Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mikeccolella

The mousetrap

Recommended Posts

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/the_mouse_trap.html

this article talks about the weaknesses of relying on rodent studies. They mention autophagy and fasting and indicate the strong possibility that fasting may be a waste of time for humans. Basically rodent studies are being seen more and more as quite problematic when trying to interpret as being significant indicators for humans.

 

from the article:

That such a lifestyle would make rodents unhealthy, and thus of limited use for research, may seem obvious, but the problem appears to be so flagrant and widespread that few scientists bother to consider it. Ad libitum feeding and lack of exercise are industry-standard for the massive rodent-breeding factories that ship out millions of lab mice and rats every year and fuel a $1.1-billion global business in living reagents for medical research. When Mattson made that point in Atlanta, and suggested that the control animals used in labs were sedentary and overweight as a rule, several in the audience gasped. His implication was clear: The basic tool of biomedicine—and its workhorse in the production of new drugs and other treatments—had been transformed into a shoddy, industrial product. Researchers in the United States and abroad were drawing the bulk of their conclusions about the nature of human disease—and about Nature itself—from an organism that's as divorced from its natural state as feedlot cattle or oven-stuffer chickens

Edited by mikeccolella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘control animals sedentary and overweight ‘ .... hmmmmmm.

Seems like an excellent condition from which to evaluate interventions considering the activity level and body composition of most Americans?

😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hii Mike!

Not entirely true.  Some of the experiments conducted with mouse (and also the NIH study with monkeys) studies controlled the diet of the controls -- putting them on reduced calorie diets, so that they were not overweight.  (These were studies of CRON; not studies of drug interventions for diseases.)

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good article worth reading.  I read it after seeing it referenced in Dr. Peter Attia's emailed newsletter and unfortunately posted it here before seeing this thread.  The article describes many other issues beyond the typical care & feeding such as the inbreeding.  I'm increasingly of the opinion that mouse research and epidemiology , especially with respect to nutrition where they are heavily used, are poor evidence not deserving of the label "science".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I not been beating this drum on this site forever? This goes all the way to the 90's when I became totally disillusioned with animal studies in general insofar as translatability to humans goes. A result in animals is at best an indication for perhaps scientifically interesting direction for further research, but we should use extreme caution in extrapolating to humans.

While the situation wrt. murines (rats and mice) is dire simply because such vast numbers of studies use them, let's not forget other egregious examples such as cholesterol studies in rabbits which famously have an utterly different lipid physiology to humans. 

Folks even get excited by studies in flies, yeast, and worms. When Cynthia Kenyon made her landmark studies in extending life in worms, people flipped their wigs. 

It's depressing. Even I often have hopes such as when it came to the study of rapa and dogs by Kaeberlein - as a result a lot of folks sprang for rapa themselves, and I must admit I was sorely tempted, not because I suddenly don't understand the translatability issues, but due to the brute fact that I don't have all the time in the world, every day I'm closer to death, so at some point I have to take calculated (or wild) risks. And sadly what I hear through the grapevine, that at least so far rapa in humans for life extension has been something of a disappointment or even a bust - either folks don't notice any effect, or have to stop due to stuff like kidney infections. Now, maybe some are happy (placebo effect and all), but it's hardly surprising if the effect is underwhelming, after all, you need to develop a dosing protocol and possibly need to take additional agents (such as perhaps metformin).

There are so many papers published every day, it's hard to keep abreast, impossible to read them all - so any way to cut it down is a win - for me, for years now, I have a rule, if I see that the study is in animals, I immediately stop reading - saves time.  But I'm a hypocrite too - after all, rapa LE results first came to us through mice, so what am I doing contemplating rapa for myself? All I can say is that the answer is not because I suddenly trust mice studies, but - desperation. As they say, a drowning man will grasp at razor blades. I may yet cut myself to ribbons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TomBAvoider said:

There are so many papers published every day, it's hard to keep abreast, impossible to read them all - so any way to cut it down is a win - for me, for years now, I have a rule, if I see that the study is in animals, I immediately stop reading - saves time.  But I'm a hypocrite too - after all, rapa LE results first came to us through mice, so what am I doing contemplating rapa for myself? All I can say is that the answer is not because I suddenly trust mice studies, but - desperation. As they say, a drowning man will grasp at razor blades. I may yet cut myself to ribbons.

The above is a serious issue. Even Nobel prize candidates like Valter Longo and David Sabatini appear to have some fixation or little bias. Even formidable practitioners like Peter Attia exhibit strong biases. Luigi Fontana calls silliness the arguments of people supporting xenohormesis, but at the same time phytotoxins have been and are used to fabricate powerful medicines. It appears that there is a lack of full consensus on nutrition even from the most bright and credible figures.

