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

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Diet consensus on this forum? Vegan? Paleo?

paleo vegan diet

  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#31 ancap_2

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 4
  • Location:NYC
  • NO

Posted 06 October 2013 - 12:57 PM

Is there anything else in its favor?


Plus like mentioned before… even if the paleo-diet is healthier, it will never gain worldwide prominence because a meat-based diet is flat-out unsustainable for 7 plus billion people.


How is this relevant?

I'm asking for the healthiest diet for me, not the diet I should impose on the entire world once I'm king.

Additionally, as I've specified earlier, there's a significant difference between:

"Paleo isn't the healthiest diet"
and
"Paleo is the healthiest diet, but shouldn't be pursued because..."

I'd like to keep this distinction clear.


But thank you for your input on vegan re saturated fat... perhaps one of the paleo folks will respond?

Edited by ancap_2, 06 October 2013 - 12:57 PM.


#32 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 06 October 2013 - 06:14 PM

Until a paleo-diet is confirmed to reverse the leading major diseases of industrialized nations (cardiovascular-disease, cancer and diabetes), choosing it, in favor of a plant-based diet (which has been confirmed) is downright foolish.

I don’t see how a paleo-diet can even come close to comparison at this point.
  • dislike x 5
  • like x 2
  • Disagree x 1

sponsored ad

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

#33 nupi

  • Guest
  • 1,532 posts
  • 108
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 06 October 2013 - 06:38 PM

Ok, well before I get kicked outta here: try entering your specific food intakes into a nice ap like cronometer. Cronometer tracks RDA, and RDA science is solid.


Not really. Best example is probably the RDA for Vit D3

#34 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:23 AM

Until a paleo-diet is confirmed to reverse the leading major diseases of industrialized nations (cardiovascular-disease, cancer and diabetes), choosing it, in favor of a plant-based diet (which has been confirmed) is downright foolish.

I don’t see how a paleo-diet can even come close to comparison at this point.


A vegan diet reverses cancer? I suspect you mean "reduces the likelihood of", but the same thing could probably be said for an intelligent, plant-centric diet that admitted some healthy animal products. I'll not attempt to defend the hyper-meat boogieman diet that you refer to as paleo. I'll allow as to how it's at least possible that your minimal fat diet might reverse CVD or diabetes, although as I recall the cases from which these claims are drawn also involve other lifestyle modifications that go far beyond diet. However, there's no need for a diet that claims to reverse these conditions if you don't get them in the first place, and you wouldn't be likely to get them from the kind of diet I'm talking about.
  • like x 6
  • dislike x 1

#35 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 07 October 2013 - 05:00 AM

A vegan diet reverses cancer?





Yes. Both in-vitro and in-vivo.
  • dislike x 5
  • like x 1

#36 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 07 October 2013 - 12:22 PM

A vegan diet reverses cancer?



Yes. Both in-vitro and in-vivo.


This was an "Intensive Lifestyle Modification, including exercise and stress management", not just a vegan diet. The study was on prostate cancer, and the treatment group got a large amount of soy products, which may have had hormonal effects. They also got various supplements. The big result was that the treatment group saw a small decrease in PSA, and the control group saw a small increase. In the end, everyone still had prostate cancer. I don't think this qualifies us to say that a vegan diet reverses cancer. We don't want another Steve Jobs on our hands...

If the control group had done everything that the treatment group did, (including the soy), except they included a little meat and dairy in their diet, do you really think the results would have differed? I'm sure you do, but that experiment was never run.
  • like x 8
  • dislike x 1

#37 spirilla01

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • 43

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:31 PM

MisterE, I guess a lot of people here don´t understand your ignorance .....
  • like x 3

#38 scottknl

  • Guest
  • 421 posts
  • 325
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 08 October 2013 - 12:07 AM

I see the biggest drawbacks of a paleo diet being
1) intake of animal products and fish that are often contaminated with pathogens (despite best efforts of organic stores/packaging etc),
2) heavy metal and other contamination from pesticides etc in fish like tuna and many others
3) higher intake of atherosclerotic source materials.

