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

Photo
- - - - -

The CHINA Study


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#1 biochemie

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 15 July 2009 - 12:38 AM


Well I just finished reading the CHINa study and have a few questions : Why are people on this board so convinced on the benefits of a low carb diet a-la-paleo when all the epidemiological data points to low animal protein for longevity! Isn't there a contradiction here? I mean is the paleo rhetoric just an excuse for eating as much meat as possible? I thoroughly enjoy red meat but it seems a nonsense when the data clearly indicates its effect on health. Ok i'm not talking about organic meat/grass-fed beef but grocery store meat but still. I can agree on the benefits of saturated fats like coconut oil simply because it doesn't behave like saturated fat! However, animal fat isn't the same. So what gives?

High-protein/low carb/high fat vs low-protein/high-carb/moderate fat .

BTW, no one is arguing the effect of wheat, polyunsaturated oils (like canola, vegetable, soybean,...)dairy or refined sugars, just the macronutrient intake.


Lets get this topic going :|o

#2 4eva

  • Guest
  • 426 posts
  • 4

Posted 15 July 2009 - 01:05 AM

It has been discussed before.

Isn't that book about studying groups of people (most are probably almost homogenous ethnically) and drawing conclusions from those studies.

Nutrigemonics indicates that certain ethnic groups have certain mutations. Do those studies take in account the differences in genetics and how some people have always eaten a certain diet. Asian Indians and Chinese and Japanese peoples should probably do better on their traditional diet. Mexicans may also do better on their traditional diet; US immigrants have higher disease rates when adapting to a mostly US diet. Is it just the US diet or is it that traditional diets are best for most ethnic groups?

Traditional diets may make sense because over many generations those who fared well on that diet probably lived longer or reproduced more.

But for those who live in the USA our ethnicity and genetics may not be so simplistic or pure to do well on any one traditional diet.

I don't see how that info can be applied to helping people know what diet is right for them. Nutrigenomics may be better at real world application to individuals versus whole groups of particular ethnicities.

sponsored ad

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

#3 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 15 July 2009 - 03:33 AM

I haven't read The China Study. But I've never been a big meat eater, I like carby foods like pasta & bread more — that's my bias. I wish it was true that people have always eaten high carb, or that it's *obviously* better.

But one question I suspect is missing from "meat is bad" hypothesis is: what do we mean by meat? Toxin filled, high n-6 PUFA, processed and sweetened meat, fish and poultry? That's different from grass-fed (or natural fed) meat. Analysis trumpeting generalities like "meat is worse" are intuitively too low rez. Humans have been eating it too long for that to be generally true.

It's also not easy to single out, say meat, from an otherwise inflammatory diet. You really have to isolate and ask, what's really causing the damage? Any traditional high meat *or* high carb diet whoops modern diets in terms of inflammation particularly. In fact nearly all cultures would do better than on their traditionally diet.

On the ethnic difference front, I don't buy there's much difference. We split Africa 50,000 years ago, but have only relied mainly on carbs for 12,000. Many carb foods only came into existence at that time. That's enough time for small changes, but doesn't allow much difference between groups. As a result, group x can handle rice slightly better than group y. But it's not enough time for group x to do fundamentally better on it than on paleo. Don't get me wrong it's worth paying attention to, but I'd worry about hormonal and actively levels before digging into genetics.

#4 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 15 July 2009 - 03:59 AM

I haven't read The China Study. But I've never been a big meat eater, I like carby foods like pasta & bread more — that's my bias. I wish it was true that people have always eaten high carb, or that it's *obviously* better.

But one question I suspect is missing from "meat is bad" hypothesis is: what do we mean by meat? Toxin filled, high n-6 PUFA, processed and sweetened meat, fish and poultry? That's different from grass-fed (or natural fed) meat. Analysis trumpeting generalities like "meat is worse" are intuitively too low rez. Humans have been eating it too long for that to be generally true.

It's also not easy to single out, say meat, from an otherwise inflammatory diet. You really have to isolate and ask, what's really causing the damage? Any traditional high meat *or* high carb diet whoops modern diets in terms of inflammation particularly. In fact nearly all cultures would do better than on their traditionally diet.

On the ethnic difference front, I don't buy there's much difference. We split Africa 50,000 years ago, but have only relied mainly on carbs for 12,000. Many carb foods only came into existence at that time. That's enough time for small changes, but doesn't allow much difference between groups. As a result, group x can handle rice slightly better than group y. But it's not enough time for group x to do fundamentally better on it than on paleo. Don't get me wrong it's worth paying attention to, but I'd worry about hormonal and actively levels before digging into genetics.


