Slashdot Mirror
Low-Protein Diet May Extend Lifespan
sciencehabit writes "A new theory about the foods that can extend life is taking shape, and it's sure to be a controversial one. Two studies out this week, one in mice (PDF) and another primarily in people (PDF), suggest that eating relatively little protein and lots of carbohydrates — the opposite of what's urged by many human diet plans, including the popular Atkins Diet — extends life and fortifies health."
This sounds suspiciously like the USDA food pyramid. That would be the thing that we have already tried with disasterous results.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Fixed that for you....
Don't gamble, drink, smoke or screw.
Will I live to be 120?
No, but it'll seem like it [BRADABADATISH]
Low Carb, High Fat...great...
...myself...I lived on just about everything most of my life, including crappy processed food like cheetos, chocolates, refined sugars and whatnot...and it made me obese for over 40 years, then I changed. I decided to drop ALL processed foods...and I lost like 40 Pounds over 4 months...to weight levels I've never seen before ever...
Low Fat, High Carb...okay...
Low Fat, Low Carb...oooh...hardcore...(thats what I did)...nearly died from that one...
Whatever diet you're on...make sure your body is ready for it, I
Yeah. It does work, but you need to be disciplined. Low protein? Nah...make sure you get enough B12...and You'll be fine.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I'm pretty sure the Atkin's diet was ruled out by anyone with any knowledge of actual human health. The man died a fat, bloated fuck and doomed many of his blind followers to live the same.
If this gets around to my girlfriends I'll sue...
Ron, an elderly man in Florida, owned a large farm for several years. He had a large pond in the back.
It was properly shaped for swimming, so he fixed it up nice with picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some orange and
lime trees.
One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn't been there for a while, and look it over.
He grabbed a five-gallon bucket to bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee.
As he came closer, he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond.
He made the women aware of his presence, and they all went to the deep end.
One of the women shouted to him, "We're not coming out until you leave!"
Ron frowned, "I didn't come down here to watch you ladies swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked."
Holding the bucket up Ron said, "I'm here to feed the alligator."
So, sort of, maybe, but not.
Let's ignore the mouse study as that has little interest to human nutrition. From the second pdf: "our results show that among those
ages 50 and above, the level of protein intake is associated with
increased risk of diabetes mortality, but not associated with dif-
ferencesinall-cause, cancer,orCVDmortality."
Clearly people dying of diabetes are not on a low carb diet, so I dunno is this a desperate attempt from the corn farmers?
Extensive studies have already been performed that should this is a formula for disaster... overweight, diabetes, malnourished... the list goes on. I am calling BS. This seems like another call from folks trying to deal with growing population and its associated problems without being honest. Not enough resources currently available to support everyone being meat eaters. This is biased propaganda.
In South Korea only old people do Low-Protein Diet.
Eat healthy. It's really not that complicated. Fruit, veg, meat, salad, carbs that aren't refined. The more processed it is, the worse it is for you
Eat well balanced and in moderation and you'll be fine. The most harmful things in your diet are sugar, (sucralose and fructose) salt and processed foods.
Protein is needed for the retention and development of muscle. Eliminating it while keeping your sugar intake high is a recipe for type 2 diabetes, heart disease and living a life of obesity.
EOM
love is just extroverted narcissism
Quote from original link,
"The second study, led by gerontology researcher Valter Longo and graduate student Morgan Levine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, focused on data from 6381 adults over 50 years old who were interviewed once about their diet as part of NHANES, a national survey of health and nutrition. Longo’s team used death records to conclude that those under 65 whose self-reported diets they classified as high-protein"
After years of personal training in my experience alot of people have no idea what foods have high protein, also using a "survey" of questionable nature (most people lie on surveys) to come to such a large conclusion without alot more supported data is bad science.
Note this little gem buried in the article:
"All were allowed to eat as much as they wanted."
I think that's a pretty big caveat.
Food Scientists: OK, you guys, we admit it, we really don't have a freaking clue. Sorry. Just go eat whatever seems sensible.
seems like the mimimum should be to enforce some kind of exercise. it doesn't get much more sedentary than lab animals. thus, if the results are actual (??), the findings should be low prot high carbs preferable IF SEDENTARY. (though that seems somewhat counerintuitive as well).
