Re: Benefits of 40% CR with 1% Restriction(????) Part 3.

[Guest guest]

Hi Orb:

Yes, and vegans not only get the apparent benefits of low Met intake,

but also cut themselves off entirely, in a most extreme way, from

beneficial nutrients that are to be found in animal products.

As we all know, there are all kinds of super-beneficial nutrients

about which, in our current state of knowledge, we know nothing at

all. Twenty years ago resveratrol was unknown, for example.

Tea, as another example, has been shown in epidemiological studies to

have a protective effect against eleven different forms of cancer.

Yet tea is ~99.999999% water. So the beneficial ingredient must be

massively powerful. But we know little if anything about it.

Similarly with allium vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, tomatoes

(some studies show tomato supplements to have effects superior to

just lycopene). It is only comparatively recently that the

significance of EPA and DHA came to be realized.

Is it not likely that animal products contain other highly beneficial

nutrients, in addition to the harmful ones we already know about,

often discuss here, and try to avoid?

So I suggest the reason vegans do not live as long as they could may

eventually be shown to be simply that they have cut themselves off

from such nutrients. I am not talking about B12 here, which can

easily be supplemented, but nutrients that have not been isolated yet.

As for vegan centenarians, how many people born 100 years ago

followed a vegan lifestyle? My impression is that it has only been

in the past 30 years that a significant number of people have adopted

veganism. So we will have to wait, as with human CR studies, for

another seventy or eighty years before we have a sample large enough

to draw conclusions from.

For me the consumption of small amounts of low Met, lean, animal

products seems to make a lot of sense. In 50 years we will probably

know the answer. In the meantime we place our bets.

Rodney.

--- In , " orb85750 " <sudarsky@...>

wrote:

>

> Right, like the general population, many vegans do not attain

> adequate levels of nutrition, but there are still a good fraction

of

> vegans that *do* pay close attention to their nutritional needs and

> have very prudent diets. These nutritionally adequate vegans

should

> be living a very long time if methionine restriction is the key

> issue. Is there any evidence that a good fraction of centenarians

or

> near-centenarians follow a vegan diet or something close to a vegan

> diet, such that methionine is similarly restricted? In other

words,

> where are all the long-lived met-restricted people?

>

> >

> > I believe the studies that Rodney cited were about Met

restriction

> with

> > otherwise excellent nutrition. While most vegans are probably

> eating

> > Met restricted diets, many of them may not be meeting their other

> > nutritional needs. Many vegans do not eat animal products

because

> of

> > moral objections and do not bother to pay meticulous attention to

> other

> > aspects of nutrition. Even recently I have heard people who

dispute

> > the need for b-12 supplementation. When you classify a group of

> people

> > as " vegan " you are including both people who are Met restricted

with

> > optimal nutrition who may be living longer and people who are Met

> > restricted with substandard nutrition who may be limiting their

> > lifespan due to nutritonal deficiency. So overall, the effect of

> Met

> > restriction on lifespan is confounded.

> >

> > A vegan meal could be a large green salad with olives, garbanzo

> beans,

> > pine nuts and roasted veggies of many varieties. Or it could be

a

> fake

> > soy hot dog on a white bun with a side of potato chips.

> >

> > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________

> > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.

> > Try the Beta.

> > http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

> >

>

[Guest guest]

When you talk about the notion of vegans cutting themselves off from

beneficial nutrients, my guess is that you're not familiar with the

scientific exposition by the American Dietetic Association on

vegetarian and vegan diets:

http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.

htm

But that's mainly an aside, because I was also asking about near-

vegan (low-met) people. Are you claiming that there simply have not

been enough people living low-met adequate nutrition lifestyles (from

the pool of billions) to reveal that a low-met lifestyle results in a

very long life? I'm not talking here about CR, nor complete

abstinence from animal products, just low-met with adequate nutrition.

What do you think?

> >

> > Right, like the general population, many vegans do not attain

> > adequate levels of nutrition, but there are still a good fraction

> of

> > vegans that *do* pay close attention to their nutritional needs

and

> > have very prudent diets. These nutritionally adequate vegans

> should

> > be living a very long time if methionine restriction is the key

> > issue. Is there any evidence that a good fraction of

centenarians

> or

> > near-centenarians follow a vegan diet or something close to a

vegan

> > diet, such that methionine is similarly restricted? In other

> words,

> > where are all the long-lived met-restricted people?

> >

> > >

> > > I believe the studies that Rodney cited were about Met

> restriction

> > with

> > > otherwise excellent nutrition. While most vegans are probably

> > eating

> > > Met restricted diets, many of them may not be meeting their

other

> > > nutritional needs. Many vegans do not eat animal products

> because

> > of

> > > moral objections and do not bother to pay meticulous attention

to

> > other

> > > aspects of nutrition. Even recently I have heard people who

> dispute

> > > the need for b-12 supplementation. When you classify a group

of

> > people

> > > as " vegan " you are including both people who are Met restricted

> with

> > > optimal nutrition who may be living longer and people who are

Met

> > > restricted with substandard nutrition who may be limiting their

> > > lifespan due to nutritonal deficiency. So overall, the effect

of

> > Met

> > > restriction on lifespan is confounded.

> > >

> > > A vegan meal could be a large green salad with olives, garbanzo

> > beans,

> > > pine nuts and roasted veggies of many varieties. Or it could

be

> a

> > fake

> > > soy hot dog on a white bun with a side of potato chips.

> > >

> > > -

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > ______________

> > > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.

> > > Try the Beta.

