335 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

I would pit Dr. Eades' nutritional knowledge against yours any day.

I don't know anything about the guy. Does he have any peer reviewed papers?

[wydell]

Would not a paleo diet of 30% protein have average or higher than average methionine levels? And if so, maybe we could say paleo diet = aging?
For longevity, would you not want to restrict methionine?


As a side note, as I noted in an earlier discussion in a different "diet wars" topic, I don't think Duke can prove that the Paleo diet is optimal for longevity because I am not aware of any longevity studies or empirical date regarding a paleo diet . As pointed out in an earlier posting by others, it seems that an unrefined plant based diet (maybe 80-95%) was best for longevity. That seems to be all we know. Is there even one study that contradicts this? Maybe Duke will be proven right at some point or maybe not, but I think that all he has now are theories and some pics of musclar guys in their 40s. But I guess I have also seen muscular vegans in their 40s, so I don't consider pics to be good evidence of anything.

I suppose if Duke wanted to try to prove his point to some extent, he could try to take biomarkers from a Paleo eater study and compare them to the biomarkers of same aged traditional okinawan eaters. But I doubt that data even exists. And even if it did, that's not even going to show that one diet is better than another for longevity.

[Kutta]

I suppose if Duke wanted to try to prove his point to some extent, he could try to take biomarkers from a Paleo eater study and compare them to the biomarkers of same aged traditional okinawan eaters. But I doubt that data even exists. And even if it did, that's not even going to show that one diet is better than another for longevity.

How come you make statements about "data that doesn't exists?" You kinda said, and it's maybe true to some extent, that biomarkers does not imply longevity, but what kind of reliable data do we even have aside from biomarkers, and their correlation with risks, huh? So called longevity studies about certain ethnicities are not scientific studies per se, it's simply demographic data. I think it's not a bad thing to assume biomarkers have a lot to do with longevity, and Duke has pointed out several times (and if I recall correctly he also made references) that paleo doers' biomarkers are as excellent as they can get. Yes, Okinawans' biomarkers are excellent, and while I might just say that it just does not imply their longevity, it do not find it far-fetched to believe the opposite. I think Duke backed up his point very well, so I'm convinced.

[Prometheus]

Dr Eades wrote the Protein Power book.

I think what Duke is seeking to convey is the importance of the source of calories based on how they are sensed and metabolized. This is a legitimate and scientifically valid claim and the first law of thermodynamics is not strictly relevant unless the thermogenic effect of protein is accounted for. More importantly, all macronutrients are not treated as a common energy substrate but have variable impact on metabolism. It therefore follows that all hypercaloric diets are not equal..

[Prometheus]

There is some evidence to support the notion that hypercaloric diets are not the source of obesity.. This is because protein based diets are not addictive and induce high levels of satiety, whereas carb-based diets can easily get out of control.. If supermarkets had no refined carbs and limited carbs altogether, irrespective of abundant availability, the risk of over-consumption would decrease..

[nowayout]

There is some evidence to support the notion that hypercaloric diets are not the source of obesity.. This is because protein based diets are not addictive and induce high levels of satiety, whereas carb-based diets can easily get out of control.. If supermarkets had no refined carbs and limited carbs altogether, irrespective of abundant availability, the risk of over-consumption would decrease..

Hypercaloric means too many calories per day. You are saying that carb-based diets more easily lead to overconsumption of calories (i.e. are more likely to be hypercaloric) and protein-based diets are less likely to be hypercaloric, at the same time that you are saying that hypercaloric diets are not necessarily a source of obesity. I don't think that is what you were trying to say.

[nowayout]

How come you make statements about "data that doesn't exists?" You kinda said, and it's maybe true to some extent, that biomarkers does not imply longevity, but what kind of reliable data do we even have aside from biomarkers, and their correlation with risks, huh? So called longevity studies about certain ethnicities are not scientific studies per se, it's simply demographic data. I think it's not a bad thing to assume biomarkers have a lot to do with longevity, and Duke has pointed out several times (and if I recall correctly he also made references) that paleo doers' biomarkers are as excellent as they can get. Yes, Okinawans' biomarkers are excellent, and while I might just say that it just does not imply their longevity, it do not find it far-fetched to believe the opposite. I think Duke backed up his point very well, so I'm convinced.

