Too Much Protein Could Actually Shorten Your Lifespan, According to Longevity Experts
Overconsumption of animal-based protein raises IGF-1 levels—a growth hormone linked to increased risk of chronic disease, accelerated aging, and reduced cellular repair.
While IGF-1 is essential in youth and for muscle repair, chronically elevated levels in adulthood can disrupt longevity by promoting cell growth over cellular cleanup (autophagy).
Experts recommend a Mediterranean or flexitarian approach—favoring plant- and fish-based proteins over heavy meat consumption—to reduce IGF-1 and support long-term health.Protein is an essential nutrient for optimal health. And between the variety of meats, eggs, beans, nuts, and so much more to choose from, there are a lot of options when it comes to sourcing protein. Unfortunately, though, an overconsumption of protein can actually sabotage your longevity efforts, says healthy aging expert Dr. Joseph Antoun. 'Consuming excessive protein, particularly from animal sources, raises IGF-1 levels,' he says. 'IGF-1, Insulin-like Growth Factor 1, is a hormone that plays a crucial role in growth and cell proliferation.'
But what's the science behind the negative effects of eating too much protein? How is IGF-1 affected? We asked our longevity experts all the questions—including the best approach to eating the right amount of protein.
'Excessive IGF-1 is harmful to healthy longevity, as it promotes cellular growth over repair (increasing the risk of mutations), decreases autophagy (the cellular cleanup process key to healthy aging), and increases risk of chronic diseases,' Dr. Antoun says. Foods that are high in animal protein—such as meat, eggs, and even milk—stimulate and increase our IGF-1 levels, meaning the more you eat, the more you're at risk of increased IGF-1 levels.
'While it's essential in childhood and for muscle repair, chronically elevated IGF-1 in adults has been linked to accelerated biological aging, and therefore, an increased risk of age-related conditions,' Dr. Antoun says. 'I call this condition the 'Diabetes of Protein,' whereby high IGF is excessively aging the body way beyond what the muscles require.' You might notice these lasting impacts on excessively muscular figures, such as body builders, who look great during their peak but tend to age poorly in their 50s and 60s. Much like when you're a kid, eating animal-based protein in your 20s can feel and seem healthy, Dr. Antoun notes. Around the mid-life period, however, disease formation begins and can slow down the natural processes of our body.
You might be wondering what exactly you can eat to get your recommended daily intake of protein. Don't worry—we've got you covered.
'A well-balanced, plant-forward approach, such as a longevity-based diet (rich in complex carbs, plant-based/fish-based proteins, and healthy fats from nuts and seeds) offers a far more evidence-based path to metabolic health, disease prevention, and healthspan,' Dr. Antoun says. 'When we study centenarians, we notice that most of them follow a plant-based Mediterranean, pescatarian, or flexitarian [semi-vegetarian] diet.'
Rather than quitting cold turkey, it's best to slowly replace animal protein with plant-based protein without completely giving up meat or eggs. For example, you might turn your weekly grilled chicken rotation into a salad, where you're getting more diverse nutrients than just animal protein. If you tend to eat a specific meat the most, consider replacing it with a plant-based protein like tofu, so you're still getting the same textural experience while managing your IGF-1 levels. 'A pure vegan diet is also correlated with longevity, but it needs to be supplemented with protein—especially at early and late stages of life,' Dr. Antoun adds. Like most things, consumption of animal protein in moderation can be a small change that makes a big difference.
