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

Photo

Vegetarians Age Faster?


  • Please log in to reply
149 replies to this topic

#31 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 16 August 2009 - 09:03 PM

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.

I remember reading a study once regarding healthy subjects who were given animal products versus non-animal based diets over a 12 week period and the ones who were eating meat and eating a lot of dairy had a 10% increase in IGF-1 factors than those who were not, in addition to cancer cell proliferation in those who were prone to those diseases in middle age.

I definitely think Eades doesn't know everything, which is why I don't take him too seriously. He is right about over consumption of carbs but that is where I draw the line with his 'wisdom'. I think vegetarian moderate carb, dairy and fructose diets are a lot healthier than meat based diets by a long shot when incorporating supplementation of key nutrients and amino acis into it.

Edited by TheFountain, 16 August 2009 - 09:03 PM.


#32 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 01 September 2009 - 09:41 PM

I was just reading about the fructose contents of various foods, and it struck me that one banana (~110 g) has about 3 grams of fructose, while a cup of blueberries (~150 g) has about 5. Gram per gram, there's not a huge difference. Yet everyone seems to be avoiding bananas because of their "high fructose content".

Sure, bananas don't have blueberry polyphenols, but I was a bit surprised by this. I was expecting a bigger difference.

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 September 2009 - 12:47 AM

I was just reading about the fructose contents of various foods, and it struck me that one banana (~110 g) has about 3 grams of fructose, while a cup of blueberries (~150 g) has about 5. Gram per gram, there's not a huge difference. Yet everyone seems to be avoiding bananas because of their "high fructose content".

Sure, bananas don't have blueberry polyphenols, but I was a bit surprised by this. I was expecting a bigger difference.

That's kind of surprising, but there's some other sugar in a banana. These guys say 14 grams of sugars for a medium banana. That's less than I expected. Bananas vary in sweetness, and I wouldn't be surprised if the sugar content varied a lot. The ones I used to eat tasted pretty sweet. Well, 14 grams is a half ounce of sugar. That's still more than I want to eat if I can choose something like blueberries instead.

Edited by niner, 02 September 2009 - 12:54 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 September 2009 - 01:02 AM

I was just reading about the fructose contents of various foods, and it struck me that one banana (~110 g) has about 3 grams of fructose, while a cup of blueberries (~150 g) has about 5. Gram per gram, there's not a huge difference. Yet everyone seems to be avoiding bananas because of their "high fructose content".

Sure, bananas don't have blueberry polyphenols, but I was a bit surprised by this. I was expecting a bigger difference.

That's kind of surprising, but there's some other sugar in a banana. These guys say 14 grams of sugars for a medium banana. That's less than I expected. Bananas vary in sweetness, and I wouldn't be surprised if the sugar content varied a lot. The ones I used to eat tasted pretty sweet. Well, 14 grams is a half ounce of sugar. That's still more than I want to eat if I can choose something like blueberries instead.

Hey, waitaminute! A cup of frozen blueberries has 13 grams of sugars according to the same guys. But I only eat a half cup a day, whereas I used to eat a whole banana. I'll eat a few grams of sugar for those polyphenols.

#35 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 02 September 2009 - 08:13 AM

I'm more worried about fructose than glucose. In fact, the only thing I've seen wrong with glucose is that it increases blood sugar and is possibly fattening, but I don't see that as a huge problem at these intake levels.

#36 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 September 2009 - 06:48 PM

I'm more worried about fructose than glucose. In fact, the only thing I've seen wrong with glucose is that it increases blood sugar and is possibly fattening, but I don't see that as a huge problem at these intake levels.

Yes, that's a very good point. My understanding is that the glycation potential of fructose is much higher than glucose. This makes the Glycemic Index a bit misleading if you are looking to reduce glycation, since fructose apparently "doesn't count" in the GI.