I'm with you on the population genetics front. I don't think it accounts for the variation in life expectancy seen. Besides, teh CHINA study also looked at people with SIMILAR genetic backgrounds (same areas) eating different diets. Its true that meat, fish and poultry are not what they used to be. Additionally, our cooking habits don't help much either. However, there's no DATA on grass fed organic meat which isn't readily accessible. Farmed fish is similarly probably lower in mercury and other toxins and better overall. I guess my question is, aside from the hypothesis that meat is better for us because we grew up on it as a species, where is the data to back it up? Where is the data saying we get healthier with consumption of lean organic meats?

I'm with you on the n-PUFA 6 content being inflammatory, etc. and the more i'm reading the more i'm understanding that the paleo diet has its pluses : remove grains, remove dairy, remove refined sugars, remove vegetable oils and high omega 6 PUFA, etc.. but as far as the animal meat content , i'm still out on a limb. Data still indicates that we are better without it.

Unless there's something i'm missing in the whole debacle?

#5 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 15 July 2009 - 06:54 PM

... as far as the animal meat content , i'm still out on a limb. Data still indicates that we are better without it.

However, there's no DATA on grass fed organic meat which isn't readily accessible. I guess my question is, aside from the hypothesis that meat is better for us because we grew up on it as a species, where is the data to back it up? Where is the data saying we get healthier with consumption of lean organic meats?


I have none. There basically isn't any specific data on natural fed meat — not nearly enough. That said I know some of the books results are confounded, simply because we're sampling diet and health data at too low a rez.

To say that meat, regardless of quality, is a net negative is intuitively absurd. I can't buy a narrative that definitive, when we haven't even concluded on the health of eggs at this point. But one narrative is clear: It's the inflammation, stupid! It's not surprising that oxidized foods cause problems. And that an inflammatory diet confounds any result.

I know that, intuition and individual experience might not be enough to go on for some, but that's a philosophical issue — the real issue. I refuse to defer authority to the nutrition or scientific community. I think independent analysis and experience, however flawed, is valid even moreso. I see Paleos with short-term biomarkers that blast everything I've ever seen. Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe they're headed for heart-attacks. I doubt it.

The paleo diets gells with my intuitions. But I think you have to follow fair guidelines or you screw it up. I wouldn't be that surprised that *modern* meats are a net negative. Or even that modern versions of Paleo foods just aren't good enough. But that's true of all foods. Even an apple from today is a grenade of inflammation compared to paleo ones.

Edited by JackChristopher, 15 July 2009 - 06:59 PM.


#6 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 16 July 2009 - 04:58 AM

I know that, intuition and individual experience might not be enough to go on for some, but that's a philosophical issue — the real issue. I refuse to defer authority to the nutrition or scientific community. I think independent analysis and experience, however flawed, is valid even moreso. I see Paleos with short-term biomarkers that blast everything I've ever seen. Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe they're headed for heart-attacks. I doubt it.


amen, brother. i myself conduct nutritional research (epidemiology) in a medical school, but realize the essentially insurmountable limitations of both clinical and population studies. i think those who blindly put their faith in the literature without taking into account personal experience are making a big mistake. studies are limited by the fact that there are too many variables both within and between individuals at play. not to mention the politics involved in funding, interpretation, policy, etc.

i think one's best option is to experiment with different nutritional approaches while keeping track of both subjective (how do you feel, perform, etc.?) and objective (body composition, disease biomarkers, etc.) outcomes.

personally, i have found a relatively low-carb paleo diet to be superb to any other approach i have tried (low-fat [the worst], very low carb, zone) in terms of body composition and physical and cognitive performance.

#7 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 16 July 2009 - 02:42 PM

amen, brother. i myself conduct nutritional research (epidemiology) in a medical school, but realize the essentially insurmountable limitations of both clinical and population studies. i think those who blindly put their faith in the literature without taking into account personal experience are making a big mistake. studies are limited by the fact that there are too many variables both within and between individuals at play. not to mention the politics involved in funding, interpretation, policy, etc.

i think one's best option is to experiment with different nutritional approaches while keeping track of both subjective (how do you feel, perform, etc.?) and objective (body composition, disease biomarkers, etc.) outcomes.

personally, i have found a relatively low-carb paleo diet to be superb to any other approach i have tried (low-fat [the worst], very low carb, zone) in terms of body composition and physical and cognitive performance.


