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

Photo
* * * * - 10 votes

Duke's 2009 Health Summary


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#1 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 31 December 2009 - 03:47 AM


Just a quick summary of the primary points I've covered in various health forums this year:

o Statins do not work, and should be avoided because they give false hope, and have numerous side effects. Fish oil, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, and resveratrol are MUCH better for preventing cardiovascular events. (Diet helps, too!)

o LDL cholesterol is a near meaningless figure. LDL is composed on numerous types of small- and large-particle types. In particular, VLDL and Lp(a) are the two that should be measured by doctors, as these two ARE correlated with heart disease. BTW, statins do NOT affect these two types of LDL, which is perhaps why they are useless. (Statins DO lower the good type of LDL.)

o Saturated fat in NOT "artery clogging fat", as so often painted by nutritionists/doctors. In fact, it's among the healthiest fats, whether from animals or plant sources.

o HDL cholesterol, when low, is almost always a sign of low overall fat intake, and especially low saturated fat consumption. HDL below 70 should be corrected -- above 80 should be the goal.

o Vegetable oils are in fact the pro-heart-disease, inflammatory fats, like corn oil, peanut oil, soy oil, canola oil, sunflower oil -- all of these oils are used in packaged and frozen foods because they're cheap, and have been heat-processed to have a long shelf life. (Olive oil, avocado oil, palm oil, coconut oil, and macadamia nut oil are the exceptions, because they are all extremely low in polyunsaturated fatty acids.)

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.

o Fructose is the least healthy of ALL sugar types, and promotes numerous metabolic diseases. The ONLY source of fructose that should be in anyone's diet is via whole fruits and berries, and only in moderation. Even fruit juices are horribly unhealthy -- basically, sugar bombs.

o Humans remain healthier by not eating/snacking all the time. Fasting occasionally, for 18-24 hours, is hugely beneficial to human health. (Fasting is easy to do on a paleo diet.)

o Vitamin D3 has emerged as one of the most critical of all supplements *everyone* should take, at no less than 8000 IU daily. Blood tests should include getting serum D measured, until you determine what daily dosage get you in the 70 ng/ml ballpark, which maximizes the anti-cancer and anti-coronary-calcium benefits. Approx 90% plus of all Americans are deficient, assuming 50 ng/ml is the goal, and that's too low a goal.

o Practically ALL cancers, brain disorders, and cardiovascular illnesses are self-caused, through an inflammatory diet, and/or a nutritionally lacking diet, and/or consumption of toxins (including food additives and smoking). Usually, all three to some degree.

o Although MOST cardiologist disagree (due to unforgivable ignorance), heart disease CAN be reversed in most cases, and dramatically so. But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints. Many cardiologists ARE reversing heart disease.

#2 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:19 AM

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.

pretty strict statement there. not even something like steel cut oats?

does the fact that the human brain runs on carbs mean that having a carb source may assist cognition?

Edited by RighteousReason, 31 December 2009 - 05:21 AM.


#3 Steve_86

  • Guest
  • 266 posts
  • 34
  • Location:Australia - Perth

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:27 AM

You're one of the few members I trust. Keep up the good posts.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137

Posted 31 December 2009 - 12:41 PM

pretty strict statement there. not even something like steel cut oats?

does the fact that the human brain runs on carbs mean that having a carb source may assist cognition?



My only grains are buckwheat. No gluten, and seems to have sugar regulating properties. I love 'em.

I'd be cautious on fructose too, but hey, it's Dukes thread, so..

#5 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:17 PM

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.

pretty strict statement there. not even something like steel cut oats?

does the fact that the human brain runs on carbs mean that having a carb source may assist cognition?

Carb (or plant food) consumption is not necessary for long-term health. Yes, our brain requires around 50% of its energy production from glucose, but our body quite easily makes this required glucose from certain amino acids, thru a process called gluconeogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia....Gluconeogenesis

The puzzle pieces are not all in place yet, but the forming picture strongly suggests that our brain prefers to run on a glucose and fatty acid mixture, rather than primarily glucose as a fuel source, which results in extra metabolic waste and free radical damage.

#6 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137

Posted 31 December 2009 - 05:32 PM

But another "puzzle" seems to show that protein consumption (esp. animal sources) may not be that good, so..

#7 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 31 December 2009 - 08:30 PM

Although I agree with a number of things Duke says, what evidence is there that resveratrol decreases heart disease in people?

