Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'nutrition'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forums
    • CR Science & Theory
    • CR Practice
    • Chitchat
    • General Health and Longevity
    • CR Recipes
    • Members-Only Area
  • Community

Blogs

  • Paul McGlothin's Blog
  • News
  • Calorie Restriction News Update

Categories

  • Supporting Members Only
  • Recipes
  • Research

Product Groups

  • CR IX
  • CRSI Membership
  • Conference DVDs

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL

Found 9 results

  1. Dear colleagues, A very interesting conference will be held July 26-27 at the George Washington University Medical Center: https://PCRM.org/ICNM Among the many presenters is Dr. Dean Ornish, the well-known vegan guru (who is often cited by our own mikeccolella). Looks interesting, and, IMO, worth attending. -- Saul
  2. I have attached what I eat in this message. I am eating at least 7 pounds of vegetables a day and right now I am eating around ~200-300g of each vegetable, but I am wondering if I might be better off eating less of the starchy vegetables - peas, carrots, green beans, - and more dark leafy greens? As you can see I am eating 600g of dark leafy greens every day which should be a good amount by normal standards, but I fear it is not enough from an optimal nutrition standpoint. Some more notes about my diet: The evoo is 600+ ppm polyphenols which I buy 24 bottles of and store for 12 months in my fridge at 2 degree Celcius I supplement with b12, iodine and vitamin D3 Berries are my only fruit source because of taste and they are more nutritious than other fruit I avoid animal products and grains in favor of more nutritious food groups: vegetables, fruits, seeds and legumes I limit my fat sources to evoo, flaxseeds and occasional avocado to maximize my MUFA/PUFA ratio and limit my O6 intake to ~10g I drink coffee made from 30-40g beans and 5-10g of Sencha green tea every day I avoid cocoa like the plague since it left me anxious, irritable and burned out for weeks This is a post about vegetables but any diet related discussion is welcomed.
  3. Here is a 2 hr 33 min panel discussion with Dr. Essylstyn, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Williams, & Dr. Popper. No doubt this will be of interest to many people around here. It's incredible to get these brilliant people together!
  4. All, I'm often critical in my posts about how badly the popular media butchers studies of diet, health and nutrition - and it often only becomes apparent how badly the media distorts and exaggerates research when you read the actual text of the study with a critical eye. For example, the bogus data low-fat gurus use to criticize olive oil. Even Dr. Greger, whose perspective and analysis I'm generally very impressed with, is guilty of spinning the evidence (also discussed here) in favor of a plant-based diet on occasion. That's why I was pleased and amused to see this new segment from late-night talk show host John Oliver in which he humorously tears to shreds the typical coverage we see of diet/nutrition/health studies in the mainstream media. It's a rather long segment (20min) embedded below, but I highly recommend it. If you're just in it for the laughs, I suggest jumping ahead to 15:45 (here is a direct link to that spot), featuring "TODD Talks - where the format of TED Talks meets the intellectual rigor of morning news shows". It is extremely amusing, while effectively driving home the point that you should believe very little of what you hear about "new research" on TV or via online news sources (except this one of course☺). --Dean
  5. All, The New York Times has an article out yesterday title Where Americans and Nutritionists Disagree highlighting the results of a survey they conducted comparing what foods average Americans think are healthy/unhealthy vs. what a panel of 50 nutritionists thought about the same foods. The upshot is best groked from the handy graph they provided, showing how the healthiness of foods was rated by average people (x-axis) vs. nutritionists (y-axis): Foods along the diagonal show agreement between the two groups. Foods above the diagonal are ones the nutritionists were more likely to rate as healthy compared with the public. Conversely, foods below the diagonal are ones the public in general though were healthier than the nutritionists. As the title implies, the article focused on areas of disagreement - like granola, coconut oil and frozen yogurt, which the public thought were healthy but not nutritionists, and foods like quinoa, tofu and sushi which the experts rated healthy but not the public. But what was a bit surprising to me was how much agreement there was between the two groups. It appears in general the American public knows what's good and bad for them, they just don't or can't eat healthy based on that knowledge. The other thing that surprised me was how high both groups (but especially nutritionists) rated chicken and turkey. These "white meats" have been traditionally thought of as healthy by well-informed people, but lately the link between chicken and obesity / diabetes has sullied their reputation. It appears nutritionists haven't yet gotten the memo... --Dean
  6. I know there is a cool tools thread, but I don't want to add this there because I take it that that is a place for tried and tested tools. This seems like a very new and untested tool, but one that could be potentially very cool: It sounds a little too good to be true. Has anyone tried anything like this? Does it really work? It certainly could come in very handy.
