Veggies may not be that good for you

[FireDragon76]

The perspective of both sports medicine and military practice is that they must show real, practical results.

For sports medicine, a mere study is not sufficient...professional athletes must actually win. Soldiers must actually perform better in the field.

For my own experience, I've worked out all my life, and showed little to speak of...until in just these later five years I've seriously met the recommended protein levels and for the first time see results I'd have been happy to see in my 20s.

This interview might interest you. Dr. Hamilton Roschel is a research physiologist at the University of São Paulo, and Chris MacAskill is an Earth scientist and triathlete. Halfway through the interview, Chris asks Dr. Roschel about a study he did that found that protein supplementation (to 1.2g/kg) had no additional effect on frail elderly people otherwise consuming the RDA for protein. Only resistance training was effective. According to Dr. Roschel, people that are elderly and frail have anabolic resistance, and have a very diminished response to protein stimulus. It's also difficult to treat, even if more protein would theoretically be better, the amount of protein that might be effective (above 1.6g/kg) is difficult to fit within a palatable diet.

The most pertinent part of the interview is at 25:00

One thing that also seems obvious to me, that wasn't really covered, is the economics and environmental impact of a general recommendation for higher protein consumption in the elderly. Protein is potentially a very expensive macronutrient, both in terms of capitalist economics, and environmental impacts. Some countries like China are actively trying to limit the consumption of meat for the purposes of meeting environmental policy goals, and while there is general agreement that this would be beneficial in Europe among scientists, it is is considered politically unacceptable at the moment. Insect protein economics would be more favorable, but there is a big problem in Europe and the US with the acceptability of insect protein as human food.

I'd be curious to find research on elderly people eating a plant-based diet. I am still looking into it. My own hypothesis is that lower renal acid load might have a positive effect on muscle protein synthesis, but that is just a hypothesis. Anecdotally, there have been athletes who ate exclusively or predominantly plant-based diets, who retained substantial muscle mass even into their 80's and 90's (Manohar Aich, Joer Rollino, Jack LaLanne, etc.).

I also wonder about the role of atheroschlerosis in frailty. Good blood flow is important for health in general, it seems. In Ikaria and Sardinia, two of the so-called "Blue Zones", many of the long-lived elderly have good cardiovascular function and nitrate oxide production, and still live relatively active lives even into quite advanced age. Whereas in North America and northern Europe, some degree of atheroschlerosis is almost unviersal in the population, even at a young age (I was told nearly a decade ago I had some coronary artery blockage, for instance... it's pretty much unavoidable if you eat a standard American diet).

 

[RDKirk]

This interview might interest you. Dr. Hamilton Roschel is a research physiologist at the University of São Paulo, and Chris MacAskill is an Earth scientist and triathlete. Halfway through the interview, Chris asks Dr. Roschel about a study he did that found that protein supplementation (to 1.2g/kg) had no additional effect on frail elderly people otherwise consuming the RDA for protein. Only resistance training was effective. According to Dr. Roschel, people that are elderly and frail have anabolic resistance, and have a very diminished response to protein stimulus. It's also difficult to treat, even if more protein would theoretically be better, the amount of protein that might be effective (above 1.6g/kg) is difficult to fit within a palatable diet.

Everyone agrees that with increasing protein consumption, returns eventually diminish. Nobody is saying ever increasing protein brings ever increasing gains.

Everyone agrees that merely consuming protein is insufficient without resistance training. Nobody is saying that protein alone without resistance training brings gains.

I've seen more than one study indicating that protein levels as high as 2 grams per kilogram of lean body mass continues to be notably effective in older adults because of the need to overcome anabolic resistance.

Notice that I emphasized "lean body mass," which is usually an omitted factor in these studies and discussions. If that is not a consistent factor when studies are compared, the comparison is flawed. Because the amount of fat could be anything, lean body mass must be the consistent factor. The participants in the study must be measured for lean body mass and the amount of protein applied to that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Everyone agrees that with increasing protein consumption, returns eventually diminish. Nobody is saying ever increasing protein brings ever increasing gains.

Everyone agrees that merely consuming protein is insufficient without resistance training. Nobody is saying that protein alone without resistance training brings gains.

I've seen more than one study indicating that protein levels as high as 2 grams per kilogram of lean body mass continues to be notably effective in older adults because of the need to overcome anabolic resistance.

Notice that I emphasized "lean body mass," which is usually an omitted factor in these studies and discussions. If that is not a consistent factor when studies are compared, the comparison is flawed. Because the amount of fat could be anything, lean body mass must be the consistent factor. The participants in the study must be measured for lean body mass and the amount of protein applied to that.

That's a fair point. Lean mass is what is critical. Overweight people don't necessarily need as much protein as their bodyweight might suggest. Particularly if somebody is seriously overweight.

In my own case, that 2g/kg of lean mass would come out to about 124 grams of protein per day. I would imagine that could be difficult for an elderly person with a limited appetite. Not to mention, the last time I ate that much protein in a day, I started developing gout-like symptoms and may have passed a few small kidney stones. My renal acid load was probably quite high, tuna and chicken, the protein foods I ate the most, are fairly high in terms of renal acid load. As far as I know, I don't have kidney disease, but I did have a bad bladder infection in my 30's.

In your own circumstance, it may also be that you are a particularly healthy individual for your age, and respond to less protein. I know from experience with my dad and some of his peers, that frailty almost always involves other illnesses happening at the same time. Especially in the US, people age at different rates- some of that is genetic, but alot of it is environmental and general lifestyle.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, 124 grams of protein is only 500 calories. Another 124 grams of carbohydrates (preferably stems and leaves rather than roots and grains) would be another 500 calories. Add 50 grams of fat. Any living adult should be consuming at least that much in total calories.

Because protein does tend to be satiating, it's just a matter of prioritizing the protein. Eat the protein first.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, 124 grams of protein is only 500 calories. Another 124 grams of carbohydrates (preferably stems and leaves rather than roots and grains) would be another 500 calories. Add 50 grams of fat. Any living adult should be consuming at least that much in total calories.

Because protein does tend to be satiating, it's just a matter of prioritizing the protein. Eat the protein first

That doesn't work so well on a plant-based diet oriented around whole foods. Most plant foods have a mix of macronutrients. Beans have protein, but they also have carbs. Nuts have fat, but they also have protein, grains have carbs, but they also can have protein also. Even tofu has a fair amount of polyunsaturated fats. It's difficult to do that kind of macronutrient manipulation on such a diet, and cut calories.

I guess the positive aspect of a plant-based diet oriented around whole foods is that if you eat that way your whole life, you're unlikely to be overweight in the first place, and you do have more freedom then to play around with macronutrients.

 

[RDKirk]

I guess the positive aspect of a plant-based diet oriented around whole foods is that if you eat that way your whole life, you're unlikely to be overweight in the first place, and you do have more freedom then to play around with macronutrients.

It's not hard to avoid obesity on any diet of whole foods and eating no more than three times a day (no snacking, including no calorie-laden drinks).

Prior to the 1980s, most Americans were not obese, and we were not on a plant-based diet.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not hard to avoid obesity on any diet of whole foods and eating no more than three times a day (no snacking, including no calorie-laden drinks).

Prior to the 1980s, most Americans were not obese, and we were not on a plant-based diet.

There were plenty of people back then that were somewhat overweight and/or "skinny fat" and didn't have good cardiometabolic health. My parents, for instance, were habitual yo-yo dieters throughout the 80's (we did, however, eat a fair amount of hamburger and processed meat, both high in fat, and we probably ate more vegetables). My dad was seemingly constantly failing the military standards and having to go on a diet (especially when he was a younger officer).

And what counted as "whole foods" back then was still highly processed. American bread has been highly processed for over a century, mostly to make profits for bakeries. We very rarely ate any actual whole grain growing up (I was the only person that liked oatmeal and ate it regularly, and my mom only occasionally used barley in stew), and my parents only flirted with whole wheat pasta for about a year or two before they moved onto the next health fad.

My diet today is quite different. I don't eat very much bread, for instance, and if I do it has more in common with the bread medieval people ate than anything that you will get at Panera. If I do eat grains, they tend to be either in the form of pasta, or more commonly they are whole grains like brown rice, farro, or quinoa.

The normalization of junk food and fast food seems to have worsened the trend. It's also particularly bad in the US because people are somewhat more physically inactive than comparable developed countries (and the prevalence of suburban living has alot to do with that).

 

[RDKirk]

There were plenty of people back then that were somewhat overweight and/or "skinny fat" and didn't have good cardiometabolic health. My parents, for instance, were habitual yo-yo dieters throughout the 80's (we did, however, eat a fair amount of hamburger and processed meat, both high in fat, and we probably ate more vegetables). My dad was seemingly constantly failing the military standards and having to go on a diet (especially when he was a younger officer).

[/QUOTE]

Why are you talking about the 80s when I clearly said. "Prior to the 1980s?"

And what counted as "whole foods" back then was still highly processed.

Nope. Even fast food was whole food prior to the 80s. "Fast food" back then was merely regular food prepared in a casual diner. The beef was grass-fed and most likely ground right on the premises. "TV Dinners" were regular food that was merely frozen. There was not an industry that created foods specifically for distribution through chain outlets. Even McDonald's foods were locally sourced.

American bread has been highly processed for over a century, mostly to make profits for bakeries. We very rarely ate any actual whole grain growing up (I was the only person that liked oatmeal and ate it regularly, and my mom only occasionally used barley in stew), and my parents only flirted with whole wheat pasta for about a year or two before they moved onto the next health fad.

Nope, nope, nope. Mid 1980's- "Modern Wheat" entered the food supply. This is a semi-dwarf high yield variety with much higher gluten content compared to the past. You can easily follow the exponential growth in obesity in the US after it entered into all items sold, be it packaged store breads, processed foods, frozen foods, fast foods, etc. Also, glyphosate is a toxin and wheat is sprayed with all of those nefarious pesticides. Wheat gets an extra shot of glyphosate just before harvest to pump up the volume of the grains and increase its gluten content. The fact that the gluten content of Modern Wheat is so abnormally high probably attributes to the sudden rise in gluten sensitivity in many individuals.

The cattle industry for beef and dairy went through its own transmogrification process, going from being mostly grass-fed range-raised cattle to grain- (and Skittle-) fed feedlot-raised, again, in the 1980s.

The normalization of junk food and fast food seems to have worsened the trend. It's also particularly bad in the US because people are somewhat more physically inactive than comparable developed countries (and the prevalence of suburban living has alot to do with that).

And that happened in the 1980s.

 

[timewerx]

Part of the reason I have had problems keeping slim is due to the fact I was raised on big meals in the evening, as were most Americans. That tends to create alot of visceral fat around the midsection that is stubborn and doesn't easily go away, so you can keep it for years, even decades, despite dieting frequently.

I'm guilty of this and still do. Visceral fat is like an evil spirit. The kind that only fasting and prayers will make it go away.

Interestingly, when Jesus said prayers, that included lots of exercise too because Jesus hiked up a mountain or walked long distances to remote places just to pray. Ofc, the context is potentially way off. but strangely seems to work in losing fat.

BTW. Visceral fat may not always be fat, sometimes, it's just retained water in the gut. There's plenty of reasons why someone would retain excess water in the gut. Most reasons not good.

Note, when I fast, I neither eat nor drink anything. I won't recommend this practice because many fitness experts advice against it from risk of dehydration. But because body fat also stores water, the body will also start breaking down more fats not just for energy but also to prevent dehydration. This adaptation doesn't happen overnight but after many months of fasting (also without drinking any liquids) with exercise.

A real problem I am having is that so many commonly available snack foods aren't particularly high in protein, or they are also high in calories. So I am taking a protein bar with me more frequently when I go out some where. The plant-based protein bars tend to be lower in calories, but are more difficult to find where I live.

That's probably ok. But try to avoid snacking in between meals. That's how you train the body to metabolize fat more efficiently.

In a pinch, I will drink something like coconut water if I have to, on the theory that the carbs in it might be at least somewhat protein sparing, or I'll eat a nut bar (not as good for protein, has more fat and calories).

Have you read the 3rd to the last section of the link you included in your earlier post?

Participants were made to burn 1000 more Calories in exercise on top of their regular exercise resulting to 1000 Calorie deficit. Showed zero signs of muscle loss for the group with adequate intake of protein.

This means even if you're in 1000 Calorie deficit with diet and exercise, eating up to 1000 calories of carbs before exercise won't make any difference if you're trying avoid muscle loss. 1000 calories is a lot. For me that's 1.5 hrs of continuous cycling with heart rate between 120 to 140 bpm.

I have far bigger deficit on Saturday. But no sign of muscle loss at the end of the week, in fact, I'm very slightly gaining weight each week despite being significantly Calorie deficit for the whole week. My body fat % have even come down slightly so I'm definitely gaining weight either in the muscles or bones.

The best way to protect against muscle mass loss is still having adequate daily intake of protein. Carbs have no protective effect unless you're in some huge calorie deficit.

Cocoa powder is about 15 percent protein, which is about average for a plant-based food ingredient. There are alot of other minerals in cocoa that can make it beneficial (like zinc, it's one of the better plant-based sources in fact). It also has quite a few polyphenols that do all sorts of good things. Personally, I have to be careful with cocoa because it tends to cause my skin to break out if I eat enough of it (I still get acne occasionally even at age 47, but it some ways that's a good thing as it means my skin is less prone to aging). That's too bad as I do like chocolate.

Cocoa/chocolate is terrific. Though I've stopped using cocoa for the last couple of months. Just an experiment to see the difference and I maybe having some unwanted side effect from the caffeine in cocoa. Caffeine doesn't agree with me well. I don't drink coffee unless it's decaf.

I would look into defatted peanut flour for protein. Peanuts (or ground nuts, as they are sometimes called outside the US) are good as a protein source, especially the defatted flour. I use peanut flour in alot of cooking, but sometimes I also mix it with a banana to make a smoothie. You can also put it in oats or sauces, it makes a great thickener and is often used that way in Asia or Africa. If you aren't trying to cut calories, you can make up some peanut butter based sauce and put that on your food.

Thanks, great idea, I'll look into it!

 

[myst33]

Animal based food is superior to plant based food, reasons in timestamp 27:40

 

[FireDragon76]

Wheat has been hybridized for thousands of years. Different varieties of wheat are even different species altogether, though many can interbreed. Dwarf wheat is just another kind of hybrid.

There just isn't compelling evidence that dwarf wheat is responsible for any kind of serious disease

Can an Increase in Celiac Disease Be Attributed to an Increase in the Gluten Content of Wheat as a Consequence of Wheat Breeding?

In response to the suggestion that an increase in the incidence of celiac disease might be attributable to an increase in the gluten content of wheat resulting from wheat breeding, a survey of data from the 20th and 21st centuries for the United States ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I spent the better part of a decade dealing with IBS, and it was one of the most miserable times in my life. It is something I researched alot. The most likely explanation for the increase in IBS and problems eating bread, is due partly to increased awareness, and also changes in the gut microbiome brought about by changes in the American diet and lifestyles. Specifically, the consumption of more highly processed foods and soft drinks. It turns out, people that eat more fiber, whole plant foods with a variety of types of fibers, and less refined sugar are less likely to have IBS related complaints in the first place.

This is something I encountered myself through Dr. Angie Sadeghi at the beginning of the pandemic. Dr. Sadeghi is a gastroenterologist that specializes in treating IBS, and advocates eating a whole foods, plant-based diet. Once I took her advice, within a couple of months or so my digestive problems had completely gone away.

Cattle in the US have been "finished" on grain for some time. The USDA for decades has rated beef on the amount of marbelization and fat in the muscle tissue, with more fat getting a higher rating. This began well before the 1980's. I remember my dad complaining when we lived in Guam in the 70's about the beef there, which came from Australia, and how it was tough and stringy. He wasn't a fan. That was typical of Americans at the time. The craze for grass-fed beef was nonexistant.

 

[FireDragon76]

Animal based food is superior to plant based food, reasons in timestamp 27:40

The carbohydrate-insulin model of diabetes is waning in credibility among serious researchers on diabetes. The theory that seems to have more evidence supporting it, is that insulin resistance is due to too many fats and lipids in the body. This can be caused by excess sugar consumption, but it can also be caused by excess fat consumption. In fact, in order to store sugar as fat, the body has to actually burn more energy than it would take to simply store fat as fat.

Wearing continuous glucose monitors and regularly testing blood sugar in non-diabetics is highly controversial, more like bro science and biohackery than something that has rigorous scientific support. There is no evidence that blood sugar spiking, in itself, is a bad thing. Continuously elevated levels of insulin are more of the problem. And that can be caused by general overconsumption of macronutrients, not just carbohydrates. In fact, protein elevates insulin significantly and for longer, especially proteins containing abundant branch chain amino acids.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm guilty of this and still do. Visceral fat is like an evil spirit. The kind that only fasting and prayers will make it go away.

Interestingly, when Jesus said prayers, that included lots of exercise too because Jesus hiked up a mountain or walked long distances to remote places just to pray. Ofc, the context is potentially way off. but strangely seems to work in losing fat.

They got alot of physical activity just going about their ordinary lives. The primary mode of transportation back then was walking, after all. There were a few Indians and Greeks interested in physical feats of strength and training their bodies to lift heavy weights, and the Greeks also had the first rowing machines to train oarsmen on their warships. And of course there were warriors and gladiators that had various methods of physical conditioning. But overall, the societies didn't need exercise for the general population.

 

[timewerx]

The carbohydrate-insulin model of diabetes is waning in credibility among serious researchers on diabetes. The theory that seems to have more evidence supporting it, is that insulin resistance is due to too many fats and lipids in the body. This can be caused by excess sugar consumption, but it can also be caused by excess fat consumption. In fact, in order to store sugar as fat, the body has to actually burn more energy than it would take to simply store fat as fat.

Wearing continuous glucose monitors and regularly testing blood sugar in non-diabetics is highly controversial, more like bro science and biohackery than something that has rigorous scientific support. There is no evidence that blood sugar spiking, in itself, is a bad thing. Continuously elevated levels of insulin are more of the problem. And that can be caused by general overconsumption of macronutrients, not just carbohydrates. In fact, protein elevates insulin significantly and for longer, especially proteins containing abundant branch chain amino acids.

My first meal of the day may contain up to 150 grams of carbs. (I heard a few fainting in the background....)

I finish that meal with a homemade whole grain snack, milk, and 3 cups of water. No blood sugar spiking. At least I don't get the obvious sign of blood sugar spike - getting hungry too soon / needing to grab a snack between meals.

Ironically, some of the healthiest, most physically fit, warm-blooded animals don't get sick from an insanely high carb diet - birds and bats. But they get tons of exercise.

 

[FireDragon76]

My first meal of the day may contain up to 150 grams of carbs. (I heard a few fainting in the background....)

I finish that meal with a homemade whole grain snack, milk, and 3 cups of water. No blood sugar spiking. At least I don't get the obvious sign of blood sugar spike - getting hungry too soon / needing to grab a snack between meals.

Ironically, some of the healthiest, most physically fit, warm-blooded animals don't get sick from an insanely high carb diet - birds and bats. But they get tons of exercise.

Blood sugar spikes are usually caused by eating refined starches or sugars. Their significance is debatable. One of the ways that continuous glucose monitoring actually benefits diabetics, is that it lets them see larger sustained elevations in glucose, which is far more detrimental to a diabetic's health, than a transitory spiking of blood sugar.

However, eating foods that cause blood sugar spikes in diabetics, for otherwise healthy people, isn't necessarily a problem. Blood sugar spikes don't cause insulin resistance; the pancreas does not "burn out" from secreting alot of insulin.

 

[myst33]

The carbohydrate-insulin model of diabetes is waning in credibility among serious researchers on diabetes. The theory that seems to have more evidence supporting it, is that insulin resistance is due to too many fats and lipids in the body. This can be caused by excess sugar consumption, but it can also be caused by excess fat consumption. In fact, in order to store sugar as fat, the body has to actually burn more energy than it would take to simply store fat as fat.

Wearing continuous glucose monitors and regularly testing blood sugar in non-diabetics is highly controversial, more like bro science and biohackery than something that has rigorous scientific support. There is no evidence that blood sugar spiking, in itself, is a bad thing. Continuously elevated levels of insulin are more of the problem. And that can be caused by general overconsumption of macronutrients, not just carbohydrates. In fact, protein elevates insulin significantly and for longer, especially proteins containing abundant branch chain amino acids.

I agree that continuously high insulin is more of the problem.

However, I remember my days when I tried vegetarian diet and how I felt after eating for example pasta or bread. Brain fog, constant hunger several times a day, reluctance to exercise, bad feelings/anxieties...

Only on animal based diet (red meat + fermented dairy + a bit of berries and two or three kinds of very low-oxalate veggies, all bio quality) I finally feel perfectly, both physically and mentally. Muscular, easy to exercise, great sleep, no hunger throughout the day, everything fits. Constant energy all the time.

I tried a plant based diet. Not working for me (and for most people). I am feeling so well now that I can now even experiment with certain foods and see the impact. For example, if I eat nuts, I register various pains in body, less energy to exercise and similar things, compared to my animal-based baseline.

I also used to drink a lot of cacao, ignoring it gave me problems with breathing, for example. Now I recognize it immediately, thanks to being in such a good shape all the time. On a plant based diet I was used to various problems, pains and ignored them as "normal".

Interestingly, pure carnivore does not work the best for me, I am loosing too much weight and I am too much "on alert" all the time, like in a fasting mode, if eating meat only. About 50-100g of low-oxalate berries give me better sleep and calms me down, keeps my weight to be optimal/athletic. It corresponds with our ancestral diet (hunting + gathering berries).

Plant based diet is a level up if somebody eats junk, pizzas, burgers, drinks sodas, eats sweets etc. But its still not the right diet, it lacks elementary nutrients and contains a lot of antinutrients and poisons. It also terribly destroys our environment.

Its also much easier to fast on animal based diet, I can go a whole day without food and barely noticing a difference.

And I could go on an on about low inflammation, joint/skin health, much better taste/satisfaction from eating, stable blood sugar, hormonal health, insulin sensitivity, absolutely simple and easy meal preparation etc.

 

[RDKirk]

Blood sugar spikes are usually caused by eating refined starches or sugars. Their significance is debatable. One of the ways that continuous glucose monitoring actually benefits diabetics, is that it lets them see larger sustained elevations in glucose, which is far more detrimental to a diabetic's health, than a transitory spiking of blood sugar.

However, eating foods that cause blood sugar spikes in diabetics, for otherwise healthy people, isn't necessarily a problem. Blood sugar spikes don't cause insulin resistance; the pancreas does not "burn out" from secreting alot of insulin.

An after-meal spike is normal. That's not the problem. The problem is people eating (including drinking caloric beverages) practically constantly through the day, keeping insulin level high, so that it's not a "spike" it's just high all day long. It results in insulin resistance. And, yes, the pancreas can be burned out that way.

Constant feeding causes that problem regardless of the proportion of macronutrients.

 

[timewerx]

An after-meal spike is normal. That's not the problem. The problem is people eating (including drinking caloric beverages) practically constantly through the day, keeping insulin level high, so that it's not a "spike" it's just high all day long. It results in insulin resistance. And, yes, the pancreas can be burned out that way.

Constant feeding causes that problem regardless of the proportion of macronutrients.

I discipline myself to do all my eating in just two meals a day. Absolutely nothing in between, no snacks, no caloric beverage, not even soup. Just water.

I found I have more energy for exercise and work if I do it I think because the body is doing less overall work digesting food and processing nutrients.

 

[FireDragon76]

An after-meal spike is normal. That's not the problem. The problem is people eating (including drinking caloric beverages) practically constantly through the day, keeping insulin level high, so that it's not a "spike" it's just high all day long. It results in insulin resistance. And, yes, the pancreas can be burned out that way.

Constant feeding causes that problem regardless of the proportion of macronutrients.

The pancreas was designed to pup out insulin all day. It actually has to become diseased for the beta cells to be damaged or die. Just secreting insulin won't do that.

 

[myst33]

Carnivore diet + fasting as a support for cancer treatment: