About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 180

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 8:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good comeback, Bill.
Thank you, Ed. I thought it was too. ;-)
Illogical (full of fallacy), to be sure, but rhetorically well-written.
Now, wait a minute!
I have to admire that.
Admire what you think is illogical?? Whoa! Oh, you mean, admire the rhetorical part! Well, I'll take whatever admiration I can get!
I see that you have much personal investment in whether or not you've been eating optimally for the last 30 years -- and that this clouds your reasoning capabilities, when faced with superior alternatives. Starting off so smart, and so argumentatively skillful -- is, in this case, an ironic pitfall.
But, Ed, this is not some rhetorical legerdemain or nutritional sophistry. It's hard, empirical evidence. My health improved as a consequence of the diet. What other conclusion would you have me draw? I was eating the higher fat, higher protein diet before, and it was causing me to have high cholesterol and high blood pressure, even though I was already a dedicated distance runner, clicking off five and half-minute miles in road races. It was only after I went on the Pritikin diet that my cholesterol dropped dramatically and my blood pressure came down. It would be silly to conclude that these changes had nothing to do with the diet, especially since they parallel changes that other people have observed on the Pritikin diet. Everyone I know personally who has been on it has observed similar results. Plus, all of the epidemiological as well as controlled population studies show these benefits.
So, when I offer study after study after study, showing the statistical superiority of a higher fat, higher protein diet -- you, like the wild-eyed religionist, will be compelled to re-interpret the data in a manner that allows you to save face (rather than to kick yourself for eating sub-optimally for the past 30 years).
You've got to be kidding! Why would I kick myself for eating "sub-optimally," when I'm healthier now than when I was 30 years ago?! The studies you cite have not refuted the benefits of the Pritikin diet. What they have shown is the disadvantages of eating refined carbohydrates on a higher fat diet, which I don't dispute, but this does not constitute a refutation of Pritikin.
You are likely healthier than the average US citizen in your age-bracket, Bill -- and that, statistically, means nothing.
Ed, I am healthier than the average US citizen in YOUR age bracket. In fact, I'm healthier than the average US citizen in ANY age bracket, and I'm approaching 70!
Think in big numbers, Bill -- then you will see the sub-optimality of Pritikin that I have so plainly laid out.
If you want big numbers, Ed, the biggest numbers you'll get are the epidemiological studies, all of which show the superiority of the Pritikin diet over every other diet known to man. The studies have been done; you have only to acknowledge them.

- Bill



Post 181

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great comeback, Bill!

Especially moving was this ...

Ed, I am healthier than the average US citizen in YOUR age bracket. In fact, I'm healthier than the average US citizen in ANY age bracket, and I'm approaching 70!
 
Now THAT's a great quote. And, the trouble is, I DON'T DOUBT YOU! Lemme' ask you this, Bill -- did you read the Ross Horne link that I provided in the NP thread (about how pure Pritikin -- without any changes -- leads to increased cancer)?
 
 
If you want big numbers, Ed, the biggest numbers you'll get are the epidemiological studies, all of which show the superiority of the Pritikin diet over every other diet known to man. The studies have been done; you have only to acknowledge them.
 
Bill, how am I to acknowledge that which you have not marshalled, huh? I'd LOVE to discuss the hard evidence with you, Bill (you just haven't provided any).
 
Ed




Post 182

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't try to get into this health discussion as my soft mid section will demonstrate I don't know jack about being healthy. Interesting to read though.

And Bill I think you have put me to shame. I'm 30 years old and you sound like you're in better health than I have ever been. You are definitly a source of great inspiration, I hope you live indefinitely! How do you stay dedicated to a healthy regimen like that? I try to eat healthy, but man those Pizzas and burgers taste real good!

Great Philosopher, Economist, and health guru. Jesus Bill is there anything you're not good at? :)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 183

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed Thompson wrote to Bill Dwyer:
Lemme' ask you this, Bill -- did you read the Ross Horne link that I provided in the NP thread (about how pure Pritikin -- without any changes -- leads to increased cancer)?
I'm sure that this information is irrelevant to Bill because, even if he is practicing "pure Pritikin," there is no cancer in him to increase. But all of you folks out there with cancer, be very careful about doing "pure Pritikin," for it will (may?) cause your cancer to increase.

Best wishes to all,
Horst Achter,
Veteran Aryan





Post 184

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 12:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Finally, a thinker who is willing to accept the statistical factoid (ie. that extra carbs means extra cancer)!

Ed
[cancer is responsible for the most years-of-life-lost -- even if CVD is responsible for the most total deaths).




Post 185

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(I crossed posted this to the other thread)

Ed, I don't know why you think that these studies are somehow refutations of the Pritikin diet. For one thing, they don't take into account other dietary components, like percentage of total fat, and they don't specify whether or not the rice and pasta were whole grain. Also, the Mediterranean diet you cited sounds very much like the Pritikin diet, with its emphasis on fruits and vegetables, whole grains and fish. Such a diet, according to your citation, prevents 80% of coronary heart disease, 70% of stroke and 90% of Type 2 diabetes. What a great recommendation for Pritikin!

As for Horne's reference to cancer appearing among long-term Pritikinites, that's interesting, but I don't think it proves that the diet caused their cancer. How old were they, what kind of cancer was it, etc., are questions that need to be addressed. It should be noted that Pritikin's blood cancer, which he had before he discovered his diet, went into remission shortly after he started on it and stayed in remission for, I believe, 25 years until he had a relapse at the age of 69. Also, the Pritikin diet is in some respects similar to the macrobiotic diet, which has been shown to retard the growth of cancer. So I would be surprised if it were somehow linked to an increased rate of cancer. That's why it's important to examine these alleged cases of cancer very carefully, since no controlled studies have been done verifying them, and since a low-calorie diet, which the Pritikin tends to be, has been shown to reduce the risk of cancer in laboratory animals.

The epidemiological studies I referred to are cited in Pritikin's books, one of which you have, so check the references. These refer principally to heart disease and its absence in societies that follow a diet that is very close to the one he recommends, e.g., the Tarahuma Indians of Northern Mexico, the natives of Papua, New Guinea, etc.

Horne notes, "By dietary change alone Pritikin reduced his blood cholesterol reading from 280 m% to 110, an achievement still considered impossible by most doctors today." I reduced mine from 250 to 115 by dietary change alone. I guess that would also be considered impossible by most doctors. In fact, when I told one doctor about my dramatic reduction on the Pritikin diet, he refused to believe it.

John, thanks for the compliment. Stay away from the fast food. When I was your age, my total cholesterol was 250, which was very high for someone that young. So, there's still time! :-) But if you have to eat fast food, Subway is just about the best.

- Bill



Post 186

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, Ed,

What is the status of a mostly high-protein diet?  When I was playing soccer, even with a high dose of weight training, I stuggled putting on muscle mass.  I noticed certain protein drinks, bars helped me gain muscle that I didn't have when I was training (without them).  Is it unhealthy to have a diet high in these?  Even if the diet is pretty low in fat and carbohydrates?  I've heard claims its bad for your kidneys, but I haven't seen hard data.

Michael




Post 187

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is what I understand to be the downsides to too much protein, although Ed, who favors a very high protein diet, will probably disagree, as he believes that this effect can be offset by adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables. At any rate, I'll present the evidence as cited in the literature, according to which high animal protein intake can cause a negative calcium balance, because of the highly acidic condition that it produces in the blood. The body, in an effort to maintain a certain pH balance, will endeavor to alkalinize the blood by taking calcium from the bones, thereby gradually thinning them over a period of many years.

One study showed that a 16-percent-protein diet can produce negative calcium even in young men who take 1400-mg calcium supplements each day. (Linkswiler, H.M., et al. Calcium retention of young adult males as affected by level of protein and of calcium intake. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1974, Ser. II, 36:333-40.) Conversely, it was found that a low protein diet of 50 grams per day produced a positive calcium balance even with as little as 500 mg of calcium per day. (Anand C. Effect of protein intake on calcium balance of young men given 500 mg calcium daily. J. Nutr. 104:695, 1974.) Here is another study that showed a negative calcium balance on high protein diets: Schuette, S. A., et al. Studies on the mechanism of protein-induced hypercalciuria in older men and women. J. Nutr., 1980, 110:305-15.

Excessive protein not only causes a negative balance of calcium but negative mineral balances of magnesium and zinc as well. (Hunt, S.M., and Schofield, F.A. Magnesium balance and protein intake level in adult human females. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 1969, 22:367-73.; Mahalko, J.R., et al. Effect of a moderate increase in dietary protein on the retention and excretion of Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, P, and Zn by adult males. Am J. Clin. Nutr., 1983, 37:8-14.) Of course, the high rates of osteoporosis, especially in older women, are due not only to the loss of estrogen at menopause, but also to the gradual thinning of the bones due to excess protein consumption throughout life. Vegetarians at the age of 70 have stronger bones than meat eaters at the age of 50. On very high protein diets of 225 grams a day, it has been estimated that adults will lose 4 percent of their skeleton per year, even while taking over a 1000 mg of calcium a day. (Allen L. Protein-induced hypercalciuria: a longer term study. Am J Clin Nutr 32:741, 1979.)

What about the effect of high protein diets on the kidneys? Kidney function in developed populations begins to decline around the age of 30 and by 70 or 80, has dropped as much as 50% in normal people; those with diabetes, hypertension or heart disease can actually go into kidney failure. The decline in kidney function results from glomerular sclerosis, a thickening of the wall of the afferent arteriole. The thicker the vessel becomes, the smaller the opening, until it can completely close and cut off blood supply to the glomerulus, leading to failure. Kidney mass increases with long-term, high-protein diets. Sustained elevated glomerular filtration rates are responsible for the increase of kidney mass seen in animals maintained on high-protein diets. Ralph Nelson, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic has reported an increase of kidney mass in 20-year-old football players on high-protein diets. (Nelson, R. A. Quoted in "Are we eating too much protein?" Med. World News., November 8, 1974, p. 106., as cited in The Pritikin Promise, p. 391, 392)

As for getting too little protein, "Highlanders in Papua New Guinea have been studied extensively because of their very-low-protein diet (4.4 percent of total calories) which by Western standards would seem to guarantee malnutrition, ill health, and protein deficiency. But the new Guineans have none of these conditions, and in fact not only are healthy and muscular and do heavy work, but are free of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and breast and colon cancer.

"For generations their diet has been limited to sweet potatoes, sweet-potato leaves, and a pig feast every 2 or 3 years. The adult male eats 2300 calories per day -- three meals of 2 kg of sweet potatoes and 200 g of sweet-potato leaves. Nutritional analysis, which includes an average of the 14 types of sweet potatoes eaten, showed: carbohydrates, 93 percent of total calories; protein, 4.4 percent; fat, 2.6 percent, and essentially no cholesterol.

"The amino acid pattern, as compared with the FAO recommended pattern, was grossly inadequate. Only phenylalanine and tyrosine met the standards. Isoleucine and lysine were at 50 percent of standard, and methionine and cystine were less than 25 percent of the recommended standard.

"They eat only 25 g of protein - all of it derived from plants - per day. No clinical evidence of malnutrition has been noted since these New Guineans were first studied in the 1930s. Hemoglobin and serum albumin levels are normal, and even by European standards, both men and women are at just about their ideal weight in their early 20s. Obesity is practically nonexistent.

"Physical-fitness testing, using the Harvard Pack Test, demonstrated the New Guineans to be measurably superior in fitness to the people of Australia, whose male adults consume 100 g of mainly animal protein per day.

"Unlike more developed populations, New Guineans show no rise in either systolic or diastolic blood pressure with age. Neither cholesterol levels (adult males and females average 150 mg/dl) nor fasting glucose levels change with age. A total of 777 New Guineans from 15 to 65 years old were tested with 100 g of glucose in a standard glucose-tolerance test, and no cases of diabetes were found. None of the more developed nations in the world that have high-protein and high-fat diets can even approach these standards.

"No children were found who had Kwashiorkor, or nutritional marasmus, and no cases of vitamin deficiency or nutritional edema could be found in the entire tribal community of 1489 people, of whom only 2 persons did not wish to be examined. In addition, serum albumin levels were within normal limits, and hemoglobin values were normal for that altitude.

"Cardiovascular disease, the principal killer in developed countries, was almost nonexistent, even though 21 percent of the population was over 40 years old. Only 2 gave a history compatible with the possibility of angina pectoris, and no hypertensive disease, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease was seen. No evidence of a previous cerebrovascular accident or Parkinson's disease was found.

"Yet 70 percent of the adult males and 20 percent of the females smoke home-grown tobacco. Apparently the smoking risk factor will not increase the danger of atherosclerosis on a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet." The Pritikin Promise, p. 387, 388.)

One additional point about the positive results you observed on athletic performance from protein supplementation: The body will adapt to a certain level of protein intake, excreting any excess in the urine. If you increase the amount of protein, especially of the branch-chain amino acids, your body will respond by using the excess protein to build muscle in response to the exercise. But body builders have told me that if you continue the higher intake of protein, your body will adapt to it, and you will no longer notice the same initial benefits. Similarly, If one lowers one's normal consumption of protein, there will be a temporary deficit of protein, as the kidneys are accustomed to excreting a certain amount, and one will go into negative nitrogen balance until the body adapts to the change.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/24, 7:10pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/24, 7:14pm)




Post 188

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This thread has thoroughly hijacked (more later) ...

Ed




Post 189

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, quit bringing up the Papau New Guineans (they have a nitrifying bacteria in their gut that recycles protein for them!) -- you're throwing this discussion off of the relevant facts, when you do that. In this respect, you're like a toddler with a shot-gun.

;-)

Michael, a better (yes, eat your heart out, Bill!) answer to your question is found here.

Ed




Post 190

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 1:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

It's impossible (given known physiologic limits) for these Highlanders to eat 25 grams of protein a day -- and to be muscular. This is because of Obligatory Nitrogen Loss ...

Protein and amino acid requirements of adults: current controversies. Can J Appl Physiol. 2001;26 Suppl:S130-40.
 
The wide range of reported values for the minimum protein intake for N equilibrium in adults, i.e. 0.39 to 1.09 g/kg is best explained by an Adaptive Metabolic Demands model in which metabolic demands include amino acid oxidation at a rate varying with habitual protein intake and which changes slowly with dietary change.

Thus within the reported data the true minimum requirement intake, the lowest values in the range at intakes approaching the Obligatory Nitrogen Loss, allows only fully adapted subjects to achieve N equilibrium.
Recap:
Folks lose -- at minimum -- 0.39 grams of protein per kilogram of their body weight in an obligatory manner (a manner which cannot be "stopped"). Some of this will be in the perspiration, some in the urine, and some in the feces. If you had a 100-kg Highlander, then he'd lose -- at minimum
m -- 39 grams of protein per day.

25 grams of protein per day couldn't ever support a body weight of over 140 lbs (due to Obligatory Nitrogen Loss). The only acceptable explanation of the muscularity of the Highlanders -- is nitrogen-recycling (from intestinal bacteria).

Ed





Post 191

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,
I didn't have access to the link, I not a member of RoRFitness.  Can you repost it or send it to me?
Thank you,
Michael

(Edited by Michael Moeller on 5/25, 8:05am)




Post 192

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 8:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Talk about hijacking a thread - from Black Hate Radio (what a theme!) to the protein requirements for Papua New Guineans. Is there a connection in there some where? Let's see, New Guineans are people of color... New Guineans hate their diets... Nah, that's stretching it! :+) :+)

At the risk of prolonging the hijack, let me ask you, Ed, Oh Oracle of Nutritional Mystery, what is the average weight of these folks, who, I would imagine, are of pretty small stature. However muscular, I can't imagine they weigh a lot. Do you know?

- Bill





Post 193

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here you go, Michael ...

Here's a few studies saying somewhat similar things about the big 3 macronutrients (protein, carbs, and fats) ...


Almonds vs complex carbohydrates in a weight reduction program. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Nov;27(11):1365-72.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an almond-enriched (high monounsaturated fat, MUFA) or complex carbohydrate-enriched (high carbohydrate) formula-based low-calorie diet (LCD) on anthropometric, body composition and metabolic parameters in a weight reduction program.

INTERVENTION: A formula-based LCD enriched with 84 g/day of almonds (almond-LCD; 39% total fat, 25% MUFA and 32% carbohydrate as percent of dietary energy) or self-selected complex carbohydrates (CHO-LCD; 18% total fat, 5% MUFA and 53% carbohydrate as percent of dietary energy) featuring equivalent calories and protein.

RESULTS: LCD supplementation with almonds, in contrast to complex carbohydrates, was associated with greater reductions in weight/BMI (-18 vs -11%), waist circumference (WC) (-14 vs -9%), fat mass (FM) (-30 vs -20%), total body water (-8 vs -1%) and systolic blood pressure (-11 vs 0%), P=0.0001-0.05.

A 62% greater reduction in weight/BMI, 50% greater reduction in WC and 56% greater reduction in FM were observed in the almond-LCD as compared to the CHO-LCD intervention.

Among subjects with type 2 diabetes, diabetes medication reductions were sustained or further reduced in a greater proportion of almond-LCD as compared to CHO-LCD subjects (96 vs 50%, respectively) [correction].


Recap:
Replacing complex carbohydrates with almonds (something higher in fat) -- helped folks lose body fat (and reversed -- though did not "cure" -- type 2 diabetes).



Trends in intake of energy and macronutrients--United States, 1971-2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004 Feb 6;53(4):80-2.
 
During 1971-2000, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 14.5% to 30.9%.
 
This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicate that, during 1971--2000, mean energy intake in kcals increased, mean percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased, and mean percentage of kcals from total fat and saturated fat decreased.
 
Recap:
We've proportionally increased carbohydrate intake -- and decreased fat intake -- and we're now twice as fat as 30 years ago.

 

Insulin, macronutrient intake, and physical activity: are potential indicators of insulin resistance associated with mortality from breast cancer? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Jul;13(7):1163-72.

Higher dietary protein intake was associated with better survival for all women (relative risk, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8, comparing highest to lowest quartile).

Recap:
An increase in dietary protein was associated with a statistically-significant 60% reduction in mortality in breast cancer patients.



Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1175-84.
 
RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) total fat intake was 25 +/- 6% of energy. In multivariate analyses, a higher saturated fat intake was associated with a smaller decline in mean minimal coronary diameter (P = 0.001) and less progression of coronary stenosis (P = 0.002) during follow-up.
 
Compared with a 0.22-mm decline in the lowest quartile of intake, there was a 0.10-mm decline in the second quartile (P = 0.002), a 0.07-mm decline in the third quartile (P = 0.002), and no decline in the fourth quartile (P < 0.001); P for trend = 0.001.
 
This inverse association was more pronounced among women with lower monounsaturated fat (P for interaction = 0.04) and higher carbohydrate (P for interaction = 0.004) intakes and possibly lower total fat intake (P for interaction = 0.09).
 
Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression (P = 0.001), particularly when the glycemic index was high. Polyunsaturated fat intake was positively associated with progression when replacing other fats (P = 0.04) but not when replacing carbohydrate or protein. Monounsaturated and total fat intakes were not associated with progression.
 
CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression.
Recap:
Higher saturated fat (replacing carbohydrates) was associated with a halted atherosclerotic progression.



Effects of protein, monounsaturated fat, and carbohydrate intake on blood pressure and serum lipids: results of the OmniHeart randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Nov 16;294(19):2455-64.

INTERVENTIONS: A diet rich in carbohydrates; a diet rich in protein, about half from plant sources; and a diet rich in unsaturated fat, predominantly monounsaturated fat.

RESULTS: Blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and estimated coronary heart disease risk were lower on each diet compared with baseline. Compared with the carbohydrate diet, the protein diet further decreased mean systolic blood pressure by 1.4 mm Hg (P = .002) and by 3.5 mm Hg (P = .006) among those with hypertension and decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 3.3 mg/dL (0.09 mmol/L; P = .01), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 1.3 mg/dL (0.03 mmol/L; P = .02), and triglycerides by 15.7 mg/dL (0.18 mmol/L; P<.001).

Compared with the carbohydrate diet, the unsaturated fat diet decreased systolic blood pressure by 1.3 mm Hg (P = .005) and by 2.9 mm Hg among those with hypertension (P = .02), had no significant effect on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 1.1 mg/dL (0.03 mmol/L; P = .03), and lowered triglycerides by 9.6 mg/dL (0.11 mmol/L; P = .02).

Compared with the carbohydrate diet, estimated 10-year coronary heart disease risk was lower and similar on the protein and unsaturated fat diets.

CONCLUSION: In the setting of a healthful diet, partial substitution of carbohydrate with either protein or monounsaturated fat can further lower blood pressure, improve lipid levels, and reduce estimated cardiovascular risk.

Recap:
A diet rich in protein reduces cardiovascular risk.



The metabolic response to a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet in men with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism. 2006 Feb;55(2):243-51.
 
We recently reported that in subjects with untreated type 2 diabetes mellitus, a 5-week diet of 20:30:50 carbohydrate-protein-fat ratio resulted in a dramatic decrease in 24-hour integrated glucose and total glycohemoglobin compared with a control diet of 55:15:30.
 
We now present data on other hormones and metabolites considered to be affected by dietary macronutrient changes.
 
Urinary pH and calcium were unchanged.
 
The calculated urea production rate accounted for 87% of protein ingested on the control diet, but only 67% on the test diet, suggesting net nitrogen retention on the latter. The lack of negative effects, improved glucose control, and a positive nitrogen balance suggest beneficial effects for subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus at risk for loss of lean body mass.
Recap:
For diabetics, 5 weeks on a diet with 30% protein -- as opposed to a diet with 15% protein -- improved glycemic control, spares lean body mass, and had no negative effect on calcium balance.



Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression 1. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Feb;83(2):260-74.

A total of 87 studies comprising 165 intervention groups met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: After control for energy intake, diets consisting of < or =35-41.4% energy from carbohydrate were associated with a 1.74 kg greater loss of body mass, a 0.69 kg greater loss of fat-free mass, a 1.29% greater loss in percentage body fat, and a 2.05 kg greater loss of fat mass than were diets with a higher percentage of energy from carbohydrate.

In studies that were conducted for >12 wk, these differences increased to 6.56 kg, 1.74 kg, 3.55%, and 5.57 kg, respectively.

Protein intakes of >1.05 g/kg were associated with 0.60 kg additional fat-free mass retention compared with diets with protein intakes < or =1.05 g/kg. In studies conducted for >12 wk, this difference increased to 1.21 kg. No significant effects of protein intake on loss of either body mass or fat mass were observed.

CONCLUSION: Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets favorably affect body mass and composition independent of energy intake, which in part supports the proposed metabolic advantage of these diets.
Recap:
Calorie for calorie, lower-carbohydrate diets cause an extra 12+ pounds (5.57kg) of fat loss, over-and-above what higher-carbohydrate reducing diets do. This is called a 'metabolic advantage.'



Diet, evolution and aging--the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet. Eur J Nutr. 2001 Oct;40(5):200-13.

Theoretically, we humans should be better adapted physiologically to the diet our ancestors were exposed to during millions of years of hominid evolution than to the diet we have been eating since the agricultural revolution a mere 10,000 years ago, and since industrialization only 200 years ago.

Among the many health problems resulting from this mismatch between our genetically determined nutritional requirements and our current diet, some might be a consequence in part of the deficiency of potassium alkali salts (K-base), which are amply present in the plant foods that our ancestors ate in abundance, and the exchange of those salts for sodium chloride (NaCl), which has been incorporated copiously into the contemporary diet, which at the same time is meager in K-base-rich plant foods. Deficiency of K-base in the diet increases the net systemic acid load imposed by the diet.

We know that clinically-recognized chronic metabolic acidosis has deleterious effects on the body, including growth retardation in children, decreased muscle and bone mass in adults, and kidney stone formation, and that correction of acidosis can ameliorate those conditions.

Is it possible that a lifetime of eating diets that deliver evolutionarily superphysiologic loads of acid to the body contribute to the decrease in bone and muscle mass, and growth hormone secretion, which occur normally with age? That is, are contemporary humans suffering from the consequences of chronic, diet-induced low-grade systemic metabolic acidosis?

Our group has shown that contemporary net acid-producing diets do indeed characteristically produce a low-grade systemic metabolic acidosis in otherwise healthy adult subjects, and that the degree of acidosis increases with age, in relation to the normally occurring age-related decline in renal functional capacity.

Can we provide dietary guidelines for controlling dietary net acid loads to minimize or eliminate diet-induced and age-amplified chronic low-grade metabolic acidosis and its pathophysiological sequelae. We discuss the use of algorithms to predict the diet net acid and provide nutritionists and clinicians with relatively simple and reliable methods for determining and controlling the net acid load of the diet.

A more difficult question is what level of acidosis is acceptable. We argue that any level of acidosis may be unacceptable from an evolutionarily perspective, and indeed, that a low-grade metabolic alkalosis may be the optimal acid-base state for humans.

Recap:
Acidity'll get ya'. Here are some of the most acid (+) -- and most alkaline (-) -- foods (per 100 gram portions) ...

Acidifiers

Processed cheese ........+28.7
Hard cheese........+19.2
Brown rice........+12.5
Rolled oats........+10.7
Whole wheat bread........+8.2
Eggs........+8.1
Pork........+7.9
Beef........+7.8
Herring........+7.0

Alkalinizers

Spinach........-14.0
Celery........-5.2
Carrots........-4.9
Apricots........-4.8
Zucchini........-4.6
Kiwifruit........-4.1
Cauliflower........-4.0
Radishes........-3.7
Cherries........-3.6



Dietary protein: an essential nutrient for bone health. J Am Coll Nutr. 2005 Dec;24(6 Suppl):526S-36S.

In sharp opposition to experimental and clinical evidence, it has been alleged that proteins, particularly those from animal sources, might be deleterious for bone health by inducing chronic metabolic acidosis which in turn would be responsible for increased calciuria and accelerated mineral dissolution.

This claim is based on an hypothesis that artificially assembles various notions, including in vitro observations on the physical-chemical property of apatite crystal, short term human studies on the calciuric response to increased protein intakes, as well as retrospective inter-ethnic comparisons on the prevalence of hip fractures.

The main purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence that refutes a relation of causality between the elements of this putative patho-physiological "cascade" that purports that animal proteins are causally associated with an increased incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, many experimental and clinical published data concur to indicate that low protein intake negatively affects bone health.

In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures.

As to the increased calciuria that can be observed in response to an augmentation in either animal or vegetal proteins it can be explained by a stimulation of the intestinal calcium absorption. Dietary proteins also enhance IGF-1, a factor that exerts positive activity on skeletal development and bone formation.

Consequently, dietary proteins are as essential as calcium and vitamin D for bone health and osteoporosis prevention. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures.
Recap:
Higher protein diets are good for bones.


Ed





Post 194

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, here you go ...

The body composition of New Guinean adults in contrasting environments. Ann Hum Biol. 1982 Jul-Aug;9(4):343-53.

 
The two groups experienced different physical, biological and social environments, the highland group being less exposed to new influences.

These New Guineans were short in stature (men 1.61 SD 0.05 m, women 1.52 SD 0.05 m), light in weight (men 57.4 SD 5.0 kg, women 49.4 SD 5.4 kg), lean (men 10 SD 4% fat, women 21 SD 4% fat) and muscular compared with most European populations.

Highland men had greater body weights and fat-free masses than coastal men but stature, body density, skinfold thickness and fat mass were similar in the two groups.

Recap:
Highlanders weighed only 126 lbs (57.4 kg) -- "featherweights".


Utilization of urea nitrogen in Papua New Guinea highlanders. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 1985 Jun;31(3):393-402.
 
Their daily protein intake (32.2 +/- 8.6 g/day) was low ...
Recap:
Highlanders eat 0.56 grams of protein per kg of body weight.


Decline in child health in rural Papua New Guinea. Lancet. 1999 Oct 9;354(9186):1291-4.
 
PIP: This article discusses the reasons for the decline of child health resulting in the increasing rate of child mortality in rural Papua New Guinea. The mortality rate among children under 5 years old in this country is more than twice that of the overall East Asia and Pacific region (54/1000 live births) in 1999.

The major causes of child mortality are pneumonia, malnutrition, measles meningitis, low birth weight, and neonatal sepsis. Factors contributing to this increase in child mortality include the lost of health services, aid posts in the remote villages due to the unavailability of vehicles, deterioration of roads, and inadequate assistance and support from local administrators.
Recap:
Highlanders die a lot.


Ed




Post 195

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 12:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael (and others), as per my list of acid-alkaline foods (reprinted here) ...

=============
(per 100 gram portions) ...

Acidifiers

Processed cheese ........+28.7
Hard cheese........+19.2
Brown rice........+12.5
Rolled oats........+10.7
Whole wheat bread........+8.2
Eggs........+8.1
Pork........+7.9
Beef........+7.8
Herring........+7.0

Alkalinizers

Spinach........-14.0
Celery........-5.2
Carrots........-4.9
Apricots........-4.8
Zucchini........-4.6
Kiwifruit........-4.1
Cauliflower........-4.0
Radishes........-3.7
Cherries........-3.6
=============

... if, say, you consumed 200 grams of Herring (+7.0/100g), then -- to completely balance out the acid load -- you could consume 100 grams of Spinach (-14.0/100g). To be a little alkaline (which is a suggestion for health optimization), consume a little more than 100 grams of Spinach (whenever you consume 200 grams of Herring). 100 grams is about 3.5oz.

If you preferred to balance this same acid load with Cherries (-3.6/100g), then you would need to consume 400 grams of Cherries -- to balance the acid load from 200 grams of Herring. Or else you can use my simpler rule of thumb ...

Add up the weights of dairy, grains, and meats that you consume (acidifiers) -- and consume AT LEAST that much weight in fruits & veggies (alkalinizers).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/26, 12:17am)




Post 196

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Some interesting data, I didn't realize that about metabolic acidosis.  I do like cheese, too.  Does this apply to alcohol as well?  Isn't the main metabolite of alcohol acetic acid? 

So what does a daily diet look like for you, Ed?  What is the percentage breakdown in terms of carbohydrates, fat (among the different types), and protein?  Also, what do you make of the protein powders, like the whey protein isolates?  Any negatives or benefits from these as opposed to animal/vegetable sources?

Thanks,
Michael




Post 197

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Its interesting that you and Ed have conflicting studies on such things as calcium balance and general bone health. I must admit that I don't find the Papua New Guineans that persuasive.  My first question would be, what is their life span?  And what do they die of?  Since they are isolated and genetically homogenuous (I'm guessing??) it would not surprise me if there are some other genetic explanations at work for some of the phenomena (like the explanation Ed gave).

Bill, what are the percentages of your diet?  How much meat do you eat?

In my own experience, I didn't observe the losses after extended higher intake of protein.  I grew up on a lot of vegetables, and not much junk food.  My parents pushed carbohydrates for energy when I was growing up.  After I finished college, however, and my soccer career was over, I began to think a switch to more protein would be better, muscle-wise.  In terms of fitness, I was in much better shape, obviously, during my years of playing soccer.  However, even after I was no longer playing, with the increased protein, there is no doubt I gained more muscle.  I was definitely stronger.

I wasn't lifting to become a muscle-head, but just to increase my strength and leanness.  The increased protein seemed to push the threshold of what I could do strength-wise much higher.  Bill, as long as I kept it up (both the protein and the weight lifting), the benefits stayed.  I don't remember any regression until I stopped. 

Regards,
Michael




Post 198

Sunday, May 28, 2006 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I wasn't aware of the information that Ed presented on the alkalinizing effects of fruits and vegetables. Pretty interesting. Still, the studies that I cited cannot be discounted. It's possible that the subjects of the study were not eating enough fruits and vegetables to accompany their high-protein diets. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the results, without checking further into the other components of their diets.

My understanding also is that it is the sulfur-containing amino acids (which are more plentiful in animal protein) - i.e., cysteine, methionine and taurine - that have the greatest calcium draining effect on the bones. The Tarahumara Indians of Northern Mexico, another population with a vegetarian diet, get as much as 90 grams of protein per day, but have no osteoporosis. But, if I remember correctly, they consume no animal protein; their diet consists mainly of squash, corn and pinto beans.

It's well to remember too, that osteoporosis is not the only risk associated with high-protein diets; the other is the effect on one's kidneys, which is well-documented in the studies that I cited.

As for the amount of protein that enhances muscle growth and strength, animal protein has an advantage over vegetable protein, for several reasons: first it contains creatine, which increases muscle volume and power, and of which there is none in vegetable protein; second, the amino-acid composition of meat has a superior affect on muscle growth. So, if it's muscle you're after, a higher protein, meat-based diet is superior to vegetarian one. Here, I think that Pritikin was uninformed.

But that which maximizes muscular strength does not promote health and longevity.

For example, creatine is wonderful stuff for muscle growth. I took it for awhile, but discovered that it increased my blood pressure, so I had to stop taking it. This may be one of the reasons that vegetarians have lower blood pressure than meat eaters. Btw, the lower your blood pressure, consistent with good health, the longer your lifespan. At least that's what the insurance companies have concluded. Increased saturated fat also promotes muscle development by increasing the liver's production of cholesterol, in turn increasing hormone levels, e.g., testosterone, as does exogenous testosterone in the form of steroids. These approaches will give you superior strength and muscle development, but will negatively impact your health in other ways. Strength and muscular development is not equivalent to optimal health and fitness. The hulking body builders that you see on the covers of muscle magazines pay a price in terms of shorter lifespans. But they don't care; their goal is not health; it's appearance - a kind of male narcissism, the other side of the anorexic coin.

But aside from the effects of increased protein on bone health and muscle development, I think that the Pritikin diet is right on the mark when it comes to prevention of heart disease and cancer. The evidence that high fat diets cause heart disease is by now overwhelming. Less well recognized is that they are correlated with an increase in cancer as well. One study compared 250 breast cancer patients with a control group of 500 healthy women. The results indicated that a diet rich in fat, particularly saturated fat, and animal proteins was associated with a two-to-threefold risk of breast cancer. Countries in which a high-fat diet is consumed show breast cancer rates up to five times higher than countries in which a low-fat diet is consumed. Total fat was most directly associated with breast cancer in these studies, but in animal studies, the correlation is with saturated and polyunsaturated fats.

Colorectal cancer is also reduced on the Pritikin diet, because high-fat foods promote the growth of anaerobic bacteria in the large bowel. Fats and bile acids modified by these bacteria then form carcinogens. Studies show that people who eat high-fat diets - when compared to others who eat low-fat foods - have an elevated production of bile as well as increased anaerobic-bacterial activity. Moreover, high-fiber foods, which are plentiful on the Pritikin diet, bind to the bile acids or dilute them so they don't get converted to carcinogens. High-fiber diets result in bulky stools that contain mostly harmless aerobic organisms.

As for prostate cancer, a study of 452 cases of prostate cancer in Hawaii with 899 matched controls found that among men 70 years of age or older, those who consumed a lot of saturated fat were nearly twice as likely to get cancer. In another study, of mortality rates from 1950 to 1969, it was found that people who lived in areas with elevated beef and dairy consumption reflected a higher incidence of prostate cancer.

So, I still think that even if you don't become as big and muscular on the Pritikin diet as you would on a diet higher in animal fat and protein, you will still be healthier and live a longer life.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/28, 5:01pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/28, 5:28pm)




Post 199

Monday, May 29, 2006 - 9:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.