• 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

#61 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 19 July 2009 - 08:18 PM

Here are some better arguments against the importance of IGF-1:

http://209.85.135.13...s...=en&ct=clnk

#62 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 19 July 2009 - 10:17 PM

Because it is a better measure of aging than average life span.

I give up. Apparently we do not speak the same language (maybe I'll get back to some of the more interesting points during the week). But see for yourself...
Kismet said: "look at the human survival curves: They are almost square and advances in medicine will further contribute to increased average life span. [i.e. in the future they will be much more square than that] Average life span is irrelevant, we're already pushing the boundaries [and we shouldn't forget that life style choices influence avg life span more than anything else, without affecting the rate of aging]. It is accepted by gerontologists that max life span is a very good marker of rate of aging and only slowing the latter is really benefical"

@JLL Although, I still haven't read his old Albatross/Zone megapost. We can find some references there, e.g. another pro-protein study (I skimmed the text to find the info, but I think it shows high and moderate protein CR superior to low protein CR).  

Let me quote the relevant part, but you can (and actually should, as it is more complicated than my quote makes it seem) read the rest & incl. the table for yourself: http://health.groups...ty/message/4224
"But that isn't what Ross' data shows. In fact, to my surprise, it shows what we are constantly told that the data DON'T show: that MACRONUTRIENT COMPOSITION CAN INFLUENCE MAX LS, and that the higher the protein, the longer the LS...Turning to their [77] table 2, we find that there is improved max LS in BOTH the Cr AND the ad lib groups, correlated postiively with protein intake...."
Ref. 77. Ross MH, Bras G.
Influence of protein under- and overnutrition on spontaneous tumor prevalence in the rat. J Nutr. 1973 Jul;103(7):944-63. No abstract available.
PMID: 4351915; UI: 73211348

EDIT:
Disregarding Fontana's hypothesis, here's some more on the situation in rodents:
http://www.mfoundati...mp;postcount=14
And Ross' paper seems to be available for free: http://jn.nutrition....t/103/7/944.pdf


Could you point me towards the reference list Michael refers to. I can't find it. I would like to see the papers on the Okinawans and compare it to a paper I trying to find about the Ugyur population in china.

[A health and nutrition survey of 211 Uygur centenarians in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region]

[Article in Chinese]

Wang XY.
PMID: 3248455 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



sponsored ad

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

#63 Skötkonung

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

Posted 20 July 2009 - 04:11 PM

After carefully reviewing the document, it seems that while cordain's view are well documented with respect to evolution, they do not convincingly portray a picture of long-term optimal health simply because the epidemiological evidence seems to be so one sided.

I don't think Campbell's argument holds merit. In his animal studies, he uses casein protein (from milk- which is well known to cause tumor growth and be an un-natural protein in terms of our evolutionary history) instead of mysoin or actin (the predominant protein sources in animal tissue). Campbell states the superiority of plant based diets using 100 year old studies on physical fitness - you'd think he could find something more recent. What he does discuss, he doesn't bother to cite as a source. Furthermore, cross sectional population studies like The China Study, which compare population characteristics, can only be used to generate hypotheses about possible cause / effect variables, not to prove causation. It is clear to me that Campbell is busy pushing his vegetarian agenda instead looking for an evolutionary basis to substantiate his work.

As a lifelong athlete (competitive bodybuilding and then cross-fit), I have always succumbed to over training when I would try a low protein diet. In my experience with competitive sports, this is a common phenomenon amongst athletes. Try searching Google for "Olympic athletes high protein diet" and you will see many articles corroborating my observation. Even on websites such as veganbodybuilding.com, athletes consume high protein diets to gain muscle mass and achieve peak performance. In my opinion, the fact that anyone, particularly someone in the nutrition community, can suggest that as a maximum only 10% of our daily energy should be derived from protein demonstrates a complete loss of touch with the real athletic performance. To me, it is obvious why paleolithic humans succeeded so well on a high protein diet. It provided them the sustained energy and strength to spread across the globe, hunt large game, and adapt to new climates. You could argue that a high protein diet is not necessary for the average sedentary person, but to say athletes perform best on a low vegetable protein based diet is ridiculous and without credibility.

Edited by Skotkonung, 20 July 2009 - 04:14 PM.