Or that 8000IU of D3 is the minimum everyone should take? Some people get decent serum levels from 1-2K of D3, so I don't know how you can say 8K is recommended for all. Or that even that 70 ng/ml is necessarily optimal -- it may be, but the evidence right now seems to point to 40-50, and maybe higher levels being of benefit. Do you have any D3 studies showing 70+ is preferred over a serum of 50 ng/ml?

I do agree with people relying way too much on LDL alone. I find it really frustrating trying to convince friends and family that their regular cholesterol test is pretty useless and their 'normal' LDL, without figuring out the particle sizes, doesn't provide much info. And as soon as I mention Lp(a) I just get a blank stare, and advice to test it gets ignored.

Edited by nameless, 31 December 2009 - 08:31 PM.


#8 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 31 December 2009 - 08:38 PM

Although I agree with a number of things Duke says, what evidence is there that resveratrol decreases heart disease in people?

Or that 8000IU of D3 is the minimum everyone should take? Some people get decent serum levels from 1-2K of D3, so I don't know how you can say 8K is recommended for all. Or that even that 70 ng/ml is necessarily optimal -- it may be, but the evidence right now seems to point to 40-50, and maybe higher levels being of benefit. Do you have any D3 studies showing 70+ is preferred over a serum of 50 ng/ml?

Where did I mention resveratrol?

My recommendation of 8000IU daily is based on nature's dosage of 10,000IU daily. The evidence pointing to 40-50 used to point to half that. It just depends on how cutting-edge you want to be with the evidence. I know a LOT of people, myself including, who maintain a 70-80 range. Many doctors who are intimately involved with D studies and research recommend the range I've stated. Graphs of people with high dosages versus various cancers, for example, show a straight line progression of improved odds, with no reason not to extrapolate to slightly higher levels. In other words, the graphs do not reveal a tapered off benefit at the higher doses.

Given that 10,000IU a day is NOT dangerous, 8000IU a day may be conservative, in fact.

#9 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 31 December 2009 - 08:54 PM

Where did I mention resveratrol?


Fish oil, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, and resveratrol are MUCH better for preventing cardiovascular events.


Thanks for the list Duke! I always appreciate your supplement advice.

#10 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 31 December 2009 - 09:01 PM

I don't expect 8K to be dangerous for most people, but some folks seem to get into the 40-50 range with low doses of D3. I'd feel better about higher serum levels if there were a couple of studies showing a benefit. I recall that old Indian study (serum was 80+, or somewhere in that range) where high serum levels were correlated with increased rates of heart disease, but I expect that study had some flaws.

And yeah, you mentioned resveratrol in your first paragraph.

#11 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 31 December 2009 - 09:34 PM

I don't expect 8K to be dangerous for most people, but some folks seem to get into the 40-50 range with low doses of D3. I'd feel better about higher serum levels if there were a couple of studies showing a benefit. I recall that old Indian study (serum was 80+, or somewhere in that range) where high serum levels were correlated with increased rates of heart disease, but I expect that study had some flaws.

And yeah, you mentioned resveratrol in your first paragraph.

I see it now. There's been quite a bit reported on resveratrol's positive effects on arterial health. I think, in part, because it reduces inflammation. Do a search on ScienceDaily.com to see many stories on this. Here's a few:

http://www.scienceda...80604074908.htm

http://www.scienceda...90730103742.htm

http://www.scienceda...90611174052.htm

http://www.scienceda...80703120402.htm

#12 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 31 December 2009 - 09:44 PM

I have often theorized that our society's addiction to carbs stems from our brain preferring the quick hit of glucose (even though too many carbs are horrible for the rest of the body). It is like any other drug addiction. Couple that with the fact that it is dirt cheap and it is hard to resist.

#13 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 31 December 2009 - 10:25 PM

I see it now. There's been quite a bit reported on resveratrol's positive effects on arterial health. I think, in part, because it reduces inflammation. Do a search on ScienceDaily.com to see many stories on this.

Thanks for the links. But unfortunately the majority of data deals with mice, not people, at least as far as studies go. I also wonder if red wine or grapeseed could have the same inflammation benefits. Or even pycnogenol (perhaps even more for pycnogenol, as it does have c-reactive studies to back it up). I'd also think pomegranate may be a better choice for arterial health at this point, as again, it has some human studies (however limited and manufacturer-supported they may be).

