149 replies to this topic

[forever freedom]

I read this text and i would like the opinion of someone who knows a bit more about it about what do you think. Of course the source may be biased to carnivorous diets but still it's worth taking a look at.

[Shepard]

While Eades is biased about some things, I read the study and found no problems with his interpretation. Someone else brought this up in the Health area on the same day Eades posted that blog topic, so it should be easy to find.

The problem is that aging isn't a singular process. So, even though a higher fructose intake can lead to higher AGE formation, that doesn't mean that fruits are going to put you in the grave. Fructose metabolism is unique and there is a big difference between effects of low levels vs. high levels.

[Harvey Newstrom]

People get silly when discussing meat-eating versus vegetarianism. A lot of religious-type attitudes get thrown into the mix.

Scientifically speaking, it doesn't really matter whether you eat meat or not. You need to consider how much protein, fat, and carbohydrates you are eating. It is statistically true that most meat-eaters are overweight, eat too much fat, and too little fiber. But that is not a requirement for meat-eating. Meat-eaters can eat lean cuts of meat, include fiber in their diet, and not overeat to the point of obesity. Likewise, it is statistically true that most vegetarians are low-protein, low-fat, high-fiber. But again, this is not a requirement for vegetarians. A veggie can eat more protein, more fat, and less fiber. So the question of meat-eating versus vegetarianism does not really address what kind of diet the people are eating.

The study quoted above had a small number of vegetarians, and doesn't represent many vegetarians. What they observed in this study was that one group ate more fructose than the other. Those eating more fructose had more glycation. This makes sense. Meat-eaters who eat a lot of sugary treats will have the same effect. Vegetarians who don't eat sugary foods or lots of fruits won't get this effect. This study says nothing about whether people should eat meat. The distinguishing different between the two groups is how much fructose they ate.

The message of that article is totally misleading. The data does not say eat more meat. It says eat less fuctose sugar.

[Live Forever]

I would imagine most vegetarians eat more nutrients and less calories/fat than the population at large and therefore are healthier. (more of a CR diet)

[lunarsolarpower]

Scientifically speaking, it doesn't really matter whether you eat meat or not. You need to consider how much protein, fat, and carbohydrates you are eating. It is statistically true that most meat-eaters are overweight, eat too much fat, and too little fiber. But that is not a requirement for meat-eating. Meat-eaters can eat lean cuts of meat, include fiber in their diet, and not overeat to the point of obesity. Likewise, it is statistically true that most vegetarians are low-protein, low-fat, high-fiber. But again, this is not a requirement for vegetarians. A veggie can eat more protein, more fat, and less fiber. So the question of meat-eating versus vegetarianism does not really address what kind of diet the people are eating.

Everything you said here is good but I would suggest that one difference (minor or major I don't know) would be hormone intake levels. Corn and soybeans aren't exactly known for their growth hormone levels. But yeah, it's possible to be healthy or unhealthy, obese or fit on both plant-based and omnivorous diets.

[VictorBjoerk]

is growth hormone something good or bad when speaking of longevity?as far as I understand mice with low GH levels live longer but in humans lack of growth hormone is associated with aging.

[VictorBjoerk]

http://www.vegan.se/theresia.htm

A 107-year old swedish woman still in amazingly good condition who claims to have been a vegan since she was a child.The reason of her lifelong veganism was that her father killed her pet lamb and prepared it for dinner to the family.She has always been interested in health and takes a number of supplements.She stills cooks her own food,takes daily walks and reads without glasses.

[VictorBjoerk]

So we can conclude that lifelong veganism doesn't lead to any faster aging.This woman has a long list of health tips too.

[VictorBjoerk]

Regarding supplements she takes among others astaxin to "slow down aging",gingko biloba,potassium and flax seed oil.

[VictorBjoerk]

And not forget that she recommends to use "many different components" in a meal like parsley,garlic and blueberries.

[Mind]

So we can conclude that lifelong veganism doesn't lead to any faster aging.This woman has a long list of health tips too.

Obviously we cannot draw a conclusion off of just one person. It is not statistically relevant.

I would imagine most vegetarians eat more nutrients and less calories/fat than the population at large and therefore are healthier. (more of a CR diet)

As Harvey pointed out, vegetarians might eat a lot of sugary fruits or treats and that would reduce their lifespan. I work with a lady who is vegetarian/borderline vegan (I think she eats cheese sometimes). She is overweight and has bad skin and I think it is because she eats way too much soy, hummus, bread, noodles, and such.