Do you think biomarker studies were not done and found to be fine for, e.g., female postmenopausal hormone replacement, a big health fad in the U.S. in the nineties? Only after many years was it determined that this therapy can shorten your life. It is likely that short-term biomarker studies mean very little.

[DukeNukem]

There is some evidence to support the notion that hypercaloric diets are not the source of obesity.. This is because protein based diets are not addictive and induce high levels of satiety, whereas carb-based diets can easily get out of control.. If supermarkets had no refined carbs and limited carbs altogether, irrespective of abundant availability, the risk of over-consumption would decrease..

Hypercaloric diets are generally only fattening to people when they contain the wrong carbs, and/or too many carbs. It's very hard for someone to get fat eating good fats and proteins, and a no-grain, low-carb diet. It makes total sense that our bodies have a mechanism to self-adjust our energy usage based on food intake. We already see this on the low-calorie side, with the CR effect. It also happens on the high-calorie side with the thermogenic effect. In other words, our bodies do not require exact calorie intakes to maintain a healthy body composition--evolution would not be so finicky. It only makes sense that we are designed to handle both calorie deficits and surpluses (within a reasonable window, perhaps as big as 2000 cals, covering the low and high side) without losing our ability to function at near optimal, high-energy, survival levels.

Elrond wrote:

I don't know anything about the guy.

And yet you dismiss him anyway.

[JLL]

There is some evidence to support the notion that hypercaloric diets are not the source of obesity.. This is because protein based diets are not addictive and induce high levels of satiety, whereas carb-based diets can easily get out of control.. If supermarkets had no refined carbs and limited carbs altogether, irrespective of abundant availability, the risk of over-consumption would decrease..

Hypercaloric diets are generally only fattening to people when they contain the wrong carbs, and/or too many carbs. It's very hard for someone to get fat eating good fats and proteins, and a no-grain, low-carb diet. It makes total sense that our bodies have a mechanism to self-adjust our energy usage based on food intake. We already see this on the low-calorie side, with the CR effect. It also happens on the high-calorie side with the thermogenic effect. In other words, our bodies do not require exact calorie intakes to maintain a healthy body composition--evolution would not be so finicky. It only makes sense that we are designed to handle both calorie deficits and surpluses (within a reasonable window, perhaps as big as 2000 cals, covering the low and high side) without losing our ability to function at near optimal, high-energy, survival levels.

I read the paper by Art de Vany you posted, and in it he makes the case that there's an evolutionary benefit to being able to eat lots of food when food is around. His argument is that in ancient times the surplus periods were balanced with periods of starvation, so that people didn't get obese. Nowadays there's only the surplus period, which is why people get obese.

I think this is a good theory, but it doesn't explain why eating a diet high in fat and protein and no carbs doesn't make you fat. Wouldn't this also have been an evolutionary advantage? If you come across a tree full of ripe fruit, eating as much as you can and storing it as fat so you can go without food for a week is a good idea. Why doesn't it work the same way without carbs?

I still think hypercaloric diets need carbs to induce weight gain. If you eat nothing but 5,000 kcal of fat per day, does it make you fat? I say no. This is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, it's a result of how the body processes energy.

[TheFountain]

If you eat nothing but 5,000 kcal of fat per day, does it make you fat? I say no. This is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, it's a result of how the body processes energy.

If you eat 5,000 calories a day of fat, does it eventually get you arterial clotting?

[Shepard]

Even Eades makes the point that if you eat too much on a low-carb diet, you don't lose weight. He says to stay away from these foods (such as cheese and nuts) that may pack in the Calories with less satiety response. However, there is evidence that nuts are a particular case where weird things happen compared to what should happen.

Still, if you're going to make that case that unique metabolic situations develop whereby different macronutrient intakes induce different partitioning responses, it doesn't change the energy equation. Calories are still Calories, and a hypercaloric diet always means you gain weight. If you want to say prolonged carbohydrate abuse leads to a metabolic state where the majority of energy is partitioned to adipose, then expenditure goes down. If you argue that strictly protein and fat lead to a situation where thermogenesis is increased above and beyond the TEF of protein, then expenditure goes up. The issue with the low-carb people is that they use words to mean different things than they actually mean.

[eternaltraveler]

and yet you dismiss him anyway

Where did I do this exactly?

I'm more than happy to read any peer reviewed literature he may have. Non peer reviewed sources in science are essentially worthless

[Shepard]

If you eat nothing but 5,000 kcal of fat per day, does it make you fat? I say no. This is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, it's a result of how the body processes energy.

All fat is processed through adipose tissue, that's just how dietary fat is metabolized. Normally, you'd say an excess of dietary fat would be more efficient to store as adipose vs. carbs because carbs have to go through DNL to be stored as adipose. DNL varies based one environment, so it's not as cut and dry.

[Shepard]

I'm more than happy to read any peer reviewed literature he may have. Non peer reviewed sources in science are essentially worthless

This is all he has that I've seen:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14527633

[eternaltraveler]

thanks shep

[JLL]

Even Eades makes the point that if you eat too much on a low-carb diet, you don't lose weight. He says to stay away from these foods (such as cheese and nuts) that may pack in the Calories with less satiety response. However, there is evidence that nuts are a particular case where weird things happen compared to what should happen.

Still, if you're going to make that case that unique metabolic situations develop whereby different macronutrient intakes induce different partitioning responses, it doesn't change the energy equation. Calories are still Calories, and a hypercaloric diet always means you gain weight. If you want to say prolonged carbohydrate abuse leads to a metabolic state where the majority of energy is partitioned to adipose, then expenditure goes down. If you argue that strictly protein and fat lead to a situation where thermogenesis is increased above and beyond the TEF of protein, then expenditure goes up. The issue with the low-carb people is that they use words to mean different things than they actually mean.

I'm aware that I probably misuse terms; a result of my lack of education in biology.

It may well be that expenditure goes up when eating only fat and protein. All I'm saying is that when you feed average-weight, sedentary people with 3,000 kcal of carbs + fat, they gain weight. When you feed them only fat (and maybe a small amount of protein) they don't necessarily gain weight. To me this means that all calories are not created equal.

[Shepard]

I don't necessarily take issue with the idea that over the long-term, macronutrient ratios induce different partitioning environments. There is a certain attractiveness to this theory, but the theory has to evolve beyond where it currently is. The current idea of insulin being the sole regulator of adipose storage has been discounted by putting diabetics in a deficit and seeing bodyweight fall while insulin stays the same and the fact that metabolic ward studies where energy is controlled show no difference in weight loss during a deficit. Also note that Taubes does not mention ASP at all in his book. He is a science journalist that looked at mostly old data to make his argument. But, I've said before that I think his book does have value in other areas. Bottom line, when the empirical evidence disagrees with the theory, and when there is no strong case against accepting the evidence, the theory has to bow to empiricism.

Edited by shepard, 26 January 2009 - 06:15 PM.

[Mind]

Speaking of empirical evidence. I intervied Dr. Josh Mitteldorf last night on the Sunday Evening Update.

A couple of things brought up:

I asked Mitteldorf about basing diet decisions on evolution of the species (brainbox question). He didn't believe it was the best strategy because he is fairly certain that aging has been programmed into us by evolution. Thus the evolutionary diet, while perhaps being beneficial in many regards, is not the best for longevity because we would be playing right into our "aging program".

He is on the low-carb bandwagon. Not because of evolutionary (paleo-diet) reasoning, but through current empirical evidence, basically carbs=aging because of the insulin/IGF metabolic pathway. He said in the interview that the insulin/IGF pathway is the most significant dietary driver of aging (pro aging).

[JLL]

The current idea of insulin being the sole regulator of adipose storage has been discounted by putting diabetics in a deficit and seeing bodyweight fall while insulin stays the same and the fact that metabolic ward studies where energy is controlled show no difference in weight loss during a deficit.

Does the first part mean that the diabetics were energy deficient? How does this dispute the theory that insulin is the sole regulator - if insulin tells tissue to absorb energy, but there's less energy to absorb, isn't weight loss the logical result? I'm not saying insulin is the sole regulator, I just don't see how this experiment would prove it isn't.

