Plant Protein is superior to everything else for healthy aging

[mccoy]

Re the proteomics organ-specific clock. I appreciate the effort and the output colormap is appealing.
Not everything seems to be plausible though. Like vigorous and moderate exercise exhibiting a negative age gap for muscles, sort of an oxymoron. Also, fresh fruit and cooked vegetables negative age gap for muscles. And it is ostensibly statistically significant… Please correct me if I’m wrong… Why should muscles age faster by exercise? Unless sarcopenia means atrophic but younger muscle tissue???

[mccoy]

Re the OP article on plant-based protein. I listened to Simon Hill’s podcast and I reasoned a little on it, but I should read and study the article myself. An epidemiological study has pros and cons. The indisputable pros are the vast amount of data hence greater statistical representativity of the population (cohort) under exam; the longer timespan hence statistical representativity over long-term effects. The questionnaires are a controversial issue, but there is a science behind it, how to make them statistically representative, how to avoid the pitfalls and so on. Specialized researchers are dedicated to questionnaires. So I wouldn’t discard a priori the conclusions of this study. A clinical trial is usually, not always, more rigorous but the subsets are much smaller and the timespans are much shorter.
Often clinical trials are inconclusive, that is they do not yield conspicuos results on both sides and I wonder if in this case they are a reflection of reality or a reflection of their own limits.
The above being said, I’m not convinced yet that for every individual totally substituting plant protein to animal protein is best for longevity. I’ll be back after having read the study.
One spontaneous objection to the study would be that other studies highlight the fact that a pesco-vegan diet is better in terms of mortality than a purely vegan diet even if it includes fish protein. I’m afraid that such topics should be elucidated by unbiased, up to date researchers who are specialists in the specific field.

[mccoy]

The official conclusions of the Harvard University office are a little bit cautious, as should be the norm in such studies:

January 25, 2024 — Women who eat more plant protein]in midlife may increase their odds of aging healthily, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Tufts University.

So the verb ‘May’ is used, which implies uncertainty; besides, the results apply rigorously to women in their midlife. The results are applicable to healthspan, not lifespan.

Everything else constitutes an extrapolation, which implies further degrees of uncertainty.

I appreciate the fact that the Harvard university did not shoot bombastic declarations but stuck to the rigorous premises and logical conclusions, even if the staff has usually a vegan bias.

I started the reading of the article. If anyone is interested, please join in, I love the challenge.

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)66282-3/pdf

To start out with, the protein categories have been underlined as follows.

The
primary animal protein sources in the 1984 and 1986 FFQs were beef,
chicken, milk, fish/seafood, and cheese (Supplementary Figure 2). The
main contributors to dairy protein (a subset of animal protein) were
milk, cheese, pizza, yogurt, and ice cream. The main plant protein
sources were bread, vegetables, fruits, pizza, cereal, baked items,
mashed potatoes, nuts, beans, peanut butter, and pasta (Supplementary
Figure 2)

From the above, it descends that the diet was far from the dietary sophistication adopted by today’s longevity buffs. For example, plant protein category is explicitly devoid of soy, a main component in todays’ vegan regimes. The plant protein includes just about everything, for example bread and pasta, without further specification (refined, whole grains).

The dairy category includes pizza, ice cream and cheese, without specification.

I’m in a hurry now and cannot write any further but the issues appear substantial to me. The results may apply to these compared categories alone.

For example, the dairy I eat is rigorously yogurt or Greek yogurt, often lowfat. Never pizza, never ice cream, almost never fat cheese and if so with extreme moderation, sometimes fresh milk. The results are probably not applicable to my regimen.