[mitkat]

So we can conclude that lifelong veganism doesn't lead to any faster aging.This woman has a long list of health tips too.

Obviously we cannot draw a conclusion off of just one person. It is not statistically relevant.

I would imagine most vegetarians eat more nutrients and less calories/fat than the population at large and therefore are healthier. (more of a CR diet)

As Harvey pointed out, vegetarians might eat a lot of sugary fruits or treats and that would reduce their lifespan. I work with a lady who is vegetarian/borderline vegan (I think she eats cheese sometimes). She is overweight and has bad skin and I think it is because she eats way too much soy, hummus, bread, noodles, and such.

I can attest to seeing this too, Mind. I've met plenty of other vegetarians over the years who, and I quote, "don't like vegetables". They eat kraft dinner, breads, heaps of soy, carbs out the wazoo...I'd rather just see them eat meat, they've got better chances that way probably.

[zoolander]

First of all, how unusual to find an anti-vegatrianism theme present with a blog titled "Proteinpower" (<-----insert sarcasm here)

Secondly, call me anal but I don't lie the title. Ok it's a nice little quirky title but I don't like what it implies. If vegetarians "age' faster because of a choice that they have made (i.e. diet) then they're not really aging faster they are "getting old" faster than non-vegetarians. The reason why I am so anal about the way in which he has phrased the title is because I would prefer to only see the term "aging" refer to the normal intrinsic type aging and not the accelerated form of aging.

This guy, Eades, obviously has some sort of beef (pun intended) against vegetarians that seems somewhat personal

"I find this intriguing because so many anti-meat zealots constantly harp about the dangers of overcooking meat (or cooking it on a grill) because ......I don't think it's too much to assume that most of the omnivores eat meat, and some probably overcook it or grill it, yet they have less accumulation of AGES than the oh so fastidious vegetarians."

This so-called doctor would do so much better and be a hell of a lot more convincing if he didn't let his personal opinion taint his posting style. I can't talk though however, I'm not selling myself as a medical practitioner providing scientific information to the wider community though am I.

In short, the studies that he presented are far from conclusive. The subject number of the study he forms his article on is very low (n=19) and certainly not enough to extrapolate the 'may be' result out to the general (vegetarin or not vegetarian) population as a factor that ages people faster. He spent most of his time discussing glycation to build justifacation for his views and then drives it home with a little paragraph based on a very small study using young indivuduals (mean age of about 34 years) the only measures the presence of AGE's and not the effect of AGE's. Other studies (larger and more recent) suggest that a vegetarian diet may counteract the negative effects of AGE's in the diet

Mol Nutr Food Res. 2006 Sep;50(9):858-68.
Association of metabolic syndrome risk factors with selected markers of oxidative status and microinflammation in healthy omnivores and vegetarians.
Sebeková K, Boor P, Valachovicová M, Blazícek P, Parrák V, Babinská K, Heidland A, Krajcovicová-Kudlácková M. Research Base of Slovak Medical University, Bratislava, Slovakia. katarina.sebekova@szu.sk

Conditions predisposing to metabolic syndrome (MetS) are associated with increased oxidative stress and inflammation. We studied, in vegetarians (n = 90) and omnivores (n = 46), the impact of the dietary regimen on the occurrence of MetS risk factors (RFs: BMI, blood pressure, glucose metabolism and lipid profile) in relation to oxidative status (advanced glycation end products (AGEs), advanced oxidation protein products (AOPPs), malondialdehyde, ferric reducing ability of plasma, vitamins A, E, C, beta-carotene and superoxide dismutase activity) and microinflammation (C-reactive protein, leukocytes and neopterin). The proportion of subjects without/positive for one or two MetS RFs was comparable between the groups. From the components of MetS only immunoreactive insulin levels differed significantly (95% CI: omnivores: 5.0-7.1 microU/mL, vegetarians: 4.5-5.4, p = 0.03). Omnivores had lower AOPP (omnivores: 0.29-0.36 micromol/g albumin, vegetarians: 0.36-0.52, p = 0.01) and beta-carotene levels than vegetarians, they consumed more calories, proteins, fat and saturated fatty acids, and less fibres, beta-carotene and vitamin C. Multiple regression analysis revealed vitamin E and AOPP levels as the most important independent determinants of MetS RFs. The vegetarian diet seems to exert beneficial effects on MetS RFs associated microinflammation. Whether the vegetarian diet may counteract the deleterious effects of elevated AOPPs and AGEs, remains to be elucidated.

