>Fresh: What the cooked food scientists don't understand
>is that giving the monkeys less junk will help with
>health and longevity. Its not the lower intake, its
>the lower amount of junk.

>Unless there is a raw food study with different
>caloric intake....


The effect of CR work in most species to the point of starvation if done right. In rodents, they can be restricted by 65% and gain 50-60% increase in mean and maximum lifespan; it's incredible because it's like the equivalent of extending maximum lifespan in humans to 160 years.
[www.crsociety.org]

Reproduction shuts off at about 30% CR in mice. So, it's not just about avoiding bad foods. They can be restricted by another 35% after reproduction shuts off and gain an additional 30% in lifespan. Although 66% restriction kills them. Obviously no one would advocate that level of restriction in humans.

Anyway, the NIA study monkeys were given a fairly healthy diet. And they did break longevity records for rhesus monkeys. Before this study, there were only a couple 40 year old monkeys on record from a database of thousands of monkeys; now there are 4 in the CR group alone.

I dont think you are understanding my point matt.

all of the cr studies use food pellets or some other nonsense.

so a decrease in the amount of non foods such as that may explain any longevity increase, not the cr per se.

unless you have a study where they ate 100 percent proper raw diet

the bain video had some interesting information.

but it said nothing about fruit diets and AGE's which I suppose you were trying to demonstrate.

And these studies cannot be correlated to fruit eating, as it depends upon factors of normal digestion eating foods with cofactors, not conditions such as the study.


Long-Term Fructose Consumption Accelerates Glycation and Several Age-Related Variables in Male Rats
[jn.nutrition.org]

Role of fructose in glycation and cross-linking of proteins.
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Hi Fresh. I'm understanding your point, and you're somewhat right. The quality of the diet certainly does matter - as is shown in human studies and animals studies (even the monkey studies show this; the NIA monkeys ate a more "natural" and healthy diet compared to WNRPC and lived far longer).

But you're missing the point that limiting energy intake triggers a genetic response which favors maintenance of the cells. So if we start from simple organisms, like worms, then they are able to live longer by reducing the number of E coli. If we want to extend the lifespan of a fly - we reduce the the amount of sugar it consumes. If we want to extend the lifespan of a spider - we feed it 3 flies instead of 4 flies per day. If we feed the spider 2 flies a day it lives even longer still...

The mechanistic reasons of why CR extends lifespan has been looked at in a lot of detail. The energy sensing genes and pathways respond when energy availability by kicking in survival mechanisms in the cells. Indeed, we can use genetic manipulation - transgenic animals - like the IGF-1 -/+ or GHRKO strains to demonstrate that these animals 'phenotype' are very similar to the animals doing the restriction - only they don't have to restrict calories to get the same amount of life extension.

We can give drugs to animals now that mimmic the effects of (CR) on the molecular levels - by activating certain genes involved in energy-sensing and growth.

We know AMPK and SIRT1 sense energy availability and act on genes downstream, like FOXO. Using a different gene variant of the SIRT-1 gene or inhibiting genes downstream also extends lifespan without the restriction. So you might inhibit mTOR with Rapamycin or use transgenic animals that naturally have low levels of TOR protein. Or you can mutate the IGF-1 receptor; and completely knock out the growth hormone receptor to get the same effect as calorie restriction, even though they are still eating 'pellets'.

I want to make clear that I'm not anti-fruit lol. I eat about 5 fruits per day. I am saying that consuming a huge number of blended fruits is particularly harmful because of the spike in insulin and glucose, which shuts off these "protective genes". And we know that these glucose spikes are what causes glycation, which is bad. I gave the video so people can understand the chemistry behind AGEs and crosslinking of proteins; to be more educated on what we actually talking about and the clinical problems associated with it.

What you'll likely see among the high carbohydrate (especially high fruit) is a higher level for insulin but a similar or perhaps lower level of glucose than than other raw foodists who are consuming a moderate amount (like 55% carbs). I'd be very much interested if there are people doing 30 bananas a day or something similar to report on their fasting insulin levels...

I took a few screenshots of a presentation given by Dr Luigi Fontana (he studied people on CR, Raw foodists, Marathon Runners, Vegans, and typical SAD). He did compare some of the results here:
[img.photobucket.com]

(these results are published in various papers that you can find on pubmed).

The Raw foodists here were consuming 40% fat. They are comparable to people on CR for various biomarkers. However, it was only people on CR that had lower body temperature, lower T3. Raw foodists had low IGF-1 (150 vs 190 CR); and then we learned from that and lowered our protein intake to 10% and our IGF-1 decreased to about 150 as well.


It's demonstrated that high AGEs in the diet can prevent the effect of dietary restriction(s) i.e protein restriction or caloric restriction to extend the lifespan in animals; and we basically that means they were much more unhealthy simply because of the knock-on effect of this on the system as a whole.


To summarise: The debate over this just being an effect of putting in less natural foods doesn't hold water when you start from the most simple organisms. The mechanistic reasons why CR works are explained in great detailed and have been published. Not only that, the effect can now be achieved by tricking the organisms via genetic manipulation of using drugs to activate the same pathways WITHOUT restricting a single calorie; although depending on the intervention, they can be additive / synergistic or CR provides no further improvement.

Hope all that makes sense! ... in a bit of rush today.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2014 12:47PM by mattscr.

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Fresh. I'm understanding your point, and
> you're somewhat right. The quality of the diet
> certainly does matter - as is shown in human
> studies and animals studies (even the monkey
> studies show this; the NIA monkeys ate a more
> "natural" and healthy diet compared to WNRPC and
> lived far longer).
>
> But you're missing the point that limiting energy
> intake triggers a genetic response which favors
> maintenance of the cells.

i have not seen where that has been shown or how that response would be separated out from a reduction in poisonous lab diet. but i am open to that being so.


So if we start from
> simple organisms, like worms, then they are able
> to live longer by reducing the number of E coli.
> If we want to extend the lifespan of a fly - we
> reduce the the amount of sugar it consumes.

I just don't see how studies like this can be accurate if they do not work with the natural diet of the organism. the natural diet of the fly is not "sugar".
thus reducing something that is not their natural diet is not a valid study.


If we
> want to extend the lifespan of a spider - we feed
> it 3 flies instead of 4 flies per day. If we feed
> the spider 2 flies a day it lives even longer
> still...

haven't seen that study.



>
> The mechanistic reasons of why CR extends lifespan
> has been looked at in a lot of detail. The energy
> sensing genes and pathways respond when energy
> availability by kicking in survival mechanisms in
> the cells. Indeed, we can use genetic manipulation
> - transgenic animals - like the IGF-1 -/+ or GHRKO
> strains to demonstrate that these animals
> 'phenotype' are very similar to the animals doing
> the restriction - only they don't have to restrict
> calories to get the same amount of life
> extension.
>
> We can give drugs to animals now that mimmic the
> effects of (CR) on the molecular levels - by
> activating certain genes involved in
> energy-sensing and growth.
>
> We know AMPK and SIRT1 sense energy availability
> and act on genes downstream, like FOXO. Using a
> different gene variant of the SIRT-1 gene or
> inhibiting genes downstream also extends lifespan
> without the restriction. So you might inhibit
> mTOR with Rapamycin or use transgenic animals that
> naturally have low levels of TOR protein. Or you
> can mutate the IGF-1 receptor; and completely
> knock out the growth hormone receptor to get the
> same effect as calorie restriction, even though
> they are still eating 'pellets'.
>

i did find it interesting that the researcher knocked out one gene in the roundworm and doubled the lifespan, but there are unfortunately over 100 genes in humans that have been identified for that purpose.


> I want to make clear that I'm not anti-fruit lol.
> I eat about 5 fruits per day. I am saying that
> consuming a huge number of blended fruits is
> particularly harmful because of the spike in
> insulin and glucose, which shuts off these
> "protective genes".

certainly a huge amount may cause a problem, but as I said this has not been quantified.




And we know that these
> glucose spikes are what causes glycation, which is
> bad.

the body needs to process incoming sugars.
insulin assists with that processing.
are you expecting NO glucose spikes?
only diabetics with constantly elevated glucose were reported BY Bain to have a problem, not fruit eaters, and as the other link I posted stated, and has been stated before, fructose is not fruit, and fruit has cofactors modulating any issues.

so before demonizing fruit one would have to actually show something, imo, instead of simply making some tenuous connection a cause to major dietary change.


I gave the video so people can understand
> the chemistry behind AGEs and crosslinking of
> proteins; to be more educated on what we actually
> talking about and the clinical problems associated
> with it.
>
> What you'll likely see among the high carbohydrate
> (especially high fruit) is a higher level for
> insulin but a similar or perhaps lower level of
> glucose than than other raw foodists who are
> consuming a moderate amount (like 55% carbs). I'd
> be very much interested if there are people doing
> 30 bananas a day or something similar to report on
> their fasting insulin levels...

one of the allegedly worst high fruit eaters has done that, durianrider, and i did not see any problem with his fasting insulin levels. if even he has no issues, then it's unlikely to be a problem. of course not enough data there.

>
> I took a few screenshots of a presentation given
> by Dr Luigi Fontana (he studied people on CR, Raw
> foodists, Marathon Runners, Vegans, and typical
> SAD). He did compare some of the results here:
> [img.photobucket.com]
> des.jpg
>
> (these results are published in various papers
> that you can find on pubmed).
>
> The Raw foodists here were consuming 40% fat.
> They are comparable to people on CR for various
> biomarkers. However, it was only people on CR that
> had lower body temperature, lower T3. Raw foodists
> had low IGF-1 (150 vs 190 CR); and then we learned
> from that and lowered our protein intake to 10%
> and our IGF-1 decreased to about 150 as well.
>

certainly many/most people overeat and this likely will cause problems, as well as high fat, unless you're suez. so nothing earth shattering there.

>
> It's demonstrated that high AGEs in the diet can
> prevent the effect of dietary restriction(s) i.e
> protein restriction or caloric restriction to
> extend the lifespan in animals; and we basically
> that means they were much more unhealthy simply
> because of the knock-on effect of this on the
> system as a whole.
>
>
> To summarise: The debate over this just being an
> effect of putting in less natural foods doesn't
> hold water when you start from the most simple
> organisms.

based on my reservations noted above I do not at this point see that to be the case from a dietary standpoint. hopefully the baseline that the intake is restricted from is an actual, accurate maintenance intake, and not inflated, which would skew the results.


The mechanistic reasons why CR works
> are explained in great detailed and have been
> published. Not only that, the effect can now be
> achieved by tricking the organisms via genetic
> manipulation of using drugs to activate the same
> pathways WITHOUT restricting a single calorie;
> although depending on the intervention, they can
> be additive / synergistic or CR provides no
> further improvement.
>
> Hope all that makes sense! ... in a bit of rush
> today.

matt,

I was actually more interested in the justification of your statements with respect to this:

mattscr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Fresh
>
> Well, fruit has plenty of glucose, especially
> bananas. In fact, there is equal amounts of
> fructose and glucose in fruit. 5.0 g and 4.9 g per
> 100 g Banana (there's also a small amount of
> sucrose).
>

I never denied that and it is true.


> Figs have 22.9 of fructose and 24.8 of glucose per
> 100g
>
> Sweet potatoes only contain 1g and 2.5 per 100g
>


So?

> Fruit DOES produce an insulin response. Now
> imagine the response from jugging down 10 bananas
> in one go; or 30! :p
>


I don't need to imagine it.
I need YOU to produce some evidence that it presents a problem, or that
it creates a CONSTANTLY ELEVATED insulin response, which was the problem indicated by the research.


> Big spikes in glucose will cause glycation end
> products which will become apparent later on; they
> take a while to build up to a pathological level
> where the cells cannot perform their functions
> properly. But fructose causes more glycation by
> itself.
>

Define big and SHOW that it creates a problem.
Show that a persons ingestion of bananas causes glycation (there are many things that cause glycation) and that it presents a problem. What we have is flawed science misapplied to eating fruit.




> Exercise does cause translocation of GLUT4
> receptor to the cell surface where it can increase
> the uptake of glucose by the cell. But this effect
> is only 'acute' - it disappears a couple days
> after you stop exercising. So if you're not
> exercising a lot, a high fruit diet is even worse
> for you.
>

If you're not exercising, your intake adjusts downward accordingly.

matt, enough with the fructose studies.
humans eat fruit - you cannot separate it out in a powdered fructose study and draw any conclusions. and a "fruit" intake study better be really good.


