Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Looking visibly aged now, more than expected.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I'm impressed. You are very well-read and intelligent.

    Paleo dieters eat far too much phosphate-rich muscle meat. When you eat lots of muscle meat and vegetables, you do a lot of things:

    1.) You throw your calcium : phosphate ratio out of whack. You can break this up by eating gelatin-rich bone-in cuts of meat (as mentioned), or you could consume more dairy and eggs in lieu of slabs of muscle.

    2.) Low-carb diets are stressful and promote aging. Your body WANTS to take the easiest method of creating energy. When you are constantly in a state of gluconeogenesis from lack of carbohydrate consumption, you are constantly in a state of stress. Low-carbers have high levels of adrenaline (a major stressor), high levels of cortisol (a stressor) and low levels of CO2 (meaning your mitochondria are less robust and do not respire well). Eat more sugar and starch, less fat and less phosphate-rich protein sources (slabs of muscle meat).

    Essentially, since your brain runs on glucose, you are putting your body in a constant state of starvation regardless of calorie intake. You can go through small stints of low carbohydrate dieting - quick, brief levels of stress strengthen you - but to do it for weeks, months or years is devastating to your body. You're going to look old and haggard like an Inuit.
    So how about the brain using ketones as a preferred source of fuel when low carbing, and with moderate protein intake, this negates gluconeogenesis from either dietary protein or by muscle breakdown.

    Phinney/Volek cover this in detail in 'The Art and Science of Low Casrbohydrate Living'.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      I'm impressed. You are very well-read and intelligent.
      Thanks! I have a great respect for you and the way you present your arguments. I agree with the majority of your points as well.

      Specifically that macronutrients should be balanced. I've pointed out before that there is a synergistic way in which your body handles them. Carbs push blood sugar up, protein pulls it down, and fat slows carbs and protein from entering the blood stream. Given this, it's obvious you should work on a balanced way to have each macronutrient.
      Last edited by Derpamix; 12-14-2012, 02:22 PM.
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • #63
        Add some carbs: potatoes, fruit, and even some sugar if you dare. Coconut oil is helpful if you have overeaten a lot of nuts and have a PUFA overload. You might try some gelatin to balance the amino acids in all the meat; Jello contains glycine and seems to be a great stress reliever. Walk a lot; walking is anti-inflammatory. If you look older, it's probably because you are inflamed.

        Superficially, consider maybe doing some light TCA peels. Buy a Clarisonic to wash your face with. You might also try copper peptides. My skin was trashed a few years ago & the CPs have really helped:
        SKIN BIOLOGY - HOME PAGE: Revitalize and Improve Your Skin's Appearance with Age-Defying Copper Peptides by Loren Pickart PhD

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
          Whoa. So much info!
          I think well cooked they're okay, problem is excessive carotene is shown to cause further thyroid damage especially in a compromised metabolism. With the beta-carotene in carrots, it's bound to the fiber, which isn't absorbed so that's why eating a carrot salad is okay.

          Low FAT, now that does appear to induce excessive aging. But the massive amounts of inflammantion those of us with screwed up sugar metabolisms run around with every day.. getting rid of that, no way it's more aging than going ahead and eating all the carbs that are killing us.
          It's actually a fat that is accelerating aging. If you're deriving the majority of your calories from fat, it's impossible to avoid polyunsaturated fatty acids. High amounts of PUFA produce inflammation, low thyroid, lipid peroxides, free radicals, etc

          Saturated fats may be protective, but they're not needed in high amounts and by limiting fat consumption, and eating safe meats, dairy, etc it becomes a lot easier to manage unsaturated fat consumption. So, it's actually the opposite.
          Last edited by Derpamix; 12-14-2012, 02:47 PM.
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by PureFunctionalFitness View Post
            So how about the brain using ketones as a preferred source of fuel when low carbing, and with moderate protein intake, this negates gluconeogenesis from either dietary protein or by muscle breakdown.

            Phinney/Volek cover this in detail in 'The Art and Science of Low Casrbohydrate Living'.
            The brain always uses glucose. Even in ketosis, ketones only supplement glucose. If there is ever a time your brain is not using glucose, it means you are dead.

            If you are in ketosis, you are in gluconeogenesis.
            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
              I think well cooked they're okay, problem is excessive carotene is shown to cause further thyroid damage especially in a compromised metabolism. With the beta-carotene in carrots, it's bound to the fiber, which isn't absorbed so that's why eating a carrot salad is okay.
              I eat white sweet potatoes. Not orange sweet potatoes. Just don't buy the orange ones. I will never not eat sweet potatoes.

              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
              It's actually a fat that is accelerating aging. If you're deriving the majority of your calories from fat, it's impossible to avoid polyunsaturated fatty acids. High amounts of PUFA produce inflammation, low thyroid, lipid peroxides, free radicals, etc
              I don't agree that all polyunsaturated fat is bad. I believe salmon oil to be very unhealthy, but I do not believe wild caught salmon to be healthy. Isolated PUFA oils may oxidize rapidly upon ingestion, but whole foods come paired with antioxidants that keep the animal or plant from aging rapidly and dying. I don't agree that salmon, walnuts and almonds are unhealthy, but I won't be ingesting any of those oils isolated.

              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
              Saturated fats may be protective, but they're not needed in high amounts and by limiting fat consumption, and eating safe meats, dairy, etc it becomes a lot easier to manage unsaturated fat consumption. So, it's actually the opposite.
              Something that Peat does not address is the ideal lipid profile of a human. What is it exactly? Does anyone know? We are not ruminants where fat should be saturated and monounsaturated with next to no PUFA in our tissue. We are more like pigs. We should carry a significant amount of PUFA and arachidonic acid. At least that's my opinion. Polyunsaturated fat makes cell membranes soft and permeable. Too much and your cells leak, but not enough and they become too stiff. Aren't omega 3 and omega 6 considered EFA's because when people were fed fully hydrogenated oils containing zero PUFA for a long period of time, their cell membranes became so stiff the people died? I don't believe we should have a very low PUFA diet. I believe that the studies are skewed because the sources of PUFA are usually awful - fish oil, soybean oil, grains, legumes, etc. If the studies only used wild caught salmon and raw, soaked, sprouted walnuts as a PUFA source, I think opinions would change.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by PureFunctionalFitness View Post
                So how about the brain using ketones as a preferred source of fuel when low carbing, and with moderate protein intake, this negates gluconeogenesis from either dietary protein or by muscle breakdown.

                Phinney/Volek cover this in detail in 'The Art and Science of Low Casrbohydrate Living'.
                Yeah, basically there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that its (OP seeing a few wrinkles or looking hagard) due to low carb when the elephant in the room is swing shifts and reduced weight. And yes you still may produce glucose via gluconeogenesis, but the amount needed via ketone adaptation is reduced by about half making it quite easy to achieve.
                Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-14-2012, 03:00 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  I agree with the recommendations of eating less protein, less saturated fat, more primal-friendly starch, and cutting back on the night shifts if you can.

                  Also, in addition to fish oil from whole fish, evening primrose oil and vitamin E are very beneficial for the skin. Also, eating more non starchy veggies. The onion familiy is usually easy on the digestion and high in antioxidants, especially garlic, leeks and red onions. Green leafy vegetables and herbs are generally quite easy to digest.

                  A poor level of cellular hydration can contribute to premature ageing of the skin ... magnesium, pantothenic acid and a few other micronutrients (can't remember them off the top of my head) play important roles.
                  F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by PureFunctionalFitness View Post
                    So how about the brain using ketones as a preferred source of fuel when low carbing, and with moderate protein intake, this negates gluconeogenesis from either dietary protein or by muscle breakdown.
                    Just noticed this post, and this doesn't even make sense given the most basic biology understanding.

                    Metabolism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    Given that nothing can occur without ATP.

                    Adenosine triphosphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    Gluconeogenesis is particularly ineffective since it requires 6 molecules of ATP to perform a task. It also does so by converting your own body tissues.
                    Make America Great Again

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      Yeah, basically there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that its (OP seeing a few wrinkles or looking hagard) due to low carb when the elephant in the room is swing shifts and reduced weight.
                      This isn't an isolated post, though. Do a forum search for people that have thyroid issues, thinning hair/hair falling out, chills after eating, etc, that have been doing Primal for months or years that initially felt great then started to reverse their pgoress. It's pretty common.

                      We know being in a chronic state of gluconeogenesis increases adrenaline, cortisol, serotonin and slows thyroid. We know that adrenaline, cortisol and serotonin are three of our greatest stress hormones. We also know that we cannot contract disease without stress - all disease is caused by inflammation and all inflammation is caused by stress, so no stress = no disease. Brief periods of stress = hormesis, which is very beneficial. Chronic periods of stress = inflammatory. If low carbohydrate diets increase stress hormones and stress hormones are degenerative, then longterm carbohydrate restriction can easily become degenerative. Again, look at the rapid aging of the Inuit.

                      No one is saying that his diet is the sole reason why he's having issues, but it is certainly a contributing factor. No society is low carbohydrate by choice. Low carbohydrate societies exist solely because they have little option to eat carbohydrate.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I'm not really convinced it's entirely diet/nutrition related. If you have been in nutritional Ketosis for a long while, it might be a contributing factor. Interesting discussion on this thread nonetheless. BTW I totally agree with the "eat more Primal carbs" advice.

                        IMO what you think is premature aging is more likely due to situational stress and/or your night shift work.

                        Maybe you just need a break, at least a temporary one from that giant machine you posted about recently. The one you (and most of us) are stuck inside.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          I don't agree that all polyunsaturated fat is bad. I believe salmon oil to be very unhealthy, but I do not believe wild caught salmon to be healthy. Isolated PUFA oils may oxidize rapidly upon ingestion, but whole foods come paired with antioxidants that keep the animal or plant from aging rapidly and dying. I don't agree that salmon, walnuts and almonds are unhealthy, but I won't be ingesting any of those oils isolated.



                          Something that Peat does not address is the ideal lipid profile of a human. What is it exactly? Does anyone know? We are not ruminants where fat should be saturated and monounsaturated with next to no PUFA in our tissue. We are more like pigs. We should carry a significant amount of PUFA and arachidonic acid. At least that's my opinion. Polyunsaturated fat makes cell membranes soft and permeable. Too much and your cells leak, but not enough and they become too stiff. Aren't omega 3 and omega 6 considered EFA's because when people were fed fully hydrogenated oils containing zero PUFA for a long period of time, their cell membranes became so stiff the people died? I don't believe we should have a very low PUFA diet. I believe that the studies are skewed because the sources of PUFA are usually awful - fish oil, soybean oil, grains, legumes, etc. If the studies only used wild caught salmon and raw, soaked, sprouted walnuts as a PUFA source, I think opinions would change.
                          I think you'll find this to be an interesting read:

                          Polyunsaturated Fats And Health | evilcyber.com

                          It has tons of citations, and breaks down a lot of questions.
                          Make America Great Again

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            This isn't an isolated post, though. Do a forum search for people that have thyroid issues, thinning hair/hair falling out, chills after eating, etc, that have been doing Primal for months or years that initially felt great then started to reverse their pgoress. It's pretty common.

                            We know being in a chronic state of gluconeogenesis increases adrenaline, cortisol, serotonin and slows thyroid. We know that adrenaline, cortisol and serotonin are three of our greatest stress hormones. We also know that we cannot contract disease without stress - all disease is caused by inflammation and all inflammation is caused by stress, so no stress = no disease. Brief periods of stress = hormesis, which is very beneficial. Chronic periods of stress = inflammatory. If low carbohydrate diets increase stress hormones and stress hormones are degenerative, then longterm carbohydrate restriction can easily become degenerative. Again, look at the rapid aging of the Inuit.

                            No one is saying that his diet is the sole reason why he's having issues, but it is certainly a contributing factor. No society is low carbohydrate by choice. Low carbohydrate societies exist solely because they have little option to eat carbohydrate.

                            As to the anecdotal reports from your first paragraph its very hard to quantify, but I don't recall OP having ANY of those symptoms. He is reporting only a change in appearance accompanied by feeling "awesome" otherwise.

                            Second paragraph are far too reaching of statements IMO. We don't "know" any of that. I know that gluconeogenesis is controlled by glucagon and does not require high levels of cortisol http://www.ketotic.org/2012/07/ketog...ss-part-i.html. I also know that a chronic reduced calorie diet (like many adopt to lose weight) very well can cause all the symptoms and stress that you attribute solely to gluconeogenisis. I know that there are far to many confounding factors for you to make such statements. Confounding factors like living in one of the harshest environments known to mankind like the Inuit do....and we would blame their aging simply on a lack of carbs?

                            I don't think you can make a sound argument that it is a contributing factor to be honest. But, my opinion is go ahead and add some starches and healthy O3's.....but for God sakes get off the swing shift! That is the glaringly obvious thing to me.
                            Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-14-2012, 03:48 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I think it's just due to very low body fat, manifest in the face.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by zoebird View Post
                                To be sure, what I have noticed is that most primal/paleo types -- like Mark and his wife, DeVany and his wife -- is that they look much younger than any other counterparts.

