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

Photo
- - - - -

CR Effects Not Due to Fewer Calories....


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 14 July 2008 - 08:55 PM


The implication of this paper are that any means of reducing AGE formation will extend life span: Eating raw foods, or at steamed or boiled, and not fried or grilled foods. Carnosine and Kremezin are possible supplements to his end. I have doubts about Kremezin, which seems to be a form of micronized activated charcoal. Are there other supplements that can be taked with food to inhibit AGE formation?

Conversely, CR would prove useless if AGE's were allowed to proliferate and accumulate.


Am J Pathol. 2008 Jul 3. [Epub ahead of print]
Oral Glycotoxins Determine the Effects of Calorie Restriction on Oxidant Stress, Age-Related Diseases, and Lifespan.Cai W, He JC, Zhu L, Chen X, Zheng F, Striker GE, Vlassara H.
From the Department of Geriatrics,* Division of Experimental Diabetes and Aging, and the Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; and the Departments of Medicine and Surgery, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.

We previously showed that the content of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in the diet correlates with serum AGE levels, oxidant stress (OS), organ dysfunction, and lifespan. We now show that the addition of a chemically defined AGE (methyl-glyoxal-BSA) to low-AGE mouse chow increased serum levels of AGEs and OS, demonstrating that dietary AGEs are oxidants that can induce systemic OS. OS predisposes to the development of cardiovascular and chronic kidney diseases; calorie restriction (CR) is the most studied means to decrease OS, increase longevity, and reduce OS-related organ damage in mammals. Because reduction of food intake also decreases oxidant AGE s intake, we asked whether the beneficial effects of CR in mammals are related to the restriction of oxidants or energy. Pair-fed mice were provided either a CR diet or a high-AGE CR diet in which AGEs were elevated by brief heat treatment (CR-high). Old CR-high mice developed high levels of 8-isoprostanes, AGEs, RAGE, and p66(shc), coupled with low AGER1 and GSH/GSSG levels, insulin resistance, marked myocardial and renal fibrosis, and shortened lifespan. In contrast, old CR mice had low OS, p66(shc), RAGE, and AGE levels, but high AGER1 levels, coupled with longer lifespan. Therefore, the beneficial effects of a CR diet may be partly related to reduced oxidant intake, a principal determinant of oxidant status in aging mice, rather than decreased energy intake.


(This paper's abstract was posted to S.L.E last week here)

Edited by maxwatt, 14 July 2008 - 09:02 PM.


#2 niner

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

Posted 14 July 2008 - 09:25 PM

Wow, this is interesting. The heat keeps getting turned up (ahem..) on Dietary AGEs. In other words, they are just looking worse and worse. I wouldn't go as far as to say that CR effects are not due to fewer Calories, but rather that they can be subverted with a high enough level of dietary AGEs. We don't know from the abstract exactly how high in AGEs the high-AGE rat chow was, but it was probably pretty high. While this reinforces the idea of the toxicity of dietary AGEs, I'm still wondering about the relative hazard of dietary vs. endogenous AGEs. My impression at this point is that once an endogenous crosslink is formed in a low-turnover tissue, you're stuck with it, but it's less clear to me how long-lived the damage from dietary AGEs is. If you stopped consuming them, how much of the damage is irreversible, and how much gets better?

sponsored ad

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

#3 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 14 July 2008 - 09:28 PM

Great find Maxwatt. This would seem to be good news for the SENS strategy to combat aging since AGEs are one of the forms of "junk" that SENS aims to reduce or remove. Of course the results also indicate a dietary method people could use that might minimize the accumulation of AGEs and the incidence of OS.

#4 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 July 2008 - 12:20 AM

The low-AGE normal calories group in a previous paper by this group got a max lifespan increase!

Am J Pathol. 2007 Jun;170(6):1893-902.
Reduced oxidant stress and extended lifespan in mice exposed to a low glycotoxin diet: association with increased AGER1 expression.
Cai W, He JC, Zhu L, Chen X, Wallenstein S, Striker GE, Vlassara H.
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Box 1640, One Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY 10029, USA.