#64 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 20 July 2009 - 06:56 PM

The human essential requirement for protein (for non-athletes) is just 0.8/kg/day of complete protein. Anything beyond that will be used as an energy source. Of course, this does not mean that a high protein intake can not have many other effects. Athletes are probably right in consuming large amounts of protein since protein intake increases IGF-1 which is anabolic. Whether this is good for the general population long-term seems unclear. But if you do want to increase IGF-1 (and being aware that it may increase your cancer risk), then from what I have read milk protein may be the best choice. Makes perfect sense since it will stimulate the growth of the young animal. In particular, casein seems to increase IGF-1. On the other hand, whey protein, which seems popular here, instead increases insulin, which I think is only bad.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19471293

Edited by Blue, 20 July 2009 - 07:52 PM.


#65 Skötkonung

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

Posted 20 July 2009 - 09:22 PM

The human essential requirement for protein (for non-athletes) is just 0.8/kg/day of complete protein. Anything beyond that will be used as an energy source. Of course, this does not mean that a high protein intake can not have many other effects. Athletes are probably right in consuming large amounts of protein since protein intake increases IGF-1 which is anabolic. Whether this is good for the general population long-term seems unclear. But if you do want to increase IGF-1 (and being aware that it may increase your cancer risk), then from what I have read milk protein may be the best choice. Makes perfect sense since it will stimulate the growth of the young animal. In particular, casein seems to increase IGF-1. On the other hand, whey protein, which seems popular here, instead increases insulin, which I think is only bad.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19471293


Interesting that many of the components of processed whey (such as beta-lactoglobulin and alpha-lactalbumin) actually seem to improve insulin sensitivity.

A High-Whey-Protein Diet Reduces Body Weight Gain and Alters Insulin Sensitivity Relative to Red Meat in Wistar Rats
http://jn.nutrition....ract/134/6/1454

"these findings support the conclusions that a high-protein diet reduces energy intake and adiposity and that whey protein is more effective than red meat"

Another interesting but unrelated study:
The bovine protein alpha-lactalbumin increases the plasma ratio of tryptophan to the other large neutral amino acids, and in vulnerable subjects raises brain serotonin activity, reduces cortisol concentration, and improves mood under stress. Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Jun;71(6):1536-1544

Other possible advantages whey may confer to the dieter is improved blood sugar regulation (Frid AH, Nilsson M, Holst JJ, Bjorck IM. Effect of whey on blood glucose and insulin responses to composite breakfast and lunch meals in type 2 diabetic subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jul;82(1):69-75.) which is yet another key area in controlling appetite and metabolism.
http://www.ajcn.org/...bstract/82/1/69

Edited by Skotkonung, 20 July 2009 - 09:27 PM.


#66 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 20 July 2009 - 10:00 PM

An BMJ editorial regarding IGF-1:

"The risk of cancer is higher among people with raised concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I... ...The effects are sizeable and stronger than the effects seen in relation to most previously reported risk factors"

On the other hand:

"Growth hormone deficiency is associated with an adverse cardiovascular risk profile and increased risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease. Low concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I are also associated with cardiovascular morbidity in the elderly."
http://www.imminst.o...o...60&start=60

This fits well with has been claimed regarding protein consumption. Higher protein consumption improves metabolic variables related to CVD while increasing the risk of cancer. One would also expect an anabolic hormone to improve catabolic diseases like osteoporosis (another claim regarding high protein intake), while worsening anabolic diseases like proliferative retinopathy and benign prostate hyperplasia.

So if the effect of high protein intake comes from IGF-1 stimulation the results would be very mixed and different for different diseases.

Edited by Blue, 20 July 2009 - 10:01 PM.


#67 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 20 July 2009 - 10:11 PM

One would also expect an anabolic hormone to improve catabolic diseases like osteoporosis (another claim regarding high protein intake), while worsening anabolic diseases like proliferative retinopathy and benign prostate hyperplasia.


I dont really think so. Most of the accounts I have read including the CHINA Study blame animal protein for osteoporosis. So in effect, the anabolic consequences of protein consumption are minimal with regards to osteoporosis because of its effect on calcium homeostasis.

#68 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 20 July 2009 - 10:21 PM

I dont really think so. Most of the accounts I have read including the CHINA Study blame animal protein for osteoporosis. So in effect, the anabolic consequences of protein consumption are minimal with regards to osteoporosis because of its effect on calcium homeostasis.


Most of the studies I have seen find that a high protein consumption is good for bone health. Some examples, you will find many more in Google scholar:

http://grande.nal.us...p;therow=422715
http://www.jbmronlin...2000.15.12.2504
http://www.jbmronlin...359/jbmr.090513

Edited by Blue, 20 July 2009 - 10:39 PM.


#69 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 21 July 2009 - 06:16 PM

Could you point me towards the reference list Michael refers to. I can't find it. I would like to see the papers on the Okinawans and compare it to a paper I trying to find about the Ugyur population in china.

