48 replies to this topic

[Sillewater]

Butter has 265kU/g of AGEs. Is that because of the pasteurization? Does unpasteurized butter have that many?

[hamishm00]

The way I understand AGEs in dairy is that it's mostly from the pasteurization.

[CobaltThoriumG]

The way I understand AGEs in dairy is that it's mostly from the pasteurization.

If that's the case, then why is the AGE data for milk and yogurt low?

[Sillewater]

I found a pretty detailed explanation of the buttermaking process.

Based on this sites explanation:


Butter Pasteurization

The separated cream is pasteurized at 95C. If that is the case, then boiling animal fats in water would cause major problems too (does water interfere with the glycation process?).

So unpasteurized butter would be best, or maybe just no butter at all.

[JLL]

Yes, water interferes with the glycation process.

EDIT: I assume ghee would be lower in AGEs/ALEs than butter because there are no milk solids left, only fat, and it's low in PUFAs.

Edited by JLL, 09 November 2009 - 07:45 AM.

[Skötkonung]

Does anyone have data on the AGE content of heavy whipping cream?

[eternaltraveler]

Yes, water interferes with the glycation process.

EDIT: I assume ghee would be lower in AGEs/ALEs than butter because there are no milk solids left, only fat, and it's low in PUFAs.

I'd be interested in this data in regards to ghee

[kismet]

I don't know without checking my notes... but "265kU/g" is on the high side, right? I don't think it can be the pasteurisation (20 secs at 95°C?!)

[niner]

Yes, water interferes with the glycation process.

Water interferes with glycation indirectly in that if there is enough water present, the temperature of the mixture will be limited to the boiling point of water. Glycation occurs readily in aqueous solution, so water is not having a chemical effect that prevents glycation.

[Sillewater]

I don't know without checking my notes... but "265kU/g" is on the high side, right? I don't think it can be the pasteurisation (20 secs at 95°C?!)

Where did you see for 20 sec? It says that it has to destroy certain enzymes and bacteria so I would assume its longer. Where else would the AGEs come from. I remember reading somewhere it was at 95C for 30 min.

Also why is it that there are more AGEs in fat and protein products. Is it because the temperature can get higher, or is it because the fats are also glycated. If that is so Ghee may be even worse.

Edited by Sillewater, 10 November 2009 - 05:32 AM.

[JLL]

From Wikipedia:

There are two main types of pasteurization used today: High Temperature/Short Time (HTST) and Extended Shelf Life (ESL) treatment. Ultra-high temperature (UHT or ultra-heat treated) is also used for milk treatment. In the HTST process, milk is forced between metal plates or through pipes heated on the outside by hot water, and is heated to 71.7 °C (161 °F) for 15–20 seconds. UHT processing holds the milk at a temperature of 138 °C (280 °F) for a fraction of a second.

I also doubt the AGEs are from pasteurization. Maybe they're from the aging & churning process? There's probably some oxidation going on then.

As for ghee, this is just my own speculation, but given that unlike butter, ghee does not contain any milk solids and thus no protein and carbs -- so I don't see how it could contain AGEs. Also, ghee is very high in saturated fatty acids and very low in polyunsaturated fatty acids, so I don't see how it could contain ALEs either. Maybe niner can help me out here?

[JLL]

There was also some speculation in a yahoo group discussion that the butter might have been heated:

"Table 1. Advanced glycoxidation end products (AGE) content of selected foods prepared by standard cooking methods"

But I'm not sure.

[CobaltThoriumG]

From Wikipedia:

There are two main types of pasteurization used today: High Temperature/Short Time (HTST) and Extended Shelf Life (ESL) treatment. Ultra-high temperature (UHT or ultra-heat treated) is also used for milk treatment. In the HTST process, milk is forced between metal plates or through pipes heated on the outside by hot water, and is heated to 71.7 °C (161 °F) for 15–20 seconds. UHT processing holds the milk at a temperature of 138 °C (280 °F) for a fraction of a second.

I also doubt the AGEs are from pasteurization. Maybe they're from the aging & churning process? There's probably some oxidation going on then.