                                Next to this, I always crack up at how people consider this to be a "high protein!" diet.

                                I know that the RDA puts everyone at .8g per kg of bodyweight (total, not lean), but we know that the RDA is about *minimum* requirements, not "optimal" requirements. From there, they tell us that protein should make up 10-35% of our diet.

                                The problem is, they don't explain how/why. So, here are a few "how/why" versions.

                                Starting with their math, lets go. I weigh 58kgs (128 lbs). This means that I require a minimum of 46.4 grams of protein per day. That is 185.6 calories per day from protein.

                                I currently eat an average of 1600 calories per day (calculated across a month). This means that 11% of my diet would be protein.

                                If we do Mark's version (which I cannot find sourced on the net -- but I didn't look too hard), he recommends using .7-1g per lean body mass. Since I'm 128 lbs, and about 18% body fat (eyeball/pictures mostly, haven't calipered in a while), that means 105 lbs of lean body mass. If I go with the highest amount there -- 1g per -- I end up with 420 calories per day. Or, 26% of my daily intake.

                                This is still within those RDA guidelines, no?

                                But lets look again. Say I do the RDA, but I'm the "average sedentary woman" and according to various sources (like livestrong.com), the average sedentary woman needs 1800 calories a day. This means that using the RDA's minimum, only 10% of my calories are from protein. But if I'm an average moderately active woman, that caloric number goes up to 2000, and then my RDA protein amount is only 9% od the diet. So now it's too low!

                                Now, lets do it using Mark's numbers. I'm now an average, sedentary, and 23% of my diet is protein. Still RDA approved! And as an average, moderately active? It's 21%. And that's if I'm using the highest number.

                                How does it get to being 35%? Calorie restriction. If I am a restrictor and I need to get the RDA of 46 g per day (184 calories), and I eat only 1300 calories per day, then what? It's still RDA ok at 14%. If I used Mark's numbers, I'm still RDA ok at 32%!

                                So to be completely honest, I have no idea what these folks are talking about about the diet being "too high!" in protein.

                                Also, I think many people would be shocked to know what they eat. Even if they are eating the right amount of calories, I'm always surprized at how protein-freaked everyone is. When you mention something like vegetarianism, everyone goes 'but i NEED my PROTEIN!" well, it is entirely possible to get mark-levels of protein (420 cals per day) from vegetarian sources, in particular if you also include dairy and eggs. Granted, the vegan versions for protein are lower in the "inflammatory" elements of meats, but according to the site linked above -- X amount of meat equals the same as Y amount of veggie, and I'm just as apt to eat Y amount of veggie and not X amount of meat (i usually eat less than X).

                                Which then means that if aging is due to the inflammatory element, then I can just as easily fall pray to it with veggies as I can with meat, depending upon the real amounts that I eat.

                                Honestly, My average daily intake of protein is anywhere from 90-100g on average. At 1600 per day on average, this means that I'm sitting at 22% to 25% of my diet from protein. This follows Mark's guidelines, which is just about double (a little more/a little less) the RDA for me in terms of grams, but certainly not excessive in terms of caloric intake. In fact, it hits the middle of the RDA percentage-of-calories road.

                                And, if I look at a previous poster's assrtion of "4 oz per meal" and estimate only 3 meals, we are looking at 7 g of protein per oz, or 28 g of protein. At three meals, that's 84 grams of protein -- or high above the RDA amount, but certainly close to Mark's assertions.

                                If the poster's diet sits at the average person's 1800-2000 calorie diet, then it's 17-19% of the diet from fat. For me (at 1600) it would be 21% -- so again, not far off from where I already am. . . and both of us well within "RDAs."

                                And, it's true. People think that we eat a lot of meat, btu we don't. It's just that we don't eat a lot of other things (grains/etc). Most of our plate is veggies and oils.

                                I had 3 small eggs (they don't come in different sizes here, really, we just get regular sized eggs, which tend to be smaller than what we ate in the US), butter, and 3 cups of steamed veggies for breakfast, and for dinner, I'm probably going to have 4-6 oz of fish with a coconut-cream based thai curry sauce with three cups of veggies. I also had a tangelo and some fresh cherries earlier today. I mostly eat vegetables, seriously.
                                I don't really look at percentages. The way I see it is, if you require 50g of protein a day but you're eating 150g, that's triple the amount you require.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X