Again, the only solution I see is subjective belief. What I believe is true because it works with me, has a previous history of success and data are resonably in agreement. and I use my best judgment not to be afflicted by biases.

What another guy believes may be true for him, all other things being equal. And everyone of course has a different goal or subgoal in life and risk appetite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TomBAvoider said:

Have I not been beating this drum on this site forever? This goes all the way to the 90's when I became totally disillusioned with animal studies in general insofar as translatability to humans goes. A result in animals is at best an indication for perhaps scientifically interesting direction for further research, but we should use extreme caution in extrapolating to humans.

IMO, the main difference between a human and a rat is human arrogance.

  😉

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does this leave us? Moderate exercise, BMI in the 20 something range, Whole Foods primarily plant based with optimal nutrition  moderate red wine consumption, good social connections, healthy stress levels, optimal sleep. These appear fairly solid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems this leaves us choosing ‘interventions’ or lifestyle choices based on good quality epidemiological studies.  Michael Rae’s supplement regimen looks to be founded entirely on only this type of evidence.  

@Mike, in addition to what you’ve already stated you can consider adding vitamin k2-mk4, glucosamine sulfate and green tea.

Clinton

Edited by Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikeccolella said:

So where does this leave us? Moderate exercise, BMI in the 20 something range, Whole Foods primarily plant based with optimal nutrition  moderate red wine consumption, good social connections, healthy stress levels, optimal sleep. These appear fairly solid. 

The aspects you cite are part of the consensus, and that's a pretty good starting strategy.

We can start from the unanimous or quasi unanimous consensus, and from there build our own individual strategy, which will be itself subject to change when significant updates (evidence) occurs.

For example, on the benefits of vegetables, nuts and seeds there is lots of consensus (barring very few exceptions). We need not to consult studies on such foods unless we are interested on particular chemical compounds and want to refine our diet in a perfectionist's way.

What about fruit consumption though?  There is some controversy here. I'm about to open a thread on a possible strategy to tackle these kinds of doubts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mccoy said:

The aspects you cite are part of the consensus, and that's a pretty good starting strategy.

We can start from the unanimous or quasi unanimous consensus, and from there build our own individual strategy, which will be itself subject to change when significant updates (evidence) occurs.

For example, on the benefits of vegetables, nuts and seeds there is lots of consensus (barring very few exceptions). We need not to consult studies on such foods unless we are interested on particular chemical compounds and want to refine our diet in a perfectionist's way.

What about fruit consumption though?  There is some controversy here. I'm about to open a thread on a possible strategy to tackle these kinds of doubts.

 

McCoy - eating fruits are for the non-lifters here ;-) ... too many calories for the micronutrients.

For lifters trying to stay very strong & lean if you stick with veggies, nuts, no-fat or low-fat dairy and a couple of eggs, steel-cut oats, ground flaxseed, berries allows this.  I've added skim milk to smoothies & 2 eggs or sardines w lunch (veggies/leafy greens w each meal).

My 'core' 1400kCal per day diet provides approx 65g of protein per day and still getting 50g of fiber & meeting all RDAs, still leaving room for an optional piece of fruit.

Edited by Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clinton, yours looks like a good dietary optimization which sure guarantees a shredded physique with exercise .

Fruit.... The issue is probably more complex. Today many people tend to demonize it, but the objective truth may be very different.

Calories are not always bad, fruit provides extremely digestable calories with a rehydrating effect plus very useful vitamins (notably C from citrus), precious fiber like pectin and often fruit does not even spike blood sugar. Besides, being fatless, fruit is often a relatively low calorie food, depending of course on the amount eaten.

Sergio Oliva, one of the legendary Mr Olympia winners, in an interview suggested lots of fruit to provide energy and bulk.

Presently I regularly eat a daily average of 500 grams or more of fruit, mostly oranges, but sometimes apples and bananas. 

Of course the issue is sometimes personal. In the other thread I provided an example of Bayesian inference to assess the probability that eating an average of 500 grams per day of apples or oranges is beneficial to health & Longevity

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can You Eat Too Much Fruit?Can You Eat Too Much Fruit?

Written By Michael Greger M.D. FACLM on February 23rd, 2017

 

In my video If Fructose Is Bad, What About Fruit?, I explored how adding berries to our meals can actually blunt the detrimental effects of high glycemic foods, but how many berries? The purpose of one study out of Finland was to determine the minimum level of blueberry consumption at which a consumer may realistically expect to receive antioxidant benefits after eating blueberries with a sugary breakfast cereal. If we eat a bowl of corn flakes with no berries, within two hours, so many free radicals are created that it puts us into oxidative debt. The antioxidant power of our bloodstream drops below where we started from before breakfast, as the antioxidants in our bodies get used up dealing with such a crappy breakfast. As you can see in How Much Fruit Is Too Much? video, a quarter cup of blueberries didn’t seem to help much, but a half cup of blueberries did.