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#37 DrEvil

  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0
  • Location:South Africa

Posted 13 September 2009 - 10:15 PM

I'm more worried about fructose than glucose. In fact, the only thing I've seen wrong with glucose is that it increases blood sugar and is possibly fattening, but I don't see that as a huge problem at these intake levels.

Yes, that's a very good point. My understanding is that the glycation potential of fructose is much higher than glucose. This makes the Glycemic Index a bit misleading if you are looking to reduce glycation, since fructose apparently "doesn't count" in the GI.


After I read this will certainly cut down on my apples, which is my staple fruit in winter.
So if fructose from apples and many other sweet fruit is an issue, and one were to reduce it,
what should one replace it with?
Complex carbs.. most have a high glycimic index.. animal proteins..high IGF..Soya flavanoids not good for men., too many mushroom in diet can cause fungus to grow.
Just leaves (excuse the pun) veggies and legumes once again then doesn't it?

#38 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 14 September 2009 - 06:28 AM

What's bad about IGF-1? I'm still not a big fan of beans.

#39 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 14 September 2009 - 07:04 AM

What's bad about IGF-1? I'm still not a big fan of beans.


June M. Chan et al. (1) report that plasma insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) was associated with the risk of prostate cancer in a prospective study that paired 152 men with prostate cancer with age-matched healthy men (controls), aged 40 to 82 years at the start of the study. They found that prostate cancer risk increased with concentrations of IGF-I; men with IGF-I values in the highest quartile had 2.4 times [95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.2 to 4.7] the risk of men in the lowest quartile. We conducted a prospective study of IGF-I and several aging-related disorders including prostate cancer in a sample of 765 men, ages 60 to 91 years at the start of the study. The sample was randomly selected from 113,000 health plan members (all ages, both sexes) who had had a multiphasic health examination and gave blood samples in 1964 to 1970 (2). IGF-I (mean = 164.95 ng/ml; SD = 53.35) was measured by radioimmunoassay in the stored serum of all 765 men in 1994 (3). Record linkage to tumor registry data yielded 45 incident cases of prostate cancer in the sample of 765 men during the period 1971 to 1996. Mantel-Haenszel (4) age-adjusted estimates of relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs for the second through fourth quartiles of IGF-I as compared with the first (lowest) quartile were, respectively, 0.62 (0.25 to 1.55), 0.70 (0.31 to 1.58), and 0.81 (0.36 to 1.80) (Posted Image2mh = 1.28, P = 0.74). All of the CIs included 1.0, indicating that there was no association between rates of prostate cancer and serum concentrations of IGF-I. A second, separate analysis of the 45 cases and 179 age-matched controls selected from the sample of 765 men with the use of conditional logistic regression analysis confirmed the lack of association in our data. We recalculated RR in our study with the use of the same quartiles of IGF-I as were used by Chan et al.; the resulting RR values were slightly above 1.0, but all CIs included 1.0, and the lack of any association between IGF-I and prostate cancer remained.

The length of follow-up between blood collection and diagnosis with prostate cancer ranged from 1 to 21 years in our study; 10 cases occurred in the first 5 years after blood collection, and a total of 27 cases occurred in the first 10 years. However, RR of prostate cancer was not altered by the interval between serum collection and diagnosis in either study.

Median ages at the start of each study were different (60 in the report versus 71 years in our study). Chan et al. (1), however, found a stronger association in men above the median age than in the total sample. Although our study was smaller, statistical power was sufficient to detect RRs of the magnitude they reported, indicating that the lack of association in our study was not a result of small sample size. Unlike Chan et al. (1), we found no trend in the RR of prostate cancer with increasing IGF-I; rather, the highest incidence of prostate cancer was in the lowest quartile of IGF-I, and the incidence in the other quartiles of IGF-I was slightly lower but not statistically significantly different from incidence rates in the lowest quartile.

That endocrine growth factors affect tumor growth and development is plausible, but further studies are needed if we are to understand the relationship between plasma, autocrine or paracrine sources of growth factors, and cancer in humans.

