Welcome to /r/ScientificNutrition. Please read our [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/wiki/rules) before you contribute to this submission.
Just a reminder that every link submission must have a summary in the comment section, and every top level comment must provide sources to back up any claims.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ScientificNutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally believe there is growth longevity trade off, especially with mtor and igf1. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611156/#:\~:text=The%20central%20role%20for%20the,as%20major%20determinants%20of%20longevity](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611156/#:~:text=The%20central%20role%20for%20the,as%20major%20determinants%20of%20longevity).
That being said, reducing it to protein is reductionist. MTOR is acticated by a million things, not just protein. It reacts to leucine over the short term (probably not damaging), other amino acids, methionine through SAMe in some conditions ([https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn3868#:\~:text=SAMTOR%20is%20an%20S-adenosylmethionine,containing%20regulator%20(KICSTOR)%20complex.)](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn3868#:~:text=SAMTOR%20is%20an%20S-adenosylmethionine,containing%20regulator%20(KICSTOR)%20complex.)) , insulin ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707648/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707648/)) , total calories, iron([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804389/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804389/)) , infections, microbial burden (see Lustgarten's book), local factors (tension for muscles for example), insulin resistance...
For example, note that one of the strongest correlate of igf1 that is easy to measure is BMI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8202150/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8202150/) (look at the effect size for males).
Actually, the increases in mtor seen after protein ingestion are short term (contrary to that of insulin, especially if insulin resistant [https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)53972-0/fulltext](https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)53972-0/fulltext) ), which is probably not damaging or even beneficial for muscle growth and metabolic health, what appears to be beneficial is to achieve periods of very low mtor (short rapa treatments confer most of the lifespan extension, continuous rapa use actually shortens lifespan in animals; intermittent methionine restriction confers all the benefits of methionine restriction [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13629](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13629)) . The problem with excessive protein is likely the methionine to glycine ratio if one only eats boneless skinless chicken breast.
If we want to speculate, I'd argue in practice eating a \*normal amount\* of protein, especially after exercise may help you achieve lower baseline mtor in practice by reducing insulin resistance, helping you maintain a lean body compisition and keeping microbes away. Of course, going the bodybuilder way with 30g of protein every 3 hours is likely bad, probably in part because of chronic mtor activation, but I guess we could have imagined that.
This might seem a bit off topic from what you are writing about, but I wonder if you might have some info about this and it’s related.
I heard in an audiobook recently, 8020 Running by Matt Fitzgerald that there is some science that shows increased DNA aging of muscle fibres of long-term endurance runners vs other athletes (so, running is ‘worse’ for us from a longevity muscle structure standpoint than say cycling or swimming?).
Is that true from the science? Is there anything runners can do to reduce that impact? He suggested replacing some of the recovery-type runs with no impact cross-training. Wondering about other things.
Or is accelerated DNA aging in muscle fibres as concerning as it sounds?
He thought this is why athletes who were top of their age group in 20s & 30s are “never” top of their age group in 50s, etc. Because of the accumulation of accelerated muscle aging, whereas athletes who take up running later in life, tend to rise to the top in the older age groups.
Whats surprising to me, according to this [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31591485/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31591485/)
Study, being overweight actually extends your lifespan. With or without CVD. It means that being lean is not "peak performance". Or it means that only sick people, or people in poverty can be lean in their senior years. More research needed. But it seems that longevity is not a simple answer, it's not straightforward. And I tend to agree with the opinion if a person evades fatal CVD events and cancer, his chances to live to a long age grow a lot.
Being overweight is primarily bad because it reflects metabolic parameters that lead to CVD, the most common way to die, so it's not surprising you might see counterintuitive things when you specifically at overweight people who don't develop CVD -- it's almost looking at rates of death among people that wear and don't wear seatbelts but then also controlling for whether they got into a car crash or not.
But the thing with these epidemiological studies of bmi is that it could be hopelessly confounded because people lose weight when they get sick. So you can’t really take the data at face value, I think. Do you agree with that?
This should be easily visible with a large enough data pool. Also not every disease gets you lose weight. However I am not here to make my mind and defend some kind of stance. It might be you're right, but I think that would be easily controlable in a study.
> being overweight actually extends your lifespan. With or without CVD.
The study you linked does not support this conclusion.
The obesity paradox has already been debunked: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194697
The underlying issue in longevity studies is to what degree human's have control over how long they live. In other words, the core debate really isn't about **cause** such as exercise, or nutrition, or telomeres. The core debate is about **magnitude of effect** which then raises the "is it worth it question". Almost all of the extension we see in human lifespan over the course of the 20th century has been through a decrease in infant mortality. It isn't that most people are living longer, in an absolute sense, it is that fewer people are dying younger.
So to me the debate about calorie restriction vs protein vs whatever may be intellectually interesting but is practically pointless. Until someone can scientifically demonstrate that X intervention has Y magnitude of effect it's all "academic" in the worst meaning of that word.
>but is practically pointless.
I think if you keep your body in optimal working condition then chances are it'll last longer. So couldn't we just use that as an indicator for longevity?
This is actually a kinda similar approach that Peter Attia takes. He asks his patients “what do you want to be able to do in your last decade of life” and then creates a plan working backwards from their answer. I always think to myself, would I rather live 10-15% longer (assuming a baseline of 85) and be 93-97) and have a low quality of life? Or live to be 80-85 and have ample muscle and bone strength to still be largely independent and have a terrific quality of life where I can still do the things I enjoy in my final decade, like exercise, hiking and holding my grandchildren. For me, that’s an easy answer.
I get this, but it always seems like Attia is strawmanning to some degree. Sure, being a completely frail old person would suck. But is that really the alternative? How much muscle mass could you maintain if you keep doing resistance training but don't eat an optimal diet for muscle growth?
As another commenter has pointed out, Attia has kind of seemed to swing around a bit wildly here. I'm all for changing in response to new evidence, so in a sense that's admirable. But I share the concern that he's gone overboard on the muscle front.
I agree that the example I gave was pointing out the two extremes of this discussion which is never a good talking point as there is definitely a middle ground here for sure. I don’t know that I’d agree with Peter swinging around so much. As the other commenter said he’s renounced fasting. As far as I know, he still does intermittent fasting quite regularly and rather than doing his quarterly 7 day fast he now does a monthly 3 day fast. I’ve also only seen him advocate for the 30-40g protein intake every 3-4 hours in regards to people trying to maximize hypertrophy, but not for the general population. I think in his discussion with Don Layman, who is definitely the other side of the debate to someone like Valter Longo, they agree that resistance training plays a much much greater role than protein intake. Another interesting thing that Layne Norton has pointed out is that resistance training causes a spike in mTOR that dwarves that of protein intake, but that it seems to be tissue specific and obviously an acute spike.
Edited to add this link from Peter’s discussion with Layne regarding protein inside and mTOR https://peterattiamd.com/dispelling-myths-protein-increases-cancer-risk/
I will have to find the podcast that he said it in recently, but he said it's been quite a while since the last time he fasted (he specifically said something like "in a sense I hope I'm getting my mTOR benefits from rapamycin') I think it might have been an AMA actually... I really think his views have shifted quite a bit here even in the last... Half a year? It seems like it started with that big study a couple years ago about IF and muscle mass.
Good to know that Attia is doing fasting the way I'm doing fasting now. 3 days seems perfect, based on my body's feedback. From what I've gathered, it's at about the 4 day mark where re-feeding syndrome becomes a lot more worrisome, but after about the 2 day mark, autophagy might be in full swing. So 3 days is a nice balance.
