55 replies to this topic

[wydell]

So, it surprises that so many posters are buying into the carbs = aging and are embracing higher protein (30%) diets. I did for awhile, but so far, in my opinion, the evidence points to a high quality carb diet as being optimal



Here are some of the points to consider:

*****Okinawans eat only 8% protein

Willcox BJ, Willcox DC, Todoriki H, Fujiyoshi A, Yano K, He Q, Curb JD, Suzuki M. “Caloric restriction, the traditional Okinawan diet, and healthy aging: the diet of the world’s longest-lived people and its potential impact on morbidity and life span.”


*****Masai (a hunter culture eating mostly wild meat and a high protein diet) have an average lifespan of a whopping 42 years. But hey, they have virtually no heart disease, low blood pressure, and have low bodyfat. (Sound familiar? A lot folks tout the foregoing benefits as benefits of the paleo diet. Maybe those benefits also come with a lower lifespan.) Also note that the average paleo person did not live past 40 according to other posters. So why would someone want to eat Paleo to extend their life?)

http://www.diseasepr...ive-longer.html


****Beef raises insulin as much as carb foods (a cut and paste from a different imminst poster)


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


Again, so where is the evidence that a 20 -30% protein diet beats a high healty carb healthy diet in terms of life span? I don't think it exists.


From a personal experience, I used to have concerns that if I lowered my protein, I would lose strength and weight. ( I lift and do sprints 5-6 days a week. ) I have dramatically reduced my protein and weigh more than I ever have at 198lbs and am stronger or just as strong as I ever was. My bodyfat has not noticeably changed. Though it's conventional wisdom that athletic folks need higher protein, that does not seem to be the case for me - at least in the last couple of weeks.

[Forever21]

Food = Aging

This is why we really need to get serious with SENS.

Now who wants double bacon cheese burger, large fries and diet pepsi?

Edited by Forever21, 26 February 2009 - 06:11 AM.

[kenj]

Wydell, this high protein craze even at the expense of cutting out healthy carbs STM to be the mistake of the decade, just like a super low fat diet and a high sugary diet wasn't the optimal thing to do, either.
Sure, if you *heavily* weight train etc. you need more protein, but personally I'm not interestet in getting super buffed at the expense of possibly shortening lifespan.
I've, too, read about long-lived cultures, and the real ol' folks never eat huge amounts of meat. Somehow this continues to escape the "low carb freaks" perception ;-).

Edited by kenj, 26 February 2009 - 07:52 AM.

[Ghostrider]

Dammit, this is posted right after I buy a tub of whey protein for my newly begun weight training experiment.

[JLL]

I don't claim to know whether restricting protein or carbs is the better way to increase lifespan (the methionine studies are certainly interesting, but then again so are they whey protein studies), so I'm just commenting on your arguments:

*****Okinawans eat only 8% protein

Yes, and they're on CR. As we've seen, you can get away with a lot when you simply eat less. Who knows whether their diet is optimal? To show that low-protein is better than low-carb, you'd need to compare CR people on both diets.

*****Masai (a hunter culture eating mostly wild meat and a high protein diet) have an average lifespan of a whopping 42 years. But hey, they have virtually no heart disease, low blood pressure, and have low bodyfat. (Sound familiar? A lot folks tout the foregoing benefits as benefits of the paleo diet. Maybe those benefits also come with a lower lifespan.) Also note that the average paleo person did not live past 40 according to other posters. So why would someone want to eat Paleo to extend their life?)

What do the Masai die of? Perhaps this is the same fallacy as with paleolithic man in general. The fact that average lifespan was something like 25 did not mean that their diet was poor; it means they got eaten by lions or whatever. Average lifespan in the absence of modern medicine can be very misleading. Again, you should compare two neighbouring tribes with different diets to get a better perspective.

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

I believe this was also discussed in the other thread. Do you have access to this study? I think Duke said there's probably a problem with the study. And even if it does temporarily elevate insulin levels more than high-carb foods, isn't it the long-term we're interested in? When you compare people on high-carb diets and people on low-carb diets, the latter have lower fasting insulin levels. So I wouldn't be too worried about this.

Again, so where is the evidence that a 20 -30% protein diet beats a high healty carb healthy diet in terms of life span? I don't think it exists.