But isn't that like saying that science is worthless? I mean if you look at your biomarkers i would get it, it makes sense. My biggest gripe isn't with fat per say but with animal protein. Every book on nutrition i read points towards a meatless diet as being the most heavily supported by the literature. I am a scientist by trade so for me to blindly look the other makes little sense. I guess I could monitor CRP, etc.. but is that all its about?

#8 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 16 July 2009 - 03:00 PM

But isn't that like saying that science is worthless? I mean if you look at your biomarkers i would get it, it makes sense. My biggest gripe isn't with fat per say but with animal protein. Every book on nutrition i read points towards a meatless diet as being the most heavily supported by the literature. I am a scientist by trade so for me to blindly look the other makes little sense. I guess I could monitor CRP, etc.. but is that all its about?


I don't think that's like saying science is worthless; it's just that making conclusions based on association studies is not always scientific.

Until we get studies that divide the participants into two groups with one eating a paleo diet and the other eating a vegetarian diet, there's not much one can say about these things with certainty. And this would have to be a long-term study that controlled for other factors such as exercise, smoking, alcohol, and possibly even things like cooking.

So far, all the studies I ever see are ones where they look at a bunch of people and conclude that those who ate less meat were healthier. Looking at the results, vegetarians will say it's because meat is bad for you, while paleo people will say it's because the same people who ate meat also ate french fries, which are really what's bad for you. But the results by themselves don't prove either side right.

#9 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 16 July 2009 - 04:51 PM

But isn't that like saying that science is worthless? I mean if you look at your biomarkers i would get it, it makes sense. My biggest gripe isn't with fat per say but with animal protein. Every book on nutrition i read points towards a meatless diet as being the most heavily supported by the literature. I am a scientist by trade so for me to blindly look the other makes little sense. I guess I could monitor CRP, etc.. but is that all its about?


I meant you need to run subjective and objective views in parallel; confirm both sides. But in this case (paleo vs. less meat diets) we can't — there isn't enough data on paleo — so I trust my experience with caveats.

As of today, I don't buy the generality that "meat is a net negative". But I do buy that generic vegetarianism beats generic western meaters diet. And that that accounts the China Study narrative.

Right now, I think a) a paleo/primal beats all, b) a traditional (Okinawan/ Kitivan) diet may trail it slightly, and c) well done vegetarianism is the next best thing. The caveat is you have to know what you're doing.

Honestly, my moral, ethical and ecological intutions tell me I'm header towards c).

#10 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 16 July 2009 - 05:03 PM

I meant you need to run subjective and objective views in parallel; confirm both sides. But in this case (paleo vs. less meat diets) we can't — there isn't enough data on paleo — so I trust my experience with caveats.

As of today, I don't buy the generality that "meat is a net negative". But I do buy that generic vegetarianism beats generic western meaters diet. And that that accounts the China Study narrative.

Right now, I think a) a paleo/primal beats all, b) a traditional (Okinawan/ Kitivan) diet may trail it slightly, and c) well done vegetarianism is the next best thing. The caveat is you have to know what you're doing.

Honestly, my moral, ethical and ecological intutions tell me I'm header towards c).


That's the thing. I'm reading the books, looking into the paleo newsletters, reading some of the posts here notably by DukeNukem and other sites but still feel like I don't know what i'm really doing. Eating western meat makes no sense to me anymore. Anything that isn't grass-fed, free range organic shouldn't be touched. I do love meat. Its a matter of putting together the picture. There really is only one biochemistry. Not several. No matter how genetic drift may account for differences in pharmacogenomics, alcohol tolerance and such, the idea that macronutrients may similarly be dealt with with such differences seems far fetched.

I guess honest bloodwork seems like the ideal solution to find an OBJECTIVE measure of a diet's effect. Still gonna think about this some more and try to put the global picture together.

#11 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 16 July 2009 - 07:26 PM

What is with the grass-fed hype? The omega-3/omega-6 ratio? To me it seems like a drop in the bucket.

#12 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 16 July 2009 - 07:56 PM

I skimmed the China Study a couple times and had a hard time taking his work too seriously. I won't get into it over and over again, because it's been hashed out in multiple threads.

