124 replies to this topic

[timar]

Argument from Ignorance. A classic fallacy, which seems to be very fashionable here lately.

One should be aware that there are a lot of methodological issues/limitations involved in the mediterranean and Okinawan dietary studies.

Attempting to isolate just the diet as a cause in their health/longevity is difficult. Of the many variables known and unknown, there are obviously potential genetic variables(e.g. having Okinawan or Cretan genes) and lifestyle variables(e.g. possible calorie restriction in the Okinawans, living on an idyllic island in the Cretans) that are hard to exclude.

This is completely misguided criticism out of ignorance. Willcox et al. never tried to isolate the diet as the sole or even major cause of the Okinawan longevity. In fact, only roughly one third of their book The Okinawan Way is about diet. The rest is about various lifestyle apects peculiar to the Okinawan elders, their social life and relationships, even spirituality.

Genetics have of course been ruled out as the cause of Okinawan longevity, by comparative studies with emigrant groups from Okinawa. Genetics are a determinant of individual longevity but they certainly don't explain its prevalence in Okinawa.

Then there are varying interpretations/definitions about what constitutes each diet, with experts questioning the accuracy of recording/reporting of diets in the original studies, and with diets in these places having since changed.

There are also well standardised methods to obtain reliable epidemiological data.

Trials of the mediterranean diet(or limited components of it) have been relatively short term, have loose control over *actual* diet, rely on participants to report their own diet (which is kown to result in inaccuracy), give results as just biomarkers instead of actual health outcomes or are limited to elderly and/or unhealthy people who are already at high risk of death and disease.

We must eat. So we sift through the shitty, incomplete science that is nutrition, and then we eat what we think will sustain good health. All food is poison to some degree -- kale, blueberries, salmon... So limit calories, and focus on the bare bones evidence as it emerges, like the PREDIMED work. It's incomplete, but slowly clues develop. What's least harmful? Eat that.

This forum has almost zero science going on. Maybe rats might settle the debate? Since, they don't live long and don't have opinions or beliefs (as far as I know! ).

As far as the proof is in the pudding and tribes. I still believe the only way to proove causation is from a experiment. Therefore, at less yoga instructors, tribes, and really old people grew up in a lab they can't be used other than to hypothesize then test in a experiment.

Every science is incomplete by its very definition. And we actually know a whole lot more about optimum nutrition than the three of you suggest. Nutritional science is not for the die-hard reductionists. It's one of the most sophisticated, integrative fields of science, connecting different categories of evidence spanning an continuum from strictly causal in-vitro studies over animal studies, RCTs, case-control, up to correlational epidemiological studies, each of them having its purpose and justification. PERIMED only confirmed what already was known from epidemiological evidence by another, more causal category of evidence derived from an RCT:

It's principally impossible to gain scientific understanding of nutrition by relying exclusively on reductionist methods. One can't study a forest by examining single trees only. That way you will learn a lot about trees, but still don't understand what constitutes a forest. (Now substitute nutrient for tree and nutrition for forest).

Unfortunately, what evidence there is for benefit of these diets is still relatively weak and unimpressive regarding increased lifespan and healthspan.

This is BS, really. We are talking about at least 30% of all cancer and 60% of all heart desease which could be prevented by dietary means, to name only two leading causes of death. There is no controversy about that, it necessarily derives from the synthesis of all the categories of evidence I mentioned. Diet is at least as important for longevity as physical activity and social relationships.

Edited by timar, 05 December 2013 - 12:10 AM.

[timar]

This sort of logic on this form would be like if a cardiologist had a heart attack then we said "what could he know he had a heart attack"

Well, that's pretty much what I wrote over in the relevant topic, albeit on a somewhat lower testosterone level

[chung_pao]

Without animal products (I assume it's B12 and Cholesterol), my whole health breaks down and I become a miserable, neurotic mess.

I imagine, that if that state of malnutrition was coupled with a conviction that "we're born to be vegetarians", I'd be just as militant and proselytizing as most vegetarians out there are.

[Brett Black]

One should be aware that there are a lot of methodological issues/limitations involved in the mediterranean and Okinawan dietary studies.

Attempting to isolate just the diet as a cause in their health/longevity is difficult. Of the many variables known and unknown, there are obviously potential genetic variables(e.g. having Okinawan or Cretan genes) and lifestyle variables(e.g. possible calorie restriction in the Okinawans, living on an idyllic island in the Cretans) that are hard to exclude.

This is completely misguided criticism out of ignorance. Willcox et al. never tried to isolate the diet as the sole or even major cause of the Okinawan longevity. In fact, only roughly one third of their book The Okinawan Way is about diet. The rest is about various lifestyle apects peculiar to the Okinawan elders, their social life and relationships, even spirituality.