#40 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 14 September 2009 - 11:36 AM

Taurine deficiency has been proposed as an explanation for the higher advanced glycation end products in vegetarians.

http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=346210

#41 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 15 September 2009 - 04:08 AM

Taurine deficiency has been proposed as an explanation for the higher advanced glycation end products in vegetarians.

http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=346210


Which is why I have always said that a study is needed in which you have two control groups eating the same exact diet but with the exception of one eating meat, the other supplementing with Taurine, benfotiamine, ALCAR, Carnosine. And then see what the results are.

#42 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 15 September 2009 - 09:07 AM

But what would you prove by such a study? Obviously it would not prove that vegan diets are healthy.

#43 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 15 September 2009 - 09:20 AM

But what would you prove by such a study? Obviously it would not prove that vegan diets are healthy.


Right, all the science showing vegetarians are healthier is just completely flawed bullshit. The science indicating meat based diets are healthier is just so perfectly constructed however.

Note the profound sarcasm here..

#44 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 15 September 2009 - 09:52 AM

Healthier than what? Which studies are you referring to? The ones that compare an average vegan diet to average omnivore diets -- the very studies you refuse to take into account?

By comparing a vegetarian diet + a ton of supplements with an omnivore diet without supplements doesn't tell us anything about which diet is healthier. You complain about vegan/omnivore comparisons being unfair, but your own study design seems pretty strange too.

#45 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 15 September 2009 - 10:17 AM

Both the typical vegetarian and omnivore diet have many problems but overall vegetarians are healther.

"A number of studies have evaluated the health of vegetarians. Others have studied the health effects of foods that are preferred or avoided by vegetarians. The purpose of this review is to look critically at the evidence on the health effects of vegetarian diets and to seek possible explanations where results appear to conflict. There is convincing evidence that vegetarians have lower rates of coronary heart disease, largely explained by low LDL cholesterol, probable lower rates of hypertension and diabetes mellitus, and lower prevalence of obesity. Overall, their cancer rates appear to be moderately lower than others living in the same communities, and life expectancy appears to be greater. However, results for specific cancers are much less convincing and require more study. There is evidence that risk of colorectal cancer is lower in vegetarians and in those who eat less meat; however, results from British vegetarians presently disagree, and this needs explanation. It is probable that using the label "vegetarian" as a dietary category is too broad and that our understanding will be served well by dividing vegetarians into more descriptive subtypes. Although vegetarian diets are healthful and are associated with lower risk of several chronic diseases, different types of vegetarians may not experience the same effects on health."
http://www.ajcn.org/...ract/89/5/1607S

"Background: Few prospective studies have examined the mortality of vegetarians. Objective: We present results on mortality among vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford).

Design: We used a prospective study of men and women recruited throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s.

Results: Among 64,234 participants aged 20–89 y for whom diet group was known, 2965 had died before age 90 by 30 June 2007. The death rates of participants are much lower than average for the United Kingdom. The standardized mortality ratio for all causes of death was 52% (95% CI: 50%, 54%) and was identical in vegetarians and in nonvegetarians. Comparing vegetarians with meat eaters among the 47,254 participants who had no prevalent cardiovascular disease or malignant cancer at recruitment, the death rate ratios adjusted for age, sex, smoking, and alcohol consumption were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.16) for ischemic heart disease and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.16) for all causes of death.

Conclusions: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study is low compared with national rates. Within the study, mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters, but the study is not large enough to exclude small or moderate differences for specific causes of death, and more research on this topic is required."
http://www.ajcn.org/...ract/89/5/1613S

"Design: This was a prospective study of 63,550 men and women recruited throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Cancer incidence was followed through nationwide cancer registries. Results: The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91).

Conclusions: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters."
http://www.ajcn.org/...ract/89/5/1620S

Edited by Blue, 15 September 2009 - 10:20 AM.