Where's the evidence that says otherwise?

[Skötkonung]

Here are some of the points to consider:

*****Okinawans eat only 8% protein

Willcox BJ, Willcox DC, Todoriki H, Fujiyoshi A, Yano K, He Q, Curb JD, Suzuki M. "Caloric restriction, the traditional Okinawan diet, and healthy aging: the diet of the world's longest-lived people and its potential impact on morbidity and life span."


*****Masai (a hunter culture eating mostly wild meat and a high protein diet) have an average lifespan of a whopping 42 years. But hey, they have virtually no heart disease, low blood pressure, and have low bodyfat. (Sound familiar? A lot folks tout the foregoing benefits as benefits of the paleo diet. Maybe those benefits also come with a lower lifespan.) Also note that the average paleo person did not live past 40 according to other posters. So why would someone want to eat Paleo to extend their life?)

http://www.diseasepr...ive-longer.html


****Beef raises insulin as much as carb foods (a cut and paste from a different imminst poster)

To use a metaphor, you are comparing apples and oranges by presenting both the Maasai and the Okinawans as representations for the arguement of protein and longevity. In your comparison, you are neglecting to take into account that both populations live extremely different lifestyles and have a very different genetic profile (the Okinawans are known to posses several longevity genes such as ApoE).

Look at Okinawa, it is a tranquil country with abundant modern (socialized) health care and conveniences. The Maasai on the other hand live outdoors, lack access to modern health care / electricity / clean water, and are quite impoverished. Furthermore, the Maasai don't have regular access to the antioxidant rich vegetables and fruits like the Okinawans and instead rely almost entirely on their cattle for sustenance. This is not the raw fruit / vegetable and protein / fat rich diet being used by people on the paleo / primal blueprints diets. Perhaps their lack of longevity is due to their much harsher lifestyle, genetic profile, and lack of access to quality vitamin / antioxidant sources?

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.

Finally, I believe it was mentioned in the "Carbs = Aging" thread, but the reason most people adhere to the paleo type diets is to optimize their biomarkers, not because they believe paleolithic people lived extremely long lifespans. It is unlikely that anyone living in the paleolithic era (those eating a Okinawan style diet included) would have lived past their 40s due to the demanding nature of that period's lifestyle.

Edited by shawn57187, 26 February 2009 - 09:05 AM.

[Prometheus]

No sale. The evidence for the negative impact of carbs is overwhelming.

[TheFountain]

To use a metaphor, you are comparing apples and oranges by presenting both the Maasai and the Okinawans as representations for the arguement of protein and longevity. In your comparison, you are neglecting to take into account that both populations live extremely different lifestyles and have a very different genetic profile (the Okinawans are known to posses several longevity genes such as ApoE).

How do you think this GENE developed over thousands of generations? Don't you think part of it was dietary adaptation? I know it is a silly chicken/egg question, but it could be that they developed this GENE as a result of their multigenerational Dietary habits.

[Skötkonung]

To use a metaphor, you are comparing apples and oranges by presenting both the Maasai and the Okinawans as representations for the arguement of protein and longevity. In your comparison, you are neglecting to take into account that both populations live extremely different lifestyles and have a very different genetic profile (the Okinawans are known to posses several longevity genes such as ApoE).

How do you think this GENE developed over thousands of generations? Don't you think part of it was dietary adaptation? I know it is a silly chicken/egg question, but it could be that they developed this GENE as a result of their multigenerational Dietary habits.

I don't think a healthy diet is directly responsible for the development of the longevity genes. According to a recent Scientific American article:

Yet we and other researchers have found that a family of genes involved in an organism's ability to withstand a stressful environment, such as excessive heat or scarcity of food or water, have the power to keep its natural defense and repair activities going strong regardless of age. By optimizing the body's functioning for survival, these genes maximize the individual's chances of getting through the crisis. And if they remain activated long enough, they can also dramatically enhance the organism's health and extend its life span. In essence, they represent the opposite of aging genes--longevity genes. We began investigating this idea nearly 15 years ago by imagining that evolution would have favored a universal regulatory system to coordinate this well-known response to environmental stress. If we could identify the gene or genes that serve as its master controllers and thereby act as master regulators of an organism's life span, these natural defense mechanisms might be turned into weapons against the diseases and decline that are now apparently synonymous with human aging.

