335 replies to this topic

[wydell]

So is there a biomarker comparison of paleo vs. something like okinawan, showing that paleo is superior?

We probably agree on the value of biomarkers. I think that they are probably indicative of a life extension benefit, but we cannot tell whether they provide definitive proof of life extension.

I suppose if Duke wanted to try to prove his point to some extent, he could try to take biomarkers from a Paleo eater study and compare them to the biomarkers of same aged traditional okinawan eaters. But I doubt that data even exists. And even if it did, that's not even going to show that one diet is better than another for longevity.

How come you make statements about "data that doesn't exists?" You kinda said, and it's maybe true to some extent, that biomarkers does not imply longevity, but what kind of reliable data do we even have aside from biomarkers, and their correlation with risks, huh? So called longevity studies about certain ethnicities are not scientific studies per se, it's simply demographic data. I think it's not a bad thing to assume biomarkers have a lot to do with longevity, and Duke has pointed out several times (and if I recall correctly he also made references) that paleo doers' biomarkers are as excellent as they can get. Yes, Okinawans' biomarkers are excellent, and while I might just say that it just does not imply their longevity, it do not find it far-fetched to believe the opposite. I think Duke backed up his point very well, so I'm convinced.

[Prometheus]

Could you elaborate on that?

They seem to increase energy expenditure and have low-ish bioavailability, maybe because people don't chew them enough.

The more you chew the greater the satiety effect of *any food* including just plain gum. The masseter muscle has afferents that go straight to appetite control centres in the brain.

[Prometheus]

So is there a biomarker comparison of paleo vs. something like okinawan, showing that paleo is superior?

I havent come across too many studies on 'paleo' diets using pubmed, however, there is a multitude of papers on high protein diets vs equicaloric high carb diets that show wide ranging benefits including improvements in serum lipids, decrease in serum glucose, decreased insulin resistance and increased testosterone function to name a few. In fact there is so much improvement shown on high protein diets that it is not unreasonable to classify most types carbohydrates as toxic in those who are sedentary and past a certain age.

[JLL]

That experiment wouldn't prove insulin is the sole regulator of fat storage, just that it doesn't interfere with weight loss. That might have been a poor choice of words on my part, but the low-carb argument has been "insulin, insulin, insulin" for quite some time, and it's not a factor even in the above-mentioned diabetics. It's used to explain why you can't lose weight on a high-carb diet and it's used to explain why you can't gain weight on a high fat diet. Their theory needs to evolve.

I agree with you here. I think if you eat less than you normally would, you will lose weight no matter what your diet consists of, unless you have a rare disease or something. The rate of weight loss may depend on the diet, but all diets with little calories will result in weight loss.

High calorie diets are where I think insulin is important. If you consume more calories than you need, and most of those calories are carbs and fat, insulin will cause the body to absorb it as fat and muscle tissue. However, if you consume no carbs, insulin stays quiet and you'll absorb much less of the energy as fat at least - not sure about muscle.

I don't know what else is at play here - probably lots of things affect the process - but the basic idea seems to hold, whether you're looking at studies or people around you on different diets.

[wydell]

Understood, but in the high carb diets used in the studies were they eating okinawan or similar long lived culture style? For all I know, they were eating white bread or mostly grains in the high carb diets used in the comparisons. I think that we may be coming to the conclusion that the Paleo diet is the best diet without enough data to support that conclusion.

I try to eat paleo oriented except with less meat and perhaps less protein, substituting quality fats for calories. It has not resulted in strength or muscle loss so far.

So is there a biomarker comparison of paleo vs. something like okinawan, showing that paleo is superior?

I havent come across too many studies on 'paleo' diets using pubmed, however, there is a multitude of papers on high protein diets vs equicaloric high carb diets that show wide ranging benefits including improvements in serum lipids, decrease in serum glucose, decreased insulin resistance and increased testosterone function to name a few. In fact there is so much improvement shown on high protein diets that it is not unreasonable to classify most types carbohydrates as toxic in those who are sedentary and past a certain age.

[Shepard]

In fact there is so much improvement shown on high protein diets that it is not unreasonable to classify most types carbohydrates as toxic in those who are sedentary and past a certain age.

At what point does the logic jump from "inadequate protein is bad" to "carbs are toxic"?

[nowayout]

Understood, but in the high carb diets used in the studies were they eating okinawan or similar long lived culture style? For all I know, they were eating white bread or mostly grains in the high carb diets used in the comparisons. I think that we may be coming to the conclusion that the Paleo diet is the best diet without enough data to support that conclusion.

