Insulin and free radical theories of aging

[ubizmo]

For those interested in this subject, here's an interesting article:

http://grove.ufl.edu/~cleeuwen/Julian.pdf

[Nancy LC]

I struggled through it! And was well rewarded for it. I'd LOVE to see someone comparing CR mice to LC mice. Hasn't anyone done that sort of research? It just seems so obvious to me.

[Whoa182]

Nancy, it must have been done before and I will find out, i'm sure researchers would not miss this...

It has been stated before that CR doesn't seem to depend on the ratio of macronutrients. But that doesn't mean that there is no benifit from mice doing LC. As studies have shown that it can protect or slow down certain age associated diseases in mice.

So far there are actually now two known ways to extend life in mice:

1) Calorie Restriction
2) methionine restriction (amino acid)

Wouldn't researchers have tried other methods, low fat, high fat, low carb, high carb and many other combinations before stating that CR is the only known way to exend maximal life span by 50% or whatever..

[Nancy LC]

If they're only just now figuring out that insulin junks up the cells, then it seems like any diet that produces less insulin would produce less aging. So yeah, why wouldn't they have studied LC and compared it to CR. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Let me know what you find!

[Whoa182]

One thing that needs to be controlled for aswell is calories.

Imagine we tried to put 10 people from CR and 10 people from Atkins up against each other and compared various health biomarkers. Since many go on low carb to reduce their weight and a ketogenic diet reduces appetite, many of the low carbers could be eating similar calories to the CR group who are not restricting carbs.

So the higher carb group would have to be eating more calories than the CR group, otherwise you would have to factor in that CR and not just carb restriction is responsible for the benifits of the 'low carb diet' group.

There have been many studies before where the researchers have given the mice certain supplements and seen whether it effects life span, but some supplements will reduce appetite, so recording calories is essential.


Let me know what you find!

I have sent a few emails off requesting some references on carb restriction and life span. hopefully I'll get some replies back soon

[Whoa182]

Was just reading the omnivore and found this

http://www.theomnivore.com/Did%20the%20Atkins%20Diet%20really%20kill%20Dr%20Atkins.html

"Low-carbohydrate diets may eventually prove themselves to have life-extending properties. In animal research, the only consistent intervention that produces increases in life span is calorie-restriction. Whether the same applies to humans has not yet been established, but we do know that cutting calorie intake often produces marked improvements in important health parameters, such as blood glucose control. Unfortunately, telling people to voluntarily limit their calorie intake on a long-term basis is usually about as well-received as Janet Jackson's recent Super Bowl performance. Low carbohydrate diets, however, may render such unpopular admonitions redundant. Dietary intervention studies have revealed a rather unique phenomenon; subjects following low carbohydrate diets, despite being told to limit only carbohydrate intake and to eat unrestricted amounts of protein and fat, often inadvertently reduce their total calorie intake to levels similar to those seen in subjects who have been explicitly instructed to lower their total calorie intake."

[Nancy LC]

Well, they'd have to do it like the study the OP posted. You'd have an ad lib group unrestricted carbs, an ad lib group of restricted carbs, a group eating low-carb but forced to eat as many calories as the first group and then you'd have the CR group.

[kebaldwin]

1. link does not work

2. Atkins diet greatly extends life. Calorie restriction is just eating low carb and starving yourself

[Whoa182]

1. link does not work

2. Atkins diet greatly extends life. Calorie restriction is just eating low carb and starving yourself

1. The link does work, you need adobe reader below http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

2. oh come on, I thought we moved past all this a long time ago... go do some research, it has *** all to do with reduction in carbs caused by lower calories. Genetic profiles seen in CR change in response to starvation, not carb restriction.

Please read this: http://www.biochemistry.ucr.edu/faculty/spindler.html


I sitll have no responses on emails yet, but hopefully I'll get something.

[Whoa182]

When you look at centenarians or super centenarians that led a typical life, may have smoked, drank alcohol often and whatever else. They seem to have gained this ability to resist damage. CR does this too, if I went out now and ate lots of junk food, the damage to myself would not be nearly as great as a regular ad lib person.

CR is not just powerful in reducing the damage caued by bad foods, but also from toxins. I hope that no one would ever do this! lol... but if you put a group of CRONies and Ad lib eaters in a room, and see who could survive poisoning by carbon monoxide (like what killed those miners), it would be the calorie restriction ones mostly surviving because of the cells become resistant to damage.

[kebaldwin]

We have had this discussion before and you have failed to show any benefit of starving yourself versus the low carb diet. Please show me studies where they compare calorie restriction versus the atkins diet. Let's also look at how likely people are to stick with each diet.

To say that calorie restriction extends your life but low carbing does not -- is flat out wrong.

They both achieve the same thing except on one diet you are starving yourself (and lose lean body mass) and on the other diet you eat as much as you want and gain lean body mass.

Most over weight people have tried a calorie restricted diet. For most - all they do is think about food. Most become obsessed with food. It increases your stress and anxiety levels.

With the low carb diet - you eat all you want. You forget about food. Plus you gain all the benefits.