Many recently discovered genes, known by such cryptic names as daf-2, pit-1, amp-1, clk-1 and p66Shc, have been found to affect stress resistance and life span in laboratory organisms, suggesting that they could be part of a fundamental mechanism for surviving adversity. But our own two laboratories have focused on a gene called SIR2, variants of which are present in all organisms studied so far, from yeast to humans. Extra copies of the gene increase longevity in creatures as diverse as yeast, roundworms and fruit flies, and we are working to determine whether it does the same for larger animals, such as mice.

As one of the first longevity genes to have been identified, SIR2 is the best characterized, so we will focus here on its workings. They illustrate how a genetically regulated survival mechanism can extend life and improve health, and growing evidence suggests that SIR2 may be the key regulator of that mechanism.

Edited by shawn57187, 26 February 2009 - 06:23 PM.

[Matt]

Okinawans are known to posses several longevity genes such as ApoE)

and when okinawans migrate they have an increased incidence of diseases. An excerpt from the okinawa 25 year study book;

"when Okinawans are raised abroad or relocate and adopt the habits of their host countries-when they lose the traditional ways-they also lose the protection of their Shangri-la. They get the same diseases and die at the same rates as the people whose customs they embrace."

It's interesting that much of the okinawans during the mid 20th century ate a lot of sweet potatoes, their diet was mainly carbs with an average consumption of 1350grams of sweet potato per day when a nutritional survey was done in 1949. In 1993 it went down to 15grams per day and meat and fat intake increased, so did protein which is now at around 17% of their total calories.


current elder okinawan diet (over 80 years).

carb 57.4%
protein 17.2
fat 25.4%

Incidence of okinawan people who migrated to brazil is 4 in 100,000 compared to 50-60 centenarians in different prefectures in okinawa. Ogimi in okinawa has a high number of cetenarians but only a small population of 3500 people, It would be equal to around 342 centenarians per 100,000. Compared to america which has 10 per 100,000. The average for okinawa as a whole is about 50-60 though. Ogimi also happens to be the poorest place in okinawa

If you can make it to 80-90 on a normal diet, I think something like CR would give you a good shot at getting past 100. Everyone in my family tends to live to 85 with and ticks all the worst dietery lifestyle habits you can. Hopefully I'm in with a chance of making it

Edited by Matt, 26 February 2009 - 07:11 PM.

[Forever21]

[Okinawan centenarian video

"Okinawans tend to eat lean meat, fish, tofu and vegeables. Low in calories high in carbohydrates. Their intake is the opposite of the low-carb, high fat Atkins diet."

Edited by Michael, 24 November 2011 - 08:49 PM.

[Matt]

Atkins / Low carbers claim that okinawans stuff their face with lard and pork. Which is just not true, although according to suveys done on okinawan elders they do have pork <5 times per month.

Edited by Matt, 26 February 2009 - 07:40 PM.

[Skötkonung]

Okinawans are known to posses several longevity genes such as ApoE)

and when okinawans migrate they have an increased incidence of diseases. An excerpt from the okinawa 25 year study book;

"when Okinawans are raised abroad or relocate and adopt the habits of their host countries-when they lose the traditional ways-they also lose the protection of their Shangri-la. They get the same diseases and die at the same rates as the people whose customs they embrace." [...]

Incidence of [centenarians amongst] okinawan people who migrated to brazil is 4 in 100,000 compared to 50-60 centenarians in different prefectures in okinawa.

Yeah, it is hard to know whether the discrepancy is related to change in diet or change in living conditions. Environmentally and economically, Brazil is quite different from Okinawa. There will be new stresses and challenges to overcome. Similarly, macro nutrient changes to their diet does not fully describe what they are eating. Sure, their fats and protein levels increased..but is that because they are eating more sugary or fried foods instead of deriving their protein and fats from healthier sources? Are they still keeping a high intake of fruits and vegetables?

I agree that dietary content and caloric intake does regulate gene expression. Being that humans are omnivores, there is likely multiple ways to eat and achieve longevity. Ultimately I think it will take more studies to discover the correct dietary limitations. Until that time, I think we will just have to keep experimenting

Edited by Michael, 24 November 2011 - 08:51 PM.