Let me expand a bit on that last point: Just as fire requires heat, oxygen and fuel, similarly atherosclerosis requires inflammation, cholesterol and injury. Frequently the source of injury is due to high blood pressure. If you remove any one of the three, you don't get progressive atherosclerosis.

On the other hand, lack of B12 is a big drawback of a vegan diet. Folate and B12 deficiencies together will can also cause heart problems and this is a major reason why vegans don't outlive meat eaters. A well balanced vegan diet with lots of raw and cooked veggies will provide a wealth of nutrients and by adding appropriate supplementation to round out any deficiencies, you should be able live a long healthy lifespan.

One thing hasn't been mentioned very much is quantity of food. You need to "right size" your diet to match your activity levels and body size. Your thrifty body will automagically pack on the pounds to store fat if you eat any extra calories. The extra fat changes your hormone signalling towards unhealthy. Once you get the right quantity, I've seen that people have essentially similar success with both paleo and vegan diets.

My own preference is for vegan cron diet. I haven't really done a paleo cron diet for comparison for any length of time.
  • like x 1

#39 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:31 AM

The study was on prostate cancer, and the treatment group got a large amount of soy products, which may have had hormonal effects.



Soy does have some hormonal effects, but switching to a low-fat/high-fiber vegetarian diet (like Ornish used) regulates hormones properly, reduces inflammation and promotes insulin-sensitivity. This change has a more profound effect than just adding soy.



The big result was that the treatment group saw a small decrease in PSA, and the control group saw a small increase.






And PSA is a biomarker of what…? Not only that, but prostate-cancer cell growth was reduced by 70% and the genetic-expression was altered to a more beneficial profile. Regardless: it is a beneficial effect and it is something that a paleo-diet has yet to accomplish.




In the end, everyone still had prostate cancer. I don't think this qualifies us to say that a vegan diet reverses cancer.



But it seems to halt the cancer growth by properely regulating hormonal function.


Posted Image





If the control group had done everything that the treatment group did, (including the soy), except they included a little meat and dairy in their diet, do you really think the results would have differed?



Probably so, considering the extremely strong relationship between animal-fat and prostate problems [1-6].




[1] J Androl. 2012 Feb 9. Diet, Obesity, and Prostate Health: Are We Missing the Link? Tewari R, Rajender S, Natu SM.

[2] Curr Opin Urol. 2011 Jan;21(1):1-4. Lifestyle factors, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and lower urinary tract symptoms. Parsons JK.

[3] Chin Med J (Engl). 1997 Mar;110(3):163-6. Changes in the prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia in China. Gu F.

[4] Eur Urol. 1999;35(5-6):377-87. Diet and its preventive role in prostatic disease. Denis L, Morton MS, Griffiths K.

[5] Cancer Causes Control. 1998 Dec;9(6):545-52. Case-control study of diet and prostate cancer in China. Lee MM, Wang RT, Hsing AW.

[6] Cancer Causes Control. 2000 Sep;11(8):679-85. Dietary fat intake and prostate cancer risk: a case-control study in Spain. Ramon JM, Bou R, Romea S.






but that experiment was never run.




OK… But what other experiments haven’t been run? How about the studies showing paleo can reverse atherosclerosis, diabetes and show the benefits like Ornish got with prostate-cancer? You can poke holes in this study all you want… but the results are extremely positive, and the paleo-dieters have nothing to offer in this regard. It doesn’t take a Wiseman to figure this one out!

Edited by misterE, 08 October 2013 - 04:44 AM.


#40 Chupo

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 230
  • Location:United States

Posted 08 October 2013 - 07:22 AM

Low carb diets have been clinically proven to halt and reverse cancer.




OBJECTIVE:

Most aggressive cancers demonstrate a positive positron emission tomographic (PET) result using ¹⁸F-2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG), reflecting a glycolytic phenotype. Inhibiting insulin secretion provides a method, consistent with published mechanisms, for limiting cancer growth.
METHODS:

Eligible patients with advanced incurable cancers had a positive PET result, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, normal organ function without diabetes or recent weight loss, and a body mass index of at least 20 kg/m². Insulin inhibition, effected by a supervised carbohydrate dietary restriction (5% of total kilocalories), was monitored for macronutrient intake, body weight, serum electrolytes, β-hydroxybutyrate, insulin, and insulin-like growth factors-1 and -2. An FDG-PET scan was obtained at study entry and exit.
RESULTS:

Ten subjects completed 26 to 28 d of the study diet without associated unsafe adverse effects. Mean caloric intake decreased 35 ± 6% versus baseline, and weight decreased by a median of 4% (range 0.0-6.1%). In nine patients with prior rapid disease progression, five with stable disease or partial remission on PET scan after the diet exhibited a three-fold higher dietary ketosis than those with continued progressive disease (n = 4, P = 0.018). Caloric intake (P = 0.65) and weight loss (P = 0.45) did not differ in those with stable disease or partial remission versus progressive disease. Ketosis was associated inversely with serum insulin levels (P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION:

Preliminary data demonstrate that an insulin-inhibiting diet is safe and feasible in selected patients with advanced cancer. The extent of ketosis, but not calorie deficit or weight loss, correlated with stable disease or partial remission. Further study is needed to assess insulin inhibition as complementary to standard cytotoxic and endocrine therapies.



http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22840388


Low carbers do report falling PSA levels and there is actually a low carb trial in progress regarding prostate cancer specifically. http://clinicaltrial...how/NCT01763944


What I'm waiting for is the trial that Dr. Nanette Yount is trying to get funded. It's going to be a study of Alzheimer's patients on a ketogenic diet. She says she's also going to give them heart scans

Edited by Chupo, 08 October 2013 - 07:30 AM.

  • like x 4
  • dislike x 1

#41 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 08 October 2013 - 08:41 AM

Low carb diets have been clinically proven to halt and reverse cancer.




OBJECTIVE:

Most aggressive cancers demonstrate a positive positron emission tomographic (PET) result using ¹⁸F-2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG), reflecting a glycolytic phenotype. Inhibiting insulin secretion provides a method, consistent with published mechanisms, for limiting cancer growth.
METHODS:

Eligible patients with advanced incurable cancers had a positive PET result, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, normal organ function without diabetes or recent weight loss, and a body mass index of at least 20 kg/m². Insulin inhibition, effected by a supervised carbohydrate dietary restriction (5% of total kilocalories), was monitored for macronutrient intake, body weight, serum electrolytes, b-hydroxybutyrate, insulin, and insulin-like growth factors-1 and -2. An FDG-PET scan was obtained at study entry and exit.
RESULTS:

Ten subjects completed 26 to 28 d of the study diet without associated unsafe adverse effects. Mean caloric intake decreased 35 ± 6% versus baseline, and weight decreased by a median of 4% (range 0.0-6.1%). In nine patients with prior rapid disease progression, five with stable disease or partial remission on PET scan after the diet exhibited a three-fold higher dietary ketosis than those with continued progressive disease (n = 4, P = 0.018). Caloric intake (P = 0.65) and weight loss (P = 0.45) did not differ in those with stable disease or partial remission versus progressive disease. Ketosis was associated inversely with serum insulin levels (P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION:

Preliminary data demonstrate that an insulin-inhibiting diet is safe and feasible in selected patients with advanced cancer. The extent of ketosis, but not calorie deficit or weight loss, correlated with stable disease or partial remission. Further study is needed to assess insulin inhibition as complementary to standard cytotoxic and endocrine therapies.



http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22840388


Low carbers do report falling PSA levels and there is actually a low carb trial in progress regarding prostate cancer specifically. http://clinicaltrial...how/NCT01763944


What I'm waiting for is the trial that Dr. Nanette Yount is trying to get funded. It's going to be a study of Alzheimer's patients on a ketogenic diet. She says she's also going to give them heart scans


We have discussed ketogenic for halting the progress (and possible reversal) of certain cancers before. Dr.Thomas Siegfried has done a lot of research in this area and the conclusions have been also discussed here on longecity; checkout the thread "fasting and cancer". While a ketogenic diet can halt the progress of cancer and in extensio so can a low carb diet to a lesser degree, it's a short term measure, a diet with only 5% carb is unsustainable in the long run, much less over a lifetime. Besides a vegan diet can also be ketogenic.
And don't forget that some cancers don't use fuel as a glucose source so a ketogenic diet won't help with those type of cancers.

If you are healthy keto or low carb (5% as per the study you quoted) is unecessary and not de facto the healthiest.

Edited by theconomist, 08 October 2013 - 08:41 AM.


#42 Chupo

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 230
  • Location:United States

Posted 08 October 2013 - 09:36 AM

There is a lot more to it than fuel source, which I don't think really matters so much as reducing growth stimulating hormones like insulin and IGF-1. Ketones themselves also cause anti-cancer epigenetic changes by inhibiting HDACs and upregulating FOXO3A, which slows cell division and triggers apoptosis.


I find ketosis sustainable and can remain ketotic quite easily without limiting greens or non-starchy vegetables at all. It's too much protein that will kick me out of ketosis. I try to aim for about 40-60 grams of protein per day.
  • like x 2

#43 theconomist

  • Member
  • 314 posts
  • 137
  • Location:France

Posted 08 October 2013 - 10:46 AM

There is a lot more to it than fuel source, which I don't think really matters so much as reducing growth stimulating hormones like insulin and IGF-1. Ketones themselves also cause anti-cancer epigenetic changes by inhibiting HDACs and upregulating FOXO3A, which slows cell division and triggers apoptosis.


I find ketosis sustainable and can remain ketotic quite easily without limiting greens or non-starchy vegetables at all. It's too much protein that will kick me out of ketosis. I try to aim for about 40-60 grams of protein per day.


Could you post your diet? I would be very interested to see an example of a ketogenic diet which provides enough essential nutrients, phytochemicals and foods that have verified health benefits.
My main issue when trying to construct a ketogenic diet (which I agree has it's merits) is that it's very hard to fit foods such as onions,broccoli,tomato... A low(ish) carb diet is more doable but I still feel you'd be limiting yourself and in case you also want to exclude animal fats and protein sources you'd be eating a very limited number of foods.

Edited by theconomist, 08 October 2013 - 10:55 AM.

  • like x 1

#44 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:15 PM

There is a genetic component involved as well. Some people do well with saturated fat from meat. Mono-unsaturated fat (olive oil) in the Mediterranean diet works well for others - not a lot of meat, but still a relatively high fat diet. Others cannot tolerate much fat at all. Point is, no one diet is ideal for everyone. One has to eat to one's genotype. rs1801282, rs5082, rs662799 are known genetic markers involved.

https://www.23andme....sponse-to-diet/

If you do decide to have your genes tested at 23andme, please use one of the advertising links that appear various places in the forums. Longecity will receive a payment if you do.

Edit: fixed broken link

Edited by niner, 09 October 2013 - 02:45 AM.

  • like x 4
  • dislike x 1

#45 scottknl

  • Guest
  • 421 posts
  • 325
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:41 PM

There is a genetic component involved as well. Some people do well with saturated fat from meat. Mono-unsaturated fat (olive oil) in the Mediterranean diet works well for others - not a lot of meat, but still a relatively high fat diet. Others cannot tolerate much fat at all. Point is, no one diet is ideal for everyone. One has to eat to one's genotype. rs1801282, rs5082, rs662799 are known genetic markers involved.

https://www.23andme....sponse-to-diet/

If you do decide to have your genes tested at 23andme, please use one of the advertising links that appear various places in the forums. Longecity will receive a payment if you do.