I think if you completely ignore the epidemiological (purely population) data associated with a particular diet and simply focus on constructing a healthy diet on a nutrient by nutrient basis, it becomes very hard to avoid animal product. You may find spinach, and several other plant based foods as the best source for magnesium, B Vitamins, calcium, etc. But then you are going to run into things like Carnosine, Vitamin K2 (MK-4), ALCAR, etc. and these things primarily come from animals. You simply end up with a deficient diet by sourcing only from plants.

It may come down to a function of quantity/quality of the animal products. The traditional western diet being a poor determinant of these variables. Paleo makes more sense to me in that regard.

Does anyone know how the biomarkers of paleo diet practitioners compare to those on a pure vegetarian diet? Are there major metabolic differences between CR practitioners on vegetarian only vs. more paleo-like diets ?

that might tell us something...

Edited by prophets, 16 July 2009 - 07:57 PM.


#13 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 16 July 2009 - 09:21 PM

The China study has been thoroughly dissected by Dr. Eades on his website:
http://www.proteinpo...er-china-study/

I highly recommend it.

As to JLL's comment on the n-3 to n-6 ratio (I am surprised to even see this contested here):
Both n−3 and n−6 fatty acids are essential, i.e. humans must consume them in the diet. n−3 and n−6 compete for the same metabolic enzymes, thus the n−6:n−3 ratio will significantly influence the ratio of the ensuing eicosanoids (hormones), (e.g. prostaglandins, leukotrienes, thromboxanes etc.), and will alter the body's metabolic function. Generally, grass-fed animals accumulate more n−3 than do grain-fed animals which accumulate relatively more n−6. Metabolites of n−6 are significantly more inflammatory (esp. arachidonic acid) than those of n−3. This necessitates that n−3 and n−6 be consumed in a balanced proportion; healthy ratios of n−6:n−3 range from 1:1 to 4:1. Studies suggest that the evolutionary human diet, rich in game animals, seafood and other sources of n−3, may have provided such a ratio.

Sources:
Biochemistry and physiology of n–3 fatty acids
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1592205

Importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty acids: evolutionary aspects
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14579680

High n−6 to n−3 ratio of dietary fatty acids rather than serum cholesterol as a major risk factor for coronary heart disease.
http://dx.doi.org/10...0...E3.0.CO;2-#

How relevant is the ratio of dietary n−6 to n−3 polyunsaturated fatty acids to cardiovascular disease risk? Evidence from the OPTILIP study
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18196988

Excess Omega-6 Fats Thwart Health Benefits from Omega-3 Fats
http://www.bmj.com/c...7544/752#130637

Statement on the essentiality of and recommended dietary intakes for n−6 and n−3 fatty acids
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10991764

#14 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 16 July 2009 - 09:45 PM

The China study has been thoroughly dissected by Dr. Eades on his website:
http://www.proteinpo...er-china-study/

I highly recommend it.

As to JLL's comment on the n-3 to n-6 ratio (I am surprised to even see this contested here):
Both n−3 and n−6 fatty acids are essential, i.e. humans must consume them in the diet. n−3 and n−6 compete for the same metabolic enzymes, thus the n−6:n−3 ratio will significantly influence the ratio of the ensuing eicosanoids (hormones), (e.g. prostaglandins, leukotrienes, thromboxanes etc.), and will alter the body's metabolic function. Generally, grass-fed animals accumulate more n−3 than do grain-fed animals which accumulate relatively more n−6. Metabolites of n−6 are significantly more inflammatory (esp. arachidonic acid) than those of n−3. This necessitates that n−3 and n−6 be consumed in a balanced proportion; healthy ratios of n−6:n−3 range from 1:1 to 4:1. Studies suggest that the evolutionary human diet, rich in game animals, seafood and other sources of n−3, may have provided such a ratio.


Sorry, I should've been more specific. What I meant was that since the fat content of meat (especially lean meat) is quite low, the ratio of n-3 to n-6 in meat is not that important. The rest of the diet will have a more significant impact on the total ratio. If you can get grass-fed beef for the price of normal meat, great, but if it's twice as costly, I would be inclined to spend that money elsewhere.

My dietary n-3 to n-6 ratio is about 1:1 even without buying grass-fed meat (though I occasionally do).

