* A study was published that claimed 1) a lower Sarcopenia Risk Score (SRS) was associated with a higher protein intake and 2) a lower SRS was associated with increasing plant protein and reducing animal protein, while keeping total protein intake constant.
* The study involved 986 men and women aged 65-79 years from 4 European countries. They were reviewed in four groups from lowest protein intake (in grams) per kilogram (kg) of body weight (<0.8g/kg) to highest (>1.2g/kg).
* The characteristics table reported that there were significant differences between the lowest and highest protein intake groups. The lowest protein intake group were, on average, 16.4kg heavier than the highest protein intake group.
* The food intake table reported that the lightest group consumed 42% more calories daily than the heaviest group. The data were not reliable.
* The graphs showing that higher protein intake was associated with lower sarcopenia risk were impressive and plausible, but they were based on unreliable data.
* The second claim – that replacing animal protein with plant protein reduced the risk of sarcopenia – was based on a statistical analysis, which was not sufficiently explained in the paper. I exchanged emails with the corresponding author, but still received no evidence for this claim. In the absence of evidence and given the unreality of the food intake data and the paradoxical and large differences in weight, I don't trust the findings of this research.
The rest of this article is available to site subscribers, who get access to all articles plus a weekly newsletter.
To continue reading, please login below or sign up for a subscription. Thank you.