As for ghee, this is just my own speculation, but given that unlike butter, ghee does not contain any milk solids and thus no protein and carbs -- so I don't see how it could contain AGEs. Also, ghee is very high in saturated fatty acids and very low in polyunsaturated fatty acids, so I don't see how it could contain ALEs either. Maybe niner can help me out here?

But others foods without protein or carbs, such as olive oil, are also high in AGEs, though not as high as butter and cheese. I lean toward something related to aging also. If pasteurization were the cause, you would think all dairy other than raw would be high in AGEs, and that isn't the case.

[kismet]

Olive oil? I'd be surprised if it contained anything else than ALEs. I don't think there's enough (or any) contamination by sugars. Are you confusing those two?

[Sillewater]

Hmm, maybe I'll make Ghee from now on.

According to this site: http://www.answers.c...r-and-margarine

The cream is then fed into large stainless steel vats and heated to 180°F (82°C) for about 30 minutes in the pasteurization process to remove any lingering bacteria. The pasteurized cream is then left to cool.

The cream used for cream and the cream used for butter are processed differently I think. Not only do bacteria need to be killed, some enzymes need to be destroyed.

And also for every 100g of butter, there's 1 gram of protein, and yet the AGE count is so high.

At least according to this study Butter doesn't have many ALEs (if the method is accurate):

J Lipid Res. 2002 Mar;43(3):523-9.
UV analysis of Amadori-glycated phosphatidylethanolamine in foods and biological samples.
Oak JH, Nakagawa K, Miyazawa T.

Biodynamic Chemistry Lab, Graduate School of Life Science and Agriculture, Tohoku University, Tsutsumidori-Amemiyamachi 1-1, Sendai 981-8555, Japan.
Maillard reactions are among the most important of the chemical and oxidative changes occurring in food and biological samples that contribute to food deterioration and to the pathophysiology of human disease. Although the association of lipid glycation with this process has recently been shown, the number of lipid glycation products in food and biological materials has not been clear. In this study, we synthesized the Amadori products derived from the glycation of phosphatidylethanolamine (PE), i.e., Amadori-PEs. Dioleoyl PE was incubated with glucose and lactose for 15 days, and the resultant Amadori-PEs were purified and isolated using solid phase extraction followed by HPLC. With this procedure, essentially pure (>98% purity) Amadori-PEs glycated with glucose (Glc-PE) and with lactose (Lac-PE) were obtained and used as standards in the subsequent studies. To determine the presence of Amadori-PEs in food and biological samples, the carbonyl group of Amadori-PEs was ultraviolet (UV)-labeled with 3-methyl-2-benzothiazolinone hydrazone, and the labeled Amadori-PEs were analyzed with normal phase HPLC-UV (318 nm). The detection limit was 4.5 ng (5 pmol) for Glc-PE and 5.3 ng (5 pmol) for Lac-PE. Among the several food samples examined, infant formula and chocolate contained a high amount of both Glc-PE and Lac-PE over wide concentration ranges, such as 1.5-112 microg/g. Testing biological materials showed Amadori-PE (Glc-PE) was detectable in rat plasma.

PMID: 11893788 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[JLL]

Olive oil? I'd be surprised if it contained anything else than ALEs. I don't think there's enough (or any) contamination by sugars. Are you confusing those two?

AGEs and ALEs are lumped together under AGEs even in many scientific papers, despite the word 'glycation' in AGEs... maybe he's referring to both. It's confusing but does kind of make sense, since some of the end products can be produced both through glycation and lipid peroxidation. I think CML is one. Really what we need is a term that covers all the end-products regardless of how they come into being.

Does olive oil really have lots of AGEs? I guess it has enough PUFAs to undergo oxidation, but I would've expected all the antioxidants in olive oil to counter that effect. MUFAs seem pretty resistant to oxidation.

[Sillewater]

Butter 260 kU/g
Olive Oil 16.68 kU/g

Definitely not as much as butter. Assuming the methods used to measure are detecting the same thing.

