• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Dietary Carbohydrates Impair Healthspan and Promote Mortality

carbohydrate mortality longevity

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ LongeCity grant support for self-testing

#1 Chupo

  • Registered User
  • 310 posts
  • 224
  • Location:United States

Posted 07 October 2017 - 01:09 AM


 

The prospective cohort study, named PURE, found that in >135,000 participants from 18 countries, nutritive carbohydrates increase human mortality, whereas dietary fat reduces it, requesting a fundamental change of current nutritional guidelines. Experimental evidence from animal models provides synergizing mechanistic concepts as well as pharmacological options to mimic low-carb or ketogenic diets.

 

Screenshot_20171006_210536.png

Figure 1

Factors, Modulators, and Executers of Carbohydrate-Mediated Healthspan Regulation

(A) Physiological and environmental factors that may regulate healthspan in relation to carbohydrate uptake or glucose catabolism.

(B) Therapeutic modulators of the individual factors depicted above.

© Selected mechanistic regulators that cumulatively mediate the downstream execution of (A) and (B), respectively.

 

Full Text: http://www.cell.com/...4131(17)30562-4

 


  • WellResearched x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#2 Darryl

  • Registered User
  • 629 posts
  • 575
  • Location:New Orleans
  • NO

Posted 07 October 2017 - 07:27 PM

When considering the lower total income, income inequality, and health outcome disparities in countries that participated in PURE, one could also make the case that its result may be seriously confounded by socioeconomic status.

 

There's also the issue of the typical carbs consumed in those countries. They're consuming refined flour bread, white rice, cornmeal, and increasingly even in rural areas, sugar sweetened beverages and candy. No serious researcher has made a case for refined higher-GI starches and fructose-containing sugar, and no serious researcher can deny the huge volume of evidence favoring whole grain and legume consumption. Again, there's real peril in reducing the diverse effects of different carbohydrates to a single category.


Edited by Darryl, 07 October 2017 - 07:29 PM.

  • Good Point x 4
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Chupo

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 310 posts
  • 224
  • Location:United States

Posted 07 October 2017 - 08:24 PM

When considering the lower total income, income inequality, and health outcome disparities in countries that participated in PURE, one could also make the case that its result may be seriously confounded by socioeconomic status.

 

 

 

Except that the association held up in both Western and Asian countries and after it was controlled for.

 

 

"Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality in both Asian countries and non-Asian countries (figure 2A). Conversely, higher intake of total fat and individual types of fat were each associated with lower total mortality risk in Asian countries and non-Asian countries"

 

gr2.gif

 

http://www.thelancet...2252-3/fulltext

 

There's also the issue of the typical carbs consumed in those countries. They're consuming refined flour bread, white rice, cornmeal, and increasingly even in rural areas, sugar sweetened beverages and candy. No serious researcher has made a case for refined higher-GI starches and fructose-containing sugar, and no serious researcher can deny the huge volume of evidence favoring whole grain and legume consumption. Again, there's real peril in reducing the diverse effects of different carbohydrates to a single category.

 

Not classifying the different carbs, was a major limitation of this study. There needs to be a re-analysis with this info.


Edited by Chupo, 07 October 2017 - 08:30 PM.

  • Well Written x 3
  • Informative x 1

#4 albedo

  • Registered User
  • 1,074 posts
  • 328
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2017 - 12:59 PM

Wow, its an impressive study Chupo you have found. Have put it in my to read list when I can have access. Yes there are limitations as Darryl points out but I am impressed. I also think carbohydrates differentiation should be done (I would be even more impressed if a metabolomic stratification would be introduced, that would be much more sensitive). Also, population span might smooth genetics, I wonder if the work has something to say on this and epigenetics. Will check it out. Thank you for having shared it.



#5 prophets

  • Registered User, Advisor
  • 2,152 posts
  • 340
  • Location:US

Posted 05 November 2017 - 01:30 PM

I'd really like to see a comparative study of db/db mice and humans on various individual and maybe combination interventions that address excessive glucose with metformin (gluconeogenesis), acarbose (starch digestion inhibitor), SGLT-2 (excrete glucose via urine), and the Valter Longo FMD protocol.

