75 replies to this topic

[Skötkonung]

Comparing lifespan is useless without also factoring in culture and location. I'm guessing the temperate climate of Okinawa is much easier on the body than the long winters of the arctic.

Okinawa is at the same latitude as florida. Why aren't many florida residents living to 110? For that matter, what about Hawaii? The bahamas? No matter what contrived answers you give you cannot escape the fact the the Okinawan diet beats the Paleo diet in observable longevity stats. The Paleo diet is good for today (and maybe only today) but the Okinawan diet seems to be best for tomorrow.

I think it was Duke who proclaimed that there is no such thing as genetic variability where diet is concerned. That one diet is the best for all. I approached my previous comment sarcastically, from that angle. Because I always thought it was a silly assumption.

And there we have the other part of my quote which you so nonchalantly glossed over - location AND culture both must be factored into lifespan comparisons. See this article. Besides, why do people retire to places such as Florida, Hawaii, Arizona, or San Marino? Because the climate is temperate and that is usually conducive to long life, especially when you are in a hunter-gatherer culture. Maybe you haven't lived in a cold climate region, but where I live every year many seniors die due to dramatic seasonal changes.

And Okinawa may be the lead in life expectancy, but Iceland and Sweden near the top. I can guarantee the Icelandic and Swedish people don't consume a low fat or low protein diet. Likewise, the life expectancy of Sweden is 79 and Iceland is 80, while for Okinawa the life expectancy is only 81. A discrepancy of only 2 years at most is hardly significant. You are acting as if every member of Okinawa lives to 100 or even 90, and that simply isn't true. If it were, perhaps then you might have a valid argument.

"Iceland was ranked first in the United Nations' Human Development Index report for 2007/2008. Icelanders are the second longest-living nation with a life expectancy at birth of 81.8 years. The Gini coefficient ranks Iceland as one of the most egalitarian countries in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland

Interesting addition to this discussion (from a review of the Okinawa and Japanese Koseki):

"In 1963, when the Japan Ministry of Health and Welfare began tabulating the centenarian population, there were only 153 centenarians in the whole of Japan. By 2006 this number had grown to 28,395 and women made up 85% of the total. Likewise, in Okinawa the first centenarians did not appear until the mid-1960s yet their numbers have mushroomed to 740 and this figure will double within the next five years."

It appears that the traditional Okinawa diet doesn't assure longevity. Why don't you take a guess at what cultural and technological shift happened in the 1950s and 60s throughout Japan? Perhaps their longevity has more to do with a combination of their culture AND diet. Interesting, huh?

That said, the age argument you are using to try and discredit the Inuit is kind of a moot point because according to data collected by a Russian mission to the arctic during the years 1822 to 1836, about 25% of the Inuit lived past 60 (if we exclude infant mortality).

See the data for yourself.

" Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years. "

25% of the population still lived beyond age 60 in the absence of modern medical care and technology. More than enough to see the long term effects of a high fat diet. My point still stands.

Edited by Skotkonung, 05 August 2009 - 06:13 PM.

[Blue]

The current average health of the Okinawans is no longer that interesting since the younger people since WWII have abandoned their traditional diet and are now the fattest group in Japan.
http://www.sfgate.co...amp;type=health

Similarly, the Swedes are quickly getting fatter. Maybe they had a more healthy nutrition similar to the Okinawans earlier. Interesting thought, maybe the life expectancy in Sweden and Japan will decline or have a relative decline and approach the US rate as the average nutrition and BMI approaches that in the US.

More striking and better reflecting the value of the traditional diet (and modern healthcare) than the average lifespan among the Okinawans is the average number of centenarians. Which is 3-4x that in the US.

Regarding the inuits, that "25% of the population still lived beyond age 60 in the absence of modern medical care and technology" is not very interesting. Obviously around 50% of the Inuits lived longer than their short average lifespan. What is more interesting is age-adjusted frequency of disease. Do we have any data for traditional diet Inuits regarding this?

[Sillewater]

Great post Skot.