Read the original article on Real Simple

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Prediction: Eli Lilly Will Reach a $1 Trillion Valuation by 2027
Eli Lilly has been experiencing strong growth lately due to its impressive GLP-1 drugs. It could rake in a couple more approvals within the next year. The stock has been sliding this year, and that has made its valuation look much more appealing. 10 stocks we like better than Eli Lilly › Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) has been a growth beast over the years and is now easily the most valuable healthcare company in the world, with a market cap of more than $650 billion. But there's still much more growth on the horizon for the business in the years ahead. Although as of this week the stock has declined by more than 4% since the start of the year, there's little reason to believe that its shares have peaked. Eli Lilly is the most likely healthcare stock to reach a $1 trillion valuation, and I believe it could hit that plateau by 2027. Eli Lilly's stock has surged close to 400% in five years. But for it to get going again and start rallying, it'll likely need a catalyst and a reason for growth investors to rally around its business. The good news is that it may not be too long before that happens. A big reason for the company's growth is the hype and excitement surrounding its GLP-1 treatments, Zepbound (approved for weight loss) and Mounjaro (approved for diabetes). These blockbuster drugs have been generating billions in revenue and have bolstered the company's growth rate in recent quarters. The drug that you should keep an eye on moving forward, however, is orforglipron. Unlike Zepbound and Mounjaro, which are injections, orforglipron is a pill that can be a more attractive option for patients looking to lose weight or to bring down their glucose levels. Eli Lilly expects that the drug could obtain approval from regulators by as early as next year. Clinical trials thus far have been encouraging, with the drug showing it can help people lose around 15% of their body weight. The company is also working on another injectable treatment, retatrutide, which has the potential to be its best weight loss treatment yet. In a recent clinical trial, patients using the drug lost more than 24% of their body weight. With not one but two exciting weight loss drugs that may potentially obtain approval in the near future, it may not be too long before this healthcare stock gets going again. It wasn't all that long ago that Eli Lilly's stock looked incredibly expensive, trading at well over 100 times its trailing earnings. But as the stock has fallen this year and as its earnings have grown, its valuation has become much more attractive. While its price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple is still significant at 60, based on analyst estimates, its forward P/E multiple is just 34. And when you look at its price-to-earnings growth (PEG) ratio, which sits at around 1.1, that suggests the stock may even be cheap given the future growth the business may experience. For PEG, anything below 1 indicates great value for growth investors. However, Eli Lilly is arguably worth a premium, which is why I don't think these multiples will stay as low as they are for long. The overall healthcare sector has been struggling this year. The Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund has declined by more than 3% since January. The market appears to be concerned over healthcare spending cuts and how they may affect stocks across the entire sector. But for Eli Lilly, one of the top healthcare companies in the world -- which grew its sales by 32% last year to $45 billion and still looks unstoppable -- the stock should be doing much better than it is. For Eli Lilly to reach a $1 trillion market cap within the next couple of years, it would need to rise by more than 50% from where it is today. I think that's possible as its earnings continue to grow, and especially if you factor in that it's underperforming this year and that there could be multiple approvals coming its way in the not-too-distant future. This is a top growth stock to own, and now that its valuation has come down, it could be a remarkable investment to load up on. Before you buy stock in Eli Lilly, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Eli Lilly wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $657,385!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $842,015!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 987% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 David Jagielski has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Prediction: Eli Lilly Will Reach a $1 Trillion Valuation by 2027 was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Regeneron makes obesity push; Atai, Alto ink brain drug deals
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Today, a brief rundown of news involving Regeneron and Bluebird bio, as well as updates from Atai Life Sciences, Alto Neuroscience and UniQure that you may have missed. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals on Monday disclosed Phase 2 study results that it claimed suggest the addition of one or two of its experimental medicines to Novo Nordisk's Wegovy might help people with obesity preserve muscle mass. Leerink Partners analyst David Risinger, however, described the results in a research note as "mixed," highlighting how the addition of Regeneron's drug resulted in either numerically lower weight loss with "comparable tolerability" or "greater weight loss with worse tolerability." The effects on muscle function, which haven't yet been disclosed, will be "critical,' Risinger added. Draft guidance published by the Food and Drug Administration has indicated muscle-protecting medicines "need to demonstrate functional benefits" to succeed. — Ben Fidler Regeneron also expanded its portfolio of weight-loss medicines, announcing on Monday a deal for most worldwide rights to a drug developed by Hansoh Pharmaceuticals Group that's currently in late-stage testing in obesity in China. Regeneron paid Hansoh $80 million upfront for the drug, which, like Eli Lilly's Zepbound targets the gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP. It could add nearly $2 billion in additional payouts. In testing, the drug has demonstrated a "potentially similar profile" to Zepbound, Regeneron said. — Ben Fidler Carlyle Group and SK Capital on Monday closed a deal to acquire and take private gene therapy developer Bluebird bio. The two private equity firms said they've provided 'significant primary capital' to support and scale Bluebird's gene therapies for rare blood and brain diseases, and that the company will now prioritize building up its manufacturing capabilities and strengthening relationships with insurers. Bluebird's stock, which will no longer trade on the Nasdaq, last closed at around $5 per share. — Ben Fidler Psychedelics developer Atai Life Sciences is absorbing the rest of a U.K.