[Forever21]

although according to suveys done on okinawan elders they do have pork <5 times per month

They like the parts which are gelatinous. Gelatin / collagen...that reminds me of low-methionine...




"Additionally, tho' not enamored of vegans, gelatin is a very screwy protein, which contains no Trp and very little Met indeed; it is so messed up that it shouldn't be a major component of the diet (especially not if it isn't otherwise protein-packed), but once I add a small amount of supplemental Trp into my sugar-free Jell-O , the near absence of Met now turns into a bonus." - Michael

Source: http://www.methusela...read.php?p=4676

Edited by Forever21, 26 February 2009 - 08:08 PM.

[FunkOdyssey]

As someone said earlier, you can get away with almost any macronutrient ratio you want if you are on CR, including high carbs, although Michael R. believes in and strongly argues for a higher protein CR diet of Zone-ish proportions. This disqualifies the Okinawans to some extent as an example.

Primitive tribal type peoples die primarily of infection, injury, teeth rot out and mouth becomes reservoir for bacteria to invade bloodstream, etc, also not applicable to our modern circumstances.

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 26 February 2009 - 08:48 PM.

[Mind]

People around here eat what they enjoy and will provide health benefits. This might mean some people eat 8% protein and others 30 or 40%. Some eat more fat some more carbs. Some people are on CR. I think the differences in lifespan will be small....a couple years or so. No matter what diet you are on, you will die. So best spend some time on biotechnology research and advocacy of the same.

[Forever21]

People around here eat what they enjoy and will provide health benefits. This might mean some people eat 8% protein and others 30 or 40%. Some eat more fat some more carbs. Some people are on CR. I think the differences in lifespan will be small....a couple years or so. No matter what diet you are on, you will die. So best spend some time on biotechnology research and advocacy of the same.

Amen!!!

[Prometheus]

People around here eat what they enjoy and will provide health benefits. This might mean some people eat 8% protein and others 30 or 40%. Some eat more fat some more carbs. Some people are on CR. I think the differences in lifespan will be small....a couple years or so. No matter what diet you are on, you will die. So best spend some time on biotechnology research and advocacy of the same.

From a longevity perspective that is an eminently sensible position. However, for a metabolically dysregulated person (i.e overweight/obese/hypertensive/hypercholesteremic/diabetic, etc) the macronutrient proportion consumed is critically important. For such people, carbs (with the exception of raw vegetables) are effectively pro-aging.

[wydell]

Really, I don't claim to know the best way to increase lifespan either. The only evidence that we have on lifespan (not biomarkers) is that we have is that high healthy carb diets have shown longer lifespan than high protein. (If someone has evidence to the contrary, I would like to know about it.)

We also know that you can have healthy biomarkers on higher protein diets and a short life span (e.g. masai)

Of course, there may be other factors (like lack of medicine, dental care in the Masai or the inadvertent practice of CR by the Okinawans) involved here as folks pointed out here.

I guess my concern is that folks are buying into Paleo as if it were the gospel and perhaps too many folks seem to be vilifying the high healthy carb diet. And I just don't think the evidence is there for either of those two positions.

I personally think that there may be a connection to higher protein, higher homocysteine, and higher dna damage. ( I am basing my thoughts one measly summary of a study I read on telomerase and homocysteine and the methionine restriction studies.)

Edited by Michael, 24 November 2011 - 08:53 PM.

[JLL]

I'm not sure a high-protein diet is the way to go either. It's hard to say at this point. The one diet I would immediately rule out is a low-fat diet, which has failed in almost all studies. Currently my diet is high in fat (the fats I believe are healthy), lowish on carbs and medium in protein.

Getting rid of processed and starchy carbs seems to be a good idea. That, however, almost inevitably leads to either CR or a diet low in carbs and high in fat, since all the healthy carbs are low in calories.

[wydell]

I'm not sure a high-protein diet is the way to go either. It's hard to say at this point. The one diet I would immediately rule out is a low-fat diet, which has failed in almost all studies. Currently my diet is high in fat (the fats I believe are healthy), lowish on carbs and medium in protein.

Getting rid of processed and starchy carbs seems to be a good idea. That, however, almost inevitably leads to either CR or a diet low in carbs and high in fat, since all the healthy carbs are low in calories.

