Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 08:21
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 teaser
...
So for me to accept that 0.6 times my lean mass will meet my daily requirement for protein and not cause the loss of lean mass requires me to accept that I have a remarkably efficient metabolism of the protein I consume--that I will be as efficient at least as I would be in starvation, and that I will be nothing less than perfectly efficient in digestion etc. I find this horribly implausible. I could loosen it up, call it 0.6 grams per ideal body mass. Make me the proverbial 154 pound man, that puts me at 70 kg and 42 grams of protein per day. Which would give me a buffer of 4.5 grams of protein per day over starvation levels of oxidation. Mtor can do what it likes, I'm just not comfortable with going that low.


Teaser, it's interesting to take as a reference the starvation benchmark and your reasoning makes sense although I still have to look up some more material on the basic need of proteins. I have an hint that some mechanism similar to the homeostasis we see in minerals and vitamins absorption may be at work which makes the body use more efficiently proteins when they are taken in low amounts.

Any way, I'm reading all Rosedale's comments to the longevity presentation. It just would appear that the numbers, as always, should be taken with the calssic grain of salt. He seems to settle in an intermediate value into the 0.6-1.0 range, getting back to the 0.75 average value. He says lean mass but as previously discussed that should most probably be 'ideal' lean mass.

From Dr Rosedale's answer to one comment
Quote:
...The mTOR science only supports more what I had said in my previous book. It is still very up-to-date, though I am currently writing another to discuss this topic in more depth. The only change as indicated in the video and article is to reduce protein more to what I had recommended for diabetics previously; 0.75gm/kg lean mass for the average individual. This, of course, is an average and would be adjusted upwards in women who are pregnant,growing children and teenagers and perhaps those doing heavy exercise.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 08:32
mushymindy's Avatar
mushymindy mushymindy is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 91
 
Plan: Low Carb My Way :)
Stats: 150/138/130 Female 5ft 4in
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: Lake Macquarie, NSW, Aus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mccoy_3000
Mushy, what's your ideal weight or target lean weight?


I would love to be 55kg... I'd settle for maintaining 60kg though
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 08:49
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

Sorry if I'm posting disjointedly but that's a work in progress.
As it results, not all proteins are equal, so a change should be made to Rosedale's multiplicator, according to his statement from the above cited comments:

Quote:
Plant protein is lower in the amino acids that would stimulate both mTOR and anabolic activity... the good and the bad.. so you could eat more plant protein than animal protein while maintaining the same level of mTOR, but how much more at this point is relatively unknown.. 30%?


At this point, with the latest info available, we should calculate the Rosedale's average threshold for mTOR activation in the following way:

mTOR_act(AVE)≈ 0.75*IW*AP+0.75*1.33*IW*PP

where IW = ideal weight, AP= fractionary incidence of animal proteins, PP = fractionary incidence of plant proteins.

For example, with my numbers:
IW=65 kg
AP=0.8 or 80% (I eat about 80% of animal proteins)
PP=0.2 of 20% (I eat about 20% of plant proteins).

The approximate daily mTOR threshold in my case with that mix of animal and plant based proteins would be on the average:

mTOR_act(AVE)≈ 0.75*65*0.8+0.75*1.33*65*0.2 ≈ 52 grams per day of that protein mix (80% animal, 20% plant based)

We start obtaining much more reasonable estimates to pursue longevity, since I'm not a big man and that value rules out exercise. With some exercise, not strenuos I guess, it might reach the value of 60 grams per day which is totally reasonable.

P.S.: my wife angelix is just saying to me that I'm growing definitely too geeky with these posts, but I think the example is clear and anyway everyone can post if not. My wife gets her value directly from me (I changed it several times by now and she's growing increasingly suspicious with my numbers... )
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 08:57
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 mushymindy
I would love to be 55kg... I'd settle for maintaining 60kg though


Mushy, assuming you are eating some nuts and vegetables and that makes up 10% of your protein intake, your mTOR threshold according to Dr. Rosedale would be approximately

43 grams of proteins per day,
or 48-50 if you exercise.

More of that your mTOR may be upregulated and favour growth and reproduction (not favourable to longevity).