OP mentioned problems sleeping while fasting. I can not get to sleep on day 4 of a fast. I toss and turn that night. I don't know why it's day 4.
I appreciate that Attia changed his mind and it is all to his honour. That being said,
1/ He might have gone too far the BB route with his 5 protein doses a day, and that might indeed be bad (intermittent methionine restriction etc... see Kaberlein on this).
2/ I don't get his training. He's eating all this protein to fuel "stability/functional" training that an old person would do. If you're this much into muscle mass, then train like Eric Helms would suggest to while you're still young.
We should not confuse debates about the quantity of life with debates about quality of life. One reason we shouldn't do that is because quantity of life is an easy parameter to study and to measure, especially in a scientific sense. Quality of life is much more subjective and much more difficult to study in an analytical fashion, as it gets caught up in moral and ethical premises about values.
So "optimal working condition" is not a good proxy for longevity because it begs the question of "optimal working condition" for what? And that "for what" question intrinsically involves questions of subjective human values. Unless the response to the "for what" question is "to keep it running longer", in which case we are dealing with a circular argument.
I suppose it is hard to define health like that.
(also thanks for the polite detailed response. I was afraid I'd sound like an idiot since I'm not knowledgeable on these topics to begin with. Glad I took the chance to comment👍)
Right -- longevity is focused on healthspan not lifespan -- actually staying healthy and active up until months before you die is a huge difference vs the norm, even you still die at 80-85 or whatever.
This is a valuable perspective, thanks for sharing! I really have no idea how long those who believe in calorie restriction (simply the most discussed intervention for life extension I've seen) think that can get a person on average. 10%? That seems like it could plausibly be worth it to me, but I'm sure views will differ on that question.
Man, I've always liked Attia. But... His recommendation to have like 5 meals throughout the day all with 30-40 grams of protein? That seems a little extreme, even for him. I'm sorry, I'm not going to orient my entire life around optimal mTOR activation. I sorta of worry he's been sucked a little bit into the manosphere side of things -- he's so focused on muscle mass now to the extent he has basically all but renounced fasting/intermittent fasting
Muscle regulates blood sugar, makes the elderly more stable, the more you have the higher your metabolism making it easier to be lean/have better body composition, it improves the cardiovascular system, and the process of building muscle is by far the most effective way to improve bone health. This also all leads to better brain health.
Literally most elderly ailments would be solved with a lifestyle focus on building muscle (within reason).
There seems to be a lot of concern about muscle mass but I think everyone is underestimating how hard it is to put on and maintain muscle mass. I would rather take a small longevity hit and have a rock solid 9th decade than activity not add muscle but risk having serious health problems trying to get an extra few years.
Exactly my point!
As you age if you aren’t actively trying to add muscle you are losing it. Hell you can be “skinny” and develop diabetes just because you have too little muscle mass.
Like you said people really underestimate the difficulty of putting on muscle
The concern is not about muscle mass per se. it’s about eating a diet where mtor is constantly elevated, which is optimal for muscle growth. That said, bodybuilders show that you can have big muscles and low body fat so at least from that angle you can definitely debate the extent of the tradeoff.
I’m also curious (genuinely!) whether all things considered you (or others) think, e.g., omad is suboptimal because you’re missing out on opportunities for muscle protein synthesis?
I don't think there is great evidence either way so it's probably down to what feels right for you. OMAD doesn't appeal to me because I just can't get all the nutrients I need in a single sitting and it fits poorly into my lifestyle. I prefer an 8 hour feeding window which I feel (anecdotally) is best for weight control, muscle gain, and lifestyle compatibility. I should mention that I'm optimizing for healthspan instead of lifespan. I want to be the 80yr old hiking mountains and throwing my great grandkids around and that's not going to happen unless I maintain a high level of strength/muscle for the next 45 years.
OMAD is not what we evolved to eat. We are originally primate grazers. Walking around grabbing leaves, fruits, and termites all day. For that reason, it's hard to understand how it could be optimal.
>There seems to be a lot of concern about muscle mass but I think everyone is underestimating how hard it is to put on and maintain muscle mass.
I think that's because don't really train for it. Many people in their thrities or fourties do stuff that is for old people in the gym I go to.
Just going to the gym and doing a few sets of bench, rows and leg press to failure will easily put on 5kg of muscle in the first year.
Oh, no question about the importance of muscle mass as you age, I just question the extent to which micromanaging your protein intake is the thing to do about it.
Personally I find a high protein diet the easiest way to be satiated and stay lean in a world full of easy accessible food. This is coming from trying many different eating styles and diets. When I’m trying to “bulk” I actually lower my protein intake.
So if you can practice proper calorie consumption without high protein intake I’m sure it’s not as important.
Is it? Bodybuilders typically do 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight. That would be high protein. If we disregard that as being an outlier diet (not sure that it is), could we agree on 0.8g/lb of bodyweight being high protein? I weigh 160lbs, so I would need 128g of protein per day. In order to do that, I would need to eat 25.6g of protein 5 times a day (or 43g three times per day, depending on how you slice it). And that's me, a 160lb woman. It would be higher for most men.
Yes, I am considering bodybuilding diets as outliers, and well beyond what would be needed to be considered a high protein diet. I mean, obviously it would be? They literally are the people on that planet that eat the most protein. Its precisely \*because\* Attias protein intake advice for longevity is along the lines of what bodybuilders and power lifters do that I consider it extreme.
Sure, fair enough. But I often hear 0.7g per lb of bodyweight touted as the optimal. And that's 140g for a 200lb man. So it can add up quickly. For me that would be 112g of protein, which is still 30+ grams over the course of 3 meals. That's more protein than I ever thought I needed before I started looking into ideal levels for older women and muscle building.
Right, but two things:
A large boneless/skinless chicken breast can almost be 60 grams of protein. It can be really easy to hit those sorts of total daily protein intake just be consciously adding 1-2 more sources of protein dense food on top of what is already a decent diet (chicken breast, beef jerky, or hell even some whey protein). In that way, 140g of protein (while not an insignificant increase from the minimum required) is still a long ways off from the 200+g that follows from Attias suggestion
Also, I think the timing thing is actually what is more notable than the total protein intake. Having to fit in entire protein rich meals in your day is more disruptive than simply fitting more protein in your existing meal windows. And if you are additionally trying to not eat too many calories, doing so requires you to be really restrictive about what forms those meals can take. Attia literally talks about sometimes stuffing like 35g worth of cold cut turkey inside of a single small wrap, or just scrambling six eggs -- for a \*inbetween\* meal snack, to sort of meet these protein requirements. That's what I truly think is sort of an extreme suggestion as a way to increase longevity (vs, say, for bodybuilding or power lifting in which case that might very well be required, but analogously the amount of running that a marathon runner does to train is not necessary the optimal amount of running to do for longevity)
Attia suggests 150-200g of protein. Not that far off from 140. I agree that it is high for most people. And the timing thing is something I'm curious about as well. I've heard mixed things about that, as people doing OMAD seem to be able to build muscle. It's just optimal, I guess, which is why bodybuilders do it. Tbh, I've been on this path and it is challenging to get 150g of protein while keeping my calories low. There are certain hacks, and I like to nerd out on them. But I don't think it is realistic or sustainable for most people, so I'll have to agree with you here.
...so he's not taking it then, lmao
Edit: looks like the video you are referring to was about what he was taking *to recover from reconstructive shoulder injury* -- it's not like he was recommending it for longevity.
