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

Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

Carbs = aging


  • Please log in to reply
335 replies to this topic

#1 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 19 January 2009 - 12:12 AM


Reproduced below in full is an article I just posted in a private forum for game developers. I've managed to convince a good many to adopt better eating habits over the last few years. Hopefully, posts like this one below continue to help.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think the title is a bit awkward, but this hot-off-the-presses article by a leading hormone researcher, Ron Rosedale MD, is one of the best summaries of why we age I've ever read. In bits and pieces I've covered much of it throughout this massive thread, but in one extremely well-written article Rosedale slam-dunks all the key points, and ties it all together better than I've seen anyone else attempt to do.

Insulin, Leptin, Diabetes, and Aging: Not So Strange Bedfellows
http://www.diabetesh...01/13/5617.html

I'm going to quote in italics a few key parts with some of my comments to follow...

o It would be easy to dismiss longevity merely as a function of luck, that is, simply a matter of winning the genetic lottery, but we know that this isn't exactly true. That's a good thing, for it means that we may be able to control our own destiny. We have been controlling the longevity destiny of laboratory animals for decades.

I've been saying this from the beginning, even in threads pre-dated this one. Living to 100 is currently a choice. In fact, given the coming radical advancements we're about to see in biology and nanotechnology, there's fast growing confidence that most of us under 40 have a great chance to live literally 100's of years, based on an engineering approach to repair aging (such as www.SENS.org). It's believed that well within two decades, we'll be able to keep a mouse alive for triple its normal lifetime. And once that happens, billions will flow into replicated this in humans, which will likely take another 1-2 decades to solve. So, staying alive 30 or so years may mean staying alive indefinitely. (And, people will not be stuck at an old age, the repair techniques will restore a youthful appearance and vigor.)

Sadly, most Americans live a lifestyle that will tuck them into their cozy coffin around 75-80, with those last 10 years propped up by energy-sapping pharmaceuticals.

o Our health and life depend on how accurately instructions are conveyed to our cells, so that they can act in harmony. It is the communication among the individual cells that determines our health and our life. The communication is carried out by hormones. Arguably therefore, the most important molecules in your body, the ones that ultimately decide your health and life, are hormones.

Anyone over 40 should be supplementing with hormones, to counteract the inevitable decline that everyone experiences after the age of 35. Why let the natural degradation of the endocrine system weaken your chance to live healthily for a decade or two longer? Besides eating right, this is the next best thing a person can do to extend their life.

o When insulin signals are kept low, indicating scarce energy availability, whether or not, in fact, energy is scarce, lifespan can be greatly extended. Levels of insulin are largely determined by glucose.

The paleo diet keeps insulin levels low, because it's a high-fat, low-carb diet. Carbs = glucose. Glucose raises insulin. Insulin production shortens a persons life. It's that simple.

o If there is a known single marker for life span, as they are finding in the centenarian and laboratory animal studies, it is low insulin levels.

And what raises insulin? Carbs.

This next one is really important:

o What is the purpose of insulin? It is not to lower blood sugar, as is believed by the general public and the medical profession alike. That is a relatively trivial side effect, as it is also the function of other hormones such as glucagon, epinephrine, cortisol and growth hormone. Insulin's evolutionary purpose is to store excess energy for future times of need. It lowers blood glucose levels for the purpose of storing it away, not regulating it. Our ancestors were forced to survive for days, weeks, or even months on little food. High glucose was not a big problem back then! Insulin helped our ancestors store away nutrients for the proverbial rainy day when they would need it.

Note that insulin's purpose is to store energy for future use. Now here's the key: Our body, via insulin, stores glucose NOT as glucose, but as the preferred fuel, fat. Think about that for a moment. Our bodies run better on fatty acids in our bloodstream, rather than glucose. So, when our blood sugar rises, that extra glucose is quickly converted to fat (triglycerides), and tucked neatly away for a rainy day. And when that rainy day does come, our body DOES NOT convert that fat back to glucose, it breaks down those stored triglycerides into fatty acids, the preferred energy source. Everyone who switches to a paleo diet comes to understand that our body runs better and more evenly when we give it the chance to run on its preferred metabolic fuel. And, as a fat bonus, we age less quickly.

I'll stop making comments here. Just read the article. It might change your life.

Edited by DukeNukem, 19 January 2009 - 12:12 AM.

  • like x 2

#2 zoolander

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

Posted 19 January 2009 - 01:42 AM

a great article Duke and some great commentary from you as well. It is very important that people learn to accept the above mentioned points. It's going to be some time though before the large percentage of the population accept the above because most (well above 50%) are group thinkers and follow the social norm. The media and establishment have pushed higher CHO diets for a long time and in general, still do to some degree.

If I can make some comments to further stimulate discussion........

Anyone over 40 should be supplementing with hormones, to counteract the inevitable decline that everyone experiences after the age of 35. Why let the natural degradation of the endocrine system weaken your chance to live healthily for a decade or two longer? Besides eating right, this is the next best thing a person can do to extend their life.


IMO, exercise should come before hormone therapy however after good nutrition.

something else that is well worth considering is insulin's action on hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) , which is the most active lipase in centrally/viscerally located adipose tissue. Hormone sensitive lipase is extremely responsive to catecholamine (i.e activates) and poorly responsive to insulin (i.e inhibits). It has be said that insulin, by preventing lipolysis by inhibiting hormone sensitive lipase, works to protect the body from excessive release of fatty acids into the blood stream from hypertrophied adipocytes. Keep in mind that like glucose, fatty acids are also very toxic to cells when floating around in the blood stream. Of course this is especially important in the obese state and extremely dangerous in the insulin resistant state.

Another great thread Duke. Cheers matey

sponsored ad

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

#3 Sozin

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:15 AM

Hi Duke,

I'm immensely curious as to what you are making of the Methionine-restriction thread (http://www.imminst.o...?showtopic=9303) -- There are some extremely opposite opinions between these threads, and while I stick to my diet of 40% fish 30% meat 30% nuts/carbs, I find it difficult to keep passing the AGE (http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=26814) and Methionine threads as fads. I do try to get everything to agree (boiling instead of broiling for AGE purposes), but it is getting more and more tedious. I'm curious to hear what the low carb community has to say about this thread and the AGE one.

#4 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 19 January 2009 - 02:23 AM

Reproduced below in full is an article I just posted in a private forum for game developers. I've managed to convince a good many to adopt better eating habits over the last few years. Hopefully, posts like this one below continue to help.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think the title is a bit awkward, but this hot-off-the-presses article by a leading hormone researcher, Ron Rosedale MD, is one of the best summaries of why we age I've ever read. In bits and pieces I've covered much of it throughout this massive thread, but in one extremely well-written article Rosedale slam-dunks all the key points, and ties it all together better than I've seen anyone else attempt to do.

Insulin, Leptin, Diabetes, and Aging: Not So Strange Bedfellows
http://www.diabetesh...01/13/5617.html

I'm going to quote in italics a few key parts with some of my comments to follow...

o It would be easy to dismiss longevity merely as a function of luck, that is, simply a matter of winning the genetic lottery, but we know that this isn't exactly true. That's a good thing, for it means that we may be able to control our own destiny. We have been controlling the longevity destiny of laboratory animals for decades.

I've been saying this from the beginning, even in threads pre-dated this one. Living to 100 is currently a choice. In fact, given the coming radical advancements we're about to see in biology and nanotechnology, there's fast growing confidence that most of us under 40 have a great chance to live literally 100's of years, based on an engineering approach to repair aging (such as www.SENS.org). It's believed that well within two decades, we'll be able to keep a mouse alive for triple its normal lifetime. And once that happens, billions will flow into replicated this in humans, which will likely take another 1-2 decades to solve. So, staying alive 30 or so years may mean staying alive indefinitely. (And, people will not be stuck at an old age, the repair techniques will restore a youthful appearance and vigor.)

Sadly, most Americans live a lifestyle that will tuck them into their cozy coffin around 75-80, with those last 10 years propped up by energy-sapping pharmaceuticals.

o Our health and life depend on how accurately instructions are conveyed to our cells, so that they can act in harmony. It is the communication among the individual cells that determines our health and our life. The communication is carried out by hormones. Arguably therefore, the most important molecules in your body, the ones that ultimately decide your health and life, are hormones.

Anyone over 40 should be supplementing with hormones, to counteract the inevitable decline that everyone experiences after the age of 35. Why let the natural degradation of the endocrine system weaken your chance to live healthily for a decade or two longer? Besides eating right, this is the next best thing a person can do to extend their life.

o When insulin signals are kept low, indicating scarce energy availability, whether or not, in fact, energy is scarce, lifespan can be greatly extended. Levels of insulin are largely determined by glucose.

The paleo diet keeps insulin levels low, because it's a high-fat, low-carb diet. Carbs = glucose. Glucose raises insulin. Insulin production shortens a persons life. It's that simple.

o If there is a known single marker for life span, as they are finding in the centenarian and laboratory animal studies, it is low insulin levels.

And what raises insulin? Carbs.

This next one is really important:

o What is the purpose of insulin? It is not to lower blood sugar, as is believed by the general public and the medical profession alike. That is a relatively trivial side effect, as it is also the function of other hormones such as glucagon, epinephrine, cortisol and growth hormone. Insulin's evolutionary purpose is to store excess energy for future times of need. It lowers blood glucose levels for the purpose of storing it away, not regulating it. Our ancestors were forced to survive for days, weeks, or even months on little food. High glucose was not a big problem back then! Insulin helped our ancestors store away nutrients for the proverbial rainy day when they would need it.

Note that insulin's purpose is to store energy for future use. Now here's the key: Our body, via insulin, stores glucose NOT as glucose, but as the preferred fuel, fat. Think about that for a moment. Our bodies run better on fatty acids in our bloodstream, rather than glucose. So, when our blood sugar rises, that extra glucose is quickly converted to fat (triglycerides), and tucked neatly away for a rainy day. And when that rainy day does come, our body DOES NOT convert that fat back to glucose, it breaks down those stored triglycerides into fatty acids, the preferred energy source. Everyone who switches to a paleo diet comes to understand that our body runs better and more evenly when we give it the chance to run on its preferred metabolic fuel. And, as a fat bonus, we age less quickly.

I'll stop making comments here. Just read the article. It might change your life.


It's an interesting article Duke, but I would like to know something, where do AGEs fit into the picture? I thought AGEs played an important part in aging us and paleo diets seem high in AGEs (animal products; fats and proteins).

Also, are using hormones really that safe. I’ve read several studies on hormone replacement therapies causing diabetes or cancer; especially HGH which seems popular with life extensionists.

#5 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 19 January 2009 - 03:02 AM

Thanks for that.

o Our health and life depend on how accurately instructions are conveyed to our cells, so that they can act in harmony. It is the communication among the individual cells that determines our health and our life. The communication is carried out by hormones. Arguably therefore, the most important molecules in your body, the ones that ultimately decide your health and life, are hormones.

Anyone over 40 should be supplementing with hormones, to counteract the inevitable decline that everyone experiences after the age of 35. Why let the natural degradation of the endocrine system weaken your chance to live healthily for a decade or two longer? Besides eating right, this is the next best thing a person can do to extend their life.


Do you have any opinions on this, or a source of information you would recommend? I go on and off DHEA, depending on what the last thing I read was.

#6 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 19 January 2009 - 04:56 AM

IMO, exercise should come before hormone therapy however after good nutrition.

I'm not certain, but you may be right. Here's why I'm not certain: the people living over 100 do not seem to be getting there because of any special exercise. In fact, many are confined to wheelchairs. It therefore seems to me that hormones play a bigger role, with insulin playing the biggest role. Luckily, we have tremendous control over insulin, via the food we eat. So really, food and hormones are practically inseparable in importance. Then I'd rank exercise next, specifically chaotic, short, intense exercise, whether strength training or cardio.

I'm immensely curious as to what you are making of the Methionine-restriction thread.

I don't think we have the full picture here, yet. Certainly the centenarians didn't worry about this. So, once a few more answers come in I'll form an opinion. Besides, what action can we take now? Not eat meat? And as it is now, I certainly don't eat a high-protein diet.

where do AGEs fit into the picture? I thought AGEs played an important part in aging us and paleo diets seem high in AGEs (animal products; fats and proteins).

I agree fully about AGEs, and this article covers this a little, and how a paleo (high-fat, low-carb, no-grain) diet helps reduce AGEs. Plus, there are some supps that may reduce glycation.

Also, are using hormones really that safe. I’ve read several studies on hormone replacement therapies causing diabetes or cancer; especially HGH which seems popular with life extensionists.

I think so. However, hGH is the one I do not use, because it raises IGF-1. It appears that measured IGF-1 in centenarians is always at the low end. Raising it appears to be pro-aging. I think taking both testosterone and progesterone, for example, can be highly beneficial and anti-aging.

Do you have any opinions on this, or a source of information you would recommend?

The recently released book by Suzanne Somers, Breakthrough, is actually a great beginners book on the subject. She interviews 8-10 practicing doctors in the field. Quite informative. She's not the dumb blond we all thought.

#7 zoolander

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

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:32 AM

I'm not certain, but you may be right. Here's why I'm not certain: the people living over 100 do not seem to be getting there because of any special exercise. In fact, many are confined to wheelchairs. It therefore seems to me that hormones play a bigger role, with insulin playing the biggest role. Luckily, we have tremendous control over insulin, via the food we eat. So really, food and hormones are practically inseparable in importance. Then I'd rank exercise next, specifically chaotic, short, intense exercise, whether strength training or cardio.


Keep in mind also that the muscle fibre compsition will also play an important part in insulin sensitivity.

The glucose transporter protein 4 (GLUT4), which is the major insulin regulatable glucose transporter in mammalian skeletal muscle, is found in larger amounts in slow muscle fibres compared with fast muscle fibres. An increase in activity level will increase the GLUT4 protein expression and a decrease in activity level will in most cases decrease GLUT4. Thus, there seems to be some kind of relationship between the muscle fibre type and GLUT4. [1]

Exercise with age is very important. The mechanisms that result in the age-related muscle atrophy (i.e sarcopenia) are complex. The co morbidities associated with sarcopenia are many. perhaps we shouldn't be ranking the three instead, we should just acknowledge the importance of each.

Edited by zoolander, 19 January 2009 - 05:35 AM.


#8 woly

  • Guest, F@H
  • 279 posts
  • 11

Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:47 AM

What do you think are the major mechanisms by which insulin lowers life expectancy?

#9 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 19 January 2009 - 03:42 PM

Why does insulin correlate with lifespan? Any theories?

I've tried to educate myself on insulin for my blog, but there's something strange to me about the fact that low insulin levels but high insulin activity is good. If insulin itself is bad, then high activity should be bad, but it's not.

#10 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 19 January 2009 - 03:49 PM

What do you think are the major mechanisms by which insulin lowers life expectancy?

I don't know if we know all the answers, but as Rosedale points out in that article centenarians all have low fasting insulin levels in common. At least one study shows that high insulin levels is a direct cause of plaque. Finally, the reason we would have a high insulin level is because we've been over-exposed to glucose (which comes from carbs, for the most part), and higher blood glucose leads to its own aging problems, such as AGEs.

Based on what we know now, to live longer, we should do all we can to maintain a consistent low insulin level. And that means consuming a high-fat, low-carb, no-grain diet.

Perhaps this is another unappreciated benefit of a CR diet, just the fact that insulin levels are 20-30% lower on average. I suspect that those on a CR diet would get an improved benefit from also eating a paleo diet. Following several of the CR blogs for a few years though, they mostly seem to eat a higher carb diet, including grains. This has to be somewhat sabotaging their efforts.

#11 4eva

  • Guest
  • 426 posts
  • 4

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:06 PM

The title is incorrect. Insulin = aging would be more accurate for the argument of the thread.

Not all carbs have the same effect on blood sugar and thereby cause the same insulin release.

So carbs = aging is an inaccurate generalization. Carbs do not equal aging but I suspect that your beliefs may have you thinking that they do.

#12 sentinel

  • Guest, F@H
  • 794 posts
  • 11
  • Location:London (ish)

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:11 PM

What do you think are the major mechanisms by which insulin lowers life expectancy?

I think so. However, hGH is the one I do not use, because it raises IGF-1. It appears that measured IGF-1 in centenarians is always at the low end. Raising it appears to be pro-aging. I think taking both testosterone and progesterone, for example, can be highly beneficial and anti-aging.


Without wanting to sidetrack the core topic, how do you personally augment hormones? I remember you using an estrogen supressor not unlike clomid and perhaps DHEA, but do you also use more direct test and progesterone replacements?

I ask because at 39 this is something I have started to look at and trying to cut through the Trib, DHEA and roid crap is challenging!

#13 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:21 PM

From the article: "In short, low insulin is very healthy and good for you as long as its message is being heard."

So when studies mention insulin activity being improved, is that the same as the message being heard more clearly? If so, is it really insulin that's being more active or the "listeners"?

#14 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:21 PM

The title is incorrect. Insulin = aging would be more accurate for the argument of the thread.

Not all carbs have the same effect on blood sugar and thereby cause the same insulin release.

So carbs = aging is an inaccurate generalization. Carbs do not equal aging but I suspect that your beliefs may have you thinking that they do.


actually, carbs = aging is probably a decent generalization. all carbs increase insulin, and those that don't do it as much (fructose) act on other deleterious pathways. though some (like berries) are probably still worth it due to high nutrient content.

to be more accurate... i guess one would have to qualify that certain carbs are less aging than others.

#15 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:30 PM

What do you think are the major mechanisms by which insulin lowers life expectancy?

I think so. However, hGH is the one I do not use, because it raises IGF-1. It appears that measured IGF-1 in centenarians is always at the low end. Raising it appears to be pro-aging. I think taking both testosterone and progesterone, for example, can be highly beneficial and anti-aging.


Without wanting to sidetrack the core topic, how do you personally augment hormones? I remember you using an estrogen supressor not unlike clomid and perhaps DHEA, but do you also use more direct test and progesterone replacements?

I ask because at 39 this is something I have started to look at and trying to cut through the Trib, DHEA and roid crap is challenging!

Again, I recommend the recent book, Breakthrough. It's a great overview of the current state of hormone supplementation. Sometimes you can use creams, sometimes pills, sometimes shots.

#16 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:34 PM

From the article: "In short, low insulin is very healthy and good for you as long as its message is being heard."

So when studies mention insulin activity being improved, is that the same as the message being heard more clearly? If so, is it really insulin that's being more active or the "listeners"?

Most pharmaceutic drugs increase insulin production, exactly what you DO NOT want to happen, from a longevity standpoint.

The real cure for diabetes is NOT drugs, it's diet. But, diet takes work. Pills are easy.

#17 Shepard

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

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:49 PM

but there's something strange to me about the fact that low insulin levels but high insulin activity is good. If insulin itself is bad, then high activity should be bad, but it's not.


Runaway high blood glucose will kill you much quicker than high basal insulin levels. Runaway high insulin levels in the absence of elevated blood glucose will also put you into a coma, but that isn't as big of a danger.