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
for about a couple of million years the early humanoids through to modern humans until about 10,000 years ago ate nothing but a high protein diet mainly meat. To sustain a low protein diet you have to eat a high carb diet. So I do not see how that can make you live longer as you are getting obese with type 2 diabetes.
Exactly
It's silly science. A very small sample set and a snapshot of their diet via a one time questionnaire. It's on one day what the participants surveyed think their diet is which is probably a bit off from reality (quick what percentage of calories did you eat from protein last week?).
You have to wonder what the point is?
" 6381 adults over 50 years old who were interviewed once about their diet as part of NHANES, a national survey of health and nutrition"
Eat less of everything. Skip all the stupid fad diets and studies. Consume 1500 or fewer calories a day, exercise mildly. Live longer and more disease free. My science angel told me this.
And nobody knows anyways. Eggs are bad one decade and good the next. Carbs, Protein, HFCS, Red Dye #5, Gluten, etc., and on, and on....
You are, in all likelihood, going to survive at least 50 years, and less than 80. Fuck it. Eat what you want. Look like what you want. Smoke dope. Have fun.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
In the late 80's and early 90's, fat was the energy source of the devil that needed to be avoided at all costs. Then in the early 2000's, carbs were the new nutrient to avoid. And now, another decade later, they're telling us to avoid protein. I'll stick to eating a variety of foods in moderate portions supplemented by exercise, thank you very much.
What good is it to live a long time if you can't eat what you like to eat?
The four basic food groups are good enough for me - caffeine, nicotine, bacon, and pussy. Without those, life has very little meaning.
They are mere flip, a datum likely shoddily collected that is so far removed from any kind of conclusion. It might be worth a mention among specialized crowd that deal with the narrow subject, but outside of that rarefied circle, its being reported is worse than useless.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
....and actually study it.
I'm tired of useless shitbags with absolutely not science background (you) trying to tell me what the right way to do anything is.
More vegan propaganda.
Bass O Matic meals extend life span -- but who wants to live extra years if that's what it takes?!?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Go back to bed Soulskill
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines. And they do exist, and give pretty clear ideas. Such as that halving your meat intake is a good idea.
But I guess that's not exciting, news needs to either repackage (MyPlate) or go after highly fluctuating results from microstudies which is the latest research, but in the stage of formation (all these diet fads, X is bad for you, Y heals cancer, drink a glass of red wine a day [because a encyme in a petri dish did something], etc. ).
By the way, why does there need to be one right way of nutrition? Why can't we accept that multiple ways to obtain the basic building blocks are possible.
In the end, we can't be so off by so much: We have so many people living with such a big variety of foods, and they are doing pretty similarly well (i.e. get older than, and are healthy at, 65). The need to prove that everyones diet is completely wrong is ridiculous.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
High carbohydrate, low nutrient diet is going to boost cancer rates.
The cows?
Have gnu, will travel.
As others, the study was done on mice, who are herbivores in the wild. They say what happens to them will also happen to us, but we have been eating meat a long while now.
I wonder if also applies to my cat? <scarcasm>I know cat's are predominately carnivores, but that shouldn't matter, right?</scarcasm>
now i can continue my steady diet of breakfast cereal with a smug sense of satisfaction!
It doesn't work for older people in the first place, and we're only talking IGF-1 cancer.
Look, want some useful science?
Vitamin supplements are mostly a waste of time, if you're not about to get pregnant or participate in that, and you're far better off eating a varied diet low in meat with more fruits and vegetables, and getting mild to moderate exercise.
There, free of charge.
Most of the rest is just noise.
Now, go get enough sleep and stop doing binge diets and binge drunks and stuff that stresses you out. If you want to fast for a week or two every ten years (if you do this, take vitamins and fruit or vegetable juice), that also helps.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"High-Protein Diet May Get You To Heaven Faster"
See? Whatever you eat, it's win-win!
Koans and fables for the software engineer
But I get the distinct impression that what diet is "good for you" is determined by what foodstuff the agricultural commodity markets feel is undervalued this year.
See, if you'd stopped at the first sentence you'd have been fine. Once you wandered off into processed food land you became either a nut case or wholly redundant. See, there's nothing wrong with sugars of just about any type (though lactose is not digestable properly by a portion of the population, but that's a side discussion), nor salt, nor processed foods.
Once you eat a well balanced diet of proper portion sizes, you never need worry about the rest of the stuff, as it takes care of itself. A diet of Coke, Twinkies, and bacon is not a balanced diet*, so there's really no need to go spouting off about it.
