81 replies to this topic

[HaloTeK]

Ok Erok, I kinda meant what I posted to be a joke, but here is what I'm thinking. The diet I'm most comfortable supporting is a Kitavan-type diet. It is a people who live in a sub-tropic area and eat foods I feel most early humans would have ate. It's a low polyunsaturated, low fructose, no processed foods diet. It also has around 14% protein, 18% fat, 68% carb. Personally, I get wicked sugar highs from fruits-- and I feel this may be also do to a slight problem with processing fructose. I have northern-eastern european ancestry and I feel this also plays a role. You stated a vegan diet would cause the lowest levels of IGF-1. I need to find the study I've read before that showed a low protein, high fat, low carb diet would actually cause the lowest IGF-1. I feel the benefits from a higher carb diet may come from the fact that SHBG is raised. Remember, the the oldest recorded woman on the planet really loved her olive oil and chocolate (good old Jean C). She may of had good genes, but I'm sure her diet helped.

If I wanted a diet for maximum repair and growth- it would be a high-fat version of the Kitavan diet. Theres a reason why mother's milk has so much fat in it! I feel safest with the above diet (higher carb Kitavan), but one day may prove that a low protein, high fat , low carb paleo diet is the best for maximal longevity.

[Erok]

Interesting, I've heard most low-fat raw proponents say that children should eat up to 50% fat (like breast milk, which is about 5% protein too, leaving 45% carb) all the way until age 12 or so, letting their natural inclination lead them a bit (and breastfeed as late as possible, at least 4-6 probably preferable but many find that disturbing in some countries, oh well, the children come first)., but that after that, we can move to lower fat. Now, the reasoning behind this is that the lymph system of children is functioning at a higher level and slows down, or is unable to deal with the higher amounts of fat as well as one ages.

Now, I have heard of the sugar issue, there are a couple things I can think of, the amount of fat in the diet, and food combining, i.e what do you eat the fruit with? Do you eat it alone as one meal? or do you eat it after eating fatty food? even having a fatty meal the night before often affects blood sugar level, since the fruit digests quickly, sugars enter the bloodstream rapidly, but instead of also leaving rapidly, they are stuck due to insulin receptors being coated with a layer of fat.... one possibility. the other is exercise, from what I hear, though I am healing from some injuries and sedentary lately and don't seem to get sugar high / crash. Maybe at first, but after a while on a low-fat diet, I did not experience any sugar related events. It is interesting to look at the glycemic load (glycemic index value multiplied by the amount of available carbohydrate per serving (grams of carbohydrates less fiber) then dividing by 100 (Mendosa, author of "What makes my Glucose go up and down") The glycemic loads of fruits are lower than that of rice, spaghetti, bread, cous cous, baked potatoes, sweet potates, brans.

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.

True, genetics does come into play, as many here talk on, no doubt. Generational effects, environmental, so much at play in the DNA.

Your version of the Kitavan seems relatively close to the calornutrient ratio I am speaking about. The foods that make it up are important of course.

And this brings up what some others say in the other thread, about longevity vs health, is it possible some diet would allow for longer life but lower health and possible degenerative chronic illness? Doesn't seem very likely, sort of counter-intuitive, but perhaps possible.

Thanks for mentioing the Kitavans, have not heard of them yet.

So the high level of SHBG would lower free levels of sex-hormones? and the benefits come about how so?

Edited by Erok, 29 January 2009 - 03:55 AM.

[niner]

They appear to live in a sunny area, and probably get high levels of sun exposure during peak hours to bare skin. Granted, raw-fooders often fare better in the sun so their likely SAD (standard american diet) counterparts would likely be blistered.

I find this hard to believe. How is it that eating raw makes one significantly more resistant to UV? The couple in the picture look like they need to learn something about sunscreen. It's easy to look young when you are young; let's see how they look in another twenty years.

There is real science behind eating raw. Mostly it's about reducing your consumption of pro-inflammatory exogenous AGEs. A Pubmed search on "Vlassara H" should get you into the literature.