-based biotechnology company through an all-share transaction announced Monday. Atai last year took a nearly 36% stake in Beckley Psytech, providing it access to an experimental version of the mind-altering compound mebufotenin. Now, the two developers are combining in a deal that values Beckley at $390 million and is expected to close in the back half of this year. Beckley's investors other than Atai will be issued around 105 million new shares as consideration, representing about 31% of the combined company. Additionally, the investment firms Ferring Ventures and Adage Capital Partners are making a concurrent $30 million private placement. Atai said the new entity will have enough cash to keep it running through 'multiple' readouts of important mid-stage clinical trials. — Jacob Bell Alto Neuroscience has, for just under $2 million, acquired a portfolio of dopamine-boosting drugs in development for depression. The deal with Chase Therapeutics, disclosed Tuesday, hands Alto a fixed-dose combination of pramipexole, which is already used to treat Parkinson's disease, and ondansetron, the active ingredient in the nausea medication Zofran. Now code-named ALTO-207, this combination recently succeeded in a mid-stage study of patients with major depressive disorder. Alto plans to start by mid-2026 a Phase 2b trial designed to potentially enable an approval application. The trial would focus on treatment-resistant depression and report high-level data sometime in 2027. — Jacob Bell UniQure, the Belgium-based gene therapy developer, said it has reached an agreement with the FDA on 'several key components' of an approval application for its closely watched treatment for Huntington's disease. Those components include the manufacturing process for the treatment, named AMT-130, as well as updated statistical analysis plans that UniQure expects to submit before the end of June. Looking ahead, the company intends to have another pre-filing meeting with the FDA late this year and then formally submit its application for priority review sometime between January and March of 2026. Analysts at TD Cowen have estimated that peak annual sales of AMT-130 could reach or surpass around $1 billion. — Jacob Bell Recommended Reading Sanofi reaches consumer health deal; Supernus antidepressant fails study Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Hurdles to GLP-1s threaten the lives of our patients
The May 26 front-page article 'Patients face new hurdles to affordable obesity drugs' highlighted significant barriers patients and providers face in accessing GLP-1 and dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists (such as Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy, Tirzepatide and Zepbound) for weight management. However, one critical group whose lives may depend on these medications was absent: individuals with end-stage organ failure. For these patients, the path to a lifesaving transplant is often long and uncertain. Many wait years on transplant lists — if they can get on one at all. Obesity is a major obstacle in this process. It not only reduces the likelihood of being listed for transplantation but also increases the risk of poor outcomes posttransplant, including higher rates of failure of their transplanted organ, wound complications, heart disease and diabetes. GLP-1 medications have demonstrated benefits beyond weight loss, including reducing the risk of heart disease and slowing the progression of kidney disease in certain populations. These benefits could improve both pre- and posttransplant outcomes, offering a critical bridge to transplantation and enhancing long-term survival. Yet access to these medications is increasingly limited. Many insurance companies have removed them from the lists of drugs that they cover, restricted the duration of use, or required patients to try other, often inappropriate, treatments first and show they aren't working. For people with organ failure, particularly those with kidney disease, there are few to no safe and effective alternatives. This leaves a growing number of patients unable to access the only medications that might improve their transplant eligibility. Medicare provides indefinite coverage for dialysis — a life-sustaining but extremely costly intervention — yet does not cover GLP-1 medications prescribed for weight loss that could help patients lose enough weight to become eligible for a kidney transplant, ultimately reducing or even eliminating the need for dialysis. Expanding access to these therapies for individuals with end-stage organ failure is not only an issue of equity and compassion — it is also a sound fiscal strategy. By improving transplant eligibility and outcomes, we can reduce long-term dependence on dialysis, resulting in substantial cost savings for Medicare and other health-care payers. Though cash payment options exist, the out-of-pocket cost — often several hundred dollars per month — is simply unaffordable for many patients. This financial barrier exacerbates existing disparities and deepens inequities in access to transplant care. Focusing on patients with organ failure presents a clear opportunity to save lives and reduce health-care costs. We urge policymakers and drug manufacturers to prioritize this narrow but critically important population by lowering the cost and improving access to GLP-1 medications. For these individuals, access is about survival. Sima Saberi, Ann Arbor, Michigan Vineeta Kumar, Birmingham, Alabama Mohammad Kazem Fallahzadeh, Winston Salem, North Carolina Krista Lentine, St. Louis Hector Madariaga, Cambridge, Massachusetts Pooja Budhiraja, Phoenix Vasanthi Balaraman, Memphis Prince Mohan Anand, Lancaster, South Carolina Kenneth J. Woodside, Charleston, South Carolina Sabiha M. Hussain, Philadelphia The writers are physicians who provide care for people with organ transplants. The May 30 online Fact Checker analysis, 'Are 4.8 million people on Medicaid 'cheating the system,'' cut to the heart of a growing crisis: the way data is being twisted to justify cruelty, particularly against people like me. I'm autistic, and I've had to rely on Medicaid — not because I don't want to work, but because I live in a society that doesn't always make room for people like me to thrive, or even survive, on its terms. I've spent much of my adult life navigating a system that treats vulnerability as a burden and not as a fact of human existence. That's why I was so disturbed by Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) response at a recent town hall, when a