Aging is accompanied by increased oxidative stress (OS) and accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs). AGE formation in food is temperature-regulated, and ingestion of nutrients prepared with excess heat promotes AGE formation, OS, and cardiovascular disease in mice. We hypothesized that sustained exposure to the high levels of pro-oxidant AGEs in normal diets (Reg(AGE)) contributes to aging via an increased AGE load, which causes AGER1 dysregulation and depletion of anti-oxidant capacity, and that an isocaloric, but AGE-restricted (by 50%) diet (Low(AGE)), would decrease these abnormalities. C57BL6 male mice with a life-long exposure to a Low(AGE) diet had higher than baseline levels of tissue AGER1 and glutathione/oxidized glutathione and reduced plasma 8-isoprostanes and tissue RAGE and p66(shc) levels compared with mice pair-fed the regular (Reg(AGE)) diet. This was associated with a reduction in systemic AGE accumulation and amelioration of insulin resistance, albuminuria, and glomerulosclerosis. Moreover, lifespan was extended in Low(AGE) mice, compared with Reg(AGE) mice. Thus, OS-dependent metabolic and end organ dysfunction of aging may result from life-long exposure to high levels of glycoxidants that exceed AGER1 and anti-oxidant reserve capacity. A reduced AGE diet preserved these innate defenses, resulting in decreased tissue damage and a longer lifespan in mice.

PMID: 17525257

Attached File  low_AGE_max_LE.jpg   17.76KB   12 downloads

#5 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 15 July 2008 - 02:08 AM

yet another piece of the growing puzzle.

I recently read from a mini-review in the American Journal of Cardiology1

"We have recently provided evidence that calorie restriction induces eNOS and cyclic guanosine monophosphate, and that the resulting surge of NO activates the expression of a broad array of mitochondrial proteins, increases production of mitochondrial DNA, with higher respiration and ATP levels, in different tissues and organs, including white and brown fat, brain, liver and heart 2"


CRON research seems to be going from strength to strength.

#6 Ben

  • Guest
  • 2,010 posts
  • -2
  • Location:South East

Posted 15 July 2008 - 01:07 PM

ha ha! You heard it from me first!

I've pondered this myself but then I thought: Doesn't calorie restriction work because of something in food that people who are calorie restricted are getting less of?

Methionine restriction produces similar effects to CR, maybe that is what you were thinking of?


I was thinking that the more you eat the more likely you are to consume more AGEs.

e, this methionine restriction is interesting though.



#7 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 15 July 2008 - 07:38 PM

Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Eating Less May Slow Aging Process
Cutting just 300 calories a day slows metabolism, tissue failure, study says

(HealthDay News) -- Cutting just 300 to 500 calories a day from your diet could be the key to slowing the signs of aging and living longer, according to a new study.

Studies have long shown that reducing calorie intake slows the aging process in rats and mice. A popular theory is that fewer daily calories decreases production of the thyroid hormone triiodothyronine (T3), which then slows metabolism and tissue aging.

A new study, by Saint Louis University researchers, found this hormone decrease occurs when humans regularly skip rich desserts or substitute a turkey sandwich for a Big Mac and fries every day.

"Our research provides evidence that calorie restriction does work in humans like it has been shown to work in animals," study lead author Edward Weiss, associate professor of nutrition and dietetics at Saint Louis University's Doisy College of Health Sciences, said in a prepared statement. "The next step is to determine if this in fact slows age-related tissue deterioration. The only way to be certain, though, is to do a long-term study."

The findings, published in the June 2008 issue of Rejuvenation Research, are based on a study of healthy but sedentary, non-smoking, 50- to 60-year-old men and post-menopausal women. For a year, the volunteers participated in either: a calorie-restriction group that cut their daily calorie intake by 300 to 500 calories per day; a group that stayed on their regular diet and exercised regularly; or a group that maintained its normal routine.

While those in the calorie-restriction and exercise groups both lost body fat mass, only those in the calorie restriction group also had lower levels of the thyroid hormone.

Although a long-term study is still needed to determine if reducing T3 levels through calorie restriction does indeed slow the aging process, Weiss said cutting back on calories is a good idea.

"There is plenty of evidence the calorie restriction can reduce your risks for many common diseases including cancer, diabetes and heart disease," Weiss said. "And you may live to be substantially older."

Weiss warned that while cutting calories, people need to maintain a healthy diet by eating nutrient-rich foods. He noted that long-term slowing of the metabolism could also make people more prone to weight gain over time.

The key to maintaining a healthy weight, Weiss said, is keeping a consistent diet and exercising regularly.


So What about the slowing of aging, by decreased metabolic rate and decreasing the consumption of a finite amount of battery, so to speak?