[niner]

Here's a review of the science behind raw foodism:

Hormones (Athens). 2008 Apr-Jun;7(2):123-32. Free Full Text.
Aging and glycoxidant stress.
Peppa M, Uribarri J, Vlassara H.

Endocrine Unit, 2nd Dept of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Research Institute and Diabetes Center, Athens University, Medical School, Athens, Greece. molypepa@otenet.gr

Aging and related diseases are accompanied by increased Oxidative Stress (OS) and accumulation of Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs). One important component of AGEs accumulation with aging appears to be the sustained exposure to dietary AGE (dAGEs), which contributes to overloading of anti-AGE receptors and depletion of anti-oxidant reserves. In this review, we present experimental animal and human data which support this postulation. Lowering the content of AGEs in the normal diet significantly prevents AGEs accumulation and the increased OS caused by aging and also extends lifespan in mice. In humans, short-term trials indicate that a Low AGEs diet reduces oxidant burden and inflammatory markers. Long-term studies are in progress and will help establish definitive causality between age-related disease states and modern dietary practices in Western societies.

PMID: 18477549

[Forever21]

Vegetarians have better sex

[senseix]

LOL @ forever21 to bad it didn't make it on tv.

[Erok]

Vegetarians have better sex

Those veggies are no longer vegetarian!


And I haven't seen studies about the UV, just anecdotal from lots of raw foodists in tropical locations, (even high fat ones) even if there is some truth, I don't think these reports imply anything close to burn-proof, it's a good idea to limit exposure especially during peak hours. not too much, but ample, enough! Too much of anything is bad for us, so is too little, inherently! But enough is just right!

Edited by Erok, 30 January 2009 - 12:49 AM.

[Matt]

Here are some screenshots of slides presented by Dr Luigi Fontana at CRS 3.

Attached Files

•  slides.jpg   171.68KB   402 downloads

[EmbraceUnity]

Here are some screenshots of slides presented by Dr Luigi Fontana at CRS 3.

That is pretty good looking data. Perhaps there is something there. I would like to see that data compared with non-raw vegans and vegetarians eating similar, but cooked food, diets. Also, was the raw group on CR? Was the CR group eating only raw foods? I'm guessing not, but I wonder if the two could be in any way synergistic.

Edited by progressive, 30 January 2009 - 10:09 PM.

[Erok]

Here are some screenshots of slides presented by Dr Luigi Fontana at CRS 3.

That is pretty good looking data. Perhaps there is something there. I would like to see that data compared with non-raw vegans and vegetarians eating similar, but cooked food, diets. Also, was the raw group on CR? Was the CR group eating only raw foods? I'm guessing not, but I wonder if the two could be in any way synergistic.

From my understanding the raw group is not necessarily CR, although they do often usually consume less than most for one reason or another, can't bet on this here. I would be interested in what the raw diets consisted of, specifically, as not all raw diets are created equal, of course.

CR group was not raw, most likely, could probably search for Fontana and CRS 3 to find out.

[Matt]

CR group averaged aroudn 1600k/cal per day (most of the data was from males) and Raw foodists around 2000k/cal per day. The slides are all from the CR Conference DVD.

[JLL]

What does the EX stand for?

[Matt]

Exercise; People who ran 50 miles per week for many years.

Edited by Matt, 03 February 2009 - 06:36 PM.

[Bodhi]

Kevin (good channel I think... though not completely raw, mostly, and looks healthy).
http://www.youtube.c...ser/kevingianni

LOL, caloric torpedo

Maybe the reason raw food vegans haven't been studied long term is that in the case of a famine or food shortage, if you don't eat grains or legumes or meat, or fish, or foul or dairy, or eggs well you would probably be among the first to die off in a famine, so from and evolutionary perspective (and I live in the tropics) the argument really doesn't really seem to hold water. It may be OK for health short term (just like fasting, if you don't do it for more than a few days, fasting is very healthy, but you do it for a year you'll be dead). I can imagine raw food low fat veganism may be very beneficial for some people over the short term, but as an evolutionary strategy it is severely flawed IMHO.....