In the second part, what do you mean by a deficit and energy control?

[JLL]

Speaking of empirical evidence. I intervied Dr. Josh Mitteldorf last night on the Sunday Evening Update.

A couple of things brought up:

I asked Mitteldorf about basing diet decisions on evolution of the species (brainbox question). He didn't believe it was the best strategy because he is fairly certain that aging has been programmed into us by evolution. Thus the evolutionary diet, while perhaps being beneficial in many regards, is not the best for longevity because we would be playing right into our "aging program".

He is on the low-carb bandwagon. Not because of evolutionary (paleo-diet) reasoning, but through current empirical evidence, basically carbs=aging because of the insulin/IGF metabolic pathway. He said in the interview that the insulin/IGF pathway is the most significant dietary driver of aging (pro aging).

I'm not sure what he means exactly by an aging program. I thought the theory of preprogrammed senescence had been disputed in favor of the wear & tear theory. The latter makes more sense to me.

In any case, I agree with his view on evolutionary diets. I think if you want to be fit, a paleo diet is a good choice, but we don't know how it does in terms of longevity. It's logical that a paleolithic diet would've been directed towards reproductive fitness instead of longevity. On the other hand, eating a paleolithic diet seems to result in changes that are beneficial from a life extension perspective as well. Another similar thing is intermittent fasting, which reduces insulin and thus may be good for longevity.

So yeah, natural is not always good, but sometimes they do coincide.

[DukeNukem]

and yet you dismiss him anyway

Where did I do this exactly?

I'm more than happy to read any peer reviewed literature he may have. Non peer reviewed sources in science are essentially worthless

Where you wrote: "I don't think fad diet books are a good reference source."

In particular, "fad diet book" comes off as a breezy dismissal of his work.

Edited by DukeNukem, 26 January 2009 - 10:22 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Speaking of empirical evidence. I intervied Dr. Josh Mitteldorf last night on the Sunday Evening Update.

A couple of things brought up:

I asked Mitteldorf about basing diet decisions on evolution of the species (brainbox question). He didn't believe it was the best strategy because he is fairly certain that aging has been programmed into us by evolution. Thus the evolutionary diet, while perhaps being beneficial in many regards, is not the best for longevity because we would be playing right into our "aging program".

He is on the low-carb bandwagon. Not because of evolutionary (paleo-diet) reasoning, but through current empirical evidence, basically carbs=aging because of the insulin/IGF metabolic pathway. He said in the interview that the insulin/IGF pathway is the most significant dietary driver of aging (pro aging).

I wonder what part of the paleo diet he doesn't necessarily agree with? I've indicated that I think that, currently, the paleo diet is the best one we have, and the best foundation to build from (including modifications that include olive oil and occasional red wine).

I do completely agree that the paleo diet can be further tweaked and improved, but as a starting point, I do not believes there's a better candidate, currently.

[eternaltraveler]

In particular, "fad diet book" comes off as a breezy dismissal of his work.

This is a misunderstanding.

It's not remotely a dismissal of his work (which before shepard gave me the link to that paper i was entirely unfamilar with), but of any non-peer reviewed source as being authoritative. This would include even Aubrey's book. What pop sci books like these are good for is getting messages out to a broader audience. They are not good as references in a scientific debate.

[HaloTeK]

The conversation on this board reminds of Colpo vs Eades <------ albeit lighter. I agree with Shepard that people have to specify exactly what they mean when they use the term "metabolic advantage". You can definitely get away with seemingly less calories on a higher fat diet because we have better ulitilzation of fat (meaning we store it easier!!). I remember hearing some figures back in the day that we absorb something like 98% fat, 70% carbs, 50-60% protein. <----- would like these figures checked. Given the above info (if correct) -- i'm not sure how you can say a calorie is a calorie. As far as the total body system is concerned-- lowering calories below what you need is consistant in producing weightloss regardless of macronutrient intake.

