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
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Feb-09-22, 02:03
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,725
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default The simple diet switch that could add almost a decade to your life

Quote:
The simple diet switch that could add almost a decade to your life

Norwegian researchers claim to have the answer to boost life expectancy – but it does involve removing some old favourites


Removing steak, sausages and bacon from your diet at the age of 60 in favour of more fish, nuts and beans can add almost a decade onto your life, a study has found.

Myriad studies show that red and processed meats are bad for health, and they have been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease and high blood pressure.

A new study from researchers at the University of Bergen, Norway, has discovered that following an “optimal diet” from the age of 60 adds 9.1 years to the life expectancy of a 60-year-old European man, and 8.1 years for a woman.

Switching from what the researchers called a “traditional Western diet” to a more nutritious menu at the age of 60 means that a man can expect to live to 90, opposed to 81 if he was to stick to his old habits. An average woman of 60 will reach 93, up from 85, the study claimed.

The overall increase in expected lifespan is greater if a person adopts the overhauled feeding regimen at an earlier age, but not by much.

For example, if a 20-year-old woman subscribed to the perfect diet, she would add 10.4 years to her life expectancy – just 2.3 years more than if she was to make the change after consuming sugary drinks and bacon butties while avoiding lentil soup for four decades.

In your 80s? You’ll add an extra three years

Older people can still benefit, the scientists found, as making the change at 80 still adds more than three years to a person’s life expectancy.

While the optimal diet has clear benefits for longer life, it comes at a hefty cost. Red and processed meat are banned, for example, as are drinks sweetened with sugar.

On any given day, the diet states that a person should eat no more than 50g (1.8oz) of white meat – roughly one chicken thigh, 50g of refined grains and half an egg.

Vegetables, fruit, and legumes, however, should become staples, consumed en masse.

In the paper, the researchers stated that the ideal diet features 400g (14oz) of both fruits and vegetables, akin to 10 portions, twice the five-a-day touted by health experts.

As an example, this would mean eating one big tomato, one sweet pepper, mixed salad leaves, half an avocado, a small bowl of vegetable soup, one banana, one orange, one apple, one kiwi and a handful of berries every single day.

The researchers created a computer model which takes into account where a person lives, how old they are and their gender in order to gauge the impact of an improved diet.
Quote:
The perfect daily diet

Whole grains: 225g fresh weight (seven servings; for instance, two thin slices of rye bread, one small bowl of whole grain cereal and some white rice)

Vegetables: 400g (five servings; for example, one big tomato, one sweet pepper, mixed salad leaves, half an avocado and a small bowl of vegetable soup)

Fruits: 400g (five servings; for example, one apple, banana, orange, kiwi and a handful of berries)

Nuts: 25g (one handful)

Legumes: 200g (one big cup of soaked beans, lentils or peas)

Fish: 200g (one big slice of herring)

Eggs: 25g (half an egg)

Milk/dairy: 200g (one cup of yogurt)

Refined grains: 50g (1.5 slices of white bread)

Red meat: Zero

Processed meat: Zero

White meat: 50g (one chicken thigh)

Sugar-sweetened drinks: Zero[
How the diet add could add up

This provided the backbone for the peer-reviewed study, published on Tuesday in the journal Plos Medicine, and subsequently turned into an online tool called the Food4HealthyLife calculator, where a person can input their diet and see how it alters their life expectancy.

“Understanding the relative health potential of different food groups could enable people to make feasible and significant health gains,” the researchers said.

“The Food4HealthyLife calculator could be a useful tool for clinicians, policymakers, and lay-people to understand the health impact of dietary choices.”

The model and calculator breaks down where the biggest gains to life expectancy come from, and eating more legumes was the single best thing a person could do.

Going from none a day, as is typical in the Western diet, to 200g (seven ounces), the same as one big cup of soaked beans, lentils or peas, adds 1.6 years to a 60-year-old’s life expectancy.

Eating 200g of fish a day, roughly one large slice of herring, adds 0.4 years on its own, while skipping red and processed meat adds 1.2 years each.

Dr Lars Fadnes, the lead author of the paper, added: “Research until now has shown health benefits associated with separate food groups or specific diet patterns but given limited information on the health impact of other diet changes. Our modelling methodology has bridged this gap.”