Thanks for this, Maxwatt. It helps me to understand why I look so good on my CR diet while others look very thin and weak. My CR diet contains healthy fats at 34% of calories. My genotype predicts obesity from such a diet, but it's held in check by the reduction in calories from the CR and overall results in an semi-athletic physique with only a little exercise.
  • like x 1

#46 nupi

  • Guest
  • 1,532 posts
  • 108
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 08 October 2013 - 06:04 PM

Interesting, I am both
A high fat diet (30% of calories from fat) is associated with higher BMI.
A low fat diet may lead to increased waist circumference but a diet high in monounsaturated fat protects against increased waist circumference and may lead to reductions in BMI

So now what do I eat? :P

#47 Camel

  • Guest
  • 36 posts
  • 14
  • Location:London

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:25 AM

mediterranean diet is the way.

#48 Chupo

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 230
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 October 2013 - 01:46 AM

There is a lot more to it than fuel source, which I don't think really matters so much as reducing growth stimulating hormones like insulin and IGF-1. Ketones themselves also cause anti-cancer epigenetic changes by inhibiting HDACs and upregulating FOXO3A, which slows cell division and triggers apoptosis.


I find ketosis sustainable and can remain ketotic quite easily without limiting greens or non-starchy vegetables at all. It's too much protein that will kick me out of ketosis. I try to aim for about 40-60 grams of protein per day.


Could you post your diet? I would be very interested to see an example of a ketogenic diet which provides enough essential nutrients, phytochemicals and foods that have verified health benefits.
My main issue when trying to construct a ketogenic diet (which I agree has it's merits) is that it's very hard to fit foods such as onions,broccoli,tomato... A low(ish) carb diet is more doable but I still feel you'd be limiting yourself and in case you also want to exclude animal fats and protein sources you'd be eating a very limited number of foods.


I get most of my calories from nuts. Of the nuts about half are dry roasted or raw macadamia nuts and half raw mixed nuts. I eat coconut, mostly in the form of coconut yogurt. I usually eat a bag of spring mix with an olive oil dressing daily. I have a slice of calf liver once a week and small amounts of eggs, sardines, bivalves, or chicken the other days. I'll have non-sweet fruits or low-sugar fruit such as summer squash and baby bell peppers. I do eat mushrooms and onions, usually sautéed in Kerrygold butter or (African) red palm oil. I do the same with non starchy veggies such as brussels sprouts I use some herbs such as parsley and cilantro. I eat some berries on occasion.

The thing about greens and veggies such as broccoli is that the little sugar they contain are supposedly used by gut bacteria and the digestive tract itself in their own digestion before it can enter the bloodstream in large enough amounts to disrupt ketosis. At least this is what Paul Jaminet says. Whether he has sources to back it up, I don't know but I believe it per my own experience.

There for a while I was eating a small raw purple potato a day for the anthocyanin and resistant starch. Raw potatoes are mostly resistant starch, which gets turned into butyrate by gut bacteria. They didn't effect my blood ketone levels either. I'll have to start that up again.

I do have a physical job so that may give me some leeway in the amount of net carbs I can eat.


From what I understand, different nutrients are used in the metabolism of carbs and fats. Thiamine for one is used up in the metabolism of carbs and alcohol so more is needed if you consume them. I read a case study of selenium deficiency in a child on a ketogenic diet. Ketones increase endogenous anti-oxidant production, which will raise selenium requirements. So I get those Brazil nuts and sardines in!

There was a breast-feeding woman I'd read about who was on the longevity phase of Dr. Gundry's diet, which was similar to mine with the exception that eggs were the only animal product she ate and macadamia nuts and coconuts were the only nuts she ate. I got the idea for coconut yogurt from her. She had a SpectraCelll test done, which measures intra-cellular nutrients (not blood levels). Everything was high except for zinc. She started supplementing with zinc after that. I can't find those posts now. I thought it was on Gundry's facebook group. I'd like to get such a test done for myself but it's expensive!

Edited by Chupo, 10 October 2013 - 02:00 AM.

  • like x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#49 Chupo

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 230
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 October 2013 - 02:39 AM

There is a genetic component involved as well. Some people do well with saturated fat from meat. Mono-unsaturated fat (olive oil) in the Mediterranean diet works well for others - not a lot of meat, but still a relatively high fat diet. Others cannot tolerate much fat at all. Point is, no one diet is ideal for everyone. One has to eat to one's genotype. rs1801282, rs5082, rs662799 are known genetic markers involved.

https://www.23andme....sponse-to-diet/

If you do decide to have your genes tested at 23andme, please use one of the advertising links that appear various places in the forums. Longecity will receive a payment if you do.

Edit: fixed broken link


rs1801282 GG
rs5082 AG
rs662799 GG


I highly recommend doing this, even though you might not find what you want. You can do something about it!


I want to get my parents tested. I'll go through the ad links here first.

Edited by Chupo, 10 October 2013 - 03:10 AM.


#50 Healthy Tony

  • Guest
  • 112 posts
  • 9
  • Location:NJ

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:57 AM

I just checked my 23andme results and found that I am:
rs1801282 CC
rs5082 AG
rs662799 AA

Interestingly this seems to show that I should not be eating an excessive amount of fat in my diet despite my former success with a high-fat paleo diet. Furthermore monounsaturated fats and saturated fats should have very little effect on my health.

Thanks for sharing the info. I'm going to use try to see how modifying my diet based on my genotype translates into real world results.

Edited by TheRockst4r, 11 October 2013 - 04:08 AM.


#51 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 October 2013 - 05:11 AM

I just checked my 23andme results and found that I am:
rs1801282 CC
rs5082 AG
rs662799 AA

Interestingly this seems to show that I should not be eating an excessive amount of fat in my diet despite my former success with a high-fat paleo diet. Furthermore monounsaturated fats and saturated fats should have very little effect on my health.

Thanks for sharing the info. I'm going to use try to see how modifying my diet based on my genotype translates into real world results.


I also have a genotype that says I do worse with fats, yet my experience was that as I increased the fat in my diet, I lost weight. I think there are some complexities here... For example, if my diet had been isocaloric, I might have gained more weight on the higher fat version, but maybe the higher fat diet really wasn't isocaloric. When I say "higher fat", I don't mean "hyperlipid". I just mean that I cut back on unhealthy carbs and increased fats modestly. Perhaps my genotype means that I wouldn't do well on a hyperlipid diet, but I'm not going to do that anyway.

I think that in terms of overall long-term well being, it would pay to look at the two SNPs that tell you your ApoE genotype. I don't think it has much to do with weight gain, but it has a hell of a lot to do with CVD and Alzheimers. It's very actionable intelligence, in terms of how your diet, medication, and supplement choices affect your health. (the rs numbers for the ApoE genotype have been posted, but I don't have them handy. sorry, it's late...)

Edited by niner, 12 October 2013 - 05:12 AM.

  • like x 2

#52 Chupo

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 230
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:46 AM

The SNPs for ApoE are rs7412 and rs429358. If you've been tested by 23andme, you can easily see you ApoE under your Alzheimer's technical report at 23andme.

I might have gained more weight on the higher fat version, but maybe the higher fat diet really wasn't isocaloric


There may be satiety genes involved independently. I have a gene for a greater tendency for over-eating but that only gets expressed when I'm not eating low carb. So, I may very well lose weight eating a low fat diet with the same amount of calories I eat now but it's very difficult for me to adhere to long term. Then there are people who don't find fat satiating. Reminds me of the video below,

Christopher Gardner says he is conducting a study where he'd randomised 60 people to go as lowest fat humanly possible and lowest carbs humanly possible . After six months, both groups had lost 20lbs of weight on average. In both groups someone had lost 50 lbs and someone had lost nothing. There was a continuum. He believes it's insulin resistance that accounts for the difference.

46:00 minute mark.

http://youtu.be/UMQKtvj1htU

Edited by Chupo, 12 October 2013 - 07:55 AM.