No, it is your reply that is misguided. Go back and look at what my comment above was in reply to. My reply was to a poster who recommended the Okinawan *diet* alone(no mention of emulating Okinawan lifestyle, elders, social life, relationships, spirituality etc.) Further, I made no reference to Wilcox in my reply.

Genetics have of course been ruled out as the cause of Okinawan longevity, by comparative studies with emigrant groups from Okinawa.

This does not rule out genetics. For instance it could be that Okinawan genetics *coupled with* traditional Okinawan diet(and/or other cause/s specific to Okinawa) is required for the health and lifespan benefits observed there.

Then there are varying interpretations/definitions about what constitutes each diet, with experts questioning the accuracy of recording/reporting of diets in the original studies, and with diets in these places having since changed.

There are also well standardised methods to obtain reliable epidemiological data.

There may well exist such standardised methods to obtain reliable epidemiological data, but I was talking about particular studies(early Okinawan and Cretan dietary data), and in these specific studies there is arguably a troubling degree of unreliability in the data.

Unfortunately, what evidence there is for benefit of these diets is still relatively weak and unimpressive regarding increased lifespan and healthspan.

This is BS, really. We are talking about at least 30% of all cancer and 60% of all heart desease which could be prevented by dietary means, to name only two leading causes of death. There is no controversy about that, it necessarily derives from the synthesis of all the categories of evidence I mentioned. Diet is at least as important for longevity as physical activity and social relationships.

You may or may not be correct about diet being responsible for 30% cancer and 60% heart disease. But in any case, even if these figures are correct, and we eventually manage to perfect a proven diet(or possibly multiple individual-specific diets) that captures the full disease-prevention potential, we are talking perhaps a couple of years extra lifespan(e.g. something like 1 year extra for 30% cancer reduction.) When, on top of that, you add the current weakness of evidence in the relevant studies, the value drops further still.

Now of course any reduction in death and disease is great, but for anyone, like me, who wants to see "radical" reductions in aging, disease and death, this is ultimately a pathetic result. That's why I ask people here, on a radical life-extension forum, to keep the impact of diet in proper perspective.

[Brett Black]

I should mention that it is possible that even a very small increase in lifespan(including that attained by tweaking the diet obsessively) *could possibly* be the difference between living long enough to benefit from radical life extension technologies or missing the chance. If one were to subscribe to this idea, then tweaking the diet could prove to be a very good investment.

The thing is, it's not a *very small* increase for everyone. Some people will live quite a bit longer, others not so much. If you happen to be the one who avoids a stroke in their 60's and gets another 20 years of life, that could make a huge difference given where we are on the biotechnology development curve.

Sure. Some people may see really quite impressive results from their chosen diet, and the converse may also be true - some may see little or no results, and some may even see harmful results.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea to try to eat a healthy a diet, I think we should be trying to stack things in our favour.

The thing with diet is, the rather weak evidence we have suggests that even if we do get it right, the payoff is likely to be minimal for most, particularly compared to the ultimate desires of radical life-extensionists.

It doesn't require "obsessive" tweaking to simply eat a healthy diet.

I think that's probably true.

Do you include vegans among the "obsessive"?

I dont't know, haven't really thought about it, but my argument is not against obsessiveness per se. Obsessiveness can be valuable and constructive, but it needs to be focused on the right things, otherwise it can become counterproductive.

Edited by Brett Black, 05 December 2013 - 03:00 AM.

[niner]

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea to try to eat a healthy a diet, I think we should be trying to stack things in our favour.

The thing with diet is, the rather weak evidence we have suggests that even if we do get it right, the payoff is likely to be minimal for most, particularly compared to the ultimate desires of radical life-extensionists.

If you're talking about the difference between a good diet and a slightly better diet, then I agree. However, a great many people in the developed world eat an absolutely horrible diet that makes them obese and diabetic. The difference between that and a good diet is certainly not minimal. I really don't want to get you wrong, but you keep sounding like you think that diet hardly matters at all.

[Brett Black]

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea to try to eat a healthy a diet, I think we should be trying to stack things in our favour.

The thing with diet is, the rather weak evidence we have suggests that even if we do get it right, the payoff is likely to be minimal for most, particularly compared to the ultimate desires of radical life-extensionists.

If you're talking about the difference between a good diet and a slightly better diet, then I agree. However, a great many people in the developed world eat an absolutely horrible diet that makes them obese and diabetic. The difference between that and a good diet is certainly not minimal. I really don't want to get you wrong, but you keep sounding like you think that diet hardly matters at all.

