[news.sciencemag.org]

"A new theory about the foods that can extend life is taking shape, and it’s sure to be a controversial one. Two studies out this week, one in mice and another primarily in people, suggest that eating relatively little protein and lots of carbohydrates—the opposite of what’s urged by many human diet plans, including the popular Atkins Diet—extends life and fortifies health.

The research challenges other common wisdom, too. The authors of both studies believe that calorie restriction, a drastic diet that helps mice and other species live much longer than normal, may work not because it slashes calorie intake, but mostly because it cuts down on protein."

"The high-protein eaters were more than four times as likely to die from cancer over the 18 years after they were surveyed, and 75% more likely to die of any cause."

"Cutting protein intake is known to reduce levels of a growth factor called IGF-1, and lower IGF-1 levels are linked to longer lifespan and reductions in the risk of cancer and diabetes. Limiting protein intake also reduces levels of a protein called mTOR, and lower mTOR extends life in mice. The Australians saw the mTOR effect in their animals. Longo’s team, testing stored samples from the survey participants, saw that higher IGF-1 levels correlated with more dietary protein.

“There’s certainly some truth to this relationship” between protein consumption and lifespan, says Matt Kaeberlein, a molecular biologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, who studies longevity."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2014 02:28AM by Panchito.

I've had my own theory about why CR works and I think it has a lot to do with less food in our major channel of elimination - OUR COLON!!! When we eat too much Food, especially if it's the WRONG FOOD, there is simply too much Junk in the Trunk and that changes the Ionic Pressure in our Colon and now, it is not as efficient at being a depository for all of the other waste matter that is generated throughout the body.

Here is a rather long, but interesting exchange between me (JR) and Jeff Novick about CR on 8-8-00:

[www.living-foods.com]
Jeff

>>>The Cretens take in an average of 9 gallons of olive oil per capita, more than any other culture.....and they are considered very healthy.....it's also not their only source of fat!.........

There is evidence to suggest that in the late 1950s, people living in Crete, were lean, robust and virtually free of heart disease. This was reported in the Seven Countries Study by ANcel Keys. About 40% of their calories came from fat (Whihch is much lower then yours), and heart disease rates were very low.

HOwever, before anyone uses this info to promote a high fat diet, lets look a little closer... The rest of the diet in crete, At that time (1950s), was exceptionally healthy. They consumed an abundance of fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, potatoes and beans, plus a little fish and wine. Saturated fat was only 6% of calories. ALso, they walked on average 9 miles a day, often plowing their fields, so it was hard work and exercise. And it was hard to find a fat man in crete in the 1950s (Anthony Kafatos, UNiversity of Crete).

But look at the people of crete today (1990s). THey are fat. THey still eat alot of olive oil, but their comsupmtion of other healthy foods has dropped. So is their physical activity. They barely walk on mile a day on average. OVer 60% of the adult population and 50% of the children are now obese. Heart disease is now becoming the number 1 killer in crete. OVer the past 25 years, heart attacks on the island shot up over 25%,

So, they cretes were healthy not because of the olive oil, but inspite of it. They were healthy cause of all the whole foods and exercise they got.

ALso, Dr Kenneth Carroll, one of the worlds formeost reseacrhers on fat and cancer, found the both monounsaturated, and saturated fat show a strong correlation with breats colon, and prostate cancer. SO its not just your cholesterol level you should be concerned with.

In Crete, their death rate from breast cancer in the 50s was half that of the US, but they were twice that of the rural japanese, who comusmed little if any oil and only 15% of calories from fat.

Dr Colin Campbell studied the chinese for over 10 years and found that the fat intake varied from 6-24% if calories, yet the higher the fat intake, the greater the risk and rates of colon and breast cancer,

>>>C. Everett Koop said that stress, cigarette smoking, and lifestyle will kill you before fat will.........

Actually, the exact numbers on these issues are different. THe nymber one killer today is obesity which is related to diet. More so then stress and cigareetes. And fat is a big part of that. Quit smoking and you reduce your risk for certain cancers about 40-50%, DIet can reduce your risk for certain cancers over 50-60%.

ALso, about the french. Yes, they eat fat and saturated fat and have less heart disease. However
1) they are more active and eat more fresh food

2) they count heart disease different then we do. In US, 1/3 of all heart attacks result in sudden death. We count that as heart disease. IN france, they count it as sudden death, a seperate category. When you add the sudden deaths that are heart attacks to their rates of heart disease, the difference is so great anymore.

