Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mccoy

Caloric or proteic restriction?

Recommended Posts

So by your theory absolute protein counts , Dean's diet would be problematic? Unless total protein +/- context of increased exercise-induced metabolic demand does not matter as much as we think it does ( or at least the amino acid profile for vegans which is more favorable). Would be interested in study/citation if you have it. Thyroid studies always normal, and not surprising given my low BMI notwithstanding not restricting my high calories at all, follow the same thyroid study patten as CR practioners.

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechanism, I have no citations, simply I relate what I read/listened to and all researchers always speak of proteins and mTOR in terms of absolute amount. It could not be otherwise, unless mTOR is confounded by the abundance of carbs and fats as not to sense the proteins, but the researchers we know do not speak in these terms. It may even be the opposite, proteins + carbs upregulate mTOR more efficiently since the aminoacids signal is reinforced by the glucose signal. Just musing but that is in the realm of plausibility.

 

Again, as far as I read in his posts, Dean exercises a lot, practices a lot of CE, eats mainly raw vegan in a single meal with fibers galore and such aspects may be crucial in shifting upward the mTOR threshold. Or, more precisely, in weakening IIS signaling and this may cause the upward shift in the mTOR activation threshold. 

 

His minimum protein requirement with his daily regime is probably very high and would be placed in the upper tail of the lognormal, as an extreme value or statistical outlier. This also assumes that an upregulated mTOR cannot coexist with an extremely low BMI. I'm just speculating, since mTOR has a substantial anabolic effect, very lean does not  correlate well with an activated mTOR masterswitch.

 

In your case, if you want to be just absolutely sure not to activate mTOR, you might try and eat less proteic food, leaving unvaried the caloric amount.

 

By looking at the numbers, with a BMI=18.3, you would weigh 56 kilograms. Considering Rosedale's intermediate value, 56*0.7 = 39 g/day (mTOR inactive)

 

However, since nearly all your protein is vegetable, you might  perhaps eat 25% more (Rosedale's answer in Dr. Mercola's blog). That makes 49 grams protein per day.

You may add a max of 10 proteins because of physical activity and that makes 59 grams protein per day.

 

Since you eat 100 grams per day, according to Dr Rosedale you'd be into the red zone, the upregulated mTOR zone. Or pretty much liable to be there.

 

Again, you want to be sure, you may want to eat no more than 60 grams of proteins per day. And see if that causes a loss of muscle mass. If so, you have a proof that you are located in the upper tail of the statistical distribution of minimum protein requirement, and from that value you can move upward until you have no more loss.

 

By the intrinsic nature of such metabolic sensor, if you loose muscle mass mTOR is in deep slumber.

 

If you gain muscle mass, mTOR is definitely awake in muscle tissues, but may be awake in other tissues or not.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCoy, you gave me a lot to think about. The primary way to reduce total protein while keeping caloric intake thr same ( up to ~3400 kcal/d) would be to focus more on high fat % of macronutrients since the % protein is already not too high and most carb sources have at least that % calories from protein . I already have up to around 200-300 g of nuts/seeds a day ( Other fatty sources include an avocado a day, olives, etc.) and with higher % fat than Dean ( roughly in 49-55% range) which Michael R would not be alone feeling it is crazy high ( and would be in good company with multiple nutrition science recommendations such as from WHO) based on highly elevated omega-6 levels.

 

The concern regarding omega-6 while supported by many studies both benchtop and population-based does conflict with other epidemiology data that nuts in particular continue to be beneficial to a very high omega-6 levels. However with this uncertainty I am unlikely to go higher and if anything would be inclined to pull back if any change is made there.

 

So for replacing protein with fats, that leaves quality EVOO in defiance of my partiality towards whole food sourcing. But MichaeL R and the studies he cited and some I have studied since have persuaded me that EVOO at worst it is neutral may be beneficial overall.

 

The other option to replace protein in my diet is to focus on very low protein carbs such as non-berry fruits (since I already have 200-400 g/dberries too), though I try to avoid fructose beyond a certain level.... this is another controversy with M Gregor citing many papers supporting that fructose from whole foods / fruit can only help not hinder health. However from the review articles I have read on the subject this is true but only to a certain point / level, albeit a quite high level in individuals without metabolic syndrome so there is some room there to displace proteins in addition to the option of increasing EVOO.

 

And these two strategies are not mutually exclusive of course, which adds wiggle room there.