Amen. I have a suspicion they may be lumping yams with cake.

[EmbraceUnity]

Understood, but in the high carb diets used in the studies were they eating okinawan or similar long lived culture style? For all I know, they were eating white bread or mostly grains in the high carb diets used in the comparisons. I think that we may be coming to the conclusion that the Paleo diet is the best diet without enough data to support that conclusion.

Amen. I have a suspicion they may be lumping yams with cake.

Precisely. Eat your veggies, and don't listen to extremist fools. They can take their lard with them to the grave... I sure as hell won't pry it from their cold dead hands.

[Mind]

Precisely. Eat your veggies, and don't listen to extremist fools. They can take their lard with them to the grave... I sure as hell won't pry it from their cold dead hands.

No need for that. This is just a thread about carbs and aging. No need to make it so personal.

In the end, a paleo diet, a vegan diet, whatever, is not going to produce an indefinite lifespan. You are only talking about a couple years either way if one diet is better than the other. Unnatural interventions will eventually be required. We should expend a little more passion on those biotech/bioscience threads.

[sthira]

No need for that. This is just a thread about carbs and aging. No need to make it so personal.

In the end, a paleo diet, a vegan diet, whatever, is not going to produce an indefinite lifespan. You are only talking about a couple years either way if one diet is better than the other. Unnatural interventions will eventually be required. We should expend a little more passion on those biotech/bioscience threads.

Totally my sentiment.

[EmbraceUnity]

Point taken, Mind. There is a lot at stake in the present actually, and one doesn't have to sacrifice near-term goals in striving for the long-term goals. That said, the long term goals are greater and that is where the majority of our energies should go.

[eternaltraveler]

Precisely. Eat your veggies, and don't listen to extremist fools. They can take their lard with them to the grave... I sure as hell won't pry it from their cold dead hands.

No need for that. This is just a thread about carbs and aging. No need to make it so personal.

In the end, a paleo diet, a vegan diet, whatever, is not going to produce an indefinite lifespan. You are only talking about a couple years either way if one diet is better than the other. Unnatural interventions will eventually be required. We should expend a little more passion on those biotech/bioscience threads.

indeed.

[Erok]

Ultimately those sorts of interventions do have the potential for quite a bit more, and also carry some unknown risks at this point, so more research is not a bad idea, but as far as diet, this is huge for disease prevention, and optimal health.

Won't have to use biotech to cure many diseases if they aren't there in the first place which a healthy diet can ensure for many of the degenerative disease today. (cardiovascular, blood sugar, intestinal, chronic fatigue).

Some of the evidence from this article present in the individuals tested:

• Low fasting insulin levels
• Reduction in fasting glucose
• Lower body temperature - present in low fat high fruit raw vegans
• Low percentage of body (visceral) fat- present in low fat high fruit raw vegans
• Reduced thyroid levels
• Low triglycerides - present in low fat high fruit raw vegans
• Low fasting leptin levels (Leptin is so new that it has only recently been measured in centenarians, but it has been measured in calorie-restricted animals. Since leptin correlates with and even controls these other biomarkers in humans, this is also probably true in centenarians.)

And I'd be willing to bet the rest are too, would like to add some studies to back it up, have to dig through a book.

[sthira]

How do we respond to the Josh Mitteldorf argument quoted above in this thread?

"Many people try to live healthy lives by avoiding man-made products and chemicals. Organic foods are a favorite, and the "paleo diet" (raw fruits, nuts and meats) represents this philosophy carried to its logical conclusion. The thinking is that humans evolved in a certain environment, and we are optimized by natural selection for the life style and the foods that were common in our evolutionary history. The flaw in this argument is that aging is not a failure of the body's protective systems, but a form of programmed self-destruction. So if we tune the body to function "optimally", it will also destroy itself right on cue, like a well-oiled machine."

Maybe, like Mitteldorf writes, we're like salmon, and feeding ourselves the perfect diet only leads to perfect death. Maybe healthy diets only eliminate the diseases of modern culture, but do nothing to help slow the natural progression that leads to death.

[Sillewater]

How do we respond to the Josh Mitteldorf argument quoted above in this thread?

"Many people try to live healthy lives by avoiding man-made products and chemicals. Organic foods are a favorite, and the "paleo diet" (raw fruits, nuts and meats) represents this philosophy carried to its logical conclusion. The thinking is that humans evolved in a certain environment, and we are optimized by natural selection for the life style and the foods that were common in our evolutionary history. The flaw in this argument is that aging is not a failure of the body's protective systems, but a form of programmed self-destruction. So if we tune the body to function "optimally", it will also destroy itself right on cue, like a well-oiled machine."

