My(nearly raw, Almost vegan)Okinawan style diet

This is a meal I would have (three or two times a day)

1g of brazil nut
3g of flax seed
16 g of almonds
16g of strwberries
16g of blueberries
33g of red peppers
33g of apples
33g of chinese cabbage
33g of spinach
33g of avocado
33g of brown rice
66g of oranges
66g of bitter melon
100g of lettuce
100g of broccoli
125g of tofu
166g of sweet potatoe
50g of fish (usually salmon)

Supplements:
5g of Omega3 fish oil capsules,
General multi vitamin,
Kelp Supplement (deep sea Atlantic source),
Calcium supplement (700 mg a day)
vitamin B12
at least 3 cups of white tea a day,
I take some protein powder from vegetable sources between meals
(Please suggest some other supplements I could take)

I've worked hard to create this diet. I've calculated that it comes to almost 2500 callories for the 3 meals together. I wanted to include a diverse variety of food in the diet. I made it so that it was similar to the types of food the Okinawan centenarians eat low calorie density nutrition packed food.

It's somewhat difficult to follow it at this stage because I'm 16 I go to high school and it's hard to convince my parents to supply all this food for me, my refrigerator is too full of shit food to store my vegetables, my parents are overweight and eat like most westerners. It also takes almost an hour to eat each meal(my record was 30 minutes), and it takes some time to prepare all the meals for the day and my whole family eats completely different things than I do).

Does anyone have any ideas to change it a little bit so it is more practical to follow?
Does this diet have too much fiber in it?

Please critique this diet.

Maybe add some Carnosine supplementation since your not getting much of it in your diet.

And maybe replace Flax seed with Chia seed. Chia is even more abundant than Flax in the same beneficial nutrients and it doesn't have the phytoestrogens that Flax has.

I would just make sure you aren't missing anything in your diet that other developing teens your age eating meat and dairy are getting.

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

I think you might be getting too much protein. (All the bodybuilders in the room just fainted, I know. But, seriously.) The tofu is at least 12 grams of protein depending on variety (16g for "hard, prepared with nigari"). Other plant-based ingredients you've listed add up to 13-15. Depending on your age / gender / muscle mass / other factors that might be all the protein you can digest per 2-3 hours, since you've said you said you take protein supplements between meals. The salmon is 11-14 grams of protein that your body cannot metabolize, so it's just empty calories, but all the fish hormones and toxins remain. You also get better essential fats from vegetables than fish. The obsession with protein dates back to a time when European peasants would eat nothing but potatoes for extended periods of time, which obviously caused major nutritional problems. Latest research shows that it might be doing more harm than good, especially if you put longevity ahead of big muscles. I am a particularly big fan of The China Study.

I also question the value of white tea. The purpose of beverages is to hydrate and cleanse your body, with nothing being more suitable for this purpose than pure cool water. Other beverages add acidity and possibly caffeine, reduce hydration, and change your drinking habits so you end up drinking less in total. Best antioxidants come from fresh plants or fermented substances like soy sauce, not plants that were dried, preserved, shipped half-way around the world, and scolded in hot water.

Edited by Alex Libman, 01 April 2010 - 02:56 AM.

The salmon is 11-14 grams of protein that your body cannot metabolize, so it's just empty calories, but all the fish hormones and toxins remain.

Really? Humans can't metabolize the protein in salmon? Any references for that?

I also question the value of white tea. The purpose of beverages is to hydrate and cleanse your body, with nothing being more suitable for this purpose than pure cool water. Other beverages add acidity and possibly caffeine, reduce hydration, and change your drinking habits so you end up drinking less in total. Best antioxidants come from fresh plants or fermented substances like soy sauce, not plants that were dried, preserved, shipped half-way around the world, and scolded in hot water.

EGCG has a LOT of research behind it. I have nothing against fresh vegetables, but egcg is going to be very tough to beat.

I agree strongly agree with your cautions against protein overdosing. Along with China Study data, striking to me is that breast milk is only 6% protein, which is enough to sustain us during our highest growth period.

I think you might be getting too much protein. (All the bodybuilders in the room just fainted, I know. But, seriously.) The tofu is at least 12 grams of protein depending on variety (16g for "hard, prepared with nigari"). Other plant-based ingredients you've listed add up to 13-15. Depending on your age / gender / muscle mass / other factors that might be all the protein you can digest per 2-3 hours, since you've said you said you take protein supplements between meals. The salmon is 11-14 grams of protein that your body cannot metabolize, so it's just empty calories, but all the fish hormones and toxins remain. You also get better essential fats from vegetables than fish. The obsession with protein dates back to a time when European peasants would eat nothing but potatoes for extended periods of time, which obviously caused major nutritional problems. Latest research shows that it might be doing more harm than good, especially if you put longevity ahead of big muscles. I am a particularly big fan of The China Study.