 

I think you made a good point regarding your theory that mTOR can only be so active in the setting of low BMI since mTOR activation is anabolic by it's nature. This is intuitive but I can't say this must be the case with my limited background though I am learning more of nutritional science by the week and may make formal study of it at some point.

 

Until I identify better data, with my good biomarkers, I lean towards preserving a diet not too different than my current one barring any significant changes in either biomarkers and/or BMI; If nothing else I enjoy this diet and the data is very murky beyond the basic principles we have discussed.

 

However I am open minded on this issue as enough uncertainty has been raised on total protein levels ( none of he Blue Zones come close) with my high caloric intake, that I am seriously considering one or more of the avenues of adjusting my macronutrients to lower protein I outline above following more research in mTOR and related pathway.

 

I maintain that Dr. Rosedale did not make a very good case in that lecture taken in isolation ( I have not read his formal work ) as why fatty acids must be the primary dietary intake as % of macronutrient to minimize mTOR activation ( yes, fats are neutral and carbs activate mTOR more but earlier in this thread I outline what I perceive to be weaknesses in the limited case he made for this). The contrary diet of mostly carbs in the Blue Zones also speaks for itself and in my mind for this situation empirical data overall trumps other forms of evidence presently available known to me.

 

I wonder what Dean thinks of his own high (~100g) protein intake. His biomarkers are great, but again, IGF-1 , inflammatory and endocrine makers are only part of the picture and there are many other upregulators of mTOR besides IGF-1. I also cannot r/o that mTOR can be highly active with a low BMI in the setting of many calories burned via exercise and/or elevated BMR.

 

Too bad there was not a "Dean island" blue zone of very high exercise / high calorie / high total ( but not by % of calories, and all plant-based ) protein practioners

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I maintain that Dr. Rosedale did not make a very good case in that lecture taken in isolation ( I have not read his formal work ) as why fatty acids must be the primary dietary intake as % of macronutrient to minimize mTOR activation ( yes, fats are neutral and carbs activate mTOR more but earlier in this thread I outline what I perceive to be weaknesses in the limited case he made for this). The contrary diet of mostly carbs in the Blue Zones also speaks for itself and in my mind for this situation empirical data overall trumps other forms of evidence presently available known to me.

 

 

My very simple interpretation of Rosedale's logic is the following:

 

1-Carbohydrates: must be restricted

2-Proteins: must be restricted

3-Fats: it's the only macronutrient left which must not be restricted.

 

Hence, fats make up by exclusion the dominant part of the energy substrate. They are the only neutral nutrient left, whose presence does not triggers some unfavourable metabolic sensor (expect when eaten together with simple carbs). One important fat sensor is leptin, but its presence has just the effect to cause satiety and avoid dietary overindulgence.

 

I do not agree with all that Dr. Rosedale says. In particular, I eat liberal amounts of fruit, now with skin (this is one of the changes in my eating habits after having gathered suggestions in this forum).

 

Conceptually speaking, his logic is flawless thogh.

Practically speaking, I tried his approach but lost weight almost precipitously, starting from a not high BMI=23. My blood insulin went down and apparently Dr Fung is right, Insulin governs body weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My very simple interpretation of Rosedale's logic is the following:

 

1-Carbohydrates: must be restricted

2-Proteins: must be restricted

3-Fats: it's the only macronutrient left which must not be restricted.

 

Hence, fats make up by exclusion the dominant part of the energy substrate. They are the only neutral nutrient left, whose presence does not triggers some unfavourable metabolic sensor (expect when eaten together with simple carbs). One important fat sensor is leptin, but its presence has just the effect to cause satiety and avoid dietary overindulgence.

That is also the position of Dr Peter ATTIA. He said that everyone agree with him on carbohydrate & protein restriction but they tend to disagree when he concludes that fat has to be the filler for a isocaloric diet. It could be a ketogenic diet or not but has recognized that some persons does not do well, no matter what, on such diet. (from a blood analysis: hormones, lipid profile, crp...all go in the wrong direction if I quote him) but a less restricted but not ketogenic diet is better for them.

It is higly individual at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My very simple interpretation of Rosedale's logic is the following:

 

1-Carbohydrates: must be restricted

2-Proteins: must be restricted

3-Fats: it's the only macronutrient left which must not be restricted. 

 

Thank you mccoy, tasbin.