Maybe, like Mitteldorf writes, we're like salmon, and feeding ourselves the perfect diet only leads to perfect death. Maybe healthy diets only eliminate the diseases of modern culture, but do nothing to help slow the natural progression that leads to death.

I have always thought about that. Could be a balance between thriving and longevity, but I doubt that there is a "programmed self-destruction" system in place. If there was how did natural selection select for it?

[EmbraceUnity]

How do we respond to the Josh Mitteldorf argument quoted above in this thread?

"Many people try to live healthy lives by avoiding man-made products and chemicals. Organic foods are a favorite, and the "paleo diet" (raw fruits, nuts and meats) represents this philosophy carried to its logical conclusion. The thinking is that humans evolved in a certain environment, and we are optimized by natural selection for the life style and the foods that were common in our evolutionary history. The flaw in this argument is that aging is not a failure of the body's protective systems, but a form of programmed self-destruction. So if we tune the body to function "optimally", it will also destroy itself right on cue, like a well-oiled machine."

Maybe, like Mitteldorf writes, we're like salmon, and feeding ourselves the perfect diet only leads to perfect death. Maybe healthy diets only eliminate the diseases of modern culture, but do nothing to help slow the natural progression that leads to death.

The SENS approach argues that much of the damage has nothing to do with genetically pre-programmed self-destruction, but rather inefficiencies in our metabolism and cell replication which create oxidation, mutations, junk proteins, crosslinks, etc. They recommend continually repairing that damage so that we can live long enough to actually re-engineer our biology. That doesn't mean death is completely non-programmed, and there has been some evidence pointing in this way for certain aspects, but nothing super conclusive.

In any event, diet is not going to make you live forever, but it may help in one's quest to live long enough to live forever... if we are indeed on the verge of obtaining that knowledge in the coming decades.

[Erok]

Yes, I was under the impression that the self-destruct (programming) evidence was not stacking up.

[Prometheus]

I have always thought about that. Could be a balance between thriving and longevity, but I doubt that there is a "programmed self-destruction" system in place. If there was how did natural selection select for it?

If you're finding the notion of 'programmed self-destruction' hard to palate in humans, look at examples of other life forms, particularly the very short-lived ones such as insects.

[eternaltraveler]

Yes, I was under the impression that the self-destruct (programming) evidence was not stacking up.

it isn't and hasn't.

[Prometheus]

Yes, I was under the impression that the self-destruct (programming) evidence was not stacking up.

it isn't and hasn't.

Prove it.

[eternaltraveler]

proving a lack of something is impossible. You want me to show you a bunch of papers that aren't there? The burden of proof is with those who claim there is a program, and they haven't done it.

Human aging is best explained by outlasting our warranty period. If there were an aging program there would be people walking around with that program broken just like there are people with every developmental program you can imagine broken.

[Prometheus]

proving a lack of something is impossible. You want me to show you a bunch of papers that aren't there? The burden of proof is with those who claim there is a program, and they haven't done it.

Human aging is best explained by outlasting our warranty period. If there were an aging program there would be people walking around with that program broken just like there are people with every developmental program you can imagine broken.

Elrond, the way that I see it, the burden of proof is on whoever it is who makes an assertion. You said, "it isn't and hasn't", unequivocally. You are convinced aging is caused by an accumulation of damage, due to evolutionary neglect (EN).

I am convinced, as per a discussion in another forum, that aging is caused by an accumulation of damage due to evolutionary intent (EI).

Given you made the assertion first, it is reasonable for you to provide supporting evidence for your claim.

[eternaltraveler]

proving a lack of something is impossible. You want me to show you a bunch of papers that aren't there? The burden of proof is with those who claim there is a program, and they haven't done it.

Human aging is best explained by outlasting our warranty period. If there were an aging program there would be people walking around with that program broken just like there are people with every developmental program you can imagine broken.

Elrond, the way that I see it, the burden of proof is on whoever it is who makes an assertion. You said, "it isn't and hasn't", unequivocally. You are convinced aging is caused by an accumulation of damage, due to evolutionary neglect (EN).

I am convinced, as per a discussion in another forum, that aging is caused by an accumulation of damage due to evolutionary intent (EI).

Given you made the assertion first, it is reasonable for you to provide supporting evidence for your claim.

I most certainly did not make the assertion first in this thread or anywhere. The assertion was made by another earlier in this thread who shares your view which has side tracked this thread.