3) THere is a time lag factor. As i showed with Crete, the health statistics are changing. SAme in France. French used to eat a peasant diet that was much healthier and much llower in fat, saturated fat, etc. THey have only been eating this higher fat diet for about 20-25 years. Heart disease and atheroscelrosis, can take over 25-40 years to develop in a population. JUst wait and see what happens to the french CVD stats in the next decade, it will be the same situation as in the isle of crete, they will shoot up.


>>>>David Wolfe also comments that fats are insulators against pollution and toxins....i live in a very toxic and polluted environment......i work in a commercial kitchen, and i live in Houston, Texas......

FIber is a much better protectant against toxins and has many other benefits. High fat foods are very low in fiber.

Stay Well
Jeff N
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[www.living-foods.com]
JR

Hi Jeff,

I'm not arguing high fat or low fat, however, all of the statistics that you quoted were about people who ate dead fat...What about living fat...isn't there a HUGH difference? Dr Walker said that once we cook fat, we can no longer emulsify it...Is this correct?

Also, around 10 years ago, I went to an IDEA (International Dance-Exercise Association) seminar and the speaker (a Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology) said that the latest research has determined that two thirds of our calories that we burn at rest are fat...Is this still correct? If 2/3 of our calories at rest are fat, then an average women of 125 pounds with 20% body fat would burn right at 100 grams of fat a day just by watching TV. Now I'm not saying that if we burn 100 grams of fat that we need to eat 100 grams of fat, because excess calories from carbohydrates and protein are also turned into fat.

Scientist are pointing their finger at fat, but they don't know the difference between dead fat and living fat. My motto is don't be afraid of fat, be afraid of fire. All other animals run when they see or smell fire...and we're supposed to be the smart ones!

Peace and Love,
John Rose

PS. I talked to Don 2 1/2 months ago and he told me what he ate in one day. Although he didn't have exact figures to give me, my estimates were more along the 33 fat %...he's eating a lot of fruits and vegetables also. One more question...do you agree with most people that biology is NOT an exact science?
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[www.living-foods.com]
Jeff

>>>however, all of the statistics that you quoted were about people who ate dead fat...What about living fat...isn't there a HUGH difference?

Of course, but also realize that in the eurpean countries i quoted from they also include lots of raw fat like nuts seeds and avocados (And cold pressed olive oil if you consider that a raw fat whcih i dont)

Dr Walker said that once we cook fat, we can no longer emulsify it...Is this correct?

No, there are other problems but we can still break it down.

According to the latest ex phys textbooks and reseacrh, we burn about 50% fat and 50% carb at rest. (exact numbers are 47.2% carb and 52.8% fat). Depending on the individual it may even be 60% fat and 40% carb. However looking at these relative numbers is not a good way to determine how much fat you burn cause we are msising the number for total calories. In other words as we increase activity levels we burn less fat as a % of total calories, but we burn more total calories so we actually come out burning more fat.

40% fat of 400 calories (low activity) = 160 calories
20% of 900 calories (high activity) = 180 calories

Also you should look into something called de nuvo lipogenesis (the creating of new fat). Turns out that extra calories from protein carb or fat are not equally converted to fat. The body will convert fat much easier to fat (4% energy cost) then carbohydrate (26% energy cost). Therefore, up to a certain point, the body will convert excess fat to fat, while it will actually burn off excess carbs (unrefined unproceessed) thru a slightly raised metabolism . So on the way up (gaining weight) we are more likely to store excewss calories from fat as fat while we are more likely to burn excess calories from carb as heat or energy. I hold in my hands an soon to be published study by Colin Campbell on this very factor. The fact that after even accounting for activity differences, why the chinese take in 33% more calories per lb body weight then US people, but are much thinner.

On the way down, (losing wt) we burn them equally.

>>>. One more question...do you agree with most people that biology is NOT an exact science?

Yes. But there are patterns that we keep learnign alot.

Stay Well
jeff n
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[www.living-foods.com]
JR

>>>Of course, but also realize that in the eurpean countries i quoted from they also include lots of raw fat like nuts seeds and avocados

But, they're also eating dead fat...you're missing the point!!! In all of the studies, they were eating dead fat, and none of them were eating 100% raw fat exclusively.