 

For the 3 principals, even with some "consensus" between these two players conceptually, #2 is supported by the data, but #1 not so much in vivo in people outside of animal and ex vivo models:

 

With such a high concentration of centenarians in the Blue Zones which includes Okinawa where 85% of calories are from carbohydrates, a higher % of ( low-GI whole food) carbohydrates does not appear to be a problem, at least in the setting of a lower calorie overall diet.

 

Dean and I, in contrast with the Okinawa diet, have high rather than low total calorie intake ( notwithstanding our low BMIs), and therefore have high total protein daily.  Therefore whether health benefits would extend to us in the same way as in Okinawa is less clear.  

 

It is in this area that I am curious whether I can find additional research / data / evidence since Drs. Attia and Rosedale have not studied a population resembling Dean and I in this manner.

 

Mccoy, I appreciated your suggested guidelines regarding total protein goals as these will be most helpful should, following research, I adapt a lower total protein approach.  Such an approach would require lowering total proteins while maintaining a higher calorie diet. Maintaining a higher calorie diet is key, as I seem to require those additional calories to prevent my BMI from getting too low.  Optimal BMI in early 40s is probably in the 16 - 18.5 range ( I have always been in this range on my ad libitum high calorie diet my entire life, and am still in this range, following my concerted effort and successful intervention to gain weight).  Indeed, persuasive arguments can be made that it is a lot closer to 18.5 than to the opposite end of the underweight end of the spectrum which was one of several motivations I had for the weight gain - others including but not limited to reduce post-prandial glucose excursions which was successful.  

 

I seem to require >3000 calories a day to maintain my current BMI based on my most accurate and complete cron-o-meter results.  My two most recent entries with 3400 were taken at a time with BMI stable.

 

I detailed in my last post a couple of different reasonable approaches that would accomplish this goal of less protein maintaining these high caloric intake, thanks to your input.

 

All of our discussion may be moot of course if despite our understanding of the basic mTOR mechanisms, that "The effect of dietary restriction on lifespan in rodents is explained by calories alone" and if this also extends to humans as well.  

 

Indeed, the value of CR in humans per se has been questioned and has many threads on the forum devoted to this, though that particular question does not apply to my situation as despite my low BMI and optimal biomarkers ( now that post-prandial BG excursions have been fixed ), my daily caloric intake is high rather than low.

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With such a high concentration of centenarians in the Blue Zones which includes Okinawa where 85% of calories are from carbohydrates, a higher % of ( low-GI whole food) carbohydrates does not appear to be a problem, at least in the setting of a lower calorie overall diet.

 

Dean and I, in contrast with the Okinawa diet, have high rather than low total calorie intake ( notwithstanding our low BMIs), and therefore have high total protein daily.  Therefore whether health benefits would extend to us in the same way as in Okinawa is less clear.  

 

It is in this area that I am curious whether I can find additional research / data / evidence since Drs. Attia and Rosedale have not studied a population resembling Dean and I in this manner.

 

 

 

So why don't you follow Valter Longo's recent guidelines, built upon the dietary regimes of centenarians in the blue zones? Aside from the thrice a week fish servings (which may even be ignored), that's a vegan diet based upon vegetables, cereals nuts and legumes. He gives no restriction on calories, but gives a restriction on proteins: 0.8 g/kg/day. He too relates to proteins in absolute, rather than relative terms. I translated an excerpt from his recent book in the other thread: Longo interviewed by Rhonda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Optimal BMI in early 40s is probably in the 16 - 18.5 range ( I have always been in this range on my ad libitum high calorie diet my entire life, and am still in this range, following my concerted effort and successful intervention to gain weight).  Indeed, persuasive arguments can be made that it is a lot closer to 18.5 than to the opposite end of the underweight end of the spectrum which was one of several motivations I had for the weight gain - others including but not limited to reduce post-prandial glucose excursions which was successful.  

 

 

 

What is the source of that value? As a newcomer to this forum I personally find it too low, although I've noticed that here low values are appreciated. That is personal liking, unrelated to any objective literature. But in this same forum I also read about the advantages of having a minimum muscle mass and fat reserves. My own BMI right now, 22.3, seems too low to me. I favour higher BMI's, where bodyfat is in the range of 10%-15% and muscle mass prevails. My target right now is a muscular 23.2 but I wouldn't mind a 24. My max when bodybuilding was 25. My minimum was 17 but people then would ask me if I started using drugs.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi McCoy thanks for your reply. On the fly now and want to respond more but wanted to clarify here yes I agree 16-18.5 is definitely on the low side with 18.5 the threshold for ideal vs underweight - it's the highest though I've ever been with super thin mother / genes and skinny lowest BMI on normal curve of weights my whole life. Only now higher then low-end of the range that I was through concerted scientific endeavor including resistance training and even more mega calories. Most data shows optimal health probably still the range I provided, provided you are young and otherwise healthy, but that is certainly debatable and there's extensive information on this on the forums. Higher BMI esp crucial as we get older we're optimal BMI goes to 18.5 and significantly beyond. I'll see if I can find the links to the thread and post more later...