The jury is most definately still out on this. A quick search through the medical literature will present you with articles discussing how a diet high in fruits and vegetables reduce the risk of most of the chronic disease that may result from AGE accumulation.

I'm not convinced Dr. Eades

Edited by zoolander, 10 May 2008 - 01:17 AM.

[Ben Simon]

First of all, how unusual to find an anti-vegatrianism theme present with a blog titled "Proteinpower" (<-----insert sarcasm here)

I don't think that's so damning. He posts relating to his interests, but that's fair enough. In and of itself it's no more suspect than finding articles supporting logevity research at fightaging.org.

[Live Forever]

So we can conclude that lifelong veganism doesn't lead to any faster aging.This woman has a long list of health tips too.

Obviously we cannot draw a conclusion off of just one person. It is not statistically relevant.

I would imagine most vegetarians eat more nutrients and less calories/fat than the population at large and therefore are healthier. (more of a CR diet)

As Harvey pointed out, vegetarians might eat a lot of sugary fruits or treats and that would reduce their lifespan. I work with a lady who is vegetarian/borderline vegan (I think she eats cheese sometimes). She is overweight and has bad skin and I think it is because she eats way too much soy, hummus, bread, noodles, and such.

Aaah, yes. I have plenty of vegetarian friends that do the same thing. I was just surmising that across the entire population, that on average vegetarians ate more healthy than non-vegetarians. (I have never seen a supremely obese vegetarian, although I am sure they probably exist) That was just a guess, though, and could be completely off base.

[Live Forever]

This is kind of interesting as it relates to meat consumption and aging:
http://www.ajcn.org/...t/78/3/526S.pdf
(pdf file)

Basically looking at several past studies on the relationship and comparing them.

[zoolander]

I think that there are fairly decent arguements for both sides.

• Meat eaters:
• Greater carnosine content in the diet and therefore suggested befenits that might come from anti-glycating actions of carnosine.
• greater protein in diet. Assist with maintaining muscle mass. Slowing of age related muscle wasting.

• Vegetarians:
• less saturated fats
• antioxidant rich
• increased dietary fibre

NOTE: Meat eaters can also have a diet rich in antioxidant and dietary fibre as well as being low in fat. However, vegetarians can only supplement items that come from meat eg. carnosine, B12, heme iron.

[Shepard]

I'm not convinced Dr. Eades

Eades specializes in obesity/diabetics, which is where his hard-on for low-carb diets began. He is definitely biased against vegetarians, and anyone without selective vision praising the meats. He recently got into with Colpo (Omnivore, anti-cholesterol hypothesis guy) because Eades can't provide any evidence to back up his and Taube's claims about energy intake not being important if insulin is kept low.

I don't think any of this changes the facts that we've known for a while. Fructose is more prone to glycation, but black/white diet studies don't really transfer well to the real world.

Edited by shepard, 11 May 2008 - 07:22 PM.

[lunarsolarpower]

From http://www.ajcn.org/.../full/70/3/532S

Total mortality and longevity also differed according to vegetarian status in California Seventh-day Adventists. After adjusting for age and sex, Seventh-day Adventist vegetarians had a relative risk for total mortality of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.87) compared with those who ate any meat products. Using a multivariate, multiple-decrement-lifetable approach (19), we showed that vegetarian Seventh-day Adventist women live 2.52 y longer than their nonvegetarian (meat >=1 time/wk) counterparts (P < 0.001), and a similar comparison in men showed a 3.21-y difference in longevity (P < 0.001).

This was a huge study (n=34192) so I wonder what Eades would have to say about it. "They age faster but they just don't die as soon"?

[Forever21]

So how does one find the balance here? Fruits have the antioxidants that keeps you young and sugar that ages you. Do you then eat no fruits, less fruits, more / less of certain kinds, just take supplements, etc?

[niner]

So how does one find the balance here? Fruits have the antioxidants that keeps you young and sugar that ages you. Do you then eat no fruits, less fruits, more / less of certain kinds, just take supplements, etc?

Eat berries. They have the best ratio of good things to sugars. I wouldn't cut out the large fruits entirely, just tone it down. Sugars are less harmful on a full stomach, so if you want to eat a large sweet fruit, have it for desert after dinner. Maybe it could displace something that would be a lot worse, like a big pile of cheap leftover Halloween candy.