Most of the studies investigating ostensibly "healthy" diets, like the Meditarranean diet, do so in comparison with a control group eating the standard/default diet of the population being studied. So the (arguably) weak results (like 0.7 hazard ratios) aren't caused to be weak as a result of comparing against already particularly healthy diets. Rather, they (ideally) represent average results that would be expected in the *real world.*

In this sense, it actually highlights the weakness of these diets more: because even applying the best-evidenced diets to a population that already obviously eats suboptimally, we still get these weak results.

Sure you can put yourself at pretty high risk of increased death and disease by doing something *really unhealthy*, like eating until you are obese(BMI 30+.) But even with outright obesity(possibly the very worst common "diet" known to science) the average life expectancy still only drops by around 3 to 6 years.

But I assume just about everyone who has an interest in life extension knows the basics: maintain a healthy weight, do some regular exercise, eat fruit and vegetables regularly. This population would be expected to see even less gain from the diets that resulted in the weak results seen in the "normal" population.

I'll say it again: I'm just trying to keep perspective, and to help those who may not be particularly knowledgeable about diet from getting unrealistic expectations.

Edited by Brett Black, 05 December 2013 - 04:36 AM.

[Jembe]

Don't count on being average. A better diet could give you 6 months, 2 years, or 25 years (e.g. because of that stroke or cancer you never had).

[JohnD60]

I'll share.... For the last three years I have been more or less following this diet plan http://catalyticlongevity.org/
I do it slightly different, but in summary: I eat essentially zero carbs of any kind until approx. 4:00 PM, then I eat all my carbs within a 5 hour window. I do this in order to manipulate insulin signaling.
I also fast, water only, for about 22 hours one day every two weeks, followed by an hour of cardio exercise. But that is not related to the insulin signaling plan related above. I have been doing that for 5 years.

[timar]

I'll share.... For the last three years I have been more or less following this diet plan http://catalyticlongevity.org/

That's an interesting website with lots of great information, especially the synthesis' by McCarty.

I don't think, however, that the concept of carbohydrate concentration holds much merit. The downsides of avoiding fruits and most vegetables and all the beneficial substances they contain while eating those high-fat, high-protein meals will probably by far outweight any benefits due to reduced insulin levels (which is not the major reason behind CR induced life extension anyway).

For example, if you have eggs and meat for breakfast, you'll ingest a lot of cholesterol with that, as well as inflammatory compounds and various glycation products. Better add some fruits and veggies which contain phytochemicals that inhibit cholesterol absorption, protect the absorbed cholesterol from oxidation and exert potent anti-inflammatory and anti-glycation activity.

[niner]

Most of the studies investigating ostensibly "healthy" diets, like the Meditarranean diet, do so in comparison with a control group eating the standard/default diet of the population being studied. So the (arguably) weak results (like 0.7 hazard ratios) aren't caused to be weak as a result of comparing against already particularly healthy diets. Rather, they (ideally) represent average results that would be expected in the *real world.*

In this sense, it actually highlights the weakness of these diets more: because even applying the best-evidenced diets to a population that already obviously eats suboptimally, we still get these weak results.

Sure you can put yourself at pretty high risk of increased death and disease by doing something *really unhealthy*, like eating until you are obese(BMI 30+.) But even with outright obesity(possibly the very worst common "diet" known to science) the average life expectancy still only drops by around 3 to 6 years.

But I assume just about everyone who has an interest in life extension knows the basics: maintain a healthy weight, do some regular exercise, eat fruit and vegetables regularly. This population would be expected to see even less gain from the diets that resulted in the weak results seen in the "normal" population.

I'll say it again: I'm just trying to keep perspective, and to help those who may not be particularly knowledgeable about diet from getting unrealistic expectations.

How do you know that the comparison diets are so bad? Is that just an assumption? Are those hazard ratios for a specific disease class, like CVD, or are they all-cause. Only all-cause matters. The stated HRs are for the course of the comparison period, but what would happen down the road? Perhaps they would continue to get smaller the longer the person was on the diet.

I certainly don't want noobs to get unrealistic expectations about diet or anything else, but it seems to me that you are using relatively limited information to indict various diets as being insignificantly useful. I don't want those noobs to drop in, read this thread, and decide it's time to head over to the donut shop. That is just a different form of unrealistic expectation, but one with worse consequences than thinking that diet is more important than it actually is. If being concerned about your diet is somehow bad for you, then Michael Rae is in deep trouble...

There's been an idea floating around the radical life extension community for a long time, which posits that caring about your health in the near term, particularly if it involves taking supplements, but also including various dietary interventions other than CR (which gets a pass, for some reason), is somehow "bad" for the cause. If we care about any intervention that slows aging (other than CR), then we are "wasting" time that could be spent in furtherance of "the cause". I think this idea is counterproductive, illogical, and wrong. If it wasn't for people who cared about improving their health and cognition in the near term, LongeCity would be a ghost town without income. Any of us who wish to reach Longevity Escape Velocity must do one thing, first and foremost: Not die. If there are any interventions that help us reach that end, then it behooves us to know about them. From things you've mentioned here regarding SENS, I can't help but wonder if the radical LE dislike of mild interventions is slipping into your thinking about diet.