What about fruit for diabetics? Most guidelines recommend eating a diet with a high intake of fiber-rich food, including fruit, because they’re so healthy—antioxidants, anti-inflammatory, improving artery function, and reducing cancer risk. However, some health professionals have concerns about the sugar content of fruit and therefore recommend restricting the fruit intake. So let’s put it to the test! In a study from Denmark, diabetics were randomized into two groups: one told to eat at least two pieces of fruit a day, and the other told at most, two fruits a day. The reduce fruit group indeed reduce their fruit consumption, but it had no effect on the control of their diabetes or weight, and so, the researchers concluded, the intake of fruit should not be restricted in patients with type 2 diabetes. An emerging literature has shown that low-dose fructose may actually benefit blood sugar control. Having a piece of fruit with each meal would be expected to lower, not raise the blood sugar response.

The threshold for toxicity of fructose may be around 50 grams. The problem is that’s the current average adult fructose consumption. So, the levels of half of all adults are likely above the threshold for fructose toxicity, and adolescents currently average 75. Is that limit for added sugars or for all fructose? If we don’t want more than 50 and there’s about ten in a piece of fruit, should we not eat more than five fruit a day? Quoting from the Harvard Health Letter, “the nutritional problems of fructose and sugar come when they are added to foods. Fruit, on the other hand, is beneficial in almost any amount.” What do they mean almost? Can we eat ten fruit a day? How about twenty fruit a day?

It’s actually been put to the test.

Seventeen people were made to eat 20 servings a day of fruit. Despite the extraordinarily high fructose content of this diet, presumably about 200 g/d—eight cans of soda worth, the investigators reported no adverse effects (and possible benefit actually) for body weight, blood pressure, and insulin and lipid levels after three to six months. More recently, Jenkins and colleagues put people on about a 20 servings of fruit a day diet for a few weeks and found no adverse effects on weight or blood pressure or triglycerides, and an astounding 38 point drop in LDL cholesterol.

There was one side effect, though. Given the 44 servings of vegetables they had on top of all that fruit, they recorded the largest bowel movements apparently ever documented in a dietary intervention.


Cutting down on sugary foods may be easier said than done (see Are Sugary Foods Addictive?) but it’s worth it. For more on the dangers of high levels of fructose in added sugars, see How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much?.

What’s that about being in oxidative debt? See my three part series on how to pull yourself out of the red:

Ironically, fat may be more of a problem when it comes to diabetes than sugar, see:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gordo!

As has been noted by Michael Rae, Greger is not a reliable source of information -- he too often cherry picks studies, and even distorts the results.

The other vegan gurus are honest -- for example, Pritikin, who Mike Colella frequently quotes.

IMO, look for better, more honest, sources of information than a zealot such as Greger.  (Or, if you must look at Greger claims, carefully study all of his references, and see if he is interpreting them correctly -- and also, the quality of the references.  This is not someone to be believed at face value,)

🙄

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
Nutr J. 2013 Mar 5;12:29. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-12-29.

Effect of fruit restriction on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes--a randomized trial.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Medical nutrition therapy is recognized as an important treatment option in type 2 diabetes. Most guidelines recommend eating a diet with a high intake of fiber-rich food including fruit. This is based on the many positive effects of fruit on human health. However some health professionals have concerns that fruit intake has a negative impact on glycemic control and therefore recommend restricting the fruit intake. We found no studies addressing this important clinical question. The objective was to investigate whether an advice to reduce the intake of fruit to patients with type 2 diabetes affects HbA1c, bodyweight, waist circumference and fruit intake.

METHODS:

This was an open randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups. The primary outcome was a change in HbA1c during 12 weeks of intervention. Participants were randomized to one of two interventions; medical nutrition therapy + advice to consume at least two pieces of fruit a day (high-fruit) or medical nutrition therapy + advice to consume no more than two pieces of fruit a day (low-fruit). All participants had two consultations with a registered dietitian. Fruit intake was self-reported using 3-day fruit records and dietary recalls. All assessments were made by the "intention to treat" principle.

RESULTS:

The study population consisted of 63 men and women with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. All patients completed the trial. The high-fruit group increased fruit intake with 125 grams (CI 95%; 78 to 172) and the low-fruit group reduced intake with 51 grams (CI 95%; -18 to -83). HbA1c decreased in both groups with no difference between the groups (diff.: 0.19%, CI 95%; -0.23 to 0.62). Both groups reduced body weight and waist circumference, however there was no difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

A recommendation to reduce fruit intake as part of standard medical nutrition therapy in overweight patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in eating less fruit. It had however no effect on HbA1c, weight loss or waist circumference. We recommend that the intake of fruit should not be restricted in patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT01010594.