#46 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 15 September 2009 - 10:28 AM

"BACKGROUND: The long-term observation of vegetarians in affluent countries can provide insight into the relative effects of a vegetarian diet and lifestyle factors on mortality. METHODS: A cohort study of vegetarians and health-conscious persons in Germany was followed-up prospectively for 21 years, including 1,225 vegetarians and 679 health-conscious nonvegetarians. Standardized mortality ratios compared with the German general population were calculated for all causes and specific causes. Within the cohort, Poisson regression modeling was used to investigate the joint effects of several risk factors on overall and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases. Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level. Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat. CONCLUSIONS: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15824171

"Background: Three prospective studies have examined the mortality of vegetarians in Britain. Objective: We describe these 3 studies and present preliminary results on mortality from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition–Oxford (EPIC-Oxford).

Design: The Health Food Shoppers Study and the Oxford Vegetarian Study were established in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively; each included about 11 000 subjects and used a short questionnaire on diet and lifestyle. EPIC-Oxford was established in the 1990s and includes about 56 000 subjects who completed detailed food frequency questionnaires. Mortality in all 3 studies was followed though the National Health Service Central Register.

Results: Overall, the death rates of all the subjects in all 3 studies are much lower than average for the United Kingdom. Standardized mortality ratios (95% CIs) for all subjects were 59% (57%, 61%) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 52% (49%, 56%) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 39% (37%, 42%) in EPIC-Oxford. Comparing vegetarians with nonvegetarians within each cohort, the death rate ratios (DRRs), adjusted for age, sex and smoking, were 1.03 (0.95, 1.13) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 1.01 (0.89, 1.14) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 1.05 (0.86, 1.27) in EPIC-Oxford. DRRs for ischemic heart disease in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians were 0.85 (0.71, 1.01) in the Health Food Shoppers Study, 0.86 (0.67, 1.12) in the Oxford Vegetarian Study, and 0.75 (0.41, 1.37) in EPIC-Oxford.

Conclusions: The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in these studies is low compared with national rates. Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians, but the nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was compatible with the significant reduction previously reported in a pooled analysis of mortality in Western vegetarians."
http://www.ajcn.org/...ct/78/3/533S?ct

#47 DrEvil

  • Guest
  • 42 posts
  • 0
  • Location:South Africa

Posted 15 September 2009 - 07:48 PM

This is one of the bigger best controlled studies on vegetarian versus non-vegetarian diet:

http://archinte.ama-...ull/161/13/1645

Vegetarians lived 1.5 years longer and had lower BMI, which contributed another 2 years but as a separate variable.

In this graph you got to read it left to right each factor making an incremental difference.
http://archinte.ama-...5/FIGIOI00635F4

Vegetarian status did not make such a large difference, but I am sure they did not look at Vitamin B12 supplementation . Besides cheese and milk from what I have read do not seem be as beneficial as fish and no better than meat. ( AGE content of cheese is very high.)
http://inhumanexperi...t-of-foods.html

I am not aware of a study comparing fish to dairy but I did read a study somewhere that people that ate fish but no meat, lived longer than omnivores and as long as vegetarians.

#48 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 16 September 2009 - 04:08 AM

This is one of the bigger best controlled studies on vegetarian versus non-vegetarian diet:

http://archinte.ama-...ull/161/13/1645

Vegetarians lived 1.5 years longer and had lower BMI, which contributed another 2 years but as a separate variable.

In this graph you got to read it left to right each factor making an incremental difference.
http://archinte.ama-...5/FIGIOI00635F4

Vegetarian status did not make such a large difference, but I am sure they did not look at Vitamin B12 supplementation . Besides cheese and milk from what I have read do not seem be as beneficial as fish and no better than meat. ( AGE content of cheese is very high.)
http://inhumanexperi...t-of-foods.html

I am not aware of a study comparing fish to dairy but I did read a study somewhere that people that ate fish but no meat, lived longer than omnivores and as long as vegetarians.


Actually the AGEs content of some cheeses is higher than others. But the majority of hemoglobin glycation that is resultant of eating dairy is from galactose formation. I would imagine organic goat cheese to be lower in AGEs than other cheeses. I would still only cycle dairy a few months here and there on/off.