#8 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 15 July 2008 - 08:13 PM

Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Eating Less May Slow Aging Process
Cutting just 300 calories a day slows metabolism, tissue failure, study says

(HealthDay News) -- Cutting just 300 to 500 calories a day from your diet could be the key to slowing the signs of aging and living longer, according to a new study.

Studies have long shown that reducing calorie intake slows the aging process in rats and mice. A popular theory is that fewer daily calories decreases production of the thyroid hormone triiodothyronine (T3), which then slows metabolism and tissue aging.

A new study, by Saint Louis University researchers, found this hormone decrease occurs when humans regularly skip rich desserts or substitute a turkey sandwich for a Big Mac and fries every day.

"Our research provides evidence that calorie restriction does work in humans like it has been shown to work in animals," study lead author Edward Weiss, associate professor of nutrition and dietetics at Saint Louis University's Doisy College of Health Sciences, said in a prepared statement. "The next step is to determine if this in fact slows age-related tissue deterioration. The only way to be certain, though, is to do a long-term study."

The findings, published in the June 2008 issue of Rejuvenation Research, are based on a study of healthy but sedentary, non-smoking, 50- to 60-year-old men and post-menopausal women. For a year, the volunteers participated in either: a calorie-restriction group that cut their daily calorie intake by 300 to 500 calories per day; a group that stayed on their regular diet and exercised regularly; or a group that maintained its normal routine.

While those in the calorie-restriction and exercise groups both lost body fat mass, only those in the calorie restriction group also had lower levels of the thyroid hormone.

Although a long-term study is still needed to determine if reducing T3 levels through calorie restriction does indeed slow the aging process, Weiss said cutting back on calories is a good idea.

"There is plenty of evidence the calorie restriction can reduce your risks for many common diseases including cancer, diabetes and heart disease," Weiss said. "And you may live to be substantially older."

Weiss warned that while cutting calories, people need to maintain a healthy diet by eating nutrient-rich foods. He noted that long-term slowing of the metabolism could also make people more prone to weight gain over time.

The key to maintaining a healthy weight, Weiss said, is keeping a consistent diet and exercising regularly.


So What about the slowing of aging, by decreased metabolic rate and decreasing the consumption of a finite amount of battery, so to speak?


Hmm. I have been taking Synthroid for the last 7 years since being diagnosed hypo. I wonder what effect this would have on my IF. I wonder whether my dosage will need to be changed?

#9 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 15 July 2008 - 08:22 PM

Wow, this is interesting. The heat keeps getting turned up (ahem..) on Dietary AGEs. In other words, they are just looking worse and worse. I wouldn't go as far as to say that CR effects are not due to fewer Calories, but rather that they can be subverted with a high enough level of dietary AGEs. We don't know from the abstract exactly how high in AGEs the high-AGE rat chow was, but it was probably pretty high. While this reinforces the idea of the toxicity of dietary AGEs, I'm still wondering about the relative hazard of dietary vs. endogenous AGEs. My impression at this point is that once an endogenous crosslink is formed in a low-turnover tissue, you're stuck with it, but it's less clear to me how long-lived the damage from dietary AGEs is. If you stopped consuming them, how much of the damage is irreversible, and how much gets better?


I am still at a quandary over this as well. I think by taking benfotiamine, pyridoxamine and carnosine (still debating the carnosine/beta-alanine issues) and keeping blood sugar levels under control one can control endogenous AGE production. Endogenous AGE production seems to me to be the worse evil as the glycation of structural and functional proteins seems much worse then "free floating" AGEs from dietary sources, but apparently they do have an effect according to this study.

To me dietary AGEs are much harder to deal with (cooking temperatures, methods etc. etc.) and a low dietary AGE diet may be just as restricting (in terms of time spent, effort put out and general PIA (pain in the a$$) factor) as CR only with less total benefits.

Edited by edward, 15 July 2008 - 08:22 PM.


#10 maxwatt

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 15 July 2008 - 09:22 PM

Wow, this is interesting. The heat keeps getting turned up (ahem..) on Dietary AGEs. In other words, they are just looking worse and worse. I wouldn't go as far as to say that CR effects are not due to fewer Calories, but rather that they can be subverted with a high enough level of dietary AGEs. We don't know from the abstract exactly how high in AGEs the high-AGE rat chow was, but it was probably pretty high. While this reinforces the idea of the toxicity of dietary AGEs, I'm still wondering about the relative hazard of dietary vs. endogenous AGEs. My impression at this point is that once an endogenous crosslink is formed in a low-turnover tissue, you're stuck with it, but it's less clear to me how long-lived the damage from dietary AGEs is. If you stopped consuming them, how much of the damage is irreversible, and how much gets better?