I also question the value of white tea. The purpose of beverages is to hydrate and cleanse your body, with nothing being more suitable for this purpose than pure cool water. Other beverages add acidity and possibly caffeine, reduce hydration, and change your drinking habits so you end up drinking less in total. Best antioxidants come from fresh plants or fermented substances like soy sauce, not plants that were dried, preserved, shipped half-way around the world, and scolded in hot water.

Seems like a good diet, but I would start it after age 21. You may still be growing, so I would not be overly restrictive at this time in your life unless you are over weight. Maybe do it for two meals per day and lighten up in terms of what you eat on the third meal?

The China Study. It feels like 2007 again. Vegan Propaganda much?

On the bright side, that means more salmon and white tea for us at Whole Foods.

The China Study. It feels like 2007 again. Vegan Propaganda much?

On the bright side, that means more salmon and white tea for us at Whole Foods.

I know what you mean... it seems new members come in waves and we go over the same topics again and again. Rinse, wash, and repeat.

To the original poster:
Don't even think about restricting protein / calories while you are still growing unless you are absolutely satisfied with your height. In my opinion, the diet you just described is probably adequate protein for someone who lives a mostly sedentary lifestyle and isn't growing. However, at this phase in your life, I wouldn't shy away from dairy, meat, eggs, tofu, etc.

Otherwise, the diet you described seems good, although I think it is lacking in saturated fats / mono-unsaturated fats. Try adding extra virgin coconut oil and / or extra virgin olive oil. Perhaps trade them for the nuts you are eating. Remember, a lot of plant based nutrients are fat soluble. Adding these fats will enhance absorption. Furthermore, longer chain fats will reduce ALEs.

As for the soy sauce recommendation, I recommend you read this WIKI article on hydrolyzed vegetable protein. Make sure to read the line at the bottom that mentions soy sauce.

Edited by Skotkonung, 01 April 2010 - 08:25 AM.

This diet is awesome. I give you extra props considering your age and your family's habits. I agree with the carnosine suggestion, but beta alanine produces carnosine in vivo for way cheaper. Other supps I'd recommend are creatine, taurine, carnitine, and some extra Vitamin D.

The protein powder idea is a good one. The protein in salmon will digest just fine, and there is no reason to think otherwise. Though if you are going to do salmon, Alaskan salmon has the least toxins. You wouldn't want to go lower than 10% of your calories from protein, especially while you are growing. You don't need tons, but I think 20% is a good amount for young males. That is probably what you are getting.

I also recommend adding dark chocolate that is over 70% pure cacao if not more. I have about 15g of an 88% bar every day or some hot cocoa. It is healthy and has lots of anti-oxidants. I didn't think I would like it at first, especially since as a kid I couldn't even stand normal dark chocolate, but now I prefer it over anything else. It makes me less likely to crave unhealthy desserts.

Paleo aka neo-Atkins propaganda much?

The China Study. It feels like 2007 again. Vegan Propaganda much?

On the bright side, that means more salmon and white tea for us at Whole Foods.

I agree strongly agree with your cautions against protein overdosing. Along with China Study data, striking to me is that breast milk is only 6% protein, which is enough to sustain us during our highest growth period.

Ever wonder why children stop drinking milk at a very young age? Could it be that it no longer provides sufficient nutrients to promote growth??

Also, ever wonder why Japanese living in Japan are shorter than Japanese living in the USA or other Western countries? Could it be their diet doesn't support growth and their heights are stunted?

Yeah, a low protein diet certainly seems intelligent at pre final development ages...

I gotta agree with Skot; even if a low-protein diet is, in general, the way to maximize longevity, I would strongly consider starting it at a later age, unless being shorter than your peers is what you're after.

dunno where you get your salmon, but be careful about mercury poisoning with all that fish intake.

Omega 6/3 ratio is off (Your blood vessels may bleed)
Too much phytoestrogens (gynecomastia risk, testosterone deficiency)
Too little fat and cholesterol (Every single cell in your body needs it, especially your brain! Believe me or not, brain is one large chunk of fat!)

Did you know Okinawan men's average height is less than 5' and weight less than 100lb?
Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously with a body like that in Western society? (I don't think Japanese will take you seriously....)
I know I know, what does body mass have to do with anything, but that's just the way it is.