> > > http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>>When you talk about the notion of vegans cutting themselves off from beneficial nutrients, my guess is that you're not familiar with the scientific exposition by the American Dietetic Association on vegetarian and vegan diets: "Vegan" doesnt ever indicate what someone consumes, only what they leave out. So, any generic statement about a "vegan" diet can never be accurate about what is in it and what it includes. The position paper says that a properly planned vegan diet, can be healthy and meet all the nutrient requirements. Too many vegans delude themselves into false confidence about the quality of their diet. Jeff

[Guest guest]

Which is why one should eat variety, variety, variety - esp a wide range for veggies and fruits. See our " Checklist for CRON VARIETY " in the files under: " IMPROVING YOUR CRON PROGRAM " .

on 1/17/2007 7:55 AM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

Tea, as another example, has been shown in epidemiological studies to

have a protective effect against eleven different forms of cancer.

Yet tea is ~99.999999% water. So the beneficial ingredient must be

massively powerful. But we know little if anything about it.

Similarly with allium vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, tomatoes

(some studies show tomato supplements to have effects superior to

just lycopene). It is only comparatively recently that the

significance of EPA and DHA came to be realized.

Is it not likely that animal products contain other highly beneficial

nutrients, in addition to the harmful ones we already know about,

often discuss here, and try to avoid?

[Guest guest]

Hi Orb:

You are right. I am not familiar with that. But I was not referring

to the nutritional adequacy of the standard nutrients, printed out by

all the nutrition analysis software packages, a lack of which is well

know to cause severe deficiency symptoms or death.

Rather I had in mind other nutrients, resveratrol being a classic

example the existance of which has only been known a decade or two,

and still is only vaguely understood. The total lack of dietary

resveratrol produces no detectible symptoms. But the early

indications seem to be that it may turn out to be a very beneficial

nutrient.

It seems very likely there are others that have not even been

identified yet. Although the existence of some of them has been

hinted at in epidemiological studies of groups that consume tomatoes,

allium vegetables, tea, wine, etc.. Unless your view is that every

beneficial nutrient that ever will be identified already has been?

As regards your point about people who have lived a low-Met

existence, I am not aware of any studies that would enable us to

clarify this. If you are, then please post them. When the studies

eventually are done it may be found (or of course may not) that Met

intake is one of a number of significant factors determining aging

rate. Of course aging rate is not an easy thing to measure. How

does one distinguish between someone who dies at age 70 because of a

rapid aging rate, and someone who dies at age 70 who had a slow aging

rate but got hit by some unfortunate disease early? (The latter's

curve was not rectanguarized, whereas the former's curve may have

been perfectly rectangularized, yet they died at the same age.) So

this is not a trivial problem. And it is one reason I found the

Sanz, Caro and Barja approach to measuring aging rate so interesting.

There is some quite suggestive evidence regarding the possible

effects of Met on aging rate in the papers I referenced in my

original posts on this issue. Those are enough for me (but

apparently not for you, which is fine) to decide to de-emphasize

foods I had previously believed to be healthy but which have a high

Met content, and emphasize to a greater extent lower Met foods which

I have always believed to be healthy.

Time is not on our side to await overwhelming evidence. As noted in

my original posts, if you can see some risk in the approach I have

said I am taking in this matter, I very much welcome your input. I

do see a possibly large, but at this stage highly uncertain, benefit.

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Right, like the general population, many vegans do not attain

> > > adequate levels of nutrition, but there are still a good

fraction

> > of

> > > vegans that *do* pay close attention to their nutritional needs

> and

> > > have very prudent diets. These nutritionally adequate vegans

> > should

> > > be living a very long time if methionine restriction is the key

> > > issue. Is there any evidence that a good fraction of

> centenarians

> > or

> > > near-centenarians follow a vegan diet or something close to a

> vegan

> > > diet, such that methionine is similarly restricted? In other

> > words,

> > > where are all the long-lived met-restricted people?

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I believe the studies that Rodney cited were about Met

> > restriction

> > > with

> > > > otherwise excellent nutrition. While most vegans are

probably

> > > eating

> > > > Met restricted diets, many of them may not be meeting their

> other

> > > > nutritional needs. Many vegans do not eat animal products

> > because

> > > of

> > > > moral objections and do not bother to pay meticulous

attention

> to

> > > other

> > > > aspects of nutrition. Even recently I have heard people who

> > dispute

> > > > the need for b-12 supplementation. When you classify a group

> of

> > > people

> > > > as " vegan " you are including both people who are Met

restricted

> > with

> > > > optimal nutrition who may be living longer and people who are

> Met

> > > > restricted with substandard nutrition who may be limiting

their

> > > > lifespan due to nutritonal deficiency. So overall, the

effect

> of

> > > Met

> > > > restriction on lifespan is confounded.

> > > >

> > > > A vegan meal could be a large green salad with olives,

garbanzo

> > > beans,

> > > > pine nuts and roasted veggies of many varieties. Or it could

> be

> > a

> > > fake

> > > > soy hot dog on a white bun with a side of potato chips.

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

> > > ______________

> > > > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.

> > > > Try the Beta.

> > > >

http://advision.webevents./mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I certainly agree with Jeff here. My daughter's college-age boyfriend

considers himself a " vegan " , although I rarely see him consume either

fruits or vegetables. I jokingly call him a " carbohydratarian " .

-Diane

>

> >>When you talk about the notion of vegans cutting themselves off from

> beneficial nutrients, my guess is that you're not familiar with the

> scientific exposition by the American Dietetic Association on

> vegetarian and vegan diets:

>

> " Vegan " doesnt ever indicate what someone consumes, only what they

leave out. So, any generic statement about a " vegan " diet can never

be accurate about what is in it and what it includes.

>

> The position paper says that a properly planned vegan diet, can

be healthy and meet all the nutrient requirements. Too many vegans

delude themselves into false confidence about the quality of their diet.

>

> Jeff

>