  7. For those Dr. Greger fans out there , his new book How Not to Die comes out today. He posted a video today about the book. It sounds really good, and I've requested the first copy from my local public library when it becomes available. At 50min, he talks about dietary cholesterol and heart disease, and the tactics the egg industry uses to obscure the link - e.g. exploiting the "saturation effect" on cholesterol intake. Apparently in the first half of the book he addresses the science of how to avoid dying from the 15 leading killers (heart disease, various cancers, etc.) through diet, nutrition and exercise. In the second half, he pulls it all together into specific recommendations about what to eat and what not to eat to stay healthy. He presents the concept of the Daily Dozen, the 12 foods he tries to eat every day, and how many servings of each. I screen captured this frame from the video, which is figure from the book, that appears to summarize his Daily Dozen: He appears to be covering all the usual suspects that most of us CR practitioners try to eat / drink every day. In the "beverages" category I presume from his videos he means tea and/or coffee. Its interesting that "flaxseeds" is the only food he calls out specifically, and separately from the "Nuts & Seeds" category which he also includes. He was on one of my favorite podcasts (Rich Roll Podcast) today as well discussing the book. Here is the link to the episode. He talks about confirmation bias @ 23min - a topic many here criticize him about. Frankly he doesn't say much, except you've got to be an unbiased follower of the science. He gives an anecdote @25min where he changed his mind and his recommendations based on recent science - that of the danger of lead in tea leaves, particularly coming from China where they apparently only recently got rid of leaded gasoline. He says this isn't a problem if you are brewing tea leaves, since the lead stays with the leaves - supporting my similar conclusion about brewing cacao to avoid the heavy metal contaminants in chocolate products. But he says up until recently he was recommending putting the tea leaves in smoothies - figuring by throwing out the leaves you're losing some of the plant goodness. He's changed his tune on this, and now recommends brewing tea and discarding the leaves. At 50min, he talks about the link between dietary cholesterol, serum cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, and the tactics the egg industry uses to obscure the linkage - e.g. exploiting the "saturation effect" for dietary cholesterol. At 53min he talks about the excitement he and the scientific community have about the gut microbiome, but doesn't talk about it in too much detail except his recent video (which we discussed here) on how our immune system interprets low butyrate levels as a sign of being under attack, thereby increasing inflammation and autoimmune reactions. At 58min he talks about organic vs. conventional. He says in terms of nutrition, organic is slightly better (e.g. 20%) for phytonutrients, but probably not worth the extra expense. He says organic may be worth it to avoid heavy metals like cadmium, which are high in conventional fertilizers, and therefore higher in conventionally grown produce. He says he recommends choosing organic whenever possible, but not to let fear prevent us from eating more plants, even conventional plants. The net benefits of extra conventional fruits/vegetables far outweighs the risk. As evidence, he quotes a modeling study that found that if everyone in the US ate one more serving of fruits/vegetables per day, it would prevent 20,000 cancer deaths, but at the same time cause 10 additional cancer deaths from the extra exposure to pesticides - so lopsided are the benefits vs. the risks. At 1:01, he talks about GMOs - saying extra use of pesticides (e.g. glyphosate / Roundup) directly on the plants is the real issue with GMO foods, and there is some legitimate concern there. At 1:09 he talks about how he sees the state of nutrition science and public health recommendations as analogous to our understanding of the effects of smoking in the mid-50s. Evidence was starting to build at that time that smoking was bad for you, but powerful forces, including the American Medical Association, were still saying smoking was good for you. See this video about the shocking historic evidence for the influence the tobacco industry had on health recommendations, and how it parallels the influence and tactics of the processed food industry today. He's optimistic that, like the tide turned on tobacco, we'll see the same thing happen with processed food. At 1:13 he talks about the cognitive dissonance doctors are experiencing around diet - eating crappy themselves prevents them from wholeheartedly endorsing healthy diets for their patients. Plus the perverse incentives of the medical / pharmaceutical industry rewards doctors for prescribing pills and procedures, rather than focusing on keeping their patients health. He hopes for growth of wellness programs sponsored by corporations to make their employees healthier and thereby saving themselves money on health insurance premiums/payouts. Whatever you say about him, you've got to admit he's sincere and passionate in his beliefs and in his determination to help people live healthier lives through improved diet. The proceeds from his book (and all his speaking engagements) go to the 501c3 non-profit that funds the NutritionFacts.org website. He now has a team of 14 people that help him conduct his research, so that's a lot of mouths to feed. --Dean