I'll stick to I meal a day for 3-4 hours, eating whatever my body tells me it wants. One thing that's interesting is when I eat this way I don't get hungry and crave sweets, when I eat a lot of fresh fruits, it's healthy and low calorie, but I seem to get hungry every few hours and would probably HAVE to eat 30 bananas a day just to get through the day, but hey if it works for you that's great, I know what works for me, but I can't presume to know what works for anyone else.

Edited by Bodhi, 07 February 2009 - 11:00 PM.

[Erok]

Well said about what works for you, there is science and truth, but there is also experience to go by, usually your experience will point you in the right direction, but there are ways to feel ok short term and keep tweaking and still run into long term problems. Look at all the folks who eat high saturated fat and high animal fat, look at the folks on the "weston price" website, then look at raw folks.

Trees produce an abundance of fruit, the most efficient per square foot, so in a natural habitat, no I don't think anyone would be relying on grains, legumes, fish, foul, dairy, etc, of course in emergency situations we CAN live off that, but there are consequences.

There is no right and wrong in this endeavor, just cause and effect, consequences.

[CobaltThoriumG]

I can see the point of raw and I try to eat raw where possible. But what's wrong with fat? Am why am I ripped and why do I feel so damn good eating so much of it?

[Prometheus]

It is interesting to look at the glycemic load (glycemic index value multiplied by the amount of available carbohydrate per serving (grams of carbohydrates less fiber) then dividing by 100 (Mendosa, author of "What makes my Glucose go up and down") The glycemic loads of fruits are lower than that of rice, spaghetti, bread, cous cous, baked potatoes, sweet potates, brans.

Glycaemic load measures glucose not fructose. Therefore GI measure is not useful for non-glucose monosaccharides such as fructose and galactose. Also, remember, fructose cannot be used until it is converted into glucose..

[EmbraceUnity]

I can see the point of raw and I try to eat raw where possible. But what's wrong with fat? Am why am I ripped and why do I feel so damn good eating so much of it?

Nothing is wrong with fat if you choose the right kinds in moderation. Though being "ripped" isn't a sign of anything. Seriously, I always find it odd that once people jump on a particular diet fad bandwagon that they act like little salesmen even with no financial incentive. Just stick to the science, there is no need to explain how much larger your penis will be on a paleo diet, and other such infomercial-esque nonsense.

[EmbraceUnity]

CR group averaged aroudn 1600k/cal per day (most of the data was from males) and Raw foodists around 2000k/cal per day. The slides are all from the CR Conference DVD.

Were the macronutrient ratios calculated for the different groups? I have a feeling the raw foodists weren't getting anywhere near the 80% carbs that this thread is irresponsibly recommending. I have a sneaking suspicion that something more balanced is far healthier.

[CobaltThoriumG]

I can see the point of raw and I try to eat raw where possible. But what's wrong with fat? Am why am I ripped and why do I feel so damn good eating so much of it?

Nothing is wrong with fat if you choose the right kinds in moderation. Though being "ripped" isn't a sign of anything. Seriously, I always find it odd that once people jump on a particular diet fad bandwagon that they act like little salesmen even with no financial incentive. Just stick to the science, there is no need to explain how much larger your penis will be on a paleo diet, and other such infomercial-esque nonsense.

You're absolutely right. Being ripped is not a sign of anything. Other than not being a lardass. I'm not on paleo, chief. Or any other "fad." My point was that you can eat a lot of healthy fats and be very lean. My question for the original poster was what he has against fats, seeing as he recommends an ultra-low-fat diet. The science is that the high-fruit diet the original poster recommends contains copious fructose, which is unhealthful.

http://jn.nutrition....full/128/9/1442

[EmbraceUnity]

You're absolutely right. Being ripped is not a sign of anything. Other than not being a lardass. I'm not on paleo, chief. Or any other "fad." My point was that you can eat a lot of healthy fats and be very lean. My question for the original poster was what he has against fats, seeing as he recommends an ultra-low-fat diet. The science is that the high-fruit diet the original poster recommends contains copious fructose, which is unhealthful.

http://jn.nutrition....full/128/9/1442

Sorry for giving you a hard time, I just see a lot of propaganda on here. Thanks for clarifying. I tend to agree that the original poster doesn't have much science on his side at the moment with regard to macronutrient ratios, though the science concerning raw food does seem to have some real evidence behind it, as Matt showed. Not enough for me to actually recommend it to people yet, but I will keep my eye out for further research.