References (scroll up to the first post): http://www.caloriere...1409#msg-111409

#70 Skötkonung

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:17 PM

I dont really think so. Most of the accounts I have read including the CHINA Study blame animal protein for osteoporosis. So in effect, the anabolic consequences of protein consumption are minimal with regards to osteoporosis because of its effect on calcium homeostasis.

Again, consider weight of evidence. Osteoprosis is virtually non existent from paleolithic era human specimens, despite having been rampant during the neolithic and today. We know that the introduction of agriculture brought with it a decrease in dietary protein due to an increase in population size / demand. IGF-1 production, which is stimulated by protein, improves bone density.

Consider what Cordain reports on the topic of bone health and protein:
Dietary Protein and Bone Health
One of the crucial issues regulating bone mineral health and integrity is calcium balance which represents the difference between the amount of dietary calcium which is absorbed and the amount of calcium leaving the body through the urine and feces. Figure 5 demonstrates two key points: 1) most (~75%) of dietary calcium is not absorbed, and 2) calcium absorption increases with decreasing dietary intakes and decreases with increasing dietary intakes (104).

Because dietary protein has been frequently, but not always (105-108), shown to increase urinary calcium excretion, it is possible that long term ingestion of high protein diets could lead to accelerated loss of calcium from the bones thereby impairing bone health and integrity.

Without the concurrent measurement of dietary calcium absorption along with urinary calcium losses the net calcium balance cannot be known. Hence, the simple observation that dietary protein ingestion may increase urinary calcium losses tells us little or nothing about calcium balance. In evaluating the effect of high protein diets upon bone mineral health, it is therefore crucial to measure both urinary calcium excretion and intestinal absorption of calcium. In this regard, Pannemans and colleagues (109) compared a low protein (12 % energy) to a high protein diet (21 % energy) in young and elderly subjects. Both a higher urinary calcium excretion and a higher intestinal absorption of calcium were induced by the high protein diet, thus no negative calcium balance occurred. A similar experiment confirmed that elevated dietary protein enhances calcium absorption and thereby counters the increased urinary excretion of calcium (110). Furthermore, a series of recent dietary interventions in humans has shown that high protein, meat based diets do not cause loss of calcium from the skeleton, but actually have a favorable effect upon it by lowering bone resorption (105, 107, 111, 112) and may actually increase bone formation by dietary protein induced increases in IGF-1 (105).



#71 Skötkonung

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:23 PM

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


Here are the average quantities of n-3 to n-6 PUFAs in common foods:

http://weightoftheev...od-sources.html

#72 Skötkonung

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 07:47 PM

An BMJ editorial regarding IGF-1:

"The risk of cancer is higher among people with raised concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I... ...The effects are sizeable and stronger than the effects seen in relation to most previously reported risk factors"

I'm not sure how relevant the cancer risk will be on a low carbohydrate diet. I'm sure you've heard of the Warburg effect. Cancer cells get their energy, not like normal cells, from the mitochondrial oxidation of fat, but from glycolysis, the breakdown of glucose withing the cytoplasm (the liquid part of the cell). This different metabolism of cancer cells that sets them apart from normal cells is called the Warburg effect.

Thomas Seyfried has shown that ketogenic diets in animals and humans can stop malignant brain tumors. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't work with other types of human cancers.

Dietary protein and fat consumption likely decreased the closer a population was to the equator due to seasonal availability of fruits and vegetables. Since dietary protein correlates with IGF-1 stimulation, individuals at higher latitudes that consumed more animal protein and less total carbohydrate would have less utilization of their glucose metabolism (such as is winter) and likely a reduction in cancer risk.

Edited by Skotkonung, 21 July 2009 - 07:49 PM.


#73 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 21 July 2009 - 09:50 PM

I'm not sure how relevant the cancer risk will be on a low carbohydrate diet. I'm sure you've heard of the Warburg effect. Cancer cells get their energy, not like normal cells, from the mitochondrial oxidation of fat, but from glycolysis, the breakdown of glucose withing the cytoplasm (the liquid part of the cell). This different metabolism of cancer cells that sets them apart from normal cells is called the Warburg effect.

Thomas Seyfried has shown that ketogenic diets in animals and humans can stop malignant brain tumors. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't work with other types of human cancers.

Dietary protein and fat consumption likely decreased the closer a population was to the equator due to seasonal availability of fruits and vegetables. Since dietary protein correlates with IGF-1 stimulation, individuals at higher latitudes that consumed more animal protein and less total carbohydrate would have less utilization of their glucose metabolism (such as is winter) and likely a reduction in cancer risk.

