View Single Post
  #43   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 12:40
mccoy_3000's Avatar
mccoy_3000 mccoy_3000 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 88
 
Plan: moderately LC, HF, LP
Stats: 149/143/143 Male 170
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MickiSue
For those of you considering following what, IMO is an insanely irresponsibly low recommendation for protein intake, be sure to look at this: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/food...eficiency-signs
Here's my question: Mercola, et al, claim that restricting protein will extend life. WHERE IS THEIR DATA? I can say that eating 200 grams of protein a day extends life. And I can probably find enough anecdotal evidence to sway somebody to that POV. But the plural of anecdote is not data. So, where is it?


Mickisue, I can say that Dr Rosedale's credentials appear absolutely solid.
Right now I cannot give you a list of journal articles, but the literature on longevity is sure wide. They started with the classic calorie-restrictions lab experiments in vivo. On mice, cats and rhesus monkeys. It was observed that, invariably, the animals in a calories restriction regimen turned out to age less. After the discovery of the rapamycin and of the mTOR pathway, the researchers were able to pinpont the cause of decreased aging to lesser proteins intake (consequent to caloric restriction) since mTOR is an amino acids sensor, with an emphasis on leucine. Dr Rosedale shows some articles on mTOr in his vid on Mercola's site. I posted the link to a technical NIH article. That's accepted science, not quakery, undisputably.

Now, the inference to real life can be tricky, we all agree.

However, Dr Rosedale has treated (allegedly) thousands of patients affected by diabetes and metabolic disorders. So it is not difficult to guess that his numbers have been drawn from his personal database. A statistically significant one, undoubtedly.

In this thread we can observe how everyone has a different response to proteins intake. Many of you guys have had or would have difficulties in sticking to the values suggested by Rosedale. In my 40 years of dietary experimentation though, in some periods I thrived on less than the Rosedale's suggestion of dietary aminoacids.

My bottom line is that it is right that we should consider some priorities. If we cannot reach the mTOR optimum for longevity, it's better to forget about it and concentrate on other closer problems which have no lesser importance, like avoid overweight, avoid diabetes complications and so on.

After all, low carb also means lower insulin and lower glycation, and that's definitely a path to longevity. An upregulated mTOR may facilitate cancer growth over many years but weight in excess can kill you before any cancer cell has the opportunity to develop.

As to the proteins quantities you are eating, I have no specific response other than I know very few people or none who regularly have such a high protein intake. Maybe you have some Inuit ancestry hence a genetic memory of huge meat consumption, or maybe your genes have the pattern of the centenarians' genes for which the mTOR is genetically downregulated no matter the lifestyle and diet.

Dr. Rosedale's suggestions are aimed to mimic the genetic pattern of those centenarians. I keep being incredibly fascinated by this recent model of longevity. Everything he says follows a compelling logic. Assuming of course he didn't go nuts in his mature age and is just spitting out haphazards numbers, astutely fooling everyone or so. How likely is that?
Reply With Quote