 

Regardless of your viewpoint on carbs, I think this study adds to case in favor of MUFAs (Q5 vs. Q1 = 0.74 HR), with maybe the best p-value (0.0065) among comparative cohorts.


  • Good Point x 2

#6 prophets

  • Registered User, Advisor
  • 2,152 posts
  • 340
  • Location:US

Posted 05 November 2017 - 10:51 PM

Here is a link to another aspect of the PURE study looking at vegetable, fruit, legume intake, and their associations with various mortality outcomes (stroke, myocardial etc.).  This paper was the first one published, before carbohydrate paper above.

 

I don't have the time to exhaustively dissect this paper, but it seems that they highlight that:

 

  • Raw vegetables have a statistically significant inverse correlation with mortality events, while cooked vegetables do not appear to have the same level of significance (Table 3, 4). 
  • Legumes seem to have a powerful reduction in all cause mortality (cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular).
  • Benefits of vegetable, fruit, legume intake were found lower in 3-4 servings per day or 375-500 grams per day, with limited benefits thereafter

 

There is a small podcast discussing the outcome.

 


Edited by prophets, 05 November 2017 - 11:02 PM.

  • like x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#7 dazed1

  • Registered User
  • 192 posts
  • 3
  • Location:/
  • NO

Posted 10 November 2017 - 09:25 AM

Anyone who thinks that carbs from veggies/fruits are bad for you (if you are not diabetic/prediabetic) then he does not belong to this forum


Edited by dazed1, 10 November 2017 - 09:25 AM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Ill informed x 2
  • dislike x 2
  • unsure x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Agree x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#8 jack black

  • Registered User
  • 908 posts
  • 9
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:40 PM


  • Legumes seem to have a powerful reduction in all cause mortality (cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular).

 

Very interesting. I noticed that since I started eating only vegetables for lunch, the days on which some sort of legumes are served, I have a noticeable increased sense of well-being (both physical and psychical) in the afternoon. of course i always take a capsule of beeno on those days.

Has anyone noticed anything like that?


  • Agree x 1

#9 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 942 posts
  • -86
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 18 November 2017 - 03:24 PM

Don't forget that the culture that has the best longevity eats a diet where 90% of their calories comes from sweet-potato. 


  • Ill informed x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#10 dazed1

  • Registered User
  • 192 posts
  • 3
  • Location:/
  • NO

Posted 18 November 2017 - 03:32 PM

WOW i actually got like many dislikes, and people on high end nutrition forums who think that veggies/carbs are bad ?

 

I can understand about dates, rasins, bananas, potatoes, and such, but give me a reason not to eat blueberries, pomegranate, nuts and such?


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#11 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 942 posts
  • -86
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 18 November 2017 - 09:08 PM

WOW i actually got like many dislikes, and people on high end nutrition forums who think that veggies/carbs are bad ?

 

I can understand about dates, rasins, bananas, potatoes, and such, but give me a reason not to eat blueberries, pomegranate, nuts and such?

 

 

People here (and most everywhere else) would much rather eat fat/protein than fiber/carbs, so they convince themselves it's healthy to eat eggs for breakfast instead of oatmeal. I think all whole-food sources of carbohydrates are healthy, including the much maligned potato and the other high-glycemic carbs like dates, rice or bananas, the problems come with foods high in calorie-density, like oils, refined-sugar, refined-flour, nuts and animal-products high in bad-fats like arachidonic-acid.   

 

 

Calorie-density of food: http://www.longecity...ensity-of-food/


Edited by misterE, 18 November 2017 - 09:11 PM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#12 dazed1

  • Registered User
  • 192 posts
  • 3
  • Location:/
  • NO

Posted 18 November 2017 - 10:45 PM

 

WOW i actually got like many dislikes, and people on high end nutrition forums who think that veggies/carbs are bad ?

 

I can understand about dates, rasins, bananas, potatoes, and such, but give me a reason not to eat blueberries, pomegranate, nuts and such?

