71 replies to this topic

[LexLux]

"A diet rich in meat, eggs, milk and cheese could be as harmful to health as smoking, according to a controversial study into the impact of protein consumption on longevity.
High levels of dietary animal protein in people under 65 years of age was linked to a fourfold increase in their risk of death from cancer or diabetes, and almost double the risk of dying from any cause over an 18-year period, researchers found. However, nutrition experts have cautioned that it's too early to draw firm conclusions from the research.
The overall harmful effects seen in the study were almost completely wiped out when the protein came from plant sources, such as beans and legumes, though cancer risk was still three times as high in middle-aged people who ate a protein-rich diet, compared with those on a low-protein diet.
But whereas middle-aged people who consumed a lot of animal protein tended to die younger from cancer, diabetes and other diseases, the same diet seemed to protect people's health in old age.
The findings emerged from a study of 6,381 people aged 50 and over who took part in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which tracks a representative group of adults and children in the US.
The study throws doubt on the long-term health effects of the popular Atkins and Paleo diets that are rich in protein. Instead, it suggests people should eat a low-protein diet until old age when they start to lose weight and become frail, and then boost the body's protein intake to stay healthy. In the over-65s, a high-protein diet cut the risk of death from any cause by 28%, and reduced cancer deaths by 60%, according to details of the study published in the journal Cell Metabolism."

http://www.theguardi...meat-eggs-dairy

Edited by LexLux, 04 March 2014 - 07:38 PM.

[TheFountain]

So, they used organic, free range meat, without growth hormones or antibiotics added?

[LexLux]

From the study:

"Highlights

• High protein intake is linked to increased cancer, diabetes, and overall mortality
• High IGF-1 levels increased the relationship between mortality and high protein
• Higher protein consumption may be protective for older adults
• Plant-derived proteins are associated with lower mortality than animal-derived proteins

Summary

Mice and humans with growth hormone receptor/IGF-1 deficiencies display major reductions in age-related diseases. Because protein restriction reduces GHR-IGF-1 activity, we examined links between protein intake and mortality. Respondents aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived. Conversely, high protein intake was associated with reduced cancer and overall mortality in respondents over 65, but a 5-fold increase in diabetes mortality across all ages. Mouse studies confirmed the effect of high protein intake and GHR-IGF-1 signaling on the incidence and progression of breast and melanoma tumors, but also the detrimental effects of a low protein diet in the very old. These results suggest that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate to high protein consumption in old adults may optimize healthspan and longevity."

Not sure if organic is better, for example the IGF-1 pointed out above is found in milk eggs and bacon among other animal products, and this study showed similar levels in both "organic" and regular milk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18589029

"J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Jul;108(7):1198-203. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.021.
Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices.

Vicini J¹, Etherton T, Kris-Etherton P, Ballam J, Denham S, Staub R, Goldstein D, Cady R, McGrath M, Lucy M.

Author information


Abstract


A trend in food labeling is to make claims related to agricultural management, and this is occurring with dairy labels. A survey study was conducted to compare retail milk for quality (antibiotics and bacterial counts), nutritional value (fat, protein, and solids-not-fat), and hormonal composition (somatotropin, insulin-like growth factor-1 [IGF-1], estradiol, and progesterone) as affected by three label claims related to dairy-cow management: conventional, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free (processor-certified not from cows supplemented with rbST), or organic (follows US Department of Agriculture organic practices). Retail milk samples (n=334) from 48 states were collected. Based on a statistical analysis that reflected the sampling schema and distributions appropriate to the various response variables, minor differences were observed for conventional, rbST-free, and organic milk labels. Conventionally labeled milk had the lowest (P<0.05) bacterial counts compared to either milk labeled rbST-free or organic; however, these differences were not biologically meaningful. In addition, conventionally labeled milk had significantly less (P<0.05) estradiol and progesterone than organic milk (4.97 vs 6.40 pg/mL and 12.0 vs 13.9 ng/mL, respectively). Milk labeled rbST-free had similar concentrations of progesterone vs conventional milk and similar concentrations of estradiol vs organic milk. Concentrations of IGF-1 in milk were similar between conventional milk and milk labeled rbST-free. Organic milk had less (P<0.05) IGF-1 than either conventional or rbST-free milk (2.73 ng/mL vs 3.12 and 3.04 ng/mL, respectively). The macronutrient profiles of the different milks were similar, except for a slight increase in protein in organic milk (about 0.1% greater for organic compared to other milks). Label claims were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured. It is important for food and nutrition professionals to know that conventional, rbST-free, and organic milk are compositionally similar so they can serve as a key resource to consumers who are making milk purchase (and consumption) decisions in a marketplace where there are misleading milk label claims."

Edited by LexLux, 04 March 2014 - 09:23 PM.

[LexLux]

Here's a full study on IGF-1:

http://cebp.aacrjour...1.full.pdf html

Cancer can in fact use what we eat to get what it feeds on (no big surprise).

Decreased IGf-1 means decreased growth and increased apoptosis of cancer. Low fat - high fiber diets are supported in that last study and here. It must be said that, vegan diets (specifically vegan proteins) also promote glucagon production, which acts on hepatocytes, and promotes (and insulin inhibits) cAMP-dependent mechanisms that down-regulate lipogenic enzymes and cholesterol synthesis, while up-regulating hepatic LDL receptors and production of the IGF-I antagonist IGFBP-1 (a binding protein).

Cancer cellls also need the immune system to feed it with low inflammation when starting out, since tumors are when starting out unable to get the immune system to recognize it as foreign, they need to use Neu5Gc to support early growth and angiogenisis via inflammation. Where do they get the Neu5Gc from? Humans are genetically defficient in it, diet is the source - milk and dairy specifically.There are of course different stages in this immune response but the reason tumors have antigens may be that tumors do not develop in vivo in the absence of at least a minimal immune reaction; in this sense, cancer may be considered an autoimmune disease.

Edited by LexLux, 04 March 2014 - 09:24 PM.

[Thorsten3]

A diet high in animal proteins will also, typically, be a diet that is higher in the inflammatory amino acids methionine, tryptophan and cysteine. Pound for pound, Plant based proteins are drastically lower in these toxic compounds.

Anecdotally, I find a diet that is high in animal proteins to be very detrimental to the quality of my sleep, which has disastrous negative knock on effects for my health, too. I am definitely convinced that 'super high' protein, especially protein that is based on animal products, is not good for my health. I seem to do just fine, getting my protein from plant based sources (around 60g per day), and a hell of a lot better than pounding my body with 120g of protein per day through animal sources (which, up until recently, I have foolishly believed was somehow doing my health some good!).

Milk, meat and cheese are pretty much the worst offenders (a conclusion I've come to from years of trial and error). They are highly nutrient dense, but they are also far too high in the toxic amino compounds (mentioned above), extremely high in fat (which can cause issues for individuals) and are usually cooked at high temperatures/processed/pasterurised in order to be consumed - so are full of toxic by-products. I'm certainly not a vegan for moral reasons, I just truly believe that animal products are an inferior source of fuel for my body.

Edited by Thorsten2, 04 March 2014 - 09:32 PM.

[Darryl]

We've known for 15 years that high methionine and lysine proteins stimulate IGF-1 signalling and cancer proliferation. The most interesting thing about this study was the bimodality of response, with protein no longer being so deletorious (at least with respect to cancer) after age 65.

I speculate that lower availability of viable stem cells for tranfsormation to cancer, and the need for some growth signalling to delay frailty and immune decline in our senior years, are at work here.

Edited by Darryl, 04 March 2014 - 10:22 PM.

[LexLux]

I was wondering what the deal for over 65s was thanks for your input on that. To be honest I don't understand why the paleo diet seems to be so popular on here.

Edited by LexLux, 04 March 2014 - 10:36 PM.

[LexLux]

From the study:

"Highlights

• High protein intake is linked to increased cancer, diabetes, and overall mortality
• High IGF-1 levels increased the relationship between mortality and high protein
• Higher protein consumption may be protective for older adults
• Plant-derived proteins are associated with lower mortality than animal-derived proteins

Summary

Mice and humans with growth hormone receptor/IGF-1 deficiencies display major reductions in age-related diseases. Because protein restriction reduces GHR-IGF-1 activity, we examined links between protein intake and mortality. Respondents aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer death risk during the following 18 years. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant derived. Conversely, high protein intake was associated with reduced cancer and overall mortality in respondents over 65, but a 5-fold increase in diabetes mortality across all ages. Mouse studies confirmed the effect of high protein intake and GHR-IGF-1 signaling on the incidence and progression of breast and melanoma tumors, but also the detrimental effects of a low protein diet in the very old. These results suggest that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate to high protein consumption in old adults may optimize healthspan and longevity."

Not sure if organic is better, for example the IGF-1 pointed out above is found in milk eggs and bacon among other animal products, and this study showed similar levels in both "organic" and regular milk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18589029

"J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Jul;108(7):1198-203. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.021.
Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices.

Vicini J¹, Etherton T, Kris-Etherton P, Ballam J, Denham S, Staub R, Goldstein D, Cady R, McGrath M, Lucy M.

Author information


Abstract


A trend in food labeling is to make claims related to agricultural management, and this is occurring with dairy labels. A survey study was conducted to compare retail milk for quality (antibiotics and bacterial counts), nutritional value (fat, protein, and solids-not-fat), and hormonal composition (somatotropin, insulin-like growth factor-1 [IGF-1], estradiol, and progesterone) as affected by three label claims related to dairy-cow management: conventional, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free (processor-certified not from cows supplemented with rbST), or organic (follows US Department of Agriculture organic practices). Retail milk samples (n=334) from 48 states were collected. Based on a statistical analysis that reflected the sampling schema and distributions appropriate to the various response variables, minor differences were observed for conventional, rbST-free, and organic milk labels. Conventionally labeled milk had the lowest (P<0.05) bacterial counts compared to either milk labeled rbST-free or organic; however, these differences were not biologically meaningful. In addition, conventionally labeled milk had significantly less (P<0.05) estradiol and progesterone than organic milk (4.97 vs 6.40 pg/mL and 12.0 vs 13.9 ng/mL, respectively). Milk labeled rbST-free had similar concentrations of progesterone vs conventional milk and similar concentrations of estradiol vs organic milk. Concentrations of IGF-1 in milk were similar between conventional milk and milk labeled rbST-free. Organic milk had less (P<0.05) IGF-1 than either conventional or rbST-free milk (2.73 ng/mL vs 3.12 and 3.04 ng/mL, respectively). The macronutrient profiles of the different milks were similar, except for a slight increase in protein in organic milk (about 0.1% greater for organic compared to other milks). Label claims were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured. It is important for food and nutrition professionals to know that conventional, rbST-free, and organic milk are compositionally similar so they can serve as a key resource to consumers who are making milk purchase (and consumption) decisions in a marketplace where there are misleading milk label claims."

haha wow I misread the article - not a good example folks, Organic milk has less IGF1 but more protein, as the people above me stated IGF-1 isn't necessarily the only concern.

Edited by LexLux, 04 March 2014 - 10:41 PM.

[Darryl]

There were other interesting, free articles related to nutrition in this longevity themed issue of Cell Metabolism.

The Ratio of Macronutrients, Not Caloric Intake, Dictates Cardiometabolic Health, Aging, and Longevity in Ad Libitum-Fed Mice

•Food intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate
•Low-protein, high-carbohydrate diets are associated with the longest lifespans
•Energy reduction from high-protein diets or dietary dilution does not extend life
•Diet influences hepatic mTOR via branched-chain amino acids and glucose

The fundamental questions of what represents a macronutritionally balanced diet and how this maintains health and longevity remain unanswered. Here, the Geometric Framework, a state-space nutritional modeling method, was used to measure interactive effects of dietary energy, protein, fat, and carbohydrate on food intake, cardiometabolic phenotype, and longevity in mice fed one of 25 diets ad libitum. Food intake was regulated primarily by protein and carbohydrate content. Longevity and health were optimized when protein was replaced with carbohydrate to limit compensatory feeding for protein and suppress protein intake. These consequences are associated with hepatic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) activation and mitochondrial function and, in turn, related to circulating branched-chain amino acids and glucose. Calorie restriction achieved by high-protein diets or dietary dilution had no beneficial effects on lifespan. The results suggest that longevity can be extended in ad libitum-fed animals by manipulating the ratio of macronutrients to inhibit mTOR activation.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves according to differing dietary protein:carbohydrate ratios



Nucleocytosolic Depletion of the Energy Metabolite Acetyl-Coenzyme A Stimulates Autophagy and Prolongs Lifespan

Healthy aging depends on removal of damaged cellular material that is in part mediated by autophagy. The nutritional status of cells affects both aging and autophagy through as-yet-elusive metabolic circuitries. Here, we show that nucleocytosolic acetyl-coenzyme A (AcCoA) production is a metabolic repressor of autophagy during aging in yeast. Blocking the mitochondrial route to AcCoA by deletion of the CoA-transferase ACH1 caused cytosolic accumulation of the AcCoA precursor acetate. This led to hyperactivation of nucleocytosolic AcCoA-synthetase Acs2p, triggering histone acetylation, repression of autophagy genes, and an age-dependent defect in autophagic flux, culminating in a reduced lifespan. Inhibition of nutrient signaling failed to restore, while simultaneous knockdown of ACS2 reinstated, autophagy and survival of ach1 mutant. Brain-specific knockdown of DrosophilaAcCoA synthetase was sufficient to enhance autophagic protein clearance and prolong lifespan. Since AcCoA integrates various nutrition pathways, our findings may explain diet-dependent lifespan and autophagy regulation.

Insulin/IGF1 Signaling Inhibits Age-Dependent Axon Regeneration (Neuron)

Here we show that axon regeneration in aging C. elegansmotor neurons is inhibited by the conserved insulin/IGF1 receptor DAF-2. DAF-2’s function in regeneration is mediated by intrinsic neuronal activity of the forkhead transcription factor DAF-16/FOXO. DAF-16 regulates regeneration independently of lifespan, indicating that neuronal aging is an intrinsic, neuron-specific, and genetically regulated process. In addition, we found that DAF-18/PTEN inhibits regeneration independently of age and FOXO signaling via the TOR pathway. Finally, DLK-1, a conserved regulator of regeneration, is downregulated by insulin/IGF1 signaling, bound by DAF-16 in neurons, and required for both DAF-16- and DAF-18-mediated regeneration. Together, our data establish that insulin signaling specifically inhibits regeneration in aging adult neurons and that this mechanism is independent of PTEN and TOR.

Edited by Darryl, 05 March 2014 - 10:58 AM.

[LexLux]

I find it startling how few people are actually aware of this and think that carbohydrates are the problem. I can understand avoiding processed foods but whole grains and starches are looking good and so are vegetables.

Edited by LexLux, 05 March 2014 - 01:18 PM.

[Chupo]

Interesting that higher protein is associated with increased survival in older adults. The study that showed BCAA supplementation increased longevity in mice was done on mice starting at the latter half of their lives. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3156598/


Daryl, that first link you posted is fascinating but it isn't parsed properly. Here it is. I think it deserves it's own thread!

I wouldn't have ever thought the mouse on the right would have lived longer than the mouse on the left but the P:C 0.25 mice did live longer.



Another interesting note, 30% calorie restriction by dilution had no effect on longevity. I'm thinking that actually being hungry and the hormones associated with it may be an independent factor.

Edited by Chupo, 05 March 2014 - 03:08 PM.

[theconomist]

I was wondering what the deal for over 65s was thanks for your input on that. To be honest I don't understand why the paleo diet seems to be so popular on here.

Same reasons as any other debate: confirmation bias, appeal to tradition, appeal to popularity, Dunning-Kruger effect, group mentality...
From a substantial point of view I'd add that many people aren't really interested in longeviety stricto sensu but rather transhumanism specifically in the area of cognitive improvement.

At the end of the day the more we know the more we confirm the basic principles of longeviety:

In terms of food intake: the michael Pollan mantra still applies and probably will apply for a long time: eat food, not too much, mostly plants
In terms of exercice: it's good for you, don't sit around keep moving
In terms of lifestyle choices: don't smoke, don't drink too much, don't engage in risky behavior.

The pareto principle applies to our field as much as any other, once you've got these 3 basics covered all you can do is hope for a good set of genes .

But simplicity is boring ^^ .

[dankis]

Don't you really people see how greatly biased these kind of studies are?!

You can prove everything you want, just change a bit study design. Look, i will prove cancer surgery harmful.
Group 1: Subjects who underwent surgery Group 2: Subjects who didn't. Life expectancy in group 2 is much higher than in group 1. Conclusions: Cancer surgery shorten lifespan and is harmful. It is false of course. Cancer correlates with surgery which means there was much higher incidence(~100%) of this disease in Group 1 and it was the true cause of increased mortality, but it was not covered in this study, so the conclusion was that surgery is bad which in fact is opposite.

Similary meat protein is much more popular than plant protein in SAD (Standard American Diet) and correlates with junk food intake and sedetary lifestyle. People who eat more plant protein are more likely to excersise and are richer. It is called healthy user bias. Please analyse study design.

[LexLux]

Don't you really people see how greatly biased these kind of studies are?!

You can prove everything you want, just change a bit study design. Look, i will prove cancer surgery harmful.
Group 1: Subjects who underwent surgery Group 2: Subjects who didn't. Life expectancy in group 2 is much higher than in group 1. Conclusions: Cancer surgery shorten lifespan and is harmful. It is false of course. Cancer correlates with surgery which means there was much higher incidence(~100%) of this disease in Group 1 and it was the true cause of increased mortality, but it was not covered in this study, so the conclusion was that surgery is bad which in fact is opposite.

Similary meat protein is much more popular than plant protein in SAD (Standard American Diet) and correlates with junk food intake and sedetary lifestyle. People who eat more plant protein are more likely to excersise and are richer. It is called healthy user bias. Please analyse study design.

Have you looked up the China study? ...Obviously not. FYI many many people in non-western countries have plant based diets and are by no means 'rich'. It's actually alot cheaper than buying meat, especially since everyone wants 'grass fed' organic meat these days. I find it amusing how people are more concerned with what the animal ate rather than what they themselves eat. Y

Edited by LexLux, 06 March 2014 - 05:45 PM.

[Darryl]

No single study is definitive. When a large body of research corroborates the same associations, and the proposed mechanisms are biologically plausible, then our confidence should rise accordingly.

Low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet and long-term survival in a general population cohort (2006)
Low carbohydrate–high protein diet and mortality in a cohort of Swedish women (2007)
Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Two cohort Studies (2010)
Dietary correlates of plasma IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentrations (2002)
Association of diet with serum insulin-like growth factor I in middle-aged and elderly men (2005)
The association between diet and serum concentrations of IGF-1, IGFBP-1, IGFBP-2, and IGFBP-3 in EPIC (2009)
Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia (2008)
The insulin and insulin-like growth factor receptor family in neoplasia: an update (2012)

This paper is my opinion necessary reading for students of longevity:

Genetics of longevity in model organisms: debates and paradigm shifts (2013)

Another likely reason for disregarding this vital clue linking growth and aging is the power of a dominant paradigm (here that of damage/maintenance) to prevent us from seeing what is obvious:The pathways controlling aging, including growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1, also control growth, therefore suggesting that growth causes aging.

Edited by Darryl, 06 March 2014 - 06:47 PM.

[niner]

If you want a reason for the popularity of paleo diets, look at the body shapes of the mice in chupo's post above.

[chemicalambrosia]

If you want a reason for the popularity of paleo diets, look at the body shapes of the mice in chupo's post above.

Lol, that is very true. I lift weights and I am a little bit of a bodybuilder. Unfortunately, I think a diet for muscle building and longevity isn't completely compatible. I try to balance things, but in the end meat and dairy build muscle, but don't seem to be optimal for health. It is one of life's trade offs, unless someone knows of a way to have your cake and eat it too. I wouldn't be surprised if hormonal therapy was healthier than eating lots of animal protein in order to build muscle....

[platypus]

Hasn't the "China-Study" been debunked a long time ago already?

[LexLux]

If you want a reason for the popularity of paleo diets, look at the body shapes of the mice in chupo's post above.

I am gonna call you out on that, I know so many people on the paleo diet who are overweight, it's actually really hard to maintain for people. I've personally tried it an saw no particular benefits although I was never overweight. Besides adoption of a low-fat, vegan diet was associated with significant weight loss in the overweight despite the absence of prescribed limits on portion size or energy intake.

I'm also going to say this - having been interested in longevity for some time now, I've had the opportunity to debate many opponents of life extension. One argument they always use against life extension enthusiasts is that immortality is unsustainable. I actually do have to agree that if we stay on the present course it would be very difficult to feed so many people. Raising animals for food requires massive amounts of land, food, and energy and is not sustainable for a world with an exploding population. That is why in my opinion we need to act like grown ups actually adopt sustainable lifestyles in order to avoid discrediting the idea of unlimited lifespans with our own hypocrisy.

In addition the idea of unlimited life spans has always had links with trans-humanism as stated earlier by someone else. The futurist mindset that drives transhumanism really has little in common with the idea that we can eat like paleolithic humans. Our primitive Darwinian brains make it difficult to exercise the self control required to give up foods that are not healthy for us. The ultimate goal of life extension advocates and transhumanists is to direct our own evolution towards advancement in the future. It would be ironic if this undermined our ability to survive as a species since we would be failing to adapt to the overpopulation and unsustainable lifestyle practices while embracing life extension. We cannot go back to living as the paleolithic people did when a few million people populated the entire world.

I completely sympathize with the idea that we should be eating less processed foods.

Paleo enthusiasts should also take into consideration that 200,000 years ago we were eating 600mg of vitamin C containg foods a day, the amount in 10 oranges.We were getting so much that we lost the ability to sythesize it, even though we still have the gene. We were also eating the equivalent amount of vitamin e found in 2 cups of nuts and were consuming the amount of calcium found in 5 cups of collard greens; believe me they we not milking mammoths.Thats 100 plus grams of fiber, where now on average we are lucky to get 20 a day: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19857053


It may be dangerous to use the paleo diet as a justification to eat more and more meat, given how little modern day meat resembles prehistoric game.

