filed under race, Society, Uncategorized

IQ Population Genetics: It’s not as Simple as You Think

IQ Population Genetics: It’s not as Simple as You Think

The question of cognitive differences between human populations is one of the most contentious issues in the study of human diversity. After reviewing the worldwide patterns of cognitive test performance, this article evaluates alternative causal hypotheses and evolutionary mechanisms. Racial affiliation and latitude correlate with IQ test performance, as does economic development. Religion, a history of colonialism, and a history of Communist rule are important in some cases. This article proposes mechanisms of gene-culture co-evolution that can explain the worldwide patterns. The genetic component of these mechanisms is likely to become testable with further advances in molecular genetics.

A long but very interesting publication from 2003. Some of the most interesting snippets from this pdf are..

Also the argument that the 100,000 years or so since the dispersal out of Africa were insufficient for the evolution of genetic differences is invalid. To create an IQ difference of, say, 15 points between two populations in 100,000 years, natural selection would have to drive their IQs apart by only 0.004 points every generation – about 1% of the selective pressure in late 20th-century America.


 Genes, like drugs, have many side effects. This is called pleiotropy. For example, the average IQ of nearsighted people is 6 to 8 points higher than the average for normal-sighted people.


In the late 20th century United States, unequal reproductive rates favoring the less intelligent would have lowered the IQ of the population by anywhere between 0.35 and 0.8 points per generation had the environment remained unchanged over time (Loehlin, 1997; Retherford and Sewell, 1988; Vining, 1995; Lynn, 1996 – Dysgenics, Praeger).


Rushton emphasizes the need for close family ties and high parental investment in harsh climates. While most childhood mortality in the tropics was caused by uncontrollable endemic diseases, most childhood mortality in the arctic was due to the predictable challenges of seasonal food shortages and the rigors of the climate. These challenges demanded intelligent planning in addition to stable families (Rushton, 1995).

Referring to the last quote: smaller head size (easier birthing) and a faster/more prolific reproductive cycle are more important than being smart when the major cause of death in children is unpreventable diseases This could be one reason that Africans have a much higher twinning rate, and why peoples from the tropics have a gestation period about one week shorter than  north east Asians or Northern Europeans. Also nice to find a source for the nearsightedness and IQ relation (I’m blind as a bat without my specs).

I’d also like to point out that for the IQ between populations to be the same, evolution of the human brain would have had to effectively stopped cold about 130,000 years ago: before the  African and non-African populations separated. Since it has been shown by Bruce Lahn and others that certain brain affecting mutations have arisen in the last 37,000 years and that they vary wildly in distribution (the MCPH1 gene for example, which affects brain size) this is demonstrably not the case.

The whole paper is worth a read if you have an interest in the subject of race and IQ.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized