**Official Longevity Thread** (1 Viewer)

[Terminalxylem]

What numbers are y’all considering as benchmarks for zones? Here are mine.

Zone 2. 124…134
Zone 3. 135~ 145
Zone 4. 146…157
Zone 5. 158+

Term you hit 19 minutes in zone 5 walking?

Yeah, there’s controversy how one defines the zones, and even how many there should be. My zone 5 is 153+.

And yes, walking hills can get HR pretty high.

I’ve seen different % of zones as well, but a lot of them I see z5 as 90%, so I use 220- my age for max and get numbers from that.

Same. I think that formula tends to underestimate zone 5 FWIW.

I have no idea who this guy is, but's it's a pretty good summary of HR Zones, and other exercise esoterica

 

[Terminalxylem]

Okay, if you meant 300+ of something more than sitting on your butt or walking to the fridge that's attainable. Your earlier post said high heart rate with the embedded post about 90% of max. 300+ of 90% of max would be tough. 300+ of moderate not too tough.

Every minute of high intensity exercise counts roughly double a moderate minute, in terms of mortality reduction. So only 150 minutes of vigorous exercise/week attains maximal benefit.

But I’ve never seen anyone recommend that much Zone 5, or any studies on high-volume exercise near max HR. Sounds like a recipe for injury.

My point was really centered on the relative importance of CV versus strength training, as some guys seem to believe it's the other way around. It doesn’t help that many pop science articles fixate on sarcopenia, along with gratuitous protein consumption.

While muscle is certainly important for healthspan, a lot of CV exercise + some strength training seems to be best path to living longer.

Looking further at my own routine, I’d guess that while I value and enjoy weight training, it’s still only 3 days of ,y week, where I do some form of fast walking, elliptical, etc. everyday, so technically I do more CV than resistance. Heck, I just mowed the yard with. Purpose and got 52 minutes of moderate with some vigorous thrown in : -) and I still will do an hour walk with purpose today.

As to the protein thing. We have to get our macros from somewhere and we only have 3 options, well 4 if you count booze, but I think each options have negatives and once I feel my carb and fat needs have been made I’d rather add to the protein ratio than the others.

There’s only one macronutrient (I’m not counting alcohol) when eaten in higher quantities, specifically linked to shorter lifespan, albeit mostly animal studies. It’s the same one consumed the least in diets of the Blue Zones: protein.

I’ve seen arguments that it’s the calorie restrictions in those zones, but arguably that’s coming from the high protein people who I guess can cherry pick to get things pointing their way.

Using me as an example, I need 3000 calories a day to maintain 175 lbs. what % do you yourself call an unreasonable amount of protein?

I don't think there is a simple answer to that question, depending on your goals.

But as an active, middle aged person, I'd err toward the lower end of the various recommendations, like ~0.85 -1 gram/kg/day. And try to make it predominantly plant-based proteins, with no more than ~30g or so per meal. For you, that would be somewhere around 80-90 grams a day. That's somewhere between 10-15% of your total calories.

Issues the protein bros will bring up:

1. Plant protein isn't as complete as animal proteins.
True, but all the more reason to eat a variety of plants, which are healthier for you anyway.

2. Plant protein isn't as biologically accessible as animal protein.
Also true, but I don't think this difference amounts to any real health consequence. Protein deficiency isn't rampant in the US, even among vegans. And it certainly isn't rampant among long-lived populations, some of whom consume < 10% daily calories via protein.

3. You need more protein for muscle building.
Accurate as well, but I philosophically disagree with the perception we need to bulk up in middle age (One of Attia's core concepts). While muscle loss is inevitable with age, consistent exercise (whether CV or strength training) attenuates it enough that active people will be OK regardless.

When you get older, the body uses protein less effectively, as anabolic hormones wane. This is not all bad news, as all that anabolism works contrary to survival mechanisms and "cellular housekeeping" associated with longevity, and promotes disease, especially cancer.

So those aged 65+ should liberalize protein intake, closer to 1.5 g/kg/day.

But short of body builders (who aren't known for long lives, btw), I believe it is a little crazy, or at least not evidence-based, to advocate eating 1 gram/POUND/day. I mean short-term, to facilitate weight loss while sparing muscle, it might be OK. But I don't think that is a longevity promoting diet long-term.

I'm basing a lot of this on animal studies where protein and/or amino acid restriction (eg. methionine) with isocaloric diets resulted in increased lifespan. And there's a human study which showed middle aged adults with moderate to high protein consumption (defined as protein in excess of 10%/20%+ caloric intake) had greater overall mortality, principally from cancer. Older people needed more protein for optimal mortality benefit though, and the harm was only seen in those consuming animal protein. Study here

Personally, I don't worry about it much. Just eat a plant-based diet, with a decent amount of legumes, beans, and nuts + fish a couple times a week. If you can do this, while exercising consistently and maintaining a healthy weight, I suspect you'll do OK.

 

[steelerfan1]

Okay, if you meant 300+ of something more than sitting on your butt or walking to the fridge that's attainable. Your earlier post said high heart rate with the embedded post about 90% of max. 300+ of 90% of max would be tough. 300+ of moderate not too tough.

Every minute of high intensity exercise counts roughly double a moderate minute, in terms of mortality reduction. So only 150 minutes of vigorous exercise/week attains maximal benefit.

But I’ve never seen anyone recommend that much Zone 5, or any studies on high-volume exercise near max HR. Sounds like a recipe for injury.

My point was really centered on the relative importance of CV versus strength training, as some guys seem to believe it's the other way around. It doesn’t help that many pop science articles fixate on sarcopenia, along with gratuitous protein consumption.

While muscle is certainly important for healthspan, a lot of CV exercise + some strength training seems to be best path to living longer.

Looking further at my own routine, I’d guess that while I value and enjoy weight training, it’s still only 3 days of ,y week, where I do some form of fast walking, elliptical, etc. everyday, so technically I do more CV than resistance. Heck, I just mowed the yard with. Purpose and got 52 minutes of moderate with some vigorous thrown in : -) and I still will do an hour walk with purpose today.

As to the protein thing. We have to get our macros from somewhere and we only have 3 options, well 4 if you count booze, but I think each options have negatives and once I feel my carb and fat needs have been made I’d rather add to the protein ratio than the others.

There’s only one macronutrient (I’m not counting alcohol) when eaten in higher quantities, specifically linked to shorter lifespan, albeit mostly animal studies. It’s the same one consumed the least in diets of the Blue Zones: protein.

I’ve seen arguments that it’s the calorie restrictions in those zones, but arguably that’s coming from the high protein people who I guess can cherry pick to get things pointing their way.

Using me as an example, I need 3000 calories a day to maintain 175 lbs. what % do you yourself call an unreasonable amount of protein?

I don't think there is a simple answer to that question, depending on your goals.

But as an active, middle aged person, I'd err toward the lower end of the various recommendations, like ~0.85 -1 gram/kg/day. And try to make it predominantly plant-based proteins, with no more than ~30g or so per meal. For you, that would be somewhere around 80-90 grams a day. That's somewhere between 10-15% of your total calories.

Issues the protein bros will bring up:

1. Plant protein isn't as complete as animal proteins.
True, but all the more reason to eat a variety of plants, which are healthier for you anyway.

2. Plant protein isn't as biologically accessible as animal protein.
Also true, but I don't think this difference amounts to any real health consequence. Protein deficiency isn't rampant in the US, even among vegans. And it certainly isn't rampant among long-lived populations, some of whom consume < 10% daily calories via protein.

3. You need more protein for muscle building.
Accurate as well, but I philosophically disagree with the perception we need to bulk up in middle age (One of Attia's core concepts). While muscle loss is inevitable with age, consistent exercise (whether CV or strength training) attenuates it enough that active people will be OK regardless.

When you get older, the body uses protein less effectively, as anabolic hormones wane. This is not all bad news, as all that anabolism works contrary to survival mechanisms and "cellular housekeeping" associated with longevity, and promotes disease, especially cancer.

So those aged 65+ should liberalize protein intake, closer to 1.5 g/kg/day.

But short of body builders (who aren't known for long lives, btw), I believe it is a little crazy, or at least not evidence-based, to advocate eating 1 gram/POUND/day. I mean short-term, to facilitate weight loss while sparing muscle, it might be OK. But I don't think that is a longevity promoting diet long-term.

I'm basing a lot of this on animal studies where protein and/or amino acid restriction (eg. methionine) with isocaloric diets resulted in increased lifespan. And there's a human study which showed middle aged adults with moderate to high protein consumption (defined as protein in excess of 10%/20%+ caloric intake) had greater overall mortality, principally from cancer. Older people needed more protein for optimal mortality benefit though, and the harm was only seen in those consuming animal protein. Study here

Personally, I don't worry about it much. Just eat a plant-based diet, with a decent amount of legumes, beans, and nuts + fish a couple times a week. If you can do this, while exercising consistently and maintaining a healthy weight, I suspect you'll do OK.

Very informative! Thanks. I’m at that 1 gram per pound currently. I’ll have to do some reassessing. Majority of protein now comes from sardines, salmon, nuts, seeds and whey isolate. I just have a hard time accepting that I cut protein for 75 grams more of carbs a day. A lot of years believing in protein for muscle retention, body function, etc. thanks again for link. I’ll research more now for sure. I just have the image of my brother in law and mother in law who are vegan and just look so thin and brittle….

 

[Terminalxylem]

.

Very informative! Thanks. I’m at that 1 gram per pound currently. I’ll have to do some reassessing. Majority of protein now comes from sardines, salmon, nuts, seeds and whey isolate. I just have a hard time accepting that I cut protein for 75 grams more of carbs a day. A lot of years believing in protein for muscle retention, body function, etc. thanks again for link. I’ll research more now for sure. I just have the image of my brother in law and mother in law who are vegan and just look so thin and brittle….

Somewhere along the line, carbohydrates became conflated with ultra processed food. While it’s true those foods are typically loaded with carbohydrates (especially added sugar), unhealthy fats, salt, and all sorts of artificial badness, nearly all the most nutrient-dense foods are also carbohydrate rich - minimally processed plants.

In an effort to simplify nutrition, we’ve thrown the carbohydrate baby out with the ultra processed bath water, very similar to how we demonized all fat/cholesterol when most of us were growing up. The solution then was a bunch of “food science” substituted for actual food, and we probably have our obesity epidemic to thank for it.

That leaves us with protein, which has become the food industry’s go-to macronutrient. And don’t get me wrong, protein has a lot of benefits, especially at the extremes of age. But like many aspects of biology, there is a healthy range. And it is tightly regulated, where both too little, and too much promotes disease.

Which diseases am I concerned about? Principally cardiovascular disease and cancer, but also things like gout, diabetes, and kidney stones, especially if animal protein (including whey) becomes a bigger part of pop-science nutrition du jour. But the first two are the most relevant, as they result in the majority of deaths in this country.

On the flip side, god knows what the space-age polymers included in some faux meats will do to our bodies after decades of consumption. Even “plant-based” processed, salt laden food ain’t a great alternative.

It’s interesting to me no longed-lived populations consume a lot of protein. Their macronutrient composition actually isn’t much different than the Standard American Diet…they eat a little less fat and protein, and more carbohydrates, if anything. But the types of foods they consume are very different.

I’ve been told Michael Pollan is an a-hole, but his dietary framework makes a lot of sense: Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much. If one follows that advice, no need to obsess on the macros imo.

Lastly, how are you determining what constitutes “thin and brittle”?

It’s worth noting, average BMI in this country has gone up quite a bit over the last 100+ years, and along with it, our standards for thin have changed. Young, fit military recruits had average BMIs less than 20 around the turn of the 20th century, which jumped a couple points by the 1930s. And this was before all of our waistlines really blossomed after the 1950s. Data here Were those guys frail and malnourished?

So how does looking “thin” really correlate to health? Sure, there’s a BMI below which sarcopenia and osteoporosis become more common, promoting debility. But what is the tipping point?

I don’t claim to know a precise answer, but I’ve met many spry old people. All were thin, and had been so their entire lives. Preventing falls/fractures won’t do you much good, if you die first from cancer, or a heart attack (far and away, the most likely killers, even among centarians)

What functionality in middle age do you consider healthy, particularly wrt strength? My BMI is around 22, and I probably look pretty thin by contemporary standards. What would someone like me, or your BIL/MIL need to demonstrate, for you to reconsider what constitutes “weak” or “frail”? I’m not talking about attaining a beach body, how much muscle/strength is “enough”?

This is very science-heavy, but interesting review on diet and longevity Practical advice starts on page 18.

 

[massraider]

I assume most people are like me and everyone I know, they eat the same thing all the time if you don't try for a variety.

Even if what you're eating is good for you, you aren't running an efficient machine without putting all the correct fuel in. You only eat three veggies? That's not best. Mix it up. Different food adds different nutrients.

 

[steelerfan1]

.

Very informative! Thanks. I’m at that 1 gram per pound currently. I’ll have to do some reassessing. Majority of protein now comes from sardines, salmon, nuts, seeds and whey isolate. I just have a hard time accepting that I cut protein for 75 grams more of carbs a day. A lot of years believing in protein for muscle retention, body function, etc. thanks again for link. I’ll research more now for sure. I just have the image of my brother in law and mother in law who are vegan and just look so thin and brittle….

Somewhere along the line, carbohydrates became conflated with ultra processed food. While it’s true those foods are typically loaded with carbohydrates (especially added sugar), unhealthy fats, salt, and all sorts of artificial badness, nearly all the most nutrient-dense foods are also carbohydrate rich - minimally processed plants.

In an effort to simplify nutrition, we’ve thrown the carbohydrate baby out with the ultra processed bath water, very similar to how we demonized all fat/cholesterol when most of us were growing up. The solution then was a bunch of “food science” substituted for actual food, and we probably have our obesity epidemic to thank for it.

That leaves us with protein, which has become the food industry’s go-to macronutrient. And don’t get me wrong, protein has a lot of benefits, especially at the extremes of age. But like many aspects of biology, there is a healthy range. And it is tightly regulated, where both too little, and too much promotes disease.

Which diseases am I concerned about? Principally cardiovascular disease and cancer, but also things like gout, diabetes, and kidney stones, especially if animal protein (including whey) becomes a bigger part of pop-science nutrition du jour. But the first two are the most relevant, as they result in the majority of deaths in this country.

On the flip side, god knows what the space-age polymers included in some faux meats will do to our bodies after decades of consumption. Even “plant-based” processed, salt laden food ain’t a great alternative.

It’s interesting to me no longed-lived populations consume a lot of protein. Their macronutrient composition actually isn’t much different than the Standard American Diet…they eat a little less fat and protein, and more carbohydrates, if anything. But the types of foods they consume are very different.

I’ve been told Michael Pollan is an a-hole, but his dietary framework makes a lot of sense: Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much. If one follows that advice, no need to obsess on the macros imo.

Lastly, how are you determining what constitutes “thin and brittle”?

It’s worth noting, average BMI in this country has gone up quite a bit over the last 100+ years, and along with it, our standards for thin have changed. Young, fit military recruits had average BMIs less than 20 around the turn of the 20th century, which jumped a couple points by the 1930s. And this was before all of our waistlines really blossomed after the 1950s. Data here Were those guys frail and malnourished?

So how does looking “thin” really correlate to health? Sure, there’s a BMI below which sarcopenia and osteoporosis become more common, promoting debility. But what is the tipping point?

I don’t claim to know a precise answer, but I’ve met many spry old people. All were thin, and had been so their entire lives. Preventing falls/fractures won’t do you much good, if you die first from cancer, or a heart attack (far and away, the most likely killers, even among centarians)

What functionality in middle age do you consider healthy, particularly wrt strength? My BMI is around 22, and I probably look pretty thin by contemporary standards. What would someone like me, or your BIL/MIL need to demonstrate, for you to reconsider what constitutes “weak” or “frail”? I’m not talking about attaining a beach body, how much muscle/strength is “enough”?

This is very science-heavy, but interesting review on diet and longevity Practical advice starts on page 18.

For me, someone who doesn’t eat junk, too many carbs still always worried me about insulin resistance. They, like fat are an energy source. Use what you need. Currently I feel like I have enough of both, but after reading your attached link I’m open to do some experiments to see if cutting my current gram per pound of protein down some and replacing it with more carbs and see how it affects my bloodwork, body comp, etc. I’m sensitive to some carbs such as oats, lentils, some beans. I was searching a bit today and may explore buckwheat.

I already have early CVD due to years with super high cholesterol and consuming large quantities of food, including tons of beef to maintain a much higher weight than I currently am.

As to what I perceive as weak and frail, their sunken in cheek bones, zero muscle mass and poor looking skin. They look like they are starving. Maybe their bloodwork is aces, but I’m not going there to that extreme to have perfect bloodwork. There has to be a happy medium.

Strength isn’t at my age something I can go crazy with. No more 1 rep max deadlifts and squats, but maintaining muscle mass is important to me.

I’m a Mediterranean diet guy for the most part now , so will stay that way I believe, but am going to look for a high nutrient carb that I can work in in some place of some protein and see the benefits.

 

[steelerfan1]

I assume most people are like me and everyone I know, they eat the same thing all the time if you don't try for a variety.

Even if what you're eating is good for you, you aren't running an efficient machine without putting all the correct fuel in. You only eat three veggies? That's not best. Mix it up. Different food adds different nutrients.

I assume the opposite. I don’t think most people can stick to the same thing. I’m a dog. I eat the same thing everyday except for a Friday or Saturday restaurant meal. A breakdown of my days food by macros, which equates right at 3000 calories which is what I need to maintain 175 pounds.

Protein:
6 Oz Alaskan salmon
1 can of sardines
Whey protein isolate

Carbs:
20 Oz sweet potato, some purple, some white, some orange.
2 cups steamed broccoli
2 raw carrots
2 green kiwis
2 cups wild blueberries
1 cup strawberries

Fat:
2 avocados
2 tbsp EVOO
12 castleveltrano olives
1/4 cup macadamia nuts
1/4 cup sprouted pumpkin seeds

Also drink 90 to 100 Oz water.

Will be cutting some of the whey in a test to add more carbs and less protein to the diet and see what happens.

Any nutritious carb ideas are welcomed.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I can’t fathom some of y’all’s protein goals. I’m a muscular 185+\~ for a 55 year old dude.

I never lift heavy. I go to the gym 3-4 times a week. I always stretch. Love him or hate him the Tom Brady approach to long lean and flexible makes the most sense to me.

I eat mostly home made meals that are made with fresh ingredients. Very little red meat and am headed more and more towards plant based. But the not premade fake stuff. I love all legumes. And almost all nuts!

And lastly I have greatly reduced my alcohol intake. Mostly because my heart said you better F’ing stop with that crap.

Bloodwork is very good.

 

[Terminalxylem]

.

Very informative! Thanks. I’m at that 1 gram per pound currently. I’ll have to do some reassessing. Majority of protein now comes from sardines, salmon, nuts, seeds and whey isolate. I just have a hard time accepting that I cut protein for 75 grams more of carbs a day. A lot of years believing in protein for muscle retention, body function, etc. thanks again for link. I’ll research more now for sure. I just have the image of my brother in law and mother in law who are vegan and just look so thin and brittle….

Somewhere along the line, carbohydrates became conflated with ultra processed food. While it’s true those foods are typically loaded with carbohydrates (especially added sugar), unhealthy fats, salt, and all sorts of artificial badness, nearly all the most nutrient-dense foods are also carbohydrate rich - minimally processed plants.

In an effort to simplify nutrition, we’ve thrown the carbohydrate baby out with the ultra processed bath water, very similar to how we demonized all fat/cholesterol when most of us were growing up. The solution then was a bunch of “food science” substituted for actual food, and we probably have our obesity epidemic to thank for it.

That leaves us with protein, which has become the food industry’s go-to macronutrient. And don’t get me wrong, protein has a lot of benefits, especially at the extremes of age. But like many aspects of biology, there is a healthy range. And it is tightly regulated, where both too little, and too much promotes disease.

Which diseases am I concerned about? Principally cardiovascular disease and cancer, but also things like gout, diabetes, and kidney stones, especially if animal protein (including whey) becomes a bigger part of pop-science nutrition du jour. But the first two are the most relevant, as they result in the majority of deaths in this country.

On the flip side, god knows what the space-age polymers included in some faux meats will do to our bodies after decades of consumption. Even “plant-based” processed, salt laden food ain’t a great alternative.

It’s interesting to me no longed-lived populations consume a lot of protein. Their macronutrient composition actually isn’t much different than the Standard American Diet…they eat a little less fat and protein, and more carbohydrates, if anything. But the types of foods they consume are very different.

I’ve been told Michael Pollan is an a-hole, but his dietary framework makes a lot of sense: Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much. If one follows that advice, no need to obsess on the macros imo.

Lastly, how are you determining what constitutes “thin and brittle”?

It’s worth noting, average BMI in this country has gone up quite a bit over the last 100+ years, and along with it, our standards for thin have changed. Young, fit military recruits had average BMIs less than 20 around the turn of the 20th century, which jumped a couple points by the 1930s. And this was before all of our waistlines really blossomed after the 1950s. Data here Were those guys frail and malnourished?

So how does looking “thin” really correlate to health? Sure, there’s a BMI below which sarcopenia and osteoporosis become more common, promoting debility. But what is the tipping point?

I don’t claim to know a precise answer, but I’ve met many spry old people. All were thin, and had been so their entire lives. Preventing falls/fractures won’t do you much good, if you die first from cancer, or a heart attack (far and away, the most likely killers, even among centarians)

What functionality in middle age do you consider healthy, particularly wrt strength? My BMI is around 22, and I probably look pretty thin by contemporary standards. What would someone like me, or your BIL/MIL need to demonstrate, for you to reconsider what constitutes “weak” or “frail”? I’m not talking about attaining a beach body, how much muscle/strength is “enough”?

This is very science-heavy, but interesting review on diet and longevity Practical advice starts on page 18.

For me, someone who doesn’t eat junk, too many carbs still always worried me about insulin resistance. They, like fat are an energy source. Use what you need. Currently I feel like I have enough of both, but after reading your attached link I’m open to do some experiments to see if cutting my current gram per pound of protein down some and replacing it with more carbs and see how it affects my bloodwork, body comp, etc. I’m sensitive to some carbs such as oats, lentils, some beans. I was searching a bit today and may explore buckwheat.

I already have early CVD due to years with super high cholesterol and consuming large quantities of food, including tons of beef to maintain a much higher weight than I currently am.

As to what I perceive as weak and frail, their sunken in cheek bones, zero muscle mass and poor looking skin. They look like they are starving. Maybe their bloodwork is aces, but I’m not going there to that extreme to have perfect bloodwork. There has to be a happy medium.

Strength isn’t at my age something I can go crazy with. No more 1 rep max deadlifts and squats, but maintaining muscle mass is important to me.

I’m a Mediterranean diet guy for the most part now , so will stay that way I believe, but am going to look for a high nutrient carb that I can work in in some place of some protein and see the benefits.

People think carbohydrates are the only thing that promotes insulin, but metabolism is far more complex. Via insulin-like growth factor secretion (an anabolic hormone) protein stimulates insulin as well.

You may have missed it in my response, but high animal protein is associated with increased diabetes risk.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I assume most people are like me and everyone I know, they eat the same thing all the time if you don't try for a variety.

Even if what you're eating is good for you, you aren't running an efficient machine without putting all the correct fuel in. You only eat three veggies? That's not best. Mix it up. Different food adds different nutrients.

I assume the opposite. I don’t think most people can stick to the same thing. I’m a dog. I eat the same thing everyday except for a Friday or Saturday restaurant meal. A breakdown of my days food by macros, which equates right at 3000 calories which is what I need to maintain 175 pounds.

Protein:
6 Oz Alaskan salmon
1 can of sardines
Whey protein isolate

Carbs:
20 Oz sweet potato, some purple, some white, some orange.
2 cups steamed broccoli
2 raw carrots
2 green kiwis
2 cups wild blueberries
1 cup strawberries

Fat:
2 avocados
2 tbsp EVOO
12 castleveltrano olives
1/4 cup macadamia nuts
1/4 cup sprouted pumpkin seeds

Also drink 90 to 100 Oz water.

Will be cutting some of the whey in a test to add more carbs and less protein to the diet and see what happens.

Any nutritious carb ideas are welcomed.

Cashews

 

[DA RAIDERS]

@steelerfan1 how old are you? Are you running 10+miles a day? You need 3000 calories to maintain 175#. That’s a killer metabolism!

 

[Terminalxylem]

Leafy green and cruciferous vegetables, beets, squash, whole grains, legumes, nuts, beans, fresh fruit, etc. all are healthy foods, with variable carbohydrate content.

I’d ditch the extra whey and eat an equivalent amount of calories from any of the above foods, or better yet, some of each.

 

[steelerfan1]

.

Very informative! Thanks. I’m at that 1 gram per pound currently. I’ll have to do some reassessing. Majority of protein now comes from sardines, salmon, nuts, seeds and whey isolate. I just have a hard time accepting that I cut protein for 75 grams more of carbs a day. A lot of years believing in protein for muscle retention, body function, etc. thanks again for link. I’ll research more now for sure. I just have the image of my brother in law and mother in law who are vegan and just look so thin and brittle….

Somewhere along the line, carbohydrates became conflated with ultra processed food. While it’s true those foods are typically loaded with carbohydrates (especially added sugar), unhealthy fats, salt, and all sorts of artificial badness, nearly all the most nutrient-dense foods are also carbohydrate rich - minimally processed plants.

In an effort to simplify nutrition, we’ve thrown the carbohydrate baby out with the ultra processed bath water, very similar to how we demonized all fat/cholesterol when most of us were growing up. The solution then was a bunch of “food science” substituted for actual food, and we probably have our obesity epidemic to thank for it.

That leaves us with protein, which has become the food industry’s go-to macronutrient. And don’t get me wrong, protein has a lot of benefits, especially at the extremes of age. But like many aspects of biology, there is a healthy range. And it is tightly regulated, where both too little, and too much promotes disease.

Which diseases am I concerned about? Principally cardiovascular disease and cancer, but also things like gout, diabetes, and kidney stones, especially if animal protein (including whey) becomes a bigger part of pop-science nutrition du jour. But the first two are the most relevant, as they result in the majority of deaths in this country.

On the flip side, god knows what the space-age polymers included in some faux meats will do to our bodies after decades of consumption. Even “plant-based” processed, salt laden food ain’t a great alternative.

It’s interesting to me no longed-lived populations consume a lot of protein. Their macronutrient composition actually isn’t much different than the Standard American Diet…they eat a little less fat and protein, and more carbohydrates, if anything. But the types of foods they consume are very different.

I’ve been told Michael Pollan is an a-hole, but his dietary framework makes a lot of sense: Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much. If one follows that advice, no need to obsess on the macros imo.

Lastly, how are you determining what constitutes “thin and brittle”?

It’s worth noting, average BMI in this country has gone up quite a bit over the last 100+ years, and along with it, our standards for thin have changed. Young, fit military recruits had average BMIs less than 20 around the turn of the 20th century, which jumped a couple points by the 1930s. And this was before all of our waistlines really blossomed after the 1950s. Data here Were those guys frail and malnourished?

So how does looking “thin” really correlate to health? Sure, there’s a BMI below which sarcopenia and osteoporosis become more common, promoting debility. But what is the tipping point?

I don’t claim to know a precise answer, but I’ve met many spry old people. All were thin, and had been so their entire lives. Preventing falls/fractures won’t do you much good, if you die first from cancer, or a heart attack (far and away, the most likely killers, even among centarians)

What functionality in middle age do you consider healthy, particularly wrt strength? My BMI is around 22, and I probably look pretty thin by contemporary standards. What would someone like me, or your BIL/MIL need to demonstrate, for you to reconsider what constitutes “weak” or “frail”? I’m not talking about attaining a beach body, how much muscle/strength is “enough”?

This is very science-heavy, but interesting review on diet and longevity Practical advice starts on page 18.

For me, someone who doesn’t eat junk, too many carbs still always worried me about insulin resistance. They, like fat are an energy source. Use what you need. Currently I feel like I have enough of both, but after reading your attached link I’m open to do some experiments to see if cutting my current gram per pound of protein down some and replacing it with more carbs and see how it affects my bloodwork, body comp, etc. I’m sensitive to some carbs such as oats, lentils, some beans. I was searching a bit today and may explore buckwheat.

I already have early CVD due to years with super high cholesterol and consuming large quantities of food, including tons of beef to maintain a much higher weight than I currently am.

As to what I perceive as weak and frail, their sunken in cheek bones, zero muscle mass and poor looking skin. They look like they are starving. Maybe their bloodwork is aces, but I’m not going there to that extreme to have perfect bloodwork. There has to be a happy medium.

Strength isn’t at my age something I can go crazy with. No more 1 rep max deadlifts and squats, but maintaining muscle mass is important to me.

I’m a Mediterranean diet guy for the most part now , so will stay that way I believe, but am going to look for a high nutrient carb that I can work in in some place of some protein and see the benefits.

People think carbohydrates are the only thing that promotes insulin, but metabolism is far more complex. Via insulin-like growth factor secretion (an anabolic hormone) protein stimulates insulin as well.

You may have missed it in my response, but high animal protein is associated with increased diabetes risk.

I did see that but then there’s a note stating that higher in protein may be beneficial to lowering, unless I read it wrong. My last bloodwork showed a little elevated and they told me to go lower fat and lower carbs and eat more protein. SMH…

 

[steelerfan1]

@steelerfan1 how old are you? Are you running 10+miles a day? You need 3000 calories to maintain 175#. That’s a killer metabolism!

I’m going to be 57 next month. Always had a hard time maintaining weight. You should have seen what I was eating when I was 235

 

[steelerfan1]

Leafy green and cruciferous vegetables, beets, squash, whole grains, legumes, nuts, beans, fresh fruit, etc. all are healthy foods, with variable carbohydrate content.

I’d ditch the extra whey and eat an equivalent amount of calories from any of the above foods, or better yet, some of each.

May look to some beans, beets and looking at buckwheat. I take it you’re not a big believer in the lectins are the devil?

 

[DA RAIDERS]

@steelerfan1 how old are you? Are you running 10+miles a day? You need 3000 calories to maintain 175#. That’s a killer metabolism!

I’m going to be 57 next month. Always had a hard time maintaining weight. You should have seen what I was eating when I was 235

I don’t track calories but my watch does track calories burned. Since I maintain a consistent weight at around 185 and I’m burning somewhere between 2300 and 3300 calories a day, I guess it would be safe to say I’m ingesting that same number of calories. I just don’t focus on it that much.

 

[steelerfan1]

@steelerfan1 how old are you? Are you running 10+miles a day? You need 3000 calories to maintain 175#. That’s a killer metabolism!

I’m going to be 57 next month. Always had a hard time maintaining weight. You should have seen what I was eating when I was 235

I don’t track calories but my watch does track calories burned. Since I maintain a consistent weight at around 185 and I’m burning somewhere between 2300 and 3300 calories a day, I guess it would be safe to say I’m ingesting that same number of calories. I just don’t focus on it that much.

I’m a bit OCD…

 

[Terminalxylem]

Leafy green and cruciferous vegetables, beets, squash, whole grains, legumes, nuts, beans, fresh fruit, etc. all are healthy foods, with variable carbohydrate content.

I’d ditch the extra whey and eat an equivalent amount of calories from any of the above foods, or better yet, some of each.

May look to some beans, beets and looking at buckwheat. I take it you’re not a big believer in the lectins are the devil?

Not at all. No good data showing lectins are a problem for most people. Cooking tends to denature/inactivate them anyway, so any adverse “inflammation”, or whatever nebulous consequence the alt nutrition crowd attributes to them, would only be seen in those eating a lot of raw high-lectin foods.

And lectin containing foods seem to be healthy. A model incorporating several large meta analysis found increasing consumption of legumes, whole grains, and nuts were the changes most associated with life extension, in comparison to the SAD. Study here

You said you were sensitive to beans and lentils. What does that mean, specifically?

@steelerfan1 how old are you? Are you running 10+miles a day? You need 3000 calories to maintain 175#. That’s a killer metabolism!

I’m going to be 57 next month. Always had a hard time maintaining weight. You should have seen what I was eating when I was 235

I don’t track calories but my watch does track calories burned. Since I maintain a consistent weight at around 185 and I’m burning somewhere between 2300 and 3300 calories a day, I guess it would be safe to say I’m ingesting that same number of calories. I just don’t focus on it that much.

I’m a few years younger than you guys, and 20-30 pounds lighter. I burn about the same daily calories. IIRC, @DA RAIDERS is roughly my height, too. How tall are you @steelerfan1?

ETA Haven’t fully vetted this article , but it seems like a decent overview of lectins. Their summary:

Lectins can act as an antioxidant, which protects cells from damage caused by free radicals. They also slow down digestion and the absorption of carbohydrates, which may prevent sharp rises in blood sugar and high insulin levels. Early research is also looking at the use of non-toxic low amounts of certain lectins to help stimulate gut cell growth in patients who are unable to eat for long periods, and in anticancer treatments due to the ability of lectins to cause cancer cell death. [2,6-7]

In many large population studies, lectin-containing foods like legumes, whole grains, and nuts are associated with weight loss and lower rates of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. [8-11] These foods are rich sources of B vitamins, protein, fiber, and minerals, and healthy fats. Thus, the health benefits of consuming these foods far outweigh the potential harm of lectins in these foods.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Why are lectins supposedly bad for me? I eat a fair amount of them.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Why are lectins supposedly bad for me? I eat a fair amount of them.

Read the link. Short story, they probably aren’t, and even if they are, it’s easy to render them harmless.

More importantly, lectin-containing foods are among the most healthy foods you can eat, so the benefit of consuming them >>> ?risk.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Why are lectins supposedly bad for me? I eat a fair amount of them.

Read the link. Short story, they probably aren’t, and even if they are, it’s easy to render them harmless.

More importantly, lectin-containing foods are among the most healthy foods you can eat, so the benefit of consuming them >>> ?risk.

Yea…my OG hippie, mostly vegetarian, mother would have a good laugh at the concept that lectins heavy foods are anything but good for you. Of course one soaks their beans over night And Lentils are freaking brilliant. Love em.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Why are lectins supposedly bad for me? I eat a fair amount of them.

Read the link. Short story, they probably aren’t, and even if they are, it’s easy to render them harmless.

More importantly, lectin-containing foods are among the most healthy foods you can eat, so the benefit of consuming them >>> ?risk.

Yea…my OG hippie, mostly vegetarian, mother would have a good laugh at the concept that lectins heavy foods are anything but good for you. Of course one soaks their beans over night And Lentils are freaking brilliant. Love em.

Yeah, in the other study I linked, legumes were the most potent longevity promoting food, adding -2.5 years to one’s life, in those with high vs. low consumption.

One of many reasons I dislike strict keto diets (yes, I know not all legumes are forbidden).

 

[hooter311]

Hip mobility.

Stretching and unlocking your hips daily will keep you active, prevent injury, and help with recovery.

 

[steelerfan1]

Leafy green and cruciferous vegetables, beets, squash, whole grains, legumes, nuts, beans, fresh fruit, etc. all are healthy foods, with variable carbohydrate content.

I’d ditch the extra whey and eat an equivalent amount of calories from any of the above foods, or better yet, some of each.

May look to some beans, beets and looking at buckwheat. I take it you’re not a big believer in the lectins are the devil?

Not at all. No good data showing lectins are a problem for most people. Cooking tends to denature/inactivate them anyway, so any adverse “inflammation”, or whatever nebulous consequence the alt nutrition crowd attributes to them, would only be seen in those eating a lot of raw high-lectin foods.

And lectin containing foods seem to be healthy. A model incorporating several large meta analysis found increasing consumption of legumes, whole grains, and nuts were the changes most associated with life extension, in comparison to the SAD. Study here

You said you were sensitive to beans and lentils. What does that mean, specifically?

@steelerfan1 how old are you? Are you running 10+miles a day? You need 3000 calories to maintain 175#. That’s a killer metabolism!

I’m going to be 57 next month. Always had a hard time maintaining weight. You should have seen what I was eating when I was 235

I don’t track calories but my watch does track calories burned. Since I maintain a consistent weight at around 185 and I’m burning somewhere between 2300 and 3300 calories a day, I guess it would be safe to say I’m ingesting that same number of calories. I just don’t focus on it that much.

I’m a few years younger than you guys, and 20-30 pounds lighter. I burn about the same daily calories. IIRC, @DA RAIDERS is roughly my height, too. How tall are you @steelerfan1?

ETA Haven’t fully vetted this article , but it seems like a decent overview of lectins. Their summary:

Lectins can act as an antioxidant, which protects cells from damage caused by free radicals. They also slow down digestion and the absorption of carbohydrates, which may prevent sharp rises in blood sugar and high insulin levels. Early research is also looking at the use of non-toxic low amounts of certain lectins to help stimulate gut cell growth in patients who are unable to eat for long periods, and in anticancer treatments due to the ability of lectins to cause cancer cell death. [2,6-7]

In many large population studies, lectin-containing foods like legumes, whole grains, and nuts are associated with weight loss and lower rates of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. [8-11] These foods are rich sources of B vitamins, protein, fiber, and minerals, and healthy fats. Thus, the health benefits of consuming these foods far outweigh the potential harm of lectins in these foods.

I’ve found every time I’ve tried black beans and lentils, inevitably I end up extremely bloated and have stomach aches. Now, I do not do moderation well, so I’m having a cup at a time, so it may be system overload? Not sure if that’s a normal amount or not?

I did just pick up some organic split green peas, which looks like it has the same macro profile as lentils. Not sure about health?

I’m 5”11.