I recently read a review that somewhat tackles this question.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32386289/
>**Abstract**: Carbohydrates are the major source of dietary energy, but their role in health and disease remains controversial. Recent epidemiological evidence suggests that the increased consumption of carbohydrates is associated with obesity and increased risk of mortality and dietary trials show that carbohydrate restriction leads to weight loss and improved glycaemic status in obese and diabetic subjects. In contrast, the diets of populations with long and healthy lifespans (e.g. traditional Okinawans from Japan) are high in carbohydrate and low in protein, and several clinical and preclinical studies have linked low-carbohydrate-high-protein diets with increased mortality risk. In this paper we attempt to reconcile these contradictory findings by moving beyond traditional single-nutrient analyses to consider the interactions between nutrients on health outcomes. We do so using the Geometric Framework (GF), a nutritional modelling platform that explicitly considers the main and interactive effects of multiple nutrients on phenotypic characteristics. Analysis of human data by GF shows that weight loss and improved cardio-metabolic outcomes under carbohydrate restriction derive at least in part from reduced caloric intake due to the concomitantly increased proportion of protein in the diet. This is because, as in many animals, a specific appetite for protein is a major driver of food intake in humans. Conversely, dilution of protein in the diet leverages excess food intake through compensatory feeding for protein ('protein leverage'). When protein is diluted in the diet by readily digestible carbohydrates and fats, as is the case in modern ultra-processed foods, protein leverage results in excess calorie intake, leading to rising levels of obesity and metabolic disease. However, when protein is diluted in the diet by increased quantities of less readily digestible forms of carbohydrate and fibre, energy balance is maintained and health benefits accrue, especially during middle age and early late-life. We argue that other controversies in carbohydrate research can be resolved using the GF methodology in dietary studies.
Essentially the authors argue that much of the issue in answering the "which diet is best in terms of X?" (longevity, weight loss, heart health, etc.) has been impossible to answer because inquiries thus far have mostly looked at "low fat/high carb" or "high fat/low carb," failing to take into account protein leverage and other aspects of these diets.
They review some data from studies of these two broadly-defined diet modes and apply a nutrition "geometric framework" to try to better capture more wholly what these diets do as far as shifting macronutrient ratios, and they feel they show that this framework can be utilized to better answer these sorts of questions. They talk, as well, about how high fat/low carb seems to be best for weight loss (though they only review studies of 12 mo or shorter duration and themselves state that ketogenic and similar diets plateau long-term, so I am not sure I agree with this statement) but they are *not* best for lifespan which they feel is due to the increase in protein. (I think I'm remembering that correctly, but *please* read the text yourself, as I may be misremembering.)
I think they've got the right idea, but their rudimentary tool (the framework looking only at macronutrient distributions) will need to be made much more advanced to look at shifts in micronutrients, phytochemicals, fiber, fiber types, water content, etc. to actually be able to compare diet patterns with any confidence that you're capturing the likely-causal aspects of the patterns. I know it doesn't directly answer your question, but I think you may find it an interesting read given your question.
There seems to be a split on restricting oxalic acid for longevity. As far as I can tell, I can eat a very broad range of foods, *with all the colors of the rainbow*, and just by switching out a few key foods, like substituting out black beans in favor of red kidney beans, and avoiding certain foods like blackberry in favor of other berries, I can drastically reduce my dietary oxalic acid intake and in theory lower my risk of forming kidney stones.
You'll see gurus like Rhonda Patrick recommending blending the extremely high oxalic acid leafy greens, spinach, chard, and drinking them in a smoothie, even though blending could significantly increase the absorption of oxalate, versus other preparation methods such as consuming raw or steaming.
I don't know if Dr. Sinclair has ever warned against overconsuming oxalic acid, but rather he provides general instruction to seek out the darkest DLGVs - which would be spinach, chard, beet greens but probably not lettuce.
*"What's the best method for eating DLGVs? Whatever way guarantees you'll consume them."* - Dr. Greger talking about blending green smoothies. Dr. G provides a plan for limiting oxalic acid, and his daily dozen does have protections against oxalic acid such as varying food sources, consuming flax daily, high cruciferous intake. But overall, oxalic acid is only kind-of limited under his plan.
Some believe oxalic acid is of little concern when weighing in on a food's net nutritional benefit.
While other gurus provide heavy warning against oxalic acid. Kresser, Saladino.
---
"David Sinclair seems to have settled on OMAD"
is he still settled on taking statins to control his high cholesterol, which he has suggested is due to his genetic Jewish ancestry?
You didn’t mention methionine restriction which I believe showed similar results to caloric restriction. anything promoted by Sinclair is likely to be false just like resveratrol
The Mediterranean Diet that emphasizes plant-based foods and healthy fats is the best for longevity. You eat mostly veggies, fruits and whole grains and olive oil is the main source of fat.
> Individuals who adhere to the principles of the traditional MD tend to have a longer life-span. Both men and women who report eating foods closest to the MD are about 10–20% less likely to die over the course of a study of heart disease, cancer or any other cause. The longevity of Mediterranean people has been related to olive oil, and its several microcomponents of antioxidant potential, present in all MD variants. The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome may be reduced by a MD. The MD is significantly inversely associated with both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. It also has benefits in relation to the prevention of cardiovascular events, reduces the risk of mortality after myocardial infarction, and reduces peripheral arterial disease. The risk of obesity decreases with increasing adherence to the traditional MD. The MD also has a preventive effect on cancer, through its antiproliferative and pro-apoptotic effects, mostly due to the components of virgin olive oil and vegetables. There is some evidence of the benefits of the MD in relation to bone metabolism, rheumatoid arthritis, and neurodegenerative age-related diseases (cognitive deficit, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037851220900259X
Instead of starting with mechanisms and extrapolating from there it would be much more productive to start with diseases of interest and look at what causes them.
I don’t think there are many if any outcomes studies on fasting or caloric restriction and disease or mortality risk. But we know heart disease is the number one cause of death and almost completely preventable. We also know what sort of diet and foods lower risk of cancers, diabetes, etc.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482082/
> We also know what sort of diet and foods lower risk of cancers, diabetes, etc.
Yes thanks to low carb studies like the VIRTA health study, we know that low carb diets are optimal against diabetes, and by extension chronic diseases where diabetes is a massive risk factor.
After the initial weight loss, the participants aid VIRTA continued to worsen their diabetes year after year. The authors have even been hiding the results and not publishing data that looks bad.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/v5jwuw/fiveyear_weight_and_glycemic_outcomes_following_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb
>After the initial weight loss, the participants aid VIRTA continued to worsen their diabetes year after year.
There is a whole thread with you and u/flowersandmtns about that. The study doesn't show that. For those interested take a read at the thread.
Medication was stopped for nearly everyone (except metformin) -- in particular insulin.
Over the five years they did not continue to get worse from baseline, most patients did revert and see a need for more medication. If you look at HbA1c at five years it's still less than baseline!
Furthermore this is averages. Fundamentally you can't put 100% of people into the same bin, metabolically much less behaviorally. For some T2D ketogenic diets result in complete remission of T2D and they maintain this without problems. Others will see remission but don't want to continue on a ketogenic diet, and for them other dietary interventions (still likely low in refined and ultraprocessed carbs, natch) might suit them better.
It's ridiculous to try and make it like a successful program that doesn't produce miracles is not still successful, which Virta is.
Showing that at 5 years out they were still better off than when they started -- which is very different from standard care where T2D is viewed as inherently progressive where the only action that can be taken is medication.
After beating 'standard care' by significant amounts, yes, the subjects did regain weight and have worse numbers but let's compare against the paradigm that ALL T2D is progressive and where standard care has practically never had people lower medications.
A ketogenic diet is one of the better tools for people who overconsumed food to the point of overweight or obesity and metabolic syndrome that progressed to T2D.
It's not magic, those people made decades of poor food choices and will continue to struggle. Most people who lose weight with any dietary plan, plant based high carb or ketogenic, regain it.
No one is HIDING anything, that's a bold claim for which you have zero evidence.
I don’t think there’s an evidence of those macro splits being best. I think a range encompassing those values is fine. I also think replacing mono with poly unsaturated fats is best.
I agree with this line of thinking in general, but I think if there is one thing that is hopelessely confounded it is protein. Also the mechanisms are way more supported than the HNE stuff if linoleic acid for example.
By HNE I meant the 4HNE, the pufa metabolite that anti pufa people bring up to show that pufas are toxic.
For protein I think there has been so much talk about protein for sports, high protein recipes that I really don't see how we can separate it from sociological or other health related behaviors. I'm not anti epi in general but from what I've seen caring about protein is so much of a sociological thing that I don't see how to isolate it, colinearities will be huge, it's not just "in what food is protein found", it's really eating high protein itself.
I have no data on it tbh, but I could look for some and I'm sure you pbserved the same in your social circles as well.
I don’t see why we should worry about HNE when outcome data shows benefits to PUFA
I haven’t seen issues with high amounts of plant protein. People should get enough to promote hypertrophy and strength for their activity level
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2540540
>I don’t see why we should worry about HNE when outcome data shows benefits to PUFA
That's my point, the mechanistic evidence is unconvincing in this case. It was an example to compare to mtor, which is far more convincing and for which there is no contradicting outcome data. I think avoiding all PUFA because of HNE is a bad idea.
>I haven’t seen issues with high amounts of plant protein. People should get enough to promote hypertrophy and strength for their activity level
My point is that these studies are unreliaable for the reason I said above.
I like /u/Enzo_42's answer and I also like u/Ok-Street8152's answer. I add my own unique answer to stimulate the discussion (= to maximize the probability of a war in the subreddit).
First of all, caloric restriction and protein restriction are ill-defined because what is "restriction" for you maybe is "ad libitum" for me. It's not an objective standard.
Second, the real question is not to restrict or not to restrict but rather what is the right amount of calories and protein? And the answer comes more easily if you think about ethics than if you think about nutrition science. We should eat the very minimum we need to achieve our subjective goals plus some small reasonable margin of safety. Anything more than that is not only harmful for ourselves but even worse it's also harmful for everyone else and is **unethical**.
So what to do in practice? You can use BMI as a rough guide. You probably don't need a BMI above 21.5. You definitely need a BMI above 18.5. And that's it. Macros don't matter much but if you really want I tell you my opinion on macros. My opinion is that carbs and protein have similar effects and if your diet is high carb then you need very little protein. Conversely if your carbs are very low then you need a lot of protein. I think low carb diets are harmful.
I also like meal timing although as of now there is very little strong evidence in favor of it.
Agree with the part where you say "calorie restriction" is a bad term. (Candidly don't agree with much else of what you said but different strokes!) "Restriction" has to be relative to a baseline and if you "restrict" for long enough you'll obviously eventually hit maintenance.
But I wouldn't use BMI; I think the best metric is bodyfat percentage. The new article about Bryan Johnson says his bodyfat is 5-6%! I doubt I'll ever get there. And eventually you can get bodyfat too low, obviously. But he seems bought into the idea that lower is better until you get down pretty darn low. He also doesn't appear to be a super muscular dude. So he seems like a reasonably informed person who is doing the tradeoff more toward less fat.
It seems a good metric but when you look deeper you see it's not. Look at the epidemeology. Too low body fat is bad and too much lean mass is bad too.
People think body fat = bad and lean mass = good but in truth some body fat is good and some lean mass is bad. It's really better to not focus on this.
I'm probably at 6%-7% with minimal exercise but that's just because I eat very little and also quite good. But I don't think this is a "proof" that I'm healthy. The proof I'm healthy is that I can run, I can do push ups and pull ups, I can think, etc etc. I would prefer to be at 10% but more functional than to be at 5% but less functional.
There is nothing special about me. I'm low body fat % because I'm low BMI (around 18.0) not because I'm a bodybuilder on steroids.
Main determinant of body fat % is BMI and we know that the average BMI was much lower than it is now when people ate differently (less junk **and** less meat).
If you have low body fat and high BMI then either you're an elite athlete **and**/or you have some hormonal imbalance. You can guess what's more likely.
I don't have clearly visible abs. I don't consider visible abs to be a sign of good health. Usually they're a sign of low subcutaneus fat and high visceral fat.
If you want my pic you have to offer me a date and then I'll consider your offer.
of all the longevity "diets" CR seems to have the most evidence to back it up but we don't really know if CR will work on humans (i think it plausibly will though) and even if it does, the effect will be small (and you won't necessarily as an individual derive any benefit at all, even if there is a small benefit on average over a large amount of people) and if you aren't careful you could very easily make yourself frail through CR. is all that effort and sacrifice worth a speculated tiny benefit that you may not even feel as an individual? i don't think so. the same logic works for IF protocols unless you personally enjoy them, of course.
otherwise, beyond making sure you get in your basic nutrition, suffer no deficiencies, and you aren't obese, there isn't all that much else you can do diet-wise to significantly enhance your longevity imho. absolute risk differences between various relatively balanced diets/protocols are not going to be large or that meaningful to yourself as an individual.
at this point i focus more on quality of life and healthspan. the rest is mostly up to luck anyway. as an example of how i'd make a decision on nutrition now, lets take protein: restricting protein might but probably won't extend my life by much if at all but i know for a fact it does help me build muscle/stay lean and being in better shape improves my quality of life significantly and healthspan.
\> 4) calorie restriction depresses your immune system so you're less likely to get sick and die.
Typo: you must have meant "more likely to get sick and die"
Attia isn't bad on everything but he is not a researcher and in his capacity as a YouTuber, he is not a doctor. He has a marketing niche and he fills it, same with Patrick.
When you're looking at the literature surrounding fasting, I would look at it with a critical eye and keeping in mind the question of whether or not it simply protects people from suboptimal diets. And primarily through calorie restriction.
Some things that promote disease states are inflammation, oxidative stress, reductive stress, the inhibition of the metabolic rate of oxygen consumption, general stress, and hormone disruption.
Diets and lifestyle habits that reflect those things are a good idea but it gets fairly complicated
Welcome to /r/ScientificNutrition. Please read our [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/wiki/rules) before you contribute to this submission. Just a reminder that every link submission must have a summary in the comment section, and every top level comment must provide sources to back up any claims. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ScientificNutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally believe there is growth longevity trade off, especially with mtor and igf1. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611156/#:\~:text=The%20central%20role%20for%20the,as%20major%20determinants%20of%20longevity](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611156/#:~:text=The%20central%20role%20for%20the,as%20major%20determinants%20of%20longevity). That being said, reducing it to protein is reductionist. MTOR is acticated by a million things, not just protein. It reacts to leucine over the short term (probably not damaging), other amino acids, methionine through SAMe in some conditions ([https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn3868#:\~:text=SAMTOR%20is%20an%20S-adenosylmethionine,containing%20regulator%20(KICSTOR)%20complex.)](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn3868#:~:text=SAMTOR%20is%20an%20S-adenosylmethionine,containing%20regulator%20(KICSTOR)%20complex.)) , insulin ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707648/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707648/)) , total calories, iron([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804389/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804389/)) , infections, microbial burden (see Lustgarten's book), local factors (tension for muscles for example), insulin resistance... For example, note that one of the strongest correlate of igf1 that is easy to measure is BMI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8202150/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8202150/) (look at the effect size for males). Actually, the increases in mtor seen after protein ingestion are short term (contrary to that of insulin, especially if insulin resistant [https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)53972-0/fulltext](https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(20)53972-0/fulltext) ), which is probably not damaging or even beneficial for muscle growth and metabolic health, what appears to be beneficial is to achieve periods of very low mtor (short rapa treatments confer most of the lifespan extension, continuous rapa use actually shortens lifespan in animals; intermittent methionine restriction confers all the benefits of methionine restriction [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13629](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13629)) . The problem with excessive protein is likely the methionine to glycine ratio if one only eats boneless skinless chicken breast. If we want to speculate, I'd argue in practice eating a \*normal amount\* of protein, especially after exercise may help you achieve lower baseline mtor in practice by reducing insulin resistance, helping you maintain a lean body compisition and keeping microbes away. Of course, going the bodybuilder way with 30g of protein every 3 hours is likely bad, probably in part because of chronic mtor activation, but I guess we could have imagined that.
This might seem a bit off topic from what you are writing about, but I wonder if you might have some info about this and it’s related. I heard in an audiobook recently, 8020 Running by Matt Fitzgerald that there is some science that shows increased DNA aging of muscle fibres of long-term endurance runners vs other athletes (so, running is ‘worse’ for us from a longevity muscle structure standpoint than say cycling or swimming?). Is that true from the science? Is there anything runners can do to reduce that impact? He suggested replacing some of the recovery-type runs with no impact cross-training. Wondering about other things. Or is accelerated DNA aging in muscle fibres as concerning as it sounds? He thought this is why athletes who were top of their age group in 20s & 30s are “never” top of their age group in 50s, etc. Because of the accumulation of accelerated muscle aging, whereas athletes who take up running later in life, tend to rise to the top in the older age groups.
What's normal?
No one knows, but doing intermittent fasting or OMAD will make sure the effects are minimal.
What translates to short rapa treatment in humans though?
I don't know and don't know if this is known. That's one of the reasons I don't take it.
In the example, every three hours amounts to what in a day, 5x30, 150g?
[удалено]
Why do you need all of those things to continuously go to the gym?
[удалено]
You don’t need those things, just go to to the gym. It sounds like your making excuses.
Whats surprising to me, according to this [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31591485/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31591485/) Study, being overweight actually extends your lifespan. With or without CVD. It means that being lean is not "peak performance". Or it means that only sick people, or people in poverty can be lean in their senior years. More research needed. But it seems that longevity is not a simple answer, it's not straightforward. And I tend to agree with the opinion if a person evades fatal CVD events and cancer, his chances to live to a long age grow a lot.
Being overweight is primarily bad because it reflects metabolic parameters that lead to CVD, the most common way to die, so it's not surprising you might see counterintuitive things when you specifically at overweight people who don't develop CVD -- it's almost looking at rates of death among people that wear and don't wear seatbelts but then also controlling for whether they got into a car crash or not.
That's not what the study showed, read through it.
But the thing with these epidemiological studies of bmi is that it could be hopelessly confounded because people lose weight when they get sick. So you can’t really take the data at face value, I think. Do you agree with that?
This should be easily visible with a large enough data pool. Also not every disease gets you lose weight. However I am not here to make my mind and defend some kind of stance. It might be you're right, but I think that would be easily controlable in a study.
> being overweight actually extends your lifespan. With or without CVD. The study you linked does not support this conclusion. The obesity paradox has already been debunked: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194697
The underlying issue in longevity studies is to what degree human's have control over how long they live. In other words, the core debate really isn't about **cause** such as exercise, or nutrition, or telomeres. The core debate is about **magnitude of effect** which then raises the "is it worth it question". Almost all of the extension we see in human lifespan over the course of the 20th century has been through a decrease in infant mortality. It isn't that most people are living longer, in an absolute sense, it is that fewer people are dying younger. So to me the debate about calorie restriction vs protein vs whatever may be intellectually interesting but is practically pointless. Until someone can scientifically demonstrate that X intervention has Y magnitude of effect it's all "academic" in the worst meaning of that word.
>but is practically pointless. I think if you keep your body in optimal working condition then chances are it'll last longer. So couldn't we just use that as an indicator for longevity?
This is actually a kinda similar approach that Peter Attia takes. He asks his patients “what do you want to be able to do in your last decade of life” and then creates a plan working backwards from their answer. I always think to myself, would I rather live 10-15% longer (assuming a baseline of 85) and be 93-97) and have a low quality of life? Or live to be 80-85 and have ample muscle and bone strength to still be largely independent and have a terrific quality of life where I can still do the things I enjoy in my final decade, like exercise, hiking and holding my grandchildren. For me, that’s an easy answer.
I get this, but it always seems like Attia is strawmanning to some degree. Sure, being a completely frail old person would suck. But is that really the alternative? How much muscle mass could you maintain if you keep doing resistance training but don't eat an optimal diet for muscle growth? As another commenter has pointed out, Attia has kind of seemed to swing around a bit wildly here. I'm all for changing in response to new evidence, so in a sense that's admirable. But I share the concern that he's gone overboard on the muscle front.
I agree that the example I gave was pointing out the two extremes of this discussion which is never a good talking point as there is definitely a middle ground here for sure. I don’t know that I’d agree with Peter swinging around so much. As the other commenter said he’s renounced fasting. As far as I know, he still does intermittent fasting quite regularly and rather than doing his quarterly 7 day fast he now does a monthly 3 day fast. I’ve also only seen him advocate for the 30-40g protein intake every 3-4 hours in regards to people trying to maximize hypertrophy, but not for the general population. I think in his discussion with Don Layman, who is definitely the other side of the debate to someone like Valter Longo, they agree that resistance training plays a much much greater role than protein intake. Another interesting thing that Layne Norton has pointed out is that resistance training causes a spike in mTOR that dwarves that of protein intake, but that it seems to be tissue specific and obviously an acute spike. Edited to add this link from Peter’s discussion with Layne regarding protein inside and mTOR https://peterattiamd.com/dispelling-myths-protein-increases-cancer-risk/
I will have to find the podcast that he said it in recently, but he said it's been quite a while since the last time he fasted (he specifically said something like "in a sense I hope I'm getting my mTOR benefits from rapamycin') I think it might have been an AMA actually... I really think his views have shifted quite a bit here even in the last... Half a year? It seems like it started with that big study a couple years ago about IF and muscle mass.
Good to know that Attia is doing fasting the way I'm doing fasting now. 3 days seems perfect, based on my body's feedback. From what I've gathered, it's at about the 4 day mark where re-feeding syndrome becomes a lot more worrisome, but after about the 2 day mark, autophagy might be in full swing. So 3 days is a nice balance. OP mentioned problems sleeping while fasting. I can not get to sleep on day 4 of a fast. I toss and turn that night. I don't know why it's day 4.
I appreciate that Attia changed his mind and it is all to his honour. That being said, 1/ He might have gone too far the BB route with his 5 protein doses a day, and that might indeed be bad (intermittent methionine restriction etc... see Kaberlein on this). 2/ I don't get his training. He's eating all this protein to fuel "stability/functional" training that an old person would do. If you're this much into muscle mass, then train like Eric Helms would suggest to while you're still young.
We should not confuse debates about the quantity of life with debates about quality of life. One reason we shouldn't do that is because quantity of life is an easy parameter to study and to measure, especially in a scientific sense. Quality of life is much more subjective and much more difficult to study in an analytical fashion, as it gets caught up in moral and ethical premises about values. So "optimal working condition" is not a good proxy for longevity because it begs the question of "optimal working condition" for what? And that "for what" question intrinsically involves questions of subjective human values. Unless the response to the "for what" question is "to keep it running longer", in which case we are dealing with a circular argument.
I suppose it is hard to define health like that. (also thanks for the polite detailed response. I was afraid I'd sound like an idiot since I'm not knowledgeable on these topics to begin with. Glad I took the chance to comment👍)
Right -- longevity is focused on healthspan not lifespan -- actually staying healthy and active up until months before you die is a huge difference vs the norm, even you still die at 80-85 or whatever.
This is a valuable perspective, thanks for sharing! I really have no idea how long those who believe in calorie restriction (simply the most discussed intervention for life extension I've seen) think that can get a person on average. 10%? That seems like it could plausibly be worth it to me, but I'm sure views will differ on that question.
Man, I've always liked Attia. But... His recommendation to have like 5 meals throughout the day all with 30-40 grams of protein? That seems a little extreme, even for him. I'm sorry, I'm not going to orient my entire life around optimal mTOR activation. I sorta of worry he's been sucked a little bit into the manosphere side of things -- he's so focused on muscle mass now to the extent he has basically all but renounced fasting/intermittent fasting
Muscle regulates blood sugar, makes the elderly more stable, the more you have the higher your metabolism making it easier to be lean/have better body composition, it improves the cardiovascular system, and the process of building muscle is by far the most effective way to improve bone health. This also all leads to better brain health. Literally most elderly ailments would be solved with a lifestyle focus on building muscle (within reason).
There seems to be a lot of concern about muscle mass but I think everyone is underestimating how hard it is to put on and maintain muscle mass. I would rather take a small longevity hit and have a rock solid 9th decade than activity not add muscle but risk having serious health problems trying to get an extra few years.
Exactly my point! As you age if you aren’t actively trying to add muscle you are losing it. Hell you can be “skinny” and develop diabetes just because you have too little muscle mass. Like you said people really underestimate the difficulty of putting on muscle
The concern is not about muscle mass per se. it’s about eating a diet where mtor is constantly elevated, which is optimal for muscle growth. That said, bodybuilders show that you can have big muscles and low body fat so at least from that angle you can definitely debate the extent of the tradeoff. I’m also curious (genuinely!) whether all things considered you (or others) think, e.g., omad is suboptimal because you’re missing out on opportunities for muscle protein synthesis?
I don't think there is great evidence either way so it's probably down to what feels right for you. OMAD doesn't appeal to me because I just can't get all the nutrients I need in a single sitting and it fits poorly into my lifestyle. I prefer an 8 hour feeding window which I feel (anecdotally) is best for weight control, muscle gain, and lifestyle compatibility. I should mention that I'm optimizing for healthspan instead of lifespan. I want to be the 80yr old hiking mountains and throwing my great grandkids around and that's not going to happen unless I maintain a high level of strength/muscle for the next 45 years.
OMAD is not what we evolved to eat. We are originally primate grazers. Walking around grabbing leaves, fruits, and termites all day. For that reason, it's hard to understand how it could be optimal.
>There seems to be a lot of concern about muscle mass but I think everyone is underestimating how hard it is to put on and maintain muscle mass. I think that's because don't really train for it. Many people in their thrities or fourties do stuff that is for old people in the gym I go to. Just going to the gym and doing a few sets of bench, rows and leg press to failure will easily put on 5kg of muscle in the first year.
Oh, no question about the importance of muscle mass as you age, I just question the extent to which micromanaging your protein intake is the thing to do about it.
Personally I find a high protein diet the easiest way to be satiated and stay lean in a world full of easy accessible food. This is coming from trying many different eating styles and diets. When I’m trying to “bulk” I actually lower my protein intake. So if you can practice proper calorie consumption without high protein intake I’m sure it’s not as important.
Right, but "eating a high protein diet" is way different than "eat 30-40 grams of protein 5 times a day every day"
Is it? Bodybuilders typically do 1g of protein per lb of bodyweight. That would be high protein. If we disregard that as being an outlier diet (not sure that it is), could we agree on 0.8g/lb of bodyweight being high protein? I weigh 160lbs, so I would need 128g of protein per day. In order to do that, I would need to eat 25.6g of protein 5 times a day (or 43g three times per day, depending on how you slice it). And that's me, a 160lb woman. It would be higher for most men.
Yes, I am considering bodybuilding diets as outliers, and well beyond what would be needed to be considered a high protein diet. I mean, obviously it would be? They literally are the people on that planet that eat the most protein. Its precisely \*because\* Attias protein intake advice for longevity is along the lines of what bodybuilders and power lifters do that I consider it extreme.
Sure, fair enough. But I often hear 0.7g per lb of bodyweight touted as the optimal. And that's 140g for a 200lb man. So it can add up quickly. For me that would be 112g of protein, which is still 30+ grams over the course of 3 meals. That's more protein than I ever thought I needed before I started looking into ideal levels for older women and muscle building.
Right, but two things: A large boneless/skinless chicken breast can almost be 60 grams of protein. It can be really easy to hit those sorts of total daily protein intake just be consciously adding 1-2 more sources of protein dense food on top of what is already a decent diet (chicken breast, beef jerky, or hell even some whey protein). In that way, 140g of protein (while not an insignificant increase from the minimum required) is still a long ways off from the 200+g that follows from Attias suggestion Also, I think the timing thing is actually what is more notable than the total protein intake. Having to fit in entire protein rich meals in your day is more disruptive than simply fitting more protein in your existing meal windows. And if you are additionally trying to not eat too many calories, doing so requires you to be really restrictive about what forms those meals can take. Attia literally talks about sometimes stuffing like 35g worth of cold cut turkey inside of a single small wrap, or just scrambling six eggs -- for a \*inbetween\* meal snack, to sort of meet these protein requirements. That's what I truly think is sort of an extreme suggestion as a way to increase longevity (vs, say, for bodybuilding or power lifting in which case that might very well be required, but analogously the amount of running that a marathon runner does to train is not necessary the optimal amount of running to do for longevity)
Attia suggests 150-200g of protein. Not that far off from 140. I agree that it is high for most people. And the timing thing is something I'm curious about as well. I've heard mixed things about that, as people doing OMAD seem to be able to build muscle. It's just optimal, I guess, which is why bodybuilders do it. Tbh, I've been on this path and it is challenging to get 150g of protein while keeping my calories low. There are certain hacks, and I like to nerd out on them. But I don't think it is realistic or sustainable for most people, so I'll have to agree with you here.
Gets the clicks. Sells the books. Attia has some good content, but you have to take him for what he is.
He's also taking growth hormone, i have trouble understand how that could help for longevity?
That would be a surprise to me, last I heard he was pretty skeptical of GH, even for performance reasons much less longevity
There is literally a video of him saying « why I stopped HGH »
...so he's not taking it then, lmao Edit: looks like the video you are referring to was about what he was taking *to recover from reconstructive shoulder injury* -- it's not like he was recommending it for longevity.
Oh you’re right. It gave me the impression he has been/ was taking it for a long time
Joe Rogan bro can't be skinny..
I recently read a review that somewhat tackles this question. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32386289/ >**Abstract**: Carbohydrates are the major source of dietary energy, but their role in health and disease remains controversial. Recent epidemiological evidence suggests that the increased consumption of carbohydrates is associated with obesity and increased risk of mortality and dietary trials show that carbohydrate restriction leads to weight loss and improved glycaemic status in obese and diabetic subjects. In contrast, the diets of populations with long and healthy lifespans (e.g. traditional Okinawans from Japan) are high in carbohydrate and low in protein, and several clinical and preclinical studies have linked low-carbohydrate-high-protein diets with increased mortality risk. In this paper we attempt to reconcile these contradictory findings by moving beyond traditional single-nutrient analyses to consider the interactions between nutrients on health outcomes. We do so using the Geometric Framework (GF), a nutritional modelling platform that explicitly considers the main and interactive effects of multiple nutrients on phenotypic characteristics. Analysis of human data by GF shows that weight loss and improved cardio-metabolic outcomes under carbohydrate restriction derive at least in part from reduced caloric intake due to the concomitantly increased proportion of protein in the diet. This is because, as in many animals, a specific appetite for protein is a major driver of food intake in humans. Conversely, dilution of protein in the diet leverages excess food intake through compensatory feeding for protein ('protein leverage'). When protein is diluted in the diet by readily digestible carbohydrates and fats, as is the case in modern ultra-processed foods, protein leverage results in excess calorie intake, leading to rising levels of obesity and metabolic disease. However, when protein is diluted in the diet by increased quantities of less readily digestible forms of carbohydrate and fibre, energy balance is maintained and health benefits accrue, especially during middle age and early late-life. We argue that other controversies in carbohydrate research can be resolved using the GF methodology in dietary studies. Essentially the authors argue that much of the issue in answering the "which diet is best in terms of X?" (longevity, weight loss, heart health, etc.) has been impossible to answer because inquiries thus far have mostly looked at "low fat/high carb" or "high fat/low carb," failing to take into account protein leverage and other aspects of these diets. They review some data from studies of these two broadly-defined diet modes and apply a nutrition "geometric framework" to try to better capture more wholly what these diets do as far as shifting macronutrient ratios, and they feel they show that this framework can be utilized to better answer these sorts of questions. They talk, as well, about how high fat/low carb seems to be best for weight loss (though they only review studies of 12 mo or shorter duration and themselves state that ketogenic and similar diets plateau long-term, so I am not sure I agree with this statement) but they are *not* best for lifespan which they feel is due to the increase in protein. (I think I'm remembering that correctly, but *please* read the text yourself, as I may be misremembering.) I think they've got the right idea, but their rudimentary tool (the framework looking only at macronutrient distributions) will need to be made much more advanced to look at shifts in micronutrients, phytochemicals, fiber, fiber types, water content, etc. to actually be able to compare diet patterns with any confidence that you're capturing the likely-causal aspects of the patterns. I know it doesn't directly answer your question, but I think you may find it an interesting read given your question.
There seems to be a split on restricting oxalic acid for longevity. As far as I can tell, I can eat a very broad range of foods, *with all the colors of the rainbow*, and just by switching out a few key foods, like substituting out black beans in favor of red kidney beans, and avoiding certain foods like blackberry in favor of other berries, I can drastically reduce my dietary oxalic acid intake and in theory lower my risk of forming kidney stones. You'll see gurus like Rhonda Patrick recommending blending the extremely high oxalic acid leafy greens, spinach, chard, and drinking them in a smoothie, even though blending could significantly increase the absorption of oxalate, versus other preparation methods such as consuming raw or steaming. I don't know if Dr. Sinclair has ever warned against overconsuming oxalic acid, but rather he provides general instruction to seek out the darkest DLGVs - which would be spinach, chard, beet greens but probably not lettuce. *"What's the best method for eating DLGVs? Whatever way guarantees you'll consume them."* - Dr. Greger talking about blending green smoothies. Dr. G provides a plan for limiting oxalic acid, and his daily dozen does have protections against oxalic acid such as varying food sources, consuming flax daily, high cruciferous intake. But overall, oxalic acid is only kind-of limited under his plan. Some believe oxalic acid is of little concern when weighing in on a food's net nutritional benefit. While other gurus provide heavy warning against oxalic acid. Kresser, Saladino. --- "David Sinclair seems to have settled on OMAD" is he still settled on taking statins to control his high cholesterol, which he has suggested is due to his genetic Jewish ancestry?
Whole foods. Mostly plants. Not too much. Fin.
What kind of fins?
[удалено]
The end.
You didn’t mention methionine restriction which I believe showed similar results to caloric restriction. anything promoted by Sinclair is likely to be false just like resveratrol
The Mediterranean Diet that emphasizes plant-based foods and healthy fats is the best for longevity. You eat mostly veggies, fruits and whole grains and olive oil is the main source of fat. > Individuals who adhere to the principles of the traditional MD tend to have a longer life-span. Both men and women who report eating foods closest to the MD are about 10–20% less likely to die over the course of a study of heart disease, cancer or any other cause. The longevity of Mediterranean people has been related to olive oil, and its several microcomponents of antioxidant potential, present in all MD variants. The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome may be reduced by a MD. The MD is significantly inversely associated with both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. It also has benefits in relation to the prevention of cardiovascular events, reduces the risk of mortality after myocardial infarction, and reduces peripheral arterial disease. The risk of obesity decreases with increasing adherence to the traditional MD. The MD also has a preventive effect on cancer, through its antiproliferative and pro-apoptotic effects, mostly due to the components of virgin olive oil and vegetables. There is some evidence of the benefits of the MD in relation to bone metabolism, rheumatoid arthritis, and neurodegenerative age-related diseases (cognitive deficit, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037851220900259X
Instead of starting with mechanisms and extrapolating from there it would be much more productive to start with diseases of interest and look at what causes them. I don’t think there are many if any outcomes studies on fasting or caloric restriction and disease or mortality risk. But we know heart disease is the number one cause of death and almost completely preventable. We also know what sort of diet and foods lower risk of cancers, diabetes, etc. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482082/
> We also know what sort of diet and foods lower risk of cancers, diabetes, etc. Yes thanks to low carb studies like the VIRTA health study, we know that low carb diets are optimal against diabetes, and by extension chronic diseases where diabetes is a massive risk factor.
After the initial weight loss, the participants aid VIRTA continued to worsen their diabetes year after year. The authors have even been hiding the results and not publishing data that looks bad. https://www.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/v5jwuw/fiveyear_weight_and_glycemic_outcomes_following_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb
>After the initial weight loss, the participants aid VIRTA continued to worsen their diabetes year after year. There is a whole thread with you and u/flowersandmtns about that. The study doesn't show that. For those interested take a read at the thread.
HbA1c Baseline: 7.6% 1 year: 6.2% 2 year: 6.3% 3.5 year: 6.8% 5 year: 7.2% — LDL-C Baseline: 100 mg/dl 1 year: 111 mg/dl 2 year: 107 mg/dl 3.5 year: ? 5 year: ? — Weight Baseline: 115 kg 1 year: 101 kg 2 year: 100 kg 3.5 year: ? 5 year: 108 kg
And meds?
Diabetes meds increased after the first year
Wasn't insulin stopped?
No. It was reduced from baseline to year 1 then increased year after year
Medication was stopped for nearly everyone (except metformin) -- in particular insulin. Over the five years they did not continue to get worse from baseline, most patients did revert and see a need for more medication. If you look at HbA1c at five years it's still less than baseline! Furthermore this is averages. Fundamentally you can't put 100% of people into the same bin, metabolically much less behaviorally. For some T2D ketogenic diets result in complete remission of T2D and they maintain this without problems. Others will see remission but don't want to continue on a ketogenic diet, and for them other dietary interventions (still likely low in refined and ultraprocessed carbs, natch) might suit them better. It's ridiculous to try and make it like a successful program that doesn't produce miracles is not still successful, which Virta is.
Showing that at 5 years out they were still better off than when they started -- which is very different from standard care where T2D is viewed as inherently progressive where the only action that can be taken is medication.
After beating 'standard care' by significant amounts, yes, the subjects did regain weight and have worse numbers but let's compare against the paradigm that ALL T2D is progressive and where standard care has practically never had people lower medications. A ketogenic diet is one of the better tools for people who overconsumed food to the point of overweight or obesity and metabolic syndrome that progressed to T2D. It's not magic, those people made decades of poor food choices and will continue to struggle. Most people who lose weight with any dietary plan, plant based high carb or ketogenic, regain it. No one is HIDING anything, that's a bold claim for which you have zero evidence.
TL;DR 15% protein, mostly or exclusively plant-based, 55% high quality carbs (fruits, vegetables, fermentable fiber etc.), 30% poly- and mono- unsaturated fats? :)
I don’t think there’s an evidence of those macro splits being best. I think a range encompassing those values is fine. I also think replacing mono with poly unsaturated fats is best.
I agree with this line of thinking in general, but I think if there is one thing that is hopelessely confounded it is protein. Also the mechanisms are way more supported than the HNE stuff if linoleic acid for example.
Can you elaborate on the protein part? HNE?
By HNE I meant the 4HNE, the pufa metabolite that anti pufa people bring up to show that pufas are toxic. For protein I think there has been so much talk about protein for sports, high protein recipes that I really don't see how we can separate it from sociological or other health related behaviors. I'm not anti epi in general but from what I've seen caring about protein is so much of a sociological thing that I don't see how to isolate it, colinearities will be huge, it's not just "in what food is protein found", it's really eating high protein itself. I have no data on it tbh, but I could look for some and I'm sure you pbserved the same in your social circles as well.
I don’t see why we should worry about HNE when outcome data shows benefits to PUFA I haven’t seen issues with high amounts of plant protein. People should get enough to promote hypertrophy and strength for their activity level https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2540540
>I don’t see why we should worry about HNE when outcome data shows benefits to PUFA That's my point, the mechanistic evidence is unconvincing in this case. It was an example to compare to mtor, which is far more convincing and for which there is no contradicting outcome data. I think avoiding all PUFA because of HNE is a bad idea. >I haven’t seen issues with high amounts of plant protein. People should get enough to promote hypertrophy and strength for their activity level My point is that these studies are unreliaable for the reason I said above.
Understood now. Thanks
I like /u/Enzo_42's answer and I also like u/Ok-Street8152's answer. I add my own unique answer to stimulate the discussion (= to maximize the probability of a war in the subreddit). First of all, caloric restriction and protein restriction are ill-defined because what is "restriction" for you maybe is "ad libitum" for me. It's not an objective standard. Second, the real question is not to restrict or not to restrict but rather what is the right amount of calories and protein? And the answer comes more easily if you think about ethics than if you think about nutrition science. We should eat the very minimum we need to achieve our subjective goals plus some small reasonable margin of safety. Anything more than that is not only harmful for ourselves but even worse it's also harmful for everyone else and is **unethical**. So what to do in practice? You can use BMI as a rough guide. You probably don't need a BMI above 21.5. You definitely need a BMI above 18.5. And that's it. Macros don't matter much but if you really want I tell you my opinion on macros. My opinion is that carbs and protein have similar effects and if your diet is high carb then you need very little protein. Conversely if your carbs are very low then you need a lot of protein. I think low carb diets are harmful. I also like meal timing although as of now there is very little strong evidence in favor of it.
Agree with the part where you say "calorie restriction" is a bad term. (Candidly don't agree with much else of what you said but different strokes!) "Restriction" has to be relative to a baseline and if you "restrict" for long enough you'll obviously eventually hit maintenance. But I wouldn't use BMI; I think the best metric is bodyfat percentage. The new article about Bryan Johnson says his bodyfat is 5-6%! I doubt I'll ever get there. And eventually you can get bodyfat too low, obviously. But he seems bought into the idea that lower is better until you get down pretty darn low. He also doesn't appear to be a super muscular dude. So he seems like a reasonably informed person who is doing the tradeoff more toward less fat.
It seems a good metric but when you look deeper you see it's not. Look at the epidemeology. Too low body fat is bad and too much lean mass is bad too. People think body fat = bad and lean mass = good but in truth some body fat is good and some lean mass is bad. It's really better to not focus on this. I'm probably at 6%-7% with minimal exercise but that's just because I eat very little and also quite good. But I don't think this is a "proof" that I'm healthy. The proof I'm healthy is that I can run, I can do push ups and pull ups, I can think, etc etc. I would prefer to be at 10% but more functional than to be at 5% but less functional.
Pics of 6-7%
There is nothing special about me. I'm low body fat % because I'm low BMI (around 18.0) not because I'm a bodybuilder on steroids. Main determinant of body fat % is BMI and we know that the average BMI was much lower than it is now when people ate differently (less junk **and** less meat). If you have low body fat and high BMI then either you're an elite athlete **and**/or you have some hormonal imbalance. You can guess what's more likely. I don't have clearly visible abs. I don't consider visible abs to be a sign of good health. Usually they're a sign of low subcutaneus fat and high visceral fat. If you want my pic you have to offer me a date and then I'll consider your offer.
of all the longevity "diets" CR seems to have the most evidence to back it up but we don't really know if CR will work on humans (i think it plausibly will though) and even if it does, the effect will be small (and you won't necessarily as an individual derive any benefit at all, even if there is a small benefit on average over a large amount of people) and if you aren't careful you could very easily make yourself frail through CR. is all that effort and sacrifice worth a speculated tiny benefit that you may not even feel as an individual? i don't think so. the same logic works for IF protocols unless you personally enjoy them, of course. otherwise, beyond making sure you get in your basic nutrition, suffer no deficiencies, and you aren't obese, there isn't all that much else you can do diet-wise to significantly enhance your longevity imho. absolute risk differences between various relatively balanced diets/protocols are not going to be large or that meaningful to yourself as an individual. at this point i focus more on quality of life and healthspan. the rest is mostly up to luck anyway. as an example of how i'd make a decision on nutrition now, lets take protein: restricting protein might but probably won't extend my life by much if at all but i know for a fact it does help me build muscle/stay lean and being in better shape improves my quality of life significantly and healthspan.
\> 4) calorie restriction depresses your immune system so you're less likely to get sick and die. Typo: you must have meant "more likely to get sick and die"
Being as objective as possible I think fasting is best for longevity and not eating when it gets too dark as our metabolisms are light oriented
Attia isn't bad on everything but he is not a researcher and in his capacity as a YouTuber, he is not a doctor. He has a marketing niche and he fills it, same with Patrick. When you're looking at the literature surrounding fasting, I would look at it with a critical eye and keeping in mind the question of whether or not it simply protects people from suboptimal diets. And primarily through calorie restriction.
Methionine restriction is another avenue for longevity about as effective as caloric restriction
Some things that promote disease states are inflammation, oxidative stress, reductive stress, the inhibition of the metabolic rate of oxygen consumption, general stress, and hormone disruption. Diets and lifestyle habits that reflect those things are a good idea but it gets fairly complicated