>>>According to the latest ex phys textbooks and reseacrh, we burn about 50% fat and 50% carb at rest. (exact numbers are 47.2% carb and 52.8% fat). Depending on the individual it may even be 60% fat and 40% carb. However looking at these relative numbers is not a good way to determine how much fat you burn cause we are msising the number for total calories. In other words as we increase activity levels we burn less fat as a % of total calories, but we burn more total calories so we actually come out burning more fat.

Thanks for the update...I wonder what they will say 10 years from now. Once again, you missed my point!!! Let's use your updated figures...Same women, NO activity, and now we have 78 to 89 grams of fat instead 100 grams of fat using 67%. It does NOT matter if she is more active and her fat % goes from 52.8% or 60% down to 40%, THE POINT IS SHE IS STILL BURNING AT LEAST 78 to 89 GRAMS OF FAT A DAY!!!

>>>Also you should look into something called de nuvo lipogenesis (the creating of new fat).

Thanks, I've known about this for over 10 years.

When I was playing competitive tennis and was exercising 50 hours every week, I ate a very low fat diet to ensure my glycogen reserves. In fact, I was consuming on an average of 167% more carbohydrates than I needed. One of the draw backs to this concept is the vast amount of food that I was making my body process.

Now I'm looking at food a little different, and I'm trying not to make it work as hard. What do you think of these scenarios?

Scenario #1) 2000 Calories...!0% Fat - Avocados are the main fat source...Fruits & Vegetables...90% in a 2:1 ratio based on calories...Total weight of food consumed...7.61 pounds.

Scenario #2) 2000 Calories...40% Fat - Avocados are the main fat source...F & V...60% in a 2:1 ratio based on calories...Total weight of food consumed...5.42 pounds.

Scenario #3) 2000 Calories...40% Fat - Avo. & Nuts are the main fat source in a 1:1 ratio based on calories...F & V...60% in a 2:1 ratio based on calories...Total weight of food consumed...4.82 pounds.

Scenario #4 2000 Calories...40% Fat - Avo. & Nuts are the main fat source in a 1:1 ratio based on calories...F & V...60% in a 2:1 ratio based on calories, except this time the vegetables are juiced...Total weight of SOLID food consumed...2.80 pounds.

Since it has been proven that all animals live longer if they eat less, does it make sense to you that the reason might be because they don't make their digestive system work so hard? So therefore, adding juices to reduce the total amount of SOLID food that has to be processed, i.e. consumed and then eliminated, as well as balancing fat intake closer to fat expenditure, will in effect help us live longer. I know that many people will say that those who eat less are more efficient at absorbing nutrients, but if we look at the human body as a piece of machinery or an automobile that has a useful life of X amount of hours, won't those hours be extended because we're not treating our bodies' like a rental car?

You brought up a good point about the nutrient density in food, however I thought that you might like to kick some of these ideas around. I've documented every bite of food that I have eaten in the last 15 years, and for the last 2 years my focus has been on The Ideal Diet for Building. I analyze 23 different variables every day, including such things as % of solid food based on calories as compared to % of solid food based on weight.

Once again, I thought that you might be interested in looking at this from a different perspective, in case you have not already done so.

Peace and Love,
John Rose
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[www.living-foods.com]
Jeff

I didnt miss your points, i understand what you said.

All the studies done on animals that show they live longer if they eat less are done on calories and not weight of food. By cutting the calories in half, not the weight, they live longer. However, this data is not applicable directly to humans cause to correlate humans would have to eat weigh too little calories/nutrients to maintain life.

Also, you are leaving out one other issue and that is satiety (higher satiety, less cravings). WHile you can produce the different scenerios with equal calories and different wts, you dont inlcude the satiety factor of the scenerios (whihc has been studies in controlled settings). It turns out the less fat, and the more fiber and water and food volume for the same weight, the higher the satiety. SO out of the scenerios, my bet is the 1st one is the one with the most satiety, which would leave someone with the least cravings. And since they are all equal in calories, they wouldnt relate to the effects of lifespan you mention in reducing intake.

Jeff
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[www.living-foods.com]
JR

Jeff wrote:
>>>All the studies done on animals that show they live longer if they eat less are done on calories and not weight of food. By cutting the calories in half, not the weight, they live longer.

What happens if you cut calories in half? You also cut weight in half or you cut the amount of food that they have to process in half. How do we know that they live longer because of the less calories or because of "the less amount food that they had to process"? Now do you see my point?

On my previous post I wrote:
>>>Since it has been proven that all animals live longer, if they eat less, does it make sense to you that the reason might be because "they don't make their digestive system work so hard"?