#15 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 16 July 2009 - 10:09 PM

That's the thing. I'm reading the books, looking into the paleo newsletters, reading some of the posts here notably by DukeNukem and other sites but still feel like I don't know what i'm really doing. Eating western meat makes no sense to me anymore. Anything that isn't grass-fed, free range organic shouldn't be touched. I do love meat. Its a matter of putting together the picture. There really is only one biochemistry. Not several. No matter how genetic drift may account for differences in pharmacogenomics, alcohol tolerance and such, the idea that macronutrients may similarly be dealt with with such differences seems far fetched.

I guess honest bloodwork seems like the ideal solution to find an OBJECTIVE measure of a diet's effect. Still gonna think about this some more and try to put the global picture together.

Before reading this forums I thought raw vegan was the healthiest diet. I assumed "meat is bad" therefore no meat is best — I believed The China Study narrative. These forums ratched my skepticism.

But you can get lost in skepticism. I went through an endless doubt phase — it's unproductive. At some point you have to form an opinion. But I sympathize with you. Getting over the intial complexity is overwhelming. One thing that helped was to adcept that I can't be 100% sure I'm right. I nor anyone else has the complete picture of health and nutrition. But I'm fairly certain one of the three diets I mentioned (if done well) are the best ones.

#16 cathological

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • -29

Posted 16 July 2009 - 10:45 PM

I think if you completely ignore the epidemiological (purely population) data associated with a particular diet and simply focus on constructing a healthy diet on a nutrient by nutrient basis, it becomes very hard to avoid animal product. You may find spinach, and several other plant based foods as the best source for magnesium, B Vitamins, calcium, etc. But then you are going to run into things like Carnosine, Vitamin K2 (MK-4), ALCAR, etc. and these things primarily come from animals. You simply end up with a deficient diet by sourcing only from plants.


Are you trying to conform to the government recommended daily allowances of these things? I am very skeptical about the RDA's being ideal.

#17 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 16 July 2009 - 11:51 PM

Are you trying to conform to the government recommended daily allowances of these things? I am very skeptical about the RDA's being ideal.


No. I get 2000 IU of Vitamin D a day, well above the RDA. Also, there is no RDA for carnosine or ALCAR.

1. Decide what you think makes sense for a comprehensive diet, nutrient by nutrient. How much Riboflavin, how much Vitamin C, how much carnosine, how much ALCAR, etc.
2. Then make a list of the best sources of those nutrients.


Then tell me what your diet is... is it purely vegetarian? I doubt it. Every vegetarian is taking B12, and a bunch of other supplements to mimic the missing portions they aren't getting from eating animals. I'm not saying to eat red meat with every meal or pig out on McDonalds, but case for animal sources in some quantities is pretty compelling.

Edited by prophets, 16 July 2009 - 11:52 PM.


#18 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:46 AM

No. I get 2000 IU of Vitamin D a day, well above the RDA. Also, there is no RDA for carnosine or ALCAR.

1. Decide what you think makes sense for a comprehensive diet, nutrient by nutrient. How much Riboflavin, how much Vitamin C, how much carnosine, how much ALCAR, etc.
2. Then make a list of the best sources of those nutrients.


In CRON-O-Meter you can report your nutrient daily values. Anyone want to share theirs?

#19 cathological

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • -29

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:53 AM

My diet sucks really, I eat what I feel like and what is convenient for the most part. However I do at least hover around a normal weight. I think a mostly vegan (mostly fruits & vegetables specifically) diet, maybe with some meat to cover B12, would be best. I have no moral issue with eating meat, I eat it all the time, but I wouldn't call it healthy. I read some diet book called eat to live and I found it convincing enough if you've ever heard of it. I tried reading The China Study and found it to be terribly written. B12 is made from bacteria is it not? What are the "bunch of other supplements" vegetarians have to take? I'm not familiar with the paleo diet, is that what you follow? As far as I know atkins dieters have to take a bunch of supplements as well.

#20 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:26 AM

I skimmed the China Study a couple times and had a hard time taking his work too seriously. I won't get into it over and over again, because it's been hashed out in multiple threads.

I think if you completely ignore the epidemiological (purely population) data associated with a particular diet and simply focus on constructing a healthy diet on a nutrient by nutrient basis, it becomes very hard to avoid animal product. You may find spinach, and several other plant based foods as the best source for magnesium, B Vitamins, calcium, etc. But then you are going to run into things like Carnosine, Vitamin K2 (MK-4), ALCAR, etc. and these things primarily come from animals. You simply end up with a deficient diet by sourcing only from plants.