I am still at a quandary over this as well. I think by taking benfotiamine, pyridoxamine and carnosine (still debating the carnosine/beta-alanine issues) and keeping blood sugar levels under control one can control endogenous AGE production. Endogenous AGE production seems to me to be the worse evil as the glycation of structural and functional proteins seems much worse then "free floating" AGEs from dietary sources, but apparently they do have an effect according to this study.

To me dietary AGEs are much harder to deal with (cooking temperatures, methods etc. etc.) and a low dietary AGE diet may be just as restricting (in terms of time spent, effort put out and general PIA (pain in the a$$) factor) as CR only with less total benefits.


If you avoid fried foods and grilled foods, you'll have gone a long way.

#11 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 15 July 2008 - 09:27 PM

Wow, this is interesting. The heat keeps getting turned up (ahem..) on Dietary AGEs. In other words, they are just looking worse and worse. I wouldn't go as far as to say that CR effects are not due to fewer Calories, but rather that they can be subverted with a high enough level of dietary AGEs. We don't know from the abstract exactly how high in AGEs the high-AGE rat chow was, but it was probably pretty high. While this reinforces the idea of the toxicity of dietary AGEs, I'm still wondering about the relative hazard of dietary vs. endogenous AGEs. My impression at this point is that once an endogenous crosslink is formed in a low-turnover tissue, you're stuck with it, but it's less clear to me how long-lived the damage from dietary AGEs is. If you stopped consuming them, how much of the damage is irreversible, and how much gets better?


I am still at a quandary over this as well. I think by taking benfotiamine, pyridoxamine and carnosine (still debating the carnosine/beta-alanine issues) and keeping blood sugar levels under control one can control endogenous AGE production. Endogenous AGE production seems to me to be the worse evil as the glycation of structural and functional proteins seems much worse then "free floating" AGEs from dietary sources, but apparently they do have an effect according to this study.

To me dietary AGEs are much harder to deal with (cooking temperatures, methods etc. etc.) and a low dietary AGE diet may be just as restricting (in terms of time spent, effort put out and general PIA (pain in the a$$) factor) as CR only with less total benefits.


If you avoid fried foods and grilled foods, you'll have gone a long way.


can we still indulge in these foods once in a while?. for example grilled steak with steamed vegetables

#12 HaloTeK

  • Guest
  • 254 posts
  • 7
  • Location:chicago

Posted 15 July 2008 - 10:20 PM

Maybe you will be able to have your steak once in a while if you eat it with fresh veggies. I seem to recall some articles that veggies inhibit the formation of AGEs. Can someone back me up?

#13 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 16 July 2008 - 03:46 AM

Wow, this is interesting. The heat keeps getting turned up (ahem..) on Dietary AGEs. In other words, they are just looking worse and worse. I wouldn't go as far as to say that CR effects are not due to fewer Calories, but rather that they can be subverted with a high enough level of dietary AGEs. We don't know from the abstract exactly how high in AGEs the high-AGE rat chow was, but it was probably pretty high. While this reinforces the idea of the toxicity of dietary AGEs, I'm still wondering about the relative hazard of dietary vs. endogenous AGEs. My impression at this point is that once an endogenous crosslink is formed in a low-turnover tissue, you're stuck with it, but it's less clear to me how long-lived the damage from dietary AGEs is. If you stopped consuming them, how much of the damage is irreversible, and how much gets better?


I am still at a quandary over this as well. I think by taking benfotiamine, pyridoxamine and carnosine (still debating the carnosine/beta-alanine issues) and keeping blood sugar levels under control one can control endogenous AGE production. Endogenous AGE production seems to me to be the worse evil as the glycation of structural and functional proteins seems much worse then "free floating" AGEs from dietary sources, but apparently they do have an effect according to this study.

To me dietary AGEs are much harder to deal with (cooking temperatures, methods etc. etc.) and a low dietary AGE diet may be just as restricting (in terms of time spent, effort put out and general PIA (pain in the a$$) factor) as CR only with less total benefits.

If you avoid fried foods and grilled foods, you'll have gone a long way.


