animal protein

Alzheimer's, cardiovascular, and other chronic diseases; biomarkers, lifestyle, supplements, drugs, and health care.
circular
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 5139
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:43 am

Re: animal protein

Postby circular » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:22 pm

Julie G wrote:Dr. Bredesen is on the lower side with his recommendations, 0.8 to 1.0g/per kg LBM per day. That limitation only applies to animal protein. All plants have some protein and this [l]imitation doesn't apply to unprocessed plant protein. He recognizes that many people have higher protein needs including those with GI issues (SIBO, GERD, IBS, etc), sub-type 3 (Toxic) AD, those over age 65, and those with physically demanding jobs or athletes. He acknowledges walking a balancing act between supporting growth processes and longevity pathways. His goal is to focus on healing underlying root causes to bring folks to a place where they can benefit from this lower recommendation.

The problem I'm having with this is that I would think we should all aim to place substantial physical demands on our musculoskeletal system as long as we possibly can for healthy aging. This would mean a need for higher adequate* protein should continue. There is also the growing anabolic resistance in aging muscles to counteract. When does that begin? For many, I think by the time the toxic, GI, etc issues are solved, it's already time to focus on counteracting age-related anabolic resistance in the muscles.

* Of course adequate is subject to debate. I need to hear Dr. Gundry and Dr. Bredesen counter Dr. Lyon's claims regarding what is adequate protein (and leucine) before I consider defaulting to the POV.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.

johnseed
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:21 pm

Re: animal protein

Postby johnseed » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:17 pm

BrianR wrote:
johnseed wrote:Is 3oz of animal protein the same as 3 oz of animal flesh? ie does 3 oz of flesh contain 3 oz of protein? Is all animal flesh, red meat, white meat, fish, shellfish etc the same from this perspective?

My heuristic is about 6-8g of protein per oz (~28g) of animal flesh. Meats which have lots of water pumped into them (e.g., some ham or chicken) or lots of fat will have lower protein densities.

Here are some some simple internet references I found which have more specific details for various foods:
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/johns_hopkins_bayview/_docs/medical_services/bariatrics/nutrition_protein_content_common_foods.pdf
https://www.todaysdietitian.com/pdf/webinars/ProteinContentofFoods.pdf
https://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/protein-chart.html



Thanks BrianR, this is what I was wondering.

So, when Dr Bredesen suggests 1gm animal protein/kg of LBM then this translates to about 4gm of fish or meat? Is this correct? Also, I have heard of LBM but how does this relate to the weight shown on my scales?

User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 8571
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: animal protein

Postby Julie G » Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:46 am

The problem I'm having with this is that I would think we should all aim to place substantial physical demands on our musculoskeletal system as long as we possibly can for healthy aging. This would mean a need for higher adequate* protein should continue.

Along with Dr. B, I'm in full agreement about continuing to engage in physical demands as we age but we want to make it more of a lifestyle as opposed to an hour session in an otherwise sedentary lifestyle. THAT ongoing day-to-day challenge is what keeps us strong. In terms of how that interacts with protein requirements, it's complex and our understanding is evolving. Dr. Lyon makes the point in this podcast that those who move constantly throughout the day (Blue Zones) actually need substantially LESS protein. It's those that are sick and sedentary that need the most to stimulate muscle synthesis.
There is also the growing anabolic resistance in aging muscles to counteract. When does that begin? For many, I think by the time the toxic, GI, etc issues are solved, it's already time to focus on counteracting age-related anabolic resistance in the
muscles.

That's the million dollar question and the answer lies in how early we begin to optimize. There's also a lot of room for individualization which is the beauty of personalized medicine. If you look back on all of the groups I listed in my original post who need MORE protein, it ends up being most people primarily because of their state of "unhealth" combined with a sedentary lifestyle. Keep in mind that PPIs are something like the 3rd most commonly taken pill in the US. With inadequate stomach acid, we can't begin to properly synthesize and utilize the protein that we ingest. That's just one of many issues facing most people in modern civilization. Unresolved GI damage, latent (or active) viral infections, biotoxins, and more increase the need for protein. The ultimate goal is to work towards healing while engaging in daily challenging movement so that less protein is required for muscle synthesis allowing us to concurrently optimize longevity pathways. With that goal in mind, we have to acknowledge that immortality isn't an option (yet) and there does come a point where older people will need more protein to overcome the accumulation of damage that occurs with aging. There's no magic age at which that occurs although many use 65 as the cut-off. If you are ripped and active at 65, you might be able to get away with less for a longer period of time. (Tincup can be our model for this trajectory. ;) )

