102 replies to this topic

[biochemie]

I do appreciate your input very much. As far as i'm aware, the original paleo diet advocates a low saturated fat intake. Any evidence to actually suggest a beneficial effect from saturated fats (aside from MCTs).

[JackChristopher]

I do appreciate your input very much. As far as i'm aware, the original paleo diet advocates a low saturated fat intake. Any evidence to actually suggest a beneficial effect from saturated fats (aside from MCTs).

Yes stearic acid, whether plant or animal sourced is neutral to good on LDL numbers — the body likes it (and Cordain approves). Everyone on these subforums likes super dark chocolate, regardless of whatever dietary narrative they follow.

I'll cite other benefits tomorrow. Time for bed in Boston ... wait hold up! That's what we need to do. Stop arguing dietary narratives (paleo vs. okinawan, high-fat vs low-fat etc.) and instead, focus on likes and dislikes of individual foods. Sure, examining an individual food might break into a "narrative war" but at least it wouldn't start as one.

Edited by JackChristopher, 23 July 2009 - 04:57 AM.

[Blue]

Ketogenic diets against epilepsy for children are very, very high fat and low carbohydrate and low protein diets. So probably not relevant regarding discussions of a high-protein diet.

I will repeat again my objection to evolutionary arguments in general. The diet in some prior period in human development very interesting for life extension purposes. Our selfish genes has little interest in us living long. Only in us reproducing. Even if human development had stayed at a certain stage for the human body to adapt perfectly to the conditions then and we knew exactly what that diet was, then this would still only be a diet that together with your body would maximize your number of surviving children in that environment. Not your health, longevity, or happiness, which evolution will gladly sacrifice if you get more surviving children.

Regarding high-protein diets I think that arguing for only benefits is wishful thinking. Yes, you will get protection against catabolic diseases and cardiovascular disease. But you will increase the risk of cancer and anabolic diseases.

[Shepard]

which evolution will gladly sacrifice if you get more surviving children.

Kind of off-topic, but the evolutionary process doesn't favor maximum offspring. Populations that grow too rapidly die very rapidly.

Edited by Shepard, 23 July 2009 - 02:20 PM.

[Blue]

Kind of off-topic, but the evolutionary process doesn't favor maximum offspring. Populations that grow too rapidly die very rapidly.

The genes cares primarily about their own reproduction. If the number off offspring is increased by say 10% while say 95% of the larger group is killed that is preferable.

[Blue]

Regarding the Okinawa diet it is a very low protein diet. Around 40 g protein per day which should be just about the minimum possible even for smaller Japanese.
http://apjcn.nhri.or...vol10.2/Sho.pdf

[Shepard]

The genes cares primarily about their own reproduction. If the number off offspring is increased by say 10% while say 95% of the larger group is killed that is preferable.

Only if you hold a rigid belief in gene-centric evolution.

Edited by Shepard, 23 July 2009 - 02:39 PM.

[tunt01]

Regarding the Okinawa diet it is a very low protein diet. Around 40 g protein per day which should be just about the minimum possible even for smaller Japanese.
http://apjcn.nhri.or...vol10.2/Sho.pdf

human breast milk is only about 10% protein. if you grow more during your infancy than at any other point in your life, i don't understand how a diet w/ 30-35% protein content as an adult is "best". it just seems so out of whack to me.

[biochemie]

human breast milk is only about 10% protein. if you grow more during your infancy than at any other point in your life, i don't understand how a diet w/ 30-35% protein content as an adult is "best". it just seems so out of whack to me.

Weren't you promoting a more protein-centric diet just a few posts earlier?

[tunt01]

Weren't you promoting a more protein-centric diet just a few posts earlier?

no, and i try to keep my methionine in-take low. i don't eat eggs anymore, for example.

[Blue]

no, and i try to keep my methionine in-take low. i don't eat eggs anymore, for example.

I do not think is it possible to replicate using ordinary foods the very methionine-low and 0% cysteine diet used in rats. CR seems a better, more researched diet not too difficult to achieve with discipline. Add moderate PR to around 1 g/kg/day if you do not like IGF-1.

[kenj]

no, and i try to keep my methionine in-take low. i don't eat eggs anymore, for example.

+ less arachidonic acid, FWIW. I don't eat eggs much <xcept when trying 4the "Nobody Can Eat 50 Eggs" Stunt, wat?!>: that's ~100 calories per egg right there I can use for other stuff.. I do take a gram of glutamine, and other stuff after workouts, but no complete protein supplements.

So, this 'battle of the diets' are still going strong: seems there's much emphasis putting on how we evolved, - now Blue wrote: "I do not find the diet in some prior period in human development very interesting for life extension purposes"; lately I'm thinking this, too (but obviously it's something to investigate for basic health). The okinawan people just takes the price in living long, today. Interesting books/study, IMO.

[biochemie]

no, and i try to keep my methionine in-take low. i don't eat eggs anymore, for example.

Regarding that, does methionine restriction infer cysteine restriction as well?