[JohnD60]

I'll share.... For the last three years I have been more or less following this diet plan http://catalyticlongevity.org/

For example, if you have eggs and meat for breakfast, you'll ingest a lot of cholesterol with that, as well as inflammatory compounds and various glycation products.

I feel very confident in asserting that the 600mg of Cholesterol that I consume daily is minor relative to the 3500mg per day my body makes. I don't understand why that is not obvious to others. But that appears to be changing. My cholesterol level is around 190/200, ratios are normal, I am in in excellent health and I am not overweight, so it is not viewed as a risk factor by most doctors. You may not know it, but the US FDA recently re-evaluated their long held position on cholesterol levels.

The point you bring up about glycation productions is harder for me to refute, mostly because I can't find any actual data on how much glycation productions are produced by various cooking methods. Clearly BBQing at 600F. is much more likely to produce glycation than frying at 325F, or boiling/steaming at 212F. But how much more? I do remember a thread within the past 2 years about glycation production produced when cooking eggs, and I also remember discovering that this study was based upon the flash cooking of a sprayed egg containing solution at a very high temperature in some sort of commercial manufacturing environment, not at all similar to the way eggs are cooked in the home. And that eggs cooked at normal temperatures,using normal methods, do not contain glycation products. I think it is important to note that most glycation occurs when a carbohydrate combines with a protein, so the worst case scenario would be BBQing meat at a high temperature with a BBQ sauce on it. I mitigate my exposure to glycation products by not BBQing, eating meat and fish that is very rare, not using any sugary sauces when cooking, not eating cured meats, and (this is based only on theory) donating blood regularly to remove accumulated AGEs.

Not sure what you mean by "inflammatory compounds"

Edited by JohnD60, 06 December 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[niner]

The point you bring up about glycation productions is harder for me to refute, mostly because I can't find any actual data on how much glycation productions are produced by various cooking methods.

This is the paper you want. See table one, with a comparison of the AGE content of eggs cooked a variety of ways.

[Brett Black]

Most of the studies investigating ostensibly "healthy" diets, like the Meditarranean diet, do so in comparison with a control group eating the standard/default diet of the population being studied. So the (arguably) weak results (like 0.7 hazard ratios) aren't caused to be weak as a result of comparing against already particularly healthy diets. Rather, they (ideally) represent average results that would be expected in the *real world.*

In this sense, it actually highlights the weakness of these diets more: because even applying the best-evidenced diets to a population that already obviously eats suboptimally, we still get these weak results.

Sure you can put yourself at pretty high risk of increased death and disease by doing something *really unhealthy*, like eating until you are obese(BMI 30+.) But even with outright obesity(possibly the very worst common "diet" known to science) the average life expectancy still only drops by around 3 to 6 years.

But I assume just about everyone who has an interest in life extension knows the basics: maintain a healthy weight, do some regular exercise, eat fruit and vegetables regularly. This population would be expected to see even less gain from the diets that resulted in the weak results seen in the "normal" population.

I'll say it again: I'm just trying to keep perspective, and to help those who may not be particularly knowledgeable about diet from getting unrealistic expectations.

How do you know that the comparison diets are so bad? Is that just an assumption?

To a degree it is an assumption and generalization. The studies and their diets, subjects etc are heterogenous, but control diet groups often are left eating their normal diet, which, if it reflects SAD probably means many participants are not comforming to mainstream nutritional guidelines("optimal diet") on things like calories, saturated fats, salt intake, fruit and vegetable intake etc.

Are those hazard ratios for a specific disease class, like CVD, or are they all-cause.

Well it varies by study...

Only all-cause matters.

Why do you say that? Individuals don't die from "all causes", and many people can guess at their most likely mortality risks based on disease prevalence, their current health indicators, gender, family background etc. So focusing on reducing risk to specific diseases may be worthwhile(e.g. most men probably don't have to worry about breast cancer.)

The stated HRs are for the course of the comparison period, but what would happen down the road? Perhaps they would continue to get smaller the longer the person was on the diet.

That's one of the limitations of relatively short-term studies. Longer-term results may be better or worse than what has occured with the short term outomes.

I certainly don't want noobs to get unrealistic expectations about diet or anything else, but it seems to me that you are using relatively limited information to indict various diets as being insignificantly useful.

The limited information goes both ways - the diets could be better than we know or worse than we know.

I don't want those noobs to drop in, read this thread, and decide it's time to head over to the donut shop. That is just a different form of unrealistic expectation, but one with worse consequences than thinking that diet is more important than it actually is. If being concerned about your diet is somehow bad for you, then Michael Rae is in deep trouble...