[Karel1]

Searching why the big difference between plant protein and everything else I wondered if the reason is the content of specific amino-acids being relatively high or low in a plant based diet compared to a primarily meat or fish based protein source.
To start with I found:
https://tools.myfooddata.com/protein-calculator/171797/100g/1

Composition of free and peptide-bound amino acids in beef chuck, loin, and...

and many others
It seems an immense task because all kinds of protein sources show widely different amino-acid composition. And starting at the other end of the equation is equally or more different because there are no data about amino-acid composition of plasma from veganist and carnivorous persons to compare…

[mccoy]

Karel1, nice nutrients calculator! The comparison is not easy, beyond the simple compositional amounts in EAAs, we should also contemplate ileal digestibility, minimum conditioning amminoacid and so on. The latest 2 factors are part of the DIAAS score which constitutes the degree in which EAAs in determined foods or food mixtures are absorbed and effectively utilized by the body.
I made a simple comparison, T-bone beef steak and peanut butter, which is a typical hi-protein plant-derived staple.
The comparison is isocaloric, that is we have 2 quantities of the two foods each wich provide an identical energy intake.

The numbers speak by themselves, beef contains considerably higher amount of all EAAs, including leucine which is considered an essential input of mTOR activation.

One preliminary hypothesis could be that animal, in this case beef protein, contain such a higher amount of EAAs that they can easily be ingested in excess especially by sedentary people, and consequently keep the mTOR pathway in high degrees of phosphorylation, which means a signaling cascade unfavourable to longevity.

Alternatively, by substituting plant protein for other food, we actually substitute not just protein, but other nutrients contained in plant-derived food, like fiber, polyphenols and so many micronutrients and other molecules that are known to trigger signaling cascades favorable to longevity.

Many other hypotheses are possible, but the discussion here can have so many ramifications according to individual cases

Food 1 is peanut butter, 100 grams=598 kcals, food 2 is grilled T-bone steak, 280 gr,= 594 kcals

[mccoy]

By the way, I’m aware that perhaps the comparison should have been in iso proteic terms, that is two portions with the same amount of protein, but that would mean comparing 100 gr of peanut butter to 79 grams of T-bone steak, I don’t know if there are champions of moderation who eat so little of a steak portion. The article did a 3% substitution in calories by protein, meaning about 16 grams of protein for a 2100 kcals/d diet. This means that if middle aged women substitute 58 grams of steak with 72 grams of peanut butter, they have a substantial longevity advantage and the EAAs comparison is as follows, the differences do not seem overwhelming but the DIAAS score of beef is about 100% whereas the same score of peanuts is less, this meaning that the differences in the gastric system are more pronounced.
Similar comparisons should be made for other plant protein like bread refined and whole, pasta, other nuts, beans and so on, estimate the influence of DIAAS score, not always available for mixtures, then trying to guess if the differences in absorbed EAAs may explain the purported advantages.

[ng0rge]

New article supporting vegan diet for longevity.

To assess the interplay between diet and epigenetics, the researchers assessed the individual ages of 11 organ systems: heart, lung, kidney, liver, brain, immune, inflammatory, blood, musculoskeletal, hormone, and metabolic. In the vegan group, they found significant decreases in age across five – the inflammatory, heart, hormone, liver and metabolic systems – while the epigenetic clock didn’t budge for the omnivores.

Overall, this plant-based cohort had lowered their biological age by an average of 0.63 years (or just over 7.5 months) in just eight weeks. There was also a decrease in each person’s biological age compared to their chronological age, which equated to 0.0312 units. Essentially, this translated to these participants having biological ages lower than what you’d expect from someone of their chronological age.

Nonetheless, the study also highlights the increasing focus on personalized medicine and epigenetics as a tool in slowing the aging process. Lead author Varun Dwaraka is also the head of bioinformatics at epigenetic testing company TruDiagnostic, which is marketing its epigenetic tests as a proactive way to “reverse your aging.” However, at US$499 a kit, it might be more affordable to just give up meat and dairy for eight weeks.

“These comprehensive findings underscore the complex interplay between diet, epigenetic regulation, immune function, and metabolic health, offering valuable insights for future research and personalized health interventions,” the researchers concluded.

https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/eight-week-vegan-age/

[desertshores]

IMO: The big difference between plant protein-based and whey protein-based powders is the plant-based powders just don’t taste as good.
I have no basic bias against plant-based diets vs low-carb diets other than the fact that I much prefer the taste of low-carb non-plant-based diets, but that is just me.

[mccoy]

IMO: The big difference between plant protein-based and whey protein-based powders is the plant-based powders just don’t taste as good.
I have no basic bias against plant-based diets vs low-carb diets other than the fact that I much prefer the taste of low-carb non-plant-based diets, but that is just me.

I would add that it’s not just the taste, it is the digestibility as well, at least for some people like myself. Tofu, Seitan, plant-protein isolates, often tend to bloat. I’ve eagerly followed a vegan diet for 1.5 years, gaining some muscle mass, but could not withstand a frequent feeling of too full of a stomach.

This is OT, since the cohort under study did not seem to consume such foods.

[mccoy]

If you are a middle-aged female nurse who started filling food questionnaires in the early eighties, maybe the biggest bang for the buck is not substituting 16 grams of animal protein for 16 grams of plant protein, rather substituting 64 kCals of refined carbs, or MUFAs, or whole carbs, for 16 grams of plant-derived protein. This is also not very clear, since refined and whole carbs do contain plant-derived protein. Substituting animal protein for plant protein (16 grams of them) would also yield an advantage in terms of healthy aging, but less than the previous substitutions.

[Dr.Bart]

@gerard

The human being has been eating fat and animal meat for more than a million years; it makes sense that the best diet for humans is a lot of fat and a lot of meat.

That’s a completely made up statement.

Let’s starts with a fact that homo sapiens emerged around 200 to 300,000 years ago, not millions years ago.

Diet for homo sapiens or hominis was definitely NOT a lot of fat and a lot of meat… where would they obtain that exactly, even if they manage to hunt down some game it was very lean. Gathering and foraging was much easier than hunting.

Homo sapiens

[edit]

The evidence of early Homo sapiens diet stems from multiple lines of evidence, and there is a relative abundance of information due to both a larger relative population footprint and more recent evidence. A key contribution to early human diet likely was the introduction of fire to hominins toolkit. Some studies indicate a correlation with the introduction of fire and the reduction of tooth and gut size, going so far as to indicate their reduction as clear evolutionary indicators of the widespread introduction of fire.[24]

A key difference between the diets of Homo sapiens and our closest extinct relatives H. neanderthalensis is the ability to effectively digest cooked starches, with some evidence found linking cooked starch and a further increase in H. sapiens brain size.[25] Roots and tubers were introduced into the broader human diet, and can likely be assumed to be associated with fire as cooking would likely be necessary for many tubers to be digested.[1] The use of root and tuber species in some Hunter Gatherer cultures makes up a critical component of diet. This is not only for the nutritional value of the species, but the relative annual stability of the species. This buffer effect would be important for many groups that relied on tubers.[26] The ability to process starch is linked genetically to modern humans, with the genes necessary to its consumption not found in H. neanderthalensis. The timing of this mutation on modern humans is important as it means the ability to digest heavily starchy foods has only developed in the last 200ky years.[13] In addition to the exploitation of tubers, another dietary innovation (this far) of Homo sapiens is the introduction of coastal and other marine resources. Some researchers have argued that the introduction of shellfish and other marine species play a significant role in the evolution of modern Homo sapiens.[27]

By the upper Paleolithic, more complex tools and a higher proportion of meat in the human diet are assumed to correlate with an expansion of population in Europe.[28] Though the diet of modern humans is not consistent through the Upper Paleolithic, from the Middle to Late Pleistocene there is a general shift in many areas towards a less abrasive diet. This is accompanied by changing technologies that would aid in the processing of abrasive plant species.[18] Ethnographic comparisons with contemporary groups of Hunter Gatherers broadly imply a high reliance on animal protein supplemented with a wide range of available plant foods. While a reliance on animal protein is often seen as typical, it is by no means universal.[29]

By the time of the Upper Paleolithic and modern Homo sapiens, not only was a wide variety of plants consumed, but a wide variety of animals, snails and fish. In order to exploit the many different species consumed, there was a wider variety of tools made than ever before available to humans.[30] The shift to a higher quality diet and the technology to process a wide array of foods is reflected in modern humans by both the relatively larger brain size and reduction in gut size.[31] The trend of larger brain size, the eating of animal protein, fire use and diversification of exploited foods is key to understanding the changing diets of human ancestors.[24]

[desertshores]

[quote=“Dr.Bart, post:111, topic:14895”]
Diet for homo sapiens or hominis was definitely NOT a lot of fat and a lot of meat… where would they obtain that exactly, even if they manage to hunt down some game it was very lean.
That is just not true many early and humans did and do eat a lot of fat and meat.

Ancient and present day, Saami, Nenets, Chukchi, Inuits, Yupiks, and various other tribes hunted and ate seals, bears, caribou, etc., In fact they ate seal blubber, a thick layer of fatty tissue that insulates seals and other marine mammals from cold water temperatures and helps them survive in icy environments. It was an important food for survival in the frigid temperatures of the North.

Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site: Located in Siberia, this archaeological site has yielded evidence of early human groups hunting mammoths around 27,000 years ago.

[AnUser]

@desertshores

I have no basic bias against plant-based diets vs low-carb diets other than the fact that I much prefer the taste of low-carb non-plant-based diets, but that is just me.

What do you think about Bryan eating a bunch of vegetables, nuts, and so on?

[mccoy]

What do you think about Bryan eating a bunch of vegetables, nuts, and so on?

As far as I gather, He chose his specific regime among some possibilities given to him that provided a minimum requirement of nutrients. His condition was also an ethic vegan diet.
I think Bryan is an excellent example of dietary stoicism, eating always the same stuff, pureed, with no apparent change or variety, that we know. I am sure I would lose weight to death with such a diet, since my stomach would refuse to work after a while. A very good diet for obese people wanting to lose inexorably weight, to the threshold of anorexicity.
He has been able to overcome the sense of taste and hedonistic appreciation of food and I admire him for this, probably because he is motivated by a higher purpose in life, which makes him feel measly pleasures totally trivial.
I’m afraid His n=1 experiment is not applicable to the general population, although we can sure say his diet didn’t kill him so far, nor ruined the various blood panels he’s regularly running.

[LaraPo]

@AnUser

What do you think about Bryan eating a bunch of vegetables, nuts, and so on?

This diet will keep him young looking for longer. If he keeps up with it we’ll see a dramatic difference in appearance between him and other men of the same age on regular diet. In 10 years he’ll look 20-30 years younger than his age. It’s my prediction.

[mccoy]

LaraPo, is that just the diet? Or is it the insane treatments, including cosmetic treatments, he is daily undergoing at the cost of 2 million US$ per year (or more)?

The fact that he takes Testosterone dermal supplements underline the fact that the diet is not enough to sustain his physical efforts.

Should I take T supplements, I would be very muscular and ripped with no effort, eating the modestly caloric diet I’m currently eating.

[AnUser]

@mccoy

The fact that he takes Testosterone dermal supplements underline the fact that the diet is not enough to sustain his physical efforts.

He doesn’t take that anymore.

[mccoy]

AnUser, thanks for the update, last time I saw, he was using dermal patches because his blood testosterone was too low, presumably because of his CR regime. At least, this was the explanation he or Zolman were giving. Perhaps he relaxed his CR or changed something else. At the time, I thought, well, he is able to lift decent weight and to display some musculature even with CR, with the help of T. Presently, I’ll have to check.

[AnUser]

He decreased CR to -10% I think from -20%, his testosterone is 800 ng/ml or something without any added testosterone.

[mccoy]

OK, I’m seeing that he upped the calories to 2250, that level of CR is not over the board, BMI abut 22 and that’s good, with adiposity about 9% not too little.
He takes 19% protein with 29 gr/d of pea protein isolate.

For what I can say, the perfect sleep score he’s able to achieve for weeks in a row gives him the possibility to recover, protein plus exercise ensures some muscular mass at a low, but not exageratedly so, adiposity. He also takes Rapamacyn and some tyroid hormones, which may have a positive effect in avoiding emaciation.

Again, my point is that we don’t know which exactly in his case are the benefits of a plant-based diet, since he does so many other beneficial things like abundantly good sleep plus copious exercise plus abundant supplementation with different molecules.