Table 1—AGE content of common foods (AGEs denote carboxymethylysine-like immunoreactivity, assessed by ELISA).
Food AGEs (kU/g)
Olive oil 16.68
Fast food beef 54.17
Bacon 90.22
Pink steak 54.25
Chicken breast—fried 61.22
Chicken breast—boiled 11.23
Smoked salmon 5.71
Oil cooked tuna 17.4
White fat cheese 84.23
Yellow nonfat cheese 14.5
Egg boiled for 10 min 18.6
Egg fried with margarine 41.1
White bread 1.51
Whole grain bread 1.10
Toast bread 6.07
Pie crust 5.4
Beans boiled for 1 h 2.9
Spaghetti boiled for 12 min 2.42
Glycopotatoes fried for 10 min 0.72
Boiled potatoes for 30 min 0.17
Fast-food fried potatoes 15.2
Vanilla biscuit 32.2
Small fried potatoes 28.8
Club-sandwich 12.2
Popcorn 1.34
Apple 0.12
Banana 0.08
Broccoli 2.20
Fried carrots 0.10
Mushrooms 2.6
Onion 0.35
Tomato 0.23
Vanilla ice cream 0.35
Full fat milk 0.04
Nonfat milk 0.07
Infant milk 4.86
Maternal milk (fresh) 0.05
Nonfat yogurt 0.32
Honey 0.08
Fresh orange juice 0.003
Processed orange juice 0.056
Spaghetti with tomato sauce 9.34
Spaghetti with cheese 40.69
Pizza 68.24
Coffee instant 0.047
Cola like 0.065
Tea 0.019

[CobaltThoriumG]

Olive oil? I'd be surprised if it contained anything else than ALEs. I don't think there's enough (or any) contamination by sugars. Are you confusing those two?

This paper may conflate AGEs and ALEs, but the table listing olive oil says AGE. In any case it's high and 10x higher than the data listed above.

Link (see page 2)

[kismet]

How can Carboxymethyl-lysine form in an oil which is not contaminated with protein? Where's the nitrogen coming from? I guess it makes sense if you add olive oil to meat and/or sugars (as per: http://www.cardiab.c....0-7-29-1-l.jpg), but the data can't be for raw EVOO, can it?! I wanted to look at those studies for quite some time now -- some of the data makes no sense on the face of it.
Then again, maybe their assay is really that unspecific as it measures CML-like AGEs, which may include ALEs (but shouldn't?)

Edited by kismet, 11 November 2009 - 04:35 PM.

[CobaltThoriumG]

Not sure but if you look at the data for raw olive and avocado, it's relatively high. Not anywhere near as high for cooked meat but high for plant matter.

Link

[TheFountain]

Not sure but if you look at the data for raw olive and avocado, it's relatively high. Not anywhere near as high for cooked meat but high for plant matter.

Link

It seems pretty clear that cooked meat is WAY higher in AGEs than cooked plant matter. Hence probably why raw food vegetarians age more gracefully than meat eaters.

Edited by TheFountain, 11 November 2009 - 05:48 PM.

[stephen_b]

Not sure but if you look at the data for raw olive and avocado, it's relatively high. Not anywhere near as high for cooked meat but high for plant matter.

Link

It seems pretty clear that cooked meat is WAY higher in AGEs than cooked plant matter. Hence probably why raw food vegetarians age more gracefully than meat eaters.

Except that vegetarians have higher AGE levels than omnivores, as seen in Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet (PMID 11876491):

Enhanced plasma AGE levels in vegetarians in comparison to omnivores are herein presented for the first time. Mechanisms of AGE elevation and potential pathophysiological relevance of this finding are to be elucidated in prospective studies.

The thought is that the carnosine content of meat more than makes up for the higher AGE content of an omnivorous diet.

I see that Michael supplements beta-alanine.

Edited by stephen_b, 11 November 2009 - 06:12 PM.

[TheFountain]

Not sure but if you look at the data for raw olive and avocado, it's relatively high. Not anywhere near as high for cooked meat but high for plant matter.

Link

It seems pretty clear that cooked meat is WAY higher in AGEs than cooked plant matter. Hence probably why raw food vegetarians age more gracefully than meat eaters.