Well, if you talking about ketoacidosis you are changing the rules completely. Almost no one are in ketoacidosis today and will get no protection. Even in ketoacidosis some organs requires glucose which the body must make. So there will be some glucose which the brain and a cancer dependent on glucose will compete for. Maybe cancer is the looser in that game. Maybe not. But long-term ketoacidosis for adults is a huge gamble. Many think that even a very mild change toward acidosis from eating less fruits will cause osteoporosis. What will happen to your bones if you are in full scale ketoacidosis long-term (beyond childhood)? Similarly, it will probably cause massive changes in various chemical reactions all over the body. Who knows what the long-term effects of decades in ketoacidosis would be?

Edited by Blue, 21 July 2009 - 10:38 PM.


#74 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 21 July 2009 - 10:24 PM

Again, consider weight of evidence. Osteoprosis is virtually non existent from paleolithic era human specimens, despite having been rampant during the neolithic and today. We know that the introduction of agriculture brought with it a decrease in dietary protein due to an increase in population size / demand. IGF-1 production, which is stimulated by protein, improves bone density.


First of all, did the paleolithic humans have a median age of 50? I don't think so. When you quote these types of things put them in their proper perspective.

#75 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 21 July 2009 - 10:27 PM

Dietary protein and fat consumption likely decreased the closer a population was to the equator due to seasonal availability of fruits and vegetables. Since dietary protein correlates with IGF-1 stimulation, individuals at higher latitudes that consumed more animal protein and less total carbohydrate would have less utilization of their glucose metabolism (such as is winter) and likely a reduction in cancer risk.


Please quote a study of some kind. Right now, lattitutdes should have little consequence on food availability and seasons would not be the determining factor in food consumption.

#76 Skötkonung

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:08 PM

Well, if you talking about ketoacidosis you are changing the rules completely. Almost no one are in ketoacidosis today and will get no protection. Even in ketoacidosis some organs requires glucose which the body must make. So there will be some glucose which the brain and a cancer dependent on glucose will compete for. Maybe cancer is the looser in that game. Maybe not. But long-term ketoacidosis for adults is a huge gamble. Many think that even a very mild change toward acidosis from eating less fruits will cause osteoporosis. What will happen to your bones if you are in full scale ketoacidosis long-term (beyond childhood)? Similarly, it will probably cause massive changes in various chemical reactions all over the body. Who knows what the long-term effects of decades in ketoacidosis would be?


I think you are referring to ketosis, which is different from ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis is an extreme and uncontrolled form of ketosis.

According to Wikipedia:

Ketosis (pronounced /kiːˈtoʊsɪs/) is a state characterised by elevated levels of ketone bodies in the blood, occurring when the liver converts fat into fatty acids and ketone bodies (which can be used by all of the body for energy as an alternative to glucose). These ketone bodies are a by-product of the lipid metabolic pathway after the fat is converted to energy.[1][2][3][4][5] Ketoacidosis, by contrast, is the accumulation of excessive keto acids in the blood stream (specifically acetoacetate and beta-hydroxy butyrate).

http://en.wikipedia....ilar_conditions


In reference to Ketosis, many modern cultures live in a ketogenic state and acheive normal life expectancy such as the Eskimo (96%), Nunamiut (99%), and Masai. One could argue, that even cultures consuming upwards of 70% of their daily caloric energy (Gwi) from protein and fat might live within Ketosis for some if not most of the year due to season restrictions of vegetables and produce. Even this temporary induction into Ketosis is surely to provide some anti-cancer benefits.

Glycolysis and Ketogensis are competing systems, which means that as one decreases, the other will take its place as the dominant method of providing energy for the body. When Ketogensis completely surplants Glycolysis as the dominant system, the body is in Ketosis. The point I was making earlier is that if one increases dietary protein and simultaniously reduces carbohydrate, perhaps there will be a protective benefit against any risk from IGF-1 stimulation. In hunter gatherer cultures, high animal protein consumption occurs because lack of available plant carbohydrate. It is not the availability of ketones which protect against cancer, it is the lack of glucose. The less carbohydrate one consumes, the less reliant they will be on a glucose metabolism.

#77 Skötkonung

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:12 PM

Please quote a study of some kind. Right now, lattitutdes should have little consequence on food availability and seasons would not be the determining factor in food consumption.


Latitudes have plenty of significance in food availability during the paleolithic era - and even today in hunter-gatherer cultures. Do you think people living in the rain forested equatorial region have more or less access to fruits and vegetation than someone living in northern Europe? The further away from the equator one goes, the more pronounced the seasons become. This affects the annual availability of vegetables and fruits. I didn't cite a source for that information because it was available in the attached PDF on the Protein Debate that I assumed you read....But I guess I was mistaken. I'm referring to Table 1 in the opening document.

Edited by Skotkonung, 21 July 2009 - 11:26 PM.


#78 Skötkonung

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:17 PM

First of all, did the paleolithic humans have a median age of 50? I don't think so. When you quote these types of things put them in their proper perspective.

Interestingly, most specimens found from the paleolithic era actually demonstrate people did regularly live into their 50s. The frequency of older specimens is so common that anthropologists have been able to conclude that life expectancy took a plunge during the neolithic.

http://en.wikipedia....ation_over_time

#79 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:41 PM

I think you are referring to ketosis, which is different from ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis is an extreme and uncontrolled form of ketosis.

According to Wikipedia:


In reference to Ketosis, many modern cultures live in a ketogenic state and acheive normal life expectancy such as the Eskimo (96%), Nunamiut (99%), and Masai. One could argue, that even cultures consuming upwards of 70% of their daily caloric energy (Gwi) from protein and fat might live within Ketosis for some if not most of the year due to season restrictions of vegetables and produce. Even this temporary induction into Ketosis is surely to provide some anti-cancer benefits.

Glycolysis and Ketogensis are competing systems, which means that as one decreases, the other will take its place as the dominant method of providing energy for the body. When Ketogensis completely surplants Glycolysis as the dominant system, the body is in Ketosis. The point I was making earlier is that if one increases dietary protein and simultaniously reduces carbohydrate, perhaps there will be a protective benefit against any risk from IGF-1 stimulation. In hunter gatherer cultures, high animal protein consumption occurs because lack of available plant carbohydrate. It is not the availability of ketones which protect against cancer, it is the lack of glucose. The less carbohydrate one consumes, the less reliant they will be on a glucose metabolism.

Ketosis still causes an acidosis so the objections regarding osteoporosis still applies. For this and many other objections against a ketogenic diet see:
http://site.matthews...ingKDReview.pdf

Regarding IGF-1 a ketogenic diet causes growth and IGF-1 depression:
http://www3.intersci...387725/abstract

#80 Skötkonung

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

Posted 21 July 2009 - 11:46 PM

Ketosis still causes an acidosis so the objections regarding osteoporosis still applies. For this and many other objections against a ketogenic diet see:
http://site.matthews...ingKDReview.pdf

Regarding IGF-1 a ketogenic diet causes growth and IGF-1 depression:
http://www3.intersci...387725/abstract

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But its not the ketones that provide the anti-cancer benefits (although the IGF-1 depression is interesting!), it is the lack of glucose. Reducing carbohydrate to say 100g daily reduces glucose without being completely in ketosis. Thus you get some of the benefits of a ketogenic diet on high protein intake in that if cancer does arise, it will likely be deprived of the fuel required to make it malignant.

When looking for studies, did you happen to see if ketosis had any effect on sex hormones? That could have some interesting implications for bone loss. Testosterone seems to be un-affected.

Edit:
I found this study on low carbohydrate diets:

[Ketogenic diets: additional benefits to the weight loss and unfounded secondary effects]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19368291

"Such diets also have antineoplastic benefits, do not alter renal or liver functions, do not produce metabolic acidosis by Ketosis, have many neurological benefits in central nervous system, do not produce osteoporosis and could increase the perfomance in aerobic sports."

But when studied in children, a strict Ketogenic diet seems to have negative results:
Progressive bone mineral content loss in children with intractable epilepsy treated with the ketogenic diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19064531

"Bone health in children with IE was poor, particularly for younger nonambulatory children with low BMI status. The KD resulted in progressive loss of BMC. The mechanism is unclear. Further studies are needed."

And from Dr Eades:


Osteoporosis

PCRM is on a little more solid footing when it claims that the Atkins Diet can cause bone loss, but PCRM misses the point entirely when considering the modified low-carbohydrate diet we and others recommend and that most people now follow. Studies going back almost a century describe the bone loss that can occur in people following a predominately meat diet. A diet high in meat alone creates a mild metabolic acidosis in the human body. This metabolic acidosis or excess acid created by the metabolism of meat has to be buffered or neutralized, which the body does by leaching calcium from the body's storehouse of calcium, the bones. On a day-to-day basis the amount of calcium lost from the bones in this way is insignificant, but over a decades-long period of time can result in osteoporosis. Meat, however, is not the only food that produces such a response. Along with meat, the other two main offenders are grains and cheeses, especially hard cheeses. That's correct: eating grains causes a metabolic acidosis just as meat does. When you consider the cheeseburger, a staple of the American diet, it's easy to see why osteoporosis abounds. So, the PCRM correctly points out that the Atkins Diet, which in its original version recommended primarily meat and cheese, could cause osteoporosis if followed for the long term. But what about the modified low-carbohydrate diet? Does it do the same? Most plant foods, other than grains, bring about the opposite metabolic situation; whereas meat consumption causes a metabolic acidosis, green leafy and colorful vegetables and low-glycemic fruits bring about a metabolic alkalosis. The reduction in acid-producing grain consumption along with the alkaline response of the very plant foods recommended on the modified version of the low-carbohydrate diet offsets and neutralizes the acidity from the meat so that there is no net metabolic acidosis and no long term bone loss.