I have great respect for Michael Rae, and he has repeatedly shown his willingness to let evidence guide and (very importantly) change his dietary choices.

Michael is a good example, I think, of the limitations of current science in these areas. He went from consuming and heavily supporting a high protein diet, to then consuming and supporting a lower protein diet. Then, subsequent to switching to a lower protein diet, he (and other lower-protein diet members of the calorie restriction forum) apparently developed insulin resistance(or something that resembles it.)

So were the years of his high protein diet a waste? Is the insulin resistant-like changes that occured after the switch to lower protein going to negatively impact health? We/science just dont know at this point.

Michael is highly intelligent and very knowledgeable and (appeal to authority/popularity) he is held in high esteem by many here and in life extensionist circles generally. If Michael can manage to make dietary decisions that may later turn out to have been undesirable then I think many others here can to.

Dietary decisions are not without risk given the current limitations of the biological sciences.

(I note that Michael, to his cedit, appears fully cognizant of and readily admits to the many uncertainties involved in these endeavours.)

There's been an idea floating around the radical life extension community for a long time, which posits that caring about your health in the near term, particularly if it involves taking supplements, but also including various dietary interventions other than CR (which gets a pass, for some reason), is somehow "bad" for the cause. If we care about any intervention that slows aging (other than CR), then we are "wasting" time that could be spent in furtherance of "the cause". I think this idea is counterproductive, illogical, and wrong. If it wasn't for people who cared about improving their health and cognition in the near term, LongeCity would be a ghost town without income. Any of us who wish to reach Longevity Escape Velocity must do one thing, first and foremost: Not die. If there are any interventions that help us reach that end, then it behooves us to know about them. From things you've mentioned here regarding SENS, I can't help but wonder if the radical LE dislike of mild interventions is slipping into your thinking about diet.

I think you make some good an interesting points there.

I'm not saying diet is completely useless in regards the goal of radical life-extension. I'm saying current scientfic evidence about long-term impact of diet on human longevity is pretty weak, and the weak evidence we currently have about its impact suggests it has weak impact(from the perspective of radical life extension.)

Personally, I think if one is serious about life extension, constructing a healthy diet(or at least making the best attempt to, based on current evidence) makes sense, so long as one keeps the limitations I mentioned in mind.

Edited by Brett Black, 07 December 2013 - 03:02 AM.

[JohnD60]

The point you bring up about glycation productions is harder for me to refute, mostly because I can't find any actual data on how much glycation productions are produced by various cooking methods.

This is the paper you want. See table one, with a comparison of the AGE content of eggs cooked a variety of ways.

Thanks. Some interesting data. There is certainly a dramatic difference between cooked and uncooked meat based upon the data. One might conclude that to balance out the carboxymethyl lysine consumed from a couple strips of fried Bacon one would have to consume a case of Budweiser.
But I am confused. As I understand it, and I could be wrong, Glucosepane is the predominate AGE in the Human body, comprising at least 90%, and possibly 99.9% of AGEs in the Human body. That study published in 2010 measures carboxymethyl lysine and methyl-glyoxal, two other AGEs which are structurally not at all like Glucosepane. Why bother measuring carboxymethyl lysine and methyl-glyoxal concentrations if they are so completely overwhelmed by Glucosepane?

Edited by JohnD60, 07 December 2013 - 05:05 AM.

[blood]

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, Glucosepane is the predominate AGE in the Human body, comprising at least 90%, and possibly 99.9% of AGEs in the Human body. That study published in 2010 measures carboxymethyl lysine and methyl-glyoxal, two other AGEs which are structurally not at all like Glucosepane. Why bother measuring carboxymethyl lysine and methyl-glyoxal concentrations if they are so completely overwhelmed by Glucosepane?

From the paper:

... recent studies with the oral administration of a single AGE-rich meal to human beings as well as labeled single protein-AGEs or diets enriched with specific AGEs such as MG to mice clearly show that dAGEs are absorbed and contribute significantly to the body’s AGE pool (14–16).

Consumption of AGE-rich diets by mice is associated with elevated circulating and tissue AGEs and conditions such as atherosclerosis (17) and kidney disease (18). On the other hand, restriction of dAGEs prevents vascular and kidney dysfunction (18,19), diabetes type 1 or type 2 (20), improves insulin sensitivity (21,22), and accelerates wound healing (23). Low dAGE intake has also been shown to lengthen lifespan to the same extent as does energy restriction in mice (16). Studies in healthy human beings show that dAGEs directly correlate with circulating AGEs, such as CML and MG, as well as with markers of oxidative stress (24). Moreover, restriction of dAGEs in patients with diabetes (25) or kidney disease (26,27) as well as in healthy subjects (28) also reduces markers of oxidative stress and inflammation. Together, the findings from animal and human studies suggest that avoidance of dAGEs in food helps delay chronic diseases and aging in animals and possibly in human beings (3).