 

 

People here (and most everywhere else) would much rather eat fat/protein than fiber/carbs, so they convince themselves it's healthy to eat eggs for breakfast instead of oatmeal. I think all whole-food sources of carbohydrates are healthy, including the much maligned potato and the other high-glycemic carbs like dates, rice or bananas, the problems come with foods high in calorie-density, like oils, refined-sugar, refined-flour, nuts and animal-products high in bad-fats like arachidonic-acid.   

 

 

Calorie-density of food: http://www.longecity...ensity-of-food/

 

 

The foods you mentioned are safe only afrer you start with slow carbs, 2-3 weeks must first pass then you can include high glycemic index foods.

 

Nuts are bad? sorry while i agree with you on the other points, nuts are amazing, and far from bad.



#13 Benko

  • Member
  • 130 posts
  • 311
  • Location:US

Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:40 AM

...posted in error

 


Edited by Benko, 19 November 2017 - 01:46 AM.


#14 Benko

  • Member
  • 130 posts
  • 311
  • Location:US

Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:45 AM

I can see it now, the potato diet vs the avocado diet ;-)


  • like x 1

#15 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,896 posts
  • 1,576
  • Location:New York

Posted 19 November 2017 - 02:19 AM

Like my grandmother used to say about healthy diets, you best use it quick while it still works.


  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • like x 1

#16 sthira

  • Member
  • 1,693 posts
  • 320

Posted 19 November 2017 - 02:47 AM

Cuz in the mornin' there's devil to pay, lol

#17 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 942 posts
  • -86
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2017 - 04:59 AM

 

 

 

{1} The foods you mentioned are safe only afrer you start with slow carbs, 2-3 weeks must first pass then you can include high glycemic index foods.

 

{2} Nuts are bad? sorry while i agree with you on the other points, nuts are amazing, and far from bad.

 

 

 

{1} Probably the most healing diet ever documented was called The Rice Diet by Walter Kempner out of Duke Univeristy. Reversed everything but cancer, all documented and published before 1950. The Rice Diet consisted of white-rice, fruit, juice and sugar. Research it if you don't believe me. Reversed heart-disease, obesity, diabetes, kidney-failure, psoriasis etc.

 

{2} Sure nuts can be bad, in terms of calorie-balance and obesity, nuts are much more calorie-dense than even white-sugar. Plus nuts often contain terrible omega-3/omega-6 ratios. Almonds have a ratio of 1 to 5000! How does one get to a 1 to 1 ratio, when they are constantly snacking on foods that have thousand or hundred fold more omega-6? The few exceptions would be flax (3 to 1) and macadamia (1 to 6). 


Edited by misterE, 19 November 2017 - 05:05 AM.

  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#18 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 942 posts
  • -86
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2017 - 05:03 AM

I can see it now, the potato diet vs the avocado diet ;-)

 

 

Ever heard of the Irish Potato Famine? I've never known of a population of people that gets their calories from avocados, which are only seasonal in very limited times of the year naturally, but cultures that get most of their calories from starch and potatoes... oh yes, most cultures worldwide before the industrial-revolution got their calories from starch. The Okinawan's today, who eat 90% of their calories from sweet-potato (starch and maltose) have the greatest longevity on Earth. 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...amine_(Ireland)


Edited by misterE, 19 November 2017 - 05:04 AM.

  • Enjoying the show x 2

#19 dazed1

  • Registered User
  • 192 posts
  • 3
  • Location:/
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2017 - 11:59 AM

 

 

 

 

{1} The foods you mentioned are safe only afrer you start with slow carbs, 2-3 weeks must first pass then you can include high glycemic index foods.

 

{2} Nuts are bad? sorry while i agree with you on the other points, nuts are amazing, and far from bad.

 

 

 

{1} Probably the most healing diet ever documented was called The Rice Diet by Walter Kempner out of Duke Univeristy. Reversed everything but cancer, all documented and published before 1950. The Rice Diet consisted of white-rice, fruit, juice and sugar. Research it if you don't believe me. Reversed heart-disease, obesity, diabetes, kidney-failure, psoriasis etc.

 

{2} Sure nuts can be bad, in terms of calorie-balance and obesity, nuts are much more calorie-dense than even white-sugar. Plus nuts often contain terrible omega-3/omega-6 ratios. Almonds have a ratio of 1 to 5000! How does one get to a 1 to 1 ratio, when they are constantly snacking on foods that have thousand or hundred fold more omega-6? The few exceptions would be flax (3 to 1) and macadamia (1 to 6). 

