Diet confusion

[CarrieS]

I just read this book by Dr. Will Cole Ketotarian. He has some great recipes for vegetarian options and staying ketogenic. I got it from my local library to review. I've found that the amount of meat that I eat has reduced significantly over the last year as I've increased my vegetable, nut and seed intake. It just doesn't sound as good to me for some reason. I used to gobble down a grass-fed burger after a long hike but now want a salad. Go figure, meat has become a condiment. I do however, eat a lot of pastured eggs. I must need what's in those eggs these days. I do more of a KetoFlex plan rather than strict Keto and have found that works best for me and my lifestyle.

[Plumster]

Can someone explain to me why animal protein is considered bad here?

Because of the cholesterol (and oxidized cholesterol when cooking), saturated fat, and the methionine. Apoe 4s are more prone to cardiovascular disease. We hyper-absorb cholesterol.

[jgilberAZ]

Vegetarian or carnivore or a combination of both are fine as long as you keep insulin low.

Insulin resistance is the driver of disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12467491/

This review presents evidence suggesting that insulin resistance plays a role in the pathophysiology and clinical symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. Based on this evidence, we propose that treatment of insulin resistance may reduce the risk or retard the development of Alzheimer's disease.

[xactly]

Can someone explain to me why animal protein is considered bad here?

There are several locations around the world where people live longer, healthier lives than most. These are called "Blue Zones." One of the defining dietary characteristics of people living in Blue Zones is low consumption of protein, especially from animal sources.

There are also a number of studies that show a diet high in animal protein significantly increases the risk of cancer and heart disease. Here's an article from Scientific American that reports a high protein diet for people 50 to 65 increases the risk of cancer by 400%, which is comparable to smoking.

[jgilberAZ]

That is an article about a study without a link to the actual study.

And without being able to read the actual study, the article means nothing.

[jgilberAZ]

Here’s the actual study:

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fu ... 14)00062-X

Here, we combined an epidemiological study of 6,381 US men and women aged 50 and above from NHANES III, the only nationally representative dietary survey in the United States, with mouse and cellular studies to understand the link between the level and source of proteins and amino acids, aging, diseases, and mortality.

Ignore this study and all the media hype it generated. It’s not a valid study.

[xactly]

That is an article about a study without a link to the actual study.

And without being able to read the actual study, the article means nothing.

Good point. I should probably have referenced books on this subject instead, such as Valter Longo's The Longevity Diet and Dan Buettner's The Blue Zones. I don't have copies in front of me, but I believe both books cite published research.

[Plumster]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12658281
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9600988
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23813612
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11571339
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345313
And the list of studies linking cholesterol and AD goes on and on and on . . . .

[xactly]

Ignore this study and all the media hype it generated. It’s not a valid study.

PS: I am curious about why you say this is not a valid study. Any insight would be appreciated.

[jgilberAZ]

Epidemiological studies are inherently flawed.

They look at a set of data and draw conclusions from what they observed.

While that may be valid as a way to create a hypothesis, it is invalid as a means of determining cause and effect.

Also, studies that use food questionnaires are inherently flawed.

Usually, they ask questions like "over the past year, about how many times a week did you eat _____?"

Even if people could remember accurately, there have been studies proving that people are not completely honest about what they've eaten. They don't want to admit they binge on Oreos twice as month, for instance.

And, people change what they eat over time.

In the latest "low carb takes years off your life" study, there were two questionnaires filled out, each several (15??) years apart. And from that, they concluded that low carb reduces your lifespan.

Bogus. Not to mention that "low carb" in their definition was still roughly 150g of carbs per day.