#14 Brain_Ischemia

  • Guest
  • 139 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA
  • NO

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:06 PM

But another "puzzle" seems to show that protein consumption (esp. animal sources) may not be that good, so..


It isn't. Paleo diet has demonstrated good potential efficacy at staving off diseases that we often associate with "old age", but that's not the same as "preventing aging". Indeed, the links between protein intake, IGF1, and the acceleration of aging are accepted scientific fact. If you want to extend your own lifespan, high protein intake isn't the way to do it. Heck, actual scientific evidence against high protein intake (rather than diet hype, conjecture, and anecdotes) continues to accumulate almost daily; http://www.scienceda...91202131622.htm

#15 Skötkonung

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

Posted 31 December 2009 - 11:31 PM

But another "puzzle" seems to show that protein consumption (esp. animal sources) may not be that good, so..


It isn't. Paleo diet has demonstrated good potential efficacy at staving off diseases that we often associate with "old age", but that's not the same as "preventing aging". Indeed, the links between protein intake, IGF1, and the acceleration of aging are accepted scientific fact. If you want to extend your own lifespan, high protein intake isn't the way to do it. Heck, actual scientific evidence against high protein intake (rather than diet hype, conjecture, and anecdotes) continues to accumulate almost daily; http://www.scienceda...91202131622.htm

Exactly, there is a difference between simply squaring the mortality curve as opposed to actually lengthening it. If we concede that the Paleo is evolutionarily accurate, then we must also concede that it is the best diet for short-term survival and reproduction as that was the primary prerogative for Paleolithic peoples. If their diet raised androgen hormones, GH, and IGF-1, it would have helped them thrive at the expense of longevity -- longevity that would rarely be realized due to the harsh environment in which they lived.

I have repeatedly asked Duke to test his androgen hormone (free and total T) and IGF1 levels,but he has yet to prove that these bio-markers for shortened life expectancy aren't increased on his high fat diet.

I will note that I personally tested myself over a period of several months and saw my T go from 640ng /dl to 1005ng /dl. My IGF went from 240ng /ml to 322ng / ml. Hormone levels reached the upper limits of their respective reference range in the last two months on a ketogenic diet with carbohydrate lowered below 50g daily.

I was prompted to run these tests after I found these study results, which essentially illustrated that a ketogenic diet resulted in elevated glucose and IGF1 in the unrestricted mouse model. These results confounded me as I had always assumed that carbohydrate restriction decreased blood glucose and associated hormones. Later, I found the study regarding methylglyoxal on Atkins, which again implicated increased glycation when undergoing prolonged carbohydrate restriction. Jimmy Moore recently did a podcast with Dr. Thomas Seyfried on the subject of calorie restricted ketogenic diets vs brain cancer and epilepsy. Dr Seyfried is of the opinion that the supposed benefits of ketogenic diets really derive from transient drops in glucose, not necessarily from the ketones themselves. For this reason, extended ad-lib ketogenic eating is just as bad as high-carb eating because gluconeogenesis will result in high glucose levels. He says: "As I have clearly written in my articles, 'more is not better' when it comes to eating the ketogenic diet for either epilepsy or brain cancer." He also says a range of 65-75 mg/dl glucose is required to see the benefits, at least in the case of epilepsy.

I have since reduced protein intake and increased carbohydrate (complex carbohydrate from berries, nuts / seeds, some legumes, / tubers, and lots of green vegetables). As someone who has been a bodybuilder for many years, I was concerned that lowering protein and raising carbohydrate would make me lose muscle and gain fat. This has not happened, I have stayed lean and while my strength has not increased (nor have I actively attempted to increase it), I have easily maintained my current musculature.

Many of us need to consider why we are on these forums: are we trying to lengthen life, just prevent diseases, or increase physical performance?

#16 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 January 2010 - 02:14 AM

Although I agree with a number of things Duke says, what evidence is there that resveratrol decreases heart disease in people?

Or that 8000IU of D3 is the minimum everyone should take? Some people get decent serum levels from 1-2K of D3, so I don't know how you can say 8K is recommended for all. Or that even that 70 ng/ml is necessarily optimal -- it may be, but the evidence right now seems to point to 40-50, and maybe higher levels being of benefit. Do you have any D3 studies showing 70+ is preferred over a serum of 50 ng/ml?

Where did I mention resveratrol?