Edited by blood, 07 December 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[JohnD60]

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, Glucosepane is the predominate AGE in the Human body, comprising at least 90%, and possibly 99.9% of AGEs in the Human body. That study published in 2010 measures carboxymethyl lysine and methyl-glyoxal, two other AGEs which are structurally not at all like Glucosepane. Why bother measuring carboxymethyl lysine and methyl-glyoxal concentrations if they are so completely overwhelmed by Glucosepane?

From the paper:

... recent studies with the oral administration of a single AGE-rich meal to human beings as well as labeled single protein-AGEs or diets enriched with specific AGEs such as MG to mice clearly show that dAGEs are absorbed and contribute significantly to the body’s AGE pool (14–16).

Consumption of AGE-rich diets by mice is associated with elevated circulating and tissue AGEs and conditions such as atherosclerosis (17) and kidney disease (18). On the other hand, restriction of dAGEs prevents vascular and kidney dysfunction (18,19), diabetes type 1 or type 2 (20), improves insulin sensitivity (21,22), and accelerates wound healing (23). Low dAGE intake has also been shown to lengthen lifespan to the same extent as does energy restriction in mice (16). Studies in healthy human beings show that dAGEs directly correlate with circulating AGEs, such as CML and MG, as well as with markers of oxidative stress (24). Moreover, restriction of dAGEs in patients with diabetes (25) or kidney disease (26,27) as well as in healthy subjects (28) also reduces markers of oxidative stress and inflammation. Together, the findings from animal and human studies suggest that avoidance of dAGEs in food helps delay chronic diseases and aging in animals and possibly in human beings (3).

The Studies referenced by this study do not differentiate between protein Cross linking AGEs (primarily glucosepane) and non protein cross linking AGEs (primarily CML and MG). The Sens Foundation and some other sources seem to think the distinction is very important. I do not know enough about the differences to make an informed decision. It could be that CML and MG are relatively benign, and that the associations based upon CML concentrations are not causal. Absent some persuasive argument to the contrary I am going to side with the SENS Foundation position that glucosepane is by far the most important AGE, simply because they are the SENS foundation. http://www.sens.org/...ogy-glucosepane http://www.ncbi.nlm
pubmed/16037276

Edited by JohnD60, 08 December 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[niner]

The Studies referenced by this study do not differentiate between protein Cross linking AGEs (primarily glucosepane) and non protein cross linking AGEs (primarily CML and MG). The Sens Foundation and some other sources seem to think the distinction is very important. I do not know enough about the differences to make an informed decision. It could be that CML and MG are relatively benign, and that the associations based upon CML concentrations are not causal. Absent some persuasive argument to the contrary I am going to side with the SENS Foundation position that glucosepane is by far the most important AGE, simply because they are the SENS foundation. http://www.sens.org/...ogy-glucosepane http://www.ncbi.nlm
pubmed/16037276

There's pretty good evidence that dietary AGEs cause problems in both animals and humans, and that they shorten the lifespan of rodents. Glucosepane is a problem that develops internally over time, and it's a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that dietary AGEs are ok. They are just causing different kinds of problems.

It's a sad fact that we've discovered another thing that tastes good but is bad for us. This one cuts us to our core- the same high temperature cooking methods that make things taste so good are also making us sick. Dietary AGEs are the real reason why raw food diets are good. Raw foodies have some fairy tale about "live enzymes", but that's not it.

Helen Vlassara's take on the dAGE problem is that it's pretty easy to make a big dent in your dAGE consumption by avoiding a few worst-case foods, and that can be done while still enjoying what you eat.

[sthira]

Helen Vlassara's take on the dAGE problem is that it's pretty easy to make a big dent in your dAGE consumption by avoiding a few worst-case foods, and that can be done while still enjoying what you eat.

As I understand Vlassara she argues to avoid foods cooked at high temperatures -- charred, fried, broiled -- and especially the toxic mixtures of fried sugar and fats. Browned meat, butter, and many other processed foods cooked at high temperatures are very bad for you. Listing foods and preparation methods likely to produce higher dAGEs are helpful ideas for prolonging healthier life. Maybe we won't gain radical life extension, as Brett argues, by avoiding these foods, but within context avoiding that crap can help gain healthier years to our fragile lives.

[niner]

Listing foods and preparation methods likely to produce higher dAGEs are helpful ideas for prolonging healthier life. Maybe we won't gain radical life extension, as Brett argues, by avoiding these foods, but within context avoiding that crap can help gain healthier years to our fragile lives.