It may come down to a function of quantity/quality of the animal products. The traditional western diet being a poor determinant of these variables. Paleo makes more sense to me in that regard.

Does anyone know how the biomarkers of paleo diet practitioners compare to those on a pure vegetarian diet? Are there major metabolic differences between CR practitioners on vegetarian only vs. more paleo-like diets ?

that might tell us something...


You lost me on your second sentence. How can you ignore anything?

#21 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:27 AM

Are you trying to conform to the government recommended daily allowances of these things? I am very skeptical about the RDA's being ideal.

LOL. Skeptical isn't even the right word. Isn't the RDA for Vitamin D like 400 IU? come on..

#22 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:35 AM

The China study has been thoroughly dissected by Dr. Eades on his website:
http://www.proteinpo...er-china-study/

I highly recommend it.



That isn't the right study. This CHINA study is much more broad in scope and comprehensive in its implications.

www.nutrition.cornell.edu/chinaproject

#23 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:43 AM

I meant you need to run subjective and objective views in parallel; confirm both sides. But in this case (paleo vs. less meat diets) we can't — there isn't enough data on paleo — so I trust my experience with caveats.

As of today, I don't buy the generality that "meat is a net negative". But I do buy that generic vegetarianism beats generic western meaters diet. And that that accounts the China Study narrative.

Right now, I think a) a paleo/primal beats all, b) a traditional (Okinawan/ Kitivan) diet may trail it slightly, and c) well done vegetarianism is the next best thing. The caveat is you have to know what you're doing.

Honestly, my moral, ethical and ecological intutions tell me I'm header towards c).


Thank you JackChristopher. I'm heading towards that direction as well though I have my doubts that really high caloric intake a la paleo is good for you (regardless of whether you end up fat or not). All the extra oxidation from increased body temperature can't be good for you. Its one of the markers of CRON isn't it ? Low body temp? That's why the high nutrient diet like those of the CR people makes sense in some ways which is pretty much the diet of Dr Fuhrman in Eat to Live.

#24 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:55 AM

No. I get 2000 IU of Vitamin D a day, well above the RDA. Also, there is no RDA for carnosine or ALCAR.

1. Decide what you think makes sense for a comprehensive diet, nutrient by nutrient. How much Riboflavin, how much Vitamin C, how much carnosine, how much ALCAR, etc.
2. Then make a list of the best sources of those nutrients.


Then tell me what your diet is... is it purely vegetarian? I doubt it. Every vegetarian is taking B12, and a bunch of other supplements to mimic the missing portions they aren't getting from eating animals. I'm not saying to eat red meat with every meal or pig out on McDonalds, but case for animal sources in some quantities is pretty compelling.

You just said vegetarians supplement B12 to compensate for not eating meat. What is wrong with supplementing things like ALCAR, Taurine and carnosine then and still not eating meat? It seems a no brainer to me. Because meat IS high in AGEs so it makes sense to get what you would get from the meat in supplement form while avoiding AGE content and consuming omega 3 eggs and shrimp for protein because in addition you have Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratios to consider. And there really is no telling what that ratio is in modern factory farmed meats. Including grass fed ones.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 July 2009 - 02:59 AM.


#25 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 17 July 2009 - 03:51 AM

You just said vegetarians supplement B12 to compensate for not eating meat. What is wrong with supplementing things like ALCAR, Taurine and carnosine then and still not eating meat? It seems a no brainer to me. Because meat IS high in AGEs so it makes sense to get what you would get from the meat in supplement form while avoiding AGE content and consuming omega 3 eggs and shrimp for protein because in addition you have Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratios to consider. And there really is no telling what that ratio is in modern factory farmed meats. Including grass fed ones.


I don't know what the right answer is and I'm still (after a year of looking at this stuff) optimizing what I think makes sense. Humans didn't have these supplements 1,000+ years ago, so how do we know this is the best way to obtain our nutritional needs?

Long-term I'd prefer to take zero supplements and get nutrition only from the optimal set of food. Tho, i realize that is probably not realistic. Is what you suggest optimal? I don't know yet.

I don't eat red meat ATM, but i've not given up on fish yet.

#26 JackChristopher

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Hudson Valley/Westchester, NY

Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:26 AM

Thank you JackChristopher. I'm heading towards that direction as well though I have my doubts that really high caloric intake a la paleo is good for you (regardless of whether you end up fat or not). All the extra oxidation from increased body temperature can't be good for you. Its one of the markers of CRON isn't it ? Low body temp? That's why the high nutrient diet like those of the CR people makes sense in some ways which is pretty much the diet of Dr Fuhrman in Eat to Live.