I also agree with Duke that the best starting point for diet is the paleo diet (hands down). I'm still not sure how protein falls in the longevity equation (would methionine restriction really gives us extention in terms of years, not months). We know that keeping polyunsatures low is prudent given its inherent destructive behavior (also, does this really maximize longevity in terms of years, not months). Lastly, we have carbs and fat. Personally, I really feel that maximal longevity is obtained on a higher carb diet because of its natural effect to raise SHBG (even if it weakens you somewhat vs a pure paleo diet). All you have to do is just look at people who are on a higher carb diet vs lower carb one to make the observation that a higher carb diet has less growth potential (anabolic growth, Asians anyone?) (carbs have great fat growth potential if you eat past you required calories). On the flip side, the paleo diet is hands down the best for producing the strongest human at any point in time (also in terms of resistance to damage). I've never used any other way of life that made me feel like I was cheating when losing weight. I'm hoping that having higher growth potential (paleo diet) doesn't really detract from overall longevity much because I'd rather maintain more mass then look like a pipsqueak.

As a final note, I feel that Eades has a lot of good points, but he also seems to have a agenda to backup anything he has written in his books. I kinda cringe when he talks about eating all the eggs, cream, and bacon that you can eat. Overall, he has contributed in a positive way to the community.

[Shepard]

Does the first part mean that the diabetics were energy deficient? How does this dispute the theory that insulin is the sole regulator -

Sorry, I should have been more specific. In the diabetic study, they were placed on two different diets of the same caloric value. One higher in carbs, one low in carbs. Weight loss was the same on both diets, but insulin only fell in the low-carb group. The argument has been for some time that insulin is all that matters in the fat loss equation. Insulin does a very good job at blunting lipolysis, but even fasting levels of insulin have been shown to blunt lipolysis to some degree. It doesn't necessarily blunt FA oxidation, though, and this is where the argument breaks down.

if insulin tells tissue to absorb energy, but there's less energy to absorb, isn't weight loss the logical result?

That's exactly the logical result, provided intake is less than expenditure.

I'm not saying insulin is the sole regulator, I just don't see how this experiment would prove it isn't.

That experiment wouldn't prove insulin is the sole regulator of fat storage, just that it doesn't interfere with weight loss. That might have been a poor choice of words on my part, but the low-carb argument has been "insulin, insulin, insulin" for quite some time, and it's not a factor even in the above-mentioned diabetics. It's used to explain why you can't lose weight on a high-carb diet and it's used to explain why you can't gain weight on a high fat diet. Their theory needs to evolve.

You need to look into ASP (acylation stimulating protein)research to go into other arguments against insulin being the sole regulator.

In the second part, what do you mean by a deficit and energy control?

Meaning that the patients were put on a restricted-Calorie diet and kept in a metabolic ward. As opposed to a free-living study, where you do see low-carb diets tend to be superior. But, you've got tons of potential human error.

I've referenced the above diabetic study and some metabolic ward studies when I went around with Duke about this in an earlier thread. I can dig them up if you like.

[woly]

However, there is evidence that nuts are a particular case where weird things happen compared to what should happen.

Could you elaborate on that?

I also have to agree with you on taubes. I bought this book because its treated like the bible by some people on this forum but he debunks very little. he simply offers an alternative theory, most of them are backed up by little more than 1920's clinical reports or rat studies from 40 years ago.

[Shepard]

The conversation on this board reminds of Colpo vs Eades <------ albeit lighter.

I do encourage people to go to Colpo's site (LowCarbMuscle) and download his e-book where he counters Eades, Taubes, and others. It's a little ridiculous at how emotional Eades and Colpo became over this whole affair, but he does reference many of the pertinent studies that I'm aware of.

[Shepard]

Could you elaborate on that?

They seem to increase energy expenditure and have low-ish bioavailability, maybe because people don't chew them enough.

[Matt]

So is there actually a study in mice showing limiting carbs without a reduction in calorie intake extends maximum lifespan?

[CobaltThoriumG]

Could you elaborate on that?

They seem to increase energy expenditure and have low-ish bioavailability, maybe because people don't chew them enough.

Apart from convenience, this might be the best reason to drink one's meals. Have the blender chew it for you, maximize surface area, and perhaps decrease consumption due to greater bioavailability.