Yeah, Vlassara has been trying to get this idea out into the public, and I think it's very helpful. We've got a large list of foods and preparation methods, and if you can cut your dAGE consumption in half without giving up things that you really like, then why not? Brett's argument drives me nuts because there's a strawman at the core- no one is claiming that we will get *radical* life extension from *any* dietary intervention. Based on animal results, we may get *some* life extension from CRON. A growing body of evidence suggests that we may get *some* life extension from other dietary interventions, such as dAGE avoidance.

[Brett Black]

Brett's argument drives me nuts because there's a strawman at the core- no one is claiming that we will get *radical* life extension from *any* dietary intervention.

That is not the core(or any part) of my argument. I have repeatedly and very succinctly summed up the intentions and core of my arguments in this thread for you, Niner, but for some reason you don't seem to have been willing or able to follow.

[ta5]

The point you bring up about glycation productions is harder for me to refute, mostly because I can't find any actual data on how much glycation productions are produced by various cooking methods.

This is the paper you want. See table one, with a comparison of the AGE content of eggs cooked a variety of ways.

Nice paper. I always boil my meats (baked and covered in water), but I'm going to start adding vinegar or lemon juice since that resulted in half the amount of AGEs. Though, that was roasting. It probably won't result in half the AGEs for me since I was was already boiling it. It couldn't hurt and will taste good anyway.

I was surprised that oils, including EVOO, were so high in AGEs. I thought you needed protein and sugar to make AGEs, and then heat or oxidation to really increase them.

[JohnD60]

The point you bring up about glycation productions is harder for me to refute, mostly because I can't find any actual data on how much glycation productions are produced by various cooking methods.

This is the paper you want. See table one, with a comparison of the AGE content of eggs cooked a variety of ways.

Nice paper. I always boil my meats (baked and covered in water), but I'm going to start adding vinegar or lemon juice since that resulted in half the amount of AGEs. Though, that was roasting. It probably won't result in half the AGEs for me since I was was already boiling it. It couldn't hurt and will taste good anyway.

I was surprised that oils, including EVOO, were so high in AGEs. I thought you needed protein and sugar to make AGEs, and then heat or oxidation to really increase them.

I have been steaming all my meat since about the 1st of the year, 2014. I am not convinced that it matters, but it tastes just as good to me, and it doesn't require any more work. And I still eat everything rare

[Peter14]

well this is discouraging...

Not enough discussion, or because the posters are mostly pro-vegan/ vegetarian?

You might be interested in this thread:
http://www.longecity...myloid-plaques/

I'd be happy if I could just find a healthful diet that fixes my GERD. Before it hit I had been a vegetarian with no dairy (almost vegan) for 5 months. I can't have tomato sauce or similar products, onions or garlic, so many of my old recipes are out the window. I'm back to a plant-based diet with modest amounts fish, poultry and eggs. I've tried all the alternative GERD treatments out there and have been through a few proton pump inhibitors and an H2 blocker. This thing sucks. I'm scheduled for an endoscopy in a couple of weeks. Sorry this is a bit off-topic. Some people say paleo helps GERD, not sure how, but I might be desperate enough to try it. I'm not sure the rest of the family would go along, though, and good meat is expensive.

I find starches actually cause my GERD. If I keep relatively low-carb I am alright. Take a look at this.
http://www.proteinpo...high-carb-diet/

[lemonhead]

well this is discouraging...

Not enough discussion, or because the posters are mostly pro-vegan/ vegetarian?

You might be interested in this thread:
http://www.longecity...myloid-plaques/

I'd be happy if I could just find a healthful diet that fixes my GERD. Before it hit I had been a vegetarian with no dairy (almost vegan) for 5 months. I can't have tomato sauce or similar products, onions or garlic, so many of my old recipes are out the window. I'm back to a plant-based diet with modest amounts fish, poultry and eggs. I've tried all the alternative GERD treatments out there and have been through a few proton pump inhibitors and an H2 blocker. This thing sucks. I'm scheduled for an endoscopy in a couple of weeks. Sorry this is a bit off-topic. Some people say paleo helps GERD, not sure how, but I might be desperate enough to try it. I'm not sure the rest of the family would go along, though, and good meat is expensive.

I find starches actually cause my GERD. If I keep relatively low-carb I am alright. Take a look at this.
http://www.proteinpo...high-carb-diet/

Thanks. I'm going to try it soon; I have a book on it. I just have to get organized. (like that'll ever happen...) Anyway, it has gotten much better, though I have relapses they are not as bad as it was. I get bad stomach pain and burps but I'm not throwing up. Some days there's no pain at all. It's much better if I don't drink tea (as I'm doing right now) but I find I can't wake up enough to do anything without tea. I've been eating more fermented foods; the various probiotic pills I tried did not seem to help, but I think the sauerkraut (the real stuff, not from a can), natto, and stinky cheeses have been helping. I think there's definitely something to the gut bacteria angle. I hope this gets studied more. It's ridiculous that as much as 20% of the population has GERD and they don't know what causes it. The meds can be ridiculously expensive (they tend to crap out after a while IME, so you wind up going from cheap, old drugs to newer, expensive ones).