I've heard this argument before and wonder if it held its own. When people go on calorie-restricted diets (overweight people) and they lose weight they are burning a lot of saturated fat (their own fat). Is weight loss healthy because the end-result (being less fat) is healthier? I just don't see how our bodies would be made of something that poisons us.

[JackChristopher]

Likewise, the life expectancy of Sweden is 79 for males, while for Okinawa the life expectancy is only 81. A discrepancy of only 2 years is hardly significant. You are acting as if every member of Okinawa lives to 100 or even 90, and that simply isn't true. If it were, perhaps then you might have a valid argument.

Mind's reiterated this point. We'll keep having the high-fat vs. high-carb debate but the difference in lifespan probably won't be much; one diet will better than the other but just slightly.

Evolution didn't want us dead after offspring nor did it want us to live to 1000. I suspect a subset of metabolism optimizes us for the wrong thing on the high-fat med-protein (paleo) diet. I think it must be maladaptive in some way, or that at least it becomes maladaptive over time. But I'm sure the same is true of high-carb (Okinawan/traditional) diet.

The question we should be asking is which subsets of metabolism don't like high-fat? Which subsets don't like high carb? And which subsets don't like high protein? If you control for the right things, the answer will be evident.

Edited by JackChristopher, 05 August 2009 - 06:45 PM.

[Blue]

Sillewater, JackChristopher, see my reply to Skotkonung

More regarding the supposed healthy tradional inuits:
"Background: The notion that the incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD) is low among the Inuit subsisting on a traditional marine diet has attained axiomatic status. The scientific evidence for this is weak and rests on early clinical evidence and uncertain mortality statistics. Methods: We reviewed the literature and performed new analyses of the mortality statistics from Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. Findings: The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations. Based on the examination of 15 candidate gene polymorphisms, the Inuit genetic architecture does not obviously explain putative differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence. Interpretation: The mortality from all cardiovascular diseases combined is not lower among the Inuit than in white comparison populations. If the mortality from IHD is low, it seems not to be associated with a low prevalence of general atherosclerosis. A decreasing trend in mortality from IHD in Inuit populations undergoing rapid westernization supports the need for a critical rethinking of cardiovascular epidemiology among the Inuit and the role of a marine diet in this population."
http://linkinghub.el...021915002003647

[Skötkonung]

Perhaps, if the Inuit should be discarded for lack of credible evidence, then the Masai should be used as an alternative example of a high fat diet and lack of CVD. They have been much more recently studied - there are several posts here that contain studies on them.

As for high fat / high protein diet and longevity, consider the Icelandic people who currently rank 2nd to the Okinawans in number of centenarians.

"Animal products dominate Icelandic cuisine and pursuing a vegan lifestyle in Iceland is impossible without relying on imported foods."http://en.wikipedia....elandic_cuisine

According to this study, longevity is more a genetic trait than purely lifestyle related:

Siblings of Okinawan Centenarians Share Lifelong Mortality Advantages
http://biomed.geront...t/full/61/4/345

"A large study of the Icelandic population revealed that first-degree relatives of probands living to the 95th percentile had close to double the chance of achieving this age (45). A third study, which had methodology similar to ours, found that U.S. centenarian siblings had approximately double (women) to quadruple (men) the chance of living to age 90 years (21)."

Inheritance of human longevity in Iceland.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....3?dopt=Abstract

[Skötkonung]

The question we should be asking is which subsets of metabolism don't like high-fat? Which subsets don't like high carb? And which subsets don't like high protein? If you control for the right things, the answer will be evident.

I'm starting to think that a safe and stable environment, frequent activity level, and total caloric intake at or below basal metabolic rate are the defining characteristics for achieving longevity. These seem to be the commonality amongst all long living populations aside from genetic advantages.

As for achieving peak physical performance, that is another discussion that is perhaps not relevant to life extension (unless you are an athlete).

[stephen_b]

The type of fat in the diet is important. Polyunsaturated, high omega-6 vegtable oils (soybean, canola, corn but not olive) are inflammatory.

[JackChristopher]

The type of fat in the diet is important. Polyunsaturated, high omega-6 vegtable oils (soybean, canola, corn but not olive) are inflammatory.

Yeah, comparing low quality high carb diet (composed of wheat) to a low quality high fat diet (composed of soybean oil) gets us no where. Not to mention that if those diets are against the backdrop of inflammatory foods, the results is confounded. I want to see the specific version of the paleo diet versus a specific traditional high carb (say, rice) diet compared.

On the Intuit: I agree that the data on CVD is foggy; and it's been interpreted in every which way. But Inuit CVD could be a case against n-3 overload, not just sat fats.

For the record, I don't consider sat fats to be in the clear. I also no longer believe that you can eat as much of it as you want with no downside. It's obvious that having excessive amounts floating in the blood, not being used, raises the probability of CVD; and for a simple reason: it's easy to eat too much n-6, n-3 or other inflammatory food. And that's going to damage the sat fat and cholesterol causing CVD.

[TheFountain]

The type of fat in the diet is important. Polyunsaturated, high omega-6 vegtable oils (soybean, canola, corn but not olive) are inflammatory.

Yeah, comparing low quality high carb diet (composed of wheat) to a low quality high fat diet (composed of soybean oil) gets us no where. Not to mention that if those diets are against the backdrop of inflammatory foods, the results is confounded. I want to see the specific version of the paleo diet versus a specific traditional high carb (say, rice) diet compared.

On the Intuit: I agree that the data on CVD is foggy; and it's been interpreted in every which way. But Inuit CVD could be a case against n-3 overload, not just sat fats.

For the record, I don't consider sat fats to be in the clear. I also no longer believe that you can eat as much of it as you want with no downside. It's obvious that having excessive amounts floating in the blood, not being used, raises the probability of CVD; and for a simple reason: it's easy to eat too much n-6, n-3 or other inflammatory food. And that's going to damage the sat fat and cholesterol causing CVD.

Which is precisely why a high fat paleo style diet is not the best thing for modern humans. There is absolutely no way we can simulate the level of activity that Paleo humans partook of, as this activity level was responsible for why they could cope with such high fat intake. Modern society leaves us somewhat crippled where our environment is concerned.

Even if you exercise hard 5 days a week or every single day you are not compensating for the amount of unused lipids in your body from all the unavoidable n-6 that even in foods like nuts. Another reason I condone moderate fat consumption, but not the the degree some ego maniacs do it, pretending they are swinging from trees in a jungle all day. We are not fresh Paleolithic humans, we need to get over that fact and stop thinking we can get away with what they did.

Edited by TheFountain, 06 August 2009 - 03:10 AM.

[JackChristopher]

Which is precisely why a high fat paleo style diet is not the best thing for modern humans. There is absolutely no way we can simulate the level of activity that Paleo humans partook of, as this activity level was responsible for why they could cope with such high fat intake. Modern society leaves us somewhat crippled where our environment is concerned.

Very high carb diet has the same problem. Just trade sat fats and cholesterol damage for glycation damage from glucose abudance. But one advantage of high fat is raised NEAT. You've said yourself that you couldn't gain weight on high fat paleo.

But on either diet, it's going be challenging have a robust lifestyle. We we're never high-fatters, no-movers nor were we high carbers, no movers.

[TheFountain]

Which is precisely why a high fat paleo style diet is not the best thing for modern humans. There is absolutely no way we can simulate the level of activity that Paleo humans partook of, as this activity level was responsible for why they could cope with such high fat intake. Modern society leaves us somewhat crippled where our environment is concerned.

Very high carb diet has the same problem. Just trade sat fats and cholesterol damage for glycation damage from glucose abudance. But one advantage of high fat is raised NEAT. You've said yourself that you couldn't gain weight on high fat paleo.

But on either diet, it's going be challenging have a robust lifestyle. We we're never high-fatters, no-movers nor were we high carbers, no movers.

This is why I propose moderate fats and moderate carbs (no more than 150 to 200 a day). It might be somewhat crude but this would allow us to 'feel out' the correct ratio of fats and carbs to fuel our energy needs. I imagine this is what Paleo humans did but their instincts were different than ours because they were surviving in a completely different environment.

It could be that as our environment changed so did our instincts and that is when higher carb intake was introduced. But what unfortunately happened is it became inflated and the type of carbs overly refined thus leading to this unnecessary war between carb and low carb crowds.

Edited by TheFountain, 06 August 2009 - 04:06 PM.

[JackChristopher]

The question we should be asking is which subsets of metabolism don't like high-fat? Which subsets don't like high carb? And which subsets don't like high protein? If you control for the right things, the answer will be evident.

A rephase. The general question we should be asking is: What are the conditions in which the body (metabolism) doesn't like high fat, high carb or high protein?

But I'm sure everyone here can think of ways to botch any high x diet. You just:
a) Ignore the foods that make up the diet.
b) Eat the processed/burnt forms.
c) Ignore how it effects hormones and inflammation. Leptin and insulin sensitivity don't effect the efficacy of diet.

If you've done this right, it's no surprise your high x diet is killing you in all the right ways.

[Mind]

Ok, if I were god (or a god), I would institute a rule that no one can mention the traditional Okinawan diet without the disclaimer that they were practicing CALORIC RESTRICTION! (plus plenty of exercise and meditation)

Americans would live a lot longer as well on a high carb diet if they only ate until 80% full (maybe 1500 to 1800 calories per day). Promoting high carb diets to people who have no discipline and an unlimited supply of dirt cheap nutrition-less food is like signing their execution orders. I see the destruction wrought by the high carb American diet every day. It is very sad. Make sure when you are promoting a higher carb diet to mention that the Okinawans were practicing CALORIC RESTRICTION!. I can totally get down with the idea of a calorie-restricted, high quality, low GI vegetable-based diet. No doubt it will help people live a bit longer, maybe longer than other diets styles, but over-eating on carbs is not a good thing.

[TheFountain]

Ok, if I were god (or a god), I would institute a rule that no one can mention the traditional Okinawan diet without the disclaimer that they were practicing CALORIC RESTRICTION! (plus plenty of exercise and meditation)

Americans would live a lot longer as well on a high carb diet if they only ate until 80% full (maybe 1500 to 1800 calories per day). Promoting high carb diets to people who have no discipline and an unlimited supply of dirt cheap nutrition-less food is like signing their execution orders. I see the destruction wrought by the high carb American diet every day. It is very sad. Make sure when you are promoting a higher carb diet to mention that the Okinawans were practicing CALORIC RESTRICTION!. I can totally get down with the idea of a calorie-restricted, high quality, low GI vegetable-based diet. No doubt it will help people live a bit longer, maybe longer than other diets styles, but over-eating on carbs is not a good thing.

I would say the other mandatory disclaimer would be that they are practicing a really good macro-nutrient ratio too, otherwise they would be hungry and require eating far beyond the 80% point (as most nutrient deprived fast food diets show). It is not calories that make us less hungry, it is nutrient variation.

Edited by TheFountain, 07 August 2009 - 10:18 PM.

[niner]

If this is the diet, it's likely the lard is hydrogenated. Combined with soybean oil that confounds things a bit. Not to mention the maltodextrin and sucrose, sure to trigger overeat. The rats had unlimited access too.

Industrial lard is often hydrogenated, so that's a possibility. The Research Diets people are very science-based though, and make a point of having chemically defined diets. This would be quite an error for them to commit, so I think the odds that they are using lard laced with trans fats is not high. However, after looking around their site, I couldn't find anything that said it wasn't hydrogenated, so it's an open question at this point. I have emailed them to ask if it is hydrogenated, and if they know the fatty acid composition. I'll post any response I get.

I got a reply from the Research Diets people. They say:

The lard we purchase from the manufacturer is not hydrogenated.

I asked if they had a fatty acid analysis, and they sent me this: (Sorry about the sucky formatting... it was better in the pdf they sent)

Typical Fatty Acid Composition of Lard
used by Research Diets, Inc.
Fatty acid g/100g
C14, Myristic 0.9
C14:1, Myristoleic 0.5
C16, Palmitic 22.9
C16:1, Palmitoleic 3.8
C18, Stearic 13.3
C18:1, Oleic 41.1
C18:2, Linoleic 8.6
C18:3, Linolenic 1.0
C20:4, Arachidonic 1.7
Total 93.8
Saturated (g) 37.1
Monounsaturated (g) 45.4
Polyunsaturated (g) 11.3
Saturated (%) 39.6
Monounsaturated (%) 48.4
Polyunsaturated (%) 12.0
Cholesterol, mg/g 0.95
Research Diets, Inc. FA Profile in Lard.xls

[Blue]

Perhaps, if the Inuit should be discarded for lack of credible evidence, then the Masai should be used as an alternative example of a high fat diet and lack of CVD. They have been much more recently studied - there are several posts here that contain studies on them.