Paleo doesn't have to be high calorie per say. Not all paleo plans are high fat. I agree that CR, with say an Okinawan diet, may be better for longevity. But paleo can be worth going on if you're already obese. When you're insulin or leptin insensitive with metabolic syndrome or prediabetes other diets may be disruptive. Being fat is pro-aging — so some have to end that first.


You also mentioned Vit D 400UI as the RDA daily value. Heart Scan (Dr. Davis, cardiologist) recommends way more. Yes, you get Vit D when you hit the sun for 20 mins, but that ages skin. And if you're darker it takes longer to sythesize.

#27 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:02 AM

I don't know what the right answer is and I'm still (after a year of looking at this stuff) optimizing what I think makes sense. Humans didn't have these supplements 1,000+ years ago, so how do we know this is the best way to obtain our nutritional needs?

Long-term I'd prefer to take zero supplements and get nutrition only from the optimal set of food. Tho, i realize that is probably not realistic. Is what you suggest optimal? I don't know yet.

I don't eat red meat ATM, but i've not given up on fish yet.


You shouldn't have to give up on some fish because it's low in AGEs and high in Omega 3 although some fish is obviously not a long term option due to mercury. It should be okay to eat shrimp every day though as well as salmon 3-4 times a week.

#28 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2009 - 09:42 PM

You shouldn't have to give up on some fish because it's low in AGEs and high in Omega 3 although some fish is obviously not a long term option due to mercury. It should be okay to eat shrimp every day though as well as salmon 3-4 times a week.


I'm not really sure about that. Though the mercury content of salmon is supposed to be reasonable, PCBs are of concern. Seafood should be fine but farmed fish would probably be a better bet due to environmental toxicants.

#29 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:11 PM

Paleo doesn't have to be high calorie per say. Not all paleo plans are high fat. I agree that CR, with say an Okinawan diet, may be better for longevity. But paleo can be worth going on if you're already obese. When you're insulin or leptin insensitive with metabolic syndrome or prediabetes other diets may be disruptive. Being fat is pro-aging — so some have to end that first.


Most of the Paleo people I read about promote a high calorie, high fat, low carb, moderate protein diet. DukeNukem explicitly.
But let me be clear. I'm buying into the Paleo diet framework. There just isn't enough good research out there to really promote its longevity effects. Thats really whats missing, irrefutable compelling evidence of lower incidences of chronic diseases and optimal health. People on Paleo have for the most part outstanding bloodwork with the obvious exception of higher Total Cholesterol values though many say its a meaningless figure. We do have a bias towards high vegetable intake and high fruit intake but its because there's a great deal of biochemistry supporting it. Everything from phytonutrients, minerals, antioxidants, fiber are really what fit into our framework of what we know about the body. Now, if you say adding meat to that isn't bad or may even further enhance health, i'd like to see it on paper. I'd like to see long term studies with a face-a face between a proper vegetarian diet and a proper paleo diet (though my idea of a REAL vegetarian diet would, with the exception of beans, be a subset of a paleo diet). From what I read in the literature there are rare populations that do eat a true paleo diet though they seem to be ignored in the last few decades. Its a shame. We should have a more conclusive picture of optimal health.

These studies aside, there is also compelling evidence that beans are beneficials and are completely excluded from paleo. Anyone care to point to research clearly indicating the harm or inflammatory consequences of eating beans?


You also mentioned Vit D 400UI as the RDA daily value. Heart Scan (Dr. Davis, cardiologist) recommends way more. Yes, you get Vit D when you hit the sun for 20 mins, but that ages skin. And if you're darker it takes longer to sythesize.


I know. I've been taking ~4000IU fir a bit now it was just a comment as to the RDA not being a really significant measure of good nutrition.

Edited by biochemie, 17 July 2009 - 10:15 PM.


#30 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:25 PM

That isn't the right study. This CHINA study is much more broad in scope and comprehensive in its implications.

www.nutrition.cornell.edu/chinaproject


Ah yes, THAT China study.
Interestingly, I have found a debate between Loren Cordain (a researcher who has focused much of his career on the benefits of the Paleo diet) and Campbell.

Debate in following PDF.
Attached File  proteinDebate.pdf   1.59MB   87 downloads




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users