*this, fwiw, is proof that there is either no God at all, or that God hates us. Because in a universe with a benevolent God, those would form the core of a balanced diet.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Actually, moderation is always ok. Too many eggs, as in 2 or more in every meal, probably not good.
One or two every two or three days is fine. It's the grease you fry them in that has the most impact, so poach them or something.
But you are correct: sex with a committed partner, regular meals (not yo yo diets), and stuff that reduces stress are all good for you.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Seriously, I don't see how the study could be right. My experience is that I lost 63 lbs. in 4 months by eating a low carb, high protein, high vegetable diet. The fastest and physically easy technique was to just ditch the sugar drinks, candy, fries stuff.
Good research has shown that red meat is particularly harmful to the cardiovascular system due to it's interaction with gut microflora. But other kinds of protein seem to be healthy (nuts, chicken, etc.).
So what kinds of protein do they use to test their hypotheses?
More important is exercise and vitamins.
The thing is that the body can and does create its own protein, fat, and sugar. If it has to convert it is less efficient. However, our problem is not a lack of protein or carbohydrates. Our problem is a sedentary population that doesn't move enough to stimulate their metabolisms.
What is more, there are a great many fat people that are also malnourished due to specific vitamin deficiencies. Much of that is due to not having enough fruit and vegetables in the diet.
The problem with including more fruits and veg is that they're expensive especially for urban dwellers that are both farther from food sources and unable to produce their own.
What is more the cost of these foods has gone up faster then inflation in recent years. This forces people to rely more and more on cheap staple carbohydrate food sources. These sources are FINE. I am not arguing against them at all. However, they are not sufficient without supplements or additional food sources.
If you wish to improve the health of people living in modern countries... improve exercise... outdoor activities of any kind... ideally during the day. And lower the cost and increase the availability of fruits and vegetables.
For example... farmers in California are getting their water cut off. These same farmers produce a disproportionate amount of the nation's fruits and vegetables. Thus, any problem they run into will increase the cost and reduce the availability of those goods. Consider building the poor guys a dam or aqueduct so they can sustain production despite the golden state's continuing chronic mismanagement. Further, encourage people to grow their own gardens. There are backyards throughout the suburbs that are entirely sufficient to grow small gardens that can supplement their diets. That takes further pressure off the farms to provide produce to urban centers.
The idea is to just make produce cheaper and more readily available.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Focusing on diet for human lifespan is like focusing on gasoline for car lifespan.
Studies have been done of places where people tend to live longer. Some common threads are: genetics, happiness, close community ties, everyday physical labor, low stress, diet and maybe a few other things.
Yeah sure, diet is in there; but if your Daddy died at 40, you're pissed off all the time, you don't know your neighbors and you spend 60 hours a day stressing in a cube-farm then the quinoa salad you ate probably won't help much. Go ahead though. It probably won't hurt; just don't expect miracles. Look at *all* the factors.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Extending your health requires more then just adhering to a diet or vitamins or any one thing. Its also not a guarantee since all humans are subject to predisposed risk factors through genetics. At some point we will most likely extend life more predictably through this genetic filtering so as to prevent cancers, blood disorders and improve our immune system. I have heard so many diet solutions down through the years. That eventually don't do all they originally thought they would do. I prefer the basics of eating any food that is less processed and in moderation.
suggest that eating relatively little protein and lots of carbohydrates
which benefits the hell out of grain farmers and food processing companies and didn't we already try that in the 60-90's
Current wisdom has us do high input (eat lots of good foods) and high output (lots of exercise) which in turn gives us a high metabolism, and if done right - we can stay in good shape. I've always thought that it also has us burn through our mileage faster too. I think the key to longevity is low metabolism. Of course, I don't pay much attention to it, because the likelihood of dying from something else prevents me from worrying about running out of road.
"lots of carbohydrates" doesn't mean "lots of bread, grains and pasta"
The summary says "lots of carbohydrates", but TFA does not say that, nor does TFA say that carbohydrate consumption was significantly increased. Furthermore, at least the human study says that the detrimental effects were only associated with high consumption of animal protein, not vegetable protein. Also, consuming less (animal) protein was detrimental only for people aged 18-65. For 65+, increased protein consumption had a positive effect.
Overall, the summary is really bad.
we simply don't know.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Maybe they should have interviewed the people who died.