As for high fat / high protein diet and longevity, consider the Icelandic people who currently rank 2nd to the Okinawans in number of centenarians.

"Animal products dominate Icelandic cuisine and pursuing a vegan lifestyle in Iceland is impossible without relying on imported foods."http://en.wikipedia....elandic_cuisine

According to this study, longevity is more a genetic trait than purely lifestyle related:

Siblings of Okinawan Centenarians Share Lifelong Mortality Advantages
http://biomed.geront...t/full/61/4/345

"A large study of the Icelandic population revealed that first-degree relatives of probands living to the 95th percentile had close to double the chance of achieving this age (45). A third study, which had methodology similar to ours, found that U.S. centenarian siblings had approximately double (women) to quadruple (men) the chance of living to age 90 years (21)."

Inheritance of human longevity in Iceland.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....3?dopt=Abstract

Agree that longevity is to a large part genetic but as you yourself said centenarians were rare on Okinawa before modern medical health care.

Do you have any source regarding good sources regarding Icelandic centenarians and Masai health? I have seen several not so trustworthy web sources stating that the Masai life expectancy is only in the 40s.

Edited by Blue, 08 August 2009 - 12:14 PM.

[kodi]

DukeNukem sent me the following great article about how the types and quantities of fat in the diet (perhaps especially a high-fat diet) can make a big difference in the results: Palmitic Acid and Insulin Resistance: a New Paradigm

Personally I'm probably going to stick to a high-carb diet because:
(1) The Okinawan diet is nearly certain to be non-harmful to longevity and long-term health. We don't yet have enough human data to say the same for high-fat diets.
(2) When on a high-carb diet, I need fewer calories to maintain weight: I used to eat about 2100 calories per day on a high-olive-oil diet; but on the new diet, I need only around 1700 (I weigh 142 lbs). This makes it more likely that I'm achieving my goal of mild calorie restriction.

By the way, the following study gives a great breakdown of the micronutrients and macronutrients that Okinawans in the year 1949 were typically eating: http://www.hsph.jp/J.....thy Aging.pdf

Fat comprised only about 6% of their diet, which seems extreme. (I have only lowered mine to 19%.)

[JLL]

(2) When on a high-carb diet, I need fewer calories to maintain weight: I used to eat about 2100 calories per day on a high-olive-oil diet; but on the new diet, I need only around 1700 (I weigh 142 lbs). This makes it more likely that I'm achieving my goal of mild calorie restriction.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

[dubcomesaveme]

Relatively high-fat diets where the body using glucose as its primary energy source  cause insulin resistance.


Extremely high-fat diets after the body has converted to using the ketones it is producing as its primary energy source decrease insulin resistance.

http://www.diabetesh...ls-medications/

"Two diets - one severely restricting carbohydrate intake but with no limit on calories, and the other emphasizing low-glycemic carbohydrates and low calories - allowed high percentages of obese type 2 patients in a university study to reduce or even eliminate their diabetes medications (95.2 percent of the patients on the extreme low-carb diet and 62.1 percent of the patients on the low-glycemic diet)." duke university medical center

BAM. Keto allows 95.2 to STOP taking diabetes medicine.

[JLL]

Extremely high-fat diets after the body has converted to using the ketones it is producing as its primary energy source decrease insulin resistance.

Are you sure? If the idea of insulin resistance in low-carb diets is to let the brain have all the glucose (instead of the muscles consuming it), why would it not continue to be so once you hit ketosis? What would be the advantage of being insulin sensitive in ketosis?