http://www.proteinpo...al-to-the-pcrm/


Edited by Skotkonung, 22 July 2009 - 12:05 AM.


#81 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:49 AM

Interestingly, most specimens found from the paleolithic era actually demonstrate people did regularly live into their 50s. The frequency of older specimens is so common that anthropologists have been able to conclude that life expectancy took a plunge during the neolithic.

http://en.wikipedia....ation_over_time


Alright. I can see that you've studied the evolutionary theory quite extensively. That's fine. I like your points. I did read the the PDF provided. My problem with cordain's arguments is that they rely on evolution. If you say that evolution evolved these and those biochemical pathways to process meat and such more efficiently, he has a case. But the fact that we evolutionarily are predisposed to eat meat and hunt does not mean that it is the optimal source of food. Let me put it to you this way, humans can encounter a food that makes them live longer and be healthier that they have never been exposed to and that is what I believe Campbell was pointing out. Studies looking at populations seem to point towards a moderate-fruit high veggie intake & low protein being best. Now i'm not saying that Il ike his conclusions particularly but I didn't read anything from cordain that really touched Campbell's remarks efficiently and showing that evolution guided us towards meat for whatever reason (natural selection and such) does not proove that in an age where fruits and vegetables are readily available this food source is still optimal. I would like to see a well documented study showing populations that are basically meat eaters live longer and are healthier than a mostly fruits and veggie one.

Where is that data?

#82 biochemie

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 2

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:55 AM

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But its not the ketones that provide the anti-cancer benefits (although the IGF-1 depression is interesting!), it is the lack of glucose. Reducing carbohydrate to say 100g daily reduces glucose without being completely in ketosis. Thus you get some of the benefits of a ketogenic diet on high protein intake in that if cancer does arise, it will likely be deprived of the fuel required to make it malignant.

When looking for studies, did you happen to see if ketosis had any effect on sex hormones? That could have some interesting implications for bone loss. Testosterone seems to be un-affected.

Edit:
I found this study on low carbohydrate diets:

[Ketogenic diets: additional benefits to the weight loss and unfounded secondary effects]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19368291

"Such diets also have antineoplastic benefits, do not alter renal or liver functions, do not produce metabolic acidosis by Ketosis, have many neurological benefits in central nervous system, do not produce osteoporosis and could increase the perfomance in aerobic sports."

But when studied in children, a strict Ketogenic diet seems to have negative results:
Progressive bone mineral content loss in children with intractable epilepsy treated with the ketogenic diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19064531

"Bone health in children with IE was poor, particularly for younger nonambulatory children with low BMI status. The KD resulted in progressive loss of BMC. The mechanism is unclear. Further studies are needed."

And from Dr Eades:


These are interesting notes on ketogenic diets that I never really looked into. Surely though,eating processed meats, nitroso/nitrates compounds from meats, is not a net positive? Please specify what do you claim to be a health-oriented ketogenic diet? I saw Funk was observing a ketogenic diet so i'm assuming its under the same lines.

#83 Skötkonung

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

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:07 AM

Alright. I can see that you've studied the evolutionary theory quite extensively. That's fine. I like your points. I did read the the PDF provided. My problem with cordain's arguments is that they rely on evolution. If you say that evolution evolved these and those biochemical pathways to process meat and such more efficiently, he has a case. But the fact that we evolutionarily are predisposed to eat meat and hunt does not mean that it is the optimal source of food. Let me put it to you this way, humans can encounter a food that makes them live longer and be healthier that they have never been exposed to and that is what I believe Campbell was pointing out. Studies looking at populations seem to point towards a moderate-fruit high veggie intake & low protein being best. Now i'm not saying that Il ike his conclusions particularly but I didn't read anything from cordain that really touched Campbell's remarks efficiently and showing that evolution guided us towards meat for whatever reason (natural selection and such) does not proove that in an age where fruits and vegetables are readily available this food source is still optimal. I would like to see a well documented study showing populations that are basically meat eaters live longer and are healthier than a mostly fruits and veggie one.

Where is that data?

Unfortunately there is no definitive comparative data between a modified high animal protein diet and a low vegetable based diet for longevity. That's why we are having this discussion! There are many studies espousing the benefits of a high protein diet, however most are short term in nature. There are also many diets that indicate high intake of fruits and vegetables is advantageous. for disease prevention

The reason why I favor the argument for animal protein is two fold:

Reason number one is primarily anecdotal. During college, I was involved with sports rather extensively - my primary sport was competitive bodybuilding. During that time I experimented continuously with my diet. Being a poor college student at that time, one of my first experimentation was with protein restriction (protein supplements are expensive). Reducing protein was like flipping a switch - muscle growth halted, I was frequently fatigued and sore. Perhaps a low protein intake is adequate for inactive individuals, but strenuous activity such as heavily weighted exercise certainly appeared to require increased protein needs for rebuilding damaged tissue and promoting anabolism. This story is common amongst athletes. What concerns me is not the notion that humans can survive on a low protein diet and do well when not stressed with high activity levels, but when researchers such as Campbell indicate that human's athletically perform best on a low vegetable protein based diets. I feel Campbell is being misleading. Obviously he has not examined (or is choosing to discount) decades of research done by competitive athletes such as Olympians and their support organizations (most of whom consume at least a high protein diet by USDA standards). Perhaps there is a point to be made that high protein diets are not ideal for longevity, but for short term survival and performance they do seem to be superior.

My second reason for favoring animal protein has to do with our own apparent evolutionary heritage. Campbell indicates in his rebuttal to Cordain that a although natural conditions can favor a dietary change for improvement of gene proliferation, it does not imply a genetic adaptation will occur. However, on a long enough time line, such logic actually does insure that genetic adaptations will occur and this (in my opinion) certainly appears to have been the case for humans. Campbell regards the consumption of meat as if it were only recent inclusion in our species diet, almost as if we didn't select animal protein over plant based sources to the point where humanity drove extinct most of the world's megafauna (Pleistocene overkill hypothesis). This is simply not the case. Fossil evidence seems to indicate an every increasing dependence on animal product (from H Erectus to Cheddar and Boxgrove Man) over hundreds of thousands of years to a point where many genetic predispositions have occurred for meat consumption: small jaws and teeth for eating cooked foods animal tissue (compare to a chimpanazee), shortening of the intestinal track (shorter than a herbivore, longer than a carnivore), inability to synthesize adequate taurine unlike other herbivores, vitamin B12 deficiency on purely vegetable based diet, dependence on animal product specific compounds such as carnosine, carnitine, alpha-liopic-acid to regulate glycation. This is why vegans who do not supplement show high homocysteine, and inter cellular AGE cross links. This does not mean that a vegan diet cannot be made safe with proper supplementation and meal planning, but it does indicate that it is not the natural human condition and cannot be justified with anthropology. Researchers such as Campbell are quick to point the finger at animal fats but they neglect to notice that since the mass inclusion of vegetable oils in the American diet (canola oil, corn oil, etc) CVD has risen dramatically. They neglect to note that some saturated fatty acids found coupled with animal protein such as stearic acid have been shown to be cardio protective or that EPA / DHA are better utilized than their plant derived counterpart (ALA).

For me, this weight of evidence seems to indicate that a high animal protein based diet is a natural part of the human condition and should likely be preferential when defining optimal nutrition. If there is any risk from animal product, it comes from the nitrate laden, overly processed meats that most individuals consume today. These meats actually have a completely different nutriotnal profile from their wild counterpart and are unfortunately more often than not the subject of the pro-vegetarian arguement.

Edited by Skotkonung, 22 July 2009 - 08:20 AM.


#84 Skötkonung

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

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:16 AM

These are interesting notes on ketogenic diets that I never really looked into. Surely though,eating processed meats, nitroso/nitrates compounds from meats, is not a net positive? Please specify what do you claim to be a health-oriented ketogenic diet? I saw Funk was observing a ketogenic diet so i'm assuming its under the same lines.

Well a healthy modified low-carbohydrate diet would include little to no starchy carbohydrate (beans, potatoes) and very little sugary carbohydrate (carrots, beets, etc). Most carbohydrate would come from fibrous leafy green vegetables such as spinach or broccoli. Fruits would be very limited and berries would preferential.

Dairy would not be included on such a diet. Fats would be derived from nuts, meat or eggs - free range and in the case of beef or buffalo, grass fed and finished.