My recommendation of 8000IU daily is based on nature's dosage of 10,000IU daily. The evidence pointing to 40-50 used to point to half that. It just depends on how cutting-edge you want to be with the evidence. I know a LOT of people, myself including, who maintain a 70-80 range. Many doctors who are intimately involved with D studies and research recommend the range I've stated. Graphs of people with high dosages versus various cancers, for example, show a straight line progression of improved odds, with no reason not to extrapolate to slightly higher levels. In other words, the graphs do not reveal a tapered off benefit at the higher doses.

Given that 10,000IU a day is NOT dangerous, 8000IU a day may be conservative, in fact.



saying everyone should be taking 8000iu is a somewhat dangerous blanket statement. 8000iu is way too much for the average person imo... assuming a std increase of 10ng/mL per 1000iu & an average serum 25OHD of 20-30, that puts most people into the dangerous range. a safer way to titrate up is to start with 2000iu and test every 3 months increasing accordingly.

80ng/mL is also pushing it a bit being that toxicity occurs >100ng/mL... the sweet spot seems to be 55-60 ng/mL, above that the evidence gets sketchy. imo, keeping levels at 80 with supplements is too high... even slight sun exposure will skyrocket those numbers. going into the ~90 range seems to increase risk of ischemic heart disease so i think its probably not worth the risk keeping it that high.

Edited by ajnast4r, 01 January 2010 - 02:20 AM.


#17 wydell

  • Guest
  • 503 posts
  • -1

Posted 01 January 2010 - 02:56 AM

It's nice to see that you have changed your position from the protein thread last year. Remember my point in the protein thread that you could maintain a decent amount maintain muscle mass without loads of protein. My guess is that the body could still handle high protein below age 30. At some point, it probably makes sense to phase down protein as the body become less efficient in handling methionine. Perhaps homocysteine measurements are a good gauge of a body's ability to handle methionine?



But another "puzzle" seems to show that protein consumption (esp. animal sources) may not be that good, so..


It isn't. Paleo diet has demonstrated good potential efficacy at staving off diseases that we often associate with "old age", but that's not the same as "preventing aging". Indeed, the links between protein intake, IGF1, and the acceleration of aging are accepted scientific fact. If you want to extend your own lifespan, high protein intake isn't the way to do it. Heck, actual scientific evidence against high protein intake (rather than diet hype, conjecture, and anecdotes) continues to accumulate almost daily; http://www.scienceda...91202131622.htm

Exactly, there is a difference between simply squaring the mortality curve as opposed to actually lengthening it. If we concede that the Paleo is evolutionarily accurate, then we must also concede that it is the best diet for short-term survival and reproduction as that was the primary prerogative for Paleolithic peoples. If their diet raised androgen hormones, GH, and IGF-1, it would have helped them thrive at the expense of longevity -- longevity that would rarely be realized due to the harsh environment in which they lived.

I have repeatedly asked Duke to test his androgen hormone (free and total T) and IGF1 levels,but he has yet to prove that these bio-markers for shortened life expectancy aren't increased on his high fat diet.

I will note that I personally tested myself over a period of several months and saw my T go from 640ng /dl to 1005ng /dl. My IGF went from 240ng /ml to 322ng / ml. Hormone levels reached the upper limits of their respective reference range in the last two months on a ketogenic diet with carbohydrate lowered below 50g daily.

I was prompted to run these tests after I found these study results, which essentially illustrated that a ketogenic diet resulted in elevated glucose and IGF1 in the unrestricted mouse model. These results confounded me as I had always assumed that carbohydrate restriction decreased blood glucose and associated hormones. Later, I found the study regarding methylglyoxal on Atkins, which again implicated increased glycation when undergoing prolonged carbohydrate restriction. Jimmy Moore recently did a podcast with Dr. Thomas Seyfried on the subject of calorie restricted ketogenic diets vs brain cancer and epilepsy. Dr Seyfried is of the opinion that the supposed benefits of ketogenic diets really derive from transient drops in glucose, not necessarily from the ketones themselves. For this reason, extended ad-lib ketogenic eating is just as bad as high-carb eating because gluconeogenesis will result in high glucose levels. He says: "As I have clearly written in my articles, 'more is not better' when it comes to eating the ketogenic diet for either epilepsy or brain cancer." He also says a range of 65-75 mg/dl glucose is required to see the benefits, at least in the case of epilepsy.

I have since reduced protein intake and increased carbohydrate (complex carbohydrate from berries, nuts / seeds, some legumes, / tubers, and lots of green vegetables). As someone who has been a bodybuilder for many years, I was concerned that lowering protein and raising carbohydrate would make me lose muscle and gain fat. This has not happened, I have stayed lean and while my strength has not increased (nor have I actively attempted to increase it), I have easily maintained my current musculature.

Many of us need to consider why we are on these forums: are we trying to lengthen life, just prevent diseases, or increase physical performance?



#18 Sillewater

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

Posted 01 January 2010 - 03:45 AM

I don't think Duke recommends high protein intakes. I'm on the "Paleo" diet and I maintain a protein intake of 1g/kg to 1.5g/kg of bodyweight per day. It comes out to 15 to 20% of my calories. I don't see this as high.

#19 RighteousReason

  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 01 January 2010 - 04:19 AM

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.

pretty strict statement there. not even something like steel cut oats?

does the fact that the human brain runs on carbs mean that having a carb source may assist cognition?

Carb (or plant food) consumption is not necessary for long-term health. Yes, our brain requires around 50% of its energy production from glucose, but our body quite easily makes this required glucose from certain amino acids, thru a process called gluconeogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia....Gluconeogenesis

The puzzle pieces are not all in place yet, but the forming picture strongly suggests that our brain prefers to run on a glucose and fatty acid mixture, rather than primarily glucose as a fuel source, which results in extra metabolic waste and free radical damage.


Do you have the numbers on the amount of carbs our bodies produce vs. brain requirements? What about empirical studies of ketogenic vs. carb diets on brain function?

#20 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 01 January 2010 - 04:02 PM

I am glad people are mentioning the overall goals wrt diet choices. If you are going all out for longevity then CR and various other strict restrictions come into play. If meticulously monitoring every calorie, macro, and micro nutrient, as well as monitoring every waking/sleeping moment of your life is "your thing" then endlessly debating whether 20% or 30% of calories from protein is better is probably fun.

I have always tried to balance diet and lifestyle/health monitoring with time, enjoyment, and future possibilities. I eat a low-carbish, paleo-ish diet, but I don't let it interfere with my enjoyment of life. I still go out and have a beer and pizza once in a while. I suppose if I was pushing 60 instead of 40 I might focus more on health, but at my age, I am gambling (a little) that progress in biotech and medicine will continue and that new therapies will help "cure" or fix most of the damage I do by eating a few sweets once in a while. Thus I use a lot of my time to promote and raise funds for new research, more than trying to craft the absolutely perfect longevity diet.

#21 VidX

  • Guest
  • 865 posts
  • 137

Posted 01 January 2010 - 04:29 PM

Yeah... it really depends on the particular goals, and even then - it's difficult to argue all these percents as it seems there are so many variables, that if you change one, all other may "skew" the end result too (more fats - more androgens, more androgens - worse longevity.. though more androgens - more muscles, more muscles - better glucose metabolism, less fractures, better bones, etc...)..
I personally like to be obsessed with small details.. that's probably called perfectionism, so it's no prob to monitor all that, a bigger problem is to come to a "right" conclusion on different approaches for a different goals.

#22 JackChristopher

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

Posted 01 January 2010 - 07:48 PM

Exactly, there is a difference between simply squaring the mortality curve as opposed to actually lengthening it. If we concede that the Paleo is evolutionarily accurate, then we must also concede that it is the best diet for short-term survival and reproduction as that was the primary prerogative for Paleolithic peoples. If their diet raised androgen hormones, GH, and IGF-1, it would have helped them thrive at the expense of longevity -- longevity that would rarely be realized due to the harsh environment in which they lived.

I will note that I personally tested myself over a period of several months and saw my T go from 640ng /dl to 1005ng /dl. My IGF went from 240ng /ml to 322ng / ml. Hormone levels reached the upper limits of their respective reference range in the last two months on a ketogenic diet with carbohydrate lowered below 50g daily.


Skotkonung, were you doing IF also? What was your regimen that time period?

#23 Skötkonung

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

Posted 02 January 2010 - 03:55 AM

I don't think Duke recommends high protein intakes. I'm on the "Paleo" diet and I maintain a protein intake of 1g/kg to 1.5g/kg of bodyweight per day. It comes out to 15 to 20% of my calories. I don't see this as high.

It may not just be total protein intake, but as has been some-what demonstrated in both human and mice, it could be the way the protein intake is utilized due to restriction / surplus of other nutrients.

Skotkonung, were you doing IF also? What was your regimen that time period?

I was not doing IF.