British meat ‘good for the environment’

Gwyn Howells, a sheep farmer in Ponterwyd and the chief executive of Hybu Cig Cymru (Meat Promotion Wales), told The Telegraph: “Red meat is a vital part of a healthy balanced diet contributing essential protein and nutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamin B12.

“But moreover, buying locally-made high quality British and Welsh meat is healthy for us and the environment.

“Unlike overseas food production which can come with higher carbon footprints and high use of chemicals and medicines, the grass which British cattle eat absorb and store thousands of tonnes of carbon, maintaining our iconic British countryside, home to a huge wealth of biodiversity.”


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...st-decade-life/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Feb-09-22, 09:16
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,764
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

I'm sure that the 'researchers' picked and chose from the epidemiological studies using food frequency questions and ignored all the problems with such studies. I'm sure that they have zero data on how accurate their model is in real life.

Almost twenty years ago, I was eating a low-fat, high whole grains, lots of vegetables diet, and taking quite a few prescription drugs to control bad cholesterol levels and high blood glucose. I was overweight and pre-diabetic and the longer I followed that 'healthy' diet, the worse things got. I was doing a lot of exercise. Many of the foods that I was eating didn't taste very good.
My physician advised me to try low-carb eating (Atkin's) and I did so. My foods were most tasty, my weight dropped, my blood chemistry improved and I was rather quickly off all the meds.
At almost twenty years my last blood test showed everything was perfect, I was still down the 55 pounds that I had lost and I was feeling more energetic. I doubt that getting a weekly injection for twenty years would have the same result. I know that I would have less money though.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Feb-09-22, 10:40
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,304
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
I'm sure that the 'researchers' picked and chose from the epidemiological studies using food frequency questions and ignored all the problems with such studies. I'm sure that they have zero data on how accurate their model is in real life.


I reacted similarly. I suspect a garbage in garbage out paradigm, an algorithm built on a very questionable foundation of data, untested in the real world. In other words it's a sand castle.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Feb-09-22, 15:31
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,038
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Deserves to be in the War Zone. Sounds like it's being recommended by a cult. Convenient to cite research that supports this obvious confirmation bias. Now . . . where's my hard salami? I want an appetizer before I season my rib eye . . .
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Feb-09-22, 17:28
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,150
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/162/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Considering the prospects in world politics, I'm not sure that extending my lifespan is such an appealing idea.

Still, at 75, having escaped (so far) many of the afflictions of "old age," I believe that I should thank: Lucky genes. Devotion to exercise. One-Minute Muffins. Dr. Atkins (for starters). Comfortable economic status. Loving communities of faith and social engagement.

It's not as simple as any research concludes.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Feb-09-22, 21:16
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,861
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I can't live that long. My retirement funds only hold out until I'm 90, at best. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Feb-10-22, 13:03
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,214
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Thanks Barbara for being gutsy.... I removed my first response before posting. Im not interested in an extra 8 years.. for a different reason: why outlive friends and my children....

Last fall I started to feel old. I eat better than ever, but the old body has multiple injuries and general wear n tear.

As for the study, my thoughts on beef is two fold. Commercial meats raised or find shed on a grain based diet is far different than wild, grassfed choices. And there is some information that a minority of people are intolerant of beef, which causes heart disease. Yet beef, and bacon and cold cuts get wrapped together as "bad". American made meats are NOT local artisan made meats made in Europe. Problems lie in grain filled, grain laced with herbicides or fungicides or pesticides. Round up used here, banned in Europe. Addatives ..... Yuk.

A friend told me recently that drinking Monster makes him lighted headed and dizzy and crappy. Yet he can drink caffinated coffee with out issue. I pointed out one of the other "ingredients" could be the trigger. Monster is a concoction of additives.

Additives are as common as pesticides in our foods....

I do think about this study as half my genes originated in that northern region....
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Feb-10-22, 13:21
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,889
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

I'm quoting bits and pieces our of order for various reasons.

Quote:
Removing steak, sausages and bacon from your diet at the age of 60 in favour of more fish, nuts and beans can add almost a decade onto your life, a study has found.

Quote:
Red and processed meat are banned, for example, as are drinks sweetened with sugar.

Quote:
Myriad studies show that red and processed meats are bad for health, and they have been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease and high blood pressure.