#18 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:58 PM

Another huge plus of the paleo diet:

The ketogenic diet increases mitochondrial glutathione levels
The ketogenic diet (KD) is a high-fat, low carbohydrate diet...We sought to determine whether the KD improves mitochondrial redox status....GSH (glutathione) is a major mitochondrial antioxidant that protects mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) against oxidative damage...the results demonstrate that the KD up-regulates GSH biosynthesis, enhances mitochondrial antioxidant status, and protects mtDNA from oxidant-induced damage.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....entrez/18466343

Glutathione is THE most important cellular protector in our body, often called the "master antioxidant." In particular, it protects against DNA and mtDNA damage -- the type of damage that leads to cancer and a list of other conditions that shorten life. When we operate on a fat-driven metabolism, not only does this appear to "up-regulate GSH biosynthesis" as per this study, but I believe (can't find source, maybe someone can help, or correct me on this) we generate far fewer free radicals, and it only makes sense that glutathione levels remain higher, affording us greater protection.

Is it a coincidence that the more we follow the diet we evolved to eat, the better we express our genes in a way that keeps us healthy?

Edited by DukeNukem, 19 January 2009 - 05:59 PM.


#19 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:14 PM

Thanks for this new perspective. Somehow it's in my nature to question new perspectives (that come from others, that is... :) ), but like your fish-oil thread, after trying to find answers to my questions, it seems that some research is indeed pointing into these directions. Most cohort based studies are not, but most of them are ill designed, don't measure a sufficient amount of parameters (also practically almost impossible) and hence have some form of a-priori bias, of which a part even seems to be intentional.
It's good to stay on top of things and question one's individual points of view constantly.

It made me switch to more fat (MCT's in stead of carbs) already, but still, the effects on cholesterol seem to be inconclusive. If democratic principles would be relevant in assessing research results, MCT's probably are OK though. Bottom line, it's the individual heuristic approach with adequate bloodwork that counts most.

#20 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:28 PM

but there's something strange to me about the fact that low insulin levels but high insulin activity is good. If insulin itself is bad, then high activity should be bad, but it's not.


Runaway high blood glucose will kill you much quicker than high basal insulin levels. Runaway high insulin levels in the absence of elevated blood glucose will also put you into a coma, but that isn't as big of a danger.


Yes, but am I wrong in thinking that high insulin levels are different from high insulin activity? My understanding is that it's good to have low levels of insulin but high insulin activity. Still, I don't quite understand why exactly this is so.

#21 Shepard

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

Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:36 PM

Yes, but am I wrong in thinking that high insulin levels are different from high insulin activity?


Think of insulin activity as insulin effectiveness. Higher activity means less is needed to be effective.

#22 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:36 PM

.. high insulin activity ..

Do you mean insulin sensitivity?

#23 Shepard

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

Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:37 PM

.. high insulin activity ..

Do you mean insulin sensitivity?


I imagine he's looking at articles or studies related to diabetics. For them, higher insulin activity is a very good thing.

#24 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:46 PM

Hey DukeNukem, i was thinking of trying the Raw Paleo diet, like a 80% 20%, meaning 80% Raw Paleo and 20% foods that i love like pizza and such. What are your thoughts on the Raw Paleo diet? vs the Regular Paleo Diet.

#25 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 19 January 2009 - 06:59 PM

What do you think are the major mechanisms by which insulin lowers life expectancy?

Perhaps this is another unappreciated benefit of a CR diet, just the fact that insulin levels are 20-30% lower on average. I suspect that those on a CR diet would get an improved benefit from also eating a paleo diet. Following several of the CR blogs for a few years though, they mostly seem to eat a higher carb diet, including grains. This has to be somewhat sabotaging their efforts.