Pls note, the above values apply if you are not pregnant, otherwise just forget about mTOR!!!
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 09:10
mushymindy's Avatar
mushymindy mushymindy is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 91
 
Plan: Low Carb My Way :)
Stats: 150/138/130 Female 5ft 4in
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: Lake Macquarie, NSW, Aus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mccoy_3000
Mushy, assuming you are eating some nuts and vegetables and that makes up 10% of your protein intake, your mTOR threshold according to Dr. Rosedale would be approximately

43 grams of proteins per day,
or 48-50 if you exercise.

More of that your mTOR may be upregulated and favour growth and reproduction (not favourable to longevity).

Pls note, the above values apply if you are not pregnant, otherwise just forget about mTOR!!!


Thank you so much!! That is really very helpful
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 09:20
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

My IW is 61 kg, yielding a requirement of 46 g protein if I eat 100% animal protein. For me, that is the minimum I feel best on if the "animal" does not include dairy or whey. I eat 2-10% vegetable protein (no grains or legumes), but count that on top of the animal protein or don't bother to count it at all, since it is simple to just aim for my minimum in animal protein. In addition to causing sinus congestion and headaches, I find dairy proteins extremely insulinogenic, more like grains in terms of their causing cravings and hunger soon after they are consumed.

What's interesting is that 46 g is the amount of protein the USDA recommended 30 years ago for a 5'6" woman, but back then I ate vegan to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets and felt like hell most of the time - tired, weak and hungry with dry hair, skin, and weak nails. No wonder, I should have been having 81 g of vegan protein. Curiously 81 g was my minimum Protein Power protein recommendation.

Last edited by deirdra : Wed, Sep-07-16 at 09:35.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 09:51
MickiSue MickiSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,006
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 189/148.6/145 Female 5' 5"
BF:36%/28%/25%
Progress: 92%
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 10:10
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

My goal is not to live forever as a bag of bones. Rosedale's suggestion that a good target for a 5'7" would be 110-120 lbs is Twiggy skinny, unless he means LBM, not target lean weight (the fact that he interchanges the two terms in the FAQs, when they can be 8-25% apart depending on the man or woman's target, does not inspire confidence). I'm 5'6" and my LBM (using the proper definition: body weight minus fat weight) was 107 lbs at my fattest and 103 lbs at my ideal weight (measured in a tank, so accurate LBMs). Is he suggesting women should aim for 2-8% body fat? If they get sick, they'd have no reserve to help fight it off...oops, there goes longevity.

Last edited by deirdra : Wed, Sep-07-16 at 10:16.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 10:52
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,843
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I've decided to change things around a bit based on this discussion. In particular, the "pulsed" protein consumption thing caught my interest. I'm going to work at getting the bulk of my protein in the morning with a good protein breakfast followed by more at lunch. Then dinner will be a salad or something. I remember I did something similar when I was trying Dr. Krauss's diet. It was really tough to eat all the protein he recommended, but it sure killed my appetite.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 11:09
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,284
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

I gave the lower protein a go for a couple of days to see how I would do. It made me hungry and irritable. I went back up to the amount my body had settled on before this foray into lower protein and things are back to normal. I heard a talk by someone whose name I've forgotten where he discusses the difference between laboratory data and clinical data. He is a clinician and says that when you are dealing with real people in the real world clinical data always wins out over what happens in a petri dish, or in specially raised and bred mice and the like. No matter how much sense your theory might make it has to work in the real world which is messy and complicated rather than the pristine world of the laboratory. I wonder if Rosedale and Mercola are just getting caught up in the theory and paying less attention to real people. I am wiling to try new things out but in the final analysis I have to go with my n=1 data. It may be flawed but it's the best I have.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 11:14
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25,585
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/146/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 119%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