That's basically my strategy. That is, a fair amount of fat with ev olive oil and coconut oil and vegetables. I do have pasture fed butter every other day (not sure pasture fed makes a difference but I pay double) and two egg yolks and one egg white every other day.

I also have two tablespoons of Whey Protein Concentrate with each meal, unless I have another decent source of protein.


Starchy Carbs and Fruits:

I eat oatmeal in the morning. I will eat an apple and half and maybe two oranges a day, so I am not terribly scared of fruits, but I don't think overdue it. And I will have one whole grain english muffin each day. My diet was too boring and unsatisfying without these things. I tried just vegetables, nuts, supplementary fat, and whey. That was too unpleasant and if anything the monotony was probably more deleterious to my health than the addition of these things in moderate amounts.

Maybe 60 -70% of my latest diet, at least by volume, is raw vegetables. It's an experiment.

I have cut out meat and fish (except for fish oil) at home, but take some supplements to account for loss of meat.

[kenj]

People around here eat what they enjoy and will provide health benefits. This might mean some people eat 8% protein and others 30 or 40%. Some eat more fat some more carbs. Some people are on CR. I think the differences in lifespan will be small....a couple years or so. No matter what diet you are on, you will die. So best spend some time on biotechnology research and advocacy of the same.

From a longevity perspective that is an eminently sensible position. However, for a metabolically dysregulated person (i.e overweight/obese/hypertensive/hypercholesteremic/diabetic, etc) the macronutrient proportion consumed is critically important. For such people, carbs (with the exception of raw vegetables) are effectively pro-aging.

The elder okinawan people have not been 'exposed' to the highly refined carbs miXed with high caloric fats, sitting on the couch 18/7 for good measure, - they have been able to *stay* healthy, and active throughout their lives: thus they are a good example of showing how healthful a diet high in unrefined carbs can treat ya & keep ya. Many other cultures, living in different parts of the world, also show excellent health in advanced age on a diet higher in unrefined carbs. Naturally the universal trick is: they're all low in calories, but ISTM you don't have to eat much protein for STAYING healthy, and living a long life...

[stephen_b]

*****Masai (a hunter culture eating mostly wild meat and a high protein diet) have an average lifespan of a whopping 42 years. But hey, they have virtually no heart disease, low blood pressure, and have low bodyfat.

What are they dying of?

[wydell]

This study seems like it has flaws, but it should raise questions

"Low carb, high protein diet found to increase mortality
Category: Obesity and Heart Disease
Posted on: May 17, 2007 10:10 AM, by Jake Young

Not good news for people who think low carbs is the answer. A recently published study has shown an increase in mortality associated with low-carb/high-protein diets."

http://scienceblogs....in_diet_fou.php


more comments on the same study

"The quick-and-dirty explanation of the results is that higher intakes of carbohydrates was associated with a REDUCTION in mortality, however differences in protein intake did not affect mortality. The most powerful predictor of higher mortality was the combination of a low carb-high protein diet, which was significantly correlated with increases in mortality from cancer and heart disease."

http://scienceblogs....arbhigh_fat.php

Edited by wydell, 01 March 2009 - 06:16 AM.

[Skötkonung]

This study seems like it has flaws, but it should raise questions

"Low carb, high protein diet found to increase mortality
Category: Obesity and Heart Disease
Posted on: May 17, 2007 10:10 AM, by Jake Young

Not good news for people who think low carbs is the answer. A recently published study has shown an increase in mortality associated with low-carb/high-protein diets."

http://scienceblogs....in_diet_fou.php


more comments on the same study

"The quick-and-dirty explanation of the results is that higher intakes of carbohydrates was associated with a REDUCTION in mortality, however differences in protein intake did not affect mortality. The most powerful predictor of higher mortality was the combination of a low carb-high protein diet, which was significantly correlated with increases in mortality from cancer and heart disease."

http://scienceblogs....arbhigh_fat.php

I think these comments clearly explain some the problems with that study:

Interesting - why does 'common sense' tell us that eating foods that have recently been introduced to the human diet (Grains, potatoes, rice, etc.) over foods present for at least a million years (Meat, eggs, fish, etc) would be healthy?