I'm not going to spend my time accumulating a lack of evidence for your position. I've read articles and seen presentations at conferences regarding your theory of evolutionary intent and there just isn't anything there to even argue against. Some animals have programed destruction certainly, but they are the exception; if you have evidence for it in humans or primates I suggest you share it. My position is simply the default.

[Erok]

I came across this, which I had read before but realized it may be pertinent here?


Cheese and beef elevate insulin levels more then high carb foods such as pasta. (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264)

A quarter pound of beef raises insulin levels in diabetics as much as a quarter pound of straight sugar. (Diabetes Care 7 (1984):465)

A single burgers worth of beef, or three slices of cheddar, boost insulin levels more than almost 2 cups of cooked pasta (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50 (1997):1264)

The Journal concluded that meat, compared to the amount of blood sugar it releases, seems to cause the most insulin secretion of any food tested.

[Prometheus]

proving a lack of something is impossible. You want me to show you a bunch of papers that aren't there? The burden of proof is with those who claim there is a program, and they haven't done it.

Human aging is best explained by outlasting our warranty period. If there were an aging program there would be people walking around with that program broken just like there are people with every developmental program you can imagine broken.

Elrond, the way that I see it, the burden of proof is on whoever it is who makes an assertion. You said, "it isn't and hasn't", unequivocally. You are convinced aging is caused by an accumulation of damage, due to evolutionary neglect (EN).

I am convinced, as per a discussion in another forum, that aging is caused by an accumulation of damage due to evolutionary intent (EI).

Given you made the assertion first, it is reasonable for you to provide supporting evidence for your claim.

I most certainly did not make the assertion first in this thread or anywhere. The assertion was made by another earlier in this thread who shares your view which has side tracked this thread.

I'm not going to spend my time accumulating a lack of evidence for your position. I've read articles and seen presentations at conferences regarding your theory of evolutionary intent and there just isn't anything there to even argue against. Some animals have programed destruction certainly, but they are the exception; if you have evidence for it in humans or primates I suggest you share it. My position is simply the default.

Some animals? Which ones?

Your position is as untenable as it is arrogant. But it may also be cunning, in that you know that if you do present data to support your contention you are opening yourself to being robustly countered. Why don't you just admit you can't support your position.

[eternaltraveler]

....

being that your only point is that I haven't presented a good enough argument for you to even bother to try to present your own points I think we're done here.

[Prometheus]

....

being that your only point is that I haven't presented a good enough argument for you to even bother to try to present your own points I think we're done here.

that's a bit of cop out.

how do you explain telomerase negative cells programmed to expire after a limited number of cell divisions? isnt that an aging program?

[Prometheus]

Or something even simpler - how about menopause.

[eternaltraveler]

....

being that your only point is that I haven't presented a good enough argument for you to even bother to try to present your own points I think we're done here.

that's a bit of cop out.

how do you explain telomerase negative cells programmed to expire after a limited number of cell divisions? isnt that an aging program?

ah thank you. Something to address.

This is going to be short as I'm about to go to bed.

Cellular senescence vs senescence of an entire organism are entirely different animals. Ignoring for the moment that a much of what we know about the Hayflick limit is largely a laboratory artifact brought about because cultured cells are exposed to atmospheric concentrations of oxygen (~21%), vs much lower in vivo O2 concentrations; the obvious reason for anything like a limit such as this which does not affect more than a fleetingly small portion of "normal" cells with replicative senescence is as another check on the uncontrolled growth of cells, which is catastrophic for an organism (and even damaging for colonies of related microorganisms, you find these same mechanisms in organisms skirting the boundary between being multi cellular and unicellular, such as many yeasts). But yes, in yeast this could be considered programed aging, in fish, rats and humans this is yet another check against cancer.

Cellular Replicative Senescence in humans is something that contributes very little, if at all, to the aging process. And indeed is extremely rare in cell populations found in the human body. Maybe if we lived to be a few hundred it would be something we would need to contend with.

Edited by elrond, 29 January 2009 - 08:42 AM.

[Prometheus]

you should know that the purpose of CO2 incubators is to replicate physiological conditions including temperature and CO2 conc, and yet we still observe a strict limit to population doublings in telomerase negative cultures..

cellular aging can correlate with tissue disfunction which contributes to the aging of a human organism. and as for the cancer argument, senescent cells with short telomeres are at increased risk of turning cancerous and senescent fibroblasts promote a carcinogenic environment .. also as Cui has shown, cancer is a consequence of immunologic compromise rather than persistently long telomeres



what about the role of increased TGFb with aging?

Edited by Dr Manhattan, 29 January 2009 - 10:18 AM.