Actually I think it would be very difficult to improve that much than what is seen in humans on CR. In Luigi Fontana's study they found insulin to be extremely low in CRONies at 1.4 on average with the control group being 5.1. Don't the reference range for insulin begin at >5.0? mlU/ml

Table 2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15096581

#26 kai73

  • Guest
  • 43 posts
  • 0
  • Location:italy

Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:05 PM

I am thinking to go on no carb diet since some weeks. the only thing which keeps me from doing that is that i would avoid eating tomato, apples, oranges, carrot, blueberries...that in many studies have shown to improve health.

Also, without them, i would be forced to go on supplements for many vitamins and i prefer to get all i need from food if possible.

People doing no-carb diet aren't worried to miss the health vitamins in fruit and vegetables ?

#27 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:07 PM

The title is incorrect. Insulin = aging would be more accurate for the argument of the thread.

Not all carbs have the same effect on blood sugar and thereby cause the same insulin release.

So carbs = aging is an inaccurate generalization. Carbs do not equal aging but I suspect that your beliefs may have you thinking that they do.



this

#28 kenj

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

Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:09 PM

I for one do not think carbohydrates are bad. In fact I make them my primary source of food, and I still have healthy blood sugar levels throughout the day and low fasting glucose (also, I move my body which may play a big part).
Folks on real CR have excellent biomarkers predicting long lives even though they eat alot of low caloric carbs and not much fat -- the very long-lived populations exceeding lifespans of 100 years also have eaten many carbs and not much fat (the 'poor man's diet') - and basically most vegetables and fruits are kingdoms of powerful disease-fighting nutrients, which it does make sense IMO to obtain in the natural state: locked inside the actual food.

#29 Mind

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

Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:11 PM

The major concern with raw paleo is parasites/bacteria/food poisoning issues, otherwise I tend to think it would be pretty good from a health standpoint. I try for raw or minimally cooked for most of my food. It takes a while to find the right combination of things that taste good and can be minimally cooked or not at all. So much of our current food production methods rely on cooking, heating, curing, preserving, because these things are good from a societal perspective. They allow us to be free to do other things. Perhaps free to invent new anti-aging therapies that will allow us to enjoy whatever we want and then clean the damage later...lol.

Also, if you want to discuss the raw diet more in depth...perhaps this thread would be a better place.

#30 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:23 PM

(also, I move my body which may play a big part).


Yup.

Physical activity and insulin sensitivity: the RISC study.
Balkau B, Mhamdi L, Oppert JM, Nolan J, Golay A, Porcellati F, Laakso M, Ferrannini E; EGIR-RISC Study Group.

INSERM 780, Villejuif, University Paris-Sud, Orsay, France. beverley.balkau@inserm.fr

OBJECTIVE: Physical activity is a modifiable risk factor for type 2 diabetes, partly through its action on insulin sensitivity. We report the relation between insulin sensitivity and physical activity measured by accelerometry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 346 men and 455 women, aged 30-60 years, without cardiovascular disease and not treated by drugs for diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or obesity. Participants were recruited in 18 clinical centers from 13 European countries. Insulin sensitivity was measured by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Physical activity was recorded by accelerometry for a median of 6 days. We studied the relationship of insulin sensitivity with total activity (in counts per minute), percent of time spent sedentary, percent of time in light activity, and activity intensity (whether the participant recorded some vigorous or some moderate activity). RESULTS: In both men and women, total activity was associated with insulin sensitivity (P < 0.0001). Time spent sedentary, in light activity, and activity intensity was also associated with insulin sensitivity (P < 0.0004/0.01, 0.002/0.03, and 0.02/0.004, respectively, for men/women) but lost significance once adjusted for total activity. Adjustment for confounders such as adiposity attenuated the relationship with total activity; there were no interactions with confounders. Even in the 25% most sedentary individuals, total activity was significantly associated with better insulin sensitivity (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Accumulated daily physical activity is a major determinant of insulin sensitivity. Time spent sedentary, time spent in light-activity, and bouts of moderate or vigorous activity did not impact insulin sensitivity independently of total activity.

PMID: 18591396 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users