6 replies to this topic

[JLL]

I know this sounds like a stupid question, but here goes anyway...

With most unhealthy things that taste good, there's an evolutionary benefit that has just been masked by other things, like the amount of food available these days or the cooking process involved. For example, too much fat can be a problem nowadays, but we like the taste of fat because unce upon a time it was a valuable source of energy. Even liking the unnatural combination of fat and carbs makes sense in a way, because it's an even more effective way of storing energy.

Is there any similar benefit from AGEs? Or do we like the taste simply because in the paleolithic era fire was the only cooking method available, and cooking meat had the benefit of killing possible bacteria over eating meat raw - that is, because there was an advantage to liking cooked meat over liking uncooked meat, and not to eating AGEs spesifically?

I'm quite willing and able to eat healthy things and cut back on unhealthy things (even to the point where others think I'm overdoing it), but god damnit, avoiding AGEs seems hard and seriously limits the enjoyment of eating. I guess I should just start taking supplements that help with AGEs.

[EmbraceUnity]

I think you answered your own question. People who liked cooked food lived longer than those that didn't. Granted, I don't know whether we have been cooking food long enough for this to have an evolutionary effect, but it seems to be the best answer for now. Furthermore, not all AGEs taste good. Almost nobody likes truly burnt food, so it seems our bodies do have some natural inclinations towards avoiding extreme amounts of AGEs.

Lastly, exogenous AGEs are only a small factor with regard to AGE levels. Endogenous AGE production is far more worrisome, and that is why it has been shown that some vegans and raw foodists who eat supposedly "healthy" diets actually have higher AGE levels than meat-eaters since they consume less carnosine and taurine (and do not supplement).

[VictorBjoerk]

so what is the best way to lower your AGE intake? eliminating sugar?

[niner]

so what is the best way to lower your AGE intake? eliminating sugar?

Avoid fructose, since it has a greater tendency to participate in Maillard reactions. Other than that, do things that keep your blood sugar in the low-normal range. Avoid things with a high glycemic load. There are various supplements that may help to keep blood sugar lower. There are also anti-glycation supplements. I don't know exactly how well these work. Everything I just said relates to endogenous AGEs. I think you are talking about exogenous AGEs, since you said intake. In that case, avoid food that has been cooked at high heat, particularly for a long time. Don't eat the crusts of bread. Use as little heat as possible when cooking. Great, huh? I know. It sucks. I'm trying to gradually change my diet in the direction of low AGE foods, but I'm not going nuts about it.

[niner]

Is there any similar benefit from AGEs? Or do we like the taste simply because in the paleolithic era fire was the only cooking method available, and cooking meat had the benefit of killing possible bacteria over eating meat raw - that is, because there was an advantage to liking cooked meat over liking uncooked meat, and not to eating AGEs spesifically?

I'm quite willing and able to eat healthy things and cut back on unhealthy things (even to the point where others think I'm overdoing it), but god damnit, avoiding AGEs seems hard and seriously limits the enjoyment of eating. I guess I should just start taking supplements that help with AGEs.

How long have we been cooking food? Long enough for a widespread evolutionary change? What if it's just a fluke? We tend to like a lot of weird spices and flavorings, although an awful lot of them do have beneficial health aspects. There must be some that aren't so good for us. I used to really like the flavor of chewing tobacco. It may be that although the tobacco was bad for me (yes, I quit...), there was something about the flavor that was like something that was evolutionarily good for people. Could AGEs be like that? I dunno. It's a good question. I hear you about the enjoyment of eating. I'm trying to find things that taste good but are low in AGEs to use as staples, and have kind of a 'moderation in all things' approach to AGEs. In other words, still eat things with AGEs if they taste really good, but skip the AGEs if they don't taste that great.

[John Schloendorn]

Right, dietary AGEs don't play a big role in aging, and aging didn't play a big role in human evolution.

[s123]

Right, dietary AGEs don't play a big role in aging, and aging didn't play a big role in human evolution.

Increased oxidative stress (OS) underlies many chronic diseases prevalent in aging. Data in humans confirm the hypothesis that advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and other oxidants derived from the diet may be major contributors to increased OS in normal adults as well as those with diabetes mellitus or kidney failure. Mice fed a diet with a lowered (approximately 50%) content of AGEs or a typical calorie-restricted (CR) diet, accumulated a smaller amount of AGEs, maintained normal levels of AGE receptor-1 (AGER1), and did not have increased oxidant stress or cardiac or kidney fibrosis with aging. However, the findings in mice fed a CR diet with an increased content of AGEs resembled those in mice fed a nonrestricted diet that had the usual higher content of AGEs. Thus, there was an inverse correlation between the dietary AGE content, the AGER1 to receptor for AGE (RAGE) ratio, OS, organ damage, and life span. In both humans and mice, there was an inverse correlation between the AGER1 to RAGE ratio and the levels of OS.

Source: PMID: 18448795