Such a diet could be low enough in carbohydrate to keep one from going completely into ketosis while maintaining glucose levels low enough that anti-cancer benefits are realized. This is essentially the basis for the paleolithic diet.

#85 Sillewater

  • Guest
  • 1,076 posts
  • 280
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:47 AM

Great stuff Skotkonung. I'm always looking forward to your thoughts, totally gels with my opinions.

#86 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 22 July 2009 - 12:58 PM

For me, this weight of evidence seems to indicate that a high animal protein based diet is a natural part of the human condition and should likely be preferential when defining optimal nutrition.

I will never get those paleo arguments. I can understand that people use their understanding of human "nature" and evolution as a starting point for a hypothesis. Period. Nothing else.

This talk about "naturalness" strikes me as particularly odd if not dangerously useless. I like it when paleo advocates use RCTs and real epidemiology to argue their point, though. Maybe it's just the wording of this statement that I find apalling, it's not like your argument as a whole is bad or unconvincing and relies only on this vague hypothesis, it's just this over-reliance on evolutionary data and "naturalness" that seems to be typical of paleo advocates (or maybe, it's just my personal dislike for the buzzword "natural").

Perhaps there is a point to be made that high protein diets are not ideal for longevity, but for short term survival and performance they do seem to be superior.

And this is one of those huge issues about "naturalness"... if this is in any way true (and we don't know, although, it makes sense), then the diet you are talking about (isocaloric, high protein, paleolithic) is diametrically opposed to all other diets discussed in this thread. Genuine longevity diets. Then again, we could also add in some steroids and growth hormones to boost short term performance, could we? If that's the case we must ask ourselves how much of our health do we want to sacrifice for short term benefits?

Edited by kismet, 22 July 2009 - 01:05 PM.


#87 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 22 July 2009 - 01:06 PM

I will never get those paleo arguments.


Many tend to show a poor understanding of evolution, escalating it to an almost intelligence-driven process.

#88 JackChristopher

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

Posted 22 July 2009 - 06:46 PM

But no one said they know a paleo/primal diet is best for longevity. I haven't ever seen anyone say that on this sub-forums. But it's various positives have been debated. I accept that the diet could be optimizing us for the wrong things — good short-term biomarkers, not longevity.

#89 Skötkonung

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

Posted 22 July 2009 - 07:24 PM

I will never get those paleo arguments. I can understand that people use their understanding of human "nature" and evolution as a starting point for a hypothesis. Period. Nothing else.

This talk about "naturalness" strikes me as particularly odd if not dangerously useless. I like it when paleo advocates use RCTs and real epidemiology to argue their point, though. Maybe it's just the wording of this statement that I find apalling, it's not like your argument as a whole is bad or unconvincing and relies only on this vague hypothesis, it's just this over-reliance on evolutionary data and "naturalness" that seems to be typical of paleo advocates (or maybe, it's just my personal dislike for the buzzword "natural").

The problem I see with the field of nutrition is that it lacks an underlying concept from which to base experimentation. Researchers are so focused on the individual dietary components that they lose sight of the bigger evolutionary picture. I think that a successful nutritional regimen focused on longevity or wellness will ultimately be frame by human evolution. At the moment, I don't see this happening. Without the context of evolution, it makes it hard for researchers to draw accurate conclusions from observational studies such as the China study.

I would also like to note that by using the term "natural," I'm not talking about some spiritual enlightenment or purity, I am referring to a classification based on features existing in nature.

Similar to what Jack Christopher has said, no one is claiming the paleolithic diet or a high protein diet is best for lifespan. At best I concede that it will increase health span. As far as I'm aware, the only real way to positively augment lifespan through diet is by caloric restriction. Though, we all ultimately end up dead - the real hope will be through programs like SENS. That is why I am more interested in healthspan over lifespan.

#90 Skötkonung

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

Posted 22 July 2009 - 07:56 PM

I found another interesting study regarding animal protein and longevity:

In 1992 scientists at the Department of Community Health, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Japan, published a paper which examined the relationship of nutritional status to further life expectancy and health status in the Japanese elderly. It was based on three epidemiological studies.
- In the first, nutrient intakes in ninety-four Japanese centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher proportion of animal protein to total proteins than in contemporary average Japanese.

-The second demonstrated that high intakes of milk and fats and oils had favorable effects on ten-year survivorship in 422 urban residents aged sixty-nine to seventy-one. The survivors revealed a longitudinal increase in intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, fish and meat over the ten years.

- In the third study, nutrient intakes were compared between a sample from Okinawa Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and sixty-five were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. It found that the proportion of energy from animal proteins and fats were significantly higher in the former than in the latter.


Nutrition for the Japanese elderly
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1407826




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users