335 replies to this topic

[CobaltThoriumG]

Given that carnosine's anti-glycating properties may be an explanation for vegetarian's having higher AGE levels than omnivores (PMID 16804013), perhaps taking supplementary carnosine would be a good idea at those times, like breakfast with oatmeal, one's meal is low in carnosine.

StephenB

My strategy as an omnivore has been to take it with meals containing the highest concentration of AGEs, so I take it with dinner, when I eat meat. Oatmeal is very low in AGEs. Maybe a vegeterian would want to take it at the meal containing the most fructose.

[stephen_b]

My strategy as an omnivore has been to take it with meals containing the highest concentration of AGEs, so I take it with dinner, when I eat meat. Oatmeal is very low in AGEs. Maybe a vegeterian would want to take it at the meal containing the most fructose.

That strategy makes a lot of sense, now that I think about it. Just because carnosine seems to be good accompaniment to high AGE food doesn't necessarily mean that it would a good choice for high fructose food.

Benfotiamine on the other hand might be better with higher carbohydrate meals: "Benfotiamine blocks three major pathways of hyperglycemic damage and prevents experimental diabetic retinopathy" (PMID 12592403).

StephenB

[TheFountain]

Then it makes no sense to me why some think whole grains are bad carbs, as they have anti-glycation isoflavones.

One argument against whole grains was made in this blog posting from the whole health source blog. Another factor to consider is gluten. Some people are quite intolerant to it, but perhaps quite a few more have a subclinical intolerance.

StephenB

I'd hate to say this, but I think gluten intolerance, like lactose intolerance, is genes specific. I would be interested in knowing what gene pairings make one more susceptible than other's. I will take a look at the blog posting though. But I am not sure it will change my mind unless it lists an all encompassing reason why whole grains should not be consumed. So far, in my opinion, we have mainly genes specific arguments which people may not realize are genes specific.

[TheFountain]

I read the blog post. I was already well familiar with the anthropological theory of why whole grain consumption is bad (I.E agricultural findings suggest that humans were not eating grains prior to such and such a time, and humans have been eating this way so we should continue to etc).

1-I am not convinced the paleo diet was as perfect as proponents of it make it seem (I think it highly possible they were eating grains).

2-A lot of people have allergies to fish, some meats and some vegetables, does this mean the whole human race is unsuited to meat, fish and vegetable consumption?

3-we are doing many things today (such as supplement consumption) that our bodies are not 'adapted' to in evolution. The reason we do them? Because we know that if we base every minute detail of our diets on a paleo prescription, or any one diet fad, evolutionary or otherwise, we will ultimately fail. Besides, we can't state what the perfect evolutionary diet is because we are still evolving.

That said, we know what is, without a doubt, conducive to entropy. Such as refined grains, over-exposure to toxins, artificial sweeteners, food addatives, hormones, etc. Let us proceed from this with an opened mind about the very real possibility that different cultures might be suited to different genetically based diets.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 March 2009 - 07:38 PM.

[Zosimos]

I read the blog post. I was already well familiar with the anthropological theory of why whole grain consumption is bad (I.E agricultural findings suggest that humans were not eating grains prior to such and such a time, and humans have been eating this way so we should continue to etc).

1-I am not convinced the paleo diet was as perfect as proponents of it make it seem (I think it highly possible they were eating grains).

2-A lot of people have allergies to fish, some meats and some vegetables, does this mean the whole human race is unsuited to meat, fish and vegetable consumption?

3-we are doing many things today (such as supplement consumption) that our bodies are not 'adapted' to in evolution. The reason we do them? Because we know that if we base every minute detail of our diets on a paleo prescription, or any one diet fad, evolutionary or otherwise, we will ultimately fail. Besides, we can't state what the perfect evolutionary diet is because we are still evolving.

That said, we know what is, without a doubt, conducive to entropy. Such as refined grains, over-exposure to toxins, artificial sweeteners, food addatives, hormones, etc. Let us proceed from this with an opened mind about the very real possibility that different cultures might be suited to different genetically based diets.

I will have to agree with my friend here on all accounts. While I do not dare broach the topic of any particular diet, I do find our intrepid threadstarter to be amusing in his broad based assertions. While it may feel perfectly fine to make proclamations with unbridled glee (assertions like this: "And what raises insulin? Carbs."), it is not, in fact, helpful and is instead misleading and potentially destructive.

Yes, carbs do raise insulin. Colas, enriched foods, and even some fruit are all guilty of this cardinal sin, which for those of you who may not know, decreases blood sugar and leads to increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. But not all carbs raise insulin levels, as I'm sure (or hope) has been pointed out in this thread. So do some research, find out which carbs are good for you and which ones you should avoid (hint: starches).

To the threadstarter: I have not bothered to read anything beyond your first post, so I realize that I am exposed to the risk of having missed a humble apology or at the very least a more formal explanation of your previous statement. What you have written is both obscure and disingenuous, and your attempts to beleaguer the world with yet more low carb nonsense pains me. I only hope that no unsuspecting individual has changed their lifestyle based on your very precarious reasoning. The jury is still out on many aspects of nutritional science, and some juries can't seem to make up their mind, so let us step away from bold assertions of fact or fiction and instead pursue a more practical approach to nutrient consumption based on what seems to be reasonably true.

Edited by Zosimos, 13 March 2009 - 09:53 PM.

[Skötkonung]

1-I am not convinced the paleo diet was as perfect as proponents of it make it seem (I think it highly possible they were eating grains).

2-A lot of people have allergies to fish, some meats and some vegetables, does this mean the whole human race is unsuited to meat, fish and vegetable consumption?

If you choose to hold the belief stated in point number one, you are choosing a position contrary to majority of anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. Consider the following passage from The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee:

The average height of hunter-gatherers in that region towards the end of the Ice Age was a generous 5 foot 10 inches for men, 5 foot 6 inches for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, reaching by 4,000 BC a low value of only 5 foot 3 inches for men, 5 foot 1 inch for women. By classical times, heights were on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the heights of their healthy hunter-gatherer ancestors.