Note I am NOT saying that calorie restriction does not work. A small percentage of people have no problem restricting what they eat and exercising a lot more. A lot of these same people still die early.

But most overweight people have tried doing this and it does not work.

[Whoa182]

Don't think you are getting away with anything apart from preventing a relapse of obesity by increasing your energy intake just because you 'can' on a low carb diet. Circulating IGF-1 is regulated by energy and protein intake. Implications of higher IGF-1 are cancer and higher mortality. Don't be foolish to eat lots just because you think you can.

[kebaldwin]

as long as you don't be foolish thinking that people can starve themselves and lose weight!

[kaypeeoh]

Barry Sear Zone Diet makes similar claims. Fewer calories means less free radical production. Also less "advanced glycosylation endproducts". He claims these are garbage products formed when excess carboydrates chemically crosslinks with proteins. He describes these as biologic crazy glue that stick to arteries and disrupt cellular DNA.

At 170 pounds, the Zone Diet amounts to around 1000 calories per day.

[Whoa182]

I struggled through it! And was well rewarded for it. I'd LOVE to see someone comparing CR mice to LC mice. Hasn't anyone done that sort of research? It just seems so obvious to me.

This is the only thing I can find out the moment :thup:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=6126958&postcount=459

[ItsTheWooo]

Was just reading the omnivore and found this

http://www.theomnivore.com/Did%20the%20Atkins%20Diet%20really%20kill%20Dr%20Atkins.html

"Low-carbohydrate diets may eventually prove themselves to have life-extending properties. In animal research, the only consistent intervention that produces increases in life span is calorie-restriction. Whether the same applies to humans has not yet been established, but we do know that cutting calorie intake often produces marked improvements in important health parameters, such as blood glucose control. Unfortunately, telling people to voluntarily limit their calorie intake on a long-term basis is usually about as well-received as Janet Jackson's recent Super Bowl performance. Low carbohydrate diets, however, may render such unpopular admonitions redundant. Dietary intervention studies have revealed a rather unique phenomenon; subjects following low carbohydrate diets, despite being told to limit only carbohydrate intake and to eat unrestricted amounts of protein and fat, often inadvertently reduce their total calorie intake to levels similar to those seen in subjects who have been explicitly instructed to lower their total calorie intake."

I think it is good to note that the calorie reduction of low carb is really only well preserved if you are well above ideal weight.

Sitting here right now, likely below the "ideal" for my body, the idea of eating all I want of eggs, butter, roast chicken and fatty steak is actually making me envious :lol: . When I was really fat that worked well because even moderate carb reduction powerfully shut off my appetite and controlled blood sugar.
It seems to me, to really CRON, you ahve to continue to eat really little for life, which means becoming under your ideal weight for life thus consciously eating less than you want to. The low carb diet will at best bring you to a more ideal weight, assuming it is followed correctly. The under eating is normal and corrective, to correct obesity (carb overload). Because it is a healthy diet, it will not allow you to become underfed. Once the carb overload is handled, eating stabilizes. Calories on a sustained LC diet will be lower than the average, but only because the average person is overweight and eating too many carbs. It will not, however, be a CRON diet, which is conscious under eating that involves being under ideal weight, some hunger, so on.

Example, even at my weight, I eat 1400 cals and this is with effort. Most female CRONers my age/height seem to do more like 1200... ain't no way I could sustain that and be anything resembling reasonably happy ;). I'm hungry too often as it is.

[Frederick]

Here's a really unscientific observation on my part, but what does every 90+ year old person have in common?

They're all thin.

I've never seen an obese person in that age range. That alone with all the empirical research should suggest that calorie restriction has a pretty significant role in longevity. I'm not suggesting it is the *only* factor, but it appears to be a major one simply by that correlation.

[TBoneMitch]

Good observation Frederick,

however I have a 86-year old grandmother who has always been quite overweight (230 at 5'4).

Admittedly, she has lost weight in the last 5 years, as her appetite decreased, and I estimate her weight to now be in the low 200s, still high.

[Nancy LC]

Actually... I've got the exception for you. My Uncle George was SO fat he couldn't walk even when relatively young. He lived well into his 80s and perhaps even hit 90.

Now my Mom is 86 and she's having a hard time keeping weight on. Her appetite isn't great, you really lose a lot of your tastebuds as you age, and she has medical conditions that make it difficult for her to keep on her weight.

She was plump all her life, lost weight when she was in her 50's and kept it off.

So, there are some that live a long, long time being quite fat. But are really old people thin because they were always thin? Or did something else cause it?

Last thought, it is hard to say whether or not people eating ketogenic diet have less insulin because they're not eating carbs or because they're eating fewer calories. It is REALLY hard to eat a lot of calories when you're in ketosis.

[ubizmo]

I suspect G.B. Shaw's longevity and good health were a result of CR. He was famously rail-like in appearance. There's a story, maybe aprocryphal, of when he met the portly G.K. Chesterton, who said to Shaw, "To look at you one would think there's no food in all of English," to which Shaw replied "To look at you one would know why."

Then again maybe it was Shaw's lifelong virginity...