Thanks again.

[zorba990]

The point you bring up about glycation productions is harder for me to refute, mostly because I can't find any actual data on how much glycation productions are produced by various cooking methods.

This is the paper you want. See table one, with a comparison of the AGE content of eggs cooked a variety of ways.

Nice paper. I always boil my meats (baked and covered in water), but I'm going to start adding vinegar or lemon juice since that resulted in half the amount of AGEs. Though, that was roasting. It probably won't result in half the AGEs for me since I was was already boiling it. It couldn't hurt and will taste good anyway.

I was surprised that oils, including EVOO, were so high in AGEs. I thought you needed protein and sugar to make AGEs, and then heat or oxidation to really increase them.

That's good news for my lemon-lime chicken!

Regarding EVOO is that for cooked olive oil? (I always shotgun mine raw).

[genereader]

I'd be happy if I could just find a healthful diet that fixes my GERD. 

 

 

For me, that was a gluten and casein free diet.  My kids had ADHD, and so we went on the GFCF diet many years ago (it worked BTW).  One day I realized, "Huh, my GERD is gone".    Very unexpected.   

 

As Peter14 suggested, maybe GERD is related to starch intake, which would have been reduced on the GFCF diet.  This past year I've found that a low-starch diet heals my very persistent plantar fasciitis and joint pains and stiffness.   I've gone on and off starches four times and the results are consistent.    

 

As to possible mechanisms... some people with ankylosing spondylitis do better with low starch diets (London diet).   I don't have AS, but like most people I have some of the AS genes.  I am curious about checking HLA-B27 (related to AS) but am not sure i want to spend the money on a test.   

 

  

Edited by genereader, 23 February 2017 - 06:18 PM.

[ketogeniclongevity]

Due to the broad spectrum of ancestral homosapien diets, two peoples can follow the same diet and receive polar opposite results. Mindlessly emulating trendy centenarian diets will lead to failure, like restricting a polar bear and a koala to plant food. Ketosis is generally unrivaled for most peoples as it  is our natural condition, but, others can require anywhere from 100 to 400 calories of low-GI carbs a day.  I land on the lower side of the spectrum,due to my carb limit being 15g/day, but some people of certain countries and races can handle up to 100g carbs(400 calories). I've met zero people who can handle more than 100g a day. The average carb intake should be about 50g/day, but don't follow averages. Experiment yourself how well you tolerate carb-never go beyond 100g carbs/day.

Edited by ketogeniclongevity, 26 February 2017 - 01:36 AM.

[Duchykins]

Homo sapiens sapiens is a generalist species, all species of the genus Homo were/are generalists; simply eat whole foods, avoid processed foods and keep junk foods to a minimum, and keep a small log of how certain foods make you feel.  Eat what makes you feel good, and try not to consume calories in excess of whatever your daily physical exertions are.  No big deal.  

 

The truth is that since we are generalists, keeping sedentary habits to a minimum is much more influential than your diet.

 

The only problem is that the human genome is still in the process of adapting to how the advent of agriculture 12,000 years ago radically altered our diets (which is part of our environment).  But there is nothing to be done about that except to carry on and allow nature to run its course, shaping us to our new environment.  On an evolutionary timescale, we just started farming last night, and became granivores less than 10 hours ago.  Most of the foods we eat today, both domesticated plant and animal species, hardly resemble their wild ancestors.  But we will adapt in time.

 

Unless you have tested your DNA and therefore know of certain mutations you carry which predispose you towards being better off or worse off on certain kinds of diets.

 

Avoid extreme diets that purportedly come with an initial "detox" phase where you feel like shit in the beginning.  Those gimmicky detox claims are nonsense; that's simply not how the body operates.  For example, on extreme low carb diets, people often feel bad in the beginning (body aches, lethargy, etc) because their serotonin levels have crashed due to the fact that the body partly relies on carbohydrates to synth serotonin, not because their bodies are "detoxing."    This kind of thing is no better than the ultra-fast weight loss diets - we know this is ultimately bad for the body in the long run.

Edited by Duchykins, 26 February 2017 - 09:47 PM.

[kurdishfella]

Every not Alkaline food is toxic to different extents not just meat, doesn't mean it doesn't have good nutrition in it as well which counter it longer term.

Edited by kurdishfella, 01 August 2021 - 08:19 AM.