Quote:
On any given day, the diet states that a person should eat no more than 50g (1.8oz) of white meat – roughly one chicken thigh, 50g of refined grains and half an egg.

Quote:
Refined grains: 50g (1.5 slices of white bread)

Quote:
Red meat: Zero

Processed meat: Zero

White meat: 50g (one chicken thigh)

Sugar-sweetened drinks: Zero

Quote:
Eating 200g of fish a day, roughly one large slice of herring, adds 0.4 years on its own, while skipping red and processed meat adds 1.2 years each.

Funny how they barely mentioned sugary drinks and refined grains as a problem, but harp on how bad red and processed meat are for you over and over.


This next bunch...
Quote:
Removing steak, sausages and bacon from your diet at the age of 60 in favour of more fish, nuts and beans

Quote:
Fish: 200g (one big slice of herring)

Quote:
Eating 200g of fish a day, roughly one large slice of herring, adds 0.4 years on its own, while skipping red and processed meat adds 1.2 years each.

My first thought was concerning how that works out with the fact that there's mercury in all fish
Quote:

List of Seafood and Fish That Are Lowest in Mercury Levels and Content

Considered safe to eat by pregnant women and young children in moderation, two 6-ounce portions spread out over the course of a week.

Which fish are low in mercury content and safest to eat?
  • Scallop
  • Clam
  • Anchovies
  • Salmon
  • Shrimp
  • Pacific oysters
  • Sardines
  • Herring
  • Pollock
  • Trout
  • Catfish
  • Anchovies
  • Atlantic and Pacific mackerel
  • Fish sticks, other fast-food fish, etc.
  • Canned, light tuna. Note. Albacore tuna has more mercury than light tuna. The EPA recommendation for albacore tuna is only one 6-ounce can a week.
  • Cod
  • Sablefish

https://www.websitewithnoname.com/2...ent-levels.html
Yes, that website sounds rather sketchy - "website with no name"?

Still, the general information seems to be accurate - small fish with short lifespans have less mercury than larger fish with longer lifespans. My point is that even the 200 g of herring this optimal diet says you need to eat every single day is the equivalent of the maximum you should consume twice a week to avoid excess mercury. (specifically mentioned for young children and pregnant women, but that doesn't mean more than that is good for someone over age 60 who has consumed any mercury contaminated fish at all during their life)


Then there's the fruit. legumes, and whole grains:
Quote:
Vegetables, fruit, and legumes, however, should become staples, consumed en masse.

In the paper, the researchers stated that the ideal diet features 400g (14oz) of both fruits and vegetables, akin to 10 portions, twice the five-a-day touted by health experts.

As an example, this would mean eating one big tomato, one sweet pepper, mixed salad leaves, half an avocado, a small bowl of vegetable soup, one banana, one orange, one apple, one kiwi and a handful of berries every single day.


We don't need to go into the details about which of those are technically fruits and which are technically vegetables to meet the requirements of this diet, but the carb content alone is more than a lot of people should be eating, especially anyone with diabetes who hopes to truly control their blood sugar - and that's before you add in the amount of carbs from the legumes (1 cup daily) and 7 servings of whole grains.


Quote:
A new study from researchers at the University of Bergen, Norway, has discovered that following an “optimal diet” from the age of 60 adds 9.1 years to the life expectancy of a 60-year-old European man, and 8.1 years for a woman.

Switching from what the researchers called a “traditional Western diet” to a more nutritious menu at the age of 60 means that a man can expect to live to 90, opposed to 81 if he was to stick to his old habits. An average woman of 60 will reach 93, up from 85, the study claimed.



So the question I would need to ask myself - is it really worth how miserable that diet would make me feel, just to gain a few extra years of life? It's not just because of how all those carbs would mess with my overall health, but also the lack of red meat and the pitiful amount of other protein sources, the gut misery from pushing that much legume, whole grain, fruit and veggie consumption every single day - Is dealing with all that really worth it just to live a few extra years, years that will be miserable years as that diet continues to deteriorate my health?

I don't know about the rest of you, but even if I believed they haven't twisted the data to come to that conclusion, I don't see the advantage of living a few extra years if I need to spend more than 30 years feeling awful to do it.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Feb-15-22, 16:21
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,038
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Here is a good counterpoint to the very misguided plant-based claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VY8YNhEpXw
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sat, Mar-12-22, 10:18
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,573
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/150/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: NE WA
Default

When they change everything at once it's impossible to pinpoint which changes do any good. They should start with eliminating sugar and go on from there with wheat & other grains. Of course, it would be a very difficult & expensive study.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Wed, May-04-22, 11:05
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,673
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

My biggest health crisis (ranked in terms of bodily suffering) was the holidays of 2019, where the stress of DH's serious illness resulted in too much sugar and gluten free frozen meals which had corn, which I know now is a cross-reactor for me.

I had the worst flare-up of my autoimmune ever (and hopefully so moving into the more informed future) and was panicked about the next step, the immune-suppressing drugs, which my GP warned me about before he retired. Fortunately, I remembered the Wahls Protocol was based on all autoimmune disease having the same source, and I went on a crash program to implement it. And it worked!

AND I need more protein that those charts say. Especially now, when I'm healing. I have to dodge carbs AND lectins AND fiber so they would try to kill me in many many ways...

And this seems made up to me. They didn't actually do this for thirty years and then unveil it, right?
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, May-05-22, 09:04
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,889
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
~snip~

And this seems made up to me. They didn't actually do this for thirty years and then unveil it, right?



Has anyone come across any evidence that they actually did a 30 year controlled study to come to their conclusions?



Or were they just using (highly unreliable) food recall questionnaires?


If that's the case, who in their 80's and 90's can recall how many servings they ate daily of specific types of foods 1 year ago, much less 30 years ago?



I think this shows exactly what they actually did to come to the conclusion that you could follow this highly restrictive diet and extend your life by a few years:
Quote:
“The Food4HealthyLife calculator could be a useful tool for clinicians, policymakers, and lay-people to understand the health impact of dietary choices.”

The model and calculator breaks down where the biggest gains to life expectancy come from, and eating more legumes was the single best thing a person could do.

Going from none a day, as is typical in the Western diet, to 200g (seven ounces), the same as one big cup of soaked beans, lentils or peas, adds 1.6 years to a 60-year-old’s life expectancy.

Eating 200g of fish a day, roughly one large slice of herring, adds 0.4 years on its own, while skipping red and processed meat adds 1.2 years each.




They apparently punched all those different (supposedly) desirable foods into their life expectancy computer program, and the (supposed) life extension benefit of eating a certain amount of each one, then added those up, and - TA-DA!!! An extra 8.1 to 9.1 years of life, assuming you make each and every one of those changes every day of your life for a period of 30 years after age 60.


And if you succumb to accident, communicable disease, or even to family genetics before you're able to spend the full age 60-90 on their diet, then you obviously didn't fully follow the 30 year timetable, so of course it won't work.


Yes I'm quite skeptical about it. I'm seeing the required timetable as a built-in excuse and proof that their diet really works - you just need to be able to live long enough to stick to it for 30 years after you reach age 60.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, May-05-22, 10:56
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,673
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
Yes I'm quite skeptical about it. I'm seeing the required timetable as a built-in excuse and proof that their diet really works - you just need to be able to live long enough to stick to it for 30 years after you reach age 60.


So it's literally pie in the sky when you die?
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Fri, May-06-22, 16:27
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,961
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

Seems like every day the veggies come up with another "meat is bad" article.

If I ate that suggested diet, I'd be 300 pounds like my parents were and my siblings are. That's not good for longevity.

Personally, I think eating meat is good for your brain. Just think of the animal kingdom. Does anyone say "smart as a cow?" They do say "Sly as a fox".

I think eating grass-fed beef is good for you. I have no studies to back that up, but I'm 75, on zero medications, and my doc says I have the circulation system of a healthy 50 year old.

Without a long term CONTROLLED double-blind study with a lot of participants you can easily manipulate the statistics to say anything you want. Even then you still can, but it's more difficult to do.

And a long term study like this on humans is not ethical.

Mark Twain said this. "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I think we may be dealing with the third option here.

You can look at the 'blue zones' and say they all eat the Mediterranean Diet, but they don't. You can also say they all have high mineral content in their drinking water, which they do. But neither statement proves anything.

One more thing, if one diet plan was best for everybody, there would only need to be one diet book.

Bob
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 22:36.


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