Once again...How do we know that they live longer because of the less calories or because of "the less amount food that they had to process"? Remember...less calories, less food, less weight!!! Is it the calories or is it the weight?

Next Jeff wrote:
>>>However, this data is not applicable directly to humans cause to correlate humans would have to eat weigh too little calories/nutrients to maintain life.

I wrote:
>>>So therefore, adding juices to "reduce the total amount of SOLID food that has to be processed", i.e. consumed and then eliminated, as well as balancing fat intake closer to fat expenditure, will in effect help us live longer.

In other words, what if it was "the less amount of digestive work" that allowed these animals to live longer and not the less calories, and if we humans need the calories and nutrients, then adding JUICES will "reduce the amount of digestive work" and at the same time provide us with the calories and nutrients that we need. And if indeed it is "the less amount food that they had to process" that allowed them to live longer, then wouldn't it be easier to digest the same amount of fats that we burn instead of eating a larger amount of foods that are not converted into fat as efficiently?

Jeff wrote:
>>>It turns out the less fat, and the more fiber and water and food volume for the same weight, the higher the satiety.

I'm not sure that you said what you meant. Otherwise, 3 ounces of nuts or 9 ounces of avocados will satiate me a whole lot more than 3 ounces of grapes or 9 ounces of watermelon. However, if you meant to say the same calories instead of the same weight, then 16 ounces of grapes and 7 ounces of avocados will satiate me more than 32 ounces of grapes. Less weight, same calories, and more satiety... or is satiety just too subjective?

Jeff wrote:
>>>And since they are all equal in calories, they wouldnt relate to the effects of lifespan you mention in reducing intake.

Once again, you missed my point...it's not calories in, it's SOLID food in. Like most people, including myself at one point, you're still looking at food from a limited perspective. You're only looking at what is in the food and you're not considering the efforts to eliminate the food nor the fact that cooked food is not entirely eliminated.

My point and the purpose of the four scenarios is that juices can provide us with the calories and the nutrients without the "labor of digestion", and if it is "the less amount food that they had to process" instead of the less calories, then Scenario #4) at 2.80 pounds would seem to be the better than Scenario #1) at 7.61 pounds.

I'm not stating any facts...I'm just playing what if...I'm just throwing out ideas to help us figure out the ideal way to eat.

Peace and Love,
John Rose
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

12-24-00 4 months later - Jeff finally responded to RE: Less Is More
[www.living-foods.com]
For marys sake.....

> What happens if you cut calories in half? You also cut
> weight in half or you cut the amount of food that they have
> to process in half.

Not really, if you take a 300 calories of fruit, you have 1 lb. Now, if you switch it to 225 caloreis of vegetables, you have 1 1/2 lb vegetables. Less calories, and MORE food weight.

> How do we know that they live longer
> because of the less calories or because of "the less amount
> food that they had to process"? Now do you see my point?

Eating Right! For Life And Longevity- Pt 3
Chef Jeff's Weekly Health Update
December 11, 2000

…

Have another great week, and remember...

Your Health REALLY Is Your Greatest Wealth!

In Health,
Chef Jeff
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted 1-14-01 see Jeff N. on 12-24-00
[www.living-foods.com]
RE: Less Is More
JR

Well Jeff, that only took you 4 1/2 months to come up with an answer...Is this the best you can do?

In the above post, I said,

> What happens if you cut calories in half? You also cut
> weight in half or you cut the amount of food that they have
> to process in half.

Jeff's response was

>>>Not really, if you take a 300 calories of fruit, you have 1 lb. Now, if you switch >>>it to 225 caloreis of vegetables, you have 1 1/2 lb vegetables. Less calories, >>>and MORE food weight.

What if you had 300 calories of vegetables, that would be 2 pounds. Now if you switch it to 225 calories of fruit, you have 3/4 pounds of fruit. Less calories and LESS food weight.

Obviously, both of these examples are ridiculous. You can SWITCH to different foods and twist numbers around all day if you want to be deceptive. But, if you want to be honest, let's not SWITCH foods and keep the same type of food.

Now, if you take 300 calories of fruit, you have 1 pound. If you eat less calories and only eat 225 calories of the same food, you only have 3/4 pound. LESS CALORIES AND LESS FOOD WEIGHT.

Now let's do it with vegetables...300 calories = 2 pounds...225 calories = 1 1/2 pounds. Once again, LESS CALORIES AND LESS FOOD WEIGHT.