From the article:
“But it’s probably overly simplistic to say that everyone should go on a low-protein diet at this point.” Among the many caveats, for example, is that the mouse study used a single strain, though different strains can have different reactions to diets such as calorie restriction. Kaeberlein also thinks it’s unlikely that reduced protein alone explains the dramatic impact of calorie restriction on lifespan.
Mice strain can have a huge impact on the results.
http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/... http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/...
Please stop comparing the media report of these things as the science. The media will find 1 study that they think sells and then hype it up as scientist say blarg.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Crust, tomato sauce and cheese. And mushrooms. And, believe it or not, sauerkraut. Local place had that on the menu, tried it as a joke, joke was on me. Delicious. My lady, who is much more of a meat eater than I am, has it as canadian bacon rounds with sauerkraut. But me, I like the meat free version better anyway.
Pizza -- for as long as this fad lasts, I can pretend it's the perfect food. Yay!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The great thing about diets is there are so many to pick from.
Just like standards.
The goal is to make you eat less, anyways. So since you need to feel miserable about the food to eat less, every individual needs a different "diet" to make them miserable about food, therefore coincidentally resulting in them having less an appetite and therefore lowering their food intake ------ that's the real secret to diet effectiveness, low food-esteem.
You like fatty foods such as fried food, nuts, potato chips, and ice cream? No problem! We have a fat-free meat and fruit diet designed just for you, so you can feel less excited about food in the name of improving your health!
You really like sandwiches, especially peanut butter and jelly with a glass of milk? No problem! We have a carb-free gluten-free , dairy-free diet plan that is sure to make you miserable in the name of improving your health!
Your favorite food is the hamburger, and you love yourself a good steak? No problem; we've got a high-carb vegan diet to make you miserable in the name of improving your health!
Your favorite foods are apple pie and steamed broccoli? No problem; we have a high-fat high-protein no-fruit diet designed to make you miserable in the name of improving your health!
Until one considers the animals being eaten. That's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
Then again, most vegetarians are blissfully unaware of the death toll in every field of vegetables at harvest time. Only look in the tracks of the harvesting machinery if you have a strong stomach. And seriously, to everyone: wash your veggies well with non-toxics before you cook them.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
These types of studies are everywhere you look. There is only one consensus among them:
One size does not fit all.
These types of studies are a waste of time and resources. They are looking for something that does not exist.
The way to achieve progress is creating methodologies for individuals to use to understand what suits them as an individual, and designing and distributing tools to give them access to additional data to help them do so. This will lead to much larger strides in fighting poor health.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
No. Those numbers are derived from averages. There are metabolisms that operate at both extremes as well. There's a predictable distribution of metabolic rates. Some folks are fine on 1200/day. Also, some people can eat a lot more calories than the average person and not gain any weight; body simply refuses to metabolize more than it needs and out it goes. All this before the variables of exercise, ambient temps, clothing, etc.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Twin doctors, one eats nothing but fats and the other eats nothing but carbs, for a month. They document it, they work out, they do tests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...
The result (spoiler alert), either is not great. Eating only fat cannibalizes your muscles, and makes you not get any enjoyment out of food. Whereas eating only carbs makes you feel hungrier all the time.
But their conclusion had a twist, the main problem is processed foods that have a 50/50 mix of fat and carbs. An excellent example is whipped cream. Your body would reject you drinking pure cream, and also pure sugar. But mix them together, and you cant stop eating it! Same with many of our favourite foods, ice cream, doughnuts. All have the 50/50 mix that vendors long ago realized was the most addictive mix. Your body basically never gets the signal to stop eating.
Anyone who is interested should check it out.
http://kickass.to/usearch/hori...
-
That's good, since it was made up by a guy using late 1800's assumptions, Wilbur Olin Atwater. We've moved on a bit; we actually understand a bit about body chemistry and metabolism now. Best thing to do with the original food pyramid is set it on fire and grill some steaks with it. There's a more recent version though that may be a little more trustworthy.
PS -- this is worth spending some time researching for your own benefit (and household, etc.) I just found a couple of representative links that didn't, as far as I could tell at a quick glance, actually promote craziness. Watch out for old info.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"may" is the key word
Anecdotal evidence/I feel like bragging on the internet. I eat what I like, (high fat, high carb, all fast food, literally anything goes) and maintain ~80kg (181cm height) with minimal exercise (15 minutes cycling per week and 20 pressups+situps every morning). I'm 25, situation has been pretty stable since 17-18. More exercise and high-protein/low-carb and I can bulk muscle and lose body-fat pretty quickly. The point I'm trying to make is I think the variation in an indvidual's metabolism (and/or natural genetic body/shape/size) and amount of exercise play a much larger role in body-shapelifespan than carb/protein/fat proportions (assuming you're recieving all 3 in amounts between zero and insane).
nonsense that "One" way of eating is going to be appropriate for all.
Look up "Blood Type Food List" and follow the D'Adamo information. After 10 years of working with my family and others and watching the lists evolve and get more refined... There's no other way to choose food that makes sense.
If you read the paper the reason is that mice eat to sate their appetite for protein, so on a high protein diet they eat much less and end up underweight and have a shorter lifespan. As we have invented the Big Mac, Fries and Coke, being under weight is not the main problem in Western nation. The causes for our lifestyle problems remain a lack of exercise combined with too much, and a poor balance of fats, and possibly too much fructose.
The interviews also suggest that a low carb diet is not healthier in the long-term, even if reduces body fat. Which is what most nutritionists have been saying for 30 years.
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Bullshit. Look at the actual science. Endocrinologists can tell you how your body processes nutrients based on hormones. Hormones COMPLETELY control fat storage and use. Diet dramatically affects hormone secretion. As one put it: "Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage"
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
I'm just about full carnivore so whatever meat you guys are trying to avoid I'll take. The drop in demand should drop the prices as well. How old do you really want to live to? At some point it becomes hell.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If only you had some idea of what you were talking about, rather than bringing that shit up. Learn the topic, and you'll understand exactly what happened, rather than being an example of "It's better to keep silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and confirm it.".
I'm living proof the Pop Tart diet works.
The point is, none of the funding bodies wants to pay the extremely large sums required for *real* nutritional science, so researchers make do with lots of observational studies and a lot of data massaging that will get treated as SCIENCE by an uncritical and generally scientifically-illiterate press, and by not rocking the boat by coming out with articles that challenge the status quo, they're able to continue to receive funding.
Go ahead, smoke the dope! Just don't come crying to me when this happens!
Yes but what is actually tweaking hormones? Perhaps it's the stomach bacteria itself.
Now I might get no positive karma like this and treated like a homeopath, but I predict that the future of dieting will be gut bacteria transplants, and then you will "crave" foods that are good for you. The correct bacteria will tweak your hormones and you will not be addicted to alcohol, or sugar, or chocolate -- no more blaming people for being "weak", no more fatty jokes, no more diet plans for the stars.
The bacteria that live inside us have had millions of generations to tweak our compulsions -- and they release the endorphins to reward us for sugar, fat, salt and meat.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
That's stupid. Everybody knows that animals are just clusters of cells. There is no ethical dilemma in eating them.
In light of what's presented here, perhaps Richard Stallman should stop eating stuff off his foot.
I had high triglycerides and was looking at diabetes sneaking up on me. My doctor warned me not to go on an atkins like diet because he said it would be like eating pure tryglycerides. So I waited a year. I finally went on it and lost a tonne of wait. My triglycerides and blood pressure fell like a rock. And, best of all, it's a diet you can maintain indefinitely without a lot of mental discipline over ruling your body.
It turns out that losing weight is part of the reason. But atkins-related research has shown that triglycerides are a by-product of production of other things your body produces from fats. If you don't eat the fat, the body synthesizes the pre-curorsors it needs on another channel that produces even more triglycerides. At least that is one of the theories. As with any diet science it isn't nailed down. But at least for now it explains the paradoxical but well established observation that atkins like diets can be very heart and diabetes freindly.
Anyhow I believe in it as a way to get heathy. It's a will power break through. Ive gone off of it because no matter what I've seen or been told, I still can't believe a sausage can be any good for me over the long term. So I delberately go off once I get my weight and health where I want it. I don't crave to go off, but I consciously make the decision that I'd rather eat more balanced than stay skinny. So When I go off my weight climbs after a while I start to crave larger portions at dinner and it snow balls. And then I plan to go back on when my weigh gets back to unhealthy levels.
For me it is so relaxing to know that when I need to I can control my weight using that approach.
"opposite of what's urged by many human diet plans, including the popular Atkins Diet"
Even Atkins followers seem to forget that it's not protein but FAT that is important in their diet. He clearly advised that excess protein will cause glucose to be created in your body and counteract the purpose of the diet.
...omphaloskepsis often...
You do know that the "food pyramid" was "shaped" by industry lobbyists don't you? It's why we had that wretched "grains" as the huge base a while ago. Now it's vertical striped so each group can get it's due. You can however throw out the dairy column as you can live your whole live after the first few months without dairy.
If we look at the Paleo diet (the one humans had for a long time), then fruits, nuts and occasional meat -- that's what we are designed for. Grains are "nice" but the Corn, Soy and Wheat we have today is so toxic with Gluten and other formations that it's hardly a "health food" though if you eat it moderately and exercise -- it should be OK for most (but not all) people. Veggies are also a good addition.
So it should be fruit, nuts, beans, veggies -- and maybe Meat. The rest is market driven nonsense.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I'm 46.
I've seen so many radical reversals as far as what's healthy to eat, what's not, that frankly NOTHING "the experts" say about diet today is credible.
I follow a pretty simple set of guidelines:
- don't over eat
- eat food as close to its natural form as you can: sugar, not 'sweetener'; eggs, not "egg product"
- fewer names is better. "Coke" instead of "Caffeine Free Diet Vanilla Coke with Lemon".
-Styopa
Right, right. For instance, you, as an animal, would probably be excellent with some good barbecue sauce. No need to be concerned about about your opinion of the matter, or your feelings consequent to your demise, or the impact on anything that might depend upon you.
And I have just the place on my wall to mount your severed head once the taxidermist is done with it. I've got this great hat I want to top you off with.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
First hand experience.
Low Fat, High Carb...okay...
Started here. Diabetes. Weight gain. Heart disease. So go high fat, low carb.
Low Carb, High Fat...great...
High cholesterol, gout, strain on liver and kidney, heart disease. Headaches. Tired at midday.
Low Fat, Low Carb...oooh...hardcore...(thats what I did)...nearly died from that one...
Malnutrition. Heaches. Feel like a grandfather. Can't function.
Very few people are disciplined about eating for their whole lives. Stop blaming the patient and expecting human beings to last to age 100 disease free. Our bodies aren't built for it. Ironically these medical professionals are stressing people out and detracting from their quality of life so much it's probably shortening their lifespans.
Knew a girl who got right into excercise and lost about 60kg. She got fit. She stuck with it. She's now got terminal cancer.
By the way enjoy your weight loss. Stats show it's probably temporary. People who's bodies gain weight easily have trouble keeping it off long term. For most eventually illness or injury get them or they simply age and slow down. Why do you think weight gain or loss is extremely unsuccessful long term. Insurers have known that for a very long time - if you have gained or lost a lot of weight in the last few years they'll raise your premiums through the roof.
Wine, fruit & vegetable, leguminous (cheas pea, etc.) and meat once in a will
Well, it's fun that someone study it, maybe we will understand the french paradoxe
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Not all species are created equal. I.e. human vs non-human (aka sub-human).
Why do I need to care about the feeling of non-humans - if such a thing is even proven to exists?
Except that there is more or less *NO* difference in two groups of people eating 2500 kcal a day if one group eats 10% protein and the other eats 25% protein. The Endocrinologists migh know what happens at an isolated scale but *all* studies where you measure calorie in minus calorie out shows similar responses in body fat over time no matter what diet the subjects are on. So it's clear that while they might know how insulin stores fat in a person with high insulin there is also another mechanism for storing fat when insulin production is low.
So, equality is your basis for eat or don't eat? Excellent. Because not all humans are created equal, either, as is quite evident by your comment. So, barbecue sauce, or a nice sweet glaze for you. Can't decide. Are you muscular, or more on the well padded side?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not smoking, drinkin and not having beacon and eggs, can you call this life?
Some one who have kidney trouble often eat foods like that...low protein, high calorie=much carbonhydrate
You're welcome to live a life without cheese, don't ask for any of my caprese though.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
They value security far more than liberty.
Now I might get no positive karma like this and treated like a homeopath, but I predict that the future of dieting will be gut bacteria transplants, and then you will "crave" foods that are good for you.
You (the global you) probably already do that. Problem is, you're too busy feeding addictions to even notice.
They're already doing poop transplants, with great success...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If we look at the Paleo diet (the one humans had for a long time), then fruits, nuts and occasional meat -- that's what we are designed for.
Stop saying that. We weren't designed at all.
Veggies are also a good addition.