I could never live off so little protein, unless I was so ill, I had no appetite. I've heard it said that you'll BE hungry until you get enough protein and I've found that to be true. I've done several runs of strict 80/15/5 eating, with everything weighed and measured accurately and I was eating 2000-3000 calories per day. No matter how much fat I put on my meals, I was still hungry on let's say 1800 calories, 68 g protein. (And yes, I lost weight.)
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 12:16
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 deirdra
My goal is not to live forever as a bag of bones. Rosedale's suggestion that a good target for a 5'7" would be 110-120 lbs is Twiggy skinny, unless he means LBM, not target lean weight (the fact that he interchanges the two terms in the FAQs, when they can be 8-25% apart depending on the man or woman's target, does not inspire confidence). I'm 5'6" and my LBM (using the proper definition: body weight minus fat weight) was 107 lbs at my fattest and 103 lbs at my ideal weight (measured in a tank, so accurate LBMs). Is he suggesting women should aim for 2-8% body fat? If they get sick, they'd have no reserve to help fight it off...oops, there goes longevity.


Deirdra, I would say that, for a 5'7" lady, anything in the region 60 to 63 kg (130 to 140) would not be too much off the beam. There are also good reasons to believe that Rosedale is using Ideal weight and not LBM when determining the mTOR optimum. So in your case a reasonable optimum for 100% animal proteins would be 47 grams per day, as you already calculated in your previous post with a negligible weight and grams difference. Without exercise.
Reply With Quote
  #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?

Last edited by mccoy_3000 : Wed, Sep-07-16 at 12:50.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 14:58
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

Just out of completeness and a little OT, eating & amount of proteins is of course just one the governing factors in longevity, I found useful this excerpt from Dr. Attia's blog. He cites 5 different factors: Insulin, IGF, mTOR, AMP kynase, RAS and 6 ways to manage them.

Quote:
...What can we learn about it in the laboratory, and what can we learn from the rapa experiments in the laboratory? What it appears to tell us is that a signalling environment that does the following is good: one in which insulin is very low, one in which IGF is low, one in which mTORC1 is low, one in which AMP kinase is high, and one in which Ras is low, if you really wanted to be specific. If we were at the candy store and we could have anything, that’s kind of the environment you’re favoring for someone over 40—not the environment I want for my 18-month-old little guy. He’s in growth mode. But for an old geezer like me, that’s a pretty good environment, especially if I can target that to a certain set of cells because I don’t actually want that in my muscles, but I would like that in my liver and I would like that in my adipose tissue.

So how do I control that? Well, I can control that by eating a certain way. I can control that by exercising a certain way, sleeping a certain way, managing stress a certain way, using a bunch of hormones or not using them, and using a bunch of drugs. That’s your toolkit, basically.

....
Quote:
Peter Attia, MD: So basically what I’m telling my patients is really you only need as much protein as is necessary to preserve muscle mass. That’s sort of the goal. The goal is muscle mass. That’s the name of the game. So when we’re seeing nitrogen balance as positive, we’re overdoing it. You can see now you have a sliding scale, which is carbohydrate goes up until you hit your glucose and insulin ceiling, protein comes down until you’re about to erode into muscle mass and slip into positive nitrogen balance, and then fat becomes the delta. So in somebody like me, that’s probably about a 20 percent carb, 20 percent protein, 60 percent fat diet. We’ve talked about this before. Obviously I’ve done everything from vegan to full ketogenic. I mean, I’ve sort of experimented with the entire spectrum of religions, but nevertheless, that’s the framework.

Last edited by mccoy_3000 : Wed, Sep-07-16 at 16:15.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Wed, Sep-07-16, 15:25
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

I just had a look at the official NIH data on daily protein needs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234922/

It turns out they are the values cited by Dr. Rosedale (reference proteins: eggs, milk, meat, fish). The average value is 0.6 g/kg, whereas the average +2SD, that is the 97.5 percentile, is just 0.75.

We all know what that means. On the average, 0.6 g/ks according to the accepted reference is enough.
The value of 0.75 g/kg is going to be enough for 97.5% of adults, that is, 195 people out of 200.

Now, I'm sure these values are being challenged zillions of times, they are based on extensive studies on nitrogen balance though.

Bottom line: The reccomended daily intake for reference (animal) proteins is 0.75 grams per kg of (ideal) body weight. This is a cautious value which guarantees almost everyone from deficiencies. 5 out of 200 people will need higher quantities.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.