 

 

 

Omega 6 from nuts, does not count, its nothing like omega 6 from animal proteins. There are numerous antioxidants, minerals, phytonutrients present in nuts which balance any of the "negative" omega 6 effect.  

 

The 1:1 ratio is myth. its one thing to eat plant based -hg index foods from childhood, and to start it suddenly, you must start slowly, and then you can start the high carb, but the high carb diet - MUST be free of any animal source of foods.


Edited by dazed1, 19 November 2017 - 12:01 PM.


#20 Benko

  • Member
  • 130 posts
  • 311
  • Location:US

Posted 19 November 2017 - 01:06 PM

misterE,

 

1.  It was a joke.

 

2.  As someone who recently tried a vegan died (no junk) and wound up with very high triglycerides I can personally verify that not everyone will thrive on a high carb diet.  Some people will feel better/do better on relatively higher fat and relatively lower carbs.  I'm not talking ketogenic and there is a whole spectrum that people can and do choose from to see what works best for them.  And one can stick to e.g. avocados, EVOO, nuts, etc. even if you believe that saturated fat is unhealthy.

 

I have no clue if the differences between people who do better on higher vs lower carb is genetic, etc. or if there are ways to predict it, but trial and error and paying attention to your body (well and lab tests) should yield answers.

 

3.  My gut issues (from 10+ years antibiotics as a child) are 90% fixed, but many people have gut issues and do better avoiding grains, etc.

 

4.  Given the current arsenic in most rice, I'd be careful trying the rice diet today.  Beyond that I"m still skeptical that a diet of white rice, and fruit juice is optimal for obese people.  


  • Good Point x 2
  • Agree x 1

#21 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 942 posts
  • -86
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2017 - 06:21 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omega 6 from nuts, does not count, its nothing like omega 6 from animal proteins. There are numerous antioxidants, minerals, phytonutrients present in nuts which balance any of the "negative" omega 6 effect.  

 

The 1:1 ratio is myth. its one thing to eat plant based -hg index foods from childhood, and to start it suddenly, you must start slowly, and then you can start the high carb, but the high carb diet - MUST be free of any animal source of foods.

 

 

 

Sure they count. And remember that those antioxidants and phytonutrients you speak of are not for you, but rather for the seed; protecting the oxidation of those fragile oils, which are needed for germination and surviving the winter. Animals that hibernate eat nuts, seeds and acorns and increase their omega-6 to omega-3 ratios many fold, soon after their metabolism slows and they accumulate fat, however you feed those animals coconut-oil or lamb-fat and they cannot enter torpor and metabolism stays normal. However I do agree that omega-6 from animal-products is much worse because it is in the active form that easily converts into eicosanoids, whereas linoleic-acid, is less biologically active. 


  • Ill informed x 2

#22 misterE

  • Registered User
  • 942 posts
  • -86
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2017 - 06:44 PM

 

 

{1} As someone who recently tried a vegan died (no junk) and wound up with very high triglycerides I can personally verify that not everyone will thrive on a high carb diet.   

 

{2} I have no clue if the differences between people who do better on higher vs lower carb is genetic, etc. or if there are ways to predict it, but trial and error and paying attention to your body (well and lab tests) should yield answers.

 

{3} My gut issues (from 10+ years antibiotics as a child) are 90% fixed, but many people have gut issues and do better avoiding grains, etc.

 

{4} Given the current arsenic in most rice, I'd be careful trying the rice diet today. 

 

{5} Beyond that I"m still skeptical that a diet of white rice, and fruit juice is optimal for obese people.  

 

{1} It has been shown that when you replace sugar with starch, triglyceride synthesis (de novo lipogenesis; DNL) is decreased... I think 30 fold if my memory serves me correctly. Triglycerides decrease even further if you eat low-glycemic starches like pasta, oats, barley, beans, etc. I can recall reading a study that showed swapping out soda (as the main source of carbohydrate) for bread, lead to a significant drop in triglycerides. Researchers believe it is the fructose... not the glucose... that is the main contributor of DNL. 