Given what's now in fish for example, it would be impossible to follow a purely paleolithic diet while avoiding the risks associated with elevated mercury, PCBs, dioxins that have polluted them:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19857053

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23089109

In fact it would appear to be a bad idea with meat given the list to be found there: lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, preservatives, veterinary drugs:

Andrée S, Jira W, Schwind KH, Wagner H, Schwägele F. Chemical safety of meat and meat products. Meat Sci. 2010 Sep;86(1):38-48.

"Processed meat like bacon, sausage, and cold cuts should be avoided"

It also acknowledges the lower risk of cancer in vegetarians and vegans: http://www.aicr.org/...ian_cancer.html

Edited by LexLux, 07 March 2014 - 11:22 AM.

[LexLux]

Hasn't the "China-Study" been debunked a long time ago already?

Let's see a study that debunks it by looking at how eating meat will increase your lifespan. Don't spread misinformation because you found a blog post critical of the work, which was by the way an analysis of many studies.

[LexLux]

Some of my earlier post got cut off - "Sufficient scientic data exists for public health policy to promote a plant-rich diet for health promotion. There is a conflict of interest in the USDA's role to protect the public while at the same time promoting agricultural products. The American Institute for Cancer Research does not have this problem and states:"Processed meat like bacon, sausage, and cold cuts should be avoided"It also acknowlages the lower risk oof cancer in vegetarians and vegans: http://www.aicr.org/...ian_cancer.html"

[platypus]

Here are some links to studies, I don't have time to take a look at them myself at the moment:

http://healthworksco...our-lifespan-no

[niner]

If you want a reason for the popularity of paleo diets, look at the body shapes of the mice in chupo's post above.

I am gonna call you out on that, I know so many people on the paleo diet who are overweight, it's actually really hard to maintain for people. I've personally tried it an saw no particular benefits although I was never overweight. Besides adoption of a low-fat, vegan diet was associated with significant weight loss in the overweight despite the absence of prescribed limits on portion size or energy intake.

First of all, lets try to separate the question of the effect of macronutrient ratios from the ethics or sustainability of meat eating. I'm not trying to promote meat eating here. What I'm saying is that diets higher in fat and lower in carbs are more effective weight loss tools, which is a thing that a lot of people are interested in. By "more effective", I mean more effective than a low fat high carb diet. This has been demonstrated via carefully controlled experiments on a metabolic ward (sorry, I lost the ref but it's been discussed here somewhere), as well as by the anecdotal experiences of a very large number of people.

I should bring up one other point, for what it's worth. The word "paleo" has unfortunately become conflated in the popular mind with high meat / high fat diets. (I even used it that way myself in the quote above!) That's unfortunate, because the paleo principle simply says that we shouldn't eat modern foods that we are not fully genetically adapted to. You could have a low fat high carb paleo diet, or a vegan paleo diet. It doesn't have to be hyperlipid or hyper-meat.

[xEva]

No single study is definitive. When a large body of research corroborates the same associations, and the proposed mechanisms are biologically plausible, then our confidence should rise accordingly.

Another likely reason for disregarding this vital clue linking growth and aging is the power of a dominant paradigm (here that of damage/maintenance) to prevent us from seeing what is obvious:The pathways controlling aging, including growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1, also control growth, therefore suggesting that growth causes aging.

Good point.

Darryl, meant to ask you ever since you changed your avatar. What's that microscopic animal? (or a plant part -?)

[DukeNukem]

Some debunking of that meat = cigarettes study...

Animal protein as bad as smoking?!

Association between protein and mortality

This is a direct quotation from the article (my emphasis): “Using Cox Proportional Hazard models, we found that high and moderate protein consumption were positively associated with diabetes-related mortality, but not associated with all-cause, CVD [cardiovascular], or cancer mortality when subjects at all the ages above 50 were considered.”

i.e. when we looked at the 6,381 over 50 year olds there was not even an association with protein intake and all-cause mortality, or CVD mortality, or cancer mortality.

There was a relationship with diabetes mortality and protein intake, but the numbers were so tiny (one death from diabetes in one group) that this was not considered important.

And that could have been the headline – “There is no association between protein intake and mortality” – but then there would be no headline.

After finding no overall association, the researchers spotted a pattern with age and split the information into participants aged 50-65 and participants over 65. They then found (direct quotation again): “Among those ages 50–65, higher protein levels were linked to significantly increased risks of all-cause and cancer mortality. In this age range, subjects in the high protein group had a 74% increase in their relative risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.02–2.97) and were more than four times as likely to die of cancer (HR: 4.33; 95% CI: 1.96–9.56) when compared to those in the low protein group.”

This means that there was an equal and opposite result for the over 65 group. If all the participants together showed no association and one section of the group are then separated out to show a positive association, the remaining section of the group must have a negative association. That’s the law of averages. Sure enough, the 3,342 people over the age of 65 were far less likely to die from any cause if they were in the moderate or high protein intake group. Cancer mortality for the low protein group was two and a half times the cancer mortality for the high protein group.

Cardiovascular (CVD) mortality was about the same for the high protein group and the low protein group for the 50-65 year olds. CVD mortality was then much lower for the moderate protein intake group than for the low protein intake group for 50-65 year olds. For the over 65 year olds, the highest protein intake group was the best one to be in for all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and CVD mortality.

The fact that the headlines chose to claim “protein will kill you in middle age” rather than “protein will save you in old age” just highlights the nonsense and bias.

http://www.zoeharcom...bad-as-smoking/

And another article that shines a negative light on that study:
http://jasoncholewa....cer-study-says/

I'm aware of several more being written.

[zorba990]

Would be good if they also looked at cooked versus raw / undenatured.

[LexLux]

Some debunking of that meat = cigarettes study...

Animal protein as bad as smoking?!

Association between protein and mortality

This is a direct quotation from the article (my emphasis): “Using Cox Proportional Hazard models, we found that high and moderate protein consumption were positively associated with diabetes-related mortality, but not associated with all-cause, CVD [cardiovascular], or cancer mortality when subjects at all the ages above 50 were considered.”

i.e. when we looked at the 6,381 over 50 year olds there was not even an association with protein intake and all-cause mortality, or CVD mortality, or cancer mortality.

There was a relationship with diabetes mortality and protein intake, but the numbers were so tiny (one death from diabetes in one group) that this was not considered important.

And that could have been the headline – “There is no association between protein intake and mortality” – but then there would be no headline.

After finding no overall association, the researchers spotted a pattern with age and split the information into participants aged 50-65 and participants over 65. They then found (direct quotation again): “Among those ages 50–65, higher protein levels were linked to significantly increased risks of all-cause and cancer mortality. In this age range, subjects in the high protein group had a 74% increase in their relative risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.02–2.97) and were more than four times as likely to die of cancer (HR: 4.33; 95% CI: 1.96–9.56) when compared to those in the low protein group.”

This means that there was an equal and opposite result for the over 65 group. If all the participants together showed no association and one section of the group are then separated out to show a positive association, the remaining section of the group must have a negative association. That’s the law of averages. Sure enough, the 3,342 people over the age of 65 were far less likely to die from any cause if they were in the moderate or high protein intake group. Cancer mortality for the low protein group was two and a half times the cancer mortality for the high protein group.

Cardiovascular (CVD) mortality was about the same for the high protein group and the low protein group for the 50-65 year olds. CVD mortality was then much lower for the moderate protein intake group than for the low protein intake group for 50-65 year olds. For the over 65 year olds, the highest protein intake group was the best one to be in for all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and CVD mortality.

The fact that the headlines chose to claim “protein will kill you in middle age” rather than “protein will save you in old age” just highlights the nonsense and bias.

http://www.zoeharcom...bad-as-smoking/

And another article that shines a negative light on that study:
http://jasoncholewa....cer-study-says/

I'm aware of several more being written.

Its not non-sense or bias, it makes sense when you consider the larger body of evidence - see Darryl's post above. I wouldn't take that bloggers word for the fact that the numbers were insignificant, but then again I won't be losing any sleep over this anyways. We're only talking about the leading causes of natural death, which according to your bloggers could have nothing at all do with meat and dairy consumption.

[theconomist]

Forget the China study, the experiments with casein promoting cancer growth have been repeated many different times. We know the drawbacks of meat, fish and chick, eggs and milk. It has nothing to do with them not being organic or whatever. Besides taste and an use of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem, there's nothing you get from an animal protein diet you won't get from a vegan diet (without all the risks), and before you bring up the b-12 issue: we're on longecity, as if taking a b12 pill is a horror hypothesis

[dankis]

Casein was proven to be strong pro inflammatory most likely by mechanism independent of its amino acid content. What is more dairy protein is one of the most common allergens and has opioid activity. Comparing casein to other animal protein like animal muscles or organ meats is IMO nonsense.

IGF... What is it? Ah yes, a growth factor. Growth factor of:

• bones =better bone density;
• skin = better looking less wrinkles,
• muscles = not being an aggressive vegan scarecrow
• IMO most important a growth factor of neurons.

When you shout "IGF is klling you with cancer and diabetes", you seem to "forget" about the other side of the coin which is increased quality of life. Many people prefer quality over quantity because not everyone is focused on vegetating 100 + years.

Meat is bad, fat is bad and cholesterol is a necrophilic pedophile-murderer living next door who tortures small cute cats , right?
Can you please show example of very low carbohydrate diet where animal protein(excluding dairy) is harmful and subjects are not feed mostly PUFA oils or trans fat?

Completeness of unsupplemented plant only diet is a joke. I truly realised it when I went deeper into genetics. I am not only saying about mainstream things like B12 or DHA. It goes much deeper, into the rabbit hole. There is suprisingly high incidence of SNPs capable of making your life very miserable on a vegan diet which are neutral or even benefical when you eat meat. One of the most notable are polymorphisms of BCMO1 gene, an enzyme converting carotene to retinyl esters.

From SNPedia:

rs12934922 (R267S) and rs7501331 (A379V) double mutant have a reduced catalytic activity of beta-carotene by 57%. Female volunteers carrying the T variant of rs7501331 (379V) had a 32% lower ability to convert Beta-carotene, and those carrying at least one T in both SNPs show a 69% lower ability to convert Beta-carotene into retinyl esters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19103647?dopt=Abstract

In caucasians the chance of being at least heterozygous in both RS is ~20%. It translates to ~69% lower activity of beta-carotene 15,15'-monoxygenase thus making almost impossible to achieve optimal vitamin A levels without preformed retinol intake.

People are genetically predisposited to eat animals. Show me evidence they aren't.

[theconomist]

Casein was proven to be strong pro inflammatory most likely by mechanism independent of its amino acid content. What is more dairy protein is one of the most common allergens and has opioid activity. Comparing casein to other animal protein like animal muscles or organ meats is IMO nonsense.

IGF... What is it? Ah yes, a growth factor. Growth factor of:

• bones =better bone density;
• skin = better looking less wrinkles,
• muscles = not being an aggressive vegan scarecrow
• IMO most important a growth factor of neurons.

When you shout "IGF is klling you with cancer and diabetes", you seem to "forget" about the other side of the coin which is increased quality of life. Many people prefer quality over quantity because not everyone is focused on vegetating 100 + years.

Meat is bad, fat is bad and cholesterol is a necrophilic pedophile-murderer living next door who tortures small cute cats , right?
Can you please show example of very low carbohydrate diet where animal protein(excluding dairy) is harmful and subjects are not feed mostly PUFA oils or trans fat?

Completeness of unsupplemented plant only diet is a joke. I truly realised it when I went deeper into genetics. I am not only saying about mainstream things like B12 or DHA. It goes much deeper, into the rabbit hole. There is suprisingly high incidence of SNPs capable of making your life very miserable on a vegan diet which are neutral or even benefical when you eat meat. One of the most notable are polymorphisms of BCMO1 gene, an enzyme converting carotene to retinyl esters.

From SNPedia:

rs12934922 (R267S) and rs7501331 (A379V) double mutant have a reduced catalytic activity of beta-carotene by 57%. Female volunteers carrying the T variant of rs7501331 (379V) had a 32% lower ability to convert Beta-carotene, and those carrying at least one T in both SNPs show a 69% lower ability to convert Beta-carotene into retinyl esters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....7?dopt=Abstract

In caucasians the chance of being at least heterozygous in both RS is ~20%. It translates to ~69% lower activity of beta-carotene 15,15'-monoxygenase thus making almost impossible to achieve optimal vitamin A levels without preformed retinol intake.

People are genetically predisposited to eat animals. Show me evidence they aren't.

1-But our community is.
2- we're also predisposed to go bald, get cancer and die, what's your point? We're trying to avoid that...

No matter what way you try and sugar coat it, until we find a way to eradicate cancer a posteriori eating animal protein will hinder our quest for longeviety I never argued for unsupplemented completeness of a plant only diet, nor is it the diet I'm advocating, all I'm saying is animal proteins should be avoided.

Edited by theconomist, 08 March 2014 - 12:21 PM.