The reason for the slump in stature is easy to trace. We stopped eating a proper diet that had sufficient protein and plumped instead for one low in nutrition and high in calories and carbohydrates.

We started eating large amounts of cereals. Apart from not giving us a balanced diet, these were high in sugar and low in iron. The result was widespread dental caries, as can be seen in the riddled teeth of the skeletons of Neolithic farmers that have been uncovered by archeologists.

Contrast these with the fine dentures of skeletons from the Mesolithic period such as 'Cheddar Man' and you get a measure of the price we have paid for farming's introduction.

Professor Charlotte Roberts, of Durham University, also weighs in on the issue (in reference to Britain):

We have plenty of skeletons from the Neolithic period when farming was introduced. And yes, many of them look in poor health. However, we do not have a lot to compare them with, because the period just before that, the Mesolithic, has left us with very few human remains [in Britain]. So we cannot definitely say that farming caused widespread suffering and distress, although fossil evidence from other parts of the world [such as in Greece] strongly suggest it did.

Also, according to the book "Faces of Britain"

In any case, changes were in the offing. Dietary and lifestyle revolutions were about to sweep the country as scientists discovered in 2003 after studying the skeletons of almost 200 ancient Britons. They found that around 4,000 BC our habit of gorging ourselves on mussels, crabs, prawns, clams, and other shellfish, and leaving great middens of discarded shells across the coastlines, was abandoned abruptly in favour of diets exclusively made up on meat and cereals. This occured during the country's transition from the end of the Mesolithic period, when widespread hunter-gatherer activities came to a halt, to the beginning of the Neolithic period which is generally associated with the onset of farming. The discovery of this dietary jump is the work of scientists who exploited a basic fact about human constitution: that we are what we eat. Mike Richards - who was then at Bradford University - working with colleagues in Belfast and Oxford, measured isotope ratios in the bones of 164 Neolithic men and women and compared the findings with nineteen fragments of skeletons from Mesolithic people. The method they used exploited the fact that the collagen of our bones is made from proteins derived from out food. These foodstuffs have slightly different isotope signatures depending on whether the proteins come from sea creatures, or the flesh of land mammals, or from crops, or a mixture of all three.

Regarding point number two, I concede that there has been some evolutionary improvements to our ability to process grains and dairy since the introduction of farming. An example of this would be the ability to metabolize lactose. Various mutations to allow this ability have appeared independently around the world in regions where consuming dairy would allow a greater chance of survival.

From Wikipedia:

Lactose intolerance has been studied as an aid in understanding ancient diets and population movement in prehistoric societies. Milking an animal vastly increases the calories that may be extracted from the animal as compared to the consumption of its meat alone. It is not surprising then, that consuming milk products became an important part of the agricultural way of life in the Neolithic. It is believed that most of the milk was used to make mature cheeses which are mostly lactose free.

However, due to the evolutionarily recent introduction of dairy into the human diet, the gene is not widely spread.

• 6% to 15% in white Americans and northern Europeans
• 18%, 30%, and 47% in Mexican Americans
• 25%, 45%, and 60% in black South Africans
• approximately 10%, 20%, and 25% in Chinese and Japanese
• 30–55%, 90%, and >90% in Mestizos of Peru^[28][29]

So if you are one of the people who are lucky enough to be born with this mutation, than by all means, consume dairy. But do so in moderation and in conjunction with currently understood maco-nutrient ratios of Paleolithic man.

Now grains, specifically gluten, is another issue entirely. Unlike dairy, which is comprised primarily of fats and proteins, grains are carbohydrate rich. As shown in the above quotations, carbohydrates were not a significant part of the paleolithic individual's diet. Furthermore, the introduction of a carbohydrate rich diet signaled drastic changes to human health, which among other things include the diseases of civilization, changes in body composition, and changes in body height. Regarding gluten specifically, unlike allergies to shellfish and certain meats which are somewhat uncommon, gluten intolerance is rampant throughout our society and can have significant impact on our health both in the short term and long term.

There are many different variants of genes that allow an individual to metabolize gluten. Although there are specific configurations known to cause pronounced celiac disease, many other variants also have a more subtle, albeit still negative, response to gluten. Epidemiology suggests that most of the population has a mild negative reaction to gluten. Surely this cannot be healthy for the body?

Each of us has two copies of HLA DQ. Because there are 9 serotypes of DQ we are all DQx/DQx where x is a number between 1 & 9. For example, I am DQ2/DQ7. I received the DQ2 from one of my parents and the DQ7 from the other. Because we get one DQ type from each of our parents and give one to each of our children it is easy to to see how the DQ genes pass through a family. This is important because two DQ types, DQ2 and DQ8, are estimated to be present in over 98% of all people who have celiac disease, the most severe form of gluten sensitivity.

...

Rarely, true celiac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis, the skin disease equivalent of celiac, have been reported to occur in people who do not have DQ2 and/or DQ8. However, according to unpublished data from Dr. Ken Fine of Enterolab, the other six types, except DQ4, are associated with risk for elevated stool antibodies to gliadin, the toxic fraction of gluten, and/or tissue transglutaminase (tTG) an enzyme. Both of these antibodies are usually elevated in the blood of individuals with celiac disease though they may be normal in the blood of individuals who are gluten sensitive and have a normal small intestine biopsy but respond favorably to a gluten-free diet.
...

He also reported DQ2 and DQ8 positive individuals have had, as a rule, the highest elevations of stool gliadin antibody followed by those who are DQ7 positive. Only those who are doubly positive for DQ4 have not been found to have significantly elevated antibodies to indicated gluten sensitivity. This is consistent with the differences in prevalence rates of celiac disease seen in various parts of the world since DQ4 is not generally found in Caucasians of Northern European ancestry where celiac incidence is highest but in those from Asia or Southern Africa where there is a very low incidence of celiac disease and gluten intolerance.