Edited by TheFountain, 16 September 2009 - 04:09 AM.


#49 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 17 September 2009 - 01:58 AM

Healthier than what? Which studies are you referring to? The ones that compare an average vegan diet to average omnivore diets -- the very studies you refuse to take into account?

By comparing a vegetarian diet + a ton of supplements with an omnivore diet without supplements doesn't tell us anything about which diet is healthier. You complain about vegan/omnivore comparisons being unfair, but your own study design seems pretty strange too.


Why shouldn't it be strange? Isn't life extension+anti-aging about constructing the most novel approach to your desired goal? My point was that since the rallying cry against vegetarianism from people here seems to be 'fructose consumption' and lack of certain items found in meat (Taurine, Carnosine, etc) my suggestion was to find out what happens when vegetarians supplement these things and lower their fructose consumption. Nowhere did I specifically imply the meat eating control group shouldn't take supplements.

#50 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 September 2009 - 02:20 AM

I would still only cycle dairy a few months here and there on/off.

Why would you cycle dairy? What's the rationale for that?

#51 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 17 September 2009 - 02:44 AM

I would still only cycle dairy a few months here and there on/off.

Why would you cycle dairy? What's the rationale for that?


Well there is none other than, for me personally, dairy helps me to gain weight and it may help other's accomplish ketosis. I am not fooling myself and thinking dairy is the best thing for you. But still some dairy is healthier than other's. Heavy cream is healthier than milk, mozzarella is healthier than chedder, etc. How much healthier is a matter of speculation.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 September 2009 - 02:45 AM.


#52 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:26 PM

Which studies are you referring to?


Here's one straight off Pubmed..


A low-fat, whole-food vegan diet, as well as other strategies that down-regulate IGF-I activity, may slow the human aging process.


A considerable amount of evidence is consistent with the proposition that systemic IGF-I activity acts as pacesetter in the aging process. A reduction in IGF-I activity is the common characteristic of rodents whose maximal lifespan has been increased by a wide range of genetic or dietary measures, including caloric restriction. The lifespans of breeds of dogs and strains of rats tend to be inversely proportional to their mature weight and IGF-I levels. The link between IGF-I and aging appears to be evolutionarily conserved; in worms and flies, lifespan is increased by reduction-of-function mutations in signaling intermediates homologous to those which mediate insulin/IGF-I activity in mammals. The fact that an increase in IGF-I activity plays a key role in the induction of sexual maturity, is consistent with a broader role for-IGF-I in aging regulation. If down-regulation of IGF-I activity could indeed slow aging in humans, a range of practical measures for achieving this may be at hand. These include a low-fat, whole-food, vegan diet, exercise training, soluble fiber, insulin sensitizers, appetite suppressants, and agents such as flax lignans, oral estrogen, or tamoxifen that decrease hepatic synthesis of IGF-I. Many of these measures would also be expected to decrease risk for common age-related diseases. Regimens combining several of these approaches might have a sufficient impact on IGF-I activity to achieve a useful retardation of the aging process. However, in light of the fact that IGF-I promotes endothelial production of nitric oxide and may be of especial importance to cerebrovascular health, additional measures for stroke prevention-most notably salt restriction-may be advisable when attempting to down-regulate IGF-I activity as a pro-longevity strategy.

#53 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 September 2009 - 02:43 AM

Here's one straight off Pubmed..

Could you post the author's names or the PMID (or a link to the abstract) so we could find it more easily? Thanks.

#54 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 28 September 2009 - 04:53 AM

Here's one straight off Pubmed..

Could you post the author's names or the PMID (or a link to the abstract) so we could find it more easily? Thanks.


Oh.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ov/sites/entrez

PMID: 12699704

Edited by TheFountain, 28 September 2009 - 04:55 AM.