Except that vegetarians have higher AGE levels than omnivores, as seen in Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet (PMID 11876491):

Enhanced plasma AGE levels in vegetarians in comparison to omnivores are herein presented for the first time. Mechanisms of AGE elevation and potential pathophysiological relevance of this finding are to be elucidated in prospective studies.

The thought is that the carnosine content of meat more than makes up for the higher AGE content of an omnivorous diet.

I see that Michael supplements beta-alanine.

First off, let us define 'healthy vegetarian subjects'. I get the feeling their diet was not free of dairy or other processed crap like pizza (very high in AGEs). So to try and semantically connect the AGEs content of cooked vegetables and vegetarianism is complete bullshit. Circulating AGEs is not an indicator of overall effect as it is well known that insulin is spiked within hours of food consumption. How's this for an idea. Let's take some RAW FOOD vegans who eat little fruit and have not too high carb consumption and put them up against Paleo dieters where AGEs are concerned. I stated a fact, and that fact stands. Cooked meat is way higher in AGEs than cooked vegetables. No one is going to tell me that vegetables are responsible for the plasma AGEs levels in those 'vegetarian' subjects. They obviously weren't all that healthy or in tune with what they ate.

[stephen_b]

No one is going to tell me that vegetables are responsible for the plasma AGEs levels in those 'vegetarian' subjects. They obviously weren't all that healthy or in tune with what they ate.

Sounds like you might be dismissing the results of the studies because you don't like the conclusions. It seems to me that generally speaking raising carnosine is more important than lowering dietary AGEs.

Glycation, ageing and carnosine: are carnivorous diets beneficial? (PMID 15955546) presents the following hypothesis:

Non-enzymic protein glycosylation (glycation) plays important roles in ageing and in diabetes and its secondary complications. Dietary constituents may play important roles in accelerating or suppressing glycation. It is suggested that carnivorous diets contain a potential anti-glycating agent, carnosine (beta-alanyl-histidine), whilst vegetarians may lack intake of the dipeptide. The possible beneficial effects of carnosine and related structures on protein carbonyl stress, AGE formation, secondary diabetic complications and age-related neuropathology are discussed.

[TheFountain]

No one is going to tell me that vegetables are responsible for the plasma AGEs levels in those 'vegetarian' subjects. They obviously weren't all that healthy or in tune with what they ate.

Sounds like you might be dismissing the results of the studies because you don't like the conclusions.

No, it sounds like you are dismissing what I am saying because you don't want to admit the studies may have been flawed and simply did not include 'healthy vegetarians' as it claimed but people who ate junk food and high fructose foods who called themselves vegetarians. But alas, I guarantee you would be very quick to point out any flaws you perceive in studies that show vegetarian diets are conducive to better health and longevity. Because you can't be against vegetarianism without being a complete hypocrite. Yea I already saw carnosine studies and taurine studies etc and I can guarantee another thing. The subjects in the crap study you pointed to weren't supplementing with either.

[TheFountain]

The main point here is that the crap study above did not use those who survive primarily on 'plant based diets' but those who more than likely ate processed foods, dairy and lots of fructose containing foods. This is definitely not a fair test of vegetarianism. I hereby throw that study in the trash where it belongs, along side the food those subjects were eating. I stress once again that a 'primarily plant based diet' means just that. Vegetables! Not no freaking grain breads, dairy or other sub-optimal crap that raises insulin and all that!

Edited by TheFountain, 11 November 2009 - 08:06 PM.

[stephen_b]

The main point here is that the crap study above did not use those who survive primarily on 'plant based diets' but those who more than likely ate processed foods, dairy and lots of fructose containing foods. This is definitely not a fair test of vegetarianism. I hereby throw that study in the trash where it belongs, along side the food those subjects were eating. I stress once again that a 'primarily plant based diet' means just that. Vegetables! Not no freaking grain breads, dairy or other sub-optimal crap that raises insulin and all that!

You haven't explained why the vegetarian diet referred to in the study was crap. My conclusion is that most vegetarians would probably be better off with some supplement providing carnosine, not that omnivorous diets are always better than vegetarian ones.