[kodi]

Extremely high-fat diets after the body has converted to using the ketones it is producing as its primary energy source decrease insulin resistance. http://www.diabetesh...ls-medications/
...
Keto allows 95.2 to STOP taking diabetes medicine.

The article you linked does not mention any decrease in insulin resistance. Instead, it implies that because the intake of carb was so extremely low, the participants simply didn't need any insulin.

Splitting hairs? Pehaps so for diabetics who plan to stay on extremely-low-carb diets the rest of their lives; but for others it's an important distinction.

For healthy adults who are trying to determine the macronutrient ratio that maximizes longevity and minimizes risk of disease, there is little or no human data in favor of a ketogenic diet [extremely low carb]. In fact, long-term ketogenic diets might worsen insulin resistance the same as non-ketogenic high-fat diets; we just don't have enough data yet (at least none that I've been able to find).

[HaloTeK]

The more that I study nutrition, the more I feel people need to just stick with what we know to be beneficial:

1: Eat less: As long as you can sustain some muscle mass, you benefit from being thin. Most poeople get sick in the first place from being overweight, and this is before we consider any other aspect of ones' diet.

2: Watch polyunsaturated fat intake: It's one of the major things you have to watch if you eat lots of fat, easier if you eat higher carb. Polyunsaturated fat is the main source of AGEs in the body (way worse than AGEs in food). I would vote for polyunsaturates in causing more glycation than fructose. You have to minimize intake!

3: Watch sugar/fructose intake: We see the dangers of excess fructose all around us. No reason to keep our liver filled 24/7. When your liver is primed and empty, fructose in small quanties will not be detrimental.

4: Watch excess protein intake: When protein intake gets high, you body starts raising blood glucose, not to mention the insulin proteniating effects of protein. Why burdon your kidneys unnecessarily, you only have them for a lifetime.

5: Trying to live on ketones 24/7 will not be good for longevity: We can survive on ketones, people have to understand that ketosis is a stress response from our body from not having any sugar, in fact, our body will convert protein to sugar if it needs to. Most reputable low carb sites usually set the mimimum around 50 carbs a day. Anything lower than that you "might" be stressing out your body. I'd rather eat some carbs than have my body convert protein to sugar.

6: Try not to eat foods that suppress the thyroid: polyunstaturates and certain foods do this, you can search on the internet for these particular foods, such as soy or brassica familiy veggies in large amounts.

7: Watch iron intake: Give blood if your iron is high. High iron is oxidation central.

8: Relax and sleep well.

9: Walk lots and do some high intensity exercise infrequently.

10: Make sure you have vitamin and mineral sufficiency.

After you do these things -- tweaking the rest of your diet for carbs (glucose) or with monounsaturated fats or saturated fats won't matter too much, you will have already done most important steps.

[TheFountain]

6: Try not to eat foods that suppress the thyroid: polyunstaturates and certain foods do this, you can search on the internet for these particular foods, such as soy or brassica familiy veggies in large amounts.

What do you mean by 'suppress the thyroid'?

[HaloTeK]

do a quick search on google for the effects of being hypothyroid.

If you have lots of omega 6 fats stored in your tissue from years of eating abuse, and if they are liberated from exercise or from fat metabolism on a lower carb diet, you risk hypothyroid effects. One the the prominent low carb bloggers I semi- follow, Richard Nickoley, has noted how he has suffered from high TSH-- I believe this is from his body liberating omega 6 in his tissues. You don't liberate as much fatty tissue if you have adequate carbs-- hense carbs actually support the thyroid.

It's also imporant to support the thyroid with iodine and "adequate" protein. Also, being in ketosis seems to stimulate TSH-- which I don't think is good.

I'm always going to be careful of foods that might slow down my metabolism.

6: Try not to eat foods that suppress the thyroid: polyunstaturates and certain foods do this, you can search on the internet for these particular foods, such as soy or brassica familiy veggies in large amounts.

What do you mean by 'suppress the thyroid'?

[TheFountain]

I know well what Hyperthyroidism and Hypothyroidism are. I just think your statement was vague and non-specific (you were obviously referring to thyroid hormone specifically and its lack of function). Would you notice it in your body if these fat stores were being 'liberated'? I mean would you start looking fat?