#55 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 28 September 2009 - 07:49 AM

Well, a reduction in IGF-1 is clearly not what CR folks are trying to do. Fontana criticized them for not doing this, but Michael and others commented that IGF-1 reduction in humans is not the key to lifespan extension. So, I think the paper you posted may be correct in stating "whole vegetarian foods decrease IGF-1", but do they have evidence that "a reduction IGF-1 will extend lifespan" in mammals?

#56 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 28 September 2009 - 11:56 AM

Well, a reduction in IGF-1 is clearly not what CR folks are trying to do. Fontana criticized them for not doing this, but Michael and others commented that IGF-1 reduction in humans is not the key to lifespan extension. So, I think the paper you posted may be correct in stating "whole vegetarian foods decrease IGF-1", but do they have evidence that "a reduction IGF-1 will extend lifespan" in mammals?

"Clearly not" is hardly the case. IGF-1 reduction increases lifespan in animal models. One example:

"Mutations that decrease insulin-like growth factor (IGF) and growth hormone signaling limit body size and prolong lifespan in mice. In vertebrates, these somatotropic hormones are controlled by the neuroendocrine brain. Hormone-like regulations discovered in nematodes and flies suggest that IGF signals in the nervous system can determine lifespan, but it is unknown whether this applies to higher organisms. Using conditional mutagenesis in the mouse, we show that brain IGF receptors (IGF-1R) efficiently regulate somatotropic development. Partial inactivation of IGF-1R in the embryonic brain selectively inhibited GH and IGF-I pathways after birth. This caused growth retardation, smaller adult size, and metabolic alterations, and led to delayed mortality and longer mean lifespan. Thus, early changes in neuroendocrine development can durably modify the life trajectory in mammals. The underlying mechanism appears to be an adaptive plasticity of somatotropic functions allowing individuals to decelerate growth and preserve resources, and thereby improve fitness in challenging environments. Our results also suggest that tonic somatotropic signaling entails the risk of shortened lifespan."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18959478

Of course, humans may be different regarding what interventions may achieve since for one thing we already have a long lifespan.

Edited by Blue, 28 September 2009 - 11:57 AM.


#57 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:26 PM

Well, a reduction in IGF-1 is clearly not what CR folks are trying to do. Fontana criticized them for not doing this, but Michael and others commented that IGF-1 reduction in humans is not the key to lifespan extension. So, I think the paper you posted may be correct in stating "whole vegetarian foods decrease IGF-1", but do they have evidence that "a reduction IGF-1 will extend lifespan" in mammals?


Besides the eloquent post from our friend above, even if in the most ridiculous hypothetical example IGF-1 reduction didn't extend life on a cellular level (and again, this just a hypothetical 'what if') it still seems to curtail the development of the primary diseases of aging, one of the most feared being diabetes. This means that your chances of dying prematurely of one of these age-related diseases is a fair bit lower on a diet conducive to IGF-1 restriction. I understand you like your extremely high fat Paleo meat diet but you need to look at these findings and stop looking for unwarranted reasons to discard them.

#58 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 28 September 2009 - 08:36 PM

It is interesting to me how a ketogenic diet decreases IGF-1 formation.

According to the paper titled Genetic determinants of exceptional human longevity: insights from the Okinawa Centenarian Study, one of the benefits provided by caloric restriction is due to:

"The extended longevity of these mutants is thought to result from lower insulin and IGF-1 levels, higher insulin sensitivity, metabolic changes in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism."

Since a caloric-restricted diet would by vitrue restrict total dietary carbohydrate intake, it makes sense that IGF-1 and insulin sensitivity would be improved. However, if one goes a ketogenic diet providing sufficient calories to meet or exceed BMR, IGF-1 sensitivity continues to improve.

Growth dependence on insulin-like growth factor-1 during the ketogenic diet.

"CONCLUSIONS: Height velocity was most affected in those with pronounced ketosis, which implies that, in clinical practice, the level of ketosis should be related to outcomes in seizure response and growth. Our data indicate that growth disturbances and the decreased sensitivity of growth to similar IGF-I levels during KD are independent of seizure reduction. The metabolic status induced by KD may be the mechanism underlying both alterations of linear growth and seizure reduction."