 

{2} Speaking of genes, where you aware that the main digestive enzyme in the human body; amylase is meant for hydrolyzing starch into simple-glucose? Humans have 10-fold more amylase producing genes than our closest primate ancestor!

 

{3} Many gut issues arise from a diet lacking in fiber, which usually means the diet is high in animal-products, oils and processed-foods. However whole and refined grains (save for flours) are healthy for the gut. White-rice, although lower in fiber, actually acts like a fiber because it contains "resistant-starch" which feeds the microbiome.

 

{4} Arsenic was used in America as a pesticide many years ago and has saturated the soils, but was banned, so naturally levels in the soil will slowly decrease. Fruits and vegetables actually accumulate much more arsenic than rice and no one suggests to eat less vegetables, yet rice gets all the blame. White-rice contains much less arsenic that whole-grain rice ironically. 

 

{5} Well you can be skeptical if you want, but Kempners results remain, and this was rice grown in the 1930's and 1940's when arsenic was in full use! White-rice is 1.5 calories per gram, whereas the foods you recommend (olive-oil and nuts) are: 9 and 7 calories per gram respectively, there is no way olive-oil or nuts are less fattening than rice! 


  • Ill informed x 3

⌛⇒ LongeCity grant support for self-testing

#23 Benko

  • Member
  • 130 posts
  • 311
  • Location:US

Posted 19 November 2017 - 07:47 PM

 

 

 

{1} As someone who recently tried a vegan died (no junk) and wound up with very high triglycerides I can personally verify that not everyone will thrive on a high carb diet.   

 

{2} I have no clue if the differences between people who do better on higher vs lower carb is genetic, etc. or if there are ways to predict it, but trial and error and paying attention to your body (well and lab tests) should yield answers.

 

{3} My gut issues (from 10+ years antibiotics as a child) are 90% fixed, but many people have gut issues and do better avoiding grains, etc.

 

{4} Given the current arsenic in most rice, I'd be careful trying the rice diet today. 

 

{5} Beyond that I"m still skeptical that a diet of white rice, and fruit juice is optimal for obese people.  

 

{1} It has been shown that when you replace sugar with starch, triglyceride synthesis (de novo lipogenesis; DNL) is decreased... I think 30 fold if my memory serves me correctly. Triglycerides decrease even further if you eat low-glycemic starches like pasta, oats, barley, beans, etc. I can recall reading a study that showed swapping out soda (as the main source of carbohydrate) for bread, lead to a significant drop in triglycerides. Researchers believe it is the fructose... not the glucose... that is the main contributor of DNL. 

 

{2} Speaking of genes, where you aware that the main digestive enzyme in the human body; amylase is meant for hydrolyzing starch into simple-glucose? Humans have 10-fold more amylase producing genes than our closest primate ancestor!

 

{3} Many gut issues arise from a diet lacking in fiber, which usually means the diet is high in animal-products, oils and processed-foods. However whole and refined grains (save for flours) are healthy for the gut. White-rice, although lower in fiber, actually acts like a fiber because it contains "resistant-starch" which feeds the microbiome.

 

{4} Arsenic was used in America as a pesticide many years ago and has saturated the soils, but was banned, so naturally levels in the soil will slowly decrease. Fruits and vegetables actually accumulate much more arsenic than rice and no one suggests to eat less vegetables, yet rice gets all the blame. White-rice contains much less arsenic that whole-grain rice ironically. 

 

{5} Well you can be skeptical if you want, but Kempners results remain, and this was rice grown in the 1930's and 1940's when arsenic was in full use! White-rice is 1.5 calories per gram, whereas the foods you recommend (olive-oil and nuts) are: 9 and 7 calories per gram respectively, there is no way olive-oil or nuts are less fattening than rice! 

 

 

I wasn't eating foods with added sugar (" no junk") and my gut problems came from penicillin daily for over a decade starting age 3.  You are repeating talking points or cutting/pasting from e.g. Gregor.

 

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.  In practice there is.

 

There is no one diet optimal for everyone.

 

 

 


  • Agree x 3
  • unsure x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: carbohydrate, mortality, longevity

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users