[platypus]

Eat berries. They have the best ratio of good things to sugars. I wouldn't cut out the large fruits entirely, just tone it down. Sugars are less harmful on a full stomach, so if you want to eat a large sweet fruit, have it for desert after dinner. Maybe it could displace something that would be a lot worse, like a big pile of cheap leftover Halloween candy.

What fruits are considered sweet? Peaches surely, but how about green apples? Oranges? Pink grapefruit?

Edited by platypus, 04 July 2008 - 08:25 AM.

[Forever21]

Here's what I found

Fruits Lowest in Sugar
Raspberries
Blackberries
Cranberries
Small Amounts of Lemon or Lime
Rhubarb


Fruits Low to Medium in Sugar
Blueberries
Cantaloupes
Apples
Strawberries
Papaya
Watermelon
Peaches
Nectarines
Honeydew Melons
Guavas
Apricots
Grapefruit
Casaba Melon

Fruits Fairly High in Sugar
Plums
Pears
Oranges
Kiwifruit
Pineapple

Fruits Very High in Sugar
Cherries
Grapes
Tangerines
Mangos
Bananas
Dried Fruit





High Sugar Fruit
Apples
Cherries
Grapes
Loganberries
Kumquats
Mangoes
Pears
Pineapple
Pomegranates
Bananas
Figs
Prunes
Dried Fruits


Low Carb Fruit
Cantaloupe
Rhubarb
Berries
Watermelon
Melons
Tomatoes
Apricots
Grapefruit
Guava
Lemons
Limes
Oranges
Papayas
Peaches
Plums
Raspberries
Tangerines
Kiwis

[ybit]

Kind of late to this discussion, but glad to everyone beat me here! This is all helpful information, and thanks for the list Forever21.

NOTE: Meat eaters can also have a diet rich in antioxidant and dietary fibre as well as being low in fat. However, vegetarians can only supplement items that come from meat eg. carnosine, B12, heme iron.

I've rarely taken supplements for B12, because vegetables are usually in my salad, or spirulina is in my green smoothies or living food health bars. But I am hoping to get supplements for the other two mentioned next pay check, along with some other supplements for nutrients I don't typically get.

[Dystopya]

A quote. It was just an opinion of a book review (ending aging). However, I am not deep into it. So, is there anything that could be true?



"
Vegetarians don't get the anti-aging amino acids that are found in meat, such as carnosine, which lessens one of the most predominate aging factors: the effects of advanced glycation end-producs. Even if taken in pill form, the bioavailability is less than 25% of that which you would get from eating meat."



Thanks for your opinion.

[kismet]

Certainly this might be true, Michael for instance advises to supplement with several compounds if you are almost vegetarian/vegan. 
His (personalised) advice for a nearly vegetarian was: taurine (250 mg), creatine (5 g), carnitine (ALCAR pref) (500 mg), carnosine (500 mg), choline (200-500 mg). 227 mg Sr; 5-15 mg menatetrenone
Read it yourself, but take care that some of the data and advice may be a. outdated and b. only applies to certain people. Your best bet is to do your own reasearch and talk to a doctor if you want to be on the safe side.

Other of his supplementation guides/advice:
http://www.cron-web....ts-guide-1.html (~2004)
http://www.caloriere...2650#msg-182650 (September 17, 2007)

[GoodFellas]

They age less than non vegetarians, because vegetarians have less IGF-1. Just like a tall person has more IGF-1 than a short person and therefore usually dies faster.

Edited by GoodFellas, 01 August 2009 - 10:58 PM.

[1kgcoffee]

And not forget that she recommends to use "many different components" in a meal like parsley,garlic and blueberries.

for anyone interested in reading the english article
http://translate.goo...history_state0=

[TheFountain]

So we can conclude that lifelong veganism doesn't lead to any faster aging.This woman has a long list of health tips too.

Obviously we cannot draw a conclusion off of just one person. It is not statistically relevant.

I would imagine most vegetarians eat more nutrients and less calories/fat than the population at large and therefore are healthier. (more of a CR diet)

As Harvey pointed out, vegetarians might eat a lot of sugary fruits or treats and that would reduce their lifespan. I work with a lady who is vegetarian/borderline vegan (I think she eats cheese sometimes). She is overweight and has bad skin and I think it is because she eats way too much soy, hummus, bread, noodles, and such.

I can comprehend how bread and noodles can lead to bad skin but how does hummus and soy fit that equation? They are both low carb and high in isoflavones that lower hemoglobin glycation and negative hormone levels.