  • like x 3
  • dislike x 2

#53 DAMI

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Europe

Posted 12 October 2013 - 12:21 PM

There is a genetic component involved as well. Some people do well with saturated fat from meat. Mono-unsaturated fat (olive oil) in the Mediterranean diet works well for others - not a lot of meat, but still a relatively high fat diet. Others cannot tolerate much fat at all. Point is, no one diet is ideal for everyone. One has to eat to one's genotype. rs1801282, rs5082, rs662799 are known genetic markers involved.

https://www.23andme....sponse-to-diet/

If you do decide to have your genes tested at 23andme, please use one of the advertising links that appear various places in the forums. Longecity will receive a payment if you do.

Edit: fixed broken link


How are fats bad for some people and what should they eat instead? Are they better at tolerating the bad effects of carbs than others?

#54 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:09 PM

How are fats bad for some people and what should they eat instead? Are they better at tolerating the bad effects of carbs than others?


I don't think it's a binary thing, with fats being either good or bad. More like less good or more good. Maybe it moves your ideal macronutrient ratios 5% in one direction or the other. I don't think that there is really anyone like Jack Sprat, who could eat no fat, or his wife, who could eat no lean. Although together they may have licked the platter clean, I don't think either of them would live very long.

As far as what you should eat, you should choose healthy carbs, which means complex carbs rather than simple sugars, and healthy fats. The precise definition of "healthy fat" is a little harder to pin down, but I try to stay away from industrial seed oils, anything hydrogenated, and trans fats. Olive oil and coconut oil are generally favored around here. The degree of saturation vs unsaturation that you can safely use is going to be genome dependent. If you are at high risk for CVD, you probably want more unsaturates, but as you increase the unsaturation level, your membranes become more susceptible to oxidative damage.

#55 mrd1

  • Guest
  • 460 posts
  • 24
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 01 December 2013 - 02:24 PM

"Make most of your meal vegetables and fruits – ½ of your plate:
Aim for color and variety, and remember that potatoes don’t count as vegetables on the Healthy Eating Plate because of their negative impact on blood sugar.

Go for whole grains – ¼ of your plate:
Whole and intact grains—whole wheat, barley, wheat berries, quinoa, oats, brown rice, and foods made with them, such as whole wheat pasta—have a milder effect on blood sugar and insulin than white bread, white rice, and other refined grains.

Protein power – ¼ of your plate:
Fish, chicken, beans, and nuts are all healthy, versatile protein sources—they can be mixed into salads, and pair well with vegetables on a plate. Limit red meat, and avoid processed meats such as bacon and sausage.

Healthy plant oils – in moderation:
Choose healthy vegetable oils like olive, canola, soy, corn, sunflower, peanut, and others, and avoid partially hydrogenated oils, which contain unhealthy trans fats. Remember that low-fat does not mean “healthy.”

Drink water, coffee, or tea:
Skip sugary drinks, limit milk and dairy products to one to two servings per day, and limit juice to a small glass per day.

Stay active:
The red figure running across the Healthy Eating Plate’s placemat is a reminder that staying active is also important in weight control."
http://www.hsph.harv...y-eating-plate/

I think ill put my trust into harvard rather than vegans paleos atkins and all those other groups.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • unsure x 1

#56 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 December 2013 - 04:30 AM

The way I see it, many people on these forums seem far too confident in and far too attached to their choice of diet(and the underlying hypothesizing that often goes along with it.)

The reality, is that there is very little high quality evidence relating to the long-term(multi-decades) impact of diet on human health.

Unfortunatly, there are just too many known and unknown variables involved in the interaction between diet, the individual and long-term health to allow strong conclusions to be drawn in most cases.

Further, it is my personal opinion that diet alone is likely incapable of delivering anywhere near the degree of lifespan and healthspan increase that I am seeking anyway, which, to me, makes it unworthy of too much attention.

Religious wars and strong emotional attachment to dietary schemes are both unsupported by science and a waste of personal energy.

Increased funding and advocacy for more promising avenues like S.E.N.S. and other rejuvenation techniques(e.g. stem cells) seems like time and effort better spent to me.

Edited by Brett Black, 02 December 2013 - 04:33 AM.