I tested myself four times over five months. I tested myself after several months of a standard diet (40% fat, 40% carb, 20% pro), one month of a paleo diet (60% fat, 15% carb, 25% pro), one month of a casein-restricted ketogenic diet (70% fat, 5% carb, 25% pro), and a ketogenic diet including casein (70% fat, 5% carb, 25% pro). All diets were approx maintenance or above in terms of caloric intake.

#24 JackChristopher

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

Posted 02 January 2010 - 05:08 AM

I don't think Duke recommends high protein intakes. I'm on the "Paleo" diet and I maintain a protein intake of 1g/kg to 1.5g/kg of bodyweight per day. It comes out to 15 to 20% of my calories. I don't see this as high.

It may not just be total protein intake, but as has been some-what demonstrated in both human and mice, it could be the way the protein intake is utilized due to restriction / surplus of other nutrients.

Skotkonung, were you doing IF also? What was your regimen that time period?

I was not doing IF.

I tested myself four times over five months. I tested myself after several months of a standard diet (40% fat, 40% carb, 20% pro), one month of a paleo diet (60% fat, 15% carb, 25% pro), one month of a casein-restricted ketogenic diet (70% fat, 5% carb, 25% pro), and a ketogenic diet including casein (70% fat, 5% carb, 25% pro). All diets were approx maintenance or above in terms of caloric intake.


Could IF effect your androgen hormones, GH, IGF-1 and methylglyoxal results?

#25 Skötkonung

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

Posted 02 January 2010 - 07:30 AM

I don't think Duke recommends high protein intakes. I'm on the "Paleo" diet and I maintain a protein intake of 1g/kg to 1.5g/kg of bodyweight per day. It comes out to 15 to 20% of my calories. I don't see this as high.

It may not just be total protein intake, but as has been some-what demonstrated in both human and mice, it could be the way the protein intake is utilized due to restriction / surplus of other nutrients.

Skotkonung, were you doing IF also? What was your regimen that time period?

I was not doing IF.

I tested myself four times over five months. I tested myself after several months of a standard diet (40% fat, 40% carb, 20% pro), one month of a paleo diet (60% fat, 15% carb, 25% pro), one month of a casein-restricted ketogenic diet (70% fat, 5% carb, 25% pro), and a ketogenic diet including casein (70% fat, 5% carb, 25% pro). All diets were approx maintenance or above in terms of caloric intake.


Could IF effect your androgen hormones, GH, IGF-1 and methylglyoxal results?

Perhaps if you did it very regularly, however, if it was once a fortnight or once a week even, I doubt it would provide significant benefit. If you listen to the Dr. Thomas Seyfried interview I posted earlier, he mentions IF should be done for 7 consecutive days at least once a year to get the anti-cancer benefits. He seems very skeptical about low-carbohydrate diets in general and the use of infrequent short term IF.

Of note, in some of the discussion I had with the user named Blue, we found several studies showing that ketosis was not measurable after the first two weeks on a very low carbohydrate, calories restricted (ketogenic) diet. The extrapolation being that the body initially relies on ketones for fuel, but later goes to the preferred source of energy (glucose) via gluconeogenesis. In studies on the use of a ketogenic diet in epileptic children, protein and carbohydrate are kept low (15% combined - John Hopkins Protocol), to reduce glucose load from gluconeogenesis and to force the body to rely on ketones. When the body has sufficient protein (perhaps 10-15% or greater of daily caloric intake), it seems more than willing to use gluconeogenesisas a dominant method of energy generation instead of fat. Because of the increased glucose load and some failure of rate limiting mechanisms (insulin), methylglyoxal begin to rise after several weeks of carbohydrate restriction. The methylglyoxal pathway is intrinsically involved with gluconeogenesis but also has the nasty effect of producing copious amounts of glycotoxins - worse than poorly controlled diabetes according to the study of Atkins diet followers I showed earlier. Dr Eades and other proselytizers of low-carbohydrate diets have chosen to discount the methylglyoxal rise, owing to its potent anti-cancer benefits. They also like discuss the reduced mt ROS in studies on the ketogenic diet. However, they forget to mention, that the protocols being used in said studies showing reduced ROS are both severely caloric restricted and also have very low protein (using the KD JH protocol), which of course makes them useless outside of a clinical setting. Furthermore, just because methylglyoxal has the ability to stop cancer growth, doesn't mean it is safe for us to be on constantly. I wouldn't take chemotherapy drugs if I didn't have cancer, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

As someone who once was very much in support of the low-carbohydrate diet, I am now thinking that it shouldn't be used outside of a clinical setting (JH protocol) or to induce short-term weight loss. It's not the SFAs I am concerned about, it is the methylglyoxal, IGF-1, blood glucose, etc.