I've been bringing these protein discussion back to Dr. B and his wife (my co-authors on the handbook) for better messaging on this important topic. Have I mentioned lately how much I love this forum for the continuing education and thoughtful dialogue on evolving science. Thanks to all for sharing your insights. -xo

circular
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 5139
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:43 am

Re: animal protein

Postby circular » Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:09 pm

Julie G wrote:
The problem I'm having with this is that I would think we should all aim to place substantial physical demands on our musculoskeletal system as long as we possibly can for healthy aging. This would mean a need for higher adequate* protein should continue.

Along with Dr. B, I'm in full agreement about continuing to engage in physical demands as we age but we want to make it more of a lifestyle as opposed to an hour session in an otherwise sedentary lifestyle. THAT ongoing day-to-day challenge is what keeps us strong.

One of my favorite things about Fitbit is that it tells me ten minutes before each hour if I haven't met my hourly step goal. When I'm focused on sedentary tasks I get up and do quick laps around the house just to meet the hourly goal, and then add a bit of strength reps for good measure. I look silly which is half the point of doing it :lol: Ideally there isn't much in the way of sedentary tasks, and much more strenuous exercise mixed into the day, but reality often bites.
Julie G wrote:In terms of how that interacts with protein requirements, it's complex and our understanding is evolving. Dr. Lyon makes the point in this podcast that those who move constantly throughout the day (Blue Zones) actually need substantially LESS protein. It's those that are sick and sedentary that need the most to stimulate muscle synthesis.

Thanks for linking back to that. I realized I hadn't finished listening to it.

In the part you mention, her opinion is that one must be doing a fairly extreme amount of day-long exercise to overcome the need for higher protein, a lot of walking and farming is her example. This would be a far cry from what most modern people in the industrialized world (your target audience?) can realistically incorporate, although I agree it's a good vision to lead us. The odd thing is that she mentions the Blue Zones specifically. I don't picture these people doing boatloads of strenuous exercise so much as being in more or less constant movement, but I haven't looked into it in any depth. Perhaps the majority really are farmers from sunup to sundown.

The other thing about her perspective here, if I understand it right, is that by 'lower protein' with exercise she would mean at least 30 grams per meal. That is her low protein, not what the anti-mTOR perspective would have it be. (Stay tuned for a another take on this.)
Julie G wrote:
Circular wrote:There is also the growing anabolic resistance in aging muscles to counteract. When does that begin? For many, I think by the time the toxic, GI, etc issues are solved, it's already time to focus on counteracting age-related anabolic resistance in the muscles.

That's the million dollar question and the answer lies in how early we begin to optimize. There's also a lot of room for individualization which is the beauty of personalized medicine. If you look back on all of the groups I listed in my original post who need MORE protein, it ends up being most people primarily because of their state of "unhealth" combined with a sedentary lifestyle. Keep in mind that PPIs are something like the 3rd most commonly taken pill in the US. With inadequate stomach acid, we can't begin to properly synthesize and utilize the protein that we ingest. That's just one of many issues facing most people in modern civilization. Unresolved GI damage, latent (or active) viral infections, biotoxins, and more increase the need for protein. The ultimate goal is to work towards healing while engaging in daily challenging movement so that less protein is required for muscle synthesis allowing us to concurrently optimize longevity pathways. [Second emphasis added]

So true about the plentiful need in modern, industrialized populations for more protein, generally speaking. But I think the million dollar question (we stand to make a lot of money in this discussion!) is whether 'less protein' necessarily implies that 'more protein', appropriately managed, is actually bad and significantly shortens life. Having lent my ear briefly and cursorily to the protein metabolism researchers, I'm not convinced that eating more protein (in such a way that you reset mTOR daily), and longevity are mutually exclusive. I'm actually beginning to think that more protein, properly implemented, could promote longevity. At least I am taking a good look at the possibility, large epidemiological studies notwithstanding.

After finishing the talk with Dr. Lyon that you linked, I decided to move on to the researcher she learned from, whom she claims (true? I don't know) is the world expert in protein metabolism, Don Layman. This turned out to be very interesting. I'm not sure if you or Dr. Bredesen have seen these; if so, they'll be here for anyone else interested.