Fructose in large doses is definitely not good, especially in short periods of time. I'd emphasize the veggies over the fruits.

[Erok]

You're absolutely right. Being ripped is not a sign of anything. Other than not being a lardass. I'm not on paleo, chief. Or any other "fad." My point was that you can eat a lot of healthy fats and be very lean. My question for the original poster was what he has against fats, seeing as he recommends an ultra-low-fat diet. The science is that the high-fruit diet the original poster recommends contains copious fructose, which is unhealthful.

http://jn.nutrition....full/128/9/1442

Sorry for giving you a hard time, I just see a lot of propaganda on here. Thanks for clarifying. I tend to agree that the original poster doesn't have much science on his side at the moment with regard to macronutrient ratios, though the science concerning raw food does seem to have some real evidence behind it, as Matt showed. Not enough for me to actually recommend it to people yet, but I will keep my eye out for further research.

Fructose in large doses is definitely not good, especially in short periods of time. I'd emphasize the veggies over the fruits.

Studies feeding rats refined sugars in water is nothing like humans eating sugars combined in fruit with natural gums, pectins, fibers, vitamins, and minerals. Our digestive anatomy and physiology is far different from rats, as well as the macronutrient ratios we thrive on.

Over 10% fat in the bloodstream is leaning towards blockage of insulin receptors, keeping the sugar in the blood (hence why most people mistake blood lipid disorders, the true cause, as blood sugar disorders), as well as slows digestion overall, utilizing the lymph system, instead of more rapidly and thoroughly digesting fruits. Look at the fat sources found in nature in abundance year round, for a non physiological take.

There is much science to the macronutrient ratios, I can post some here sometime for you all.

[synaesthetic]

How is it that eating raw makes one significantly more resistant to UV?

Likely due to increased antioxidants. For example, SOD and some other antioxidants.

Edited by synaesthetic, 12 March 2009 - 03:22 AM.

[niner]

How is it that eating raw makes one significantly more resistant to UV?

Likely due to increased antioxidants. For example, SOD and some other antioxidants.

SOD is interesting stuff, but you aren't going to get it from raw food. Even if there was SOD in the food, it would be largely destroyed in the stomach. Raw foodists are always talking about "enzymes", but I think that they are just making that up. Enzymes get hydrolyzed in the stomach; that's how we digest protein. There are some proteins that are very stable, and some fraction of them may sneak through, but I don't think it's a major effect. The real reason that raw food is good for you is that it's low in exogenous AGEs. There may be some small molecule antioxidants that are destroyed by cooking, but they tend to be fairly heat stable. I guess the hypothesis that eating raw means you get more antioxidants, and are thus less susceptible to UV damage, is the best thing we have going, but I find it kind of dodgy. I take all kinds of potent antioxidants, but I don't feel particularly less prone to sunburn. I haven't actually run that experiment though. I bet someone has looked at the effects of oral antioxidants on sunburn. If it works with the small molecule antioxidants, and if eating raw makes that much of a difference in the level of antioxidants, then maybe the effect is real. I suspect that it's real, but not big enough to let me throw away the sunscreen.

[wydell]

It's interesting that the raw diet had similar effects to CR. I wonder if the raw diet has similar life extension benefits to CR. I wonder if this is the case, even if the raw person takes in the same amount of calories as a normal person, but eats raw.

[Forever21]

Lets just be clear that the OP is not talking about raw vegans. He's talking about 811ers or the 80/10/10 diet.