I know you’re not a big supplement guy, but was also looking at the below:
Sunwarrior plant protein

I’m thinking I will never have what would be the best longevity diet in some peoples minds but I’m for sure going to try to get my animal protein down to 10 to 15% of my diet and still maybe shoot for 140 to 150 grams a day to start and see how I respond.

 

[steelerfan1]

Why are lectins supposedly bad for me? I eat a fair amount of them.

There’s people on the inner webs claiming they are responsible for leaky gut and preventing vital nutrients from being absorbed.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

My body loves them.

 

[WVU Alum]

My body loves them.

I eat a ton of em. Never have a problem.

 

[Hastur]

How long do you want to live?

I've read a few books on this topic: Lifespan, Outlive, The Blue Zones , and The Longevity Bible.

The take home points are:

1. Genetics only play a minor role in how long you live.
2. Regular exercise/activity is really important.
3. Plant-based diets also help.
4. Calorie restriction and/or fasting extend life in many animals, and maybe humans.
5. Supplements are unproven.
6. Family, community, and spiritual involvement are common in long lived populations.
7. Don't neglect mental health and sleep.

I can expound on any of those points, but I'm more interested in what other people are doing. There are dozens of finance threads, but far fewer discussing our most important asset: time.

What are you doing to improve your life/healthspan?

It seems there are several books titled The Longevity Bible. Who is the author of the book in your post please.

 

[Terminalxylem]

How long do you want to live?

I've read a few books on this topic: Lifespan, Outlive, The Blue Zones , and The Longevity Bible.

The take home points are:

1. Genetics only play a minor role in how long you live.
2. Regular exercise/activity is really important.
3. Plant-based diets also help.
4. Calorie restriction and/or fasting extend life in many animals, and maybe humans.
5. Supplements are unproven.
6. Family, community, and spiritual involvement are common in long lived populations.
7. Don't neglect mental health and sleep.

I can expound on any of those points, but I'm more interested in what other people are doing. There are dozens of finance threads, but far fewer discussing our most important asset: time.

What are you doing to improve your life/healthspan?

It seems there are several books titled The Longevity Bible. Who is the author of the book in your post please.

John Ross. He's an internist and infectious disease doctor on the faculty at Harvard. I also started reading How Not To Age, by Michael Greger.

 

[Hastur]

How long do you want to live?

I've read a few books on this topic: Lifespan, Outlive, The Blue Zones , and The Longevity Bible.

The take home points are:

1. Genetics only play a minor role in how long you live.
2. Regular exercise/activity is really important.
3. Plant-based diets also help.
4. Calorie restriction and/or fasting extend life in many animals, and maybe humans.
5. Supplements are unproven.
6. Family, community, and spiritual involvement are common in long lived populations.
7. Don't neglect mental health and sleep.

I can expound on any of those points, but I'm more interested in what other people are doing. There are dozens of finance threads, but far fewer discussing our most important asset: time.

What are you doing to improve your life/healthspan?

It seems there are several books titled The Longevity Bible. Who is the author of the book in your post please.

John Ross. He's an internist and infectious disease doctor on the faculty at Harvard. I also started reading How Not To Age, by Michael Greger.

Thanks!

I have a couple of Michael Greger books. Very good info in them.

 

[Terminalxylem]

How long do you want to live?

I've read a few books on this topic: Lifespan, Outlive, The Blue Zones , and The Longevity Bible.

The take home points are:

1. Genetics only play a minor role in how long you live.
2. Regular exercise/activity is really important.
3. Plant-based diets also help.
4. Calorie restriction and/or fasting extend life in many animals, and maybe humans.
5. Supplements are unproven.
6. Family, community, and spiritual involvement are common in long lived populations.
7. Don't neglect mental health and sleep.

I can expound on any of those points, but I'm more interested in what other people are doing. There are dozens of finance threads, but far fewer discussing our most important asset: time.

What are you doing to improve your life/healthspan?

It seems there are several books titled The Longevity Bible. Who is the author of the book in your post please.

John Ross. He's an internist and infectious disease doctor on the faculty at Harvard. I also started reading How Not To Age, by Michael Greger.

Thanks!

I have a couple of Michael Greger books. Very good info in them.

Yeah, he's good, but all these guys have biases. Seems like he oversells the impact of plant-based diets, while Attia goes overboard on protein and resistance training, for example.

That's why it's important to look at the original sources they reference, and compare/contrast multiple longevity "experts".

Ultimately, this field is still in its infancy, so I expect our understanding of best practice will change quite a bit over time.

 

[3C's]

Sounds about right...

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/444501565_390865607264270_6210470220791942335_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=orydq1Tuh0gQ7kNvgHIgPq1&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AYAwf1QT6jSDD79UhyYmp6xWKezK79jtvtNnv0b5N5h9Xw&oe=665D2C5A

 

[Terminalxylem]

Sounds about right...

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/444501565_390865607264270_6210470220791942335_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=orydq1Tuh0gQ7kNvgHIgPq1&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AYAwf1QT6jSDD79UhyYmp6xWKezK79jtvtNnv0b5N5h9Xw&oe=665D2C5A

Yeah, while all the diet/behavioral changes might not actually extend your life, the lack of fun will ensure time doesn’t fly, so it will feel like you live forever.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This is Upworthy so take that for what it's worth, but I thought this was interesting.

Study discovers people don't age steadily, but in dramatic bursts at two specific ages​

Study discovers people don't age steadily, but in dramatic bursts at two specific ages

This explains SO much about your 40s.

www.upworthy.com

My dad used to joke about kids having a "growth burst" and he'd had an "aging burst". Maybe there's something to that.