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...The contrary diet of mostly carbs in the Blue Zones also speaks for itself and in my mind for this situation empirical data overall trumps other forms of evidence presently available known to me.

 

Actually, I find no logical pattern for different obstensibly healthy diets and centenarians diets. I know about the mediterranean blue zone (Sardinia and Greece), where diets are pretty close to the ancestral diet of the area where I live (coastal mediterranean region).

 

It's the poor diet of a predominant population of farmers. Mainly legumes, cereals, lots of fruit when there is a crop, no fruit when there is not. Lots of vegetables everytime. Little or very little meat (the food of noble people) usually only on holidays. Cheese and dairy products, eggs. Sometimes fish, close to the coast. Olive oil, nuts. Pigs are killed in december and their meat is usually preserved in sausages, salami, hams and eaten during the harshest parts of winter from January to march.  I would have difficulties in breaking up such a diet in relative percentages of macros. Probably 60% carbs, 20 to 30% fats, 10 to 20% proteins or less. The poorest farmers might have eaten more carbs and less animal proteins and fats. Legumes have always been a staple of these people.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All of our discussion may be moot of course if despite our understanding of the basic mTOR mechanisms, that "The effect of dietary restriction on lifespan in rodents is explained by calories alone" and if this also extends to humans as well.  

 

 

I read that series of publications in some detail. However, if we count all the articles on PR and mices, probably most of them would prove that PR prolongs life. If there is some reason why this recent articles showed the contrary, I did not discern, that's the arena of specialistic nutrition research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... The contrary diet of mostly carbs in the Blue Zones also speaks for itself and in my mind for this situation empirical data overall trumps other forms of evidence presently available known to me.

 

Again, there are so many different example of diets which are apparently one the opposite of another and succeed in pursuing the goal of weight loss, diabetes reversal and more.

I do not know why. Denise Minger in her more recent post contends that the extremes (low cars+hi fats and hi carbs and low fats) have healthful outcomes, but she does not advance an explanatory hypothesis. People revert diabetes and loose weight with a low carb diet, but they also do that by hi carb vegan diets or by the Ornish or esselstyn low fat hi carbs diet. I have no explanation which comes to my mind. I understand the Insulin model which is at the base of the low carbers diet, because it is logical. I do not understand other models, maybe the simple and banal energetic balance is valid in many people.

 

One common denominator of all such healthy and longevity pursuing diets is moderate proteins. Even the paleo dieters are supporting Rosedale's ideas about moderating proteins (see the Primal life book by Nora Gedgaudas). This speaks volumes about the importance of such an issue (low proteins). That is presently the intersection of many sets representing different ideal diets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How important do y'all think staying in ketosis for longer and longer periods of time may be for longevity (and avoiding Alzheimer's, diabetes 2, certain forms of cancer, CVD?) For healthy lifespan extension, should we be running our bodies on more of a fat based diet rather than complex carb diet?

 

I've been reading and listening to lots of omnivore talk lately, and find some of Dominic D’Agostino's ketogenic diet stuff interesting (http://fourhourworkweek.com/2016/07/06/dom-dagostino-part-2/). And Seyfried https://thequantifiedbody.net/water-fasts-as-a-potential-tactic-to-beat-cancer/

 

Although I'll probably never go the butter, bacon, red meat, eggs route so many in the keto and modified Atkins community suggest, I wonder if staying in ketosis by means other than strict fasting and keto diets are worth the money? Ketone esters, for example? When eating beans, sweet potatoes, quinoa, black rice, barley, and fruit send me out of ketosis, I wonder if this product purports to keep me in ketosis despite eating those whole complex carbs: "KetoCaNa is the original exogenous ketone supplement. KetoCaNa is a great source of ketones, providing 11.7 grams of BHB Salts per serving! Ketones act as the fuel your body uses, and prefers, when you go into a ketogenic state..."