Of course, the answer is that a lots of meats have quite 'artificial' fatty acid profiles, correlations between high protein intake and high processed food/trans fat intake, etc.. the apparent lack of control for total calorie intake dosen't help.

And excluding people with diabeties is, whilst understandable, excluding those who are least well adapted to a high carbohydrate intake, pretty much by definition.

There is a big problem with this study, the diet was self-selected. What they may be observing is an effect of diet selection
by people with higher mortality.

There was a recent JAMA meta-review that showed that supplemental antioxidants increased mortality.

There have been numerous studies showing very robust and very strong effect that green leafy vegetables in a self selected diet are associated with good health and low mortality. My reconciliation of these two seemingly disparate observations is that there is an "oxidative stress setpoint", which is regulated by physiology, and dietary choice is part of that regulatory control system.

It may be that the balance between dietary carbohydrate and dietary protein is also regulated by underlying physiology. That underlying physiology may be what is responsible for increased mortality.

If the "setpoint" hypothesis is correct, eating a diet that is incompatable with your carbphydrate/protein "setpoint" would likely cause worse health (as observed in the case of the supplemental antioxidants above).

How much of the great apes diet consists of refined (manmade) carbohydrates, vegetable oils or added sugars? As these 3 things comprise about 63% of calories in the standard American diet, I don't think it's a valid comparison. As for "the most effective diet for type 2 Diabetics" you might want to look at the 56 week study that was published recently in the journal, Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry- "Beneficial effects of ketogenic diet in obese Diabetic subjects" which in summary showed the following: weight loss of 24.4 kg, total cholesterol down 28%, LDL down 33%, HDL up 63%, Triglycerides down 78%, and Fasting blood glucose down 50%.

It seems like there are some pretty blaring problems with this study and that it is far from conclusive regarding dietary protein content and mortality.

[Skötkonung]

I found some studies supporting high protein diets:

"A reported higher protein intake appears to confer some weight-loss benefit. Cardiovascular disease risk factors, biomarkers of disease, and serum vitamins and minerals improved with no differences between groups."

Long-term effects of a high-protein weight-loss diet
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18175733

"High intakes of vegetable protein from gluten may have beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease risk by reducing oxidized LDL, serum triacylglycerol, and uric acid. Further studies are required to assess the longer-term effects on renal function."

High-protein diets in hyperlipidemia: effect of wheat gluten on serum lipids, uric acid, and renal function
http://www.ajcn.org/...bstract/74/1/57

"Replacing carbohydrate with protein from meat, poultry, and dairy foods has beneficial metabolic effects and no adverse effects on markers of bone turnover or calcium excretion."

Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pt=AbstractPlus

"The magnitude of weight loss and the improvements in insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease risk factors did not differ significantly between the 2 diets, and neither diet had any detrimental effects on bone turnover or renal function."

Carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein are equally effective at promoting fat loss and improving blood lipids.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15817850

A tale of two studies
http://www.proteinpo...dies/#more-2195

There seems to be quite a few studies vindicating the safe use of high or moderately high protein diets while there are only a handful of recent studies suggesting protein (methionine included) could be dangerous. With evidence supporting both sides of the argument, it is important to remain agnostic about the safety of protein usage. However, that doesn't mean we can't impose probability to that agnosticism based on the available evidence. Given that both protein and methionine are essential to maintaining human health, have arguably been part of the human diet since our current genus evolved unlike much of the high carb sources available today, and that many studies corroborate protein's safe usage, it seems improbable that they would be dangerous or net any kind of significant benefit if restricted.

Interestingly, with all this talk of longevity, we have forgotten to discuss the ability to thrive, which is arguably cornerstone to quality of life. With methionine reduction, growth is restricted. This is part of the theory behind dietary methionine content augmentation for life extension. Lack of growth may be fine if you choose to lead a relatively inactive life, but if you are any kind of athlete or live an active lifestyle, this type of diet is restrictive to these types of activity. Furthermore, every life-long holder of a high protein / low card diet that I have seen appears to be doing quite well:

Check our Mark Sisson (aged 54)
http://www.marksdail...-washboard-abs/

or Jack Lalanne
http://www.proteinpo...-vs-ancel-keys/

If these are the types of health implications that a life-long high protein diet will provide, then I am not worried in the least.