  8. All, There is an interesting new review paper [1] on the relative effectiveness and potential synergy between dietary / calorie restriction and 'dietary balance' - i.e. optimized nutrition without reduced calories. Here are the passages from the free full text that I found most interesting, for those without the time to read it all: In rodents, increasing the P[rotein] : C[arbohydrate] ratio affects longevity without being influenced by total calorie intake, ultimately leading to an increased mTOR activation. The longest lifespan extension was achieved by a low protein / high carbohydrate diet, which the authors believe to result from low mTOR activation and low insulin levels. Inhibition of mTOR, a proaging pathway, by manipulating the ratio of macronutrients is believed to extend longevity in rodents [14]. As described above, mTOR and IGF-1 signalling by amino acids and the effect of low protein diets on longevity regulation suggest further investigation into how dietary balance affects aging. Also in primates, DR composition has a major impact in results regarding lifespan extension, supporting the notion that balance of nutrients in the diet might be more important in healthy lifespan extension than dietary restriction. Two studies, one from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Centre (WNPRC) and another from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) presented different results when subjecting rhesus monkeys to 30% CR regimen. The WNPRC study reported a decreased mortality in the CR group in comparison to the control group with a 50% lower incidence of diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases [17, 86]. On the other hand, the NIA study did not find significant differences between CR and control groups, although supporting the beneficial impact of CR on healthspan [87]. The major differences between these two studies were the dietary regimens and the protein and carbohydrate sources used in each study. In the WNPRC study, the protein source used was lactalbumin and the carbohydrate source derived from corn, starch, and 28.5% sucrose, whereas, in the NIA study, the protein source used derived from wheat, corn, soybean, fish, and alfalfa meal, and the carbohydrate source derived from ground wheat and corn with 3.9% sucrose [81]. The differences in results from the two studies could be attributed to the variations in food ingredients and possibly to the protein source; one derived from animal and the other derived from plant sources that have been previously described to affect aging [81, 88]. In humans, very recent cohort studies suggest a correlation between age-related diseases and high protein diets from animal sources. Based on the US national survey of health and nutrition, NHANES III database, a recent article reports that the 50-to-65 age group with high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a fourfold increased risk of cancer mortality in comparison to individuals with low protein intake, which was attenuated or abolished when protein intake was derived from plants. Interestingly, in individuals over 65 years, the high protein intake was reported to reduce cancer and overall mortality. These results were confirmed in mice, proving that protein absorption is affected by aging. The study also confirms the correlation between higher IGF-1 levels with more dietary protein and the incidence and progression of both melanoma and breast cancer [15]. Likewise, a Swedish cohort reported that low carbohydrate high protein diets are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases [89]. Michael may disagree, but the evidence, including the primate studies, seem to be shifting the scientific consensus towards the perspective that it isn't just about "calories, calories, calories" when it comes to health (which has been known for a long time) but also when it comes to longevity. --Dean ----------- [1] Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2016;2016:4010357. doi: 10.1155/2016/4010357. Epub 2015 Nov 23. Dietary Restriction and Nutrient Balance in Aging. Santos J(1), Leitão-Correia F(1), Sousa MJ(2), Leão C(1). Free Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4670908/ Dietary regimens that favour reduced calorie intake delay aging and age-associated diseases. New evidences revealed that nutritional balance of dietary components without food restriction increases lifespan. Particular nutrients as several nitrogen sources, proteins, amino acid, and ammonium are implicated in life and healthspan regulation in different model organisms from yeast to mammals. Aging and dietary restriction interact through partially overlapping mechanisms in the activation of the conserved nutrient-signalling pathways, mainly the insulin/insulin-like growth factor (IIS) and the Target Of Rapamycin (TOR). The specific nutrients of dietary regimens, their balance, and how they interact with different genes and pathways are currently being uncovered. Taking into account that dietary regimes can largely influence overall human health and changes in risk factors such as cholesterol level and blood pressure, these new findings are of great importance to fully comprehend the interplay between diet and humans health. PMCID: PMC4670908 PMID: 26682004
  9. [Note: I've moved this thread from the "Chit Chat" forum to "CR Practice", since it has useful information about food choice and supplements for CR practitioners. Thanks for starting it Greg! --Dean] I adhere to a low-fat vegan regimen. I'm looking for opinions on the advisability of taking the foods listed below. An example would be: - tempeh (for B12) possible response: recent studies indicate it might not be a good choice - some vegans who consumed plenty of tempeh were found to have low B12 levels. Food X (e.g. fortified yeast flakes) might be a better choice. Here is the list: - yeast flakes (for B12, since they are grown on a substrate with B12), e.g. Bob's Red Mill Yeast Flakes - brewer's yeast (for the variety of B vitamins other than B12) - flaxseed meal (for omega 3) - wheat bran - wheat germ I'm actually hoping that some members who know much more about nutrition than I do will advise me that some of these are really not necessary. The exception is the yeast flakes, since I don't know of a vegan alternative except capsules. Thank you.
×