 

And is even "staying in ketosis" for longer time periods even a healthy model to emulate?

 

And if so then what do you make of ingesting MCT powdered oil to help stay in ketosis?

 

Then there's the coconut oil debate... and BCAAs...so difficult to know what's what for longevity extension without personalized AI guidance. I just don't know who and what to trust, there are so many competing camps of scientists and doctors promoting their way or the highway. My aim, like yours, is healthy lifespan extension.

Edited by Sthira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we are, a great thread on BMI optimization & controversies, supporting ( and my agreement ) that higher BMIs indicated esp. as one gets older. There is conflicting data for younger healthier individuals and on the opposite side of the spectrum, I data at least as low as BMI of 17.5 with respect to morbidity for such a population that Jeff Novick drew my attention to

 

Some controversy how low is optimal as many of the studies could be confounded by pre-existing conditions , but this potential bias was less ( but not eliminated) in some better designed more recent studies so safer if below 18.5 ( or equivalent for your age, condition, and circumstances), to not stray too far with a "bright line" of demarcation no lower than the 16-17 range in any population. Hence, one significant factor behind my own decision and successful endeavor raising my own BMI.

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...The contrary diet of mostly carbs in the Blue Zones also speaks for itself and in my mind for this situation empirical data overall trumps other forms of evidence presently available known to me.

 

Actually, I find no logical pattern for different obstensibly healthy diets and centenarians diets. I know about the mediterranean blue zone (Sardinia and Greece), where diets are pretty close to the ancestral diet of the area where I live (coastal mediterranean region).

 

It's the poor diet of a predominant population of farmers. Mainly legumes, cereals, lots of fruit when there is a crop, no fruit when there is not. Lots of vegetables everytime. Little or very little meat (the food of noble people) usually only on holidays. Cheese and dairy products, eggs. Sometimes fish, close to the coast. Olive oil, nuts. Pigs are killed in december and their meat is usually preserved in sausages, salami, hams and eaten during the harshest parts of winter from January to march.  I would have difficulties in breaking up such a diet in relative percentages of macros. Probably 60% carbs, 20 to 30% fats, 10 to 20% proteins or less. The poorest farmers might have eaten more carbs and less animal proteins and fats. Legumes have always been a staple of these people. 

 

 

Nice description, sounds about right.  While varied in some key ways such as % calories from lipids, the book on The Blue Zones describes commonalities quite well.  

 

I like this Venn diagram highlighting some key similarities and differences.  We can drill deeper to more granulated data, such as for Okinawa, but I think it is important to focus on commonalities ( love this simple yet very on point handout ), and from there if you are a motivated perfectionist, since we do not yet have personalized epigenetics AGIs to construct a personal "best diet" for a particular goal, to consider a bit our ancestry mirroring the closest blue zone..  And better yet ( though this has more unknowns), you can also map out your SNP's though 23andMe or another service should it provide actionable insight into further potential dieary modifications.  For example, here is an example of such data influencing the decision to supplement.  

 

We can critique the methods, etc. from inferring from the Blue Zones, but with migration / dietary change correlating with poorer health outcomes, it is one of the better sources we have.  

 

 

Optimal BMI in early 40s is probably in the 16 - 18.5 range ( I have always been in this range on my ad libitum high calorie diet my entire life, and am still in this range, following my concerted effort and successful intervention to gain weight).  Indeed, persuasive arguments can be made that it is a lot closer to 18.5 than to the opposite end of the underweight end of the spectrum which was one of several motivations I had for the weight gain - others including but not limited to reduce post-prandial glucose excursions which was successful.  

 

 

 

What is the source of that value? As a newcomer to this forum I personally find it too low, although I've noticed that here low values are appreciated. That is personal liking, unrelated to any objective literature. But in this same forum I also read about the advantages of having a minimum muscle mass and fat reserves. My own BMI right now, 22.3, seems too low to me. I favour higher BMI's, where bodyfat is in the range of 10%-15% and muscle mass prevails. My target right now is a muscular 23.2 but I wouldn't mind a 24. My max when bodybuilding was 25. My minimum was 17 but people then would ask me if I started using drugs.

 

See my post above on this, I think we agree on basic principals and that there is a happy middle with regard to outcomes, with varying risks and consequences departing too far one way or another.