Edited by shawn57187, 01 March 2009 - 12:07 PM.

[wydell]

I agree that there are short terms studies showing benefits of high protein diets. I don't dispute that there are benefits to biomarkers from high protein.

However, I have not seen one long term study showing a benefit. In fact, I have only seen the contrary. And that's in several instances (many by implication), so I am not saying the answer is clear by any means.

Virtually every long-lived culture is high in carbs to my knowledge. I don't know that anyone can point out just one long-lived culture that is high in protein. That's fairly telling evidence in my opinion. I am still waiting for one person to point out just one society or culture that is high in protein that is long lived. Pointing out one individual doing well on high protein is not particularly good evidence in my opinion, particularly if that person is only 54. (By the way, there are vegans in their 50s that are also heavily muscled with washboard abs.)

Jack Lalanne is not low carb by any means. (Think about all of his juicing. The man is presmably chucking apples and carrots into the juices -at least in his recent commericials.) That's kind of ridiculous that Eades is taking a 1950s show on Lalanne and is presuming that's what Lalanne has followed for the last 50 years. Are any of us eating the same way we did as 10 years ago, never mind 50 years ago. So many people twist information to prove their points.

http://www.ambafranc...-loss/33135.php (This article claims that Jack Lalanne is not low carb)
I don't think Lalanne is low protein either though.

My strategy is to take in enough to protein to maintain or perhaps even increase muscle mass. It really does not seem to be so much for me personally. (My main source being 2 tablespoons of whey 3x per day). I am athletic and I am probably at less than a half a gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. I do not propose wiping out protein.

Sure, I would take a little more muscle over a little less longevity, if there is in fact a correlation there.

Edited by wydell, 01 March 2009 - 03:53 PM.

[DukeNukem]

I'm not sure a high-protein diet is the way to go either. It's hard to say at this point. The one diet I would immediately rule out is a low-fat diet, which has failed in almost all studies. Currently my diet is high in fat (the fats I believe are healthy), lowish on carbs and medium in protein.

Getting rid of processed and starchy carbs seems to be a good idea. That, however, almost inevitably leads to either CR or a diet low in carbs and high in fat, since all the healthy carbs are low in calories.

There are several versions of the paleo diet, just as there are versions of a vegetarian diet. The version I recommend is different than the one in Cordain's book, because he paints saturated fat as the bad guy.

Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox
http://www.ajcn.org/.../full/80/5/1102

There are literally dozens of studies showing saturated fat is not unhealthy.

Ancel Keys ( http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ancel_Keys ) is the father of the "Lipid Hypothesis," which states that high-fat diets lead to heart disease. Keys is the person most responsible for painting saturated fats as the bad guy.

A little video on the Lipid Hypothesis.


A blog entry looks at this early-50's study, and how it's results were manipulated and manufactured:
http://high-fat-nutr...on-between.html

Note that practically every cardiologist, nutritionist, and medical practitioner still firmly believes in this, and makes their decisions based on a hypothesis that is simply 180 degrees wrong. Cordain is among those who is wrong. He should instead point the barrel of his gun at processed polyunsaturated fats.

A fun peak at how most heart specialists/surgeons think:

Instead of a healthy pink muscle, his heart looks like a pulsating lump of lard after a lifetime of eating too much saturated fat. The layer of fat encasing Mr Haj's heart was so thick the surgeons doing his triple bypass could not see his coronary arteries.
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/7605999.stm

A priori thinking in fine form: His heart is plugged with saturated fat, therefore, of course, eating saturated fat is the cause.

Makes sense, but BBZZZTTTT, wrong. And here's more misleading research that paints a high-fat diet as bad:

Excessive Dietary Fat Caused 300 Percent Increase in Metastasizing Tumor Cells In Animal Models
http://www.scienceda...90225172639.htm

Unless they tell us exactly what types of fats/oils they used in this research, it is completely useless. Certain fats are highly inflammatory and will both cause and help grow cancer, while others are completely safe and have no effect on cancer (nor cause it in the first place). Unfortunately, these are the types of questions the press and public do not know to ask, and so they just blanket assume that a high-fat diet is a bad, cancer-spreading diet.