I've never eaten fried foods ie traditional fried with batter food, grilled however has been a mainstay of my diet. I am thinking that even stir fried or pan "fried" (eggs, steak etc.) would also cause AGE formation. Is it not the actual temperature applied rather than say direct flame of grilling that causes the AGE formation? I don't know enough about cooking though I'd have to look up temperatures, methods etc., not exactly my forté.

Edited by edward, 16 July 2008 - 03:47 AM.


#14 niner

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

Posted 16 July 2008 - 04:05 AM

I've never eaten fried foods ie traditional fried with batter food, grilled however has been a mainstay of my diet. I am thinking that even stir fried or pan "fried" (eggs, steak etc.) would also cause AGE formation. Is it not the actual temperature applied rather than say direct flame of grilling that causes the AGE formation? I don't know enough about cooking though I'd have to look up temperatures, methods etc., not exactly my forté.

My understanding is that it's the temperature. Also the cooking time; longer is worse. Cooking methods that have water around the food, even if it isn't submerged, will keep the temperature down to the boiling point of water. This opens up a reasonable number of cooking options. A microwave I'm not so sure about, since they can develop local hot spots, but overall it's probably better than frying, grilling, or broiling. Still, this whole thing is highly annoying. What are you supposed to do, give up barbecue? Farg. Well, screw that. I'm going to use the moderation in all things approach. I won't give up the things I love, but some of them I might cut back on, particularly things that I only feel so-so about anyway. I'll try to eat more raw foods, and not eat crusts and overly brown stuff that I don't like that much anyway. I think if we're smart about this, we can move our diets in a good direction and still enjoy eating.

#15 maxwatt

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 16 July 2008 - 11:34 AM

I've never eaten fried foods ie traditional fried with batter food, grilled however has been a mainstay of my diet. I am thinking that even stir fried or pan "fried" (eggs, steak etc.) would also cause AGE formation. Is it not the actual temperature applied rather than say direct flame of grilling that causes the AGE formation? I don't know enough about cooking though I'd have to look up temperatures, methods etc., not exactly my forté.

My understanding is that it's the temperature. Also the cooking time; longer is worse. Cooking methods that have water around the food, even if it isn't submerged, will keep the temperature down to the boiling point of water. This opens up a reasonable number of cooking options. A microwave I'm not so sure about, since they can develop local hot spots, but overall it's probably better than frying, grilling, or broiling. Still, this whole thing is highly annoying. What are you supposed to do, give up barbecue? Farg. Well, screw that. I'm going to use the moderation in all things approach. I won't give up the things I love, but some of them I might cut back on, particularly things that I only feel so-so about anyway. I'll try to eat more raw foods, and not eat crusts and overly brown stuff that I don't like that much anyway. I think if we're smart about this, we can move our diets in a good direction and still enjoy eating.


The browner the food becomes, the more Maillard reaction and the more AGEs. Grilling may be worst, because some of the food is blackened, i.e. burned. This produces carcinogens in addition to AGE's. A traditional cooking technique is to deglaze the pan with a little wine or vinegar; this removes those tasty AGE particles to flavor the sauce.

Lightly brown a steak in a pan with a little olive oil. Set aside on a platter. Add a little more olive oil, chopped garlic and onions to the pan, and sautée until slightly wilted or transparent. Add red wine to cover bottom of pan, boil briefly, add steak, turn heat down to simmer, cover pan. When the meat just becomes firm, it is done (five to ten minutes depending on thickness; cut to check if you must). Place steak on platter, boil wine and onions to thicken and pour over steak. Steak will continue cooking from its own heat as it cools to serving temperature. Bon appetite!

Not perfect, but fewer AGEs than other methods of cooking meat, and more tasty too.

I think blocking AGE formation, and removing or cleaving those AGE's we've accumulated, will prove productive. In addition to benfotiamine, pyridoxamine and carnosine, resveratrol blocks AGE effects.

Resveratrol inhibits AGEs-induced proliferation and collagen synthesis activity in vascular smooth muscle cells from stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. Mizutani K, Ikeda K, Yamori Y.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2000 Jul 21;274(1):61-7.
PMID: 10903896



#16 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 16 July 2008 - 10:55 PM

I've never eaten fried foods ie traditional fried with batter food, grilled however has been a mainstay of my diet. I am thinking that even stir fried or pan "fried" (eggs, steak etc.) would also cause AGE formation. Is it not the actual temperature applied rather than say direct flame of grilling that causes the AGE formation? I don't know enough about cooking though I'd have to look up temperatures, methods etc., not exactly my forté.