Edited by TheFountain, 06 October 2009 - 08:51 PM.

[rwac]

Would you notice it in your body if these fat stores were being 'liberated'? I mean would you start looking fat?

You'd start burning fat and losing weight.

[kodi]

The more that I study nutrition, the more I feel people need to just stick with what we know to be beneficial:

Your list generally seems good. A few comments below.

2: ...Polyunsaturated fat is the main source of AGEs in the body (way worse than AGEs in food). ...You have to minimize intake!

Although this could be true, I've not seen any studies supporting it. If it were true, foods like almonds and walnuts, both extremely rich in omega-6 and omega-3, would be quite bad for you over the long-term. Many studies show strong short-term benefits for most kinds of nuts, especially almonds and walnuts. Ironically I currently avoid them for other reasons: walnuts due to their anti-thyroid effects, and almonds due to their very high iron (I have an iron overload condition).

5: Trying to live on ketones 24/7 will not be good for longevity: We can survive on ketones, people have to understand that ketosis is a stress response...

I don't think there's enough data to be sure of that yet, at least not that I've been able to find.

I'd rather eat some carbs than have my body convert protein to sugar.

You probably know that fat is also converted to glucose, probably preferentially to muscle protein.

7: ...Give blood if your iron is high. High iron is oxidation central.

I think this is a big one. High serum iron or ferritin greatly increases the risk of arthritis, liver cancer, and many other diseases. It's even been suggested that iron is the primary reason that women generally live longer than men.

[HaloTeK]

I made the list to focus in on what we have good data on, too many people are focusing on absolute carb or fat intake and are being dogmatic about what they consume. Let me phrase this again-- PEOPLE ARE BEING DOGMANTIC ABOUT WHAT THEY CONSUME.

One of the studies that made me think polyunsaturates were really bad for AGEs was this one(as referenced on JLLs blog) http://inhumanexperi...-comparing.html . Even though we do not know the polyunsaturated fat intake (poor study design), the fact that lacto-ovos had higher glycation than the vegans (who had higher fructose intake) - leads me to believe that polyunsaturates are what caused the difference. If you believe I have infered wrong, you can take that opinion. It also leads me to believe that polyunsaturates are possibly a greater danger than fructose.

In terms of ketosis being mal-adaptive. How many societies (or hunter gather peoples) have you seen that really consume less than 20 carbs per day (besides eskimos and possibly the massai-- and sorry, it was there activity level that kept them healthy)? Even barry groves of WAP usually stays out of ketosis -- and he argues for a fat bonanza! High fat diets run the risk of increasing polyunsaturated fat into-- which you have to be careful about.

Kobe, how much fat is being converted to glucose-- can't be much-- this has been talked about about on the PANU paleo blog. Your body is mostly going to look to protein for glucose if you don't eat much. This is also mirrored in the experiences of Lex Rooker (raw paleo forum). Who has eaten nothing but raw fat and meat protein for years (and has extensively documented his biomarkers). I don't recommend his diet, but you can see how different protein intakes has affected his blood glucose <------ very interesting.

And Kobe-- many nuts can sustances that inhibit the thyroid without evening needing the polyunsaturates to do it. I don't feel they are a healthy food long term-- and i feel there intake has usually been a marker for less sugar intake, which is definitely beneficial.

Rwac, just because you liberate fat from your fat stores doesn't been they are being burned. "My" body uses glucose for fuel much better than fats for fuel. I have a feeling that some people can liberate their fat stores during exercise only to have the fat go back to being fat after exercise <---- this is only a conjecture though.

[rwac]

Rwac, just because you liberate fat from your fat stores doesn't been they are being burned. "My" body uses glucose for fuel much better than fats for fuel. I have a feeling that some people can liberate their fat stores during exercise only to have the fat go back to being fat after exercise <---- this is only a conjecture though.

Your body will burn what you feed it. If you go through Atkins induction, using fat for fuel will become easier.

Not sure how that works, but exercise isn't a good way to directly lose weight anyway, it helps mostly by increasing metabolism.

Edited by rwac, 06 October 2009 - 11:14 PM.