Back to the paleo diet: The one I recommend is high-fat, moderate-protein (not high protein), and low-carb. But, that "low-carb" part misleads a LOT of people, I've concluded. If you look that the posted images of numerous paleo bloggers, you'll see that their plates are loading with vegetables. The key is that these are high-water-volume vegetables, not grain or starchy vegetables. You can eat a LOT (several cups worth) of vegetables on a paleo diet, and still be under 80 grams of carbs a day -- a low-carb diet.

The point I wanted to make clear is that a paleo diet is NOT a high-protein diet, it is a high-fat diet. That's its most critical component, along with the avoidance of grains.

The perfect paleo diet, in a nutshell:
o High-fat (~60% of daily cals)
o Most protein from non-plant sources
o No grains
o No processed fructose
o No processed vegetable oils that are higher than 10% in polyunsaturated content

Adopt this diet and fun things happen:
o Lipid and other health markers dramatically improve.
o Hunger greatly diminishes.
o Bodyfat drops uncontrollably.
o Energy levels rise and stay elevated all day.

[Skötkonung]

I agree that there are short terms studies showing benefits of high protein diets. I don't dispute that there are benefits to biomarkers from high protein.

However, I have not seen one long term study showing a benefit. In fact, I have only seen the contrary. And that's in several instances (many by implication), so I am not saying the answer is clear by any means.

Virtually every long-lived culture is high in carbs to my knowledge. I don't know that anyone can point out just one long-lived culture that is high in protein. That's fairly telling evidence in my opinion. I am still waiting for one person to point out just one society or culture that is high in protein that is long lived. Pointing out one individual doing well on high protein is not particularly good evidence in my opinion, particularly if that person is only 54. (By the way, there are vegans in their 50s that are also heavily muscled with washboard abs.)

Jack Lalanne is not low carb by any means. (Think about all of his juicing. The man is presmably chucking apples and carrots into the juices -at least in his recent commericials.) That's kind of ridiculous that Eades is taking a 1950s show on Lalanne and is presuming that's what Lalanne has followed for the last 50 years. Are any of us eating the same way we did as 10 years ago, never mind 50 years ago. So many people twist information to prove their points.

http://www.ambafranc...-loss/33135.php (This article claims that Jack Lalanne is not low carb)
I don't think Lalanne is low protein either though.

My strategy is to take in enough to protein to maintain or perhaps even increase muscle mass. It really does not seem to be so much for me personally. (My main source being 2 tablespoons of whey 3x per day). I am athletic and I am probably at less than a half a gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. I do not propose wiping out protein.

Sure, I would take a little more muscle over a little less longevity, if there is in fact a correlation there.

That is correct, a lot of vegans are well muscled and maintain a low body fat into their 50s. However, if you review veganbodybuilding.com, you'll notice that most of them also have a high protein intake (plant proteins of course). Here is a article outlining how vegan bodybuilders obtain enough protein to achieve muscle growth. I have not seen, and feel free to prove me wrong, any bodybuilder with decent muscle mass and low bodyfat who does not consume a comparitively high protein diet - especially in middle age or later (In fact, inadequate protein intake affects skeletal muscle transcript profiles in older humans). I would very much like to see if it is possible to acheive results like Jack's or Marks on a low protein / high carb diet, but as far as I am aware, its not possible.

It is true that Jack LaLanne may have a higher carb intake from fruits and vegetables (juicing as you mentioned), but that does not change the nature of the point I was making. High protein diets, which aren't exclusive to low-carb diets, seem to promote an increased ability to thrive athletically. Especially if thriving is having optimal bio-markers in combination with ideal physical performance. I have not seen any evidence, aside from these admittedly questionable longitudinal studies, to conclusively make a negative judgement on protein's safety. Until that time comes, I think it would be hyper reactive to recommend that people augment their diets to decrease protein intake. It only merits more research - proceed with methionine / protein restriction at your own peril.

Edited by shawn57187, 02 March 2009 - 03:17 AM.

[DukeNukem]

It is true that Jack LaLanne may have a higher carb intake from fruits and vegetables (juicing as you mentioned),

Jacks favorite thing to say about food is, "If man made it, don't eat it." He eats a lot of high-water-weight vegetable carbs, which is perfectly fine on a paleo diet, for example. Juicing is not so bad either, especially when lots of vegetables are involved.