My understanding is that it's the temperature. Also the cooking time; longer is worse. Cooking methods that have water around the food, even if it isn't submerged, will keep the temperature down to the boiling point of water. This opens up a reasonable number of cooking options. A microwave I'm not so sure about, since they can develop local hot spots, but overall it's probably better than frying, grilling, or broiling. Still, this whole thing is highly annoying. What are you supposed to do, give up barbecue? Farg. Well, screw that. I'm going to use the moderation in all things approach. I won't give up the things I love, but some of them I might cut back on, particularly things that I only feel so-so about anyway. I'll try to eat more raw foods, and not eat crusts and overly brown stuff that I don't like that much anyway. I think if we're smart about this, we can move our diets in a good direction and still enjoy eating.


Hey, maybe you'll learn to love microwaved buffalo wings!

#17 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 17 July 2008 - 03:08 AM

Hey, maybe you'll learn to love microwaved buffalo wings!


...just microwave them on low "naked" with no extra source of sugar to further glycate and apply your sauce afterwards cold

I am going to see how well I can tolerate boiled: meat balls, chicken and eggs as protein staples for at home or take with me meals. As for the rest of my diet berries no problem, nuts (make sure they are raw), vegetables, well I mostly eat them raw so they are not a problem and the ones I eat handle cooking just fine. Oils are fine unless you cook with them and then things get weird, though I would hope monosaturates like Olive Oil (pretty much my only cooking oil) being more stable would hold up better but I dont know. Lets see whey protein and coconut oil milkshake very safe... Kefir/Stonyfield Plain Yogurt treats not bad, hard cheeses in moderation not too bad either just dont cook them. I think a low carb, mostly paleo, keto, low AGE with some IF and a slight caloric deficit due to exercise is doable.... LMAO

edit: multiple edits

Edited by edward, 17 July 2008 - 03:28 AM.


#18 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 17 July 2008 - 03:21 AM

Posted Image

#19 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 17 July 2008 - 03:28 AM

Posted Image


lol funny

#20 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 17 July 2008 - 05:51 AM

Hey, maybe you'll learn to love microwaved buffalo wings!


...just microwave them on low "naked" with no extra source of sugar to further glycate and apply your sauce afterwards cold

I am going to see how well I can tolerate boiled: meat balls, chicken and eggs as protein staples for at home or take with me meals. As for the rest of my diet berries no problem, nuts (make sure they are raw), vegetables, well I mostly eat them raw so they are not a problem and the ones I eat handle cooking just fine. Oils are fine unless you cook with them and then things get weird, though I would hope monosaturates like Olive Oil (pretty much my only cooking oil) being more stable would hold up better but I dont know. Lets see whey protein and coconut oil milkshake very safe... Kefir/Stonyfield Plain Yogurt treats not bad, hard cheeses in moderation not too bad either just dont cook them. I think a low carb, mostly paleo, keto, low AGE with some IF and a slight caloric deficit due to exercise is doable.... LMAO

edit: multiple edits


Don't forget to scrape your toast before buttering it. ;o)

Edit: Time for the "AGE Inhibitor" sub-forum.

#21 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 17 July 2008 - 06:20 AM

I had some grilled barbecue chicken today. You can have my AGEs when you pry them from my cold, dead hands, hippies.

#22 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 17 July 2008 - 06:50 AM

I like the taste of grilled food as well but I don't eat it too much. In order to go "more raw" with my protein I eat a lot of dried meat (jerky dried at 95 F) and pickled fish.

#23 maxwatt

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 17 July 2008 - 10:34 AM

I like the taste of grilled food as well but I don't eat it too much. In order to go "more raw" with my protein I eat a lot of dried meat (jerky dried at 95 F) and pickled fish.


Nitrates in pickled fish could have their own problems. Lox or smoked salmon tends to be overly salted. I have a solution for preparing meat though.

Steak Tartare

Find a butcher; ask for London Broil, tell him it's for steak tartare, and have him double grind it.
Use Jewish Rye; not the commercial manufactured stuff. If there are more than four ingredients in bread, it's not real bread. Flour, water, yeast, salt should suffice. Adam's Farms in New England and New York sells a Latvian Rye, both dark and light, that work beautifully. It should be thick-sliced, about 2 cm. thick.