Carbohydrate restriction, prostate cancer growth, and the insulin-like growth factor axis.

"CONCLUSIONS: In this xenograft model, despite consuming more calories, NCKD-fed mice had significantly reduced tumor growth and prolonged survival relative to Western mice and was associated with favorable changes in serum insulin and IGF axis hormones relative to low-fat or Western diet. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc."

If longevity can be linked to IGF-1 reduction, it makes me question whether a ketogenic diet (or modified carbohydrate restricted diet) might also be good for longevity.

#59 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 28 September 2009 - 08:51 PM

It is interesting to me how a ketogenic diet decreases IGF-1 formation.

According to the paper titled Genetic determinants of exceptional human longevity: insights from the Okinawa Centenarian Study, one of the benefits provided by caloric restriction is due to:

"The extended longevity of these mutants is thought to result from lower insulin and IGF-1 levels, higher insulin sensitivity, metabolic changes in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism."

Since a caloric-restricted diet would by vitrue restrict total dietary carbohydrate intake, it makes sense that IGF-1 and insulin sensitivity would be improved. However, if one goes a ketogenic diet providing sufficient calories to meet or exceed BMR, IGF-1 sensitivity continues to improve.

Growth dependence on insulin-like growth factor-1 during the ketogenic diet.

"CONCLUSIONS: Height velocity was most affected in those with pronounced ketosis, which implies that, in clinical practice, the level of ketosis should be related to outcomes in seizure response and growth. Our data indicate that growth disturbances and the decreased sensitivity of growth to similar IGF-I levels during KD are independent of seizure reduction. The metabolic status induced by KD may be the mechanism underlying both alterations of linear growth and seizure reduction."

Carbohydrate restriction, prostate cancer growth, and the insulin-like growth factor axis.

"CONCLUSIONS: In this xenograft model, despite consuming more calories, NCKD-fed mice had significantly reduced tumor growth and prolonged survival relative to Western mice and was associated with favorable changes in serum insulin and IGF axis hormones relative to low-fat or Western diet. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc."

If longevity can be linked to IGF-1 reduction, it makes me question whether a ketogenic diet (or modified carbohydrate restricted diet) might also be good for longevity.

Interesting. Has there been any animal lifespan studies using healthy animals on a ketogenic diet? This study is not it but suggests that at least rats on a high-fat diet does not fare well:
http://cat.inist.fr/...cpsidt=14939299

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#60 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 28 September 2009 - 09:00 PM

This study suggests that while a ketogenic diet may mimic some aspects of CR it is not as effective:
"Calorie restriction (CR) is an experimental intervention in laboratory animals that attenuates age-associated increases in morbidity, mortality, and functional impairment. It is characterized by mild ketosis, hypoinsulinemia and hypoglycemia. In this study, we examined whether metabolic simulation of CR by a diet of isocaloric ketogenic or hypoinsulinemic diets ameliorated the learning and memory deficit in a strain of senescence-accelerated prone mice (SAMP8), a mouse model of age-dependent impairments in learning and memory. Male SAMP8 mice were fed high carbohydrate (CHO), high fat (FAT), or high protein (PRO) diets after weaning, and calorie intake was adjusted to 95% (sub ad libitum, sAL) or 70% (CR) of the mean calorie intake of control mice. At 28 weeks of age, we found CR ameliorated the performance defects of SAMP8 mice in a passive avoidance task. Neither FAT nor PRO diets affected performance of the task when fed sAL level, although a diet of these compositions partially mimicked the serum parameters of CR mice. These results suggest restriction of calorie intake is important for the prevention of learning and memory deficits, and that the simulation of serum changes induced by CR is not sufficient to prevent the cognitive defects of SAMP8 mice."
http://www.sciencedi...7f41bc1e0336dea




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users