  • dislike x 3
  • like x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#57 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 December 2013 - 06:15 AM

Most non-refined foods are extremely complex mixtures of tens, hundreds, thousands of different chemical substances.

Each individual item of food of even the same type(e.g. two individual apples from the same orchard) can vary substantially in its relative composition of these multitudes of chemical constituents..

The typical diet in developed countries usually has contributions from hundreds of types of food over the duration of a month, and those foods can be prepared and combined in a multitude of different combinations and concentrations.

Then, each individual person consuming this unimaginably complex mixture of chemical substances has in themselves a multitude of varying known and unknown genetic, environmental and lifestyle variables that can interact with these chemical substances in their food in an untold number of unexpected ways.

Now as a comparison, consider the fact that modern pharmacology barely has a grasp of what singular purified exactingly measured and dosed chemical substances (ie drugs) acutely do throughout the body, let alone over decades.

Just when you think it cannot get any more difficult, consider how poorly most people can reccollect(let alone report) what they ate last week, let alone last decade, and that relying on people accurately reporting their diet is one of the fraught-with-error methods used to attempt to assemble some vague picture of what people eat over long periods of time.....

And to finish things off, the above complexities and problems are just a subset of the obstacles involved...

Edited by Brett Black, 02 December 2013 - 06:21 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#58 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:17 PM

SNIP

The reality, is that there is very little high quality evidence relating to the long-term(multi-decades) impact of diet on human health.

Unfortunatly, there are just too many known and unknown variables involved in the interaction between diet, the individual and long-term health to allow strong conclusions to be drawn in most cases.

Further, it is my personal opinion that diet alone is likely incapable of delivering anywhere near the degree of lifespan and healthspan increase that I am seeking anyway, which, to me, makes it unworthy of too much attention.

Religious wars and strong emotional attachment to dietary schemes are both unsupported by science and a waste of personal energy.

Increased funding and advocacy for more promising avenues like S.E.N.S. and other rejuvenation techniques(e.g. stem cells) seems like time and effort better spent to me.


Of course all of that's true. But people obviously need to eat everyday, or most days, and what's best to eat per individual varies. And during every meal we make choices. Over time all those choices add up. Meanwhile, contributing money to SENS may be valuable for future research, but we still need to eat. Eating well feels much more direct, personal, and effective than putting money into a pot that may or may not pursue meaningful studies that may or may not be useful for adding healthy years to our lives.
  • like x 2

#59 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 December 2013 - 09:53 PM

Healthy plant oils – in moderation:
Choose healthy vegetable oils like olive, canola, soy, corn, sunflower, peanut, and others, and avoid partially hydrogenated oils, which contain unhealthy trans fats. Remember that low-fat does not mean “healthy.”

Mostly reasonable advice except for the bolded part. Industrial seed oils aren't "healthy".

I think ill put my trust into harvard rather than vegans paleos atkins and all those other groups.

Suit yourself. It's your life.

Increased funding and advocacy for more promising avenues like S.E.N.S. and other rejuvenation techniques(e.g. stem cells) seems like time and effort better spent to me.

Sorry to repeat myself, but... suit yourself. It's your life. I hope that you are very young, because it's going to take a lot of time for SENS to develop the methodology to repair the damage you might do to yourself with a poor diet.

#60 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 December 2013 - 01:16 AM

What feels subjectively good to eat in the short tem (days to weeks) is not necessarily good for health or longevity in the long term(obesity due to overconsumption of "feel good" calories being a prime example.)

And even if all you are hoping for is to make meagre short-term associations, correlating diet with subjective states is inherently fraught with problems itself.

Human life is filled with innumerable day-to-day and moment-to-moment variables, many that we are not directly aware of, that make the task of correlation, let alone cause-effect, very difficult. Add a large dose of the placebo effect(which is liable to be particularly strong amongst those who are so invested in their personal dietary choices as many longecity members) to the mix and you're left with a hulking mess.

Edited by Brett Black, 03 December 2013 - 01:28 AM.

  • like x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: paleo, vegan, diet

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users