The Indefinite Lifespaner,
I have read your other posts including paxil and all....
I really think you should find value in being "normal".
Then you will become normal....

Forgive me if I was rude....

Really? Humans can't metabolize the protein in salmon? Any references for that?

If you had read more carefully then it would have been clear that I was referring to the amount of protein the human body can metabolize at a time, which can range from 20 to 35 grams per meal depending on things like age, gender, muscle mass, etc. That number also diminishes if your meals / snacks are less than 3-4 hours apart. I used Wolfram Alpha to calculate the protein amounts in portions of the foodstuffs listed, which added up to 36-45 grams - probably more than even Arnold Schwarzenegger could metabolize at his peak. Extra protein pollutes the body and causes unnecessary strain on the kidneys and most other internal organs. Of course that doesn't mean the fish is what needs to be cut - I'm not a big fan of (unfermented) tofu either.

EGCG has a LOT of research behind it. I have nothing against fresh vegetables, but egcg is going to be very tough to beat.

Tea is a cash crop. There's more money interested in funding studies about tea and coffee than about parsley, buckwheat, or ye humble turnip. And if tea is so good for you, why scold and filter it instead of just using it as an herb you sprinkle on salads?

I gotta agree with Skot; even if a low-protein diet is, in general, the way to maximize longevity, I would strongly consider starting it at a later age, unless being shorter than your peers is what you're after.

Physical height is a greater value to you than longevity?! I look down upon your meat-centric delusions with contempt..

[...] You wouldn't want to go lower than 10% of your calories from protein [...]

I would put that number even higher at 15-18%. I'm a vegan who doesn't consume much soy (except soy sauce) or supplements, but I still get around 20% calories from protein by focusing on other legumes, vegetables, beans, whole grains, beans, mushrooms, and beans. I choose vegetables and grains that have the highest protein percentage (ex. buckwheat instead of rice), avoid all added fats (ex. oils), and also avoid all "carb junk" foods with less than 10% calories from protein (starchy stuff, sweet potatoes, and most fruits).

Edited by Alex Libman, 01 April 2010 - 12:16 PM.

I am a particularly big fan of The China Study.

I can't believe there's still people quoting the China Study as anything worthful.

Really? Humans can't metabolize the protein in salmon? Any references for that?

If you had read more carefully then it would have been clear that I was referring to the amount of protein the human body can metabolize at a time, which can range from 20 to 35 grams per meal depending on things like age, gender, muscle mass, etc. That number also diminishes if your meals / snacks are less than 3-4 hours apart. I used Wolfram Alpha to calculate the protein amounts in portions of the foodstuffs listed, which added up to 36-45 grams - probably more than even Arnold Schwarzenegger could metabolize at his peak. Extra protein pollutes the body and causes unnecessary strain on the kidneys and most other internal organs. Of course that doesn't mean the fish is what needs to be cut - I'm not a big fan of (unfermented) tofu either.

In a meal yes, but not by the end of the day. Do you think that no one can take in more than 90g of protein in a day (3 meal at 30g), anything more than that will be wasted? While some amino acids will be oxidized, some other will remains in the body pool for later use.

Do you have any reference for the problem with kidney and organ? I doubt it, because none exist Healthy kidney can deal with huge amount of protein with no problem what so ever. Not that I am for a high protein diet anyway, but you are making claim that are not backed by the scientific litterature...

I must admit that I am biased toward a vegan diet for a long list of reasons (though definitely not in any way relating to the so-called "animal rights" nonsense). The greatest reason for me is portion control: animal products are healthy only in very small quantities, while my appetite usually wants ten times more. It is easier for me to cut out all animal products entirely, so after a while the cravings go away. Another bias is my particular medical and family history: I'm overweight, in terrible cardiovascular shape, and I have a concentrated family history of heart disease, diabetes, and every cancer imaginable. I also have some weirdo political / agorist biases as well, which have benefited my aesthetic appreciation of hearty locally-grown vegan cuisine. Finally I probably like salads, bean stews, buckwheat, mushrooms, and fresh-baked bread more than most people do.

That said, I am yet to see the main points made in The China Study debunked in any substantive way, in spite of the billion-dollar protein supplement and an even bigger meat & dairy industries (one of the most powerful government lobbies in the U.S.) who would go out of their way to resist it. There's a lot of profit in meat and dairy, and those products are actually several times more expensive than we think they are, with the rest of the cost being covered by government subsidies, limited liabilities, etc.