First I found this 2009 commentary by him, which might be seen as essential reading to put the RDA for protein in thoughtful and historical context (except he doesn't tell the story about how it's derived from pigs during WWII):

Dietary Guidelines should reflect new understandings about adult protein needs

It's been cited over 170 times, so if I had time to do better due diligence I'd take a deep dive there.

Please note that he discloses potential conflicts of interest. (This gets interesting below.)

Then I found and listened to two online discussions with him. The first was notable for the better nuance he provides for some of what Dr. Lyon says, along with areas he appears to disagree with her. He suggests that after a good workout (whatever that would be), one only needs about 15-20 grams of protein to synergize with the exercise's promotion of mTOR. He also doesn't think, as Dr. Lyon has promoted, that the protein distribution needs to be equal amounts three times a day. I found it more satisfying than interviews with her for the added nuance and detail.

Iraki Nutrition, Nov. 29 2018

Early in the second he addresses the mTOR issue from his perspective. Whether one agrees or not, it's good to know how a protein metabolism expert's perceptions liberate protein - appropriately incorporated - from the devil's lair. (Aren't I poetic?) I don't know if he's right, but I sure don't have any good reason yet to think he's wrong.

Human Performance Outliers Podcast, April 17, 2019

Brace yourself for some professional ego slinging at Valter Longo. I just ignore accusations about intent, but it's worth a listen to hear some backstory that suggests Longo's own conflict of interest has served to limit public debate about the issues. He may even have had a hand in trying to silence Layman, since Longo served on an editorial board that wouldn't publish Layman's rebuttal to Longo's work. If true, all the more reason Layman at least deserves a careful ear through other venues, preferably in his own words and not through Dr. Lyon, who appears to have her own take here and there.
Julie G wrote:With that goal in mind, we have to acknowledge that immortality isn't an option (yet) and there does come a point where older people will need more protein to overcome the accumulation of damage that occurs with aging. There's no magic age at which that occurs although many use 65 as the cut-off. If you are ripped and active at 65, you might be able to get away with less for a longer period of time. (Tincup can be our model for this trajectory. ;) )

In one or both of the videos with Layman, it's his understanding that one shouldn't wait to eat more protein until about age 65, after there's already been an accumulation of damage with aging. According to his research, when our growth phase tapers to an end, roughly 30s - 40s, it's time to eat more protein (read meet leucine requirements to signal mTOR) to build muscle in order to compensate for the declining influence of growth hormones. This is how early protein metabolism begins to go haywire in the absence of adequate dietary protein. Would we encourage people to eat carbs until the damage has accumulated. It's just that in one case the damage is from excessively demoting a macronutrient, while in the other it's from excessively promoting a macronutrient.

Speaking of sugar, what if Layman is right that the first place we become insulin resistant is the muscle? Do we know that this is wrong? Is insufficient protein the culprit? My growing belief (always subject to change) is that this notion of muscle-centric health, and insulin resistance starting in the muscle at a much earlier age than acknowledged, is something we need to take on board.

I hear you about needing less protein with more exercise; since exercise itself signals mTOR you need less leucine from protein to do that. Perhaps outliers like Tincup can get away with really low protein intakes, and I'm sure not aware of a guide to know just how much exercise one needs to be absolved of needing more than, say, 20 gram of dietary protein (to use a Gundry metric). I'd like to better understand the interplay between mTOR synthesis by exercise and by dietary protein. In any case, the implication is that all that exercise in a low protein context is sufficiently stimulating mTOR to maintain healthy muscle and bone synthesis. So are we back to whether stimulating mTOR will prematurely kill us, whether through excessive exercise or excessive dietary protein, or is there something qualitatively different about stimulating mTOR using something like a Tincup protocol. (Not trying to pick on you Tincup :D ) Since I've tried so many 'diets' but not a 'high protein' one, I'm enjoying embarking on this adventure to compare it with other 'diets' I've been on. So far I'm quite encouraged about how it effects me, but it's only been about three days, so don't hold me to anything. I'll be sure to confess if my experience begins to go downhill.
Julie G wrote:I've been bringing these protein discussion back to Dr. B and his wife (my co-authors on the handbook) for better messaging on this important topic. Have I mentioned lately how much I love this forum for the continuing education and thoughtful dialogue on evolving science. Thanks to all for sharing your insights. -xo

I'm not sure what manual you're working on, but I'm sure wrestling with making all the variables both accurate and accessible to your target audience is a worthy part of your AD prevention protocol, XO.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.

circular
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 5139
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:43 am

Re: animal protein

Postby circular » Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:12 pm

Just a quick add that Layman refers to some case control studies by protein metabolism researchers that he suggests are better than the epidemiological studies often relied on to conclude that low animal protein is good. I'm out of time to go deeper, but this should be evaluated and weighed?
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.

User avatar
MarcR
Mod
Mod
Posts: 1744
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:28 pm
Location: Camas, Washington, US

Re: animal protein

Postby MarcR » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:39 am

Kudos to circular for detailed and persuasive explanation of the Layman / Lyons points of view. I agree with her that this topic is vital.

A couple of years ago, briefly intrigued by Rosedale's idea that mTOR should be minimized, I reduced my protein intake - my subjective opinion is that the results were poor. Based on that personal experience and overwhelming scientific evidence, I continue to be deeply skeptical of the recommendations from prominent clinicians that are often cited here and buttressed with reference to "Blue Zones".

In my opinion, the Blue Zones book is an unscientific story that compares poorly to the actual experimental research used to support protein intake well in excess of the US RDA.

For a lucid and well-referenced discussion of the relationships among mTOR, AMPK, insulin, IGF-1, and macronutrients, I recommend this article by P.D. Mangan.

mike
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:55 pm
Location: CA - Sonoma County

Re: animal protein

Postby mike » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:36 pm

Fat is not the cause of Insulin Resistance, sugar is. Too much glucose and especially fructose. Fructose can't be used by the body and must be converted by the liver. It then often gets stored as organ fat. Liver gets fat, then pancreas. Listen to Peter Attia's recent podcast with Dr Jason Fung: https://peterattiamd.com/jasonfung/
Sonoma Mike
4/4

User avatar
jgilberAZ
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:15 pm
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Contact:

Re: animal protein

Postby jgilberAZ » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:19 pm

I did look at the MasteringDiabetes link above claiming fat causes insulin resistance.

It’s primary proof is that ketogenic rats fail an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).

Well, when the pancreas has been accustomed to not having to full-bore dump insulin as soon as it sees a little glucose, it’s no doubt that it won’t respond as quickly as one that is used to getting doused with high glucose multiple times per day.

The referenced study even acknowledge that this effect goes away quickly if a higher-than-keto amount of carbs are eaten for a couple days before the test.


But, this is all just stupid smoke and mirrors.


Insulin resistance is when you have to keep increasing insulin to get the same effect.

So, diagnosing it is easy … measure fasting insulin.

And, I guarantee it’s low when eating keto (mine was 5).


Another thing about that PDF. It says keto proponents are saying to eat a lot of fat in the form of vegetable oils.

That’s a blatant lie.

I don’t know ANY keto people saying to eat vegetable (seed) oils.

I know many who say they’re almost as bad as carbs, maybe worse (myself included).

#meatheals
Apoe 3/4
My Website

Plumster
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: animal protein

Postby Plumster » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:43 pm

JgilberAZ,

Several routes can likely lead to the same effect of insulin resistance. Moi, I am on a whole foods plant based diet (high carb, low fat) and my fasting insulin is 2.8. I doubt anyone out there with some knowledge of nutrition believes that vegetable oils are good for us.

#peasonearth
e3/4 MTHFR C677T/A1298C COMT V158M++ COMT H62H++ MTRR A66G ++ HLA DR

circular
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 5139
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:43 am

Re: animal protein

Postby circular » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:49 pm

MarcR wrote:Kudos to circular for detailed and persuasive explanation of the Layman / Lyons points of view. I agree with her that this topic is vital.

Thanks Marc for helping me feel like I'm not wasting my time venturing down this path, although I think you may be giving me more credit than I deserve ;) You've clearly done much more of a deep dive into the literature than I have been able to do. I'm still just feeling my way along.

I felt the Wiki could use a page relating to this, so I set one up in the TOC, but I haven't as yet added anything to the page itself. Do you think it's a bit too extreme as far as suggesting that this perspective includes the notion that nearly everyone, if not everyone, needs higher protein than the RDA? Feel free to edit or send me back to the drawing board. It just seems like it would be good to have a Wiki page to link to when this topic comes up...

Hmmm, I wonder if it requires linking high protein needs specifically to apoe4? What might the link be if there is one? Early protein metabolism derangement due to inadequate intakes starting in young adult years leads to insulin resistance and sarcopenia first appearing in the muscles decades before becoming clinically apparent ...

I can't get the page title quite right:

Scientific support for a high protein diet
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.


Return to “Prevention and Treatment”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests