46 replies to this topic

[Forever21]

Is all that GRAIN really necessary?

I've read some post here that says CR people in the past missed the benefits of CR because of eating grain (which is high methionine).

[scottknl]

Is all that GRAIN really necessary?

I've read some post here that says CR people in the past missed the benefits of CR because of eating grain (which is high methionine).

Well, not really. I need the flax seed, but definitely not the oatmeal, rice or bread. Those are just nice-to-have's for me. I don't think one's diet has to be perfect, just kinda good. As I said in my original post, when I cut back the first thing to go is the sandwiches. I'd probably be just a very small bit healthier without the grains and increasing vegetable intake. After all, I'm getting all my nutrients with my CRON diet.

I put my health improvements down to 3 factors:

1) CR cutting calories lowers the load on my digestive and cellular systems, and also improves mental focus.
2) Lipid balance eliminated the high cholesterol and low energy feelings, and improves physical performance.
3) Improvement of full nutrition probably gets rid of lots of little aches and pains, sore joints, small rashes and pimples etc.

Eliminating grains would not impact 2 and 3 very much and I'm not too keen on cutting calories to the bone like some extreme CR practitioners have done. Even though my blood sugar readings haven't been ideal, I haven't been diagnosed with pre-diabetes. My fasting insulin blood levels are under the threshold for a reading in recent tests.
If I cut or eliminate grains I worry that my calories might limit the activities like running, rowing, weightlifting or hiking that I enjoy. My methionine count for this diet is 0.7 g / d, so it's pretty low anyway compared to adlib. At this level Dr Fontana suggests will not interfere with CR's benefits.
Dr. Fontana on IGF-1, methionine and Protein

[TheFountain]

You might also have posted many of the studies that say that vegetarians live as long or slightly shorter than meat eaters, but those also have little to do with the diet and lifestyle I follow.

Vegetarians may have a significantly lower risk of mortality than people who eat lots of meat, according to a study at the German Cancer Research Centre (DFKZ).

The study, which aimed to understand the impact of vegetarian nutrition and the connected lifestyle on the risk of mortality, included around 1900 participants. These were divided into vegans (who abstain not only from meat but also from other animal products such as eggs or dairy products), vegetarians (who consume eggs and dairy products but no fish or meat) and moderate vegetarians (occasional meat and fish eaters).



On comparison with the general population, the study revealed a significant increase in life expectancy for the study participants. For every 100 deaths in the general population, only 59 deaths were recorded for the monitored group. The difference is even greater for male vegetarians with only 52 deaths.



However, entirely abstaining from meat consumption does not appear to be the healthiest nutritional lifestyle. Comparison of the three categories suggests that those who occasionally consume meat have an even lower risk of mortality than the other groups. For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians and 60 among occasional meat eaters.




http://www.nutraingr...nger-says-study



But overall, the study suggests, vegetarians live longer. I think the person who wrote the article misinterpreted this fact. or thought it didn't matter that much.

This population evidence for vegans and vegetarians will only become really clear when we have 70 year old vegetarians (veggie baby boomers) that have had access to B12 supplements all their lives. It's really only been the last 20 some years when you could buy B12 and prior to that all vegans were probably shortening their lives a bit.
I wish the studies would control for B12 supplementation and exclude the vegans and vegetarians with low B12 levels, because it really makes eating this way look unhealthy, when the reality is that it works quite well. The birth of the internet in the 1990's made the info about B12 much more available to the public, so that really helped a lot of people adopt healthier diets.

We really have veganism down to a science now. We can control nutrient levels (both micro and macro) and, for the post part, distinguish ourselves from these junk food, pot bellied people who call themselves 'vegan' but live on pretzel's and hummus and then wonder why they are not the most fit people out there. I am all in favor of ethics regarding animals but the people who do it specifically for this reason tend to not be concerned with health outcomes. I have even known vegans who smoke and do several types of hard drugs who lived on nothing but falafels, bread and rice. Yes, they were ethical vegans, doing it or the animals. Thus my main point. There needs to be a separation of the discussions between ethical veganism and veganism based on health outcomes. Associating these two factors is a disservice to either actually.

[scottknl]

This population evidence for vegans and vegetarians will only become really clear when we have 70 year old vegetarians (veggie baby boomers) that have had access to B12 supplements all their lives. It's really only been the last 20 some years when you could buy B12 and prior to that all vegans were probably shortening their lives a bit.
I wish the studies would control for B12 supplementation and exclude the vegans and vegetarians with low B12 levels, because it really makes eating this way look unhealthy, when the reality is that it works quite well. The birth of the internet in the 1990's made the info about B12 much more available to the public, so that really helped a lot of people adopt healthier diets.

We really have veganism down to a science now. We can control nutrient levels (both micro and macro) and, for the post part, distinguish ourselves from these junk food, pot bellied people who call themselves 'vegan' but live on pretzel's and hummus and then wonder why they are not the most fit people out there. I am all in favor of ethics regarding animals but the people who do it specifically for this reason tend to not be concerned with health outcomes. I have even known vegans who smoke and do several types of hard drugs who lived on nothing but falafels, bread and rice. Yes, they were ethical vegans, doing it or the animals. Thus my main point. There needs to be a separation of the discussions between ethical veganism and veganism based on health outcomes. Associating these two factors is a disservice to either actually.

I disagree with you about having veganism down to a science now. It was only 2008 when we "discovered" that medium-high protein can reduce the benefits of CR considerably due to IGF-1 signalling. It wasn't an obvious conclusion, and it applied both to vegan and omni diets. To think that we understand nutrition totally is optimistic at best and foolish at worst. The last time researchers thought they understood nutrition, they fed rats a bunch of vitamin/mineral pills and amino acids, but no real food and watched as their health slipped away and they died. Perhaps we will understand more about it with gene research in the near future, but the book is definitely not closed on exactly what a vegan can/should eat to be healthy. It's still an experiment to do veganism on top of another experiment to do CRON. I do agree with your comments about unhealthy vegans though. I hope we can say "this is how to do a healthy vegan diet" with a bunch of solid research to prove it sometime soon, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it. There's no financial interests pushing this agenda, so it will move slowly.

[TheFountain]

This population evidence for vegans and vegetarians will only become really clear when we have 70 year old vegetarians (veggie baby boomers) that have had access to B12 supplements all their lives. It's really only been the last 20 some years when you could buy B12 and prior to that all vegans were probably shortening their lives a bit.
I wish the studies would control for B12 supplementation and exclude the vegans and vegetarians with low B12 levels, because it really makes eating this way look unhealthy, when the reality is that it works quite well. The birth of the internet in the 1990's made the info about B12 much more available to the public, so that really helped a lot of people adopt healthier diets.

We really have veganism down to a science now. We can control nutrient levels (both micro and macro) and, for the post part, distinguish ourselves from these junk food, pot bellied people who call themselves 'vegan' but live on pretzel's and hummus and then wonder why they are not the most fit people out there. I am all in favor of ethics regarding animals but the people who do it specifically for this reason tend to not be concerned with health outcomes. I have even known vegans who smoke and do several types of hard drugs who lived on nothing but falafels, bread and rice. Yes, they were ethical vegans, doing it or the animals. Thus my main point. There needs to be a separation of the discussions between ethical veganism and veganism based on health outcomes. Associating these two factors is a disservice to either actually.

I disagree with you about having veganism down to a science now. It was only 2008 when we "discovered" that medium-high protein can reduce the benefits of CR considerably due to IGF-1 signalling. It wasn't an obvious conclusion, and it applied both to vegan and omni diets. To think that we understand nutrition totally is optimistic at best and foolish at worst. The last time researchers thought they understood nutrition, they fed rats a bunch of vitamin/mineral pills and amino acids, but no real food and watched as their health slipped away and they died. Perhaps we will understand more about it with gene research in the near future, but the book is definitely not closed on exactly what a vegan can/should eat to be healthy. It's still an experiment to do veganism on top of another experiment to do CRON. I do agree with your comments about unhealthy vegans though. I hope we can say "this is how to do a healthy vegan diet" with a bunch of solid research to prove it sometime soon, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it. There's no financial interests pushing this agenda, so it will move slowly.

There's no more solid evidence proving any other type of diet works better, in fact CR has more evidence behind it than any other in the life extension department, and vegan and vegetarian have life extension studies in their favor, as per the one I posted earlier. What I mean by having it 'down to a science' is knowing precisely what is required of us to adequately partake of the diet without deteriorating health, and in fact with a health surplus. Raw food veganism is about the healthiest diet out there in my opinion. This is a much better organized diet than this bread, rice and pasta version of it that the ethical vegans tend to partake of. I mean you act like people who do it for health outcomes are stabbing into the darkness here. Not so. Look at the studies.

[Forever21]

Do you find your food delicious?

[scottknl]

Do you find your food delicious?

Yes. Without being overly dramatic, meal times are my favorite parts of each day. I am never grumpy about stopping my work, hobbies, conversations or anything to eat. I love each bite because of the exquisite flavor my new taste buds find. Oddly enough, when it's over, I sit back in reflection on the lingering tastes, and look forward to the next time I can eat in a few hours. It's pure and simple satisfaction. A few times a month I'll over indulge on weekends with my (also CR) wife and we'll enjoy noodles and gyoza (Trader Joes Veggie), but to me it's not as good as my vegetable soup that I often have twice a day. I really love my soup and I can't believe that everyone doesn't eat this way.

Well, it's dinner time and I think I'll have a bowl of soup. Yummmm!!!

[sthira]

Hey Fountain, I know exactly what you mean by separating out healthy and ethical vegans. But the two aren't mutually exclusive, and this is one of the beauties of practicing veganism: the lifestyle is both healthy individually and collectively. But it is a practice. And we are all frail humans - we falter, we fail, we try again, hopefully we become stronger, more compassionate, healthier. The core movement grows peacefully and with a good spirit. I truly believe the practice of a vegan diet and lifestyle can help heal both humanity and the greater planet, or else I wouldn't bother with it and would instead pursue only my own narrow pursuits.

[scottknl]

There's no more solid evidence proving any other type of diet works better, in fact CR has more evidence behind it than any other in the life extension department, and vegan and vegetarian have life extension studies in their favor, as per the one I posted earlier. What I mean by having it 'down to a science' is knowing precisely what is required of us to adequately partake of the diet without deteriorating health, and in fact with a health surplus. Raw food veganism is about the healthiest diet out there in my opinion. This is a much better organized diet than this bread, rice and pasta version of it that the ethical vegans tend to partake of. I mean you act like people who do it for health outcomes are stabbing into the darkness here. Not so. Look at the studies.

OK well, I guess I was a little too strong in expressing my opinion. Yeah, there's good evidence; I just meant to suggest that the evidence isn't quite complete yet, so there's wiggle room on how to make such a diet. It's not so much stabbing into the dark as guessing what's in the dark corners. I've looked at many of the studies and there's still lots of controversy. eg. n3:n6 ratio fatty acids, saturated fats % of calories, macro dietary balance, interference of absorption of minerals etc. on and on. Each of these issues have been debated and are still being debated on these very forums. Let's face the facts, nobody can follow all the dietary rules all at once. CRON does the best job in my opinion, but it's probably not perfect. In past years there have been several CRON followers that developed health issues because of their attempts to push the limits of CRAN. You can find references to this on the CRSociety website, or listen to the war stories from CR veterans. It seems to be better these days and I hope we (as a CR cohort) have come to a kind of tacit agreement that RDA is a pretty good starting point for many CRON targets.

I think I've done a decent job with my posted diet and that people who would use it to construct their own might rely on it being a healthy place to start.

[TheFountain]

Hey Fountain, I know exactly what you mean by separating out healthy and ethical vegans. But the two aren't mutually exclusive, and this is one of the beauties of practicing veganism: the lifestyle is both healthy individually and collectively. But it is a practice. And we are all frail humans - we falter, we fail, we try again, hopefully we become stronger, more compassionate, healthier. The core movement grows peacefully and with a good spirit. I truly believe the practice of a vegan diet and lifestyle can help heal both humanity and the greater planet, or else I wouldn't bother with it and would instead pursue only my own narrow pursuits.

Of course, but when advancing the cause of proving said diets health outcomes I think it is important to distinguish between who does it for what reasons in conversation, especially when doing it for dietary debate, because if someone who may wish to attempt veganism reads misleading information from a primarily ethical vegan who eats the vegan equivalent of junk food and then subsequently attempts their diet and fails then reports their failure to everyone they know it is a macrocosmic failure of those who ARE doing it right by not conveying their message. I am not saying both aspects are not equally important, but this is a nutritional forum and to advance our cause we must try to limit this aspect of the conversation to that end. That's my suggestion, and by all means those who feel strongly about the ethical aspect of it can take it up on another part of this forum. Of course when discussing how diet relates to environmental outcomes I concur with you that vegan diets are the best, at least as far as the information I have read. There are those who cherry pick data to justify their diets but I am fairly certain we are correct on this front.

Edited by TheFountain, 07 April 2011 - 07:04 AM.

[sthira]

Sure, Fountain, we have no disagreement here, you and I. I know many vegans who eat just as you say - bread, rice, pasta, junk soy prods, preprocessed industrial foodlike shizzle. I know vegans who smoke cigs, weed, smoke crack, meth, abuse adderall - all sorts of sad self-meds we wouldn't touch. These people to me are vegans on a gray scale - in diff phases of growth and destruction. Yet I also see people in the main who adopt the vegan lifestyle (cos of PETA or Greenpeace or they just think it's fashionable) are *usually* sensitive and tuned in. We are all on a continuum - even those of us who think we've got it on the personal health front. Be humble: we may also be in a state of delusion even with perfect serum B12 numbers.

I def hear you: do not pollute the healthy vegan diet science by including those who eat poorly. Especially in the science literature as is often done. And you're exactly right: don't lump us with THOSE vegans over there. But our brother and sister vegans who eat poorly are still on path, and we shouldn't snobbily boot them off as if this is some kind of exclusive middle class American club or clique. Cos it isn't, ad you know, or you wouldn't practice. Please try to open just a littke to the wider movement - it is just as healthy and good as the narrower self interested.

[TheFountain]

Sure, Fountain, we have no disagreement here, you and I. I know many vegans who eat just as you say - bread, rice, pasta, junk soy prods, preprocessed industrial foodlike shizzle. I know vegans who smoke cigs, weed, smoke crack, meth, abuse adderall - all sorts of sad self-meds we wouldn't touch. These people to me are vegans on a gray scale - in diff phases of growth and destruction. Yet I also see people in the main who adopt the vegan lifestyle (cos of PETA or Greenpeace or they just think it's fashionable) are *usually* sensitive and tuned in. We are all on a continuum - even those of us who think we've got it on the personal health front. Be humble: we may also be in a state of delusion even with perfect serum B12 numbers.

I def hear you: do not pollute the healthy vegan diet science by including those who eat poorly. Especially in the science literature as is often done. And you're exactly right: don't lump us with THOSE vegans over there. But our brother and sister vegans who eat poorly are still on path, and we shouldn't snobbily boot them off as if this is some kind of exclusive middle class American club or clique. Cos it isn't, ad you know, or you wouldn't practice. Please try to open just a littke to the wider movement - it is just as healthy and good as the narrower self interested.

I think there is one thing you might be misunderstanding in my aspect of this conversation. I am, by no means, trying to boot junk food vegans out of vegan discussion. What I am appealing to is those of us who actually do it right, as per proper RDA intake of all essential nutrients and proper balancing of macro's, to speak to them and help them get their health in order, because it has the unfortunate effect of clouding the nutritional discussion. And if their primary cause for becoming vegan is animals, all the power to them, but in my opinion they do not belong in nutritional discussions on the merits of vegan diets, because their energy would be much better spent on the ethical front and wasted here. That is my only meaning here. I think once we sort through and get all this ironed out we can then mesh the two aspects of the diet together into a greater, more harmonious whole.

Edited by TheFountain, 07 April 2011 - 10:48 AM.

[sthira]

Right. Still I promote humility. This science, as Palin so clearly states, is still baby science. State of nutrition science may be something like where surgical science was in, say, the 17th century. Immature science. Stay humble: cos we who strive to eat right "as per proper RDA intake of all essential nutrients and proper balancing..." we who strive to be nutritionally perfect from a health and LE perspective may be -eek!- wrong.

[TheFountain]

Right. Still I promote humility. This science, as Palin so clearly states, is still baby science. State of nutrition science may be something like where surgical science was in, say, the 17th century. Immature science. Stay humble: cos we who strive to eat right "as per proper RDA intake of all essential nutrients and proper balancing..." we who strive to be nutritionally perfect from a health and LE perspective may be -eek!- wrong.

Yes but I still feel better on this diet than I would on a pasta, rice and falafel diet. Nice sarcasm regarding the Palin quote. haha

[sthira]

Oops! My phone auto changed Michael Pollen to Palin - what the fuck kind of phone would make that change?

[TheFountain]

Oops! My phone auto changed Michael Pollen to Palin - what the fuck kind of phone would make that change?

Sounds conspiratorial to me.

[scottknl]

One issue I've found is that on this longevity regimen is that my weight will slowly creep upwards unless I throw in a 24 hr fast a few times a month, or exercise 3x per week. I'm most comfortable at a weight of 155 lbs, but slowly drift upwards to around 165 lbs when I'm feeling busy at work or just too lazy to do exercise for a while. I'll have to upgrade my opinion on exercise as being a "required element" in my longevity program, not just "optional - for fun". My regular exercises include running, rowing, weight lifting, walking/hiking and occasionally other sports like biking or swimming.

Speaking of exercise I spent a couple of hours playing badminton with my agile little wife for the first time in a few years. Lots of lunging, bending, stopping and starting with my 6' 2" lanky frame vs my wife's 5'0" light weight, compact small bone frame. When I was young and did those things, they would hurt a lot the next day due to using different muscles and stretching in odd ways etc. However these days, after a couple of cups of tea to rehydrate myself, I only found a slightly sore forearm from gripping the racquet. I find pretty much the same experience when I go running after the winter layoff with little soreness. This "clean" diet really helps so much when it comes to recovery after exercise.