But was each piece of animal protein, crumbed, deep fried, then wrapped in bread with a side of fries?
"the investigators found that individuals who ate more {assume protein missed out} had a higher weight-to-height ratio and were at greater risk for type 2 diabetes"
and
"people who ate the most protein got about 15% of their calories from red meat, processed meat, poultry, fish and dairy"
So the abstract above doesn't really give any useful information.
People who eat a LOT tend to get 15% of their calories from animal protein.
The details are totally inconsistent.
Risk rises with the amount of protein quoted in grams per day.
However these figures are not tied to percentages.
If the percentage of protein in the diet is more or less constant, all they are saying is that people who eat more calories tend to put on more weight which increases diabetes risk.
No sh*t, Sherlock!
Might have seen similar research before.
Given that there is a contingent on this forum who must obtain at least 15% of their calories from red meat, processed meat, poultry, fish and dairy and who are maintaining or reducing weight this seems to be a strange research outcome.
Given that the NHS Diet Plate shows considerably more that the 15% protein quoted above there must be loads of healthy clean living people who fit into the 15% or more of animal proteins.
If the report had said that it had established that people on equivalent calorie diets showed a distinct difference in development of T2D directly related to the percentage of animal protein they ate, then this would have been an interesting result.
However I cannot find those words or their equivalent in the abstract.
I also note that the standard of written English (or even American) is little short of appalling.
Cheers
LGC