Yeah, if you look at the diet humans had for a long time, it includes vegetables, because they're just lying around.
So it should be fruit, nuts, beans, veggies -- and maybe Meat. The rest is market driven nonsense.
Congratulations on your market driven nonsense. Eat your vegetables.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Let those prisoners on life sentence try the low protein diet and see how long they can last :)
Out of my mind. Back in 5 mins.
Interesting thing, looking at Levine & al's data, is that they hype "interactions" between age and diet, which leads to low protein diet "extending lifespan" esp by cancer in their younger cohort, but increasing cancer mortality in their older cohort. Meanwhile, they ignore that low protein diet reduces diabetes mortality uniformly across age groups
I think a better interpretation of that study would be "high protein diets, which are known to facilitate cell growth, also facilitate tumor growth." Somehow, that doesn't sound quite as exciting.
Well, no. How exactly do proteins metabolize into triglycerids in the body?
You'd probably poop out 40-60% of that protein amount.
some time ago watched a debate between two scientists on youtube. one was claiming that hi fat, low carb is the way to go, other was claiming the exact opposite.
both of them has lots of research behind it to support the idea.
and now what?
no really, how do I decide which one was right? or was BOTH of them right? you know, no matter what you eat, all food have its negative effects?
btw right now I'm on sugar-free (more than year), gluten-free (month or two) diet. I have lost a lot of weight and will see if the glutenfree will have some effect on my eczema, allergies...
That must be true!
I challenge u to try and get any type of strength or performance gains on a low protein diet... No thanks... #proudMuscleNerd
You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Wait, the WW2 self-rationing propaganda? You actually believe that was backed by science? It's been tweaked a bit since many of the old claims have been severely disproven, but the core dogmas have not been corrected.
This will probably get lost in the noise, but, the monks on Mount Athos follow a vegetarian diet that contains no animal protein, apart from the occasional fish. There is plenty of plant protein, and the carbs they eat are typically found in fruits and vegetables. They don't eat a lot of bread, rice and pasta. They tend to live long, healthy lives. There is more to it than just the diet, however. Their lives are ordered, unhurried, with little stress, and plenty of mild exercise.
Proverbs 21:19
The low fat/protein/carb diets all have one thing in common, low calories. If you are sedentary you're going to be a fat fuck no matter how many fucking calories you eat. The whole "basal metabolic rate" myth is spread by dietitians that don't know their fucking asses from a hole in the ground. It is simple, calories in vs calories out. If you are a fat fuck then don't eat any calories. If you die from starvation then you really had weak genes to begin with. Humans have historically ate little calories while maintaining muscle mass and energy levels. Today fat fucks don't do anything but consume more fucking calories every fucking day while others starve to death. So if you fat fucks all fucking die from fucking starvation then you fat fucks deserve it and good fucking bye.
Genetics give three different types of insulin response to carbohydrate intake: low, medium, high. They are roughly (warning: 30+ year old data) 25, 50, and 25%. Diabetics (again, 30+ year old data, and incomplete/initial when it was taken) (insulin resistance, not pancreatic failure) correspond only to the high insulin response.
Any attempt to document the response of food/diet to population results that fails to account for which type of insulin response you are testing on is a fail. Basic, simple, first step of peer review fail.
When I see articles like this (and I read the article), I can only think that a non-peer reviewed preliminary study is getting as much press coverage as should go to well-established, peer-reviewed, properly control-tested studies.
Essentially:
1. Different levels of insulin response will have different effects on body behavior, as well as survivability in times of famine.
2. Low insulin response basically makes it impossible for your body to have the same behavior as high insulin response
3. Diets that are healthy for high insulin response is probably good for everyone, but low insulin response can safely eat things that high insulin response cannot.
4. High insulin response means a bigger store of fat, and survival through times of food scarcity.
None of that was addressed by this, or even most of the food studies that get lots of media attention. It's almost as if the people covering the news have no knowledge of what they are covering.
Oh, wait, what did I just say?
Seriously, people. Just skip the processed food, eat mostly plants, and get a little exercise. Forget all the stupid diet crap and just be sensible about what you eat and how much of it.
Perhaps related: there recently was a study on one symptom of aging in dogs, namely "old dog head" where they get this sunken-in-head look due to losing muscle over the skull (above the eyes).