...

It is becoming obvious to many of us who have personal and professional medical experience with gluten intolerance and celiac disease that the problem of gluten sensitivity is much greater and extends beyond the high risk celiac genes DQ2 and DQ8. Traditionally it is reported and believed by many that if you are DQ2 and DQ8 negative you are unlikely to have celiac disease or ever develop it, though this cannot be said with 100% certainty especially since there are documented cases of celiac disease and the skin equivalent of celiac disease, known as dermatitis herpetiformis (DH) in individuals who are DQ2 and DQ8 negative.

...

The severity of the sensitivity to gluten appears to be related to the DQ type, family history (highest risk is in the non affected identical twin of a celiac), pre-existing intestinal injury, degree of exposure to gluten (how frequent and large a gluten load an individual is exposed to), and immune status. Once initiated, gluten sensitivity tends to be life long. True celiac disease requires life-long complete gluten avoidance to reduce the increased risk of serious complications of undiagnosed and untreated celiac such as severe malabsorption, cancers, especially of the GI tract and lymphoma, other autoimmune diseases and premature death due to these complications.

...

DQ2 & DQ8, the two major types present in 90-99% of people who have celiac disease, are present in approximately 35-45% of people in the U.S., especially those of Caucasian race of Northern European ancestry

Given the prevalence of a gluten sensitivity, even a mild one, and the evidence against high carbohydrate diets I think it would be wise to forgo grains.

edit: fixed broken links -mod

Edited by niner, 15 March 2009 - 04:54 AM.

[Skötkonung]

I will have to agree with my friend here on all accounts. While I do not dare broach the topic of any particular diet, I do find our intrepid threadstarter to be amusing in his broad based assertions. While it may feel perfectly fine to make proclamations with unbridled glee (assertions like this: "And what raises insulin? Carbs."), it is not, in fact, helpful and is instead misleading and potentially destructive.

Yes, carbs do raise insulin. Colas, enriched foods, and even some fruit are all guilty of this cardinal sin, which for those of you who may not know, decreases blood sugar and leads to increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. But not all carbs raise insulin levels, as I'm sure (or hope) has been pointed out in this thread. So do some research, find out which carbs are good for you and which ones you should avoid (hint: starches).

To the threadstarter: I have not bothered to read anything beyond your first post, so I realize that I am exposed to the risk of having missed a humble apology or at the very least a more formal explanation of your previous statement. What you have written is both obscure and disingenuous, and your attempts to beleaguer the world with yet more low carb nonsense pains me. I only hope that no unsuspecting individual has changed their lifestyle based on your very precarious reasoning. The jury is still out on many aspects of nutritional science, and some juries can't seem to make up their mind, so let us step away from bold assertions of fact or fiction and instead pursue a more practical approach to nutrient consumption based on what seems to be reasonably true.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of thread before posting. Many things raise insulin, including protein, however the subsequent reactions differ somewhat between both protein and carbohydrates. Allow myself to quote a previous post:

As for insulin spikes - this is desired when ingesting protein as it helps muscle tissue uptake of amino acids. Normal insulin spiking is obviously needed and wanted, but not spikes so big that they're going to significantly decrease insulin sensitivity. In the case of a paleo style diet, this does not seem to happen as it does in carbohydrate rich diets. According to a recent study (see corresponding ImmInst post), switching to a high protein diet actually enhanced insulin sensitivity and generally improved the subject's biomarkers. This would seem counter intuitive to your claim that a high protein paleo style diet is life shortening. If these insulin spikes were all that mattered, then fish and beef should screw up fat metabolism as bad as pasta and rice. It seems pretty clear that they don't, so there must be something else at play besides insulin. One possibility is glucagon, which is antagonistic to insulin in several respects (for example, while insulin inhibits lipolysis, glucagon encourages lipolysis). Worse yet, not only does insulin not tell the whole story, but even predicting the insulin response to various foods isn't as easy as it seems to be. The macro nutrient content and the glycemic index of food seems to be only a partial predictor.

So there is a clear distinction between how our body processes both protein and carbohydrates in regard to insulin.

And before you go on about how healthy carbohydrate consumption is, researchers recently discovered that the over-consumption of carbohydrates has a direct correlation to prevalence of acne and other "western" illnesses:

Acne vulgaris: a disease of Western civilization.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12472346

I also think you should note that the original poster was NOT advocating for a no-carb diet like Atkins, but for a low carb diet such as paleo / primal blueprint. Such diets limit carbs to under 150g daily, of which all come from either fruits or vegetables.

For reference, please view: http://www.marksdail...rate-continuum/

Edited by Skotkonung, 13 March 2009 - 10:25 PM.

[TheFountain]

I will have to agree with my friend here on all accounts. While I do not dare broach the topic of any particular diet, I do find our intrepid threadstarter to be amusing in his broad based assertions. While it may feel perfectly fine to make proclamations with unbridled glee (assertions like this: "And what raises insulin? Carbs."), it is not, in fact, helpful and is instead misleading and potentially destructive.

Yes, carbs do raise insulin. Colas, enriched foods, and even some fruit are all guilty of this cardinal sin, which for those of you who may not know, decreases blood sugar and leads to increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. But not all carbs raise insulin levels, as I'm sure (or hope) has been pointed out in this thread. So do some research, find out which carbs are good for you and which ones you should avoid (hint: starches).

To the threadstarter: I have not bothered to read anything beyond your first post, so I realize that I am exposed to the risk of having missed a humble apology or at the very least a more formal explanation of your previous statement. What you have written is both obscure and disingenuous, and your attempts to beleaguer the world with yet more low carb nonsense pains me. I only hope that no unsuspecting individual has changed their lifestyle based on your very precarious reasoning. The jury is still out on many aspects of nutritional science, and some juries can't seem to make up their mind, so let us step away from bold assertions of fact or fiction and instead pursue a more practical approach to nutrient consumption based on what seems to be reasonably true.

Perhaps you should have read the rest of thread before posting. Many things raise insulin, including protein, however the subsequent reactions differ somewhat between both protein and carbohydrates. Allow myself to quote a previous post:

As for insulin spikes - this is desired when ingesting protein as it helps muscle tissue uptake of amino acids. Normal insulin spiking is obviously needed and wanted, but not spikes so big that they're going to significantly decrease insulin sensitivity. In the case of a paleo style diet, this does not seem to happen as it does in carbohydrate rich diets. According to a recent study (see corresponding ImmInst post), switching to a high protein diet actually enhanced insulin sensitivity and generally improved the subject's biomarkers. This would seem counter intuitive to your claim that a high protein paleo style diet is life shortening. If these insulin spikes were all that mattered, then fish and beef should screw up fat metabolism as bad as pasta and rice. It seems pretty clear that they don't, so there must be something else at play besides insulin. One possibility is glucagon, which is antagonistic to insulin in several respects (for example, while insulin inhibits lipolysis, glucagon encourages lipolysis). Worse yet, not only does insulin not tell the whole story, but even predicting the insulin response to various foods isn't as easy as it seems to be. The macro nutrient content and the glycemic index of food seems to be only a partial predictor.

So there is a clear distinction between how our body processes both protein and carbohydrates in regard to insulin.

And before you go on about how healthy carbohydrate consumption is, researchers recently discovered that the over-consumption of carbohydrates has a direct correlation to prevalence of acne and other "western" illnesses:

Acne vulgaris: a disease of Western civilization.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12472346

I also think you should note that the original poster was NOT advocating for a no-carb diet like Atkins, but for a low carb diet such as paleo / primal blueprint. Such diets limit carbs to under 150g daily, of which all come from either fruits or vegetables.

For reference, please view: http://www.marksdail...rate-continuum/

You still have little basis for not distinguishing between the types of carbs consumed with regard to grains, I.E refined versus whole. And you are also not taking into account the vast difference on the effect of insulin responses and blood glycation that exist between, for example, white bread and Oats. The latter of which has almost no major insulin response worthy of taking into account, due to its isoflavone anti-glycation properties. Plus it is a low Methionine, something that cannot be said of red meat. A supposed paleo regular. I just don't buy that anthropologists know everything Paleolithic men ate, and I think there are vasts amount of missing data. Anyone who thinks they have enough data to account for an all encompassing theory as to what paleo humans ate, is just arrogant.

And as an aside. Evolutionary biology seems a little too beholden to anthropology, when in fact it should be the other way around. It wouldn't surprise me if we found out many of the conclusions of evolutionary biology are not only skewed, but skewed because they follow anthropological theories a little too much. That said, once again, we are still evolving. Thus we still do not know what diet is best for us.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 March 2009 - 10:48 PM.

[Prometheus]

And as an aside. Evolutionary biology seems a little too beholden to anthropology, when in fact it should be the other way around. It wouldn't surprise me if we found out many of the conclusions of evolutionary biology are not only skewed, but skewed because they follow anthropological theories a little too much. That said, once again, we are still evolving. Thus we still do not know what diet is best for us.

I'll make this very simple. Prior to the advent of supermarkets humans lived off the land. That meant fruit, vegetables and nuts were largely seasonal and the only consistent food source was derived from animals (large and small and insect), ergo protein. Our genes have evolved in harmony with a constant availability of protein and fat and transient availability of carbohydrates.

The best diet for us is that which is written in our genes not the one being marketed in supermarkets and health food stores.

We are still evolving, however, evolution is slow and largely random. It can take many years, sometimes thousands for a trait to manifest that provides sufficient selective advantage to find itself strongly established within a species. I don't see us evolving to carb abundance as it is only a recent phenomenon. But we are seeing children becoming increasingly obese and unlikely to pass on their genes. There is an accelerated culling of carbohydrate sensitive people due to diabetes and obesity.

Solution: Avoid carbs, exercise often. Importantly, reduce the hedonic reliance on food and seek it in other activities.

[wydell]

And as an aside. Evolutionary biology seems a little too beholden to anthropology, when in fact it should be the other way around. It wouldn't surprise me if we found out many of the conclusions of evolutionary biology are not only skewed, but skewed because they follow anthropological theories a little too much. That said, once again, we are still evolving. Thus we still do not know what diet is best for us.

I'll make this very simple. Prior to the advent of supermarkets humans lived off the land. That meant fruit, vegetables and nuts were largely seasonal and the only consistent food source was derived from animals (large and small and insect), ergo protein. Our genes have evolved in harmony with a constant availability of protein and fat and transient availability of carbohydrates.

The best diet for us is that which is written in our genes not the one being marketed in supermarkets and health food stores.

We are still evolving, however, evolution is slow and largely random. It can take many years, sometimes thousands for a trait to manifest that provides sufficient selective advantage to find itself strongly established within a species. I don't see us evolving to carb abundance as it is only a recent phenomenon. But we are seeing children becoming increasingly obese and unlikely to pass on their genes. There is an accelerated culling of carbohydrate sensitive people due to diabetes and obesity.

Solution: Avoid carbs, exercise often. Importantly, reduce the hedonic reliance on food and seek it in other activities.

Posts that imply, without question, that a meat based diet is absolutely the best way to go really lack merit.


Every long lived culture to my knowledge has subsisted mostly on plant material. See post http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=294376 for some examples

To my knowledge, there is no longevity data anywhere that shows a diet high in meat leads to a long healthy life. There may be some studies showing improved biomarkers under some circumstances with a high meat diet.

To say conclusively that a meat based diet the best way to go is quite far-fetched at this point in time.

Also note that the whole evolution argument is filled with holes. Man evolved without drugs, dental care, medical care and a host of other things that extend life. So even if what you are saying is partially correct- that early man did not eat much in terms of fruits, vegetables, and nuts, that means absolutely nothing. Even if early man did not eat fruit and vegetables, these things still may be good for you in high quantities. Prevailing scientists seem to think so.

What means something are diets that are proven to provide longer life. The rest is just hokey pseudo science. Show me studies that demonstrate that primarily meat based diets yield longer life and then perhaps I can buy into your theories.

[Forever21]

Show me studies that demonstrate that primarily meat based diets yield longer life and then perhaps I can buy into your theories.

Well, just how is that possible with all the AGEs and Methionine that's in meat?

[woly]

Does anyone have any studies that grains result in an inflamatory response in people without gluten intolerances?

[TheFountain]

I'll make this very simple.

Talk about arrogance....

Prior to the advent of supermarkets humans lived off the land. That meant fruit, vegetables and nuts were largely seasonal and the only consistent food source was derived from animals (large and small and insect), ergo protein.

There is not enough evidence to suggest that less seasonal food sources were not some how stored and consumed perennially. Wheat for example. Egyptian culture teaches us that a segment of the species can evolve at a different rate socially and argiculturally than the rest.

Our genes have evolved in harmony with a constant availability of protein and fat and transient availability of carbohydrates.

Then explain people with fish and red meat allergies. Explain why some are lactose intolerant whilst some are not, why some are gluten intolerant whilst some are not. Genetic variability perhaps? Perhance? Maybe? moooby?

The best diet for us is that which is written in our genes not the one being marketed in supermarkets and health food stores.

And I am telling you that 'we' have genetic variability which means that 'we' do not know what the best all encompassing diet is because there isn't one, but many.

There is an accelerated culling of carbohydrate sensitive people due to diabetes and obesity.

They aren't carbohydrate sensitive they are insulin and glycation sensitive. Not all carbs lead to an exacting insulin response mechanism. Some have anti-glycation and hemoglobin reaction properties which would be beneficial with regard to the forementioned sensitivities. The conclusion, avoid processed carbs and those with high GI. Furthermore some meats cause an insulin response too. What I think is going on here is that there is a certain cult of meat heads promoting a certain diet based on their personalities. Science can be bent in either direction to suit anyones claims. All I am saying is we need more evidence, studies and genetic analysis to come to any exacting conclusions. We do not yet know all we need to know to secure an all encompassing theory or conclusion, least of all for all people, of all genetic backgrounds everywhere.

Edited by TheFountain, 15 March 2009 - 02:34 AM.

[Prometheus]

Our genes have evolved in harmony with a constant availability of protein and fat and transient availability of carbohydrates.

Then explain people with fish and red meat allergies. Explain why some are lactose intolerant whilst some are not, why some are gluten intolerant whilst some are not. Genetic variability perhaps? Perhance? Maybe? moooby?

Irrelevant. You explain why a) there is such a low abundance of (evolved) fructose transporter receptors in muscle cells and b) fructose must be converted to glucose in the liver before it can be utilized.

Until you have studied metabolism and understood how macronutrients are processed and sensed by the hypothalamus you cannot possibly be convinced. We may as well be speaking in different languages.

So, have as many carbs as you like. Eat to your heart's content. Seriously. I could not care less.

I'm very happy with my dietary implementations for me personally and the many others who benefit from them. I have abs, I carry a fair amount of lean muscle, I'm never hungry and I have healthy energy levels whilst before this I was overweight and fatigued. These dietary principles make sense and they work. Doesn't get better than that.

[TheFountain]

I'm very happy with my dietary implementations for me personally and the many others who benefit from them. I have abs, I carry a fair amount of lean muscle, I'm never hungry and I have healthy energy levels whilst before this I was overweight and fatigued. These dietary principles make sense and they work. Doesn't get better than that.

I carry a fair amount of muscle too, anyone who works out with heavy weights and does a meager amount of cardio will have abdominal muscles showing. Whether they are on a minimal carb or a high carb diet. You will find that the majority of serious body builders consume about 500 or more grams of carbs daily. And guess what? they still have a six pack. But thank you for the ad hominem post that proves absolutely nothing.

Edited by TheFountain, 15 March 2009 - 06:30 AM.

[JLL]

Then explain people with fish and red meat allergies. Explain why some are lactose intolerant whilst some are not, why some are gluten intolerant whilst some are not. Genetic variability perhaps? Perhance? Maybe? moooby?

Side note: I've seen a few food allergies disapper in people who stop eating gluten. Don't have experience with fish/red meat allergies (I didn't even know you could be allergic to meat), but apple/pear/peach/plum allergies seem to be alleviated in some people who quit eating grains.

I don't know why lactose intolerance is on your list, btw. It's not really related to the protein/fat issue.

[Prometheus]

I'm very happy with my dietary implementations for me personally and the many others who benefit from them. I have abs, I carry a fair amount of lean muscle, I'm never hungry and I have healthy energy levels whilst before this I was overweight and fatigued. These dietary principles make sense and they work. Doesn't get better than that.

I carry a fair amount of muscle too, anyone who works out with heavy weights and does a meager amount of cardio will have abdominal muscles showing. Whether they are on a minimal carb or a high carb diet. You will find that the majority of serious body builders consume about 500 or more grams of carbs daily. And guess what? they still have a six pack. But thank you for the ad hominem post that proves absolutely nothing.

Ad hominem my arse! Where did you see the ad hominem? Accusing someone of ad hominem when they have not done it, is ad hominem in itself.. lol..

But hey if you want to convince yourself that eating a high carb diet supports a lean waistline without a requisite caloric expenditure be my guest. Bear in mind, however, that just as protein has been shown to increase testosterone levels, carbohydrates have been shown to increase estrogen levels. Thus a high carb, low protein diet will reduce your testosterone whilst increasing your estrogen levels - a sort of castration by carbs. No doubt you are aware of this endocrinological distinction. lol..

[wydell]

H@rry:


Is there really any evidence whatsoever for what you are implying. For example,a high protein may cause certain muscle building hormones to increase, but do you have any studies showing it increases testosterone? Beef will probably increase testosterone, but perhaps more so because of the fat than the protein.

I have certainly seen studies that high protein decreases testosterone and have included references below. Also note that the high carb diet increased T in the references below.



"So a high protein intake lowers total T levels and raises cortisol levels. These are both detrimental effects. However, protein lowers SHBG and increases GH secretion. These are both beneficial effects. Given these conflicting effects of protein on hormone optimization, the best recommendation would probably be to keep protein intake at a moderate level. But before discussing what "moderate" would be, another issue in regards to protein needs to be addressed."

"So the high carb diet raised total T levels and lowered cortisol levels. These are both beneficial effects. However, the raising of SHBG is problematic. This is discussed further in the next study."


http://www.fitnessfo...es/part_two.htm

"While subjects followed the high protein diet, their total T levels were 28% lower than on the higher CHO diet (15). This is important because T decreased in all seven subjects, although the magnitudes of the decrease ranged from 10 to 93%. For the same seven subjects, their SHBG levels decreased about 39% with a range from 19 to 64%. Looking at this data gives the impression that the actual bioactivity of T was higher while the subjects were on a high protein diet. SHBG-bound T and fT were not measured, so it is not known for sure.'

"However, if this is what really happens, then a high-protein diet may actually lower the anabolic actions of T in the body. Unfortunately, this has not been verified through laboratory research and is just a theory at this point. Perhaps the decrease in T is a result of increased excretion in the urine either as T or a sulfated metabolite, or increased conversion to estradiol and oxidation by the liver."

http://www.thinkmusc...don/diet-01.htm


Also, note that there are studies that show that saturated and monunsaturated fats increase T.

I'm very happy with my dietary implementations for me personally and the many others who benefit from them. I have abs, I carry a fair amount of lean muscle, I'm never hungry and I have healthy energy levels whilst before this I was overweight and fatigued. These dietary principles make sense and they work. Doesn't get better than that.

I carry a fair amount of muscle too, anyone who works out with heavy weights and does a meager amount of cardio will have abdominal muscles showing. Whether they are on a minimal carb or a high carb diet. You will find that the majority of serious body builders consume about 500 or more grams of carbs daily. And guess what? they still have a six pack. But thank you for the ad hominem post that proves absolutely nothing.

Ad hominem my arse! Where did you see the ad hominem? Accusing someone of ad hominem when they have not done it, is ad hominem in itself.. lol..

But hey if you want to convince yourself that eating a high carb diet supports a lean waistline without a requisite caloric expenditure be my guest. Bear in mind, however, that just as protein has been shown to increase testosterone levels, carbohydrates have been shown to increase estrogen levels. Thus a high carb, low protein diet will reduce your testosterone whilst increasing your estrogen levels - a sort of castration by carbs. No doubt you are aware of this endocrinological distinction. lol..

Edited by wydell, 15 March 2009 - 03:12 PM.

[wydell]

Show me studies that demonstrate that primarily meat based diets yield longer life and then perhaps I can buy into your theories.

Well, just how is that possible with all the AGEs and Methionine that's in meat?

Exactly, that's my point. He is not going to able to show data that indicates that a primarily meat based diet leads to a longer life, whereas there is data that shows that a primarily based plant based diet leads to a longer life.

So I think he moved the topic to muscle building and testosterone, to which I responded. High protein is not necessary (and may even be counterproductive) to raising T.


I do agree with your post and mind's earlier posts that the best bet in extending life is technology, not diet.

[Shepard]

Couple of recent blog entries from a biophysicist:

http://entropyproduc...-within-95.html
http://entropyproduc...rotein-asp.html

[RoadToAwe]

And as an aside. Evolutionary biology seems a little too beholden to anthropology, when in fact it should be the other way around. It wouldn't surprise me if we found out many of the conclusions of evolutionary biology are not only skewed, but skewed because they follow anthropological theories a little too much. That said, once again, we are still evolving. Thus we still do not know what diet is best for us.

I'll make this very simple. Prior to the advent of supermarkets humans lived off the land. That meant fruit, vegetables and nuts were largely seasonal and the only consistent food source was derived from animals (large and small and insect), ergo protein. Our genes have evolved in harmony with a constant availability of protein and fat and transient availability of carbohydrates.

H@rrY,

Paleolithic diet was not low in Carbohydrates. What you are saying directly contradicts the findings of anthropologists.

I suggest you read the article that appeared in EJCN(European Journal of Clinical Nutrition)

Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications


http://www.nature.co...df/1600389a.pdf

[Skötkonung]

Paleolithic diet was not low in Carbohydrates. What you are saying directly contradicts the findings of anthropologists.

I suggest you read the article that appeared in EJCN(European Journal of Clinical Nutrition)

Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications
http://www.nature.co...df/1600389a.pdf

You still have little basis for not distinguishing between the types of carbs consumed with regard to grains, I.E refined versus whole. And you are also not taking into account the vast difference on the effect of insulin responses and blood glycation that exist between, for example, white bread and Oats. The latter of which has almost no major insulin response worthy of taking into account, due to its isoflavone anti-glycation properties. Plus it is a low Methionine, something that cannot be said of red meat. A supposed paleo regular. I just don't buy that anthropologists know everything Paleolithic men ate, and I think there are vasts amount of missing data. Anyone who thinks they have enough data to account for an all encompassing theory as to what paleo humans ate, is just arrogant.

And as an aside. Evolutionary biology seems a little too beholden to anthropology, when in fact it should be the other way around. It wouldn't surprise me if we found out many of the conclusions of evolutionary biology are not only skewed, but skewed because they follow anthropological theories a little too much. That said, once again, we are still evolving. Thus we still do not know what diet is best for us.

Perhaps you should read the Nature article located here for a 12 year review of paleolithic nutrition. Scroll down to the section marked "carbohydrates." Here is a particular passage of interest:

"Under most circumstances during the late Paleolithic, the great majority of carbohydrate was derived from vegetables and fruit, very little from cereal grains and none from refined flowers."

Granted, even this summation of the Paleolithic diet and carbohydrate sources is derived from older, more antiquated studies. Modern studies done on the bones of paleolithic humans seem to indicate carbohydrate levels were probably considerably less than the "45-50%" cited in the above article. How many pantings of grains, fruits, and vegetables did you see drawn in the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave? Surely, one would expect to see more evidence of this high level of carbohydrate consumption in artifacts of Paleolithic culture. See my above posts for quotations on how the more modern figures were derived and where to locate them.

Perhaps peoples in warmer climates certainly benefited from a higher carbohydrate intake (from fruits and vegetables) as the books I have read on Paleolithic diet seem to be European centric, but I have not seen any evidence of this in contemporary literature. IF you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know. Please cite key passages.

Methionine restriction may vary well yield life extension benefits, but it also inhibits growth and activity (much like CR). This was not relevant to the Paleolithic individuals who on average lived to their 40s or 50s and rarely died of "natural causes." For them, diet needed to be composed of calorically dense proteins of fats to sustain activities such as hunting and survival in harsh climates. This seems to be confirmed by the migratory patterns of Paleolithic people, which appear to have followed the movements of mega fauna. Only after we had sufficiently depleated our environment did we (referring to Western Europeans) become more receptive to the concept of agriculture.

"All they were doing was extending the ranges of their activities - in particular, their hunts for horse and reindeer. There animals were the prime sources of protein...As animals moved north, humans would have followed. It is also worth nothing that these pereginations parallel the early dispora of humanity out of Africa." - The Human Odyssy: Four Million Years of Human Evolution. Chris Stringer & Robin McKie, Jonathan Cape.

Besides, modern paleolithic diets hardly restrict all carbohydrates. 150g of carbohydrates, a low number by most standards, can provide over 12 servings of fruits and vegetables. More active individuals may need to scale this number in ratio to the rest of their macronutrients.

I'll be the first admit that the Paleo inspired diets may not provide the same life extension benefits as some of their alternatives (like CR), but they do optimize biomarkers and provide sufficient energy for active lifestyles as this was the goal of paleolithic people. They are superior to the diets of the average Westerner and will likely keep someone healthy and active to 100, where as a diet such as CR may get someone to 120 at best (even these are estimates given the lack of long term data). The very goal of life extension runs contrary to the Paleo diet. Life extension in an extreme way will require un-natural processes where as a diet based on evolutionary science such as the paleo-diet may at best provide optimal healthspan.

In that, I believe we should reconcile that a paleolithic diet is intended to maximize health benefits and as a bi-product, may confer some life extension in comparison to the general public. Methionine limiting diets and calorie restiction, on the other hand, have the direct goal of enhancing life extension and were probably not congruous with the currently understood lifestyle and diets of the paleolithic peoples.

Regarding the original topic, "carbs = aging," perhaps it should be ammended that some carbs cause increased aging. But so do most foods. How you restrict foods depends entirely on your goals (health span, activities, longevity, etc). Furthermore, how we eat should be entirely dependant on your genetic profile. Lactose to a lactose intolerant individual is not good for health. Gluten to someone who is heterogenious / homogenious for a gluten intolerance gene may cause problems with grain and shorten life expectancy over a long enough period of time. Foods rich in AGEs or that cause the creation of high levels of AGEs are probably best excluded from one's diet. Methionine and caloric restriction should be balanced against activity levels. There will never be a golden standard for everyone. Just use some common sense.

I'm very happy with my dietary implementations for me personally and the many others who benefit from them. I have abs, I carry a fair amount of lean muscle, I'm never hungry and I have healthy energy levels whilst before this I was overweight and fatigued. These dietary principles make sense and they work. Doesn't get better than that.

I carry a fair amount of muscle too, anyone who works out with heavy weights and does a meager amount of cardio will have abdominal muscles showing. Whether they are on a minimal carb or a high carb diet. You will find that the majority of serious body builders consume about 500 or more grams of carbs daily. And guess what? they still have a six pack. But thank you for the ad hominem post that proves absolutely nothing.

Yes, bodybuilders eat a lot of carbohydrates during their "bulking" season. Bulking season also produces a considerable rise in body fat. During "cutting" season, in preperation for contest, bodybuilders eat a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. The average bodybuilder does NOT cut on a high carbohydrate diet.

Please read this article on the bodybuilding diet:
http://www.skippypod...arbcycling.html

That said, bodybuilders aren't the best standard to be using regarding dietary patterns. Their acitivities should be viewed as those to support a specific sport, not a healthy lifestyle.

Edited by Skotkonung, 16 March 2009 - 06:22 AM.

[Prometheus]

Paleolithic diet was not low in Carbohydrates. What you are saying directly contradicts the findings of anthropologists.

Not at all. I said, "fruit, vegetables and nuts were largely seasonal and the only consistent food source was derived from animals". How does that contradict contemporary anthropological theories on nutrition? What I was implying was that the sheer abundance of, and our reliance to, carbohydrate-based foods did not exist then and is an evolutionarily recent phenomenon, i.e. our genes have not caught up.

[stephen_b]

Scott (and other meat eaters out there), can eating meat raise homocysteine levels?

Stephen B

[DukeNukem]

Scott (and other meat eaters out there), can eating meat raise homocysteine levels?

Stephen B

I don't think so. My level is really low, though I don't have the exact figure now. Homocysteine appears to be a deficiency of certain B vitamins -- red meat is a great source of B's.

[Skötkonung]

Scott (and other meat eaters out there), can eating meat raise homocysteine levels?

Stephen B

Both, Vitamin B12 and Vitamin B6 (along with folic acid and others) lower homocysteine levels. Homocysteine tends to be on the high side with many vegetarians, so these vitamins usually need to be supplemented in a vegetarian diet. Vegetarian sources of B6 only supply the inactive form (pyridoxine), which will have to be converted to the active form by the liver and is therefor not as effective as that contained in meats.

Since homocysteine derives from methionine, which is more abundant in animal protein than plant protein, if vegetarians supplement with these vitamins, their levels tend to be lower on average than a regular meat eater. Interestingly, Dr. Atkins was able to lower homocysteine levels on his high-protein, low-carb diet by supplementing his patients with a B-vitamin complex (see: Atkins Diabetes Revolution) that leads me to believe a diet high in vegetables and fruits could lower homocysteine on a moderate protein diet. Although a 2001 LEF article seems to indicate otherwise.

In a strange twist, a study on the Masai tribe of Africa showed no indication of heart disease in the population 65 and older, which certainly would not be the case if homocysteine was consistantly elevated. Source

Regarding heart disease, I found this:

One of the misconceptions perpetuated by some sources is that eating meat promotes cardiovascular disease, while vegetarian diets prevent it. We all know that the body cannot exist without cholesterol, and that dietary cholesterol has little or no effect on serum cholesterol, so that leaves oxidation of fat and simple sugars (once converted in the liver) as contributing factors with atherosclerosis. However, this effect is not meat, nor vegan / vegetarian-specific, and neither are antioxidants, which can be animal and/or vegetarian-based. I have patients, who as a result of following a strict vegetarian lifestyle enjoy optimal health, and I have patients who, as a result of eating mostly meat, enjoy optimal health as well. The secret is not the type of diet itself, but frequently the avoidance of what is generally conceived as being junk food - which can be part of an omnivorous and vegetarian lifestyle. At the same time, someone's diet should be based on genetic requirements -- to complement one's individual chemical make-up, but should not be based on dogmas or agendas.

Effect of Vegetarian Diet on Homocysteine Levels
http://content.karge...e.asp?Doi=57644

So basically I have no answer for you But it could be that homocysteine is a marker of heart disease, not a cause.

Edited by Skotkonung, 20 March 2009 - 09:01 PM.

[Prometheus]

Homocysteine is related to MTHFR polymorphisms.

[Mind]

http://www.scienceda...90625133215.htm

How High Carbohydrate Foods Can Raise Risk For Heart Problems.

"Looking inside" the arteries of students eating a variety of foods, Dr. Michael Shechter of Tel Aviv University's Sackler School of Medicine and the Heart Institute of Sheba Medical Center — with collaboration of the Endocrinology Institute — visualized exactly what happens inside the body when the wrong foods for a healthy heart are eaten. He found that foods with a high glycemic index distended brachial arteries for several hours.

Elasticity of arteries anywhere in the body can be a measure of heart health. But when aggravated over time, a sudden expansion of the artery wall can cause a number of negative health effects, including reduced elasticity, which can cause heart disease or sudden death.
...

Endothelial health can be traced back to almost every disorder and disease in the body. It is "the riskiest of the risk factors," says Dr. Shechter, who practices at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center — Tel Hashomer Hospital. There he offers a treatment that can show patients — in real time — if they have a high risk for heart attacks. "Medical tourists" from America regularly visit to take the heart test.

The take-away message? Dr. Shechter says to stick to foods like oatmeal, fruits and vegetables, legumes and nuts, which have a low glycemic index. Exercising every day for at least 30 minutes, he adds, is an extra heart-smart action to take.

Oatmeal has the added benefit of having very little or no gluten. Legumes and nuts will get you a good helping of protein and fats. Stick with leafy green vegetables and minimal fruit if you want to keep your insulin levels from spiking.

[VictorBjoerk]

berries is a good thing since it doesn't make insulin shoot up and still contain many nutrients etc.

[tunt01]

Methionine restriction may vary well yield life extension benefits, but it also inhibits growth and activity (much like CR). This was not relevant to the Paleolithic individuals who on average lived to their 40s or 50s and rarely died of "natural causes." For them, diet needed to be composed of calorically dense proteins of fats to sustain activities such as hunting and survival in harsh climates. This seems to be confirmed by the migratory patterns of Paleolithic people, which appear to have followed the movements of mega fauna. Only after we had sufficiently depleated our environment did we (referring to Western Europeans) become more receptive to the concept of agriculture.

I'll be the first admit that the Paleo inspired diets may not provide the same life extension benefits as some of their alternatives (like CR), but they do optimize biomarkers and provide sufficient energy for active lifestyles as this was the goal of paleolithic people. They are superior to the diets of the average Westerner and will likely keep someone healthy and active to 100, where as a diet such as CR may get someone to 120 at best (even these are estimates given the lack of long term data). The very goal of life extension runs contrary to the Paleo diet. Life extension in an extreme way will require un-natural processes where as a diet based on evolutionary science such as the paleo-diet may at best provide optimal healthspan.

In that, I believe we should reconcile that a paleolithic diet is intended to maximize health benefits and as a bi-product, may confer some life extension in comparison to the general public. Methionine limiting diets and calorie restiction, on the other hand, have the direct goal of enhancing life extension and were probably not congruous with the currently understood lifestyle and diets of the paleolithic peoples.

Regarding the original topic, "carbs = aging," perhaps it should be ammended that some carbs cause increased aging.

These statements are what I have come to conclude from trying to reconcile different diet concepts, msgs here, wholehealthsource/cooling inflammation blogs on diet, etc. These statements are very well put and should probably be re-read and immortalized here, because the carbs/fats/protein, CR diet arguments will probably go round and round in circles on this forum for the next 50 years.

Methionine/high protein diets tend to be pro-growth, pro-reproduction. Food sources are plentiful and the body takes advantage of the signals by initiating repair, revving up hormones, and trying to procreate. The idea of sustaining yourself on a lower-calorie, primarily plant based diet is in some ways less optimal for an omnivore (human). But the whole idea of CR and a low methionine diet is to trick your body into putting off ideas of reproduction and reducing growth. Trick the body into thinking you are in a famine, reducing it's output, and surviving to procreate when food is more plentiful. I totally buy the science behind CR, but I think sustained CR is, in some ways, a very unnatural act -- as it probably should be.

Edited by prophets, 29 June 2009 - 02:15 AM.