You often see simplistic studies about the benefits of certain dairy, fish, or meat products that are further simplified by the press, but what is lost are the negative side-effects of those foods, and the fact that you can get the same benefits from plant-based foods with far fewer side-effects. You must remember that animals themselves don't magically make nutrients appear out of thin air - all their nutrients come from plants (or in some cases solar absorption and bacteria, as is the case with Vitamin D and B-12 respectively, but we can manufacture those things much better inside a lab than inside a cow nowadays). If you think about it logically, then passing your nutrients through another animal is economically ridiculous, and it is nutritionally harmful as well because you end up with the animal's fat, hormones, sterols, bacteria, mineral toxins, etc. Yes there's a benefit of the animal concentrating certain nutrients (protein, calcium, B6, etc), but we can easily concentrate them in a lab as well.

[...] Do you think that no one can take in more than 90g of protein in a day (3 meal at 30g), anything more than that will be wasted? [...]

Many protein junkies manage to fit in more meals than that (ex. 7am, 10am, 1pm, 4pm, 7pm, 10pm), and some even drink a protein supplement between meals, but that doesn't mean the absorbed effects add up arithmetically. The upper estimate I've mentioned was 35, but that's just for the central ~90% of the bell curve, there might be "genetic freaks" whose metabolic process is slightly different from most people's... And of course which combinations of amino acids you consume and other dietary details also make a difference. The mathematical algorithms for modeling protein-related processes tend to be very complex - you might be able to optimize your total intake further by getting 5 grams of protein every 15 minutes, though that may impact your alertness and your circulation during physical activity, and there will definitely be a curve of diminishing returns after a certain point.

Edited by Alex Libman, 01 April 2010 - 09:02 PM.

Physical height is a greater value to you than longevity?! I look down upon your meat-centric delusions with contempt..

I don't think physical height and longevity will be mutually exclusive.

But that's up to every person to decide; if this person is willing to risk shortness in favor of potential longevity, more power to him.

I must admit that I am biased toward a vegan diet for a long list of reasons (though definitely not in any way relating to the so-called "animal rights" nonsense)....

That said, I am yet to see the main points made in The China Study debunked in any substantive way, in spite of the billion-dollar protein supplement and an even bigger meat & dairy industries (one of the most powerful government lobbies in the U.S.) who would go out of their way to resist it. There's a lot of profit in meat and dairy, and those products are actually several times more expensive than we think they are, with the rest of the cost being covered by government subsidies, limited liabilities, etc.

you need vitamin b12, you need vitamin k2 (mk-4). these come almost exclusively from animals. i would go 100% vegan if it made sense. but it mechanistically and biologically does not.

you need vitamin b12, you need vitamin k2 (mk-4). these come almost exclusively from animals. i would go 100% vegan if it made sense. but it mechanistically and biologically does not.

I agree regarding vegans and B12 but is the wikipedia article on vitamin K incorrect where it states the below?

...Vitamin K2 (menaquinone, menatetrenone) is normally produced by bacteria in the large intestine,[2] and dietary deficiency is extremely rare unless the intestines are heavily damaged, are unable to absorb the molecule, or are subject to decreased production by normal flora, as seen in broad spectrum antibiotic use....

not aware of humans producing menatetrenone in enough quantities to meet daily requirements. animals do. then we eat the animals and get menatetrenone. nattokinase will have mk-7 and what not, from bacteria. but im not aware of mk-7 / k2 being available from anything other than an animal.

...Vitamin K2 (menaquinone, menatetrenone) is normally produced by bacteria in the large intestine,[2] and dietary deficiency is extremely rare unless the intestines are heavily damaged, are unable to absorb the molecule, or are subject to decreased production by normal flora, as seen in broad spectrum antibiotic use....

Thing is, K2 is fat soluble, and fats are actually absorbed in the small intestine, which is before the large intestine.

So any K2 generated would be excreted. The same goes for B-12 generated in the colon...

Omega 6/3 ratio is off (Your blood vessels may bleed)

Where can I learn more about this? When I take a spoonful of flax seed oil, I find that I bruise easily, and when I take 2-3 spoonfuls throughout a day, I bruise from a firm touch.

That said, I am yet to see the main points made in The China Study debunked in any substantive way, in spite of the billion-dollar protein supplement and an even bigger meat & dairy industries (one of the most powerful government lobbies in the U.S.) who would go out of their way to resist it. There's a lot of profit in meat and dairy, and those products are actually several times more expensive than we think they are, with the rest of the cost being covered by government subsidies, limited liabilities, etc.