I do agree, however, that most if not all of the research has been done on calorie restriction, but I'm still not convinced that it was the less calories or the less amount of food that had to be processed that was responsible for the decrease in disease and for the increase in life .

Remember, there are three main cycles to food:

1.) Consumption
2.) Absorption
3.) Elimination

The Elimination Cycle is the piece of the puzzle that nutritionists and dieticians are not taught in school. They only look at the first two cycles - what's in the food. They don't know that everything that's going in is NOT coming out. They don't know that Natural Foods go through our 30 foot food tube like a broom - leaving NO residue, and they don't know that Unnatural Foods go through our food tube like a mop - leaving a slimy layer of residue which accumulates meal after meal, day after day, year after year. And worst of all they don't know the difference between natural and unnatural foods.

I guess you already have your mind made up and I can't convince you to even consider the idea that LESS FOOD AND LESS WORK = LONGER LIFE. Just remember, science is not etched in stone.
[www.living-foods.com]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JR Insert on 1-29-10

It’s not only the Energy saved, but it’s also the reduction of the Ionic Pressure in our Colon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peace and Love..........John

Humans are not carnivores and neither are mice so of course its bad for them. But for other animals like lions or cats, it may be ideal

"I've had my own theory about why CR works and I think it has a lot to do with less food in our major channel of elimination - OUR COLON!!! When we eat too much Food, especially if it's the WRONG FOOD, there is simply too much Junk in the Trunk and that changes the Ionic Pressure in our Colon and now, it is not as efficient at being a depository for all of the other waste matter that is generated throughout the body. "

Colon health is the answer

eating outside our kingdom. 5 min VID:

[www.youtube.com]

Great video, thanks for sharing.
Eating in the plant kingdom not in the animal kingdom is the solution.
Plant eating animals (the zebras) have better muscles than flesh eating animals.
We all know we have to marry outside of our own family to have better offspring.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2014 06:39PM by CommonSenseRaw.

Talking about kingdoms, there is this hybrid sea worm that can survive by either doing photosynthesis or by eating algae (no roots, no leaves as opposed to plants). It is a solar powered animal that works like an algae vampire. It is not a plant but lives from the sun semi directly (plants/algae live from inorganic matter and animals live from organic matter). Maybe a wannabe bretharian could learn a couple tricks from the worm Easy to keep as pet. If you have a telegraph plant plus this wom, you are in for the raw food masters.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Elysia chlorotica feeds on the intertidal algae Vaucheria litorea by puncturing the algal cell wall with its radula. The slug then holds the algal strand firmly in its mouth and, as though it were a straw, sucks out the contents.[3] Instead of digesting the entire cell contents, or passing the contents through its gut unscathed, it retains only the algal chloroplasts, by storing them within its own cells throughout its extensive digestive system. The acquisition of chloroplasts begins immediately following metamorphosis from the veliger stage when the juvenile sea slugs begin to feed on the Vaucheria litorea cells.[4] Juvenile slugs are brown with red pigment spots until they feed upon the algae, at which point they become green. This is caused by the distribution of the chloroplasts throughout the extensively branched gut.[3] Initially, the slug needs to continually feed upon algae to retain the chloroplasts, but over time the chloroplasts become more stably incorporated into the cells of the gut enabling the slug to remain green without further feeding.

The incorporation of chloroplasts within the cells of Elysia chlorotica allows the slug to capture energy directly from light, as most plants do, through the process known as photosynthesis. It was once thought that Elysia chlorotica could, during time periods where algae is not readily available as a food supply, survive for months on the sugars produced through photosynthesis performed by their own chloroplasts.[5]

02:46 VID

[www.youtube.com]

00:42 VID (look at the vampire in motion. If it is brown is hungry. If green, it is well fed)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/04/2014 10:04PM by Panchito.

The idea of eating outside of our own kingdom is an interesting proposition and it makes sense.

If I am eating flesh from animal kingdom, that flesh was not made for my body but for another's body, it does not fit mine, it is not a pure raw material, my body has to work harder to break it down into pure raw material and reconstruct into my own.
But if I eat food from the plant kingdom, then the material is in pure and simpler form, easily modifiable into building my body.

It is like building your own house and somebody brings you bricks from a different pattern, a different building that does not fit your design, you would prefer having the raw material, the cement, the concrete, the soil to make your own bricks, to your own design.

Our body can better utilize food from an apple than a piece of chicken.

That is why low (animal) protein diet extends life, the body does not have to work harder.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2014 01:24AM by RawPracticalist.