constituent in Butler County warned that proposed budget cuts under President Donald Trump's administration would lead people to die. Ernst smiled and replied, 'Well, we are all going to die.' That smile and her dismissive wave of the hand might have been the product of awkwardness. But indifference to injustice can be deeply damaging. Ernst wasn't denying that deaths would happen. She was suggesting they don't really matter because death comes for us all. There's a chilling difference between acknowledging mortality and brushing off preventable deaths as unimportant. When our leaders fail to take the lives of their most vulnerable constituents seriously, it sends a message: that those lives have no place in their political calculations. That we are disposable. The Post's Fact Checker analysis showed that the 4.8 million figure cited by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) was a projection of people who would lose Medicaid insurance if the House bill became law. The people being painted as 'cheaters' are often the sick, disabled, elderly or those caring for others full-time. They are people whose work might not fit into conventional molds, but whose lives and contributions matter deeply. Ernst's comment might have sounded like a joke to some. To me, as someone who knows how fragile survival can be, it sounded like a warning. A government that makes light of your death is not a government that's protecting your life. Matthew Lovewell, Pittsburgh We are facing a crisis in coverage for obesity care, leaving countless Americans struggling to access treatment for this chronic disease. As highlighted by the May 26 front-page article 'Patients face new hurdles to affordable obesity drugs,' the lack of obesity care coverage for GLP-1 medications not only strains an inundated health-care system and its overwhelmed providers, but also has a significant human and financial cost for patients, insurers and employers. The status quo must change. Despite obesity being recognized as a chronic, treatable disease that is associated with more than 200 other health conditions, insurers continue to place barriers on coverage for obesity care. Furthermore, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' recent decision not to expand coverage of obesity management medications through Medicare and Medicaid underscored the ongoing struggle individuals living with obesity face in accessing care. The costs of not treating obesity are staggering. Collectively, diseases linked to obesity cost our nation's health-care system more than $1.7 trillion each year. Additionally, obesity costs employers approximately $425 billion annually in the form of increased medical costs, disability payments, workers' compensation programs and absenteeism. Providing coverage for the full range of evidence-based care is crucial in addressing the significant consequences of obesity. Patients should be able to work with their health-care provider to decide on the best evidence-based obesity treatment — and have insurance coverage for that care. We must all call on insurers, employers and policymakers to ensure comprehensive obesity care is covered just like any other chronic disease — it's only fair. Millicent Gorham, Washington The writer is CEO of the Alliance for Women's Health and Prevention. Regarding the May 28 front-page article 'RFK Jr. remolds policy on covid': Although the coronavirus vaccines for children and adults are safe and effective, the Food and Drug Administration removed them from its recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. This is incredibly irresponsible. Children play a significant role in the transmission of the coronavirus. During the pandemic, more than 70 percent of household coronavirus transmissions originated with a child, and data shows that young children can be considerable transmission vectors within households, despite having lower viral loads. Many infected children are asymptomatic, making it harder to identify and control the spread. This means children who might be infected but do not show symptoms can transmit the virus to others. It is true that most children generally present with mild disease and exhibit lower hospitalization rates than adults. However, infected children can experience long covid and its long-term effects, including fatigue and muscle weakness. Pregnant women also face a higher risk of developing severe coronavirus complications compared with nonpregnant individuals. Without vaccination, they are more likely to require intensive care and mechanical ventilation, are at a higher risk of mortality and severe illness, and are four times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated pregnant women. Coronavirus infection during pregnancy can lead to serious complications, including a higher risk of preterm birth, an increased likelihood of developing preeclampsia and a greater chance of gestational diabetes. And a mother vaccinated against the coronavirus can transfer protective antibodies to the fetus, providing immunity to the newborn after birth. The benefits of coronavirus immunization far outweigh any potential risks, establishing it as a vital preventive measure for children and all pregnant women. It is irresponsible not to recommend and support its use. A.J. Russo, Chincoteague, Virginia The writer is author of 'Vaccine Development and the Understanding of Immunity.' I am a doctor, and I spent the majority of my career as executive director of the Pasco County Health Department in Florida. Limiting access to the coronavirus vaccine conflicts with recommended public health policy. Denying and discouraging lifesaving vaccines to at-risk groups will increase the rates of death and disability caused by this serious disease. Political interference with recommended public health policy concerning this disease has already taken a terrible toll on Americans. Yet politicians turn a blind eye to their responsibility bucking professional and expert guidance from the New England Journal of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those who allowed this disease to race through the American population should be held accountable, not shielded. Now again, an untrained and questionably informed bureaucrat, wants to compromise protections for millions of Americans who should be getting the vaccine. I believe the Food and Drug Administration's changes to its approval process for the coronavirus vaccine has a serious potential to allow this disease to race out of control again. I continue to have full confidence in the recommendations made by professional public health scientists and doctors. When government agencies choose to blind themselves to studies and recommendations, we all pay a terrible price. Marc J. Yacht, Hudson, Florida