Here is an excellent rebutal to the china study

http://www.cholester...hina-Study.html

Here is another, not as good, but okay

http://www.scienceba...cine.org/?p=385

not aware of humans producing menatetrenone in enough quantities to meet daily requirements. animals do. then we eat the animals and get menatetrenone. nattokinase will have mk-7 and what not, from bacteria. but im not aware of mk-4 / k2 being available from anything other than an animal.

typo fixed

I don't think physical height and longevity will be mutually exclusive. [...]

They're not mutually exclusive due to any universal principle, and new technologies could theoretically make a person taller someday, but you yourself have said that there's currently a conflict between those two values - dietary regimens believed to increase longevity also reduce height. I think there's also some statistical evidence about shorter people living longer once you adjust for things like malnutrition. And it does make sense: less stress on the heart to feed those meaty limbs, more blood-flow to the more essential organs, etc.

you need vitamin b12, you need vitamin k2 (mk-4). these come almost exclusively from animals. i would go 100% vegan if it made sense. but it mechanistically and biologically does not.

I've mentioned Vitamin B-12 specifically in my previous post - a vegan would have to live in a cave not to hear about it every other day! I know I need to take supplements for B-12, but only because I don't graze on unwashed plant leaves straight from the source, which are covered with plenty of B12-making bacteria, as our pre-human ancestors did. I also need to supplement Vitamin D because live up north and mostly stay indoors, unlike our ancestors who got plenty of D from the sun (and mushrooms / microfungi that also manufacture it when exposed to sunlight). Sometimes I also take calcium and a general high-potency multi-vitamin, but only to be on the safe side - on most days I get enough of most nutrients from beans and veggies.

The best source of Vitamin K-2 are fermented vegetable products like Nattō.

I did some more searching and cannot find mainstream references stating humans cannot produce and absorb vitamin k2. I read that some fat is necessary for it to be absorbed in the intestine, but am not finding studies showing vegans are deficient or that humans are unable to absorb it in our large intestine. If this lack of absorption indeed is the case, then the vegan community is completely missing this boat. I don't even find any denial of this k2 problem in any of the vegan 'propaganda' ( ) I have encountered.

edit: reading more, I find this, not quite mainstream article persuasively making the same case as you. As a vegan who gets nose bleeds fairly easily, I am going to look into the need for k2 supplementation more seriously.

not aware of humans producing menatetrenone in enough quantities to meet daily requirements. animals do. then we eat the animals and get menatetrenone. nattokinase will have mk-7 and what not, from bacteria. but im not aware of mk-7 / k2 being available from anything other than an animal.

Edited by Application, 02 April 2010 - 03:09 AM.

I'm not the one to authoritatively say, but T. Colin Campbell feels he has adequately rebutted the below rebuttals to The China Study.

edit: realize there is another round where Masterjohn rebuts Campbell's rebuttal.

Reading the back and forth it doesn't seem like China Study is 'debunked', but again, this is just my opinion. The key issue seems to be whether Campbell radically misrepresented the correlations in the raw data.

That said, I am yet to see the main points made in The China Study debunked in any substantive way, in spite of the billion-dollar protein supplement and an even bigger meat & dairy industries (one of the most powerful government lobbies in the U.S.) who would go out of their way to resist it. There's a lot of profit in meat and dairy, and those products are actually several times more expensive than we think they are, with the rest of the cost being covered by government subsidies, limited liabilities, etc.

Here is an excellent rebutal to the china study

http://www.cholester...hina-Study.html

Here is another, not as good, but okay

http://www.scienceba...cine.org/?p=385

Edited by Application, 02 April 2010 - 02:49 AM.

I'm not the one to authoritatively say, but T. Colin Campbell feels he has adequately rebutted the below rebuttals to The China Study.

edit: realize there is another round where Masterjohn rebuts Campbell's rebuttal.

Reading the back and forth it doesn't seem like China Study is 'debunked', but again, this is just my opinion. The key issue seems to be whether Campbell radically misrepresented the correlations in the raw data.

Well, the single fact that he misrepresented the data so much should make him a very bad authority to listen to and should make suspicious everything he writes/says.

Also, if you look at his answer to Chris Masterjohn, it's ridiculous how bad his answer his. He don't shoot at the message at all, mostly only the messenger. Masterjohn made some very valid points, and none are being answered by Campbell.

Just seeing how sloppy he is in his interpretation of the data, in his reflexion, in his answer, and how biased to the core for vegan, he's exactly the kind of man no one should listen to. I have no biais what so ever about anything (well, I certainly do, but i'm really trying to let 'em at the door) - i'm really trying to figure out the truth. If I ever realize that vegan is the way to go, i'll go this way 100%, but it's clearly not a man like Campbell that will make the case.

Edited by oehaut, 02 April 2010 - 03:08 AM.