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
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
) 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.