Edited by TheFountain, 29 January 2009 - 03:03 PM.
L
onge
C
ity
Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Posted 29 January 2009 - 03:01 PM
Edited by TheFountain, 29 January 2009 - 03:03 PM.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 04:30 PM
I came across this, which I had read before but realized it may be pertinent here?
Cheese and beef elevate insulin levels more then high carb foods such as pasta. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264)
A quarter pound of beef raises insulin levels in diabetics as much as a quarter pound of straight sugar. (Diabetes Care 7 (1984):465)
A single burgers worth of beef, or three slices of cheddar, boost insulin levels more than almost 2 cups of cooked pasta (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264)
The Journal concluded that meat, compared to the amount of blood sugar it releases, seems to cause the most insulin secretion of any food tested.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:10 PM
The issue here is that we--people trying to live as long as possible--can only work with the best possible current evidence. The evidence of people on a paleo diet shows that it reduces inflammation, optimizes lipid levels, especially by reducing triglycerides, greatly reducing LP(a), and elevating HDL. Note that LDL and total cholesterol, as standalone values, are of practically no value. Don't tell me that a raw diet or a vegetarian diet leads to low cholesterol--doesn't mean jack shit. The values that matters are the three that the paleo diet perfectly optimizes. Maybe a raw diet does this, too. Would love to see some actual lipid figures of those on such a diet.How do we respond to the Josh Mitteldorf argument quoted above in this thread?
"Many people try to live healthy lives by avoiding man-made products and chemicals. Organic foods are a favorite, and the "paleo diet" (raw fruits, nuts and meats) represents this philosophy carried to its logical conclusion. The thinking is that humans evolved in a certain environment, and we are optimized by natural selection for the life style and the foods that were common in our evolutionary history. The flaw in this argument is that aging is not a failure of the body's protective systems, but a form of programmed self-destruction. So if we tune the body to function "optimally", it will also destroy itself right on cue, like a well-oiled machine."
Maybe, like Mitteldorf writes, we're like salmon, and feeding ourselves the perfect diet only leads to perfect death. Maybe healthy diets only eliminate the diseases of modern culture, but do nothing to help slow the natural progression that leads to death.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:19 PM
I've not seen anyone diss quality carbs. I've gone out of my way to make clear that practically all vegetables and berries are desirable. I draw the line at inflammation-causing grains and nutritionally poor starchy carbs (although, starchy carbs are okay in moderation -- a third of a baked potato versus the whole thing, for example).Okay, I want to know why some proponents of the Paleo diet will not admit to a distinction between quality carbs and crap carbs. You truly cannot associate the carb content in something like lentils to the carb content of white wonder bread. Completely different relative effect on insulin levels. Not to mention the isoflavones in higher fiber natural foods tend to offset the effects of glycation in the blood stream. Where is the indisputable scientific evidence that there is no difference in carb content of the forementioned foods with regard to insulin levels? Show me double blind studies. Otherwise you are just going on the word of Larry Taubes and his diet book, which is one of several dozen proclaiming to be the sole truth bearer.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:21 PM
I'm on the road currently, but I'm sure a little looking into this will show that it's not.I came across this, which I had read before but realized it may be pertinent here?
Cheese and beef elevate insulin levels more then high carb foods such as pasta. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264)
A quarter pound of beef raises insulin levels in diabetics as much as a quarter pound of straight sugar. (Diabetes Care 7 (1984):465)
A single burgers worth of beef, or three slices of cheddar, boost insulin levels more than almost 2 cups of cooked pasta (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264)
The Journal concluded that meat, compared to the amount of blood sugar it releases, seems to cause the most insulin secretion of any food tested.
Huh.. I don't get this. How is this possible?
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:35 PM
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:38 PM
So it's more a function of the oils used to cook the beef?People forget that insulin responds to AA levels in the blood as well as glucose.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:39 PM
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:41 PM
I understand this, But I have seen other's outright state that all carbs are bad. What is your opinion of the carbs found in legumes? Lentils and such? Inflammation or no inflammation? What about that versus the isolfavone benefits mentioned earlier?I've not seen anyone diss quality carbs. I've gone out of my way to make clear that practically all vegetables and berries are desirable. I draw the line at inflammation-causing grains and nutritionally poor starchy carbs (although, starchy carbs are okay in moderation -- a third of a baked potato versus the whole thing, for example).Okay, I want to know why some proponents of the Paleo diet will not admit to a distinction between quality carbs and crap carbs. You truly cannot associate the carb content in something like lentils to the carb content of white wonder bread. Completely different relative effect on insulin levels. Not to mention the isoflavones in higher fiber natural foods tend to offset the effects of glycation in the blood stream. Where is the indisputable scientific evidence that there is no difference in carb content of the forementioned foods with regard to insulin levels? Show me double blind studies. Otherwise you are just going on the word of Larry Taubes and his diet book, which is one of several dozen proclaiming to be the sole truth bearer.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 05:46 PM
So it's more a function of the oils used to cook the beef?People forget that insulin responds to AA levels in the blood as well as glucose.
Edited by shepard, 29 January 2009 - 05:49 PM.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:00 PM
So it's more a function of the oils used to cook the beef?People forget that insulin responds to AA levels in the blood as well as glucose.
Sorry, I should have specified. I meant amino acid, not arachidonic acid. This is one of the reasons milk elicits a higher insulin response than one would expect from the GI. Insulin responses also correlate with rate of amino acid appearance in the blood, particularly the BCAAs. One would have to look at the above-mentioned papers to see what they mean by insulin response. It's quite possible that a steak will have greater insulin AUC than some type of carbohydrate.
But note that since tissues wouldn't be taking up glucose (at least not more than is created via gluconeogenesis), it still leaves the body in a more insulin-sensitive state vs. the carbohydrates.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:05 PM
how much is too much amino acids though?
Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:11 PM
how much is too much amino acids though?
I've long thought that too many people lay blame down on insulin and damage when they should have been looking at glucose floating around in the blood, so it doesn't really change anything in my eyes.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:21 PM
Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:24 PM
I think this debacle is precisely why people should cycle diet. A couple days low carb, high fat, a couple days high fibre/carb, moderate fat, etc. I think we will find the most benefits from cycle dieting than with any other method thus far explored.No, insulin will drive down glucose levels anyway if the cell isn't resistant. A great way to keep it from inducing whole-body insulin resistance is a low carb diet or a lifestyle that keeps glycogen stores from being filled constantly. I'm just saying that one is bad over a much longer time frame, and one causes havoc immediately. Insulin does keep us all alive because it clears our blood of the things that will kill us quite quickly. Look at how Type I diabetics faired before we could administer insulin.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 06:51 PM
No, insulin will drive down glucose levels anyway if the cell isn't resistant. A great way to keep it from inducing whole-body insulin resistance is a low carb diet or a lifestyle that keeps glycogen stores from being filled constantly. I'm just saying that one is bad over a much longer time frame, and one causes havoc immediately. Insulin does keep us all alive because it clears our blood of the things that will kill us quite quickly. Look at how Type I diabetics faired before we could administer insulin.
Regular Sprints Boost Metabolism
A regular high-intensity, three-minute workout has a significant effect on the body’s ability to process sugars. New research shows that a brief but intense exercise session every couple of days may be the best way to cut the risk of diabetes.
Combined Aerobic And Strength Exercises May Help Decrease Functional Limitations And Insulin Resistance Among Obese Older Adults
Sedentary, obese older adults appear to improve their functional abilities and reduce insulin resistance through a combination of resistance and aerobic exercises, according to a new report.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:04 PM
Kevin, a 56 year old financial planner, is 5 ft 7 inches, 180 lbs (BMI 28.2). His basic measures:
HDL 36 mg/dl
Triglycerides 333 mg/dl
BP 132/78
Waist circumference 34 inches
Blood sugar 98 mg/dl
Kevin meets the criteria for metabolic syndrome on only two of the five criteria and therefore does not "qualify" for the diagnosis.
Kevin's basic lipids showed LDL 170 mg/dl, HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 333 mg/dl.
But take a look at his underlying lipoprotein patterns (NMR):
LDL particle number 2231 nmol/L (equivalent to a "true" LDL of 223 mg/dl)
Small LDL 1811 nmol/l
Large HDL 0.0 mg/dl
In other words, small LDL constitutes 81% of all LDL particles (1811/2231), a severe pattern. Large HDL is the healthy, protective fraction and Kevin has none. These are high-risk patterns for heart disease. These, too, are patterns of carbohydrate intolerance.
Foods that trigger small LDL and reduction in healthy, large HDL include sugars, wheat, and cornstarch. Kevin is carbohydrate-intolerant, although he lacks the (fasting) blood sugar aspect of carbohydrate intolerance. But he shows all the underlying lipoprotein and other metabolic phenomena associated with carbohydrate intolerance.
Edited by DukeNukem, 29 January 2009 - 07:04 PM.
Posted 29 January 2009 - 07:12 PM
Here's what I'm talking about as far as the uselessness of just knowing your total cholesterol, or LDL value.
Here's part of what Dr. Davis wrote, regarding an actual patient:Kevin, a 56 year old financial planner, is 5 ft 7 inches, 180 lbs (BMI 28.2). His basic measures:
HDL 36 mg/dl
Triglycerides 333 mg/dl
BP 132/78
Waist circumference 34 inches
Blood sugar 98 mg/dl
Kevin meets the criteria for metabolic syndrome on only two of the five criteria and therefore does not "qualify" for the diagnosis.
Kevin's basic lipids showed LDL 170 mg/dl, HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 333 mg/dl.
But take a look at his underlying lipoprotein patterns (NMR):
LDL particle number 2231 nmol/L (equivalent to a "true" LDL of 223 mg/dl)
Small LDL 1811 nmol/l
Large HDL 0.0 mg/dl
In other words, small LDL constitutes 81% of all LDL particles (1811/2231), a severe pattern. Large HDL is the healthy, protective fraction and Kevin has none. These are high-risk patterns for heart disease. These, too, are patterns of carbohydrate intolerance.
Foods that trigger small LDL and reduction in healthy, large HDL include sugars, wheat, and cornstarch. Kevin is carbohydrate-intolerant, although he lacks the (fasting) blood sugar aspect of carbohydrate intolerance. But he shows all the underlying lipoprotein and other metabolic phenomena associated with carbohydrate intolerance.
Edited by elrond, 29 January 2009 - 07:16 PM.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 12:43 AM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 02:48 AM
Posted 30 January 2009 - 03:11 AM
The issue here is that we--people trying to live as long as possible--can only work with the best possible current evidence. The evidence of people on a paleo diet shows that it reduces inflammation, optimizes lipid levels, especially by reducing triglycerides, greatly reducing LP(a), and elevating HDL. Note that LDL and total cholesterol, as standalone values, are of practically no value. Don't tell me that a raw diet or a vegetarian diet leads to low cholesterol--doesn't mean jack shit. The values that matters are the three that the paleo diet perfectly optimizes. Maybe a raw diet does this, too. Would love to see some actual lipid figures of those on such a diet.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 06:48 AM
Maybe start another thread with the self-programmed vs wear-tear debate? More people will likely see it and comment that way.
I will have to look for some studies, true, the ratio does matter, and a LDL level alone doesn't tell you much, now, a very high HDL itself is not required if there is not alot of fat around to scavenge, so the ratio is important.
The only study I found quickly is not specific enough, as raw foodists eating many nuts may throw out the ratios very easily. The majority nuts are not providing the proper ratios.
The ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 in most fruit and greens - veg is 1:1.
Even without avocado or seeds, nuts, one can maintain 1:1 and adequate levels thereof, assuming adequate intake of sweet/sub-acid/citrus/non-sweet "veggie" fruits & greens.
If one wanted to raise HDL higher, or overall EFA's, one could add ground flax, or Hemp, or certain other seeds/fruits.
Purslane is a type of green that contains higher amounts of DPA and EPA then most plants. (although all greens have EFA's including these 2).
A key point here is that by exercising regularly, one can intake more overall calories, and thus the amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients, antioxidants, (and most likely additional undiscovered beneficial compounds), that accompany them.
Fruit is the best source of carbs, glycemic load is important, glycemic index does not take all factors into account. look up the glycemic load of various items. As far as legumes , no, from my research they are poor food combining outright, notice the gas that beans and the like give one, impaired digestion, and fermentation. Also, legumes have too much protein. Excess protein = excess acidity and buffering from alkaline reserves.
I thought the poster was referring to arachadonic acid which involved with pro-inflmmatory pathways and is associated with animal products. But yes, the AA ratios matter too.
I will have to add more another time I just popped in.
Keep up the stimulating talks.
Posted 30 January 2009 - 08:09 PM
Posted 31 January 2009 - 08:45 AM
Posted 04 February 2009 - 02:35 AM
The researchers apparently didn't take into account the satiating effect of low-carb diets.
The study is less controlled since the number of calories were not the same over different diets, but in another way it's more realistic since that's what happens on a low carb diet.
I weighed 175 with a BMI of about 26.2. After going on a low carb diet, I was down to 150 after about 3-4 weeks, with my previously high triglycerides having plummeted.
It will be interesting to see what the combination of normalized vitamin D levels and recent generous coconut oil intake will have done to my 42 mg/dl HDL.
StephenB
Edited by Dmitri, 04 February 2009 - 02:43 AM.
Posted 04 February 2009 - 03:58 PM
Nice numbers and interesting story sthira. It seems that your diet would be hard to do, just in terms of finding enough food that meets your standards. Where do you end up getting your protein from? What about legumes? Interesting that you are grain free. I'm not 100% grain free, but gluten free (by choice).I'm a 42-year old male, I'm 6'2" and weight 155 pounds. I've been a vegetarian nearly my entire life (my parents were hippies), I've been consciously practicing CR for two years (since learning about it), but I think I've been actually doing CR for my entire life. I've been a raw vegan for two years, but I've made some changes recently, some of which I've made since learning new things on this website from people like you.
Posted 04 February 2009 - 04:27 PM
1. while some low carb foods such as meat exhibit a high insulin response, i beleive that the rise in insulin is met with a glucagon which blunts the fat storage effects. however to what extent, i am unsure
c) while ASP rises during a high fat meal, it seems that it is most potently activated by chylomicrons. this point seems important to me because chylomicrons have a half life of about 5 minutes in the blood which gives me the impression that while ASP would rise after eating a high fat meal, the rise would be short lived.
Posted 04 February 2009 - 06:49 PM
Nice numbers and interesting story sthira. It seems that your diet would be hard to do, just in terms of finding enough food that meets your standards. Where do you end up getting your protein from? What about legumes? Interesting that you are grain free. I'm not 100% grain free, but gluten free (by choice).
As for iron by the way, eating plant sources of iron along with vitamin C makes the iron much bioavailable (PMID 12450906). I had high iron too, and they like me at the blood center. No more spinach salad with tangerine slices for me.
StephenB
Posted 05 February 2009 - 07:44 AM
'Instead, how about listening to a man who has held over 5,000 beating human hearts in his hands? Dwight Lundell, MD:
"I trained for many years with other prominent physicians labeled “opinion makers.” Bombarded with scientific literature, continually attending education seminars, we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol.
The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.
It Is Not Working!"'
Edited by Ben - Aus, 05 February 2009 - 07:45 AM.
Posted 05 February 2009 - 12:51 PM
Well it was my thinking that insulinogenic proteins have a concomittment rise in glucagon, this doesnt happen to the same extent with carbohydrates. So if we have insulin rising, which increases fat storage, along with glucagon rising which helps burn fat then we have blunted fat storage activity compared to carbohydrates which exhibit mostly a rise in insulin without the glucagon.1. while some low carb foods such as meat exhibit a high insulin response, i beleive that the rise in insulin is met with a glucagon which blunts the fat storage effects. however to what extent, i am unsure
How would it blunt any fat storage effects (not that I'm on the insulin = fat bandwagon)? Glucagon is also used to help maintain glucose homeostasis. More insulinogenic proteins should elicit greater glucagon responses since insulin would drive down the glucose (created via gluconeogenesis) more than optimal.
Could you elaborate?c) while ASP rises during a high fat meal, it seems that it is most potently activated by chylomicrons. this point seems important to me because chylomicrons have a half life of about 5 minutes in the blood which gives me the impression that while ASP would rise after eating a high fat meal, the rise would be short lived.
Depends on how much fat you eat.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users