>>Although you are wrong to say there is not good evidence behind the RDA - there's very good data backing up the required amount for every vitamin and mineral.


Thanks for the link. There is SCIENCE, but not GOOD science.


The problem with your interpretation is that zinc assimilation is impacted by a myriad of factors, not simply copper.

Note: The Zinc and Copper intake is not too high, and not too low in a proper raw food diet. I do not know why people repeatedly state that copper is too high. It's not too high on any of my food intakes entered. And zinc is perfectly adequate, even taking into account absorption rates, because the zinc requirement is too high for the RDA based on flawed science.


And here is the key that you conveniently ignored.

ALL of those negative impacts are REDUCED on a proper raw diet, phytic acid, protein, folate, copper, iron all are in a more advantageous amount on a proper raw food diet.

The KEY issue here that you also ignore is that the RDA science in the link depends heavily on the following:

All of those charts and data depend on the analysis of intake and losses of a typical human being. A typical human being is NOT a raw eater. ALL of the problems pertaining to zinc absorption are MUCH WORSE in the typical unhealthy human as they are eating grains and beans, higher protein, etc.

So the science is not even close to being Good.

I have stated that the WHO science is better, because it often shows data independent upon nutrient intake of the typical ill individual. It shows clinical symptoms unrelated to dietary intake.



So for you to say below that raw foodists absorption is WORSE is absolute rubbish.


>>>> The RDA just takes into account the differences in diet and absorption - which in raw foodists case would be worse as copper intake is far higher than the average person's. Couple that with intakes that is below the RDA... that's going to cause detrimental changes in your biochemistry. As shown in the report below

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> too much sugar. ;-)
>
> you should write a book.
>
> you could call it 60/30/10

Hey, dg, why don't you write a book on how to be a 80 10 10 closet animal product eater. You say you have your reasons for that but never say what they are. Make us pay for the answer in your book.

is suez actually temp? wow. that temp is a squirrely one.

anytime you actually have a question or something productive to say, let er rip.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> is suez actually temp? wow. that temp is a
> squirrely one.
>
> anytime you actually have a question or something
> productive to say, let er rip.

Actually you, like most of your 80 10 10 followers, just have a really poor memory and leave a trail for people like me to see and smell you by. While temp did point out in his posts while he was here that you said you eat meat products I never had to bother to dig into your posts from before I became a member or ask temp any questions to figure you out. I did it all by myself. It wasn't hard to do - you are rather dull and uncomplicated as you know. Apparently you don't even have the intelligence to realize you're busted.

Well, the flies are fed a diet of sucrose, yeast, and agar. Sugar is a major component of a flies diet...

Spider study

Exp Gerontol. 1989;24(1):83-92.
Life extension by dietary restriction in the bowl and doily spider, Frontinella pyramitela.

"In the laboratory, mean adult life span was 81.3, 63.9, and 42.3 days on the one, three, and five Drosophila diets, respectively. Decreased feeding rate also delayed egg laying and reduced total fecundity"

Spiders lifespan:

- 81 days eating one fly
- 63 days eating 3 flies a day
- 42 days eating 5 flies

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

The same pathways are conserved from insects to large mammals.

Even in yeast, they can decrease the concentration of glucose and extend lifespan. The reason is because low energy availability shifts the balance of NAD / NADH which activates Sir2 gene, which is the homolog of SIRT1 in mammals.


Did Durian report his fasting insulin levels? I only saw his glucose readings...


>i did find it interesting that the researcher
>knocked out one gene in the roundworm and doubled the lifespan,
>but there are unfortunately over 100 genes in humans that have
>been identified for that purpose.

Yes, but these seem to be most common among supercentenarians. Centenarians are more likely to have mutations in the IGF-1 receptor gene. There are families in Ecuador with something called Laron syndrome and they have growth hormone resistance; they don't develop cancer or diabetes no matter how bad their lifestyle is.

As I already mentioned that FOXO is quite important factor in longevity in worms; it's also important for humans:


FOXO3A genotype is strongly associated with human longevity
[www.pnas.org]


Unless you have that particular variant, then you have to know how the gene gets expressed. I already explained the mechanisms by how this gene can become more active: Low energy availability and/or low insulin levels.


As for diabetics only having problems with such high glucose levels. I don't know... there's not enough information on the high fruit raw foodists. I know that people with low IGF-1 fail on the glucose tolerance test; but that is straight up glucose. Whereas high protein + normal IGF-1 group were fine. That's why I'm wonder if people who are making the right choice by going raw are shooting themselves in the foot by consuming 10 bananas or 30 bananas in one go. :p

Has anyone here drank a smoothie and checked how high their glucose levels spiked after one of these high fruit smoothies?

The data is not skewed, at least not in the well controlled studies. But this is a major problem in some research.. the animals are just way too overfed in the first place. The protocol in mice is to restrict the control group by 10-20% and then restriction the CR group from that baseline.

As I said, the animals on the most severe CR are at 65% restriction; 66% kills them all dead. So they are on the brink of complete starvation. And CR works right up until this point... so it's not just avoiding the effects of overeating.

There's a linear relationship with calorie intake and lifespan.

You can see when the animals are restricted relative to control by 65% they live over 50% longer in maximum lifespan. Equivalent of a human living 180? lol. It's very unnatural for a mouse to live this long. But obviously it can only be done in conditions where the animals is not subject to predation and the cold. (animals on CR are very cold)



Interesting links if you want to learn more about the evidence:

Insulin/IGF-1 and FOXO signalling affects mouse and human lifespan.
[www.nature.com]


Andrzej Bartke - Longevity benefits of endocrine defects
[www.youtube.com]

(interesting video explaining the effects of hormones on the body and ageing. This guy also housed the longest lived mouse on record -- lived to almost 5 years).


I'll try to get to those points you want me to address a little later this evening.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2014 04:22PM by mattscr.

Btw, people should just chill out. It's fun debating. :3 Usually, from my experience, we never change each others opinion that easily, but the information is out there for people to decide for themselves...

Anyway, back later! Have a nice day all!

Actually you just changed my opinion to some extent.
thanks for the info

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fresh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > is suez actually temp? wow. that temp is a
> > squirrely one.
> >
> > anytime you actually have a question or
> something
> > productive to say, let er rip.
>
> Actually you, like most of your 80 10 10
> followers, just have a really poor memory and
> leave a trail for people like me to see and smell
> you by. While temp did point out in his posts
> while he was here that you said you eat meat
> products I never had to bother to dig into your
> posts from before I became a member or ask temp
> any questions to figure you out. I did it all by
> myself. It wasn't hard to do - you are rather dull
> and uncomplicated as you know. Apparently you
> don't even have the intelligence to realize you're
> busted.

Busted for what....

Still nothing?

Nothing but insults ...

"Insulin/IGF-1 and FOXO signalling affects mouse and human lifespan."

Intermittent fasting also lowers IGF-1 and rBGH used on 'non-organic' animals increases IGF-1 in humans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2014 08:10PM by jtprindl.

Matt, I have a question regarding HGH and IGF-1...

If high HGH levels increase longevity and high IGF-1 levels decrease longevity, but high HGH levels increase IGF-1, how does that work?

I was also curious as to how omega fatty acid ratios may affect longevity and stumbled across this study, which surprisingly showed that even with 16:1 omega-6 to omega 3 ratios, longevity didn't decrease. Obviously this doesn't mean there weren't other harmful effects but I thought it was interesting.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Then there's this (omega-6 fatty acids extend longevity by activating autophagy) - [extremelongevity.net]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2014 09:22PM by jtprindl.

I've been trying to get a straight answer on this but keep finding different answers on the matter, does anyone know the optimal time to burn off sugar? Is it a half-hour after eating, eating right after exercise or just exercising anytime throughout the day?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2014 10:07PM by jtprindl.

Is "burn off sugar" exercise?

I usually burn from 750 to 1000+ calories at a time during exercise. I preffer mornings after breakfast. Exercise during the morning will make you sleep better. It will also hekp you get an earlier dinner (better).

"Is "burn off sugar" exercise?"

The best time to exercise so sugar is optimally burned off. Mainly I'm finding eating a half hour before exercise or eating right after exercise is the best time, and both make sense.