Butter a slice of rye bread. Thickly spread with raw meat. Top with diced raw onion and pickled capers.

#24 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 17 July 2008 - 04:01 PM

Hey, how come Eskimos don't/didn't live to 150? They eat raw meat.

#25 stephen_b

  • Guest
  • 1,735 posts
  • 231

Posted 17 July 2008 - 05:59 PM

I previously posted this here.

Bread crusts are a convenient source of high AGE content food. An experimental group of rats were fed chow with bread crusts replacing 25% of the wheat flour in the control group. Both groups were pair-fed resulting in each pair of animals having identical calorie intake. The rats fed bread crusts for six weeks weighed ~25% more and had higher internal organ weight than the control group fed regular rat chow. The rats fed bread crust also had a 3 times higher level of a tumor causing agent and had approximately 70% kidney function loss (proteinuria)

link

Stephen

#26 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 20 July 2008 - 03:04 PM

AGE intake and crosslinks is only one part of aging. One piece of the (CR-)puzzle, but surely not the only reason it works. I do not agree with your conclusion at all "any means of reducing AGE formation will extend life" and "CR would prove useless if AGE's were allowed to proliferate and accumulate" why disregard cancer, mitochondrial aging and other forms of junk accumulation?
If you were right all their research would go to waste http://www.mfoundati...gename=research
CR is still the only intervention that increases maximum life span not AGE inhibitors à la Benfotiamine, right?

It seems I'll have to reduce my intake of sweet, roasted onions...
Though, grilling ain't that bad, you don't need to let those brown and black spots develop (Mailard reactions and AGEs right?).

#27 kenj

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Copenhagen.

Posted 20 July 2008 - 04:51 PM

'It's all about the calories!' says the Grim Reaper. He should know, - doesn't look like that bony mofo's gotten too many and he's STILL kicking.......................

#28 stephen_b

  • Guest
  • 1,735 posts
  • 231

Posted 20 July 2008 - 06:51 PM

AGE intake and crosslinks is only one part of aging. One piece of the (CR-)puzzle, but surely not the only reason it works. I do not agree with your conclusion at all "any means of reducing AGE formation will extend life" and "CR would prove useless if AGE's were allowed to proliferate and accumulate" why disregard cancer, mitochondrial aging and other forms of junk accumulation?
If you were right all their research would go to waste http://www.mfoundati...gename=research
CR is still the only intervention that increases maximum life span not AGE inhibitors à la Benfotiamine, right?

All of those things you mentioned, "cancer, mitochondrial aging and other forms of junk accumulation", are made worse by high dietary AGEs. The fact that a CR diet high in AGEs resulted in shortened life may mean that dietary AGEs are far more central to the other processes than previously though. I don't think it means that the previous research is wasted however. If it's true, I'd like to know about it, regardless of how much the apple cart is upset.

It seems I'll have to reduce my intake of sweet, roasted onions...
Though, grilling ain't that bad, you don't need to let those brown and black spots develop (Mailard reactions and AGEs right?).

Me too. I've been trying out more slow cooker recipes.

Stephen

#29 stephen_b

  • Guest
  • 1,735 posts
  • 231

Posted 20 July 2008 - 09:00 PM

Did anyone read the whole thread linked in the first post? I'm not the only one who was disappointed that there were no low AGE but regular calorie intake diet.

In this post in that thread the entry reads:

OK, found the data. The survival data on Low vs Reg is shown in her
previous work in Am J Pathology last year.17525257 Full text link :
http://www.pubmedcen...e...ed&pubme...

Table 3 shows the lifespan percentiles in this earlier study of Low
AGE vs Reg AGE. The lifespan percentiles are almost identical to the
CR vs Reg results in the newer article shown in Table 4 except that
the maximum lifespan was an extra 6 days (5%) on Low compared to CR.
So that is why Fig 10 shows that CR and Low had the same p value
compared to Reg. The Low data was published in this earlier work, so
it was not repeated in the newest article.

Stephen

#30 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 20 July 2008 - 10:19 PM

CR is still the only intervention that increases maximum life span not AGE inhibitors à la Benfotiamine, right?

Max lifespan was increased by the low-AGE diet, but only compared to the paper's controls. It'd be nice if the study were duplicated by someone who knows how to take care of mice.

Edited by krillin, 20 July 2008 - 10:21 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users