Raw vegans use a lot of nuts, cacao, vegan cheese in their diet. (so I tweak mine to less nuts, less calorie) Its not hard for raw vegans to consume foods that are high fat (nuts, oils, avocados, coconuts) high protein (legumes, spirulina, quinoa, protein powders, tempeh, natto) plus all the vegetables, grains, nuts, seeds, cacao. Its really very flexible and has a wide selection.

811ers are on a whole different game. They toss out all that protein and fat. 10% max is all that is allowed. Which makes all those food above just a treat. What do 811ers eat? 80% high sugar fruits. That's the staple of this diet. Sweet, juicy, high sugar fruits. What's for breakfast? Here, 30 bananas. 811ers have mono meals where they gorge on one type of fruit per meal. Say 5lbs of grapes for breakfast, 40 bananas for lunch, 12 mangoes for dinner.


811er Diet


80/10/10 book
http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/1893831248

80/10/10 site
http://foodnsport.com/

The Fruit Disaster
http://www.blogtalkr...r-Way-to-Health

Fruits & AGEs
http://www.proteinpo...s-age-faster-2/

Edited by Forever21, 14 March 2009 - 08:38 PM.

[JLL]

How is it that eating raw makes one significantly more resistant to UV?

Likely due to increased antioxidants. For example, SOD and some other antioxidants.

SOD is interesting stuff, but you aren't going to get it from raw food. Even if there was SOD in the food, it would be largely destroyed in the stomach. Raw foodists are always talking about "enzymes", but I think that they are just making that up. Enzymes get hydrolyzed in the stomach; that's how we digest protein. There are some proteins that are very stable, and some fraction of them may sneak through, but I don't think it's a major effect. The real reason that raw food is good for you is that it's low in exogenous AGEs. There may be some small molecule antioxidants that are destroyed by cooking, but they tend to be fairly heat stable. I guess the hypothesis that eating raw means you get more antioxidants, and are thus less susceptible to UV damage, is the best thing we have going, but I find it kind of dodgy. I take all kinds of potent antioxidants, but I don't feel particularly less prone to sunburn. I haven't actually run that experiment though. I bet someone has looked at the effects of oral antioxidants on sunburn. If it works with the small molecule antioxidants, and if eating raw makes that much of a difference in the level of antioxidants, then maybe the effect is real. I suspect that it's real, but not big enough to let me throw away the sunscreen.

Hmm... it seems that cooking actually increases the amount of some carotenoids, which protect from sun damage. Lutein in tomatoes is a famous example, but it's not the only one. Perhaps raw foodists simply eat more vegetables than the average person? But what you should do is compare two groups with similar vegetable intake, with the first group cooking their veggies and the other group eating them raw.

[Matt]

This is anecdotal and based on my digestive health but I used to eat a lot of steamed and cooked vegetables on CRON, now my diet is mostly raw food and my digestive health and intermittent GERD problems have completely resolved. Don't want to get into too many details but even stool looks much healthier lol.

Edited by Matt, 14 March 2009 - 08:21 PM.

[Matt]

I haven't actually run that experiment though. I bet someone has looked at the effects of oral antioxidants on sunburn. If it works with the small molecule antioxidants, and if eating raw makes that much of a difference in the level of antioxidants, then maybe the effect is real. I suspect that it's real, but not big enough to let me throw away the sunscreen.

No definitely don't throw out that sunscreen but I did a little experiment with looking at this
http://matts-cr.blog...008/05/sun.html

[Matt]

How is it that eating raw makes one significantly more resistant to UV?

Likely due to increased antioxidants. For example, SOD and some other antioxidants.

SOD is interesting stuff, but you aren't going to get it from raw food. Even if there was SOD in the food, it would be largely destroyed in the stomach. Raw foodists are always talking about "enzymes", but I think that they are just making that up.

Well the idea is that it helps us breakdown the food we eat so that we spend less time digesting the foods we eat, this means our body doesn't have to work as hard and it can spend more time on healing. There are some enzymes from raw foods that have shown in studies to be of some benefit for many different things. Heres a some info and a bunch of references for Bromelain from Pineapples.
http://bouldernatura...-pineapple.html

Edited by Matt, 14 March 2009 - 08:29 PM.