Turns out this has nothing to do with being an old dog, and everything to do with protein deficiency -- and that old dogs need more protein than before. Feed 'em enough protein, and they'll keep their youthful muscling, and don't get "old dog skull" at all.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Full article indicates the human study was based on a one-time interview with participants. Even then (FTFA): "as the NHANES cohort aged, protein became more important. In the over-65 crowd, those who ate lots of protein survived longer, on average, than those who ate less."
So, sort of, maybe, but not.
My wife's 17 year old cat was frail and dying, we switched to a high-protein kibble, and now she's not only put on weight, but she's as spry as I've ever seen her.
That one anecdote is more scientific than a one-time verbal study.
You have to wonder what the point is?
Who benefits from people eating less protein and more carbs?
Snack-food marketers seem like a reasonable answer. The meme is implanted at the cost of a survey. Most people won't dig beyond the headline.
And nobody knows anyways. Eggs are bad one decade and good the next. Carbs, Protein, HFCS, Red Dye #5, Gluten, etc., and on, and on....
You are, in all likelihood, going to survive at least 50 years, and less than 80. Fuck it. Eat what you want. Look like what you want. Smoke dope. Have fun.
Ask yourself some serious questions:
1) How can old foods cause new diseases?
2) Why did diabetes, obesity, etc. skyrocket after low-card diets started being recommended?
So when in doubt, go with the old time-proven choices. They're the least likely to be influenced by marketers and sloppy science.
I lost 40 pounds on a bagel and hot dog diet. S'truth.
Didn't need a diet book or a weigh-in.
> So, equality is your basis for eat or don't eat?
You get my respect for being imaginative. My post was a mere response to yours saying "you need to care what these animals feel".
Your continued support of the belief that humans must be included into this discussion also never ceases to amaze. My argument (and the original cluster-of-cells post that you replied to) remain valid if you consider common sense and exclude humans from being edible.
Yes, human is a special case and it does not need an explanation.
Any reasonable recommendations can only come from large, longitudinal studies, over multiple generations. You know, those that shape the food pyramid / WHO guidelines.
Bullshit. Look at the actual science. Endocrinologists can tell you how your body processes nutrients based on hormones. Hormones COMPLETELY control fat storage and use. Diet dramatically affects hormone secretion. As one put it: "Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage"
"Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat storage" is a fact. How that fact fits in an overall diet and exercise plan, and how effective that plan is over the course of lifetime, is a lot more complicated.
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
He's been talking about it for years...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
"Study after study has shown that as protein consumption goes up, so does the incidence of chronic diseases. Similar studies show that the incidence of chronic diseases also goes up when carbohydrate and fat consumption go up. This is because if the consumption of any of the macronutrients exceeds our basic requirements, the excess hurts us. Americans already get too much protein (and fat and carbohydrates), and this is reflected in soaring increases in the diseases of excess--heart disease, high-blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, and numerous others.
Micronutrient deficiencies
Most Americans eat diets that are deficient in micronutrients, not in macronutrients. Rather than worrying about macronutrient percentages in your diet, focus your attention on meeting all of your micronutrient needs. For example, fat intake on a healthful diet could vary from 10 to 25 percent depending on the percentage of higher-fat fare such as avocados and raw nuts and seeds as a percent of total calories. Eating more of these higher calorie, fattier foods may be necessary in an active thin athlete or a growing child. Any concern you might have about not eating excess fat should be focused on the fact that fatty foods are more calorically-dense foods, and generally lower in micronutrients than vegetables and other less calorically-dense foods.
The focus of my book, Eat To Live, is on micronutrients. Simply put, the goal of a healthful diet is to get the highest amounts of micronutrients--both in quantity and diversity--from the fewest calories. Micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals, fibers, bioflavonoids, antioxidants and other phytochemicals, are the key to superior health and ideal weight.
When you eat to maximize micronutrients in relation to calories, your body function will normalize, chronic illnesses like high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol will resolve, and you should be able to maintain your youthful vigor into old age.
Heart disease and cancer--the major killers in modern societies--would fade away and become exceedingly rare occurrences if the population adopted an Eat To Live lifestyle. The current epidemic of obesity also would fade away because when your diet is high enough in micronutrients, excess weight drops off at a relatively fast rate. When your diet is high in micronutrients, it's as if you had your stomach stapled; you simply don't crave to overeat anymore. It is actually very difficult to overeat when you eat your fill of high micronutrient food."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
diet advice. Cue George Harrison tracks...