[HaloTeK]

Not sure but if you look at the data for raw olive and avocado, it's relatively high. Not anywhere near as high for cooked meat but high for plant matter.

Link

It seems pretty clear that cooked meat is WAY higher in AGEs than cooked plant matter. Hence probably why raw food vegetarians age more gracefully than meat eaters.

Except that vegetarians have higher AGE levels than omnivores, as seen in Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet (PMID 11876491):

Enhanced plasma AGE levels in vegetarians in comparison to omnivores are herein presented for the first time. Mechanisms of AGE elevation and potential pathophysiological relevance of this finding are to be elucidated in prospective studies.

The thought is that the carnosine content of meat more than makes up for the higher AGE content of an omnivorous diet.

I see that Michael supplements beta-alanine.

I went through the entire study through JLL's link on his blog -- for some reason, they didn't measure the fat content in any of the diets. I feel that polyunsaturate fat intake is what caused the plasma AGE content to rise. Since Vegans had less plasma AGE than typical vegetarians, it's hard to know if it just wasn't a function of higher polyunsaturated fat intake that the vegetarians had a higher AGE intake than the omnivores.

Oh yeah, by the way, the average age in the vegetarian group was 36.1 compared with 30.5 in the omni group.

Edited by HaloTeK, 12 November 2009 - 12:12 AM.

[TheFountain]

The main point here is that the crap study above did not use those who survive primarily on 'plant based diets' but those who more than likely ate processed foods, dairy and lots of fructose containing foods. This is definitely not a fair test of vegetarianism. I hereby throw that study in the trash where it belongs, along side the food those subjects were eating. I stress once again that a 'primarily plant based diet' means just that. Vegetables! Not no freaking grain breads, dairy or other sub-optimal crap that raises insulin and all that!

You haven't explained why the vegetarian diet referred to in the study was crap. My conclusion is that most vegetarians would probably be better off with some supplement providing carnosine, not that omnivorous diets are always better than vegetarian ones.

My conclusion would be that you are arrogant and do not understand the full spectrum/implications of choosing a diet. It isn't just about bulking up today. It is about longevity too. Meat diets have been shown to raise IGF-1 and DHT levels (at least correlative for the latter) and cooked meat definitely contains higher AGEs than cooked vegetables. And yes I DID explain it. The control subjects were more than likely eating some processed grains, lots of fructose and maybe even dairy. This to me is not healthy regardless of whether or not you eat meat. I am talking about a better study needing to be performed using control subjects that do not consume these things, who survive primarily on vegetables, berries, nuts, seeds (all of which should preferably be raw!) maybe some eggs for protein and overall adequate macronutrient accountability. If you can show me a study using this definition of vegetarianism that still shows these results so be it. But I doubt you would see a study using this definition lead to these results. I highly doubt it.

[niner]

My conclusion would be that you are arrogant

Please be nice.

and do not understand the full spectrum/implications of choosing a diet. It isn't just about bulking up today. It is about longevity too. Meat diets have been shown to raise IGF-1 and DHT levels (at least correlative for the latter) and cooked meat definitely contains higher AGEs than cooked vegetables. And yes I DID explain it. The control subjects were more than likely eating some processed grains, lots of fructose and maybe even dairy. This to me is not healthy regardless of whether or not you eat meat. I am talking about a better study needing to be performed using control subjects that do not consume these things, who survive primarily on vegetables, berries, nuts, seeds (all of which should preferably be raw!) maybe some eggs for protein and overall adequate macronutrient accountability. If you can show me a study using this definition of vegetarianism that still shows these results so be it. But I doubt you would see a study using this definition lead to these results. I highly doubt it.

OK, you can come up with a vegetarian diet that is healthy, but who actually eats that way? I think that most vegetarians don't. Those vegetarians with crappy diets would be well served to learn how to construct a healthier diet, bearing in mind that diets need to be practical. I think that most people here are tired of angry posts attempting to promote a particular diet, particularly when you define it in a way that almost no one else does. Maybe you should call it a Meatless Raw Diet instead.