Edited by Skotkonung, 02 January 2010 - 07:35 AM.


#26 Sillewater

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

Posted 02 January 2010 - 07:44 AM

Hi Skot,

Could you point me towards some studies showing the connection of the methylglyoxal pathway and low-carb diets. And what do you mean by the "failure of rate limiting mechanisms". If you get glucose via gluconeogenesis then your body can't regulate glucose levels?

Also what are your macronutrient ratios like now?

Edited by Sillewater, 02 January 2010 - 07:46 AM.


#27 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 02 January 2010 - 08:33 PM

Just a quick summary of the primary points I've covered in various health forums this year:

o Statins do not work, and should be avoided because they give false hope, and have numerous side effects. Fish oil, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, and resveratrol are MUCH better for preventing cardiovascular events. (Diet helps, too!)

o LDL cholesterol is a near meaningless figure. LDL is composed on numerous types of small- and large-particle types. In particular, VLDL and Lp(a) are the two that should be measured by doctors, as these two ARE correlated with heart disease. BTW, statins do NOT affect these two types of LDL, which is perhaps why they are useless. (Statins DO lower the good type of LDL.)

o Saturated fat in NOT "artery clogging fat", as so often painted by nutritionists/doctors. In fact, it's among the healthiest fats, whether from animals or plant sources.

o HDL cholesterol, when low, is almost always a sign of low overall fat intake, and especially low saturated fat consumption. HDL below 70 should be corrected -- above 80 should be the goal.

o Vegetable oils are in fact the pro-heart-disease, inflammatory fats, like corn oil, peanut oil, soy oil, canola oil, sunflower oil -- all of these oils are used in packaged and frozen foods because they're cheap, and have been heat-processed to have a long shelf life. (Olive oil, avocado oil, palm oil, coconut oil, and macadamia nut oil are the exceptions, because they are all extremely low in polyunsaturated fatty acids.)

o Grains are an unnecessary, cheap-as-dirt, filler modern food for modern societies. They have the least healthy of all proteins (gluten), they have other harmful proteins like lectins and phytic acid, plus they have inflammatory oils. Eating grains promotes heart disease and cancer, whether the grains are processed or whole. Grains also raise insulin levels, and over time promote diabetes. In effect, grains = sugar. For kids, grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions.
---Do you have any comments on the book "The China Study," which pretty much says the opposite of what you are saying, and does have a fair amount of emperical evidence to back it up? And grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions? What? Proof please.

o Fructose is the least healthy of ALL sugar types, and promotes numerous metabolic diseases. The ONLY source of fructose that should be in anyone's diet is via whole fruits and berries, and only in moderation. Even fruit juices are horribly unhealthy -- basically, sugar bombs.

o Humans remain healthier by not eating/snacking all the time. Fasting occasionally, for 18-24 hours, is hugely beneficial to human health. (Fasting is easy to do on a paleo diet.)

o Vitamin D3 has emerged as one of the most critical of all supplements *everyone* should take, at no less than 8000 IU daily. Blood tests should include getting serum D measured, until you determine what daily dosage get you in the 70 ng/ml ballpark, which maximizes the anti-cancer and anti-coronary-calcium benefits. Approx 90% plus of all Americans are deficient, assuming 50 ng/ml is the goal, and that's too low a goal.
---I think it's pretty unsafe to go and recommend that people take this high of a dose without long-term studies behind it. Evidence of benefits is not evidence of a lack of harm. Take Niacin for instance. I remember that you recommended 100mg of Nicotinic Acid per day in your last top-ten supplement post. Do you have any changes of opinion since the latest study linking this kinda of dose to diabetes? I think we should be more conservative with these kinds of things. We just don't know the outcome of megadosing.

o Practically ALL cancers, brain disorders, and cardiovascular illnesses are self-caused, through an inflammatory diet, and/or a nutritionally lacking diet, and/or consumption of toxins (including food additives and smoking). Usually, all three to some degree.
---This is an extremely broad statement, and I'd like to see your basis for this. I am sure you have heard of the deCODE genetics project going on in Iceland. For one specific type of breast cancer, they were able to trace a genetic mutation to one single person (a monk, I think) in the 1600s whose gene is now responsible for a significant number of breast cancer cases. Is it the fault of the people carrying this gene for getting cancer? Here:

http://www.biomedcen.../pdf/bcr785.pdf


o Although MOST cardiologist disagree (due to unforgivable ignorance), heart disease CAN be reversed in most cases, and dramatically so. But it takes diet and supplements, not drugs and stints. Many cardiologists ARE reversing heart disease.



