{"id":8036,"date":"2020-03-16T11:30:58","date_gmt":"2020-03-16T11:30:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zoeharcombe.com\/?p=8036"},"modified":"2020-03-15T15:47:52","modified_gmt":"2020-03-15T15:47:52","slug":"do-high-protein-diets-cause-kidney-disease","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zoeharcombe.com\/2020\/03\/do-high-protein-diets-cause-kidney-disease\/","title":{"rendered":"Do high protein diets cause kidney disease?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Executive summary<\/strong><\/p>\n

Please login<\/a> to view this content <\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Last week we looked at two articles that claimed an association between people in the highest protein intake group and worsening measurements for kidney function \u2013 a possible marker for kidney disease. We found that the intake of calories and protein in the comparator groups were so absurdly different, that they were not credible.<\/p>\n

This week we ask the proper research question \u2013 do high protein diets cause kidney disease?<\/p>\n

The best way to examine any research question is to search the academic literature for all evidence. Presenting the latest couple of studies, especially when epidemiological, is just cherry picking.<\/p>\n

I use PubMed to search academic literature. I look for key terms in the title and\/or abstract, on the basis that \u2013 if a paper doesn\u2019t mention the terms of interest in either the title or the abstract, the paper is unlikely to be primarily about the search terms. I also always tick \u201chumans\u201d on the left hand side, as I\u2019m interested in people, not Mickey Mouse or Roland Rat!<\/p>\n

Searching for \u201cKidney disease\u201d AND \u201chigh protein diet\u201d OR \u201chigh protein diets\u201d, in humans, produced 21 results. Having done several systematic reviews for my PhD, I\u2019m familiar with the fact that a search with specific terms still elicits many papers that are not relevant to the research question. This search was no different. Over one third (8) of the 21 papers were about protein intakes\/modification in existing chronic kidney disease (CKD), or progression thereof, and thus could be discarded for this review. A further six could be discarded following review of the abstract: two were about nutrients\/supplements (vitamin A and creatine); one was an individual case study; one was about advanced glycation end products; one was specifically not<\/em> about kidney disease; and one was about bodybuilders abusing steroids and growth hormones (as well as protein).<\/p>\n

Among the remaining seven papers, there were no systematic reviews or meta-analyses. These would have provided the best evidence available. There were two clinical trials and five reviews.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

The rest of this article is available to site subscribers, who get access to all articles plus a weekly newsletter.
\nTo continue reading, please login below or sign up for a subscription<\/a>. Thank you.<\/em><\/span><\/strong>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n <\/div>\n