 

In addition to the threads here, Jeff Novick ( please note affiliation with McDougall school of thought ), has a great thread that goes into some of the key studies here.  It is worth reading in it's entirety, but essentially he personally advocates based on his interpretation of the preponderance of the data a BMI between 18.5 and 22 for most situations in healthy subjects.  Whether or not you agree, it makes for interesting reading, and my search for the link helped me identify this other gem apparently by someone else on or at least visitor to our forum.  I think the cross-fertilization is great.

 

 

 

With such a high concentration of centenarians in the Blue Zones which includes Okinawa where 85% of calories are from carbohydrates, a higher % of ( low-GI whole food) carbohydrates does not appear to be a problem, at least in the setting of a lower calorie overall diet.

 

Dean and I, in contrast with the Okinawa diet, have high rather than low total calorie intake ( notwithstanding our low BMIs), and therefore have high total protein daily.  Therefore whether health benefits would extend to us in the same way as in Okinawa is less clear.  

 

It is in this area that I am curious whether I can find additional research / data / evidence since Drs. Attia and Rosedale have not studied a population resembling Dean and I in this manner.

 

 

 

So why don't you follow Valter Longo's recent guidelines, built upon the dietary regimes of centenarians in the blue zones? Aside from the thrice a week fish servings (which may even be ignored), that's a vegan diet based upon vegetables, cereals nuts and legumes. He gives no restriction on calories, but gives a restriction on proteins: 0.8 g/kg/day. He too relates to proteins in absolute, rather than relative terms. I translated an excerpt from his recent book in the other thread: Longo interviewed by Rhonda. 

 

 

You are absolutely right, if I wasn't clear that's exactly where I see myself.  The only challenge is that since one one hand I eat high calorie ( up to around twice that of the Okinawans!), on the other I seem to require this to maintain my BMI at what I deem reasonable levels.  Between the two matters, especially as calories can be inadvertantly overestimated by myself or otherwise, exercise inadvertently underestimated, malabsorption and metabolic quirks, etc., or more likely a combination of these, I think it is far preferable to have a reasonably high BMI, so I continue with the high caloric intake.  This especially with fine biomarkers.

 

The only other question is the one I raised previously - the route towards ideally lower protein.  With how much I eat, I do not have any illusion I will consume so low protein.  Even Dean with his vegan diet and other great variations  that closely resemble my own would have at least around 100+ g of protein a day at my caloric intake.

 

A few posts above in essence I do not want to go far above 200-250 grams of nuts a day ( previously went to 300).  While some threads have suggested as long as from whole foods high levels may not be a problem at least up to the level studied ( for example see the table here that goes at least to 100 grams).  In the same thread, Michael R makes his own case regarding high omega-6 being a problem and the debate goes on ( including other papers cited by Dr. Greger on the benefits of nuts), however the data only goes to so high nut consumption and the epidemiologist in me knows I cannot infer the trend beyond the reference population studied and super-high nut consumption like I have has not been well studied.  Also, even the lowest protein nuts have a respectable amount.  So, to reduce my total protein intake I basically would be turning to more fruits and I already have ton and I am sure you are familiar with the debates on fructose which I think while exaggerated does eventually have some impact on hepatic metabolism.  So basically that leaves EVOO, ( or if you want coconut oil as long as saturated fat does not get too high.... as despite the recent data I believe while the adverse effect of saturated fat has been exaggerated in the past, it has safe limits too).  So in a nutshell, increasing EVOO is probably the best strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

All of our discussion may be moot of course if despite our understanding of the basic mTOR mechanisms, that "The effect of dietary restriction on lifespan in rodents is explained by calories alone" and if this also extends to humans as well.  

 

 

I read that series of publications in some detail. However, if we count all the articles on PR and mices, probably most of them would prove that PR prolongs life. If there is some reason why this recent articles showed the contrary, I did not discern, that's the arena of specialistic nutrition research.

 

 

 

I agree a datapoint should not be taken in isolation, and also should be weighed by it's relative strength.  There is a lot of subjectivity inherent to the process, and for my part I am looking at formalizing some of my foundation..

 

 

 

... The contrary diet of mostly carbs in the Blue Zones also speaks for itself and in my mind for this situation empirical data overall trumps other forms of evidence presently available known to me.

 

Again, there are so many different example of diets which are apparently one the opposite of another and succeed in pursuing the goal of weight loss, diabetes reversal and more.

I do not know why. Denise Minger in her more recent post contends that the extremes (low cars+hi fats and hi carbs and low fats) have healthful outcomes, but she does not advance an explanatory hypothesis. People revert diabetes and loose weight with a low carb diet, but they also do that by hi carb vegan diets or by the Ornish or esselstyn low fat hi carbs diet. I have no explanation which comes to my mind. I understand the Insulin model which is at the base of the low carbers diet, because it is logical. I do not understand other models, maybe the simple and banal energetic balance is valid in many people.

 

One common denominator of all such healthy and longevity pursuing diets is moderate proteins. Even the paleo dieters are supporting Rosedale's ideas about moderating proteins (see the Primal life book by Nora Gedgaudas). This speaks volumes about the importance of such an issue (low proteins). That is presently the intersection of many sets representing different ideal diets. 

 

 I also enjoyed reading Minger's post discussed here, and am waiting for more hard data, hopefully in her follow-up post to come.  She has little background in this area so while I have disagreed with a number of interpretations, etc., before nevertheless impressive that she has gotten to this point primarily from self-education, not unlike the lion's share of us here.

 

Some of this is bad data for some interventions.  E.g., comparing saturated fat to a crappy junk food carb diet or a crappy extracted seed-oil ( as opposed to from whole food sources) will make the saturated fats look good by comparison while in reality it may very well be that good whole-food based carbohydrate sources, MUFAs and PUFAs far better for you in many or most circumstances) & another great example here.   There are also many road to Dublin and it is easy to forget here that the body is incredibly robust and some choices may not matter so much.

 

With all the gray areas and uncertainty, all the more reason to just remember eat food, mostly plants, not too much [ quote from Michael Pollan, however see post number two in thread I actually linked to for additional interesting summaries ].  It gets you most of the way there.  Kaiser has another very good, in this case vegetarian, big-picture version of this I think.  That, and a case can also probably be made to either avoid too outlier practices ( individually-defined) or at least if you choose to, do so with open eyes and knowledge that the outcome and consequence of your personal experiment of N=1 may be correspondingly less predictable.

Edited by Mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attached plot has been included in the NAS study Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients). The source is the same Rand et al., 2003 metanalysis which has been used in the WHO TRS 935 previously described. The database has been apparently trimmed though (by 10 data) and the random variable is in units of grams of proteins /kg/d, which is more immediate practical use.

As specified in the WHO study the weight is an actual weight, corrected when BMI was lower or greater than a common interval (not specified).

 

post-7347-0-97340600-1478352406_thumb.jpg

 

The bulk of the data lies into the interval: [0.4;0.95] g/kg/d

 

The variability is pretty high, leaving it to ourselves to determine which is our individual need. About 5 to 6% of the individuals exhibit a minimum requirement which is larger than 1 g/kg/d. 

 

My bottom line, which I am going to reiterate, is that the RDA of 0.8 g/kg/d may be  twice the minimum requirement of 8% of the population. That is to say, it would be the double of the minimum requirement of about 10% of the population, and that could hardly not to activate mTOR.

 

Is it plausible that a 0.8 g/kg/d is adopted as proteic restriction? Not scientifically speaking. Even though 'Protein restriction' (PR) is not to be taken literally. If  we reason in a rigorous way though and imply PR as 'zero nitrogen point' or a little more, the 0.8 value would mean PR only for about 25% of the population. Maybe for 50% of the population if we have a 20% tolerance.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the above it descends that it is imperative that we estimate our own nitrogen balance point, the minimum requirement point which would equate protein restriction.

 

This is what the empirical procedure I followed, since I have now a whole 1-month cronometer log.

I've been weighting myself every morning, taking muscles sizes at interval. I've increased 1 kg of weight, with a littel increase in bodyfat % and the same muscle mass or possibly a little higher. Within the error interval, I can say, with my present regime, moderate exercise, I did not loose muscle mass, I did not gain it. My average protein intake has been exactly 1 g/kg/d.

 

Right now I can only affirm that I'm at or above my minimum requirement. Since I did not increase muscle mass although making moderate weightlifting, I might also say that I'm not in positive balance, although the loads are really moderate so they might not have granted much MPS.

 

My present conclusion is that, considering my present diet and the moderate exercise, I might have a minimum protein requirement ranging from 0.6 to 1 g/kg/d proteins, more likely 0.8 g/kg/d or even 1 g/kg/d, although that would be in the higher percentiles.

 

I might experiment decreasing the protein intake and checking my muscle mass. 

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×