#28 DukeNukem

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 03 January 2010 - 12:20 AM

---Do you have any comments on the book "The China Study," which pretty much says the opposite of what you are saying, and does have a fair amount of emperical evidence to back it up? And grains lead to numerous hyper-active conditions? What? Proof please.

I have no comment on this book, other than to say I think it's full of flaws, and so do a long list of other people.

---I think it's pretty unsafe to go and recommend that people take this high of a dose without long-term studies behind it. Evidence of benefits is not evidence of a lack of harm. Take Niacin for instance. I remember that you recommended 100mg of Nicotinic Acid per day in your last top-ten supplement post. Do you have any changes of opinion since the latest study linking this kinda of dose to diabetes? I think we should be more conservative with these kinds of things. We just don't know the outcome of megadosing.

100mg of nicotinic acid is still safe for the vast majority of people, and likely a net-positive even for diabetics. The key is that on a low-carb diet, the insulin reducing effect is much less of an issue. And, if the person is on a high-carb diet, they have bigger issues to worry about.

My recommendation of 8000IU of D3 is not high for adults or most teens. It is only seen as high because we're still so used to lower doses, and we still believe that 40-50 ng/ml is the target. Higher levels strengthen the benefits. I take 10,000 a day, and I'm out in the sun a lot (Texas sun, no less).

---This is an extremely broad statement, and I'd like to see your basis for this. I am sure you have heard of the deCODE genetics project going on in Iceland. For one specific type of breast cancer, they were able to trace a genetic mutation to one single person (a monk, I think) in the 1600s whose gene is now responsible for a significant number of breast cancer cases. Is it the fault of the people carrying this gene for getting cancer?

Here's what you need to understand: Yes, genetics plays a role, but in MOST cases, poor diet, nutritional short-comings, and external toxins (smoking, food additives, pollution, etc.) trigger much faster expression of these genetic tendencies. Meanwhile, a healthy diet overwhelms these minor genetic errors such that they never manifest into a life threatening condition. Basically, if we survive our first year, then we are genetically okay to the extent that with excellent nutritional support and toxic avoidance, we can overcome the vast majority of genetic misfires.

By far MOST cancer and heart disease cases are premature and self-inflected. Had these people eaten well, for example, most would have NOT experienced their condition until much later in life, if ever.

#29 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 03 January 2010 - 12:43 AM

My recommendation of 8000IU of D3 is not high for adults or most teens.


yes it is...see my post on the previous page

#30 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 03 January 2010 - 05:13 PM

---This is an extremely broad statement, and I'd like to see your basis for this. I am sure you have heard of the deCODE genetics project going on in Iceland. For one specific type of breast cancer, they were able to trace a genetic mutation to one single person (a monk, I think) in the 1600s whose gene is now responsible for a significant number of breast cancer cases. Is it the fault of the people carrying this gene for getting cancer?

Here's what you need to understand: Yes, genetics plays a role, but in MOST cases, poor diet, nutritional short-comings, and external toxins (smoking, food additives, pollution, etc.) trigger much faster expression of these genetic tendencies. Meanwhile, a healthy diet overwhelms these minor genetic errors such that they never manifest into a life threatening condition. Basically, if we survive our first year, then we are genetically okay to the extent that with excellent nutritional support and toxic avoidance, we can overcome the vast majority of genetic misfires.

By far MOST cancer and heart disease cases are premature and self-inflected. Had these people eaten well, for example, most would have NOT experienced their condition until much later in life, if ever.


Survive our first year and we are genetically OK? I am sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that is utter bull. All sorts of genes can lie dormant for years. I remember the story of this one guy, I think it was on 20/20, where he got his stomach removed because there was a gene in his family that confered a 70% chance of stomach cancer. He was in his 30s or 40s. There wasn't much he could do or take other than remove his stomach to remove this risk. And for the rest of the claims in this quote, you REALLY need to start providing sources.

Edited by OneScrewLoose, 03 January 2010 - 05:16 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users