PMID:
 
23497350
 
PMCID:
 
PMC3599615
 
DOI:
 
10.1186/1475-2891-12-29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordo, my first impression on that study is that 51 grams fruit is almost nothing, whereas 125 grams is just a smallish amount of fruit.

Maybe in the conclusions they should have gone like: "We recommend that the intake of fruit should not be restricted in patients with type 2 diabetes but more than 125 g a day may be deleterious"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning I was a little hungry, after yesterday's workout.

Ate about 500 grams of oranges and 300 grams of bananas for breakfast.

One advantage of fruit is that fructose does not contribute to blood sugar spikes. Sucrose does contribute but with longer delay, whereas glucose definitely contributes. The latter though is only a part of the total sugars content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oranges: low estimated glycemic load of a largish one (180 gr)

 

image.png.5d02e2fec19712873cb5640b4a9b7ca5.png

According to cronometer only a little more than 20% of sugars in oranges is fructose, but only the same amount si pure glucose.

Anyway, tolerance to the sugars mix of a specific variety of ripe oranges can only be measured directly as we well know. And in many cases, oranges do not seem to pike blood sugar very much. amounts per 100 grams

 

image.png.3b7a6a6c8e98c5d71ed1c78422bb5587.png

 

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bananas seem to have more than twice the simple sugars of oranges so of course the glycemic load will be higher. Amounts per 100 grams (% in mass)

image.png.9e090b4744be5af61e47bf9a7f508ea1.png

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.pritikin.com/are-some-fruits-better-others 

pritikin sensibly suggests eating fruit with meals and not by themselves. Meals containing veggies, legumes and whole grains are satisfying and sensible. But they are convinced fruits are damned well worth eating. I like an apple chopped up and strawberries (organic) on my steel cut oatmeal and a dollop of non fat Greek yogurt! Awesome and very filling! I also enjoy a grape, chopped apple, carrot, walnut, and non fat Greek yogurt dessert after my vegetable stew for my evening meal.absolutely satisfying. Sometimes I add some low fat crunchy “Kind” granola as a topping. Incredible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I'm glad you enjoy nonfat greek yogurt, that's a favourite of mine as well presently, even though I'll often add honey in it.

A benefit of fruit eaten by themselves is the ease and velocity of digestion, which I definitely appreciate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restricting has landed me in a world of hurt. Now I have low sodium, high potassium, anorexia and malnutrition. But I still slog away, and hope to beat it all. I forgot a lot of why I did this in the first place, but it hasn’t come back. Things like arthritis and all those blubbery feelings are still gone. Turns out this age (66) was not a good time to start either calorie or protein restriction, especially for someone as small as I. (Started at 113 pounds and went down to 78 before getting medical help). Sent to emergency room twice for hyponatremia, forced to see a raft of psychologists, dietiticians, doctors, refused hospitalization at kaiser for weight gain, very upsetting) once the sheriff came with a flashlight in the middle of the night to send me to emergency room 40 miles away for hydration with salt. Oh boy. The saga continues. I had no idea all this was going to be the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 3:13 PM, paula said:

Restricting has landed me in a world of hurt. Now I have low sodium, high potassium, anorexia and malnutrition. But I still slog away, and hope to beat it all. I forgot a lot of why I did this in the first place, but it hasn’t come back. Things like arthritis and all those blubbery feelings are still gone. Turns out this age (66) was not a good time to start either calorie or protein restriction, especially for someone as small as I. (Started at 113 pounds and went down to 78 before getting medical help). Sent to emergency room twice for hyponatremia, forced to see a raft of psychologists, dietiticians, doctors, refused hospitalization at kaiser for weight gain, very upsetting) once the sheriff came with a flashlight in the middle of the night to send me to emergency room 40 miles away for hydration with salt. Oh boy. The saga continues. I had no idea all this was going to be the result.

Hi Paula,

These CR forums seem to be occupied by many people that don’t restrict calories (except for a few individuals), but rather avoid over-indulging in ‘empty calories’/junk food.  Generally speaking most people here seem to recognize that micronutrients need to be monitored in order to adjust food intake to meet RDA levels for all micronutrients  (try the Cronometer app for this which is both simple to use and free); so even IF this is a ‘caloric restriction’ society, it is not the ‘micronutrient restriction society‘.

Hopefully you can be confident/comfortable realizing that it’s likely better to err on the side of a couple extra calories than teeter to towards anorexia and malnutrition.

 

Edited by Clinton

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  

×